Akropolis 3 (2019) 88-109

Dimitrios A. Vasilakis*

Hellenism and Christianity:

Petros Vrailas-Armenis on the Constituents of Modern Greek Identity1

Abstract: In this paper I examine how Vrailas conceives of Modern Greek identity. After an
introduction, I look at Vrailian texts where it is emphasized that Hellenism and Christianity are
the two components of Greek national identity. Does this mean, though, that for Vrailas these two
elements express a similar mode of being? There are passages that can support this claim. Still, Vrai-
las’ reader should not suppose that the Corfiote philosopher uncritically assumes a linear transition
from Hellenism to Christianity. But if Christianity denotes the emergence of something new in
history, how can it be compatible with Hellenism? Vrailas’ answer is that as with the Mosaic Law,
Christianity did not come to abolish Hellenism, but to fulfill it. Furthermore, the association of
Christianity with Hellenism enabled the latter to survive throughout history both in the West and
the East. Besides, for Vrailas variety has always constituted the “harmony of Hellenism”.

Introduction

Petros Vrailas-Armenis (Πέτρος Βράϊλας-Ἀρμένης: 1812/13-84) has been

brought back from oblivion by Evanghelos Moutsopoulos, the philosopher-schol-
ar who edited the complete Vrailian works in the series “Corpus Philosophorum
Graecorum Recentiorum”,2 and published a host of relevant books and articles

*Independent Researcher, Augsburg, Germany (dimitrios.vasilakis86@gmail.com)

1
Versions of this paper were read in London (KCL, 2012) and Berlin (2013: these events are referred to infra
in n.19). I thank Niketas Siniossoglou for inviting me to give this paper at KCL, as well as the reviewers of
the journal for their constructive criticism and suggestions. I owe my understanding of Vrailas’ philosophy to
my father, Antonios D. Vasilakis. Not only did my editorial responsibility for his doctoral thesis on Vrailian
ontological aesthetics, (available here: http://thesis.ekt.gr/thesisBookReader/id/18398#page/1/mode/2up,
last accessed on 13/06/2015), which subsequently came out as a book (see infra, n.8), enrich my general phil-
osophical knowledge, but it also shaped my research interests in ancient Greek philosophy.
2
Vrailas’ philosophical corpus consists of nine volumes (vol.4 is divided into semi-volumes 4a&4b; vol.8 com-
prises solely of Indexes) published in the series C.P.G.R., founded and directed by E. Moutsopoulos. Another
text being edited in the same series is Demetrios Kydonis’ translation of (part of ) Thomas Aquinas’ Σούμμα
 Hellenism and Christianity: Petros Vrailas-Armenis on the Constituents of Modern Greek Identity 89

in many languages. Moutsopoulos thinks of the Corfiote philosopher and poli-

tician3 as “the most important Greek thinker of the nineteenth century”.4 Vrai-
las was a follower of V. Cousin’s5 eclecticist school.6 In his eclectic philosophy
the Corfiote systematic thinker combines Platonism and Aristotelianism with
Church Fathers, as well as modern European philosophical currents from Des-
cartes to Hegel.7 However, recent scholars, the characteristic example being A.

Θεολογική, (not from Kydonis’ autograph though; the latter’s edition has been undertaken by Ch. Wright as
part of the international research project “Thomas de Aquino Graecus”; see Demetrakopoulos, Influence). Such
an enterprise is indicative of Moutsopoulos’ view that Modern Greek philosophy rises before the fall of Con-
stantinople, (around 1358 is the year of Kydonis’ completion of the translation of Thomas’ Summa Theologiae,
while 1354 that of Summa contra Gentiles, to be edited by J.A. Demetracopoulos and Ch. Dendrinos as vol.1 in
the aforementioned “Thomas de Aquino Graecus” series), when “Byzantine”/Eastern-Roman/Greek thinkers
started actively engaging with the philosophy of Western Europe. Cf. Moutsopoulos, “Roots”, 372, n.1 and the
introduction by Moutsopoulos, “L’Ηellénisation du Τhomisme au XIVe siècle” in C.P.G.R. II, vol.15, 7-12.
3
  The balanced co-existence of vita contemplativa and activa is a remarkable fact of Vrailas’ personality. For
the subsequent information see in general Moutsopoulos, Brailas, 11-13 and 20-6. (Despite the name in the
title of this book I use the transliteration “Vrailas”.) Indicatively, before the Union of Heptanese with Greece
in 1864, Vrailas had been president of the Ionian Parliament, and after the Union, member and Minister of
Foreign Affairs in the State-Council of Koumoundouros. Further, apart from growing up in an island which
was a British protectorate, he was twice ambassador in London (1867-73 and 1882-84) and was bestowed
the title “Sir” by the Queen of the United Kingdom, Victoria in 1856 (May 10; cf. also the “Chronology” by
Chr. Baloglou in Kerkyraika Chronika, 14).
4
  Moutsopoulos, Brailas, 6. Cf. also ibid. 7: “… a remarkable and unjustly ignored thinker”. These assertions
are repeated throughout Moutsopoulos’ relevant writings. Recently there has been a resurgence of interest in
the work of Vrailas, as seen in the organization of the Conference “Petros Vrailas-Armenis: 200 Years from his
Birth” at the University of Athens (30-31 Jan. 2014).
5
 Victor Cousin (1792-1867) was a French “eclectic” philosopher (see also n.6) and scholar of Neoplatonism.
For instance, until fairly recently the standard text of Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides used was in
Cousin’s edition. The evidence suggests that Vrailas had never physically met Cousin himself, but the former
had relations with the latter’s disciples. Cf. Moutsopoulos, Brailas, 21. Both Cousin and Vrailas were free-ma-
sons, but I am not going to engage with this aspect in what follows.
6
 For various notions of “eclecticism”, and specifically Cousin’s one, see McClellan, “Eclecticism”, although he
does not refer to the case of Vrailas. Usually the notion carries pejorative overtones when used by historians
of philosophy (like E. Zeller) with respect to the ancient philosophy between the second centuries BC and
AD (cf. Dillon-Long, Eclecticism in general and specifically Donini, “Eclecticism”, esp. 22-27). In contrast to
this, Moutsopoulos, Brailas, 29-30 is quite positive, especially in the case of Vrailian eclecticism. It would be
also useful to distinguish Cousin’s (second) eclectic current from the earlier French eclecticism of F. Thu-
rot (1768-1837), which influenced another Modern Greek thinker of the nineteenth century, Νεόφυτος
Βάμβας. Cf. Moutsopoulos, “Vamvas”, 382-4.
7
  Cf. also Moutsopoulos, “Roots”, 372. Vrailas was aware of the work of British philosophers, too, such as J.
Locke, D. Hume, D. Stewart and Thomas Reid (cf. the Scottish ‘common sense’ school of philosophy, with
which Vrailas’ method of eclecticism has some affinities).
90 Dimitrios A. Vasilakis

Vasilakis,8 have stressed Vrailas’ dynamic and critical differences from contempo-
rary European philosophers such as Hegel, and hence from Cousin as well.9 The
reason for this is the Vrailian particular ontological presuppositions which have
been shaped on the one hand by a direct engagement with ancient Greek philo-
sophical texts and culture, and on the other hand by an internalization of the ex-
periences of the orthodox Christian faith.10 Undoubtedly, these basic traits made
Moutsopoulos characterize Vrailas as “the highest expression of Eclecticism”.11
Vrailas’ philosophical identity, nevertheless, is not my main subject. Nor shall Ι
address the issue of how he can preserve his Hellenic personhood by being in such a
constant dialogue with Western philosophy12 and culture.13 This has been an accusa-
tion frequently hurled against the Greek nature of the Ionian Islands’ cultural produc-
tion,14 notwithstanding the Heptanesian origin and status of two cornerstones of our

8
  Vasilakis, Beautiful, in which, among else, the reader will find an extended Bibliography on Vrailas and on
the issues with which this paper deals.
9
 Cousin, and thus his eclectic school as well, was heavily influenced by Hegelianism. Cf. the editors’ General
Introduction in Vrailas-Armenis, Works, vol.4b, 10, n.3 (starting in the previous page) and Moutsopoulos,
Brailas, 29. For the issue of Vrailas’ critical differentiations from Hegel (and Cousin) see Vasilakis, Beautiful,
66, 68, 67-8 (:n.5), 79 (and n.2), 110-11, 216-7 (esp.n.3 in p.216 and n.1 in 217), 218, 223-4 (with relevant
notes, esp.n.7 in 223), 268, (316-)317 (:n.11), 317 (n.1), 295-300, 357-8 (in English).
10
 Cf. Vasilakis, Beautiful, e.g.348-9 (and 358: English equivalent).
11
 Cf. Moutsopoulos, Brailas, 133-4 and passim, e.g. 6.
12
  Hence, one of the roots of the problem of how to define (what one qualifies as) Hellenic identity. See
pertinent remarks infra.
13
  With respect to this issue Moutsopoulos, Brailas, 26-7 notes: “Soon after Brailas’s death a new pro-
gressive literary movement appeared in Greek literature… Brailas… believed in the European character
of Hellenism. The literary generation that followed his own generation believed instead in the fact
of Greek national particularism. This seems to be the main reason why Brailas’s message remained in
the margin of further Greek literary evolution…” (I assume that Moutsopoulos must have had P. Gi-
annopoulos [1869-1910] in mind.) Cf. also ibid. 133 and my concluding remarks.
14
 See for instance the case of music by Heptanesian composers such as N.Ch. Mantzaros (1795-1872),
the composer of the Greek National Anthem, which is the first of his many settings, based on the two
first verses of Solomos’ “Ὕμνος εἰς τὴν Ἐλευθερίαν”. Some critics insist on the accusation that this sort of
music is not Hellenic because it has European influences. Of course, they ignore to acknowledge that
since the Heptanese, and especially Corfu, was always a part of Europe, its cultural products could not
be but European. As to the problem of whether the “European” excludes the “Hellenic” cf. supra, n.13.
Vrailas was an admirer of Mantzaros; regarding their friendly relations and the Vrailian references to
the Corfiote composer, see Vasilakis, “Unknown”, n.35 (in 229-31) and Vasilakis, Beautiful, nn.13 in
277-8.
 Hellenism and Christianity: Petros Vrailas-Armenis on the Constituents of Modern Greek Identity 91

