LEONIDAS C.

BA RGELIOTES

THEOPHILOS KORYDA LEA S'S CONCEPTION

OF NA TURA L PHILOSOPHY A ND SCIENCE*
I
The survival of Greek philosophy during the Byzantine and early mo­
dern periods can be better appreciated by examing the controversies on the
philosophy of nature and science during the years of «captivity», that is,
the period from the fall of Constantinople (1453) to the war of independence
(1821)1.
The choice of this period as well as of the topic of investigation does
not make things easy. A s we shall see in the following, there are many dif­
ficulties due, mainly, to the existing conditions, the lack of sourses and the
non­Hellenic philosophies and theories of natural science at that period.
To begin with, Constantinople remained up to the middle of the fifteenth
century the center of ancient wisdom and of letters, «the citadel of philosophy»2
for the western as well as for the eastern worlds. Every notable event is prac­
tically related to a man who «had studied in Greece, or who knew Greek
and had translated some Greek philosophic writings or had access to such
translations»3.
But after the «Fall» of the «Polis» there has been a radical change. Dur­
ing the first two centuries after the conquest, according to a source4, «it
prevailed a deep ignorance in all continental places and almost complete

* It is my lecture at Oxford (10.4.91) sponsored by the B.S.H.P.

1. The term «captivity» is taken out of A . Koraes's phrase, according to which, «une
très­grande partie de la nation se regarda toujours comme prisonnière de querre, et jamais
comme esclave»: Mémoire sur l'état actuel de la civilisation dans la Grece, Paris 1803,
p. 11. Koraes refers to the apartness and uniqueness that the Greeks enjoyed, to some
extent at least, by preserving their own lanquage, religion, education, customs and values
etc., throughout the seventeenth, eighteenth and early ninenteenth centuries.
2. C. M. Woodhouse, Gemistos Plethon, The Last of the Hellenes, Oxford, Clarendon
Press, 1986, p. 154.
3. E. Gilson, History of C hristian Philosophy in the Middle Ages, New York 1955,
p. 541.
4. Cf. P. M. Kontogianni, Οι "Ελληνες κατά τον πρώτον επί Αικατερίνης Β' Ρωσσο­
τουρκικον ΠόL·μov [1768­1774], Έν 'Αθήναις, τύποις Π. Δ. Σακελλαρίδου 1903, ρ. 50.
 Theophilos Korydaleas 147

lack of schools». The two daughters of ignorance and of slavery, coresponding­

ly, doubt and superstition, obscured the aspirations of the «captives», while
the loss of their freedom, the «sight of their eyes», was a loss of the means
to know the difference between the free and the slave, to know, that is, what
freedom is in its relation to slavery in order to hate the latter and turn away
from it. But freedom is bound together with an independent state, their father­
land, since freedom without fatherland is mountainous and fatherland with­
out freedom means a place of birth and of prison in tyrannic cities 5 . The
«captivity», in other words, was a heavy burden and it lasted four centuries.
In the last quarter of the eighteenth century Williams Eton provides us with
his personal experience and of the terrible destruction of the ancient and
glorious monuments of Hellas from the «blows of the barbarians». «The
mournful spirit of Hellas», he writes, «after wandering for some time among
its sorrowful ruins, her offspring have painfully abandoned, to transfer the
fragments of sciences and of arts to happier countries, in which these germs
immediately grew up and became for Europe the beginning of her high civil­
ization, which has already been a mark of distinction for it» 6 .
This does not mean, however, that after the Ottoman conquest there
has been a complete absence of Greek «thought» and that there has been
no Greek philosophy and science worth studying. That the «Hellenic Genos
was never completely deprived of men of letters after the fall of the Byzantine
Empire, and that some of them had a perfect knowledge of the ancient lan­
guage even better than that of our modern wise men there is no doubt» 7 .
Otherwise the «increasing secularization» of the Greek thought up to the war
of independence, the strengthening of the studies of philosophy and science
in order to face the well­established dogmatic theology, and the revivals of
the A ristotelian studies in the East and of the Neoplatonic ones in the West,
would be unthinkable. It would also be unthinkable the revival of the glorious
Hellenic past and the solution of the great national problem, that is, the crea­
tion of a free and independent Greek State.
It remains the problem of the access to and of the knowledge of the
sources of the period under discussion. N. Psimmenos has succintly remarked
that «we almost are not in position to maintain that we possess any know­

