See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/301199263

“Byzantine Philosophers of the 15th Century on Identity and Otherness”

Chapter · June 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 458

1 author:

Georgios Steiris
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
73 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Byzantine and Renaissance Philosophy in the 15th century View project

Al Farabi and his sources View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Georgios Steiris on 15 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Problem of
Modern Greek Identity
The Problem of
Modern Greek Identity:

From the Ecumene

to the Nation-State

Edited by

Georgios Steiris, Sotiris Mitralexis

and Georgios Arabatzis
The Problem of Modern Greek Identity:
From the Ecumene to the Nation-State

Edited by Georgios Steiris, Sotiris Mitralexis and Georgios Arabatzis

This book first published 2016

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2016 by Georgios Steiris, Sotiris Mitralexis,

Georgios Arabatzis and contributors

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-4438-8987-3

ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-8987-2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ............................................................................................... vii

Chapter One ................................................................................................. 1

Images of Modern Hellenism: Historical Dilemmas and Orientations
Kostas Koutsourelis

Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 13

Orthodoxy and the West:
Preliminary Remarks on Hellenic Self-Identity’s Past
Christos Yannaras

Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 51

“Much Earlier, Much Later, Today”:
Modern Greek Political Time and Christos Vakalopoulos
Ilias Papagiannopoulos

Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 81

The Eclipse of the Subject
Theodoros I. Ziakas

Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 93

The “Principle of Nationalities” and the “Ideal of the Empire”:
Ideological Debate during Greece’s National Schism
Dimitrios Faros

Chapter Six .............................................................................................. 129

Trinitarian Theology and the Particularity of Modern Greece
Dionysios Skliris

Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 145

Nation and the Greek Paradigm
George Contogeorgis
vi Table of Contents

Chapter Eight ........................................................................................... 173

Byzantine Philosophers of the 15th Century on Identity and Otherness
Georgios Steiris

Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 201

Cardinal Bessarion on Hellenic Identity and a Peloponnesian State:
A Comparison with the Modern Greek Crisis
Athanasia Theodoropoulou

Chapter Ten ............................................................................................. 215

Experiencing Empire: The Case of Cyprus’ National Poet
and his Representations of the Ottoman Empire
Nicoletta Hadjipavlou

Chapter Eleven ........................................................................................ 229

Byzantine Philosophy and Modernity
Georgios Arabatzis

Chapter Twelve ....................................................................................... 255

Byzantine Political Philosophy, Greek Identity and Independence
in Leonardo Philaras’ Works
Michail Mantzanas

Appendix ................................................................................................. 265

Elements of Political Thinking in Odysseas Elytis’
“Things Public and Private”
Sotiris Mitralexis

Contributors ............................................................................................. 273

Index ........................................................................................................ 277

 CHAPTER EIGHT

BYZANTINE PHILOSOPHERS OF THE 15TH

CENTURY ON IDENTITY AND OTHERNESS

GEORGIOS STEIRIS

Those who work with topics related to Modern Greek identity usually
start discussing these issues by quoting the famous Georgios Gemistos
Pletho (c.1360-1454): we, over whom you rule and hold sway, are
Hellenes by genos (γένος), as is witnessed by our language and ancestral
education.1 Although Woodhouse thought of Pletho as the last of the
Hellenes, others prefer to denounce him the last of the Byzantines and the
first and foremost Modern Greek.2 During the 14th and 15th centuries, a

1
“Ἕλληνες τό γένος ἐσμέν ὧν ἡγεῖσθε τε καί βασιλεύετε, ὡς ἡ τε φωνή καί ἡ
πάτριος παιδεία μαρτυρεῖ.” Georgios Gemistos Pletho, “Ad Regem Emmanuelem,
De Rebus Peloponnesiacis, Oratio 1,” in Greek: Πρὸς τὸν Βασιλέα Ἐμμανουήλον,
Περὶ τῶν ἐν Πελλοπονήσῳ Πραγμάτων, Λόγος Α’, in PG 160, ed. J. P. Migne,
(Paris: 1866), 821B.
2
L. Bargeliotes, “The Enlightenment and the Hellenic ‘Genos’: From Plethon to
Vulgaris,” Skepsis 20 (2009): 44–6; D. J. Geanakoplos, Byzantium: Church,
Society, and Civilization Seen Through Contemporary Eyes (Chicago and London:
University of Chicago Press, 1984), 436; J. Harris, “Being a Byzantine after
Byzantium: Hellenic Identity in Renaissance Italy,” Kambos: Cambridge Papers in
Modern Greek 8 (2000): 25–44; V. Hladky, The Philosophy of Gemistos Plethon:
Platonism in Late Byzantium, Between Hellenism and Orthodoxy (Farnham, UK/
Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 2014), 269-286; N. Linardos, “The Religious
and National Identity of Georgios Gemistos Pletho: an Example of Changing
Identities in the Greek World,” in Greek: Η Θρησκευτική και Εθνική Ταυτότητα
του Γεωργίου Γεμιστού Πλήθωνος: Ένα Παράδειγμα Μεταβαλλόμενων
Ταυτοτήτων στον Ελληνικό Κόσμο, accessed October 30, 2015,
http://www.eens.org/EENS_congresses/2010/Linardos_Nikolaos.pdf;
Th. Nikolaou, G. Pletho Gemistos on Politics and Law, in Greek: Αἱ Περὶ
Πολιτείας καὶ Δικαίου Ἰδέαι τοῦ Γ. Πλήθωνος Γεμιστοῦ (Salonica: Centre for
Byzantine Research, 1974), 98-102; N. P. Peritore, “The Political Thought of
Gemistos Plethon: A Renaissance Byzantine Reformer,” Polity 10, 2 (1977): 173-
174 Chapter Eight

number of influential intellectuals in the Eastern Roman Empire preferred

the term Hellene (Ἓλλην) to identify themselves, instead of the formal
Roman (Ρωμαῖος) and the common Greek (Γραικός).3 According to the
prevalent view of modern scholarship, the shift should not be interpreted
only as a statement of proto-national identity, but also as the outcome of
growing archaism. As Vryonis pointed out, the historian Critoboulos used
to call the Balkan nations with their archaic names: Byzantines became
“Hellenes,” Albanians became “Illyrians,” etc.4 Chalkokondyles followed
in the same path.5 Furthermore, in order to lament the decline of their
Empire, Byzantine intellectuals tended to compare their sad present to the
glory of ancient Greece.6 Besides archaism, proto-nationalism and
Hellenism,7 I suggest that a careful reading of the sources would lead us to
reappraise the ways 15th century intellectuals perceived identity. Whilst I
do not accept Vakalopoulos’ views on diachronic Hellenic identity, I
support that, in the 15th century, Byzantine scholars attempted to create an
identity based on cultural and historical continuity and otherness.8
Moreover, Laiou’s definition of Greek identity as a resultant of language,

177; N. Svoronos, The Greek Nation, Genesis and Configuration of Modern

Hellenism, in Greek: Το Ελληνικό Έθνος, Γένεση και Διαμόρφωση του Νέου
Ελληνισμού (Athens: Polis, 2004), 78; C. M. Woodhouse, George Gemistos
Plethon: The Last of the Hellenes (Oxford University Press Academic Monograph
Reprints) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986).
3
D. Livanios, “The Quest for Hellenism: Religion, Nationalism, and Collective
Identities in Greece, 1453-1913,” in Hellenisms: Culture, Identity, and Ethnicity
from Antiquity to Modernity, ed. K. Zacharia (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008), 240; S.
Vryonis, “Byzantine Cultural Self-Consciousness in the Fifteenth Century,” in The
Twilight of Byzantium, Aspects of Cultural and Religious History in the Late
Byzantine Empire, ed. S. Curcic and D. Mouriki (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1991), 5-14.
4
Vryonis, “Byzantine Cultural Self-Consciousness,” 7.
5
A. Akisik, “Self and Other in the Renaissance: Laonikos Chalkokondyles and
Late Byzantine Intellectuals” (PhD diss., Harvard University, Cambridge MA,
2013), 101-102.
6
I. Ševčenko, “The Decline of Byzantium Seen Through the Eyes of Its
Intellectuals,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 15 (1961): 173.
7
P. Athanasiadi, Julian (Routledge Revivals): An Intellectual Biography (New
York: Routledge, 2014), 11; C. Evangeliou, Hellenic Philosophy: Origin and
Character (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2012), 153; C. Evangeliou, Themata Politica:
Hellenic and Euro-Atlantic (Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008),
20-21.
8
A. Vacalopoulos, Origins of the Greek Nation: The Byzantine Period, 1204-1461,
trans. I. Moles (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1970), 126-135.
 Byzantine Philosophers of the 15th Century on Identity and Otherness 175

history, tradition and interests9 does not cover the case of 15th century
Byzantine philosophers, since the latter strived to enrich and enlarge
Greek identity with additional elements. It is worth noting that those
philosophers who fled to Italy deliberately chose to describe themselves as
Greeks (Greci/Γραικοί) or Hellenes (Ἓλληνες) and not as Romans
(Ρωμιοί/Ρωμαῖοι), according to the Byzantine official terminology. During
the 15th century a major shift occurred in the Byzantine intelligentsia and
its prominent members revisited matters of identity. In this paper, I
attempt to scrutinize the ways Byzantine philosophers of the 15th century,
who lived in the territories of the Byzantine Empire and in Italy, perceived
identity and otherness. In my research, I include not only Greek, but also
Latin sources, since their works is written in both languages.