Modern Greek literature,15 Kalvos16 and Solomos.17 Although the final words of this
paper are relevant to this problem, too, in what follows I will address the way Vrailas
conceives of the relation between the two main components of Modern Greek iden-
tity, (which is in itself a matter of dispute,18 as one can testify from recent conferences19
15
  It cannot be accidental that the first governor of the first Modern Greek State was Ioannis Kapodistrias
(1776-1831), i.e. another Corfiote.
16
  Another great figure of our Modern Greek civilization, Kostis Palamas (among others an admirer of the
Ionian/Heptanesian cultural production), in his famous lecture (1888) which brought Kalvos back from
oblivion, cites one of Vrailas’ passages on the characteristics of Ionian poetry, calling him a “wise man” (“σοφός
ἀνήρ, ὁ Βράϊλας”: Ἅπαντα [Collected Works], vol. 2, p.33; especially the last information is taken from Vasilakis,
Beautiful, 315-6, n.1; cf. also Vasilakis, “Unknown”, 221, n.6, 2nd paragraph).
17
 Shortly after Solomos’ death in 1857 Vrailas gave an academic lecture about the great poet. (It can be found in
Vrailas-Armenis, Works, vol.4a, 507-16 under the editors’ title <Ἐπικήδειος εἰς Δ. Σολωμόν> [“Funeral Oration
to D. Solomos”].) While in England and having met his old friend E.W. Gladstone, (Lord High Commis-
sioner extraordinary of the Heptanese from November 1858 to February 1859), Vrailas was acquainted with
two other great literary figures: A. Kalvos and G. Vizeynos. Vizeynos had devoted his poem “Ἡ τέχνη μου”
[“My Art”] from the collection Ἀτθίδες αὖραι to Vrailas. Further, both Kalvos and Vizeynos were literary and
philosophical authors: Kalvos was Professor of Philosophy in the first Modern Greek University, the Ionian
Academy in 1826-27, ’36-37 and ’40-41. (The Ionian Academy was founded by the British philhellene Frederic
North, Count of [/Lord] Guilford in 1824; Vrailas was the last Professor of Philosophy from 1854-64, when
as a consequence of the Union with main Greece, the university was suppressed –see also n.92.) Vizeynos’ (sec-
ond: ἐπὶ ὑφηγεσίᾳ) doctoral thesis was on Ἡ φιλοσοφία τοῦ καλοῦ παρὰ Πλωτίνῳ [The Philosophy of the Beautiful
in Plotinus]. So with the case of Vrailas, who, along with his philosophical writings on Poetry and on specific
poets such as D. Solomos and Ioulios Typaldos, is praised by Moutsopoulos, Brailas, 134, as “a great stylist”, with
an impressive clarity in both his thought and language. Finally, Vrailas had also written some romantic poems
(:“Filosofia e poesia” and “Fide, speranza e carità” published in the Ἀττικὸν Ἡμερολόγιον τοῦ ἔτους 1875).
18
 The problem of defining (modern) Greek identity has long history and has never lost its actuality, not less
due to the crisis Greece has been undergoing in the first decades of the 21st cent. After Vrailas’ century, many
of 20th cent. intellectuals grappled with this problem, too. Apart from thinkers referred in other notes, as
well as D. Kapetanakis (1912-1944), other examples (excluding literary authors, such as the representatives of
the Generation of the Thirties) are: I. Theodorakopoulos (1900-81, forerunner of Κ. Despotopoulos [1913-
2016] and Moutsopoulos [1930-] in the Academy of Athens, which has established a prize for the completion
of a study on “the idea of ‘Greekness’ in the work of I. Theodorakopoulos”), P. Kanellopoulos (1902-86),
Z. Lorentzatos (1915-2004), Κ. Kastoriadis (1922-97), Κ. Axelos (1924-2010), K. Papaioannou (1925-81),
Chr. Malevitsis (1927-97), Yannis Ioannidis (1930-), N. Matsoukas (1934-2006), P. Kondylis (1943-98), K.
Papagiorgis (1947-2014), father Vasileios (Gontikakis: 1936-), K. Zouraris (1940-), fr. G. Metallinos (1940-),
G. Kiourtsakis (1941-), Th. Ziakas (1945-), L. Proguidis (1947-), M. Begzos (1951-).
19
 The recent actuality of the issue is exemplified not only by a workshop that Niketas Siniossoglou organized at
King’s College London in June 2012, but also from the Conference “Reflections on Identity: Greek Identity
as a Philosophical Problem–from ‘Byzantine’ Times to Today’s Greece in Crisis” (Berlin, June 2013),
which resulted in the recent publication: Steiris-Mitralexis-Arabatzis, Identity. Of course, the problem
of the Modern Greek identity has attracted scholarly attention at the artistic level, too. A good example is
the International Musicological Conference on “Aspects of Hellenism in Music” that took place in Athens,
May 2006. A combined approach took place at the recent conference on “Music, language & identity in
Modern Greece: Defining a national art music in the 19th and 20th centuries”, (Athens Music Conservatory
92 Dimitrios A. Vasilakis

and publications20): Hellenism, with its pagan heritage, and Christianity, especially in
its Hellenic expression, i.e. Orthodoxy. Although these two elements do have differ-
ences, their synthesis, another topic of paramount importance,21 is not paradoxical
according to Vrailas.22 Let us see why and how.

A Problematic Relation?

I will begin with his final work, the Letters of Philotheos to Eugenios.23 To-
wards its last pages Philotheos (i.e. “lover/friend of God” and the persona of
Vrailas) emphasizes to Eugenios that he was “born [a] Hellene and Christian, …
and you will find both these [sc. elements] conjoined in our national traditions”.24

and British School at Athens, May 2015, co-organized by the Centre for Hellenic Studies and the Music
Department of King’s College London. See also n.47.)
20
  The web-newspaper The Huffington Post (Greece) devoted a special issue on “The Greek Identity Today”
on 25 March 2016 (http://projects.huffingtonpost.gr/elliniki-tayftotita/ last accessed on 13/06/2016). The
interviewees included personalities, such as S. Ramfos (1939-), G. Karabelias (1946-) and Metropolitan of
Diokleia Kallistos Ware (1934-). For some relevant, but slightly older publications see Zacharia, Hellenisms,
Beaton-Ricks, Making, Myrogiannis, Emergence and Kitromilides, Enlightenment. The most recent one is
Siniossoglou, “Identity”.
21
 The issue of the dialogue between Hellenism and Christianity is of course huge and therefore the literature
is vast, but to address it now would lead us astray. Every study that treats with a Church Father, such as Diony-
sius the Areopagite or the Cappadocian Fathers, touches also on the problem of how Christianity interrelates
with ancient Greek culture and philosophy. For an introduction to some representative literature (albeit old
and in Greek) see Vasilakis, Beautiful, 61, n.4. As an example of German scholarship on the topic, see von
Ivanka, Plato, as well as Wechssler, Hellas. Since there are many narratives of the story, the English-speaker
can consult Siniossoglou, Plato and idem, “Colonization” (both with extensive bibliographies), although I
disagree in various respects with Siniossoglou. See also Elm, Sons. Finally, for an overview see the Introduction
in Pavlos-Janby-Emilsson-Tollefsen, Late Antiquity, 113.
22
  Father Demetrios Bathrellos’ “Hierarchs” reminds us of three alternatives: a) the theory of the protestant
theologian A. von Harnack (1851-1930), according to which Christianity was corrupted by Hellenism, b)
a view that sees the harmony of Christianity and Hellenism as compromise of both parts and c) the case
for which Bathrellos opts, i.e. that Hellenism was baptized in and by Christianity. This is the view of Father
Georges Florovsky (1893-1979, for whom see also infra, n.83, and of Metropolitan John Zizioulas for whom
see infra, n.87) and the view with which Vrailas’ approach has more affinities.
23
 “…or Instruction on Soul and God” published posthumously (11884) in Vrailas-Armenis, Works, vol.2, 255-
388 (henceforth: Letters). For the possible signification of the title’s names see Vasilakis, Beautiful, 28, n.3,
where he notes the characteristic Vrailian “love of God” (“φιλόθεον”) and Vrailas’ admiration for Eugenios
Voulgaris (1716-1806; see also n.69), bishop and representative of Modern Greek Enlightenment, who was
born in Corfu (despite his family’s origin from Zante).
24
 Letters 385, line 36 and 386,2-3. The whole passage from 385,36-386,24 is relevant to our subject. (Every
 Hellenism and Christianity: Petros Vrailas-Armenis on the Constituents of Modern Greek Identity 93

Moreover, in the obvious place to search for Vrailas’ views on this subject, the
article “On the Historical Mission of Hellenism” (11871),25 he states that “[t]hese
two threads [i.e. Hellenism and Christianity] are intertwined… and constitute
the unbreakable chain of our national identity and our historical tradition”.26 Of
course, such a view was widespread not only during Vrailas’ epoch, but also both
before and after his time.27 Nevertheless, from a philosopher’s point of view one
could ask what it is that made these two elements, Hellenism and Christiani-
ty, particularly compatible and fit to relate to each other. Is it perhaps that Vrai-
las conflates and blurs them, without observing any important differences that
might exist between them?
Indeed, there are passages that can support this claim. The Corfiote think-
er twice writes that “Christianity corresponds to Hellenism as the light to the
eye, [i.e./or] as the object of desire to desire itself.”28 Immediately after this asser-
tion Vrailas specifically refers to the Platonic philosophy,29 as representative of
the spirit of Hellenism.30 Thus, in another article entitled “On the Characters of
Greek Genius”31 (11884), he concludes that “[t]he combination of the Hellenic
wisdom and the Christian faith is an unobjectionable fact”;32 or in the wording of

translation of Vrailian or other Greek text, as well as emphases are mine.)

