Henrik Lagerlund (Ed.

Encyclopedia of
Medieval Philosophy
Philosophy Between 500 and 1500
With 7 Figures and 12 Tables
Editor
Henrik Lagerlund
Department of Philosophy
The University of Western Ontario
London, ON
Canada

ISBN 978-1-4020-9728-7 e-ISBN 978-1-4020-9729-4

Print and electronic bundle under ISBN 978-1-4020-9730-0
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-9729-4
Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York
Library of Congress Control Number: 2010928116

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., 2011

No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material
supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

32 A Aesthetics, Byzantine
published 1956); English trans. The aesthetics of Thomas Aquinas,
trans. Bredin H. Radius, London, 1988
Eco U (1986) Art and beauty in the Middle Ages, trans. Bredin H. Yale
University Press, New Haven/London (a translation of
a section, ‘Sviluppo dell’estetica medievale’ in Momenti e problemi
dell’estetica, published 1959; Eco has published an updating:
Arte e bellezza nell’estetica medievale. Bompiani, Milan, 1987)
Eco U (2007) Dall’albero al labirinto: studi storici sul segno
e l’interpretazione. Bompiani, Milan
Jordan MD (1989) The evidence of the transcendental and the
place of beauty in Thomas Aquinas. Int Philos Quart 29:393–407
Kovach FJ (1961) Die Ästhetik des Thomas von Aquin. Eine genetische
und systematische Analyse. De Gruyter, Berlin
Kristeller PO (1980) The modern system of the arts’ in his Renaissance
thought and the arts. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 163–
227
Marenbon J (2009) Medieval and renaissance aesthetics. A companion to
aesthetics, ed. Davies et al. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden/Oxford, pp
22–32
Maritain J (1965) Art et scolastique, 4th edn. Desclée de Brower, Paris
McQueen D (1993) Aquinas on the aesthetic relevance of tastes and
smells. Br J Aesthet 33:346–356
Mothersill M (1984) Beauty restored. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Panfosky E (1957) Gothic architecture and scholasticism. Thames &
Hudson, London
Pouillon H (1946) La Beauté, propriété transcendentale chez les
scolastiques (1220–1270). Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire
du moyen âge 15:263–329
Speer A (1990) Thomas Aquin und die Kunst. Eine hermeneutische
Anfrage zur mittelalterlichen Ästhetik. Archiv für Kulturgeschichte
72:323–345
Speer A (1993) Vom Verstehen mittelalterlicher Kunst. Mittelalterliches
Kunsterleben nach Quellen des 11. Bis 13. Jahrhunderts, ed. Binding
G, Speer A. Fromman and Holzboog, Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt, pp
13–52
Speer A (1994) Kunst und Schönheit. Kritische Überlegungen zur
mittelalterlichen Ästhetik. ‘Scientia’ und ‘ars’ in Hoch- und
Spätmittelalter, ed. Craemer-Ruegenberg I, Speer A. De Gruyter,
Berlin/New York, pp 946–966 (Miscellanea Mediaevalia 22, 2)
Tatarkiewicz W (1970) History of aesthetics II. Mouton, The Hague/Paris
(translation of Historia Estetyki. II. Estetyka Sredniowieczna by
A and A Czerniawki)
Aesthetics, Byzantine
GEORGE ZOGRAFIDIS
Department of Philosophy
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Thessaloniki
Greece
Abstract
Byzantine aesthetics comprises views on traditional aes-
thetic concepts (beauty, light) and problems (values and
properties) as well as discussions relevant to art theory
(the status of the work of art, the functions of art, the
beholder). It does not form a coherent system and it has to
be reconstructed through numerous texts of different
genres (philosophical, theological, rhetorical, etc.). The
sources of Byzantine aesthetics, concerning mainly the
visual arts, are ancient Greek aesthetics (late Platonic
tradition on and rhetorical descriptions of works of art)
and early Patristic thought (presenting the Christian atti-
tude toward art and an elaborated theory of beauty). Art is
appreciated, but in so far as it is a human creation that
appeals to the senses it could be justified only on meta-
physical grounds. The Byzantines’ major contribution was
the theory of image that was elaborated during Icono-
clasm (eighth to ninth century) and legitimated in theo-
logical and philosophical terms orthodox religious art.