5. Cf. «Έπιστολάς ανέκδοτους τοϋ Κοραή καί προς Κοραή», pubi, by P. Kontogianni,
Χιακά Χρονικά, 13 (1923), p. 181.
6. Cf. Tableau historique, politique, et moderne del' empire Ottoman, par Williams
Eton, trad. Paris 1801, II, pp. 69 ff. cited by Κ. Sathas, Τουρκοκρατούμενη 'Ελλάς 1453­
1821, A thens 1869, p. 625.
7. M. I. Gedeon, Λυκαυγές πνευματικής κινήσεως παρ' ήμϊν 1700­1730, Athens 1930,
ρ. 11.
148 Leonidas C. Bargeliotes

ledge on the whole of whatever contribution of any modern Greek scholar

during the period of the turkish occupation concerning the development of
philosophy or the research of any part of its various problems... everything
remains... in the dim light of the manuscript tradition»8. Besides, the prohi­
bition of the typography by the conqueror and the prevailing poverty and
ignorance all over the Greek mainland made almost impossible any serious
effort for the preservation of manuscripts. In addition, many of these
manuscripts passed through legal or illigal commerce to western European
purchasers. It is better, therefore, as Psimmenos points out9, to speak for
vacuum only on the part of our knowledge rather than vacuum in the histo­
ry of the philosophical tradition.
In spite of all these difficulties and of the fact that the two first centuries
of the occupation, the fifteenth and the sixteenth, represent the lowest ebb
in all Greek intellectual history, there have been some efforts, mostly by indi­
viduals, to preserve a kind of intellectual life throughout the period. It is
also possible that the edition of some important manuscripts of Theophanis
Eleaboulkos and of Hermodoros of Lestarchos, among others, may shed
more light on the question of continuity of the Greek philosophy from the
end of the fifteenth century up to the beginning of the seventeenth century.
The analysis and presentation of the controversy between the Neoaristotelian
Korydaleas and his opponents (Meletios Syrigos and Nikolaos Koursoulas
on the one hand, and Methodios A nthrakites on the other) on the philo­
sophy of nature and science aim to give an answer, partial at least, to this
question. The participants of this controversy, as representatives of different
philosophical views, with their arguments and counter arguments, provide
and preserve the continuity and vitality of the Greek philosophical thought.
This means a continous and restless struggle of the opponents aiming not
only for the survival of their own views, but for the supremacy of the one
over the other as well. The choice of the controversial issue of philosophy
of nature and science will prove quite helpful to the same end. For philosophy
of nature and science as it is used in the following, covers the different ap­
proaches of the nature of things; it covers, mainly, the basic theories of
nature, such as the Platonic (mathematical), the A ristotelian (ideological),
the A ristotelicoscholastic and the Neoteric. The Neoaristotelian conception
of the philosophy of physical science, as it was stated by Korydaleas, is of
primary importance for our discussion.

8. Ή "Ελληνική φιλοσοφία, 'Ανθολογία κειμένων, Έκδ. «Γνώση», A thens 1988, vol

I, p. 38 (Introduction). The underlining is mine.
9. Cf. op. cit., p. 42.
 Theophilos Korydaleas 149

II
Theophilos Korydaleus (1574 [A thens] ­1646 [A thens]) is known as the
main contributor to the revival of A ristotelianism, in its new form, that is,
as it was taught at the University of Padua where Korydaleas studied (1609­
1613) under the Neoaristotelian philosopher Cesare Cremonini. In this kind of
Aristotelianism A ristotle is refered to as «The Philosopher» and his philos­
ophical theory, though geocentric and limited in its methods of enquiry,
surpasses all others in perfection, ancient or modern, in the sense that it
does not need any further improvement. Korydaleas brought this kind of
Aristotelianism to the Greek communities abroad and to the Greek lands
through his teaching and writings. He tauhgt in the most known Greek schools
of his time, such as, that of the Greek community of Venice (1608­1613), of
Athens (1613­1619 and 1642­1646), of Kephallonia (1620), of Zakynthos
(1621­1623 and 1628­1634) and of Constantinople when he took over the lead­
ership of the Patriarchal A cademy (1622, 1625­1628 and 1636­1640). His per­
sonal writings and commentaries, although were basicly intended for didactb
use, they are not lacking in scientific quality. In addition to his works on
Logic, probably used as an introduction to philosophy 10 , Korydaleas has
written the commentaries, Είσοδος φυσικής ακροάσεως κατ' Άριστοτέλην,
Γενέσεως και φθοράς περί κατ' ' ΑρισΧοχέλην, 'Υπομνήματα και ζηχήμαχα
εις χήν περί ούρανοϋ πραγμαχείαν, Γεωγραφία ή περί κόσμου καί χών μερών
αύχοϋ, and 'Υπομνήματα εις τα Μεχά χα φυσικά, all of which are intimately
related to our discussion.
The importance of Korydaleas's contribution is not so much to be found
in his striving for authenticity based on the original texts of A ristotle and in
carrying this authenticity to the «Greek homeland itself»11 — such striving
had already been successfully carried out during the late Byzantine pe­
riod— as in his effort to libarate neo­Hellenic philosophy and science from
the «servile A ristotelianism» of the Middle A ges and to ajust them to the
difficult conditions of the Hellenic Genos. A lthough he succeeded, to some
extent, in keeping philosophy and science apart from the yoke of theology
and even, sometimes, in opposition to it 12 , nevertheless, «Korydalism», by
the later part of the eighteenth century, had become a synonym for the
sort of scholasticism and an obstacle for the Hellenic thought to follow