25
  In Vrailas-Armenis, Works, vol.4b, 351-392 (henceforth: “Mission”). This text was read by Vrailas in the
School of the Hellenic community in London (cf. n.1 in Vrailas-Armenis, Works, vol.4b, 392), the temporal
indication in the end of the article being: “κατὰ Αὔγουστον 1871” (i.e. during Vrailas’ first ambassadorship in
London; cf. n.3).
26
 “Mission” 385,19-22. In what comes next (ibid.385,30 and 34–386,5) Vrailas obviously gives an answer to
theories such as this of J.P. Fallmerayer (1790-1861).
27
 For various representatives of this view see also nn.18, 79.
28
 Mission. 373,18-20. For the second occurrence of this beautiful image see nn.29 and 32.
29
 Actually, in the second instance of the aforementioned image Vrailas already uses as his pairs Platonism and
Christianity.
30
 This is not to say that Vrailas does not take into account other figures; see for example his references to Socrates,
Aristotle, Homer, Pindar, Pheidias in Mission 372,14-16. Additionally, the whole “Characters” (: abbreviation
for a Vrailian article to be fully referred to in n.31) describes general characteristics of both ancient Greek art and
philosophy (-science). Still, it is with justification that Moutsopoulos, Brailas, 134 (with further cross-reference in
n.3 of p.141 to a French book devoted to Vrailas by the same author) calls him “a modern Greek disciple of Plato”.
31
 In Vrailas-Armenis, Works, vol.4b, 395-400 (henceforth: “Characters”. This article is a paper that Vrailas gave
at the “Hellenic and Philological Society in Constantinople” in January 1880; cf. editors’ introduction ibid.296
and n.4. For the translation of the titles of Vrailas’ writings I am following Moutsopoulos, Brailas, 143-4.)
32
  “Characters” 399,39-400,1. See also the interesting continuation in ibid.400,1-2. Few lines before these
assertions Vrailas reiterates the thought of n.28, using the same beautiful image, however with a small differ-
entiation: “According to all the philosophers, Platonism corresponds to Christianity, as the light corresponds
to the structure of the eye.” (Ibid.399,35-7.) Letting aside the detail that Vrailas speaks here of “the structure
94 Dimitrios A. Vasilakis

the “Mission of Hellenism”: “The Hellenism of Homer and Plato is everywhere

inseparable from the Hellenism of the church.”33
Nonetheless, Vrailas’ reader should not suppose that the Corfiote philoso-
pher uncritically assumes a linear transition from Hellenism to Christianity, as if
this was an obvious or necessary evolution in (intellectual or general) history; or as
if these two modes of being were significantly similar. In fact, Vrailas is very austere
and critical, when already in his first systematic work, the Essay on the First Ideas
and Principles (11851),34 he emphasizes the conclusion that “the real God is neither
the [god] of the Indians, nor of the gentiles (ἐθνικῶν); he is not the God of Plato
and Aristotle, nor of the Alexandrians35”.36 Actually, in even more austere terms,
in the article on “The Ideal” (11856)37 Vrailas notes that Plato, “whatever [sc. vari-
ous interpreters] might say, was very far from imagining the God-man, the son and
word of the living God, saviour of the corrupted humanity through the sacrifice of
his blood.”38 He also fiercely criticizes the Neoplatonic philosophy as a sort of pan-
theism.39 Moreover, with respect to the Neoplatonic trinity, i.e. the three principal
of the eye” and not solely of “the eye” as in the “Mission”, it appears that, whereas in the case of the “Mission”
Platonism-Hellenism stands for the eye and Christianity for the light, in this second occurrence, the reverse
order is implied. Still, it becomes clear from the general context of “Characters” that Platonism-Hellenism
refers to the desire, not the object of desire, according to the formulation of the “Mission”. An obvious solution
to remedy this small interpretive problem is to assume that in the “Characters” Vrailas, somewhat confusingly,
uses the literary scheme of chiasm. We should also bear in mind that there is no extant manuscript of this text,
and that in the end of the original publication a note indicates that the text was written down by a member
of the audience. Cf. ibid.400 ad fin. and editors’ relevant note, ibid.297. Thus, it is also possible that either this
listener is responsible for the shift, or it might have been Vrailas’ oral slip, which however could not obscure
his general meaning.
33
 Mission 386,10-12.
34
 In Vrailas-Armenis, Works, vol.1, 111204 (henceforth: Essay).
35
  By “Alexandrians” Vrailas means the Neoplatonists, and especially the founder of this influential
philosophical current, Plotinus (AD 204/5-70). Cf. e.g. “History and Definition of the Notion of the
Beautiful” (11866, henceforth: “History of the beautiful”) in Vrailas-Armenis, Works, vol.4a, 400,1-9.
36
 Essay 195,15-17. The “negative” list follows including names such as those of Spinoza, Schelling and Hegel
(ibid.195,18-19; see also n.39). Cf. also “Conclusion of the Historical Outline on the Notion of God” (11858,
henceforth “Conclusion”), in Vrailas-Armenis, Works, vol.4b, 77,14-78,3. Regarding ancient Greek religion
see Mission 361,34-363,3.
37
 In Vrailas-Armenis, Works, vol.4a, 191-207 (henceforth: “Ideal”).
38
 Ideal 205,5-7. Cf. also the interesting context of the cited passage: ibid.205,2-13.
39
 Cf. “The God of the Stoics and of the Alexandrian School” (11858, henceforth: “Stoic/Alexandrian God”)
in Vrailas-Armenis, Works, vol.4b, 40,(22ff.). Perhaps here Vrailas oversimplifies the picture. Without aiming
at evoking modern literature and debates that would lead us astray, see for example Arnou, Désir, e.g.92 in
ch.2.III. Further, and in a more unobjectionable manner, Vrailas regards Stoicism as a pantheistic system, as
well, and adds that “the modern pantheism is nothing [else] but repetition of an ancient error” (Stoic/Alexan-
 Hellenism and Christianity: Petros Vrailas-Armenis on the Constituents of Modern Greek Identity 95

hypostases of Plotinus’ hierarchical system the One, the Intellect and the Soul he
writes that “some [sc. interpreters] have very absurdly identified [it] with the Chris-
tian [Trinity40]”.41 Vrailas’ rationale concerns a) the necessity of emanation contra
the Christian freedom of God to create out of non-being, b) the absence of person-
hood in the Neoplatonic Hypostases versus the personal God of Christianity, and
c) the inequality of (the natures of ) the Neoplatonic principles contra the equality
of the three consubstantial Hypostases of the Christian God.42 The aforementioned
Vrailian statements become especially significant if we consider that Vrailas repeat-
edly states that Neoplatonism is the synthesis and, thus, the “recapitulation of the
whole [ancient] Greek Philosophy”.43 It seems that the “intentional object” of Pla-
tonism was not Christianity, but, in fact, (pagan) Neoplatonism.44
On the other hand, for Vrailas, the advent of Christianity gives rise to the
development of the modern civilization,45 whose basic characteristics, e.g. the no-

drian God 38,9-11). By “modern pantheism” Vrailas means primarily the philosophy of Spinoza, Shelling and
Hegel. See Conclusion 80ff. Especially regarding Hegel, Vrailas remarks that his system is the recapitulation…
and perfection of all its preceding pantheistic systems (:“Against Pantheists” A’ 11858 in Vrailas-Armenis,
Works, vol.4b, 62,7-9), hence one of the main reasons for Vrailas’ critical differences from Hegelianism (see
also n.9. According to the Corfiote thinker, pantheism forms one of the three “deviations” of philosophy; cf.
Essay 54,17 and the references in Vasilakis, Beautiful, 52, n.3).
40
  For the importance of the Orthodox Christian Trinity in Vrailas’ overall system see Vasilakis, Beautiful,
ch.A.2.1.“True-Good-Beautiful”: 63-75. However, Vrailas primarily sees the image of the Trinity in the fol-
lowing triad of Being: hypostasis, form and relation between hypostasis and form, which reveals an Augustin-
ian approach, something that Βασιλάκης fails to note. True, the triad “true-good-beautiful” is not hierarchical,
like in the case of the Divine Persons; however, each of these adjectives could be equally applied to every
Person of the Trinity and therefore to God as unity.
41
 “History of the beautiful” 400,21-2. Cf. “Stoic/Alexandrian God” 41,23-6; “Conclusion” 79,18-21. This is
a characteristic instance in which we find many parallel passages throughout the Vrailian corpus expressing
the same idea with a very similar language. (For this trait of Vrailas’ systematic thought, which presents al-
most no deviation from the picture expressed in the Essay, see Moutsopoulos’ remarks in the Introductions of
Vrailas-Armenis, Works, vol.1, oβ’ff. and Vrailas-Armenis, Works, vol.4b, 17-19.)
42
  For Vrailas’ specific criticisms of the Neoplatonic Trinity see “Stoic/Alexandrian God” 41,32-43,2. Cf.
also Elements of Theoretical and Practical Philosophy 11862 in Vrailas-Armenis, Works, vol.1, 359,17-361,7,
although here again Vrailas speaks in general of pantheists.
43
 History of the Beautiful 400,9. Cf. also “Stoic/Alexandrian God” 39,6-7(ff.); 43,3-4; “The end of Ancient
and the Beginning of Modern Theosophy” (1858, henceforth “Ancient/modern theosophy”) in Vrailas-Ar-
menis, Works, vol.4b, 46,26.
44
  Of course, Neoplatonism was also the vehicle of Greek philosophy, with which Christianity came into
fruitful contact.
45
 Cf. “East and West” (11854) in Vrailas-Armenis, Works, vol.4b, 326,34; cf. Mission 387,15-16 (with editors’
cross-reference ad loc. in n.1).
96 Dimitrios A. Vasilakis

tion of “equality”,46 mark its gap from and superiority to the pre-Christian an-
cient civilization, as Vrailas stresses in his relevant article: “Modern Civilization
compared to Ancient Civilization” (11853).47 But if this is the case,48 and Chris-
tianity highlights the emergence of something new in history,49 how can it ever
be compatible with Hellenism? After having presented all this evidence, is not
Vrailas blatantly contradicting himself ?

