24 replies to this topic

[William O'Chee]

It is generally argued that after the fall of Rome, the civilisations of Western Europe lost knowledge of the classical Greek authors, especially the philosophers, and that they only came to receive knowledge of these after being reintroduced to them by Avicenna (Ibn Sina) and Averroes (Ibn Rashid).

However, I have long been of the view that the medieval West could not have been totally ignorant of the classical Greek texts prior to their supposed reintroduction via the works of these Muslim authors. There was too much exchange between Western Europe and Eastern Europe (which still considered itself Roman) for this to be plausible.

Last year the Chichele Professor of History at Oxford University, Chris Wickham published a landmark book entitled "The Inheritance of Rome: Illuminating the Dark Ages, 400-1000"

Chris Wickham's work has offered some glimpses that my heretical view might be correct.

We know that these texts would certainly have been known prior to the fall of Rome in the early 5th century, but this marks the beginning of the so called Dark Ages, rather than the Middle Ages. Averroes lived from 1126 to 1198, so we are looking for some evidence of the works of Plato, Aristotle and others were known to the west between these dates.

Wickham argues that after the fall of Rome, life in the west became much more simplified. The imperial administration collapsed in the west, language reverted to the vernacular, and the learning of the classics slipped into the darkness.

Though Wickham expresses no opinion on the subject, I have now found in his book two possible sources from whom the west would, at the least, not have been unaware of the existence of these authors, even if they did not have the actual texts.

The first is the iconophile Patriach of Constantinople, Nikephoros (Nicephorus). He wrote three Antirrhetici as appendia to his Apologeticus Major. In at least one of these, Wickham states, he cited Aristotle in arguing against iconoclasm. We also know that Nikephoros wrote to Pope III on the subject, as did the Emperor Michael I Rangabe. Moreover, Nikephoros also wrote a Chronography from the time of Adam to then, which was reproduced in the West, and the attached canon catalogue with its stichometry passed into common knowledge.

Wickham also refers to another contemporary and friend of Nikephoros, Ignatios the Deacon, whose collected writings refer to Homer, Euripides and Aristotle.

Clearly, the Eastern Roman Empire never lost knowledge of these authors. But we can show that those mainly Byzantine writers who knew of them also wrote to the west. In my view, the sole question is the extent of what they wrote to the west.

I would welcome comment or other information people might like to venture on this subject.

I shall also add more material in future posts on this thread, so stay around for more.

[ghostexorcist]

[...]

We know that these texts would certainly have been known prior to the fall of Rome in the early 5th century, but this marks the beginning of the so called Dark Ages, rather than the Middle Ages. Averroes lived from 1126 to 1198, so we are looking for some evidence of the works of Plato, Aristotle and others were known to the west between these dates.

[...]

Interesting thread. I'll admit that my knowledge on the subject is very slim, but, in the Jews of China thread, you mentioned something about my research that is indirectly related to it. There was a concept known as the "Maimonidean Controversy" where religious scholars in Europe were greatly upset over the publication of Maimonide's (1135-1204) Mishneh Torah. Some even went as far as to publicly burn his works. The first wave of controversy supposedly lasted from 1180 - 1240 (others sprung up centuries later). Having studied the Greek classics himself as a younger man, Maimonide's religious writings were greatly influenced by these. Therefore, Greek-influenced Judaic material was circulating in Europe at this time.