10. Προοίμιον εις άπασαν την Λογικήν τον 'Αριστοτέλους 'Υπομνήματα και Ζητή­
ματα and "Εκθεσις κατ' επιτομήν της λογικής πραγματείας.
11. Cf. Henderson, The Revival of Greek Thought 1620­1830, Albany State University
of New York Press 1970, p. 12.
12. Cf. Κ. Sathas, Νεοελληνική φιλολογία, pp. 251­252.
150 Leonidas C. Bargeliotes

the new philosophical ideas and scientific achievements of the western

world. The synodic decision of the Patriarchate (June 1, 1725), which, as we
shall see, oblized Methodios A nthrakites to lecture only on the Peripatetic
philosophy as it was interpreted by Korydaleas and which was taught at the
Patriarchal School of Constantinople, should be seen as a revenge not of
Korydaleas's own works 13 , but of Plato —and of Platonism—who had been
purposely neglected in Padua as well as the Greek homeland itself14. The
choice of A ristotelianism in its new form, which, apparently, excluded the
Platonic traditions of Mystra and of Florence on the one hand, and which
was exclusively attached to the geocentric physics of A ristotle, on the other,
could not but lead to a double antiparathesis, that is, against the medieval
Aristotelianism and against the neoteric concept of nature. This is evident
in Korydaleas's philosophy of physical science.
ΠΙ
Korydaleas's efforts to libarate Neohellenic philosophy of physical sci­
ence from the medieval A ristotelianism and from the dominion of theology
was based on the doctrine of double truth, according to which there are two
kinds of truths, the theological and the philosophical ­ scientific, which exist
independently of each other. The former concerns things supernatural,
things which are not subject to generation and distruction. The latter concerns
natural things and their causes. Thus, one could both preserve the «sacred
dogmas without confusion» («άσύγχυτα διατηρειν τα ιερά δόγματα») and, at
the same time, honour «the external philosophy, which originates from nat­
ural principles» («την θύραθεν φιλοσοφίαν, ώς από φυσικών όρμώσαν άρ­
χων») 15 . The preservation of their independence, however, can be achieved
if there exists no «pseudotheologizing» («ψευδοθεολογεΐν») in respect to
philosophical theories, and if there exists no «bad­philosophizing» («κακοφι­
λοσοφείν») in respect to matters of faith. The doctrine of the double truth
was intended, without doubt, to encourage the development of a liberal and
independent scientific enquiry. But Korydaleas was more ambitious. He
thought that he might assist his «captive» compatriots by offering a personal
and first hand interpretation of Aristotle's works on the philosophy of science
in order to shake off the tyrannic turkish yoke and obtain their «sweetest»
(«γλυκύτατη») freedom.
Korydaleas subscribes to a modified A ristotelian philosophy, which he
defines as a «knowledge of things divine and human, as the perfection of

13. Cf. Ν. Psimmenos, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 177.

14. Cf. A . A ghelou, Πλάτωνος τύχαι, A thens 1985, pp. 50, 55.
15. Cf. Γενέσεως καί φθοράς πέρι κατ' 'Αριστοτέλην, ρ. 109.
 Theophilos Korydaleas 151

human mind and in substance the cause of happiness» («φιλοσοφίαν φαίημεν

είναι γνώσιν θείων τε και ανθρωπίνων πραγμάτων, του ανθρωπίνου νοος
τελειωτικήν και της κατ' ούσίαν ευδαιμονίας πρόξενον»)16.
He dévides philosophy in accordance with the kinds of substance. In
the first place, there is a theoretical science which studies, in the words of
Korydaleas, Being mainly and primarily («κυρίως και πρώτως»)17 or in the
words of Aristotle, Being qua Being, and the properties inherent in it in virtue
of its own nature18 and so there must be a First Philosophy («την πρώτη ν»)19.
This is the science of metaphysics. But philosophy, according to Korydaleas,
does not only mean metaphysics or first philosophy. It is also the whole or
the sum of the physical and social sciences, and all the sciences in general.
The division of sciences is undertaken on the basis of the proper knowable
class of things («γένος») of each, so that there are as many divisions of phi­
losophy as there are kinds of substances. Thus, science follows («εχομένην»)
upon First Philosophy («την πρώτην»), and in confirmation of this, the Phi­
losopher, Korydaleas claims, introduced Being and Unity («το εν και το ôv»),
in their primary sense, that is, substance («ουσία»), which entails genera,
and so the sciences will correspond to these genera20. One might, also, divide
substance, Korydaleas adds, into immaterial and unmoved, the material and
eternal, and the material and generating, as some of the genera of substance21.
He points out, further on, that the Philosopher likens the term «philosopher»
with the term ((mathematician» in its uses for mathematics too has divisions
—there is a primary and a secondary science, and others successively, in
the realm of mathematics22.
The aim, the telos, of each science is to perfect man and make him able
to achieve a happy, embodied life («μετά σώματος») in the aristotelian rather
than in the medieval religious sense. The cultivation of sciences, theoretical
and practical, enables man to become despot («δεσπότης») of all things under
the moon («στα υπό σελήνην»), enjoying the fruit of the land and of the sea
(«καρπούμενος γήν τε και θάλασσαν»).