The Solution to the Problem

Before we ask ourselves whether innovation should necessarily exclude ref-

erences to tradition, let us first consider what it is that Christianity brings to the
historical horizon, which subsequently (and consequently, according to our phi-
losopher) generates the modern civilization. For Vrailas, without second thought,
in the core of the Christian mode of being lies the notion of love (agape), both as
an ethical and as an ontological ideal:
The miracle of divine love which alone explains the creation, and which
alone was able to save mankind was found [to be] a scandal to the Jews
and foolishness to the Greeks50… The virtues taught by the ancient ethics,
[i.e.] courage, practical wisdom, temperance, justice, are replaced by new

46
 See also Mission 389,14-15.
47
  Vrailas-Armenis, Works, vol.4b, 303-10 (henceforth: “Civilization”). See also the approach by Manolea,
“Superiority”. Now that I have referred to all four of Vrailas’ relevant essays, I note the verdict of Vasilakis,
Beautiful, 13, n.3, who proposes that “the study of the Vrailian work could start from the philosopher’s arti-
cles: ...Civilization…, ‘East and West’ [325-336]…, …Mission…, and… Characters…, since the scholar would
be immediately assisted in pin-pointing the word [λόγος], as well as the intentionality of the philosopher in
due time, so that (s)he have a complementary criterion of reading Vrailas’ lengthier works.” Βασιλάκης is right,
but let the title of the Vrailian article on “East and West” not deceive us in our expectations: in an article that
has to do more with diplomacy and politics, as well as (philosophy of ) history, Vrailas proposes that Greece
should abandon any dependence on Russia, since the Greek future is (and should be) tied with that of West-
ern Europe, a view that certainly K. Tsatsos (1899-1987) would endorse various decades later. (See also Papari,
Greekness, passim; but cf. n.89 for a complimentary reference.) Cf. Glykofrydi-Leontsini, “Identity”, 98-102
and her concluding remarks in 103-104 (part of which is relevant and similar to a paper that Glykofrydi-Le-
ontsini read at the conference that took place in the National Hellenic Research Foundation in Athens, May
2015 entitled [in Greek] “Hellenism and Otherness: Cultural Mediations and ‘National Character’ in the
19th Century”).
48
 Cf. Civilization 307,29-309,4, esp.308,2-13 and 26-9.
49
 See also Mission 373,9ff. and 373,30-374,2.
50
 Cf. Paul, 1 Cor. 1:23.
 Hellenism and Christianity: Petros Vrailas-Armenis on the Constituents of Modern Greek Identity 97

ones, faith, hope, love, and above all love51… Hence, it is not paradoxical
if not only the masses but also the wise men were amazed in view of this
new teaching, and if the whole ancient world was revolting against this
new man; it is not paradoxical if the Alexandrian School, which in vain
had recapitulated in itself all the Greek and Eastern doctrines, combated
Christianity for almost three centuries, and if for the moment the triumph
of [its] reaction appeared assured.52
Some pages later, Vrailas notes that without Christian love
science is fruitless, freedom [is] dangerous and justice [is] incomplete. And,
indeed, the whole history proves that for the salvation of man, whom the
Greco-Roman world developed up to the highest grade –without, how-
ever, stopping his fall-,53 the God-man had to descend,54 through whom
the law of justice was fulfilled (ἐπληρώθη) through the law of love, and the
human ideal of Hellenism found its divine object.55
I think we should lay emphasis on the penultimate verb used “fulfilled”,
which recalls what Christ said on the “Sermon on the Mount” with respect to
the Mosaic Law: i.e. that he did not come to abolish it, but to fulfill it through
the call of love.56 Thus, it is under this light that we should read, for instance, the
aforementioned “replacement” of the ancient virtues with the Christian-Pauline
triad.57 They are abolished qua foundations of our qualitative existence, not qua
manifestations of it.58 It is in so far as one founds his/her existence in love that (s)
he can be simultaneously and genuinely brave and just, and in a more adequate
sense than before this new grounding. Hence, it is exactly for this reason that
Vrailas is eager to quote Clement of Alexandria when declaring that

51
  Cf. ibid.13:13. See the whole chapter (ibid.§13), which has been called the “Hymn to Love”. As Vasilakis,
Beautiful, 13, n.2 points out, “[i]t is characteristic that his [sc. Vrailas’] work breathes its last (…Letters…
IA’…<‘Οὐχὶ μελέτη θανάτου, ἀλλὰ μελέτη Θεοῦ εἶναι ἡ ἀληθὴς φιλοσοφία’>,…387-388) with a hymn of love”
(: Letters 388,10-21).
52
 Mission 374,2-28. Cf. also the comprehensive remarks of the Ideal 204,12-21.
53
 For criticisms against ancient slavery and wars see Mission 363ff., esp.364,3-4, since for Vrailas the heritage
of Hellenism for the posterity consists in its “science” (in the general sense of pursuit of truth, i.e. philosophy)
and art (see e.g. ibid.364,33-35). See also the balanced verdict of Mission 367,31-368,32.
54
 See also the end of Civilization 309,25-310,5, and Mission 372,27-373,5, esp.372,27.
55
 Mission 385,2-9.
56
 Cf. Matthew 5:17: “…οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι, ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι”.
57
 Cf. Mission 374,11-13 (and supra, n.51).
58
 Hence, this is how we should read East and West 330,2-5. Cf. also Mission 379,24-5; Letters 386,15-19.
98 Dimitrios A. Vasilakis

before the advent of the Lord, philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for
righteousness. And now it becomes conducive to piety; being a kind of
preparatory training to those who attain to faith through demonstration…
[F]or (also) this was educating ‘the Hellenic [mind’ (so as) to come] ‘to
Christ’, as the law [sc. did (the same) with] the Hebrews.59
Of course, this is not to suggest that the new world-view does not intro-
duce fundamental modifications and changes to the previous one,60 as, for ex-
ample, with regard to the notion of ex nihilo creation,61 which is absent from
the cosmology e.g. of the Platonic Timaeus.62 Still, Christianity gives solutions to
the same problems with which Greek philosophy was confronted, and uses the
depth, maturity and subtlety of the Hellenic “weaponry” in terms of language,63
argumentation and insight.64 Besides, according to the Modern Greek thinker,
paradigm cases of this (“eclectic”) marriage between Christianity and Hellenism

59
 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.5.28. 1,1-3 and 3,2-3 (Früchtel et al. Trans. by W. Wilson; I have heavily
modified the last period). Cf. Paul, Gal. 3:24 and Mission 375,28-32. As it appears, Vrailas is not interested in
touching on the status of the conviction held among various Christian thinkers who believed that Hellenism,
and Plato in particular, had direct access to (or had plagiarized) the Mosaic Scriptures (either via Pythagoras
or not). With regard to the relation between Hebraism and Hellenism see Mission 358,9 where is written
that “while Hellenism received many (elements) from the other eastern peoples, it received nothing from the
Hebraic one” (ibid.358,32-3). Nonetheless, Vrailas concludes that “they combine with each other as two com-
plementary elements of one and the same whole” (ibid.359,23-4), obviously in view of their presence within
(the arms of ) Christianity. I add that the same Clementian passage is quoted by Saint Nectarios, Philosophy,
24. St Nectarios’ writing expresses views similar to those of Vrailas and is full of references to Clement. See
Stromata, 1.7.37.6,1-6, quoted by St Nectarios, Philosophy, 30 and 32, which resonates with what comes next
in my main text. Cf. also St Nectarios, Philosophy, 6 and 26, and Vrailas’ “Conclusion”, 84,2-7 (where, the last
sort of “perfecting” is different to the aforementioned “fulfillment”). Finally, due to the parallel, I note that
in his commented anthology of Modern Greek philosophers on the human soul, Cavarnos, Soul translates
passages from both Vrailas (pp.3-40) and St Nectarios (59-86), among others. Cf. also Vasilakis, Beautiful,
349 and (56-)57, n.6.
60
 See Ancient/modern theosophy 49,9-13.
61
 Cf. ibid.46-7, passim, e.g.46,3-6. Cf. also Conclusion 82,29-31 and 83,29-31.
62
  Timaeus speaks of a divine Craftsman (: Demiurge) who (necessarily) fashions a pre-existing (material)
Receptacle according to an intelligible Paradigm (: the world of Forms). Timaeus has been one of the most
influential Platonic texts in the history of ideas. NB its powerful presence and its manifold interpretations
especially in Neoplatonic and Western medieval thought. Cf. also Ancient/modern theosophy 46,13-14. On
these issues see Vasilakis, “Cosmos”, e.g.9.
63
 Cf. Characters 400,2-5.
64
 Cf. also Letters 386,19-24.
 Hellenism and Christianity: Petros Vrailas-Armenis on the Constituents of Modern Greek Identity 99

are those of Justin Martyr,65 Basil the Great,66 Augustine,67 and John of Damas-
cus,68 and, in more recent times, Eugenios Voulgaris.69
Consequently, perhaps we can now understand more fully what Vrailas
meant by his simile of the eye and the light. If there are indeed fundamental
differences between Hellenism and Christianity, then it is only retrospectively,
i.e. after the advent of the Christian experience, that Hellenism’s presence can
be regarded as a desire for the Christian ideal.70 This is why the Corfiote thinker
parallels this rather “vague” desire with an “intuitive feeling” (/pre-monition:
προ-αίσθησις),71 and states that “from this point [onwards] it is impossible that
the Hellenic wisdom and divine revelation be separated; for as soon as (ἅμα) the
latter emerged, the former was associated with it.”72 One can make sense of the
productive combination of Hellenism and Christianity only after, and because