See this page for information on Greek writings in Europe. The link is from google cache because I couldn't open the original one:

http://74.125.93.132...lient=firefox-a

Here is an excerpt from it:

Gouguenheim makes clear the conscious and deliberate indebtedness of the Carolingian Renaissance to these sustained currents from the East; he emphasizes the importance of the Carolingian Hellenophile project to the preservation and recirculation of Neo-Platonic and Aristotelian thought before the school of Aquinas. “From the court of the Carolingians to that of the Germanic emperors of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries, one does not cease to encounter men who interested themselves in Greek knowledge and culture.” Gouguenheim mentions how Pépin le Bref (reigned 751-768) petitioned the Pope for Greek texts and how Paul I responded by committing to royal custodianship various “liturgical books, manuals of grammar and orthography, of geometry [and] works of Aristotle and pseudo-Dionysius” along with “men capable of translating them.” Charlemagne himself employed an Italian of Greek background, Paul Diacre (720-799), “to teach Greek to the clerics” at a moment when a marriage seemed possible between his daughter Rothrude and a Byzantine prince. Charles the Bald (reigned 840-877) “was fascinated by Greek culture, to the point that he asked the Irish savant Duns Scotus Erigena to translate the work of [pseudo-Dionysius] towards 855.”

Edited by ghostexorcist, 11 January 2010 - 11:40 AM.

[Honam]

...

Chris Wickham's work has offered some glimpses that my heretical view might be correct.

...

Well, your view is totally correct Two of my best teachers in Philosophy had this same opinion. One, who was professor of Medieval Philosophy, often explained that Europe never lost touch with the Classical Greek/Roman world: after the first criticism against Christianism (after ss. I-IV, mainly, Celsus, Porphyrius, and Julian Emperor, and others) most of Christian invectives quote Ancient Greek authors to try to prove that Christianism and Greek Philosophy, specially Platonism and Aristotelism, were the same, and that they only lacked the knowdledge of the real God that the Christ gave us (well, not me, mb to them ). Of course, Plato and Aristotle led the carriages of Philosophy in the new millenium, because they offered a more complete and comprehensive system than, for example, Thales, Heraklitus or Homer. Most of their Philosophy keep moving in the neo-platonic circles, and different editions were in circulation until the Medieval edition of Ficino, of Plato´s works. In the meanwhile, since Christianism offered answer to anything a philosopher would demand, other minor writers felt into oblivion, were not copied anymore, and only some experts would be able to understand what they wrote (more or less like today, after all). A good example is the Republic written by Cicero. AFAIK the only text we have comes from a partchment dated in 7th century. The text was no longer useful so it was deleted and some Christian work was written over it (mb something by Isidore of Seville, not sure), until 1822, when Angelo Mai rediscovered it. So we can say that this particular text survived until the 7th century. No doubt many other works had similar "luck" (the practise was carried also with Christian texts, and it was so usual that in some Concile it was forbidden to erase Biblical texts to re-write on the partchment).
And for Plato and his textual tradition, most of the actual manuscripts are Byzantine and post 9th century.

The fact is that you can find a lot of Classical Greek/Roman references in Christians works, both to accept them and to reject their views, so, yes, there was never a Dark Age, and the West never DID loose the Greek Classical writers until the present: I would say it HAS lost them now

[William O'Chee]

Ghostexorcist and Honam, many thanks for two outstanding posts. I shall endeavour to deal with both in one.

The direct contact between Maimonides and Jews in France is intriguing for a number of reasons. First, it is proof that there was contact that did not need to go through Cordoba, or anywhere else in the Iberian Peninsula. The second reason is that there were religious and ethnic links that transcended national boundaries. These will probably have been poorly documented for that reason, but they existed nonetheless.

I am very interested in Johannes Scotus Eriugena (who the review in your link mistakes for Duns Scotus - he came much later) and indeed everything that was happening at the Carolingian court. Wickham also mentions Eriugena, and ascribes his Greek education to having come from Ireland, where apparently the monastic teaching of the subject was largely unaffected by the collapse of the Roman Empire. So here we have someone who not only reads classical Greek at the end of the 8th century ad beginning of the 9th, but was familiar with significant Greek works. He also translated from Greek mainly religious works that date from the 3rd to 5th centuries. We also know that the Carolingian court was in touch not only with the Eastern Empire, but also with the Baghdad Caliphate. If Harun could send a mechanical clock from Baghdad, I find it difficult to believe that Charlemagne's many ambassadors did not collect religious and philosophical works on the way.