16. Cf. Είσοδος φυσικής ακροάσεως κατ Άριστοτέλην, συνερανισθεϊσα υπό τοϋ σο­
φωτάτον Θεοφίλου τοϋ Κορυδαλέως..., vol. 1, Venice, 1779, p. 4.
17. Cf. op. cit., vol. 1, p. 225 (N. Psimmenos).
18. Cf. A ristotle, Μετά τα φυσικά, Γ 1, 1003 a 21­22: (έ'Εστιν επιστήμη τις ή θεωρεί
το δν ή δν και τα τούτω υπάρχοντα καθ' αύτόϊί.
19. Cf. op. cit., 1004a5.
20. Cf. A ristotle, Μετά τα φυσικά, Γ 2, 1004 a 3­7.
21. Cf. Είσοδος φυσικής ακροάσεως κατ' Άριστοτέλην, op. cit., ρ. 225.
22. Cf. Είσοδος φυσικής ακροάσεως κατ' Άριστοτέλην, op. cit., ρ. 226, and A ristotle,
Μετά τα φυσικά, 1004a 8­9.
152 Leonidas C. Bargeliotes

In particular, Korydaleas defines physical science as a theoretical habit,

concerning the physical body, and as having as its final end the knowledge of
passions through its principles («Ή Φυσική επιστήμη έξις εστί θεωρητική,
περί το Φυσικον σώμα καταγινομένη, τέλος έχουσα την γνώσιν των παθη­
μάτων του αύτου δια των άρχων»)23. These principles do not derive from
metaphysics or theology, because each science has its own principles which
are knowable and, therefore, can, in themselves, become its object of know­
ledge and be «self­believed». The philosophy of science thus defined is actually
opposed to religious theology, because it is not based on the religious faith
and on the revealed knowledge, but on the human reason and on the scientific
method of knowledge.
This autonomous status of sciences in general, and of physical science
in particular, allows them to be free from the guardianship of medieval au­
thenticity and, consequently, of the medieval apodeictic method of arguing.
In spite of all these efforts, Korydaleas appeals to the authenticity of
Aristotle, as we have noticed, and uses his apodeictic method to support
Neoaristotelianism or to object the various misinterpretations of Peripatetic
philosophy. A ristotle is, for Korydaleas, the Philosopher, the greatest and
infallible philosopher of all times. The supreme criterion for the truthful­
ness or falseness of any philosophic or scientific view is the agreement or
disagreement with the opinion of Aristotle. He is the only philosopher who
brought up the philosophy which he inherited in its infancy from his pre­
decessors and bequeathed it to us in vigor24.
Thus, Korydaleas is striving for the objective truth. Both, the Philoso­
pher, that is the authenticity as well as the striving for objectivity of the human
reason, («ορθός λόγος»), are fighting for truth («μάχονται... τη άληθεία»).
The physiologoi, more than any one else, must base their research on their
own experience and experimental results25. The encouragement of the exper­
imental method of physical science by Korydaleas at that time was of primary
importance.

23. Cf. Είσοδος φυσικής ακροάσεως κατ Άριστοτέλην, pp. 23­43. Cf. also Cl. Tsour­
kas, Les débuts de l'enseignement philosophique et de la libre pensée dans les Balkans.
La vie et l'oeuvre de Théophile C orydalée [1570­1646], Théssalonique 1967, Sec. éd. pp.
240­243, and N. Psimmenos, op. cit., vol. I, (pp. 187­214), p. 214.
24. Cf. Γενέσεως και φθοράς πέρι κατ' Άριστοτέλην, Venice 1788, ρ. 53: «Μόνος
οϋν 'Αριστοτέλης ώς βρέφος παρά την πάλαι την φιλοσοφίαν λαβών, έξέθρεψέν τε και
κατέλιπεν ήμίν άκμάζουσαν». Cf. Th. Papadopoulos, op. cit., p. 130.
25. Cf. op. cit., p. 62.
 Theophilos Korydaleas 153