The Nature of Byzantine Aesthetics
Modern discussions about the distinction between art and
non-art or about the status of the work of art make us
hesitant to apply unqualifiedly modern concepts (art,
aesthetics) to the pre-modern era of Byzantium. The
very existence of aesthetics in the Middle Ages is question-
able and the medieval concept of art differs from that of
antiquity and, even more, from that of the Renaissance.
We cannot expect Byzantium aesthetics to be an autono-
mous branch of philosophy. On the other hand, the Byz-
antine writers often discussed aesthetic concepts (beauty,
image, light) and problems (aesthetic values and proper-
ties, the function of the work of art, the role of the
beholder). But in most cases this discussion was made in
the context of wider theological and philosophical issues
that mostly attracted the Byzantines’ interest.
What we can call ‘‘Byzantine aesthetics’’ has certain
main characteristics: (a) It neither has a systematic nature
nor does form a coherent whole. It emerged as a response
to specific problems that were occasionally aroused; so, in
regard to its major issues (theory of image, attitude to
Greek art) it is mostly polemic. (b) There is almost no
particular thinker who treated traditional aesthetic issues
per se, analyzing the concepts he used or concluding
his discussion without reference to the spiritual domain.
(c) The Greek and Patristic heritage was always present in
the manner the Byzantines speculated about art and it
must be considered as the major source for the formation
of Byzantine aesthetics. (d) Byzantine aesthetics referred
not only to Byzantine art but also to ancient Greek art.
Hence, Byzantine aesthetics unlike traditional aes-
thetics does not deal primarily with the categories of
beauty and taste, aesthetic experience or pleasure, critical

examination and evaluation of beauty. More than a theory
of beauty Byzantine aesthetics must be considered as
a theory of art, that is, about the status of the work of
art, its functions, its reception, its beholder, etc.
The Sources of Byzantine Aesthetics
Twofold is the background of the Byzantines’ views on art,
mainly the visual arts: (a) the aesthetic ideas of Greek
antiquity, namely the late Platonic tradition (where the
role of art is to lead the way toward spiritual beauty), and
the analysis of works of art in the rhetorical texts of Late
Antiquity. The Byzantines imitated the ancient Greek aes-
thetic vocabulary (especially in the description of works of
art) and when needed they transformed it (especially in
the theory of image). (b) The early Patristic thought,
particularly the Cappadocians and Pseudo-Dionysius, in
which the Byzantines found a warranted Christian attitude
toward art and an elaborated theory of beauty.
One of the problems about studying Byzantine aes-
thetic views is the absence of specific treatises and the need
to reconstruct it using texts of different genres and, more
precariously, from the works of art. There are numerous
Byzantine texts whose significance for aesthetics is indis-
cernible because of their titles. They are (a) texts that deal
(exclusively or not) with art, like for instance (1) the
apologetic texts against ancient Greek art, (2) texts on
the theory of image and (3) descriptions of works of art
(ekphraseis); and (b) texts with occasional references to
issues of art and art theory with variant content (theolog-
ical, historical, philosophical, rhetorical, literal) and writ-
ten for various purposes and for different audiences
during a period of ten centuries.
Beauty and Other Aesthetic Concepts
In the Byzantine writings, many aesthetic concepts are
used: beauty, resemblance, similarity, imitation, harmony,
symmetry, image, prototype, imagination, symbol, color,
form, light, place, time, artist, creation/creativity, life-like,
etc. The vocabulary can sometimes be misleading since the
language of Byzantine art criticism is completely different
from the modern, and thus easily misunderstood. For
instance, it is difficult to see why an icon was considered
as a naturalistic copy of the original, if we do not take into
account the beholder’s reaction to the representation.