As Plato has proved, matters of identity should not be studied without

reference to otherness.10 Pletho’s views on identity have been analyzed
thoroughly the last two centuries and I do not intend to discuss once again
his statements about genos, ethnos (ἔθνος) and homophylon (ὁμόφυλον).11
However, I support that, in order to understand properly Pletho’s views on
identity, it is useful to analyze his position concerning the others, namely
the Arabs and the Latins. In his philosophical treatises, Pletho scorned the
Arabs on several occasions.12 Particularly, Pletho held that Averroes
distorted Aristotelian psychology and suggested that the soul is mortal.13
Averroes himself was wrong and he misguided others who followed his

9
A. E. Laiou, “From Roman to Hellene,” in The Byzantine Fellowship Lectures-
Number One, ed. N. M. Vaporis (Brookline, ΜΑ: Holy Cross Theological School
Press 1974), 13-28.
10
Plato, Sophist, 257 ff.
11
P. Garnsey, “Gemistus Plethon and Platonic political philosophy,” in
Transformations of Late Antiquity: Essays for Peter Brown, ed. Philip Rousseau
and Emmanuel Papoutsakis (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2009), 327–40; N. Siniossoglou,
Radical Platonism in Byzantium: Illumination and Utopia in Gemistos Plethon
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 327–384; N. Siniossoglou,
“Plethon and the Philosophy of Nationalism,” in Georgios Gemistos Plethon, The
Byzantine and the Latin Renaissance, ed. P. R. Blum & J. Matula (Olomouc:
Palacky University Press, 2014), 415-431; Woodhouse, George Gemistos Plethon,
79–118.
12
B. Lagarde, “Le De differentiis de Pléthon d’Après l’Autographe de la
Marcienne,” Byzantion 43 (1973): 321, 3-8, 322, 36-38.
13
F. Masai, “Plethon, l’Averroisme et le probleme religieux,” in Actes du Colloque
International sur le Neoplatonisme, Editions du Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique, ed. P. M. Schul & P. Hadot (Paris: Èditions du CNRS, 1971), 435-
446.
176 Chapter Eight

views and recognized him as an auctoritas.14 Pletho deliberately adopted

an anti-Averroist approach common to 15th century humanists, although it
was not accurate, because it served his broader anti-Scholastic and anti-
Latin agenda. He contended that the Scholastics overrated the significance
of the Arabic philosophical texts. The Arabs did not understand properly
Greek philosophy and they interpreted it erroneously.15 As a result, the
Arabs and the Scholastics distorted Greek philosophy. Pletho urged his
fellow Byzantine scholars to rely on the Greek philosophical tradition,
especially Platonic and Neoplatonic, and condemn the Scholastic Aristotle.
According to Pletho, Aristotelian philosophy is inherently problematic. As
a result, the Arabic and Scholastic Aristotle lack any value.16 Pletho was
engaged in a war with the Arabs and the Scholastics and did not aim at a
detailed study of Arabic philosophy and its Jewish and Latin
interpretations. Pletho’s critical position towards Arabic philosophy is the
outcome of his hostility towards Scholasticism and the traditional
Byzantine contempt for Arabic philosophy. Pletho agreed with the view
that Greek philosophy was preserved only in Byzantium.17 Aristoteles
latinus was predominantly Aristoteles Arabus; and that annoyed Pletho.

Michail Apostolis (c.1420-1478), a faithful adherent of Pletho’s

philosophy, supported similar views on the threat of cultural—hence
national, alienation. Apostolis launched a fervent attack on Theodoros
Gaza (1398/1410-1475/6)18 and the rest of Bessarion’s (1408-1472) circle
because he believed that Greek philosophy and Greek cultural tradition in
general were in danger of alienation. According to Apostolis, Gaza and

14
Lagarde, “Le De differentiis de Pléthon,” 321, 3-8.
15
M. Mavroudi, “Plethon as a Subversive and His Reception in the Islamic
World,” in Power and Subversion in Byzantium. Papers from the Forty-third
Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, March 2010. Publications of
the Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies 17, ed. D. Angelov & M. Saxby
(Farnham: Ashgate Variorum, 2013), 198-199.
16
Georgios Gemistos Plethon, “Contra Scholarii Defensionem Aristotelis,” in
Greek: Πρὸς τὰς Ὑπὲρ Ἀριστοτέλους Γεωργίου τοῦ Σχολαρίου Ἀντιλήψεις, in PG
160, ed. J. P. Migne (Paris: 1866), 1006B.
17
G. Karamanolis, “Plethon and Scholarios on Aristotle,” in Byzantine Philosophy
and its Ancient Sources, ed. K. Ierodiakonou (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2002), 260-263.
18
Michael Apostolis, “Ad Theodori Gazae pro Aristotele De Substantia Adversus
Plethonem Obiectiones,” in Greek: Πρὸς τὰς Ὑπὲρ Ἀριστοτέλους Περὶ Οὐσίας
Κατὰ Πλήθωνος Θεοδώρου τοῦ Γαζῆ Ἀντιλήψεις, in Kardinal Bessarion als
Theologe, Humanist und Staatsmann-Γ’. vol. 3, ed. Ludwig Mohler (Paderborn:
1923-1942; reprint: Aalen: 1967), 159-169.
 Byzantine Philosophers of the 15th Century on Identity and Otherness 177

several others did not study Greek philosophy carefully and did not respect
its interpretative patterns. Instead, they preferred the Scholastic
philosophers, who misinterpreted and transformed the original thought not
only of Plato and the Platonists, but also that of Aristotle and his Greek
commentators. Apostolis, following Pletho, argued that Scholastic
philosophy was based on bad philosophy, that of Aristotle. He held the
thought that it was a rather superficial interpretation and evolution of that
bad philosophy.19 Pletho shared common views in his De differentiis,
where he blamed Scholarios for preferring the Scholastics, who followed
Averroistic Aristotelianism, instead of the Platonic philosophy, which
represented the best aspect of Greek philosophy.20 Both Pletho and
Apostolis remained silent about the predilection of Neoplatonists such as
Porphyry, Simplicius and numerous other commentators and philosophers
who appreciated and used extensively the Aristotelian philosophy.
Whenever Apostolis resorted to them, he chose to present certain small
passages that supported his views and avoided analyzing thoroughly their
theses because usually their outlook was Aristotelian. Apostolis’ criticism
targeted, besides Gaza, Georgios Scholarios (c.1400-1473) and his
followers who appreciated Scholastic philosophy, especially Thomism.
Scholarios declared his preference for the Scholastic tradition of
commenting philosophical texts instead of the standard ancient Greek and
Byzantine, because he thought of the former as more perfect.21 Scholarios
pointed out that Pletho followed Proclus’ interpretation of Platonism,
which is hostile to Aristotelianism, despite the fact that Scholarios’
accusation is rather superficial and generalizing.22 In fact, Scholarios knew
and used both the Greek and the Scholastic exegetical tradition in a
complementary way.

19
Apostolis, “Ad Theodori Gazae pro Aristotele,” 159-169.
20
Lagarde, “Le De Differentiis de Pléthon,” 321, 3-8.
21
Gennadios Scholarios, “Épître Dédicatoire à Constantin Paléologue,” in Greek:
Τῷ Ὑψιλοτάτῳ καὶ Πανευτυχεστάτῳ Δεσπότῃ κῦρ Κωνσταντίνῳ τῷ Παλαιολόγῳ,
in Oeuvres Completes de Gennade Scholarios, in Greek: Γενναδίου τοῦ Σχολαρίου
Ἅπαντα τὰ Εὑρισκόμενα, ed. L. Petit et al., vol. 7 (Paris: Maison de la Bonne
Presse, 1936), 5, 22-26.
22
Gennadios Scholarios, “Lettre à la Princesse du Péloponnèse sur le “Traité des
Lois” de Gemistos Pléthon (1454-1456),” in Greek: Γενναδίου Ταπεινοῦ:
Ἐπιστολὴ τῇ Βασιλίσσῃ Περὶ τοῦ Βιβλίου τοῦ Γεμιστοῦ, in Oeuvres Completes de
Gennade Scholarios, in Greek: Γενναδίου τοῦ Σχολαρίου Ἅπαντα τὰ
Εὑρισκόμενα, ed. L. Petit et al., vol. 4 (Paris: Maison de la Bonne Presse, 1935),
153, 23-24.
178 Chapter Eight

Furthermore, Apostolis avoided relying on the polemic Byzantine

literature concerning the preponderance of Platonic or Aristotelian
philosophy, despite his hostility to Scholasticism. Instead, he resorted to
Pletho, Plato and several ancient commentators. I would like to propose
that Apostolis’ choice is indicative of his low appreciation for mainstream
Byzantine philosophy and his attachment to ancient Greek thought. Pletho
and Apostolis attempted to draw a line between Greek philosophy—which
is purely Platonic—and Scholastic philosophy, which is attached to
Aristotle and the Arabs. Despite their efforts and arguments, their
exegetical pattern is weak and simplistic. Apostolis followed Pletho’s
idiomatic classicism and he did not hesitate to call himself and his
contemporaries “sons of the Hellenes,” whilst at the same time he did not
question the compatibility of Hellenism with Christian religion, as Pletho
did.23 Namely, Apostolis blamed the Latins for thinking of themselves as
more important in comparison not only to the ancient Greeks, but also to
the Byzantine scholars of the 15th century (οἱ τῶν νῦν ὄντων Ἑλλήνων οὐ
μόνον οἲονται σοφότεροι γεγονέναι, ἀλλὰ καὶ Σωκράτους αὐτοῦ καὶ
Πυθαγόρου καὶ Πλάτωνος).24 Moreover, he added that there is no dividing
line between ancient and Modern Greeks (οἶα οὐδείς τῶν Ἑλλήνων, οὒτε
τῶν παλαιοτέρων οὒτε τῶν νεωτέρων).25 Apostolis proudly declared that
he is an offspring of the Hellenes and he followed in their cultural path; at
the same time, he rejected the philosophical superiority of the Latins
(Ἡμεῖς φαμεν, θαυμασιώτατε ἄνθρωπε, παῖδες Ἑλλήνων εἶναι καυχώμενοι
κἀκείνων τοῖς ἲχνεσιν, οὐχ ἑτέρων ἑπόμενοι).26 Identity, according to
Apostolis, stems from culture and heritage.