65
 Remember his conception of “σπερματικὸς λόγος”. On Justin see also in Ancient/modern theosophy 50,8-24.
66
 Perhaps it would not be far off the mark if one compared the Patristic “eclectic” method with Vrailas’ own
eclecticism.
67
 Cf. end of n.82.
68
 See Mission 375,10-376,15 and 377,14-378,1. Cf. also Vrailas’ references in the pivotal note 1 of the Essay
194.
69
 See Mission 386,25-6. For Vrailas’ references to Voulgaris and their significance see Vasilakis, Beautiful, 28
(and nn.1-3; cf. also ibid.349 and 358) and Vasilakis, “Unknown”, n.5 (:220-1); see also supra, n.23.
70
 In order to understand this kind of relationship one could draw a parallel with the Aristotelian conception
of soul as “the first actuality of a natural body which is potentially alive” (De Anima 2.412a27-8). We can
make sense of the sort of body that is united with soul only when it is already in union with it. Hence, Aris-
totle, in a somehow puzzling way, notes that “the sort of body that is potentially alive is not the one that has
lost its soul but the one that has it” (ibid.412b26-7). So too with respect to Christianity (soul) and Hellenism
(body): it is the presence of the former that makes intelligible its co-existence with the latter, not vice versa.
Thus, we are far from a type of “identity theory”, in Spinoza’s manner, where matter/body and mind/soul are
just different modes of one and the same (divine) substance. Analogously, Vrailas does not identify/conflate
Hellenism/Platonism with Christianity. On the other hand, the Christian conception of the human being
as unbreakable psycho-corporeal unity, where body is equal to soul, might not be so good a model as that of
Aristotle to describe the analogy, despite the fact that the Aristotelian conception of the body-soul composite
is, in some respects only, nearer to the Christian view than the Platonic one of the Phaedo.
71
  Cf. Characters 399,28. Cf. also Mission 374,37-375,2. Just before this passage Vrailas relates the Divine
Λόγος of John’s Gospel (1:1ff.) with the human λόγος (Mission 374,29-35 and 35-7.) With respect to John, in
whose words the “harmony of Christianity and Hellenism” starts to be envisaged in the historical horizon (cf.
ibid.374,29-39), see Ancient/modern theosophy 48,17-49,7. Finally, regarding the relation of human reason
to the divine and its revelation, Vrailas takes the former to be “the necessary revelation of God to man” (Essay
54,8; cf. also ibid.193,12ff.).
72
 Characters 399,37-9. It is again in this sense that we are to read statements like that of Mission 365,16-19.
Cf. also ibid.366,12-13 and the reference in the next n.73.
100 Dimitrios A. Vasilakis

of the latter’s loving embracement of the former,73 which for the first time takes
place with Paul’s preaching of the “Unknown God” at Athens.74 Otherwise, we
have already seen that, for Vrailas, if there were a necessary end75 of the ancient
Greek philosophy and culture, this was marked by the emergence of (pagan)
Neoplatonism.76

73 
This is how we should read Vrailas’ interconnected and analogous statements (in respect of both content
and language) on the relation between Platonism and Christianity in the page-long rich discussion of Char-
acters 399,4-39.
74
  See Acts 17:16-34, esp.23-8. Cf. Mission 375,2-10, esp.8-10. What is more, as with the case of the light
which does not stop or destroy the functioning of the eye, but unleashes/actualizes the full potentialities of
the eye, so does the advent of Christianity unleash and actualize the hidden potentialities of Hellenism. The
advent of the former does not imply the annihilation of the latter, as perhaps an over-interpretation of the
Vrailian parallel of Hellenism with desire could suggest, since the satisfaction of a desire (the latter being the
result of lack of the desired object; cf. Plato, Symposium 199e6-200b2; Plato, Lysis 221d3-e2; Plotinus, En-
neads III.5.9,49) entails the latter’s extinction/absence. Rather, as we have noted, the advent of Christianity
marks Hellenism’s self-completion. Hence, it would be equally apt to think of Hellenism as the bearer of the
desire, whose satisfaction leads to the completion of the agent/bearer itself. Besides, we could come to the
same conclusions if we explicated the Vrailian image in terms of the Aristotelian theory of perception, where
the (desired) object that is perceived actualizes the potentialities of the eye. See Aristotle, De Anima 2.e.g.§7.
Vrailas speaks of light, which, also with Aristotle’s explication in ibid.418a26-419b3, is only a medium that
allows an object to be perceived. Still, since he talks about an object of desire, it could be the case that when
speaking of light, he has in mind something that is (fit to be) perceived by the eye (along with the light). In any
case, this is also the reason why Vrailas’ image (and Aristotle’s description) has so many affinities with the fa-
mous “Simile of the Sun” in Plato’s Republic 6.507a1-509d5. This parallel becomes more emphatic if we recall
that Vrailas, especially in the context of Characters 399,11ff., speaks about Platonism as a desire and hope for
the Christian ideal (cf. ibid.399,20 with the qualifying remarks of my main text here), at the time that in the
Platonic simile the source of the light, sun, i.e. the condition sine qua non for the existence and the ability of
visible objects to be perceived, stands for the idea of the Good, i.e. Plato’s own ideal. This however falls short of
the Christian ideal according to Vrailas, whose conscious intentions might not have included my present elab-
orations. Furthermore, let me add that according to the Stagirite, the essence of a thing is defined in terms of
its function (activity; see the famous “function/ἔργον argument” of Nicomachean Ethics 1.7, esp.1097b30-33
and Politics 1.2,1253a23); thus, an eye is a genuine eye only when it is fully functional, i.e. when it actually
perceives (cf. also the Aristotelian idea of ‘second actuality’ in De Anima 412a22-7). It would be interesting to
reflect on what this analogy could entail with regard to the Vrailian relation of Christianity and Hellenism.
75
 More in the Aristotelian sense of the word.
76
  Neoplatonism viewed Plato as a doctrinal philosopher, whereas a group of modern Platonic scholars, the
paradigmatic example being M.M. McCabe, have successfully challenged this long-established view, focusing
on Plato’s dialogical aspect. Although Vrailas need not be (and is not) actually endorsing this recent fruit
of Platonic scholarship, a non-doctrinal Plato (and at least ‘less’ doctrinal than Neoplatonism in its various
forms,) might be the real (and unconscious) reason that enables Vrailas to view Hellenism, in the expression
of Platonism, as a desire for the Christian ideal - with the already mentioned qualifications.
 Hellenism and Christianity: Petros Vrailas-Armenis on the Constituents of Modern Greek Identity 101

Model and Consequences of a Harmonious Relation

Furthermore, according to Vrailas, it was precisely the association of Chris-

tianity with Hellenism that enabled the latter to survive through the subsequent
centuries both in the West and the East.77 More specifically, the Hellenic person-
hood of Christianity is preserved and envisaged in Orthodoxy,78 since “we [i.e.
the Greeks]”, due to the period of “Byzantine Hellenism”,79 are “the first-born and
alone genuine descendants of Christianity, the illuminated interpreters and first
preachers and witnesses and faithful guardians of its truth”.80 Thus, if according to
Vrailas “[t]he Hellenic wisdom and the Christian faith constitute the soul itself
of the modern civilization”,81 whose fruits form the great achievements of (West-
ern) European culture,82 then he expresses the wish and at the same time certainty
that “it is possible that the holy day will shine, when not only the ethnic, but also