The Byzantines’ language has a philosophical background
and was derived from late antique ekphraseis, rhetorical
texts that were formulated to describe an art quite differ-
ent from the Byzantine. Eusebius, Procopius, Paul
Silentiarios, Photios, Psellos, and many others wrote
numerous ekphraseis that help us to understand the
Aesthetics, Byzantine A 33
parallel function of text and art, and discourse and
A
image in Byzantium. These descriptions try to express
something of the art’s spirituality; the text shares
a common end with the image described: they point to
the truth that supersedes both.
The classical concept of beauty was used in the
descriptions but it played no role for the iconoclastic
controversy. The visible beauty, be it symmetry or appro-
priateness, is in earthly things and reflects the spiritual
beauty of God (a theme common to the Platonic tradi-
tion). So beauty has aesthetic but more importantly
ontological connotations. God is the beauty itself that
surpasses and causes all created beautiful things.
The Negation and the Acceptance of an Art
That Appeals to the Senses
Throughout the Byzantine period existed, but not domi-
nated, a rigoristic attitude to art, that was inherited from
Early Christianity. Pagan (religious) works of art were
condemned as material, immoral, and dangerous
(inhabited by demons) while the possibility of
a Christian art was questioned on the basis of the Old
Testament’s prohibition against graven images and the fear
of idolatry. The hostility toward art, in general, was also
justified by the illusionary and seductive character of the
sensible art-objects and by the total rejection of sensual
pleasures in favor of spirituality that demands the
formation of the inner image (in the soul) and not the
worship of material representations that are incapable of
circumscribing God.
The emergence of Christian art (third century) helped
to overcome the earlier aniconism and gradually (from the
fourth century onward) the Byzantines made a distinction
between the ancient works of art that can be appreciated as
such and their deplorable religious meaning that must be
rejected and condemned. The transfer to Constantinople
of ancient masterpieces to adorn the new Christian capital
is indicative. But in general, the Byzantine beholder (if
there can be a single category that comprises the emperor,
the clergy, high officials and scholars, philosophers and
theologians, illiterates, etc.) was embarrassed by what can
be labeled as ‘‘aesthetic pleasure.’’
It was later, probably from the eleventh century
onward, that things changed. For instance, Psellos has
written descriptions where he analyses the ancient work
of art aesthetically, commenting on many of its aesthetic
qualities and using Platonic and Aristotelian terminology.
Detailed descriptions, evaluation of certain material fea-
tures, the choice of the form, the connection between the
sensible form and the theoretical content of the work
34 A Aesthetics, Byzantine
testify to the aesthetic interests of the Byzantines. After all,
the primacy of the visual was a commonplace in
Byzantium.
The Theory of Image (Icon)
The development of Christian art and the cult of the
images led to the need for the justification of religious
imagery and to Iconoclasm (eighth to ninth century). The
main problem was not the representation of natural
objects (that was only a problem of craftsmanship and of
style) or the artistic treatment of religious themes and
personages. Thinkers like John of Damascus and
Nikephoros of Constantinople, and the Seventh Ecumen-
ical Council argued for the possibility and the legitimacy
of the representation of the transcendence, that is, of the
incarnated God.
In this perspective, the image was considered primarily
as a liturgical object and secondarily as a work of art. The
image represents its prototype (art as mimesis).Their rela-
tion is based on resemblance, which at first is an external
one but it becomes internal, due to the anthropological
premises of Byzantine thought and to a peculiar partici-
pation of the image in the prototype. Aesthetic qualities
cannot play the first role; the artistic language is not
irrelevant but its criterion is its functionality (it is ques-
tionable whether a more beautiful icon can serve better its
purposes). As the art had to reflect the absolute beauty of
God and testify to its immanence, likeness is not enough.
What is needed is a symbolic language to convey the
theoretical message. The image is a sign of the presence
of an absence, an immanent trace of the transcendentality.
It does not express the artist’s personal emotion but
manifests a reality.