Like several Byzantine scholars of the 15th century, Apostolis was not
primarily interested in philosophy and probably he was not an enthusiastic
philosopher; rather, he was an educated commentator. His argumentation
lacks solidity and persuasiveness since he seems to be actually unaware of
the evolution of philosophy in the Arabic world and Western Europe
during the Middle Ages. He seems to know the general outline of
Scholastic philosophy; however, he was incapable of incorporating and
commenting on it, unlike Bessarion and Scholarios.27 His contempt is

23
Apostolis, “Ad Theodori Gazae pro Aristotele,” 168-169.
24
Ibid., 168.
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid., 169.
27
G. Steiris & N. Lyckoura, “La Perception et Valorization de la Philosophie
Arabe Dans le Résumé de la Somme Théologique de Saint Thomas d’Aquin de
Georges Gennade Scholarios: les cas d’Avicenne et Averroès,” in Marges de la
 Byzantine Philosophers of the 15th Century on Identity and Otherness 179

probably the outcome not only of disgust, but also of superficial

knowledge and conscious denial for thorough study not only of the
Scholastics, but also of the Aristotelian tradition. Although he thought of
himself as heir of the ancient Greek philosophers—despite the fact that his
mother tongue gave him the opportunity to study the original Greek
texts—he rests mainly within the confines of rhetoric rather than
philosophy. His goal is persuasion, not truth. By using rhetorical
exaggerations and quibbles, Apostolis attempted more to offend Gaza—as
Gaza had seemingly done with Pletho according to him—and less to
question his philosophical integrity. Consequently, it is rather simplistic to
interpret Pletho’s and Apostolis’ anti-Aristotelianism as a reaction of
“Hellenism” against “Christianity.”28 It is well-known that Pletho was an
anti-unionist and did not hesitate to support the Orthodox delegation in the
council of Florence.29 Pletho’s and Apostolis’ primary goal was not to
confront Christian religion and to defend the way of the ancient Greeks.
First and foremost, they aimed at the refusal of the imperialism of Latin
culture, which threatened to alienate the Greek culture in the broad sense.
Pletho and his entourage did not simply want to preserve Greek
philosophy or religion; they predominantly attempted to prevent the
cultural alienation of the Greek intelligentsia in order to safeguard the
genos from the threats of both the Turks and the Latins. Pletho’s
perspective was predominantly cultural and political.30 Members of the
Byzantine 15th century elites failed to realize that the major threat for
Greek culture was not Latin philosophy, but their denial for revision,
reflection, restatement and progress.

On the other hand, Georgios Gennadios Scholarios did not

unconditionally approve of Pletho’s Hellenism.31 In a dialogue with a Jew,
Scholarios replied to the hypothetical question “Who am I?” that he
considered himself to be a Christian. Whilst he spoke the Greek language,

Philosophie Byzantine, ed. Georgios Arabatzis (Athenes: Institut de Livre

Kardamitsa, 2013), 51-74.
28
Livanios, “The Quest for Hellenism,” 267.
29
A. Kyros, Bessarion the Greek, Aetos, in Greek: Βησσαρίων ο Έλλην, vol. 1
(Athens: Aetos A. E., 1947), 103-107; V. Laurent, Les “Mémoires” du Grand
Ecclésiarque de l’ Eglise de Constantinople Sylvestre Syropoulos sur le Concile de
Florence (Paris: Institut Francais des Études Byzantines, 1971), 366, 29‐368, 7.
30
Siniossoglou, “Plethon and the Philosophy of Nationalism,” 418.
31
C. Livanos, “The Conflict between Scholarios and Plethon: Religion and
Communal Identity in Early Modern Greece,” in Modern Greek Literature:
Critical Essays, ed. F. Jones et al. (London/New York: Routledge, 2004), 23-40.
180 Chapter Eight

he supported that he did not think like the Hellenes.32 Besides the religious
context, where Hellene meant pagan, Scholarios frequently considered
himself and his fellow Byzantines “Hellenes” and their motherland as
“Hellas.”33 Moreover, he admitted that he was an offspring of the Hellenes
(Ἑλλήνων γάρ ἐσμέν παῖδες)34 and Constantinople was the motherland of
the Hellenic genos at Scholarios’ times (τῆς καλλίστης τῶν ἐν τῇ γῇ
πόλεων, ἃμα δέ καί πατρίδος τῷ νῦν ἐλληνικῷ γένει).35 Of seminal
importance is his admission that he was anxious about the possible
extinction of the Hellenic genos because the Hellenes were the best among
the human race

Ἂγχομαι δεινῶς ἐπί τῷ τοῦ γένους ὀλέθρῳ. Γένους, ὁ τῶν ἐπί γῆς τό
κάλλιστον ἦν, σοφία διαλάμπον, φρονήσει τεθηλός, εὐνομίαις ἀνθοῦν,
καλοῖς πάσι κατάκομον. Τίς οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ βελτίστους Ἓλληνας ἀνθρώπων
πάντων γενέσθαι;36

32
Gennadios Scholarios, “Réfutation de l’Erreur Judaïque (1464),” in Greek:
Ἐλεγχος τῆς Ἰουδαϊκῆς νῦν Πλάνης ἔκ τε τῆς Γραφῆς καὶ τῶν Πραγμάτων καὶ τῆς
Πρὸς τὴν Χριστιανικὴν Ἀλήθειαν Παραθέσεως: ἐν Σχήματι Διαλόγου, in Œuvres
Complètes de Gennade Scholarios, in Greek: Γενναδίου τοῦ Σχολαρίου Ἅπαντα τὰ
Εὑρισκόμενα, ed. L. Petit et al., vol. 3 (Paris: Maison de la Bonne Presse, 1930),
235.
33
A. D. Angelou, “ “Who am I?” Scholarios’ Answers and the Hellenic Identity,”
in Philhellene: Studies in Honour of Robert Browning, C. N. Constantinides et al.
(Venice: Istituto Ellenico di Studi Bizantini e Postbizantini di Venezia, 1996), 1-
19.
34
Gennadios Scholarios, “Premier Dialogue sur la Procession du Saint-Esprit
(1446),” in Greek: Τοῦ Αὐτοῦ Σοφωτάτου καὶ Λογιωτάτου κὺρ Γεωργίου τοῦ
Σχολαρίου Διάλογος “Νεόφρων ἢ Ἀερομυθία,” in Œuvres Complètes de Gennade
Scholarios, in Greek: Γενναδίου τοῦ Σχολαρίου Ἅπαντα τὰ Εὑρισκόμενα, ed. L.
Petit et al., vol. 3 (Paris: Maison de la Bonne Presse, 1930), 13.
35
Gennadios Scholarios, “Lettre Pastorale sur la Prise de Constantinople. Gennade
Parle de Renoncer à la Dignité Patriarcale (1455),” in Greek: Γενναδίου τοῦ
Πατριάρχου ἐπὶ τῇ Ἁλώσει τῆς Πόλεως καὶ τῇ Παραιτήσει τῆς Ἀρχιερωσύνης, in
Œuvres Complètes de Gennade Scholarios, in Greek: Γενναδίου τοῦ Σχολαρίου
Ἅπαντα τὰ Εὑρισκόμενα, ed. L. Petit et al., vol. 4 (Paris: Maison de la Bonne
Presse, 1935), 211.
36
Gennadios Scholarios, “Lamentation de Scholarios sur les malheurs de sa vie
(1460),” in Greek: Γενναδίου Θρῆνος·Ἰουνίου κη, Ἰνδικτίονος Ὀγδόης·ἐν τῷ Ὄρει
τοῦ Μενοικέως ἐν τῇ Μονῇ τοῦ Τιμίου Προδρόμου, in Œuvres Complètes de
Gennade Scholarios s, in Greek: Γενναδίου τοῦ Σχολαρίου Ἅπαντα τὰ
Εὑρισκόμενα, ed. L. Petit et al., vol. 1 (Paris: Maison de la Bonne Presse, 1928),
285.
 Byzantine Philosophers of the 15th Century on Identity and Otherness 181

From his part, Scholarios did not share Pletho’s and Apostolis’
skepticism for the Latins.37 According to Scholarios, the progress of the
Latins on Aristotle and Plato was admirable and their knowledge of Greek
philosophy was almost equal to that of the ancient Greeks.38 He did not
refrain from studying and commenting on works of major Scholastics such
as Aquinas, because he was persuaded that the diffusion of Latin
philosophy would benefit the industrious youth in the Greek-speaking
territories. As a consequence, Scholarios did not share Pletho’s fear of
cultural alienation of the genos; his fears concentrated rather on the
extinction of the genos. Instead, he believed that the level of education in
15th century Byzantiun was low. In fact, with the exception of a handful of
people, there was no Byzantine cultural elite.39 It was indispensable for the
Byzantines to benefit from the progress of the Latin world. The Latins
learned, adopted and developed ancient Greek philosophy and the
Byzantines should benefit from their progress.40 Scholarios supported that
the Byzantines should not exclusively imitate or study the ancient Greeks.
That was not enough in their epoch; instead, they ought to study and
incorporate the enhanced version of Greek philosophy that the Latins
would offer them. It is obvious that Scholarios, contrary to commonly held
view, did not reject the Hellenic identity on grounds that have nothing to
do with Christian religion. It seems that he felt a connection with the
Hellenes of classical antiquity and thought of himself as a Hellene, besides
a Christian and a Roman. However, he did not approve of the idea that
Hellenism as an imitation or inspiration of classical antiquity, as was
suggested by Pletho in a general sense. Rather, he aimed at a renewed and
upgraded Hellenism, enriched by the best aspects of the Latin culture; a
modern Hellenism capable of corresponding to the pressing needs of the
15th century.