77
  Cf. Mission 376,30-1 and 377,6-10; Ideal 207,15-19; East and West 330, 5-8 (: here Vrailas acknowledges
the multifarious contribution of Western Europe to the re-emergence of Hellenism after the Ottoman slavery).
78
 Cf. also Civilization 308, n.1 (the text of the Vrailian cross-reference being supplied by the editors).
79
 See Mission 376,36, although it would be worth citing the whole passage, ibid.376,22-377,5. When saying
that “the unfaithfulness of the previous century was deriding those works of the Byzantine Hellenism, but
the wiser critique of the present one pronounces upon them with more equity”, Vrailas must be referring
to the relevant works of his contemporaries Spyridon Zampelios (11852) and Constantine Paparrigopoulos
(11853). Roderick Beaton reminded me that Zampelios, a proponent of the “Hellenic-Christian” continuity,
was a Heptanesian, as well, born in the island of Lefkada. However, although his near compatriot, i.e. Vrailas,
mentions Paparrigopoulos in the beginning of the “Mission” 352,31, I have not located any explicit Vrailian
reference to Zampelios.
80
  Ideal 207,10-12. Cf. also the immediately following lines, ibid.207,12-21 and Characters, 400,5-11. For
the importance of the preservation of Christian faith in relation to philosophical thinking see Essay 192,30-
193,2, esp.193,2: “the true philosophy must be in harmony with the true religion”.
81
 Characters 400,12-13. Cf. also Letters 386,23-4 and some lines below in Characters 400,16-18.
82
 Despite the great importance of Christian religion, and more specifically of the Orthodox faith regarding
Vrailian philosophizing, the Corfiote thinker believes that during Eastern Roman/Hellenic Middle Era, i.e.
in “Byzantium”, the cultivation of philosophy was much less than that of theology. See Ancient/modern the-
osophy 51,20-52,9, esp.5-7: “the modern civilization…emerged in the West, and not in the East, not, of course,
so that it be confined inside the limits of western countries,…”. This assertion, which would be very dear to A.
Koraes, becomes apparent also in the structure of the Mission; see e.g. section E’ of the “West” 377-85. What
is more, although Vrailas refers to Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church, in his corpus he does not
refer to any Byzantine or post-Byzantine intellectual of the period after John of Damascus’ death and before
the birth of E. Voulgaris.
102 Dimitrios A. Vasilakis

the Christian Hellenism83 [i.e. Orthodoxy84] will be acknowledged as the first

and foremost element of the human85 civilization”.86
Therefore, it is not a conflation or blurring of these two distinct modes of
being that made the Corfiote philosopher see in our Modern Greek identity the

83
 The notion of “Christian Hellenism” is pivotal not only for defining the Modern Greek identity, but also the
Orthodox identity outside national boundaries. Actually, Fr Florovsky thought that a “neo-patristic synthesis”,
i.e. a creative re-actualization of the Patristic wisdom –for which see Florovsky “Ecumenical”, 78-9, would be
enabled partly via the understanding that the Christian truth was told and structured in Greek categories and
language, in particular that of the Greek-speaking Fathers. (For a critical presentation of Florovsky’s idea of
“Christian Hellenism” see Gavrilyuk, Florovsky, 56 and 201-219.) Although Florovsky has been criticized as
too restrictive (e.g. due to the implied exclusion of the Latin Christian tradition; cf. Ware, “Today”, 112-13,
as well as its résumé in Louth, “Thessaloniki”, 100), the late Father Matthew Baker (†2015) has successfully
shown that for Florovsky also the Latin Fathers are included in the tradition of “Christian Hellenism” (cf.
Baker, “Neopatristic”, 238-40, with respective notes in 243-5). In this view “Christian Hellenism” is not
confined to the spatiotemporal boundaries of Byzantium (or even [Modern] Greece! See analogous
responses to P. Kalaitzidis’ critique by Avdelas, “Florovsky”).
84
  See also how Vrailas concludes the “Ideal” 207,21-30, (which is also the way Vasilakis, Beautiful, 88
concludes his own chapter on the Vrailian “Ideal”). Although I aim to deal with this issue separately in
the future, let me note that a single case in which I have found Vrailas exhibiting his dependence upon
Western, rather than Eastern (theological) approaches is Mission 373,33-374,1: at this point he connects
the “painful and disgraceful death” of Christ with the “expiation (ἐξιλέωσιν) of divine justice”. Here Vrailas
seems to be referring to the at least pessimistic views of Anselm of Canterbury (i.e. the theory of Christ’s
atonement as penal substitution due to the Fall, or the so-called Ancestral Sin) in Cur Deus homo, (traces of
which might be found in Augustine, whom Vrailas, contra some modern Orthodox theologians like father
John Romanides, admires). Such an unorthodox (i.e. heretical) doctrine is found also in Trembelas,
Dogmatics, vol.2, 168, referring explicitly to Anselm (!) and Voulgaris (see n.69)… Cf. Bathrellos, “Trembelas”,
247 and n.26, with further bibliography.
85
  To return to the issue of national, not religious identity: if Modern Greece implies Orthodoxy, does then
Orthodoxy imply Modern Greece? What about other orthodox traditions, e.g. the Russian one? I hope that
Baker’s answer to Florovsky’s critics (in n.83) shows that Christianity (especially Orthodoxy, as well as Hel-
lenism) can have much wider dimensions than (Modern) Greece and that the universality of these elements
can be participated by any person and country at any time according to and in the manner of the capaci-
ty and special characteristics of each participant. Should this then result in a sort of chauvinism, because in
such a view Christian Hellenism can have a universal applicability? I think that the example of Loudovikos,
“Nations” shows a healthy way in which nationalism can be transcended without being reduced either to
ethno-phyletism or ethno-nihilism. (Although the solutions to the issues posed here are not Vrailian, the
intentions could be.)
86
  Mission 383,5-7. Cf. also ibid.387,19-27 (and ibid.391,34-6). This belief ties in with Vrailas’ philoso-
phy-of-history conception of the “historical mission of Hellenism” within the course of human history and
in relation to the manifestation of Divine Providence. See ibid.390,6-391,4, esp.390,23-9. See also “Résumé
of the Lectures During 1859-60 on the Philosophy of History” in Vrailas-Armenis, Works, vol.4b, 345,16-21,
and East and West 331,14-17; 336,2-4.
 Hellenism and Christianity: Petros Vrailas-Armenis on the Constituents of Modern Greek Identity 103

possibility of the authentic composition87 of Hellenism and Christianity.88 For

Vrailas’ own synthetic mind, every genuine innovation in human history can pre-
serve its bonds with what precedes it: on the one hand, continuity does not ex-
clude break with the past; on the other, rupture does not negate the possibility of
preservation of certain elements (even in a reformed way). It is characteristic that
in a passage referring to the various denominations of Christianity, and although
in the end he aims at extolling Orthodoxy’s justified differences from both Ro-
man-Catholicism and Protestantism,89 Vrailas starts by noting that “in the var-
ious… societies we search more for the similarities rather than the differences,
more (for) what unites than what divides”.90 Besides, one might say that one of
Hellenism’s core elements has always been variety, its adaptability and its power
to incorporate new historical experiences.91 It is telling that Vrailas, referring to
ancient Greece, realizes that

nor, when speaking about Hellenic race, are we ignorant of the varieties of
the Greek societies in each place with respect to descent, art, dialect, con-
stitution,…, but we think that these varieties, too, falling under the unity of
Hellenism, constitute along with it the overall harmony of Hellenism.92
87
 Siniossoglou has suggested the term-notion of “osmosis”, (probably owing to its use in relevant contexts by
the important contemporary theologian, Metropolitan of Pergamon, John Zizioulas [1931-]); for the latter’s
view see Zizioulas, Meeting, (as well as his contribution in Cholevas, Tradition, 77-97).
88
 It is true that one can speak of a Vrailian kind of (quasi-Hegelian) “instrumentality” with respect to the
presence of Hellenism in history, as with the case of East and West 329,25, where is said that Hellenism
“was the chosen vessel of Christianity,…” (cf. Acts 9:15). However, the rest of my references to the presence
of Hellenism parallel to Christianity in the European and Modern Greek culture tells in favour of its sig-
nificance per se, too. See also the characteristic passage of Letters 386,3-6. Regarding the first issue, Vrailas
in the introduction of his relevant article Mission 353,5 (and editors’ n.2 ad loc.) refers, among else, to the
pertinent work of Metropolitan of Chios, Gregory, Mission, also translated into English.
89
 See also Mission 389,19-35 and cf. East and West 326,35-6; 328,1-23.
90
 Mission 381,23-4. For the whole context see ibid.381,15-383,7. Cf. also Vasilakis, Beautiful, 13 and n.1.
91
 See n.95.
92
  Mission 361,27-33. Regarding the same issue and, moreover, due to the threats that many universities/
departments face in our present difficult times, let us consider what the Modern Greek philosopher and pol-
itician is recorded to have emphasized during the session of the 10th Ionian Parliament with respect to the
suppression of the Ionian Academy, (for which see n.17): “Do you think that you multiply the lights concen-
trating them in one centre alone? Where is the glory of Germany [derived] from, if not because in each of its
states there are to be found museums and universities? Then, you also go against the Hellenic spirit, which is not
concentration [/centralization], but the variety, diffusion and expansion of lights.” Cf. Vasilakis, “Unknown”, 221,
n.6 and Vasilakis, Beautiful, 14, n.2, where the reference to Chytiris, “Obstacles”, 107 in which the relevant
information can be found. (NB that this article was published in the annual Bulletin of the “Corfu Reading
Society”, i.e. of a cultural society whose first President and co-founder in 1836 was Vrailas.)
104 Dimitrios A. Vasilakis