The truth of the image is not its appearance nor its
beauty but its reference and its proper use. A functionalist
approach is appropriate for understanding that the mean-
ing of the image is its use. The image has many functions:
didactic (not only for those who were illiterate), allegori-
cal, mystical-anagogical, liturgical (in the process of lit-
urgy), artistic. As Photios stated, the opposition between
the external immobility of the image and the internal
mobility of the spectator produces the artistic effect. The
effect on the beholder is also psychological and moral as
the image reminds him/her of events of the holy history
and arouses many emotions: compassion, pity, affection
and desire to emulate those who are represented. The
response of the beholder is finally his/her spiritual ascent.
It is not just the aesthetic pleasure that is produced by
gazing the images. Beyond beauty and harmony what
counts is the crossing of the gazes, of the holy person
depicted and the faithful beholder. This is the ultimate
function of a work of sacred art and, at the same time, it is
overcoming.
Influence
The Byzantine theory of image offered legitimacy to
religious art as it is practiced until today among the
Orthodox Christians. The distorted reception of
Byzantine iconophilia by Charlemagne scholars led to
a divergence between the East and the West on the use
of sacred art. The outcome of Byzantine Iconoclasm was
significant not only for the development of Byzantine art
but for European civilization in general and showed
how important is the dominion over the production of
the symbolic and the imaginary within theoretical and
social contexts. The issues at stake were the power of
images and the place of the holy in the society and who
controls them.
See also: ▶ Aesthetics ▶ Philosophy, Byzantine
Bibliography
Primary Sources
(1960) Acts of the seventh Ecumenical council: Sacrorum Conciliorum
nova et amplissima collectio, ed. Mansi JD, vols 12, 13. Akademische
Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, Graz, pp 951–1154, 1–758
Brubaker Leslie, Haldon John (2001) Byzantium in the iconoclastic era
(ca. 680–850): the sources. Ashgate, Aldershot
Damascene John (1975) Apologetic orations against the calumniators of
the Holy Icons, ed. Kotter B. Die Schriften des Johannes von
Damaskos, vol 3 (Patristiche Texte und Studien 17). Gruyter, Berlin.
English edition: Damascene John (2003) Three treatises on the divine
images, trans. Louth A. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Crestwood
Mango Cyril (1986) The art of the Byzantine empire, 312–1453: sources
and documents. Medieval Academy of America, Toronto
Nikephoros (1989) Refutation and rejection of the nonsense against the
redemptive incarnation of God the word: Patrologia Graeca. In:
Nicéphore, Discours contre les iconoclasts, trans. Mondzain-
Baudinet M-J, vol 100. Klincksieck, Paris, pp 205–533
Nikephoros (1997) Critical examination and rejection of the false defini-
tion of the Apostates who refuse the redemptive economy of the
divine word. In: Featherstone JM (ed) Nicephori Patriarchae
Constantinopolitani Refutatio et Eversio Definitionis Synodalis
Anni 815 [CCSG 33]. Brepols, Turnhout
Photius (1959) Homilies: Photiou Homiliai. Thessaloniki, ed. Laourdas
B. English edition: Photius (1958) The homilies of Photius, Patriarch
of Constantinople, trans. Mango C. Dumbarton Oaks, Cambridge
Procopius of Gaza (1939) Description of an image, ed. and trans.
Friedländer P. Spätantiker Gemäldezyklus in Gaza: Des Prokopios
von Gaza’0 kfrasiς Ε᾿ikόnος. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, City of
Vatican
Theodore of Stoudite (1981) Refuting discourses against iconoclasts (PG
99), trans. Roth C. St Theodore the Stoudite on the Holy Icons. St.
Vladimir’s Seminary, Crestwood, pp 327–436
Thümmel Hans Georg (1992) Die Frühgeschichte der Ostkirchlichen
Bilderlehre: Texte und Untersuchungen zur Zeit vor dem Bilderstreit.
Akademie, Berlin

Secondary Sources
Byčkov V (1983) L’estetica bizantina. Congedo, Bari
Hunger H (1978) Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner,
vol 1. Beck, München, pp 170–188
James L (1996) Light and colour in Byzantine art. Oxford University
Press, Oxford
Kitzinger E (1954) The cult of images in the age before iconoclasm.
Dumbart. Oaks Papers 8:83–150.