37
C. Livanos, Greek Tradition and Latin Influence in the Work of George
Scholarios: Alone Against All of Europe (New York: Gorgias Press LLC, 2006),
74-86.
38
Gennadios Scholarios, “Discours Justificatif de Scholarios Accusé de Latinism,”
in Œuvres Complètes de Gennade Scholarios, ed. L. Petit et al., vol. 1 (Paris:
Maison de la Bonne Presse, 1928), 386; Gennadios Scholarios, “Lettres Signées:
‘Georges Scholarios, À ses Élèves’,” in Greek: Γεωργίου Κουρτέζη τοῦ Σχολαρίου
Ἐπιστολαί. Τοῦ Αὐτοῦ τοῖς Ὁμιληταῖς, in Œuvres Complètes de Gennade
Scholarios, in Greek: Γενναδίου τοῦ Σχολαρίου Ἅπαντα τὰ Εὑρισκόμενα, ed. L.
Petit et al., vol. 4 (Paris: Maison de la Bonne Presse, 1935), 406.
39
Scholarios, “Lettres Signées,” 406-7.
40
Scholarios, “Discours Justificatif,” 386; Scholarios, “Lettres Signées,” 406.
182 Chapter Eight

Nonetheless, the discussion of the Greek identity in the 15th century

should not be limited to Pletho’s entourage and his rivals. An
exceptionally interesting confrontation, which touches on issues of
identity,41 is the one between Georgios Trapezuntios Cretensis (c.1395-
c.1472), otherwise known as George of Trebizond, and Bessarion.

Despite his first steps in the path of philosophy being Platonic,42

Trapezuntios gradually became the strongest critic of Plato and a fanatic
defender of Aristotle.43 In contrast to those who argue that the differences
between Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy are not so intense and could
be mediated under proper reading and interpretation, Trapezuntios opted
for the position that Plato falls short of Aristotle in all philosophical
disciplines. The work of Trapezuntios where he developed with greater
clarity and purity his views on the relationship of the philosophies of Plato
and Aristotle is Comparatio Philosophorum Platonis et Aristotelis (1458).
This work caused a lot of comments and reactions, being the first book
where a confrontation between Platonic and Aristotelian philosophies was
developed and presented to the Latin speaking audience, a confrontation
which had been growing over the centuries in the Eastern Roman
Empire.44 Pletho’s De Differentiis was written earlier but in Greek,

41
H. Lamers, Greece Reinvented: Transformations of Byzantine Hellenism in
Renaissance Italy (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 149-153.
42
D. J. Geanakoplos, Constantinople and the West (Wisconsin: The University of
Wisconsin Press, 1989), 55; Felix Gilbert, “The Venetian Constitution in
Florentine Political Thought,” in Florentine Studies: Politics and Society in
Renaissance Florence, ed. Nicolai Rubenstein (Evanston: Northwestern University
Press, 1968), 463-500; J. Hankins, Plato in the Italian Renaissance, vol. 1 (Leiden,
New York, København, Köln: Brill, 1990), 180; J. Monfasani, George of
Trebizond: A Biography and a Study of His Rhetoric and Logic (Leiden: Brill,
1976), 18-19, 73, 102, 167-168; J. Monfasani, “Nicholas of Cusa, the Byzantines,
and the Greek Language,” in Nicolaus Cusanus Zwischen Deutschland und Italien,
ed. Martin Thurner (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2002), 220-221; V. Syros,
“Between Chimera and Charybdis: Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Views on the
Political Organization of the Italian City-States,” Journal of Early Modern History
14 (2010): 473-477.
43
Monfasani, George of Trebizond, 19.
44
P. O. Kristeller, “Byzantine and Western Platonism in the Fifteenth Century,” in
Renaissance Concepts of Man and other Essays, ed. P. O. Kristeller (New York:
Harper & Row, 1972), 86-109; Monfasani, George of Trebizond, 201; J.
Monfasani, “Marsilio Ficino and the Plato-Aristotle Controversy,” in Marsilio
Ficino: His Theology, His Philosοphy, His Legacy, ed. Michael J. B. Allen et al.
(Leiden: Brill, 2002), 179-202.
 Byzantine Philosophers of the 15th Century on Identity and Otherness 183

reducing greatly its wide recognition by the Latin milieu.45 In his work,
Trapezuntios attempted to provide an explanation of how he came to
disown Plato and became a supporter of Aristotle.

According to Trapezuntios, though he considered himself sufficiently

educated when he moved to Italy (1416), he had not studied in depth the
entire philosophy of Plato before 1430. Around the same year, when
Trapezuntios read for the first time Plato’s Gorgias, he felt discomfort and
aversion towards Plato.46 Trapezuntios studied Gorgias because he had
decided to base the career of his dreams on rhetoric.47 More specifically,
he found that the studies of rhetoric in 15th century Italy were in an
embryonic stage. Moreover, he believed that he could win recognition,
fame, reputation, good office and money if he presented Greek rhetorical
thought in a convincing and analytic way, as it was developed in late
antiquity and during the Byzantine period. When he read Plato’s Gorgias
in more details, he understood that the attack Plato unleashed on rhetoric
and the orators could undermine the validity of rhetoric and ruin his plans
for an enviable career in Italy. Consequently, he had to respond to Plato
and prove the unreality of his claims.48

One of Trapezuntios’ arguments refers to Greek history. The way of

articulation and the content of the argument allow readings related to
issues of identity and otherness. Particularly, in Comparatio
Philosophorum Platonis et Aristotelis, Trapezuntios related his displeasure
from Plato’s attack to the four liberators of Greece, namely Miltiades
(540-489), Themistocles (527-459), Pericles (495-429) and Cimon (510-
450).49 In Gorgias, when Socrates was discussing with Calicles, he raised
questions about whether rhetoric may prove beneficial for the city. Did the
orators have the possibility to make people better or worse, not only

45
Monfasani, George of Trebizond, 208.
46
Georgius Trapezuntius, Comparationes Phylosophorum Aristotelis et Platonis
(Venetiis: 1523), f.O5r-P2r.
47
L. Green, “The Reception of Aristotle’s Rhetoric in the Renaissance,” in
Peripatetic Rhetoric After Aristotle, eds. W. W. Fortenbaugh, D. C. Mirhady (New
Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1994), 320-328; W. Rebhorn, Renaissance
Debates on Rhetoric (Ithaca NY/London: Cornell University Press, 2000), 27.
48
Hankins, Plato, 168-170; Monfasani, George of Trebizond, 18-19; P. Schulz,
“George Gemistos Plethon (ca. 1360-1454), George of Trebizond (1396-1472),
and Cardinal Bessarion (1403-1472): The Controversy between Platonists and
Aristotelians in the Fifteenth Century,” in Philosophers of the Renaissance, ed. P.
R. Blum (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2010), 27.
49
Trapezuntius, Comparationes, f.O5r-P2r.
184 Chapter Eight

during the time of the reciprocate dialogue but also in the past? Initially,
Socrates answered Calicles that he knows no such orator. The spontaneous
response of the obviously-annoyed Calicles was that such orators existed,
namely Themistocles, Cimon, Miltiades, and even Pericles, whom even
Socrates had time to listen to. Socrates answered Calicles with a variety of
arguments, the common core of which is that the role of a politician is in
his interventions and reasoning to make citizens better and to develop his
city at all levels, which is something he considers non-negotiable. In light
of these positions, Socrates motivated Calicles to rethink his argument for
the contribution of Themistocles, Cimon, Miltiades and Pericles. Calicles
insisted that indeed these four made the citizens better and not worse.
Socrates replied making his question more specific: were the Athenians
better at the beginning of Pericles’ political career or at its end? Calicles
found difficulty in answering. Socrates argued that it is said that during
Pericles’ times the Athenians were slow, cowards, greedy and loquacious.
With a series of questions and answers, Socrates led Calicles to the
conclusion that the Athenians became worse during the time of Pericles’
governance which means that Pericles was not a good politician.
Furthermore, Socrates attributed the horrible fate of Themistocles, Cimon
and Miltiades to the fact that they did not care to properly educate the
Athenian people when they were in power as not to manifest so badly
against them. According to Socrates, they were not able to exercise neither
rhetoric nor flattery. These four politicians cared recklessly to fill the city
with projects without any concern for the citizens and their education
which caused a great political evil in Athens. Those who are at risk and
suffer from the citizens are not the real politicians, but those who pretend
to be politicians.50

Trapezuntios dealt with the same issue in a chapter entitled “De

invidia, et obtrectatione Platonis in quattuor viros graeciae salvatores”
(On Plato’s hatred and attack of Plato over of the four saviors of Greece).51
In a rhetorical outburst against Plato, Trapezuntios highlighted the scale of
ingratitude and hatred of the Athenian philosopher against the saviors—as
he calls them—of Greece which motivated Trapezuntios emotionally,
because he personally felt stateless.52 Trapezuntios declared that he tackled
the Platonic text in this manner because Plato confronts the people who
liberated the entire Greece reproachfully.53 Indeed, in many parts of his

50
Plato, Gorgias, 503c-519e.
51
Trapezuntius, Comparationes, f.O5r-P2r.
52
Ibid., f.O5r.
53
Ibid., f.O5r-O6r.
 Byzantine Philosophers of the 15th Century on Identity and Otherness 185

work, Trapezuntios addressed Plato in the second person, as if he

conversed directly with him. Trapezuntios was angry about the fact that
Plato did not find any other reason to write about the liberators of Greece,
except only to blame them. The four liberators were identified as patriots
whereby, based on the context, Trapezuntios does not mean by ‘homeland’
Athens but Greece.54 Similarly, it is of particular importance to note
Trapezuntios’ judgment that the peak of Greece—at every level: cultural,
institutional and military—occurred after the Persian wars and the huge
contribution made by these men resulting in winning the war. Without
their actions, philosophy would not have existed, neither spoken nor
written. He does not even hesitate to call them ‘fathers of Greece’, giving
them a status like that of the founding fathers of modern U.S.A.55
Furthermore, according to Trapezuntios, Darius’ campaign seemed to have
been against Greece and not the Athenians.56 Trapezuntios’ mention of the
entire Greece, and especially his wording, is declarative of the way he
treated the Persian wars. Nonetheless, the Athenians—not the Greeks
generally, repelled the Persians so as to liberate Greece on the happy day
of the battle in Marathon.57 It is crucial for the way Trapezuntios perceived
the Greco-Persian wars that, in his exhortation (1452) to Pope Nicholas V
(1397-1455), he equalized every enemy from the East—especially the
Persians—with the Turks;58 he compared the Greco-Persian Wars to the
threat posed by the Turks to the Byzantine Empire and Christian Europe
during his times. Trapezuntios gave the exact same dimension in the
address of the campaign of Xerxes by Themistocles. Trapezuntios
compared the subsequent fate of Themistocles when he was forced to
resort to Artaxerxes to that of Coriolanus.59 With regard to Cimon, the
praises of Trapezuntios are proportionate and have his contribution to the
liberation of Greece as their common axis. According to Trapezuntios, the
Greeks owe eternal honor and commemoration to Cimon.60 Trapezuntios
seized the chance to proudly declare that he is Greek (Grecus),61 as he did