Equally important is Korydaleas's recognition of the usefullenes («χρή­

σιμον») of physical science and of the unusual delight («ηδονής ου της τυχού­
σης») the student of nature and of the animal life («τής ζωικής φύσεως»)
enjoys. Yet even these latter, which, as Aristotle had put it, «have no graces
to charm the sense, by disclosing to intellectual perception the artistic spirit
that designed them, give immense pleasure to all who can trace links of cau­
sation, and are inclined to philosophy» («μη κεχαρισμένοις αυτών την αϊ­
σθησιν κατά την θεωρίαν όμως ή δημιουργήσασα φύσις αμήχανους ήδονάς
παρέχει τοις δυναμένοις τάς αιτίας γνωρίζειν και φύσει φιλοσόφοις»)26.
Korydaleas unquestionably accepts A ristotle's dictum that «every realm of
nature is marvellous» («εν πάσι γαρ τοις φυσικοΐς ενεστί τι θαυμαστον»)
and approvingly quotes him and says that «it would be strange if mimetic
representations of them were attractive, because they disclose the mimetic
skill of the painter or sculptor, while the original realities themselves were
not more interesting, to all at any rate who have eyes to discern the reasons
that determined their formation»27.
This qualitative approach to the natural world is even more interesting
and valuable when is seen in the light of the prevailing during that period in
the western Europe dualistic conceptions of nature as well as of the purpose it
was intended to serve: to introduce A ncient Greek philosophy in the form
of a concise introduction to the history of philosophy in order to show, in
this way, that there is a continuity between Ancient and Neohellenic philos­
ophy and scientific research, that there is a continuity in the striving of the
Greeks to understand nature and to trace the link of causation. Both these
efforts, however, were not without oppositions, antiparatheses and counter
arguments.
IV
Korydaleas's neoaristotelian doctrine of creation, whether accepting
the Aristotelian theory of the uncreated matter or rejecting the creation of
the world ex nihilo28 met the unreserved opposition of the conservative

26. Cf. A ristotle, Περί ζώων μορίων, 645 a 7­10.

27. «Kal γαρ αν είη παράλογον και άτοπον, ει τάς μεν εικόνας αυτών θεωροϋντες χαί­
ρομεν δτι την δημιουργήσασαν τέχνην συνθεωροϋμεν, οίον την γραφικήν η την πλαστικήν,
αυτών δε των φύσει συνεστώτων μη μάλλον άγαπώμεν την θεωρίαν, δυνάμενοι γε τάς αιτίας
καθοραν». Aristotle, Περί ζώων μορίων, 645 a 10­15, and Είσοδος φυσικής ακροάσεως
κατ' Άριστοτέλην, op. cit., ρ. 191.
28. The creation of the world <πλάσις> is not only contrary to Peripatetic philosophy,
but also to every kind of science. In his own words, «ού μόνον άντίξονς τη περιπατητική
φιλοσοφία, αλλά και πάσης επιστήμης αναιρετική ή πλάσις», Γενέσεως και φθοράς πέρι
κατ' Άριστοτέλην, ρ. 82.
154 Leonidas C. Bargeliotes

theologians who brought philosophy of science under the control of the chris­
tian faith. Korydaleas's teaching, according to them, was philosophically
atheistic and theologically calvinistic 29 . They accused him of having denied
the official christian doctrine of God' screation of the world and of having
accepted, instead, the A ristotelian conception of «God» as the ((prime mover»
(«πρώτον κινούν»), which lacks the christian qualities of creation, of omni­
potence and of omniscience. The most outstanding critics of Korydaleas's
Neoaristotelianism are Meletios Syrigos and Nikolaos Koursoulas.
Meletios Syrigos (1586 [Crete] ­1664 [Constantinople]), who happened
to have studied under Korydaleas in Venice, openly criticized his former
teacher for his «blasphemous» and «faithless» philosophy, which is contrary
to theology and which is based on the opinions of antichristian scholiasts,
such as, Porphyry, Simplicius and Philoponus; in short, for being an
«apostate of faith» 30 . In reality, the criticism takes us back to the previous
conservative A ristotelianism of the Middle A ges, which saw the relation
between Philosophy and theology as a complete submission of the former
to the latter.
From the same point of view criticizes Korydaleas's Neoaristotelianism.
Although Koursoulas's philosophical writings, with the exception of the
prooimion to Φυσικής ακροάσεως, remain unpublished 31 , from what has
been published it can be gathered that he rejects without any reservation
the theory of double truth on the basis of the infallible revealed knowledge.
As he states it, «nothing can be called truth which is contrary to divine teach­
ing» («ουδέν γαρ xfj θεία διδασκαλία άντιτασσόμενον αλήθεια δύναται
καλεΐσθαι») 32 . The A thenian philosopher, Koursoulas claims, as a «deceiver
and being deceived», as an «ardent defender of innovations», follows A le­
xandres A phrodisieas's interpretation of the Peripatetic philosophy rather
than Simplicius. Simplicius, though a Greek heathen, was more correct («op­
θότερον») in his interpretation of A ristotle, for he spoke of God as the
existing cause of the world, not only as final («τελικόν»), but also as a crea­
tive cause («δημιουργικον αίτιον»). On the contrary, A lexandros, whom Ko­