I shall think about the review, and comment on it further later.

Now, I think Honam has made some really excellent points. I believe they really fall into two categories: analysis of philosophical content, and the bibliographic.

As regards the bibliographic point of view, perhaps you might be kind enough to make a list of all the works which you believe survived in the West, and the attestation for each. Could you be so kind? Naturally, many of these have been recovered as palimpsests.

Also, where have you studied, and who was the Professor of History to whom you refer? I would also like to know more about his views. Where do you think these classical Greek texts were preserved? Do you believe they existed in Western Europe during the 11th century? if so, what evidence do you think can be adduced for this?

I think the most interesting discussion of Greek philosophy by a Doctor of the Church is Saint Augustine's City of God. I shall make a more detailed post on this, because he wrote several chapters of criticism of Plato and to a lesser extent Aristotle. I want to get it right.

Guys, I really look forward to seeing how this thread develops.

[Honam]

Good to hear it was helpful

My teacher of Medieval Philosophy was Francesc Fortuny, of the University of Barcelona, who died some years ago. He was one of the few teachers I´ve seen who could translate a Greek/Latin text very quickly, without any external (dictionary, context) aid, basically the only one in Spain None of his books has been translated, specially because they are either Spanish/Catalonian translations of Cicero and Medieval Writers (specially Ockham), or texts for educational purposes. He has, however, an interesting article defending that Aristotle was in fact neo-academic, and not so different from Plato. His views, so I think, are in the same line as Wickham.

Answering your questions:

Where do you think these classical Greek texts were preserved?

Depends on the historical period. In the first centuries of Christianism, there existed a great number of libraries all along the Mediterranean (not only the Alexandrian and the Ulpian, all major cities had big libraries and so did opulent families). Personal libraries were divided into Lain and Greek authors, and this division was kept after the arrival of Christianism. Since the Fathers quote Classical texts I believe most libraries still kept copies of them, and so did, specially, the private libraries and monasteries. Also, in the 7th century, the ostrogods were keeping books in libraries, divided in Pagan and Christian authors, image of the Latin/Greek division. So the tradition did survive. Note that, however, it was a time of no computers, and the only way to preserve a book was to copy it. Otherwise, it will disappear sooner or later. That´s why many texts were lost or can only be recovered from palimpsets or second hand quotations. The main vehicle in the next centuries would have been private libraries, but some texts may have been in circulation. Why?

Because most of Church Fathers write quoting these authors AND against them. I think it´s important to note that works against Celsus or Porphyry were not meant to be read by an educated Church Father or monk who had a private library with such pagan books and ALREADY "knew" they were heretical. Those texts were directed to some part of the population who may have been "corrupted" by the so infamious paganism, so it´s possible that there was still some minor circulation of those books and a significant amount of readers (or, possibly, alumni of Pagan teachers, like the Emperor Julian).

Do you believe they existed in Western Europe during the 11th century? if so, what evidence do you think can be adduced for this?

I will answer this chronologically in relation with Plato´s texts, since I´ve studied their tradition, but I believe it could be extrapolated to other major authors.