54
Ibid., f.O6v.
55
Ibid.
56
Ibid.
57
Ibid.
58
J. Monfasani, Collectanea Trapezuntiana, Texts, Documents, and Bibliographies
of George of Trebizond (Binghamton, NY: Medieval & Renaissance Texts &
Studies in Conjunction with the Renaissance Society of America, 1984), 435.
59
Trapezuntius, Comparationes, f.O7r.
60
Ibid., f.O7r-O8v.
61
Ibid., f.P1r-P2v.
186 Chapter Eight

on multiple occasions in his texts.62 As a result, the Platonic text was

considered to be dangerous for the audience because it was able to
challenge the moral of the Greeks who, at the same time, were threatened
by the Turks.63 It is worth noting that Trapezuntios conceptualized the
combat between Turks and Christians through the lens of the ancient
Greek historian Herodotus.64

Trapezuntios then attacked Plato for his negative judgments related to

rhetoric. Trapezuntios’ references to patria—which he used instead of
Greece—become more numerous in the course of the chapter where he
praises the overall contribution of the four liberators. The word patria
enhances the bonds of the Greeks of antiquity to the Greeks living during
the end of the Byzantine Empire because there is a sense that they shared
something in common. The identification of patria and Greece becomes
more pronounced when Trapezuntios’ argumentation continues. It is noted
that Plato’s criticism was not addressed to Aristides who also contributed
to Greece, because the latter was not distinguished as an orator. Therefore,
on the altar of attack on rhetoric, Plato sacrificed the salvation of the
patria and belittled those who should be honored as demigods. It is
remarkable that Trapezuntios wrote in the first person plural, that ‘we
pushed Darius back, we authorized Xerxes to escape, we defeated
Mardonius and we achieved a triumph at Salamis, Marathon and the naval
battle of Artemisium. In these battles, some died to save us. With their
sacrifice and our victories, Greece was liberated’. In reality, it was
addressed to Plato who—ignoring all that—does not admit that Greece
would not exist at any level without these men. The first person plural is
indicative of Trapezuntios’ views on identity.65 Moreover, Trapezuntios’
interpretation of ancient Greek history and his parallelisms with the
dangers that the Greeks faced in the 15th century, proved his connection to
the Greek past and his perspective of continuity between ancient and
Modern Greeks. Trapezuntios felt free to praise the Greeks for their
contribution to world history and the same time blamed the Greeks of the
15th century for their perspectives on Greek history. He combined
Hellenocentrism with Hellenocriticism, as Lamers convincingly
suggested.66

62
Monfasani, Collectanea Trapezuntiana, 166, 193, 351, 383, 406.
63
Monfasani, Collectanea Trapezuntiana, 435-442.
64
Akisik, “Self and Other,” 189-194.
65
Trapezuntius, Comparationes, f.O8v-P2v.
66
Lamers, Greece Reinvented, 135.
 Byzantine Philosophers of the 15th Century on Identity and Otherness 187

Furthermore, in the exhortation to Pope Nicholas V, which he wrote in

order to motivate the Latins to help repel the Turks, Trapezuntios
identified himself as Grecus (Γραικός) and Christianus (maxime quia et
generis coniunctione -Grecus enim sum- et fide quia Christianus).67 The
significant separation is his attempt to show that he does not understand
the two terms to be identical. Moreover, it meant that Grecus is not
necessarily Christian, but rather Grecus could be Christian. Trapezuntios
clearly states that he did not adhere to the doctrines of the Greek Orthodox
Church when he wrote the letter. It is essential to realize that, in the mid-
15th century, someone would be Grecus without being Orthodox. As a
result, Trapezuntios’ reference questions Angelou’s argument that the
word ‘Hellene’ in the 15th century means “Greek Orthodox.”68 Moreover,
Trapezuntios’ reference is not a mechanical reproduction of the Latin
terminology; rather, it is accompanied by the identification with
Christianity and reflects Trapezuntios’ view on identity. While elsewhere
in this same letter as well as in other texts of Trapezuntios, addressed to
Mohammed the Conqueror and others,69 the term Greek (Γραικός) seems
to indicate those who are faithful in the doctrine of the Orthodox Church,
the passage which I quoted from the preface clearly distinguishes the
national identification from the religious one. In his Adversus Theodorum
Gazam in Perversionem Problematum Aristotelis (1456) Trapezuntios
wrote that “nemo est Graecus, qui [Graecos] Christianos70 esse
arbitretur.”71 Lamers interpreted Trapezuntios’ reference as an attempt to
present Greekness and Christianity as mutually exclusive.72 I suggest that
Lamers’ reading is not accurate and does not reflect Trapezuntios’
intentions. In the specific passage Trapezuntios blamed Pletho and referred
to his auditores as proponents of the view that “no one is Greek who holds
that the Greeks are Christians.” It is obvious that Trapezuntios did not
adhere to that view.

In addition, the word ‘Hellene’ (Ἓλλην) is sometimes used to designate

ethnic origin,73 especially for people of antiquity, but also as a synonym of

67
Monfasani, Collectanea Trapezuntiana, 435.
68
Angelou, “ “Who am I?,”” 1-19.
69
Monfasani, Collectanea Trapezuntiana, 266, 529, 570.
70
Monfasani, Collectanea Trapezuntiana, 416.
71
Georgius Trapezuntius, “Adversus Theodorum Gazam in Perversionem
Problematum Aristotelis,” in Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe, Humanist und
Staatsmann, ed. L Mohler (Aalen: Scientia Verlag Aalen, 1967), 303.
72
Lamers, Greece Reinvented, 136.
73
Ibid., 539, 550.
188 Chapter Eight

pagan.74 However, Trapezuntios chose the words ἐθνῶν75 and Ἑλλήνων76

to refer to pagans.77 In addition, the term Ἀνατολικοί (Orientals) is used for
religious purposes.78 Indeed, Trapezuntios did not waste the opportunity to
blame Pletho for trying to Hellenize the Eastern Church with his writings.
Obviously, Hellenization has nothing to do with idolatry completely, but
more generally with the Greek way of life along with the perspective and
culture of classical civilization.79 Trapezuntios refrained from referring to
the inhabitants of the Eastern Roman Empire as Hellenes, as other 15th
century intellectuals did. Moreover, in the exhortation to the Pope, he
referred to Miltiades and Themistocles as persons who were instrumental
in repelling the Asian danger, foreseeing essentially what was said about
the four liberators of Greece in Comparatio Philosophorum Platonis et
Aristotelis.80 Trapezuntios’ argument that the Pope should guarantee the
salvation of Europe by organizing its defense against the other religions is
particularly interesting.81 Besides his attempt to create a common
European identity, his reference separated the Greeks from their Eastern
neighbors and connected them to the fate of the ‘Catholic Europe’.
According to him, Greece and the rest of Europe share a common future. If
Greece fell, the rest of Europe would follow. Trapezuntios treated the Greci
as the fortress of Europe, arguing for a common European destiny for which
Greci could play a decisive role. We should bear in mind that the rest of the
Greek philosophers of the 15th century prefer instead words that means west
(Ἑσπέρας, Ἑσπερίων) in order to describe Europe and the Europeans.

We would say that Trapezuntios, after Pletho, dealt in his own way
with the issues of identity using a different perspective. From his
arguments and the way he reads ancient Greek history—especially the
conflicts with the Persians—it is clear that he thinks of Greece as his
patria, since he connects enthusiastically himself with its past. He did not
study it as an exemplary case, as Bessarion did, but he felt the connection
with the Greek past on the levels of history and national combats. This
level separated him completely from the religious and cultural one in
which the attitude towards the Greek past was different. Trapezuntios

74
Ibid., 550.
75
Ibid., 572.
76
Ibid., 550.
77
Ibid., 572.
78
Ibid., 531.
79
Ibid., 571.
80
Ibid., 436.
81
Ibid., 435-442.
 Byzantine Philosophers of the 15th Century on Identity and Otherness 189

perceives himself as a Greek, as a person connected to the Greek land and

the Greek past. He felt a generis coniunctio with an imaginary Greek
community.82 At the same time, he declares that he is also a Christian,
believing that someone who is connected and inspired by the Greek past
can be a Christian without one identity negating the other. He is concerned
about two positions which created a synthesis which, in the eyes of Pletho,
seemed to be at least strange. As a result, Siniossoglou’s claim that
“Byzantine humanists were Hellenes, not because they revived the religion
of the ancients, but because they deviated from Orthodoxy by
experimenting in varying degrees with ‘pagan’ philosophy and especially
Platonism”83 is untenable in view of Trapezuntios’ own writings. On the
contrary, Trapezuntios held that the Platonists, ancient and modern, were
an imminent threat to the Greek genos. Platonic philosophy was
responsible for the moral decline of the Greeks, especially the corruption
of the Greek mores. As a consequence the revival of Platonism in 15th
century threatened to destroy the healthy roots of Greek civilization and
eliminate the genos. Aristotelianism, Byzantine and Scholastic, was the
sole countervailing force.84 Despite Pletho’s and Trapezuntios’
disagreement, they both shared the view that the cultural alienation of the
Greek genos was the major threat: not the Turks and the Latins. The
others, the enemies, were not exclusively external; they were
predominantly internal, e.g. the Platonists. According to Pletho and
Trapezuntios identity was depended on the Greek intellectual history,
although they interpreted it in a totally different manner.