29. Cf. Κ. Sathas, Νεοελληνική φιλολογία, p. 252.

30. Cf. Κ. Sathas, Νεοελληνική φιλολογία, ρ. 252.
31. He has written 'Υπομνήματα και ζητήματα εις το τον 'Αριστοτέλους περί γενέσεως
και φθοράς, Περί ουρανού, Περί ψυχής and Φυσικής ακροάσεως.
32. Nikolaos Koursoulas, Εις την τοϋ 'Αριστοτέλους φυσικήν πραγματείαν υπομνή­
ματα και ζητήματα, ed. Ε. Legrand, Bibliographie hellénique au 17ème siècle, t. V, Paris
1903, pp. 266­268, and N. Psimmenos, op. cit., vol. I, p. 232.
 Theophilos Korydaleas 155

rydaleas follows, claims that the world is eternal, without biginning, and that
the heavens and all the stars are ensouled and many other things which are
contrary to our faith33.
This theological totalitarianism enriches, without doubt, the ideological
armory of the Eastern Church, and will be used to confront the cases of
theological as well as of «philosophical» atheism.
Meanwhile, the Neoaristotelianism of Korydaleas, better known as «Ko­
rydalism», grew up and prevailed under the protection of the Church, but it
could not renovate itself and prepare the neohellenic mind to meet the new
challenge of the times. Hence, by the following century, «Korydalism» be­
came a kind «scholastic­peripatetic» philosophy to the extent that neohelle­
nic culture could renovate its potency and find its right way, only when
the yoke of the unfree A ristotelianism would have been overthrown34. This
explains the austerity of criticism raised against this new form of A ristote­
lianism by the Neohellenic neoteric philosophers. Methodios Anthrakites
was one of the first neoteric philosopher who criticized in theory as well as in
school practice the Neoaristotelian theory of nature and introduced instead
the mathematical one.
Anthrakites (1660­1736) studied in Ioannina and in Venice, became a
priest and an editor and, above all, an educator. He taught philosophy and
higher mathematics in the School of Kyritzi of Kastoria (1710­1721), in
the School of Siatista (1721­1723) and in the Schools of Ioannina, Gkiouma
(1723­1725) and Epiphaniou (1725­1736). In the words of K. Koumas35,
«Methodios Anthrakites around the year 1718 brought from Italy the science
of Geometry, quite enough to enlighten the Mind (Logos) and also to excite the
innate love of learning... He and his student and successor Valanos Vasilo­
poulos, teachers of the common school of Ioannina, taught... Eucleid's Geo­
metry and A rithmetic and the theory of Spheres, and prepared through
their teaching different, better and happier conditions for the Hellenic Genos»
(«Μεθόδιος Ανθρακίτης έφερε περί το 1718 έτος από την Ίταλίαν τάς γεω­
μετρικάς έπιστήμας, ίκανάς να άνάψωσι το φως του Λόγου και να διερεθί­
σωσι επί πλέον την εμφυτον του άνθρωπου φιλομάθειαν... Και αυτός και ό
μαθητής και διάδοχος του Βάλανος Βασιλόπουλος, διδάσκαλοι της κοινής
τών 'Ιωαννίνων σχολής, έδίδαξαν... την Γεωμετρίαν του Εύκλείδου και Ά­

33. Cf. op. cit., p. 232.

34. Cf. I. Moisiodakos, "Απολογία, p. 12, and E. Papanoutsou, Νεοελληνική φιλο­
σοφία, Vol. A , p. 21 (Basike Bibliotheke 35).
35. Σύνταγμα Φιλοσοφίας, Vol. A , Vienna 1818, p. στ'.
156 Leonidas C. Bargeliotes