After the death of Plato his writtings were kept in the Academy and it was possible to read them for an amount of money. After some years there existed three main textual lines: vulgar copies, maybe from disciples or from gifts, that were being copied over and over again; the Academy edition; and a possible edition in Aristotle´s library. The Alexandrian Library may have got a copy of the Academic edition or a vulgar copy, and was reedited in the 1st century BC by Aristophanes. For the Academic edition, it was used by neo-Platonism, which means that it found it´s way to the East, were was mainly preserved (and so, we have our Platonic manuscripts from 9-15th centuries). The Aristotelian library, together with Theophrastus, was already in Rome in the year 84 a.C., and should have been consulted by Cicero then. Thrasyllus also reedited it in the 1st century AD. Since our Platonic manuscripts have the same division used by Thrasyllus, we can conclude that his edition arrived to the East before the 9th century. Diogenes Laertius seems to have copied the prologue of this edition, and AS he lived in the actual Turkey, Classical Greek/Latin texts should have been in circulation between Italy and the East, already in the III-IV centuries. Also in the 3rd century we have the work of Athenaeus of Naucratis, who is supposed to have consulted the Alexandrian Library, for he quotes more than 1200 authors, some of them lost. An also then, Christian writers like Justin, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria or Origen wrote in a good manner about the Greek philosophers, especially Plato.
But in the 4th century the codex becames the main vehicle and we have the classical problem again: re-copy all books. Huh, it sucks. Also, the Edict of Milan and other minor/major happenings in the new Chritian Europe made it difficult the proliferation and conservation of paganism or Classical writers, and the reedition of these went down. Up to the 7-8th century, you can think like this: you got a copy of an already rare book, no longer of interest for you, so you lef it in your library. After your death, someone inherits it (and many others), and has a more oblivion-like feeling... huh, a rare uninteresting book... next generation cannot even read it... so, why bother to copy? After some centuries it´s just dust, and the text has vanish. This is what seems to have happened in the West, as we can see with the aforementioned palimpset, the Codex Vaticanus 5757, containing the "Enarrationes in Psalmos" of Agustine (not Isidore). He wrote his work between the years 392-416, and it was copied two centuries after it over the "Re publica" of Cicero, which was obviously useless from a practical point of view.

So the situation of the next centuries (11th century or so) was quite different in the West than in the East: we have hand written manuscripts dating back to the 9th century (at least for Plato) in the East, but only palimpsests in Western Europe, which means Christianism did indeed beat Paganism in some way (not by phisical burning but intelectually erradicating the interest in such topics, until Ficino and the Renaissance). Maybe some minor copies were in circulation in the West but, AFAIK, no evidence for the 11th century can be provided. I believe a good way to "map" this would be to write down ALL names of Medieval philosophers, chronologically ordered, with the place where they developed their Philosophy: Eriugena, who was Irish and educated in Greek, or Anselm, who lived in Normandy, and so on. Maybe we would see that continental Europe, specially around Italy, had no major Philosophers, and they were mainly concentrated in the boundaries, that is, France/England and the East/Islamic world.

Works and actual editions were recovered after 1288, when the secular production of partchment was restored in Viena, mainly from Eastern manuscripts.

As regards the bibliographic point of view, perhaps you might be kind enough to make a list of all the works which you believe survived in the West, and the attestation for each. Could you be so kind? Naturally, many of these have been recovered as palimpsests.

For this I have no idea sorry. My main concern was Plato when I studied this topic. Wikipedia provides a list of some palimpsests, but if you tell me what exactly are you looking for on 11th century textual tradition, I can try to look for something in the Library.

[William O'Chee]

Many thanks, Honam, for such an erudite answer. I have some minor queries.

After the death of Plato his writtings were kept in the Academy and it was possible to read them for an amount of money. After some years there existed three main textual lines: vulgar copies, maybe from disciples or from gifts, that were being copied over and over again; the Academy edition; and a possible edition in Aristotle´s library. The Alexandrian Library may have got a copy of the Academic edition or a vulgar copy, and was reedited in the 1st century BC by Aristophanes. For the Academic edition, it was used by neo-Platonism, which means that it found it´s way to the East, were was mainly preserved (and so, we have our Platonic manuscripts from 9-15th centuries). The Aristotelian library, together with Theophrastus, was already in Rome in the year 84 a.C., and should have been consulted by Cicero then. Thrasyllus also reedited it in the 1st century AD. Since our Platonic manuscripts have the same division used by Thrasyllus, we can conclude that his edition arrived to the East before the 9th century. Diogenes Laertius seems to have copied the prologue of this edition, and AS he lived in the actual Turkey, Classical Greek/Latin texts should have been in circulation between Italy and the East, already in the III-IV centuries. Also in the 3rd century we have the work of Athenaeus of Naucratis, who is supposed to have consulted the Alexandrian Library, for he quotes more than 1200 authors, some of them lost. An also then, Christian writers like Justin, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria or Origen wrote in a good manner about the Greek philosophers, especially Plato.