Cardinal Bessarion wanted to reply to the relevant chapter of

Trapezuntios’ Comparatio in his own work In Calumniatorem Platonis
(1469), which attempts to undo Trapezuntios’ work. Although he called
the four liberators ‘demagogues’,85 Bessarion stated that the four men—
namely Miltiades, Cimon, Themistocles and Pericles, seemed useful, not
only for Athens, but for all of Greece during the Greco-Persian wars.86
Bessarion defended Plato with the argument that the result of an act of
salvation alone—as was that of the Greco-Persian wars—was not enough;
so was the way of execution. Plato would not approve of their way. In

82
Lamers, Greece Reinvented, 138.
83
Siniossoglou, Radical Platonism, 26.
84
Trapezuntius, Comparationes, f.S7r-T3v.
85
Bessarion, “In Calumniatorem Platonis,” in Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe,
Humanist, und Staatsmann, Ludwig Mohler, ed., vol. 3 (Paderborn, 1923-1942;
reprint: Aalen, 1967), 544.
86
Bessarion, “In Calumniatorem,” 546.
190 Chapter Eight

Gorgias, Plato does not discuss the military successes of these men, nor
does he tackle whether they preserved their city with their victory. Instead,
he deals with their political activities, that is whether they rendered the
citizens better or whether they learned to win over themselves first and
then their opponents. Bessarion’s answer was that the four saviors were
demagogues because they used the average and demagogic rhetoric with
the intention to please rather than benefit.87 Bessarion thought that their
actions were responsible for the atrocious deeds of the Athenians who
made them hated in the eyes of their allies. The Athenian democracy was
the worst form of that regime without the four leaders trying to evolve the
regime of their city into another better form. Indeed, Bessarion argued for
the view that Greece was not saved in the naval battles of Salamis and
Artemisium; rather, it was rescued in the infantry battles of Marathon and
Plataea.88 His purpose is to question the importance of the strategic choice
of the four Athenian politicians who decided to remain in the naval combat
and ground the Athenian imperium on the navy. Bessarion wondered what
would be the benefit of the victories at Salamis and Artemisium if the
Persians had occupied mainland Greece with their innumerable army.
Without the battle of Plataea, nothing would have been declared and
Greece would not have remained free. The four liberators of Greece
contributed militarily, but they did not benefit their city on any other level.
Therefore, Plato was right to defend the truth and not the four generals.89
In the In Calumniatorem Platonis, Bessarion refers rarely and not
methodically to Greece and Hellenism which are concepts that clearly
appear more strongly in Trapezuntios’ Comparatio. In addition,
Bessarion’s text lacks the emotional tone of Trapezuntios’ text. Bessarion
intentionally keeps a distance with the topic under consideration.

On the contrary, in a letter to the Emperor Constantine Palaeologus,

Bessarion congratulates him personally and the Hellenes (ὃλως τοῖς
Ἓλλησι) on the construction of the fortifying wall in Corinth.90 In the same
letter, he refers to the Hellenes as our genos (ἡμέτερον γένος).91 In
addition, he declares that he is Hellene by genos.92 Nevertheless, in a letter
to Pletho, he does something unusual: in the closing paragraph, he writes
the date in two different manners: according to the Greeks—meaning the

87
Ibid., 546-548.
88
Ibid., 548.
89
Ibid., 548-552.
90
Ibid., 440.
91
Ibid., 447.
92
E. Mioni, Introduzione alla Paleografia Greca (Padua: Liviana, 1973), pl. XX.
 Byzantine Philosophers of the 15th Century on Identity and Otherness 191

Orthodox chronological system—and secondly starting from Alexander’s

the Great death. This is a clear indication of his growing archaism and his
engagement with antiquity.93 Moreover, he calls Pletho ‘the glory of
Hellas’.94 Addressing Theodoros Gaza (1398/1415-1475), Bessarion
expresses his anxiety for the fate of the Hellenes, since the deterioration of
education would lead to the extinction of Greek language. In that case, the
Hellenes would disappear.95 Copying Greek books would be a solution
since, otherwise, the cultural alienation of the 15th century elites would be
unavoidable.96 Finally, in his treatise “Εἰς τὸ ῥητὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τὸ ἐὰν
αὐτὸν θέλω μένειν, ἕως ἔρχομαι, τί πρὸς σέ;—In illud evangelii: Sic eum
volo manere, quid ad te?,” Bessarion places the Hellenes (Ἓλληνες) and
the Latins as the two opposing sides on doctrinal issues. The term Hellenes
(Ἓλληνες) describes the Orthodox of the Eastern Empire.97 It is obvious
that, according to Bessarion, someone would be Hellene and Orthodox at
the same time. Furthermore, continuity is stressed in Bessarion’s
encomium of Trebizond, his native city. Bessarion presented the history of
Trebizond as a straightforward line from classical Athens to his times.98

Ioannes Argyropoulos (c.1405-1487), a leading Aristotelian of the 15th

century in Italy,99 was a fervent supporter of the Hellenic identity. His
approach on identity includes the continuity of Hellenism from antiquity to
his epoch.100 Namely, he stated to the Emperor Constantine Palaeologus
(1405-1453) that his kingship should be in advantage of the Hellenic
genos and the common household of the Hellenes (τοῦ δ’ ἡμετέρου τουτουί
γένους καί τῆς κοινῆς ταύτης τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἐστίας).101 Moreover, he
connected himself with the ancient Greeks, since he implied that ancient
and Modern Greeks love to reflect on their passions; they are emotional.102

93
Bessarion, “In Calumniatorem,” 464.
94
Ibid., 469.
95
Ibid., 486.
96
Ibid., 478-479.
97
Ibid., 70-87.
98
Bessarion, “Eis Trapezounta,” in Greek: Εἰς Τραπεζοῦντα, ed. O. Lampsidis
Archeion Pontou 39 (1984): 3-75.
99
G. Steiris, “Argyropoulos John,” in Encyclopedia of Renaissance Philosophy,
ed. M. Sgarbi (Springer, 2015): 1-6, accessed October 30, 2015, doi:10.1007/978-
3-319-02848-4_19-1.
100
S. Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1985), 120.
101
Sp. Lambros, Argyropouleia, in Greek: Αργυροπούλεια (Athens: P. D.
Sakellariou, 1910), 27-28, 66.
102
Lambros, Argyropouleia, 10.
192 Chapter Eight

Argyropoulos’ view on identity is better described in an oration (Μονωδία

εἰς τόν αὐτοκράτορα Ἰωάννην τόν Παλαιολόγον) addressed to the Emperor
John VII (1392-1448).103 In this oration, he frequently refers to the
inhabitants of the remaining Eastern Roman Empire as Hellenes104 and
calls John ‘the King of Hellas’ (Ὦ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἣλιε βασιλεῦ).105 The same
stands for Constantine XI (1405-1453), the last emperor, who, according
to Argyropoulos, is the king of the Hellenes.106 Argyropoulos does not
hesitate to identify himself as a Hellene.107 In addition, he repeatedly
interpreted the historical events of his times in connection to the ancient
Greek history. I suggest that Argyropoulos, as Trapezuntios in his
Comparatio, narrates the Greek history as a continuum.108 Argyropoulos’
writings are characterized by an intense patriotism, which is in fact a type
of “Hellenism” different from that of Pletho. Although Argyropoulos
shares with Pletho a strong archaism,109 he does not oppose the genos of
the Hellenes to the Orthodox dogma and remains a Christian,110 even a
Catholic. According to Trapezuntios, Bessarion and Argyropoulos,
Hellenic identity does not presuppose the acceptance of the Orthodox
doctrine.

To sum up, all the issues of identity are usually treated dualistically;
synthesis is not usually an option. Greek philosophers of the 15th century
contributed to the quest of a Greek identity by synthesizing various
elements. Pletho and Apostolis aimed at the refusal of the imperialism of
Latin culture, which threatened to alienate the Greek culture. Pletho and
his entourage did not simply want to preserve Greek philosophy or
religion; they predominantly attempted to prevent the cultural alienation of
the Greek intelligentsia in order to safeguard the genos from the threats of
both the Turks and the Latins. Scholarios felt a connection with the
Hellenes of classical antiquity and thought of himself as a Hellene, besides
a Christian and a Roman. However, he did not approve of the idea that
Hellenism as an imitation or inspiration of classical antiquity, as was

103
Ibid., 1-7.
104
Ibid.
105
Ibid., 7.
106
Ibid., 29, 37, 47.
107
Ibid., 30, 66.
108
Ibid., 29-47.
109
Ibid., 7, 32, 36, 41, 44.
110
Ibid., 22, 35; J. Monfasani, “Platonic Paganism in the Fifteenth Century,” in
Reconsidering the Renaissance, ed. M. A. Di Cesare (Binghamton, NY: Medieval
& Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1992), 56-57.
 Byzantine Philosophers of the 15th Century on Identity and Otherness 193

suggested by Pletho. Rather, he aimed at a renewed and upgraded

Hellenism, enriched by the best aspects of the Latin culture. Trapezuntios
perceives himself as a Greek, as a person connected to the Greek land and
the Greek past. At the same time, he declares that he is also a Christian,
believing that someone who is connected and inspired by the Greek past
can be a Christian without one identity negating the other. According to
Bessarion’s theological treatises, someone would be Hellene and Orthodox
at the same time. While Pletho’s and Scholarios’ perspective, mainly in
their philosophical works, is predominantly cultural and political,
Argyropoulos and Trapezuntios based their views of identity on continuity
and history. They felt the need to clarify the bonds which unite the Greeks,
namely common history and otherness, the threat posed by the enemies. It
is obvious that the basis of philosophical elites’ Hellenism in the 15th
century was not only common language and literary tradition, but also
historical continuity and cultural otherness, despite Mango’s interpretative
pattern.111 As a consequence commonly held views112, according to which
Hellenism, as cultural and historical identity, and Christian religion were
incompatible, are not supported by the writings of the most prominent
philosophers of the 15th century. Late Byzantine scholars lamented the
decline of the former Eastern Roman Empire and sought proud in ancient
Greek civilization. In this attempt, otherness was crucial. They do not
specify who the others are; they all agree that the Turks were a threat, but
they are not in accord on whether the Latins were a threat or not. Pletho
and Apostolis opposed the Latins, while Scholarios and Bessarion had a
different view. In addition, Trapezuntios included Plato and the Platonists
to the group of the others, of those who threatened the extinction of the
genos.113 Besides the quest in their past and present, their perception of the
others defined their views on identity.