ριθμητικήν και των σφαιρών θεωρίαν, και προητοίμαζαν δια της διδασκα­
λίας των κατάστασιν άλλην καλητέραν και εύτυχεστέραν εις το Γένος»)36.
He seems to be the first Greek philosopher who introduced to Greece the
modern European thought and made translations of Descartes, of Male­
branche, etc.
What is of great interest for our discussion is A nthrakites's hostility
to the Peripatetic philosophy and his condemnation by the Synod of the Oi­
koumenical Patriarchate (A ugust and November of 1723). To both these
issues shed enough light the information we obtain from the accusations
directed against A nthrakites by his opponents, his own correspondence and
confession and the Synodic decisions of condemnation and of «άποκατάστα­
σις» (1725)37.
Two of these accusations are of primary importance. According to the
first, Methodios and his students think that the body of every animal lacks
any kind of sensation and that only the mind sees and hears and he alone is
able to sense sweetness and bitterness and he alone is able to perceive the
other objects of the senses («Φρονουσιν άναισθησίαν παντός σώματος ζώου
και νους μόνον όρα και ακούει και αυτός μόνον αισθάνεται γλυκύτητα και
πικρότητα και τάλλα των αισθήσεων αντικείμενα αυτός μόνον αντιλαμβά­
νεται...»). According to the second accusation, everything is God's substance
and God is essentially in every particular thing, thus refusing to accept di­
vine actuality («Πάντα λέγουσιν εϊναι ούσίαν Θεού και ότι ό Θεός ουσιωδώς
ενυπάρχει έκάστω ως μή δεχόμενοι θείαν ένέργειαν»)38. I have already
mentioned the third accusation. A ccording to this, Methodios was teaching
his students about triagles and quadrangles and the rest of the busy and
vain labor, but nothing about grammar39.
It is evident from these accusations that the first presents A nthrakites
as inclined towards Cartesianism, the second towards pantheism and the third
as introducing to his students the mathematical science which, according to
his opponents, is a busy and vain labor, a «πολυάσχολος ματαιοπονία».
What these three accusations have in common is the abandonment by Anthra­
kites of the Peripatetic philosophy. The third accusation, however, is more

36. A nthrakites published a compedium of Mathematics ('Οδός Μαθηματικής), Le­

grand (XVIII, no 375) in Venice in 1749, Εισαγωγή τής Λογικής, Λογικής έλάττων, etc.
37. Cf. Ν. Psimmenos, Ή 'Ελληνική φιλοσοφία, Vol. II, pp. 421­455.
38. Leontopoleos Sophroniou, «'Ιερόθεος Πελοποννήσιος ό Ίβηρίτης και Μεθόδιος
'Ανθρακίτης ό έξ Ιωαννίνων», Ρωμανός ό μελοίδος 1/1933, pp. 257­315, Ν. Psimmenos,
op. cit., Vol. II, p. 424.
39. Cf. op. cit., p. 426, Ν. Psimmenos.
 Theophilos Korydaleas 157

interesting in that it shows that A nthrakites is teaching mathematics to the

exclusion of the A ristotle's physical theory, whether in its neoaristotelian or
conservative­scholastic version. This explains, on my view, the austerity of
the Church authorities towards A nthrakites, as it is evident in the verdict of
the Synod of the Oikoumenical Patriarchal (A ugust 23, 1723), and in the
efficiency of the supressive mechanisms the authorities have used— in spite
of the humiliating C onfession of faith of the condemned 40 and of the letter
that the Procritoi of Ioannina had addressed to Paisios of Nicomedeia, in
order to guard the good fame of the erudite Kyr Methodios against its
shipwreck («δια να φυλάξωμεν χωρίς ναυάγιο ν τήν αγαθή ν μνήμην τοϋ
λογιωτάτου Κυρ Μεθοδίου») 41 .
The motive for the austerity is also confirmed by the second meeting of
the Holy Synod in Constantinople (June 1, 1725) and by A nthrakites's own
letter to the Archons of Ioannina. A ccording to Synodic decision, (a) A nthra­
kites was forced to recant the whole basis of this teaching and should lecture
only on the Peripatetic philosophy as it was interpreted by Korydaleas himself
and as was taught at the Patriarchal School of Constantinople («μόνα τα υπό
εξηγητή τω κυρω Κορυδαλλεΐ έρμηνευόμενα της περιπατητικής φιλοσοφίας
μαθήματα, τα και εν τη πατριαρχική σχολή ενταύθα εις Κωνσταντινούπολιν
παραδιδόμενα»), and (b) his writings and notebooks be burned and sunk
into oblivion («πυρίκαυστα γένωνται, και τή άφανεία παραδοθώσιν») 42 .
In his letter to the Archons of Ioannina (November 30, 1723) A nthrakites
writes that he was condemned because he philosophized differently from the
Aristotelians. «I am being condemned, therefore», he writes, «by the Synod