Conclusion

If then a) Hellenism has a Protean dimension, which, presumably, allowed

it to survive and enrich Christianity, too;93 and if b) the main characteristic of
Vrailas’ (philosophical) method is to achieve a dynamic synthesis of different ele-
ments, a dialogical, as well as dialectical synthesis which originates in a (Greek-or-
thodox) self-consciousness; then: it seems that the Vrailian method,94 far from
being “eclecticist” in any pejorative sense of the word, expresses a fundamental
aspect of (the universality of ) Hellenism.95 It is true that, as with every system,96
one may doubt97 as to the fruits of Vrailas’ philosophy;98 nonetheless, we might
93
 An anonymous reviewer suggested to include also the following conclusion based on my exposition above:
Brailas had an apparently “teleological” (as well as very Christian) vision of the evolution of the Hellenic cul-
ture, since Hellenism was expecting Christianism in order to incorporate it and to arrive at its natural fulfill-
ment (its “entelecheia” in Aristotelian terms), which of course accords to Christianity the primary role for the
successful achievement of this union.
94
  Here I do not imply the specific issues of the controversy regarding the philosophical usages of the “psy��-
chological” and the “ontological” method. See Vasilakis, Beautiful, 29-30 with the relevant bibliography
(ibid.29, n.6), and the reference to the Prologue of the Essay (20,22-3, from Moutsopoulos, Brailas, 136,
n.9), in which Vrailas, nonetheless, apparently connects eclecticism with the psychological method.
95
 I.e. a mode of being which finds and imposes unity through searching for variety. Although starting from a
rather separate set of presuppositions, this is also the gist of Yannaras, “Dynamics”, 6th column ad fin.:“…in the
Greek tradition the awareness of difference is a challenge for creative receptions, renovating innovation”. De-
spite the important differences in background, diagnosis and various details, this approach comes also close to
the view of (modern) Greek identity as “polydialectical palimpsest”, inspired by N. Kazantzakis and expressed
in the final verdict of Karalis, “Culture”, 142-3. On the other hand, it must be the case that Christianity, too,
through its loving openness, has a correspondingly universal character, in order for it to have fitted so aptly to
Hellenism.
96
 Vrailas in Mission 360,2, notes that with Hellenism we have the first in the history emergence of “human
freedom”, the completion of which comes with Christianity; ibid. 384,30ff.
97
  According to the standards of important contemporary Greek philosophers and theologians, such as the
abovementioned (n.95) Christos Yannaras (1935-, major representative of the theological generation of the
Sixties and the so-called “neo-Orthodox” movement of the Eighties in Greece), Vrailas, as well as other Mod-
ern Greek thinkers of past centuries, might not qualify as genuine Hellenic-Orthodox writers. Not so much
because of the content of their philosophizing/theologizing, but mainly due to the manner in which they
do theology and philosophy. Yannaras himself has edited a diverse volume collecting texts that speak of and
exemplify what he takes to be [and should be] the Modern Greek identity; see Yannaras, Handbook.
98
 However, would it be fair to accuse Vrailas for not doing philosophy in the admittedly interesting way it was
pursued in the twentieth century, after the occurrence of phenomenology, existentialism and the renaissance
of the Patristic studies (including the rediscovery of Gregory Palamas), especially in Orthodox centres, such
as the Russian ones in the Diaspora? Rather, it seems that, in a sense and in some respects, at least Vrailas was
more of a forerunner of this contemporary and diverse Modern Greek intellectual current (cf. n.97). See for
instance the case of Father Nicholas Loudovikos and his positive position on the relation between East and
West. (His interview to D. Gaveas for the special issue on “The Greek Identity Today” in the web-newspaper
 Hellenism and Christianity: Petros Vrailas-Armenis on the Constituents of Modern Greek Identity 105

want to consider whether the method of a Corfiote thinker, representative of the

Heptanesian culture and partaking both in the diachronic Greek and European
experience,99 can give us some fruitful perspectives and ways through which to
envisage and reflect on the Modern Greek identity and its future.100

The Huffington Post on 25/03/2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.gr/2016/03/24/nikolaos-loudovikos-el-

liniki-taytotita-sinedeyxi-_n_9523946.html, last accessed on 14/06/2016 is telling; see supra, n.20.) As with
the passage from pagan Hellenism to Christianity, so too with the passage from nineteenth-century to twen-
tieth-century Greek philosophizing and theologizing: it need not be so discontinuous. (Something similar
could be analogically said about the differences between the Western and Eastern Christendom, at least in
theoretical terms.)
99
 As far as was possible, of course, given the spatio-temporal coordinates in which Vrailas lived.
100
  As it turns out, it is perhaps Vrailas’ method that exemplifies the Greek identity of a Corfiote citizen of
Europe. See also Moutsopoulos’ remarks supra, n.13, Vasilakis, “Unknown”, 219 and Vasilakis, Beautiful, 11-
17, esp.11-12 (and 351-2).
106 Dimitrios A. Vasilakis

Bibliography
Arnou, René, Le Désir de Dieu dans la philosophie de Plotin, Rome: Presses de l’Université Grégori-
enne, 21967 (: deuxième édition revue et corrigée; 11921).
Avdelas, Dimitris, “Η Θεολογία του π. Φλωρόφσκυ υπό αμφισβήτηση: Η υποτιθέμενη Ουσιοκρατία
του Χριστιανικού Ελληνισμού και η σύγχρονη Σχετικοκρατία” [“Fr. Florovsky’s Theology under
Dispute: Christian Hellenism’s Supposed Essentialism and the Contemporary Relativism”],
Θεολογικό Υπόμνημα [Theological Memorandum], 1:3, 2017, 314.
Baker, Michael, “Neopatristic Synthesis and Ecumenism: Towards the ‘Reintegration’ of Christian Tra-
dition”, in A. Krawchuk and Th. Bremer (eds.), Eastern Orthodox Encounters of Identity and
Otherness: Values, Self-Reflection, Dialogue, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014, 235-260.
Bathrellos, Demetrios, “Οι Τρεις Ιεράρχες και η συνάντηση Χριστιανισμού κι Ελληνισμού” [“The Three
Hierarchs and the Meeting of Christianity with Hellenism”], 2015, available at the web-site
of the Ιερά Μητρόπολις Μεσογαίας και Λαυρεωτικής, http://www.imml.gr/index.php?op-
tion=com_content&view=article&id=655:xristianismos-kai-ellhnismos&catid=117:en-
diaferonta-themata&Itemid=561, last accessed on 14/06/2016.
Bathrellos, Demetrios, “Ἡ Δογματική τοῦ Τρεμπέλα: Κριτική ἀξιολόγηση” [“Trembelas’ Dogmatics: A
Critical Assessment”], in Ν. Ἀσπρούλης (ed.), Παναγιώτης Ν. Τρεμπέλας. Μεταξύ Παράδοσης καί
ἀνανέωσης, μεταξύ ἐπιστήμης καί ἱεραποστολῆς [Panagiotis N. Trembelas. Between Tradition and
Renovation, between Scholarship and Mission], Volos: Ἐκδοτική Δημητριάδος, 2016, 239260.
Beaton, Roderick and Ricks, David (eds.), The Making of Modern Greece: Nationalism, Romanticism
& the Uses of the Past (1797-1896), Farnham and Burlington: Ashgate, 2009.
Vrailas-Armenis, Petros, Φιλοσοφικὰ Ἔργα, [Philosophical Works], vol.1, edition and presentation by
E. Μουτσόπουλος and Αἰκ. Δώδου, Thessaloniki: “Corpus Philosophorum Graecorum Recen-
tiorum”, 1969.
Vrailas-Armenis, Petros, Φιλοσοφικὰ Ἔργα, vol.2, edition and presentation by E. Μουτσόπουλος and
Αἰκ. Δώδου, Thessaloniki: C.P.G.R., 1971.
Vrailas-Armenis, Petros, Φιλοσοφικὰ Ἔργα, vol.4a, ed. and pres. by E. Μουτσόπουλος and Ἀθ.
Γλυκοφρύδη-Λεοντσίνη, Athens: C.P.G.R., 1973.
Vrailas-Armenis, Petros, Φιλοσοφικὰ Ἔργα, vol.4b, ed. and pres. by E. Μουτσόπουλος and Ἀθ.
Γλυκοφρύδη-Λεοντσίνη, Athens: C.P.G.R., 1974.
Chytiris, Gerasimos, “Παρακωλύσεις και αντιτάξεις, οι δύσκολες στιγμές του Πανεπιστημίου της Κερκύρας”
[“Obstacles and Antitheses, the Difficult Moments of Corfu’s University”], Δελτίο Αναγνωστικής
Εταιρίας Κέρκυρας [Bulletin of the Corfu Reading Society], 7, 1970, 91-107.
Glykofrydi-Leontsini, Αthanasia, “‘Ανατολή και Δύσις’: Ταυτότητα και ετερότητα στο νεοελληνικό
στοχασμό του 18ου και του 19ου αι.” [“‘East and West’: Identity and otherness in the Mod-
ern-Greek thought of the 18th and 19th cent.”], in Κ.Α. Δημάδης (ed.), Ταυτότητες στον
ελληνικό κόσμο (από το 1204 έως σήμερα) [Identities in the Greek World ( from 1204 to the
present day)], Athens: European Society of Modern Greek Studies, 2011, vol.5, 87-104.
Cavarnos, Constantine, Modern Greek Philosophers on the Human Soul. Selections from the writings of
Five Representative Thinkers of Modern Greece on the Nature and Immortality of the Soul, trans-
lated and edited with a Preface, Introduction, and Notes, Belmont, Massachusetts: Institute for
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1967.
Cholevas, Konstantinos I. (ed.), Ἑλληνορθόδοξη Παράδοση. Ρίζωμα και Προοπτική. Ἡ δημιουργική
συνάντηση Χριστιανισμοῦ και Ἑλληνισμοῦ μέσα ἀπό κείμενα Ἁγίων, Πατέρων, Ἀγωνιστῶν, Λογίων
καί Διανοητῶν [Greek-orthodox Tradition…], Athens: Super Market Doukas, 2003.
 Hellenism and Christianity: Petros Vrailas-Armenis on the Constituents of Modern Greek Identity 107