111
Harris, “Being a Byzantine after Byzantium,” 34; C. Mango, “Discontinuity
with the Classical Past in Byzantium,” in Byzantium and the Classical Tradition,
ed. M. Mullett and R. Scott (Birmingham: Centre for Byzantine Studies 1981), 48-
57.
112
I. Koubourlis, La Formation de L’Histoire Nationale Grecque. L’Apport de
Spyridon Zambélios (1815-1881), Collection Histoire des Idées 5 (Athènes:
EIE/INE, 2005), 54; P. Pizanias, “From Rayas to Greek Citizen, Enlightenment
and Revolution 1750-1832” in Greek: Από Ραγιάς Έλληνας Πολίτης, Διαφωτισμός
και Επανάσταση 1750-1832,” in The Greek Revolution of 1821, An European
Event, in Greek: Η Ελληνική Επανάσταση του 1821, Ένα Ευρωπαϊκό Γεγονός, ed.
P. Pizanias (Athens: Kedros, 2009), 14.
113
Lamers, Greece Reinvented, 151-152.
194 Chapter Eight

References
Akisik, A. “Self and Other in the Renaissance: Laonikos Chalkokondyles
and Late Byzantine Intellectuals.” PhD diss., Harvard University,
Cambridge MA, 2013.
Angelou, A. D. “‘Who am I?’ Scholarios’ Answers and the Hellenic
Identity.” In Philhellene: Studies in Honour of Robert Browning,
edited by C. N. Constantinides, N. Panagiotakes, E. Jeffreys, A.
Angelou. Venice: Istituto Ellenico di Studi Bizantini e Postbizantini di
Venezia, 1996.
Apostolis, Michael. “Ad Theodori Gazae pro Aristotele De Substantia
Adversus Plethonem Obiectiones.” In Greek: Πρὸς τὰς Ὑπὲρ
Ἀριστοτέλους Περὶ Οὐσίας Κατὰ Πλήθωνος Θεοδώρου τοῦ Γαζῆ
Ἀντιλήψεις. In Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe, Humanist und
Staatsmann-Γ’. Vol. 3, edited by Ludwig Mohler. Paderborn:
Schöningh 1923-1942. Reprint: Aalen: Scientia Verlag Aalen 1967.
Athanasiadi, P. Julian (Routledge Revivals): An Intellectual Biography.
New York: Routledge, 2014.
Bargeliotes, Leonidas. “The Enlightenment and the Hellenic ‘Genos’:
From Plethon to Vulgaris.” Skepsis 20 (2009): 44–6.
Bessarion. “In Calumniatorem Platonis.” In Kardinal Bessarion als
Theologe, Humanist, und Staatsmann, edited by Ludwig Mohler, vol.
3. Paderborn, 1923-1942; reprint: Aalen: Scientia Verlag Aalen, 1967.
—. “Eis Trapezounta.” In Greek: Εἰς Τραπεζοῦντα. Archeion Pontou 39
(1984): 3-75.
Evangeliou, C. Hellenic Philosophy: Origin and Character. Aldershot:
Ashgate Publishing, 2012.
—. Themata Politica: Hellenic and Euro-Atlantic. Newcastle: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing, 2008.
Garnsey, P. “Gemistus Plethon and Platonic Political Philosophy.” In
Transformations of Late Antiquity: Essays for Peter Brown, edited by
Philip Rousseau and Emmanuel Papoutsakis. Aldershot: Ashgate,
2009.
Geanakoplos, D. J. Byzantium: Church, Society, and Civilization Seen
Through Contemporary Eyes. Chicago and London: University of
Chicago Press, 1984.
—. Constantinople and the West. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin
Press, 1989.
Gilbert, Felix. “The Venetian Constitution in Florentine Political
Thought.” In Florentine Studies: Politics and Society in Renaissance
 Byzantine Philosophers of the 15th Century on Identity and Otherness 195

Florence, edited by Nicolai Rubenstein. Evanston: Northwestern

University Press, 1968.
Green, Lawrence. “The Reception of Aristotle’s Rhetoric in the
Renaissance.” In Peripatetic Rhetoric After Aristotle, edited by
William W. Fortenbaugh and David C. Mirhady. New Brunswick:
Transaction Publishers, 1994.
Hankins, J. Plato in the Italian Renaissance. Vol. 1. Leiden, New York,
København, Köln: Brill, 1990.
Harris, J. “Being a Byzantine after Byzantium: Hellenic Identity in
Renaissance Italy.” Kambos: Cambridge Papers in Modern Greek 8
(2000): 25–44.
Hladky, V. The Philosophy of Gemistos Plethon: Platonism in Late
Byzantium, Between Hellenism and Orthodoxy. Farnham, UK/
Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 2014.
Karamanolis, G. “Plethon and Scholarios on Aristotle.” In Byzantine
Philosophy and its Ancient Sources, edited by K. Ierodiakonou.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Koubourlis, I. La Formation de L’Histoire Nationale Grecque. L’Apport
de Spyridon Zambélios (1815-1881), Collection Histoire des Idées 5.
Athènes: EIE/INE, 2005.
Kristeller, P. O. “Byzantine and Western Platonism in the Fifteenth
Century.” In Renaissance Concepts of Man and other Essays, edited
by. P. O. Kristeller. New York: Harper & Row, 1972.
Kyros, A. Vēssariōn ho Hellēn, Aetos. In Greek: Βησσαρίων ο Έλλην.
Vol. 1. Athens: Aetos A. E., 1947.
Lagarde, B. “Le De Differentiis de Pléthon d'Après l'Autographe de la
Marcienne.” Byzantion 43 (1973): 312-343.
Laiou, A. E. “From Roman to Hellene.” In The Byzantine Fellowship
Lectures- Number One, edited by N. M. Vaporis. Brookline, ΜΑ: Holy
Cross Theological School Press, 1974.
Lamers, H., Greece Reinvented: Transformations of Byzantine Hellenism
in Renaissance Italy. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Lambros, Sp. Argyropouleia. In Greek: Αργυροπούλεια. Athens: P. D.
Sakellariou, 1910.
Laurent, V. Les “Mémoires” du Grand Ecclésiarque de l’église de
Constantinople Sylvestre Syropoulos sur le Concile de Florence. Paris:
Institut Francais des Études Byzantines, 1971.
Linardos, N. “The Religious and National Identity of Georgios Gemistos
Plethon: an Example of Changing Identities in the Greek World.” In
Greek: Η Θρησκευτική και Εθνική Ταυτότητα του Γεωργίου Γεμιστού
196 Chapter Eight

Πλήθωνος: Ένα Παράδειγμα Μεταβαλλόμενων Ταυτοτήτων στον

Ελληνικό Κόσμο.” Accessed October 30, 2015.
http://www.eens.org/EENS_congresses/2010/Linardos_Nikolaos.pdf.
Livanios, D. “The Quest for Hellenism: Religion, Nationalism, and
Collective Identities in Greece, 1453-1913.” In Hellenisms: Culture,
Identity, and Ethnicity from Antiquity to Modernity, edited by K.
Zacharia. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008.
Livanos, C. “The Conflict between Scholarios and Plethon: Religion and
Communal Identity in Early Modern Greece.” In Modern Greek
Literature: Critical Essays, edited by F. Jones, G. Nagy, A.
Stavrakopoulou. London/New York: Routledge, 2004.
—. Greek Tradition and Latin Influence in the Work of George
Scholarios: Alone Against All of Europe. New York: Gorgias Press
LLC, 2006.
Mango, C. “Discontinuity with the Classical Past in Byzantium.” In
Byzantium and the Classical Tradition, edited by M. Mullett and R.
Scott. Birmingham: Centre for Byzantine Studies 1981.
Masai, F. “Pléthon, l’Averroïsme et le problème religieux.” In Actes du
colloque international sur le Néoplatonisme, Éditions du Centre
National de la Recherche Scientifique, edited by P. M. Schul & P.
Hadot. Éditions du CNRS: Paris, 1971.
Mavroudi, M. “Plethon as a Subversive and His Reception in the Islamic
World.” In Power and Subversion in Byzantium. Papers from the
Forty-third Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham,
March 2010. Publications of the Society for the Promotion of
Byzantine Studies 17, edited by. D. Angelov & M. Saxby. Farnham:
Ashgate Variorum, 2013.
Mioni, E. Introduzione alla Paleografia Greca. Padua: Liviana, 1973.
Monfasani, J. George of Trebizond: A Biography and a Study of His
Rhetoric and Logic. Leiden: Brill, 1976.
—. “Platonic Paganism in the Fifteenth Century.” In Reconsidering the
Renaissance, edited by M. A. Di Cesare. Binghamton, NY: Medieval
& Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1992.
—. Collectanea Trapezuntiana, Texts, Documents, and Bibliographies of
George of Trebizond. Binghamton, NY: Medieval & Renaissance
Texts & Studies in Conjunction with the Renaissance Society of
America, 1984.
—. “Marsilio Ficino and the Plato-Aristotle Controversy.” In Marsilio
Ficino: His Theology, His Philosophy, His Legacy, edited by Michael
J. B. Allen, Valery Rees & Martin Davies. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
 Byzantine Philosophers of the 15th Century on Identity and Otherness 197