This is what seems to have happened in the West, as we can see with the aforementioned palimpset, the Codex Vaticanus 5757, containing the "Enarrationes in Psalmos" of Agustine (not Isidore). He wrote his work between the years 392-416, and it was copied two centuries after it over the "Re publica" of Cicero, which was obviously useless from a practical point of view.

Well this is a good explanation. I shall put up a post on the "City of God" shortly.

So the situation of the next centuries (11th century or so) was quite different in the West than in the East: we have hand written manuscripts dating back to the 9th century (at least for Plato) in the East, but only palimpsests in Western Europe, which means Christianism did indeed beat Paganism in some way (not by phisical burning but intelectually erradicating the interest in such topics, until Ficino and the Renaissance).

By the "East" do you mean Byzantium, or do you mean other places like Egypt, or the Holy Land?

Maybe some minor copies were in circulation in the West but, AFAIK, no evidence for the 11th century can be provided. I believe a good way to "map" this would be to write down ALL names of Medieval philosophers, chronologically ordered, with the place where they developed their Philosophy: Eriugena, who was Irish and educated in Greek, or Anselm, who lived in Normandy, and so on. Maybe we would see that continental Europe, specially around Italy, had no major Philosophers, and they were mainly concentrated in the boundaries, that is, France/England and the East/Islamic world.

That is a good idea. I shall see what can be done about that.

Works and actual editions were recovered after 1288, when the secular production of partchment was restored in Viena, mainly from Eastern manuscripts.

Again, which part of the East?

[Honam]

Many thanks, Honam, for such an erudite answer. I have some minor queries.


Well this is a good explanation. I shall put up a post on the "City of God" shortly.


By the "East" do you mean Byzantium, or do you mean other places like Egypt, or the Holy Land?

You 're welcome Basically Byzantium for the 5-13th centuries. This is just an approximation, but from Plato´s codex/Mss I think it´s quite correct. I don´t believe there was a lot of Pagan books in Egypt one century after Athenaeus or Origen, who seems to imply that Christians "took" the books in some libraries (maybe the Alexandrian?) around his time (s. III) so no books on such themes could be found. But Origen passage is corrupted and it actually doesn´t make a lot of sense.
I would add that some focus may have existed in France and England/Ireland, specially in monasteries. "Maping" the authors of that period would help. I will also try to get two books on the subject tomorrow

And of course, the region of actual Turkey had a neo-Platonic community around 3-5th centuries. Maybe the Byzantine mss. came from them?

[William O'Chee]

I have now had the chance to read through City of God by St Augustine. My focus has been on the use he made of the classical Greek authors. Most of Books VIII and IX are devoted to a discussion of the nature of gods and men and demons, making use of the works of Plato in particular, but also other Greek philosophers such as Apuleius, Epicurus, Pythogoras and others.

The starting point for this, though, is a neat discussion of the nature of philosophical discussion, adopting the Platonic threefold division of the subject as follows:

...the first moral, which is chiefly occupied with action; the second natural, of which the object is contemplation; and the third rational, which discriminates between the true and the false.

The significance of this brief quote for Western philosophy cannot be understated, because it was to provide a framework for later philosophers.

Turning to the rest of these two books, we see that he stresses the value of rational philosophy, i.e. the use of logic to resolve philosophical questions. He also talks about moral philosophy as being concerned principally with the chief good, also another important principle looking forwards for Western philosophy, as this creates the necessity of identifying what is truly good, rather than looking simply at scriptural imprecation.