Demetrakopoulos, John A., “The Influence of Thomas Aquinas on Late Byzantine Philosophical and
Theological Thought: À propos of the Thomas de Aquino Byzantinus Project”, Bulletin de Phi-
losophie Médiévale, 54, 2012, 101-124.
Dillon, John M. and Long, Anthony A. (eds.), The Question of “Eclecticism”: Studies in Later Greek
Philosophy, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1988.
Donini, Pierluigi, “The History of the Concept of Eclecticism”, in Dillon-Long, Eclecticism, 15-33.
Elm, Susanna, Sons of Hellenism, Fathers of the Church: Emperor Julian, Gregory of Nazianzus, and the
Vision of Rome, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford: University of California Press, 2012.
Florovsky, Georges, “The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement”, Theology To-
day, 7:1, 1950, 68-79.
Gavrilyuk, Paul L., Georges Florovsky and the Russian Religious Renaissance, Oxford: OUP, 2013.
Gregory, Metropolitan of Chios, The Hellenic Spirit and the Divine Mission of Hellenism, trans. G.
Williams, Cambridge: Deighton, Βell and Co.; London: Bell and Daldy, 1868; [the Greek
original is: Γρηγόριος Παυλίδης, Μητρ. Χίου, Τὸ Ἑλληνικὸν πνεῦμα, ἤτοι σχέσεις τοῦ Ἑλληνισμοῦ
πρὸς τὴν ὀρθοδοξίαν, Χῖος, 1869].
Karalis, Vrasidas, “In Search of Neo-Hellenic Culture: Confronting the Ambiguities of Modernity
in an Ancient Land”, Interactions: Studies in Communication & Culture, 3:2, 2012, 129-145.
Kerkyraika Chronika, Αφιέρωμα στον Πέτρο Βράιλα Αρμένη 1812-1884 [Corfiote Annales Dedicated to
Peter Vrailas Armenis], period B’, vol. B’, Corfu: Εταιρεία Κερκυραϊκών Σπουδών, 2005.
Kitromilides, Paschalis M., Enlightenment and Revolution. The Making of Modern Greece, Cambridge
Mass. & London: Harvard University Press, 2013.
Loudovikos, Nicholas, “Nations in the Church: Towards an Eschatological Political Anthropocen-
trism?”, International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church, 12:2, 2012, 131-147.
Louth, Andrew, “Thessaloniki Papers: An Overview. Orthodoxy and the Problem of Identity”, Inter-
national Journal for the Study of the Christian Church, 12:2, 2012, 96-104.
Manolea, Christina-Panagiota, “Η υπεροχή του νέου έναντι του αρχαίου πολιτισμού κατά τον Π. Βράιλα
Αρμένη” [“The Superiority of the New Civilization over the Ancient one according to P. Vrai-
las-Armenis”], in Kerkyraika Chronika, 2005, 89-101.
McClellan, Chris, “Eclecticism”, in E. Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://0-www.rep.
routledge.com.catalogue.ulrls. lon. ac.uk/ article/DC120, 2003, last accessed on 15 May 2012.
Moutsopoulos, Evanghelos A., Petros Brailas-Armenis, New York: Twayne Publishers, Inc., “Twayne’s
World Authors Series” (TWAS 261), 1974.
Moutsopoulos, Evanghelos, Φιλοσοφικοί Προβληματισμοί, [Philosophical Reflections], vol.2, Ἀναδρομαὶ
καὶ Ἀναδομήσεις, Athens, 1978.
Moutsopoulos, Evanghelos, “Αἱ ρίζαι καὶ αἱ παροῦσαι διαστάσεις τῆς συγχρόνου ἑλληνικῆς φιλοσοφίας”
[“The Roots and Present Dimensions of the Contemporary Greek Philosophy”], in Mout-
sopoulos, Reflections, 1978, 371-376.
Moutsopoulos, Evanghelos, “Ὁ Νεόφυτος Βάμβας καὶ ἡ θέσις αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ἑλληνικῇ διανοήσει τοῦ ΙΘ’
αἰῶνος” [“Neofytos Vamvas and His place in the Greek Thought of the 19th cent.”], in Mout-
sopoulos, Reflections, 1978, 377-392.
Myrogiannis, Stratos, The Emergence of a Greek Identity (1700-1821), Newcastle upon Tyne: Cam-
bridge Scholars Publishing, 2012.
Papari, Katerina, Ελληνικότητα και αστική διανόηση στον Μεσοπόλεμο. Το πολιτικό πρόγραμμα των Π.
Κανελλόπουλου, Ι. Θεοδωρακόπουλου και Κ. Τσάτσου, [Greekness and Bourgeois Intelligentsia in
the Interwar Period: the Political Programme of P. Kanellopoulos, Ι. Theodorakopoulos and K.
Tsatsos], Athens: Ασίνη, 2017.
108 Dimitrios A. Vasilakis

Pavlos, Panagiotis G., Janby, Lars F., Emilsson, Eyjólfur K. and Tollefsen, Torstein T. (eds.), Platonism
and Christian Thought in Late Antiquity, London and NY: Routledge, 2019.
Saint Nectarios, Περὶ τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς φιλοσοφίας ὡς Προπαιδείας εἰς τὸν Χριστιανισμόν [On Greek Philosophy as
Preparatory Instruction to Christianity], Athens: βιβλιοπωλεῖον (bookshop) Νεκτάριος Παναγόπουλος,
Athens, 1995 (11896), (available also online at http://users.uoa.gr/~nektar/orthodoxy/tributes/agi-
os-nektarios/historic-role-of-the-hellenes.htm, last accessed on 13/06/2016).
Siniossoglou, Niketas, Plato and Theodoret. The Christian Appropriation of Platonic Philosophy and the
Hellenic Intellectual Resistance, Cambridge: CUP, 2008.
Siniossoglou, Niketas, “Plato Christianus: The Colonization of Plato and Identity Formation in Late
Antiquity”, in P. Hummel (ed.), Pseudologie: Etudes sur la fausseté dans la langue et dans la
pensée, Paris: Philologicum, 2010, 145-176.
Siniossoglou, Niketas, “Η νεοελληνική ταυτότητα ως φιλοσοφικό πρόβλημα” [“The Modern Greek Identi-
ty as a Philosophical Problem”], in O. Katsiardi-Herring, A. Papadia-Lala, V. Karamanolakis, K.
Nikolaou (eds.), Έλλην Ρωμηός Γραικός. Συλλογικοί προσδιορισμοί και ταυτότητες [Hellene, Roman,
Greek. Collective Designations and Identities], Athens: Eurasia, 2018, 571289.
Steiris, Georgios, Mitralexis, Sotiris and Arabatzis, Georgios (eds.), The Problem of Modern Greek Identity.
From the Ecumene to the Nation-State, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016.
Trembelas, Panagiotis N., Δογματική τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας [Dogmatics of the Orthodox
Catholic Church], vol.13, Athens: Σωτήρ, 1959-1961.
Vasilakis, Antonios D., “Ἕνα ἄγνωστο κείμενο τοῦ Πέτρου Βράϊλα-Ἀρμένη γιὰ τὴ μουσική” [“An Un-
known Text of Petros Vrailas-Armenis on Music”], Παρνασσός, [ Journal Parnassos, ἀνάτυπον
ἐκ τοῦ] Ν’ τόμου [vol.50], 2008, 219-232. (Α version of the article is also available here: http://
www.parathemata.com/2009/11/blog-post_20.html, last accessed on 13/06/2016.)
Vasilakis, Antonios D., Ἡ ὀντολογία τοῦ ὡραίου στὸ ἔργο τοῦ Πέτρου Βράϊλα-Ἀρμένη [The Ontology of
the Beautiful in Petros Vrailas-Armenis’ Work; in Greek with an English Synopsis], Athens:
“Σύλλογος πρὸς Διάδοσιν Ὠφελίμων Βιβλίων”, 2009.
Vasilakis, Antonios D., “Cosmos: Decoration or ex nihilo Creation? Some Consequences”, Dioti-
ma. Review of Philosophical Research, Publication of the Hellenic Society for Philosophical
Studies, 41 (: “Le Monde Structuré”): 2013, 8-15. (A Greek translation of this article with
modifications by Δ.Α. Βασιλάκης is available at http://www.antifono.gr/portal/κατηγορίες/
φιλοσοφία-επιστημολογία/άρθρα/4555-kosmos-diakosmisi-i-ek-toy-midenos-dimioyr-
gia-merikes-synepeies.html, last accessed on 13/06/2016.)
Von Ivanka, Endre, Plato Christianus. Übernahme und Umgestaltung des Platonismus durch die Väter,
Einsiedeln: Johannes Verlag, 1964.
Ware, Kallistos, “Orthodox Theology Today: Trends and Tasks”, International Journal for the Study of
the Christian Church, 12:2, 2012, 105–121.
Wechssler, Eduard, Hellas im Evangelium, Berlin: Alfred Metzner Verlag, 1936.
Yannaras, Christos (ed.), Tὸ ἀλφαβητάρι τοῦ Νεοέλληνα. Κείμενα ἐπίκαιρης ἐλληνικῆς αὐτοσυνειδησίας
[The Elementary Handbook of the Modern Greek. Texts of Timely Greek Self-consciousness],
Athens: Πατάκης, 2000.
Yannaras, Christos, “Χαμένη η δυναμική της διαφοράς” [“The Dynamics of Difference (is) Lost”],
επιφυλλίδα στην εφημερίδα Η Καθημερινή, [feuilleton in the newspaper Kathimerini],
07/08/2011, (p.19, in 6 columns. The article is also available at http://news.kathimerini.gr/4d-
cgi/_w_articles_columns_1_07/08/2011_451977, last accessed on 13/06/2016.)
Zacharia, Katerina (ed.), Hellenisms. Culture, Identity, and Ethnicity from Antiquity to Modernity,
Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate Variorum, 2008.
Zizioulas, John D., Ελληνισμός και Χριστιανισμός. Η συνάντηση των δύο κόσμων [Hellenism and Christi-
anity. The Meeting of the Two Worlds], Athens: Αποστολική Διακονία, 2008.