—. “Nicholas of Cusa, the Byzantines, and the Greek Language.” In

Nicolaus Cusanus Zwischen Deutschland und Italien, edited by Martin
Thurner. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2002.
Nikolaou, Th. Georgios Gemistos Plethon on Politics and Law. In Greek:
Αἱ περὶ Πολιτείας καὶ Δικαίου Ἰδέαι τοῦ Γ. Πλήθωνος Γεμιστοῦ.
Salonica: Centre for Byzantine Research, 1974.
Peritore, N. P. “The Political Thought of Gemistos Plethon: A Renaissance
Byzantine Reformer.” Polity 10, 2 (1977): 173-177.
Pizanias, P. “From Rayas to Greek Citizen, Enlightenment and Revolution
1750-1832.” In Greek: Από Ραγιάς Έλληνας Πολίτης, Διαφωτισμός
και Επανάσταση 1750-1832.” In I Elliniki Epanastasi tou 1821, Ena
Europaiko Gegonos. In Greek: Η Ελληνική Επανάσταση του 1821,
Ένα Ευρωπαϊκό Γεγονός, edited by. P. Pizanias. Athens: Kedros, 2009.
Plethon, Georgios Gemistos. “Ad Regem Emmanuelem, De Rebus
Peloponnesiacis, Oratio 1.” In Greek: Πρὸς τὸν Βασιλέα
Ἐμμανουήλον, Περὶ τῶν ἐν Πελλοπονήσῳ Πραγμάτων, Λόγος Α΄. In
PG 160, ed. J. P. Migne. Paris, 1866.
—. “Contra Scholarii Defensionem Aristotelis.” In Greek: Πρὸς τὰς Ὑπὲρ
Ἀριστοτέλους Γεωργίου τοῦ Σχολαρίου Ἀντιλήψεις. In PG 160, edited
by. J. P. Migne. Paris, 1866.
Rebhorn, Wayne. Renaissance Debates on Rhetoric. Ithaca NY/London:
Cornell University Press, 2000.
Runciman, S. The Great Church in Captivity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1985.
Scholarios, Gennadios “Réfutation de l’Erreur Judaïque (1464).” Ιn Greek:
Ἐλεγχος τῆς Ἰουδαϊκῆς νῦν Πλάνης ἔκ τε τῆς Γραφῆς καὶ τῶν
Πραγμάτων καὶ τῆς Πρὸς τὴν Χριστιανικὴν Ἀλήθειαν Παραθέσεως: ἐν
Σχήματι Διαλόγου. Ιn Œuvres Complètes de Gennade Scholarios. In
Greek: Γενναδίου τοῦ Σχολαρίου Ἅπαντα τὰ Εὑρισκόμενα, edited by
L. Petit M. Jugie, & X. A. Siderides. Vol. 3. Paris: Maison de la Bonne
Presse, 1930.
—. “Discours Justificatif de Scholarios Accusé de Latinism, in Œuvres
Complètes de Gennade Scholarios..edited by L. Petit, M. Jugie, & X.
A. Siderides. Vol. 1. Paris: Maison de la Bonne Presse, 1928.
—. “Épître Dédicatoire à Constantin Paléologue.” In Greek: Τῷ
Ὑψιλοτάτῳ καὶ Πανευτυχεστάτῳ Δεσπότῃ κῦρ Κωνσταντίνῳ τῷ
Παλαιολόγῳ. In Œuvres Complètes de Gennade Scholarios. In Greek:
Γενναδίου τοῦ Σχολαρίου Ἅπαντα τὰ Εὑρισκόμενα, edited by. L. Petit,
M. Jugie, & X. A. Siderides. Vol. 7. Paris: Maison de la Bonne Presse,
1936.
198 Chapter Eight

—. “Γενναδίου Θρῆνος·Ἰουνίου κη, Ἰνδικτίονος Ὀγδόης·ἐν τῷ Ὄρει τοῦ

Μενοικέως ἐν τῇ Μονῇ τοῦ Τιμίου Προδρόμου. In Œuvres Complètes
de Gennade Scholarios. In Greek: Γενναδίου τοῦ Σχολαρίου Ἅπαντα
τὰ Εὑρισκόμενα, edited by L. Petit, M. Jugie, & X. A. Siderides. Vol.
1. Paris: Maison de la Bonne Presse, 1928.
—. “Lettre Pastorale sur la Prise de Constantinople. Gennade Parle de
Renoncer à la Dignité Patriarcale (1455).” Ιn Greek: Γενναδίου τοῦ
Πατριάρχου ἐπὶ τῇ Ἁλώσει τῆς Πόλεως καὶ τῇ Παραιτήσει τῆς
Ἀρχιερωσύνης. In Œuvres Complètes de Gennade Scholarios. In
Greek: Γενναδίου τοῦ Σχολαρίου Ἅπαντα τὰ Εὑρισκόμενα, edited by
L. Petit, M. Jugie, & X. A. Siderides. Vol. 4. Paris: Maison de la
Bonne Presse, 1935.
—. “Lettres Signées: ‘Georges Scholarios, À ses Élèves’.” Ιn Greek:
Γεωργίου Κουρτέζη τοῦ Σχολαρίου Ἐπιστολαί. Τοῦ Αὐτοῦ τοῖς
Ὁμιληταῖς. In Œuvres Complètes de Gennade Scholarios. In Greek:
Γενναδίου τοῦ Σχολαρίου Ἅπαντα τὰ Εὑρισκόμενα, edited by L. Petit,
M. Jugie, & X. A. Siderides. Vol. 4. Paris: Maison de la Bonne Presse,
1935.
—. “Premier dialogue sur la procession du Saint-Esprit (1446).” In Greek:
Τοῦ Αὐτοῦ Σοφωτάτου καὶ Λογιωτάτου κὺρ Γεωργίου τοῦ Σχολαρίου
Διάλογος “Νεόφρων ἢ Ἀερομυθία.” In Œuvres Complètes de Gennade
Scholarios. In Greek: Γενναδίου τοῦ Σχολαρίου Ἅπαντα τὰ
Εὑρισκόμενα, edited by L. Petit M. Jugie, & X. A. Siderides. Vol. 3.
Paris: Maison de la Bonne Presse, 1930.
—. “Lettre à la Princesse du Péloponnèse sur le “Traité des Lois” de
Gemistos Pléthon (1454-1456).” In Greek: Γενναδίου Ταπεινοῦ:
Ἐπιστολὴ τῇ Βασιλίσσῃ Περὶ τοῦ Βιβλίου τοῦ Γεμιστοῦ. In Œuvres
Complètes de Gennade Scholarios. In Greek: Γενναδίου τοῦ
Σχολαρίου Ἅπαντα τὰ Εὑρισκόμενα, edited by L. Petit, M. Jugie, & X.
A. Siderides. Vol. 4. Paris: Maison de la Bonne Presse, 1935.
Schulz, Peter. “George Gemistos Plethon (ca. 1360-1454), George of
Trebizond (1396-1472), and Cardinal Bessarion (1403-1472): The
Controversy between Platonists and Aristotelians in the Fifteenth
Century.” In Philosophers of the Renaissance, edited by. Paul Richard
Blum. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2010.
Ševčenko, I. “The Decline of Byzantium Seen Through the Eyes of Its
Intellectuals.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 15 (1961): 167-186.
Siniossoglou, N. Radical Platonism in Byzantium: Illumination and
Utopia in Gemistos Plethon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2011.
 Byzantine Philosophers of the 15th Century on Identity and Otherness 199

—. “Plethon and the Philosophy of Nationalism.” In Georgios Gemistos

Plethon, The Byzantine and the Latin Renaissance, edited by P. R.
Blum & J. Matula. Olomouc: Palacky University Press, 2014.
Steiris G. & Lyckoura N. “La Perception et Valorization de la Philosophie
Arabe Dans le Résumé de la Somme Théologique de Saint Thomas
d’Aquin de Georges Gennade Scholarios: les cas d’Avicenne et
Averroès.” In Marges de la Philosophie Byzantine, edited by Georgios
Arabatzis. Athenes: Institut de Livre Kardamitsa, 2013.
Steiris, G. “Argyropoulos John.” Encyclopedia of Renaissance Philosophy
(2015): 1-6. Accessed October 30, 2015. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-
02848-4_19-1.
Svoronos, Nikos. The Greek Nation, Genesis and Configuration of
Modern Hellenism. In Greek: Το Ελληνικό Έθνος, Γένεση και
Διαμόρφωση του Νέου Ελληνισμού. Athens: Polis 2004.
Syros, Vasileios. “Between Chimera and Charybdis: Byzantine and Post-
Byzantine Views on the Political Organization of the Italian City-
States.” Journal of Early Modern History 14 (2010): 451-504.
Trapezuntius, Georgius. Comparationes Philosophorum Aristotelis et
Platonis. Venetiis, 1523.
—. “Adversus Theodorum Gazam in Perversionem Problematum
Aristotelis.” In Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe, Humanist und
Staatsmann, edited by L. Mohler. Aalen: Scientia Verlag Aalen, 1967.
Vacalopoulos, A. Origins of the Greek Nation: The Byzantine Period,
1204-1461. Translated by I. Moles. New Jersey: Rutgers University
Press, 1970.
Vryonis, S. “Byzantine Cultural Self-Consciousness in the Fifteenth
Century.” In The Twilight of Byzantium, Aspects of Cultural and
Religious History in the Late Byzantine Empire, edited by. S. Curcic
and D. Mouriki. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.
Woodhouse, C. M. George Gemistos Plethon: The Last of the Hellenes
(Oxford University Press Academic Monograph Reprints). Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1986.
—. George Gemistos Plethon: The Last of the Hellenes. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1986.

View publication stats