40. Ή ομολογία πίστεως τοϋ 'Ανθρακίτη, ed. D. G. Chage (Χατζή), Ελληνικά,

17 (1962), pp. 296­300, and Ν. Psimmenos, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 432­437.
41. The Prokritoi in this full of compassion letter, do not limit themselves to praise
their compatriot for enlightening many of his students on the realms of sciences, of learning
and of piety (σέλας της ευσέβειας), but they beg His Grace the Metropolitan of Nicomedeia
Paisios, to intervene in order to help Anthrakites not to ascend to vasileuousa (βασιλεύου­
σαν) for his apology. The «humanitarian» arguments they have used have as follows: «ότι
υπάρχει πενέστατος, και ουκ έχει τα προς όδοιπορίαν άναγκαιοΰντα, και. δεύτερον ότι
υπάρχει ασθενής και αδύνατος, και. ουκ ίσχύουσιν ai γηραλαϊαι σάρκες να άντιπαλαίωσιν
εις τοιαύτην σκληρότητα όδοιπορίας τοσούτων ήμερων», see 'Επιστολή προκρίτων των
'Ιωαννίνων προς τον Νικομήδειας, Παίσιο, in P. Aravantinou, Χρονογραφία τ~ής 'Ηπείρου
των τε ομόρων ελληνικών και Ιλλυρικών χωρών, Vol. Π, pp. 277­278: Ν. Psimmenos, op.
cit., Vol. II, pp. 437­438.
42. Cf. «Ή απαλλακτική απόφαση της Συνόδου τον Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου»,
ed. by E. Pelagide (Πελαγίδη), Μακεδόνικα, 23 (1983), pp. 134­139, and Ν. Psimmenos, op.
cit., Vol. II, pp. 452­453. Cf. also A. Aghelou, «Ή Δίκη τοϋ Μεθοδίου Ανθρακίτη», Repr.
from 'Αφιέρωμα είς τήν "Ηπειρον, A thens 1955, ρ. 81.
158 Leonidas C. Bargeliotes

not as a bad christian, not in regard to any dogma of the Church, but because
I philosophize differently from the A ristotelians» («Καταδικάζομαι λοιπόν
υπό της Συνόδου όχι ώς κακός χριστιανός, όχι εις κανένα δόγμα της Εκκλη­
σίας, άλλα πώς φιλοσοφώ διαφόρως άπό τους αριστοτελικούς»)43. This
letter is also important for it brings up most clearly and in a dramatic
way, I would say, the question of the autonomy of philosophy and of scientific
research. A nthrakites made every effort to keep the opinions of different
philosophers and the demand for learning apart from the ecclesiastical doc­
trine. But what really happened was «worth of tears» («άξιοδάκρυτα»), when
one thinks that out of the zeal for the faith and the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit urged them to collect books of logic, of physics, and of Euclid and other
books of mathematics, and to set fire to them in the courtyard of the church
as if these were the Arian heresies, books which the whole wide world studies,
and which have nothing to do with the matter of faith. Their motive clearly
enough was not the zeal for their faith, but some passion. He himself had no
intention of being heretical in his teaching, but as regards heresy it made
no difference what philosophy one studied, whether Platonic or A ristotelian,
whether old or new. Besides, the Church Fathers have studied different philo­
sophies. («Στοχασθήτε αν κινούνται άπό ζήλον πίστεως, και αν δια Πνεύμα­
τος "Αγίου συναθροίζουν λογικάς και φυσικάς και Εύκλείδην και έτερα μα­
θηματικά καί άνάπτουν φωτίαν εις την αύλήν της εκκλησίας... ωσάν να ήτον
'Αρείου αιρέσεις... βιβλία όπου όλος ό κόσμος τα σπουδάζει, οπού δεν έχουν
να κάμουν ολότελα μέ την πίστη ν... δεν μας μέλει όμως ό,τι φιλοσοφίαν και
αν μελετά, ή τήν του Πλάτωνος ή 'Αριστοτέλους, ή πάλαιαν ή νέαν φιλο­
σοφίαν προς και τους Πατέρας βλέπομεν πώς ό καθείς διάφορον εσπού­
δαζε φιλοσοφίαν.»)44.
There is no better word to characterize —and to summarize— the
way and the means the conservative ­ scholastic authorities of the Church
have used to face the emerging neoteric challenge than the one used by
Anthrakites, namely, that they «confuse the world» («συγχύζουν τον κό­
σμον»). Anthrakites was very sensitive to this confusion on the part of the
official Church but was unable to react against it. He could not give the brave
answer («γενναίαν άπάντησιν») that the courageous neoteric philosophers of
Neohellenism after him gave. But the examination of such answers is beyond
the purpose of this paper.

43. Ή απαλλακτική απόφαση..., op. cit., p. 448 (N. Psimmenos).

44. 'Επιστολή τον 'Ανθρακίτη προς τους άρχοντας των 'Ιωαννίνων, ed Α. Aghelou,
'Αφιέρωμα είς τήν "Ηπειρον είς μνήμην Χρίστου Σονλη, A thens 1955, pp. 170­173* Ν.
Psimmenos, op. cit.,Noi. II, pp. 448, 449.