Maguire H (1981) Art and eloquence in Byzantium. Princeton University
Press, Princeton
Maguire H (1999) The profane aesthetic in Byzantine art and literature.
Dumbart. Oaks Papers 53:189–205.
Maguire ED, Maguire H (2007) Other icons: art and power in Byzantine
secular culture. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Mathew G (1963) Byzantine aesthetics. Murray, London
Michelis P (1955) An aesthetic approach to Byzantine art. Batsford,
London
Ouspensky L (1992) Theology of the icon. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press,
Crestwood
Pelikan J (1989) Imago Dei: the Byzantine apologia for icons. Yale
University Press, Yale
Akindynos, Gregory
▶ Gregory Akindynos
Alan of Lille
CHRISTOPHE ERISMANN
Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies
University of Helsinki
Helsinki
Finland
Abstract
Alan of Lille is a philosopher, theologian and poet of the
twelfth century. He is the author of a twofold work: the
transposition in poetical form of the major themes of
Platonism on the one hand and treatises of theology that
include many aspects of the logic and ontology of Gilbert
of Poitiers on the other. He was the last representative of
the first age of medieval speculation based on Boethius
and on the logica vetus, which preceded the rediscovery of
Aristotle’s physics, metaphysics, and psychology, and the
discovery of Arabic philosophy.
As a scholar, Alan of Lille (Alanus ab Insulis, c.
1120/1128–1203, sometimes called the Doctor universalis)
Alan of Lille A 35
was influenced by two major currents of twelfth-century
A
thought: the so-called School of Chartres, which inspired
several of his research themes and the philosophical move-
ment initiated by Gilbert Porreta (or of Poitiers). He was
interested both in the philosophy of nature in a Platonic
perspective grounded in the Timaeus, as was traditional
among the scholars associated with Chartres, and in the
philosophy of language, logic, and ontology in a Porretan
perspective. In this, he synthesized the two major centers
of interest of the twelfth century. He is said to have taught
in Paris between the years 1170–1180, probably at Mont
Sainte-Geneviève, at the same time as Simon of Tournai,
before leaving for Montpellier; like Thierry of Chartres, he
became a convert in Cı̂teaux. Alan had great familiarity
with the liberal arts, in particular the trivium – grammar,
logic, rhetoric – and excellent knowledge of some Platonic
authors of Late Antiquity (Chalcidius, Martianus Capella,
Macrobius, and Boethius in the Consolatio). Despite living
at the time of the beginning of the western reception
of Arabic and Muslim texts (Avicenna), his thought
remained within the framework of twelfth-century Latin
culture (with the noticeable exception of his knowledge of
the Liber de causis). In contrast with his contemporary
Adelard of Bath, he demonstrated little interest in the
‘‘Arabic innovation’’; his intellectual world was that of
the Aetas Boethiana, the first age of medieval metaphysics
dominated by Boethius and the logica vetus, of which he
was the last representative.
His works belong to various literary genres and
to different fields of knowledge. He wrote allegorical
poems, in which he considered issues of natural philoso-
phy: the De planctu naturae, the Anticlaudianus, and the
Rythmus de incarnatione et de septem artibus (a text in
which the Liberal Arts admit their incapacity to under-
stand the Incarnation). His other works pertained to the-
ology (Summa Quoniam homines and Regulae caelestis
iuris) and to preaching (Ars predicandi and Sermones);
they also included an apologetic treatise, the De fide
catholica, which was aimed against Cathars and Walden-
sians as much as against Pagans or Jews, and one more
philosophical text, the Sermo de sphera intelligibili.
Through his poetical and allegorical writings, he con-
tributed to the development, peculiar to the twelfth cen-
tury, of a new philosophical conception of nature, thus
testifying to the tradition of reading and glossing of the
Timaeus, characteristic of the School of Chartres. Alan’s
work is in great part the poetical transposition of the
major themes of Platonism.
The Lament of Nature (De planctu naturae) –
a prosimetrum (a work comprising alternating verse and
prose sections) written between 1160 and 1170 – is