I think, having looked at this, that it is difficult to say that the West really did lose the classical Greek authors. I certainly don't believe that Islamic scholars like Averroes were responsible for reintroducing these authors to the West.

[sunflower1]

just a bit out of context, in western classical music, the Greek also did not come out with great name and materials past the dark ages. considering the Greek had so many great opera involving music in their "past". all those famous classical music are like Clementi, Monteverdi, Handel, Haydn, Beethoven etc. perhaps similar case.

[Honam]

Huh, 3 a.m. and all I wrote got deleted by stupid Firefox I 'll answer just two questions, leave the long post for another time

just a bit out of context, in western classical music, the Greek also did not come out with great name and materials past the dark ages. considering the Greek had so many great opera involving music in their "past". all those famous classical music are like Clementi, Monteverdi, Handel, Haydn, Beethoven etc. perhaps similar case.

Actually, Greek music and instruments were used in the developement of Eastern liturgical chant. The West, however, relied more upon Jewish music. Nevertheless, there is an important difference between Greek music and Christian music (and so between Greek musicians and any Handel, Beethoven or Wagner): Greece was a tragic civilization, Christianity is not. Greek music was part/related to theater (and so with tragedy). Since I'm not in the mood to extend in this topic after my Firefox-issue I would just recommend Nietzsche's "Birth of Tragedy", historical inexact as it may be, however, still philosophicaly stimulant.

I think, having looked at this, that it is difficult to say that the West really did lose the classical Greek authors. I certainly don't believe that Islamic scholars like Averroes were responsible for reintroducing these authors to the West.

The main question seems to be if the West did lose his tradition because of evil Christians and recovered it thanks to the now so-called barbarian Arabs. This premise is based upon the destruction of the Alexandrian Library, that would have meant a great loss for the Classical world. Would it? All major cities had more updated libraries than Alexandria. Even if the Christians destroyed it, which they did not, the loss would not have been so great. So no loss, and no so great need of recovery And most of this recovery came from the East, but not from the Islamic world, but from the Eastern Christianity.

In next post I will try to re-write my previous answer. Huh, 21th century and still a piece of parchtment is safer than a computer

[William O'Chee]

Huh, 3 a.m. and all I wrote got deleted by stupid Firefox I 'll answer just two questions, leave the long post for another time

Maybe the loss of the Great Library of Alexandria is not without modern parallel!

The main question seems to be if the West did lose his tradition because of evil Christians and recovered it thanks to the now so-called barbarian Arabs. This premise is based upon the destruction of the Alexandrian Library, that would have meant a great loss for the Classical world. Would it? All major cities had more updated libraries than Alexandria. Even if the Christians destroyed it, which they did not, the loss would not have been so great. So no loss, and no so great need of recovery And most of this recovery came from the East, but not from the Islamic world, but from the Eastern Christianity.

In next post I will try to re-write my previous answer. Huh, 21th century and still a piece of parchtment is safer than a computer

I agree that it was preserved at least in the Eastern Empire. I believe that the knowledge of the classical Greek authors came from Byzantium not Cordoba or Baghdad.

The big and important question is how it got from the Eastern Empire to the monasteries and universities of Western Europe.

[Honam]

Maybe the loss of the Great Library of Alexandria is not without modern parallel!

Since I don't believe there was such loss, it seems mine was not that important after all. At least, it can be restored

I agree that it was preserved at least in the Eastern Empire. I believe that the knowledge of the classical Greek authors came from Byzantium not Cordoba or Baghdad.

The big and important question is how it got from the Eastern Empire to the monasteries and universities of Western Europe.

When the Roman Empire did fall in the West, Eastern Europe took much of it's territories until the 7th century. But due to wars, the power of the Empire decreased until its cultural renaissance in the 12th century. I would say that some minor authors, especially theologians (huh, I wrote about that in the deleted post x.x), reformed the Christian theology using some Neoplatonic thought. At the end of the 11th century we have important cultural centers, like the School of Chartres in France, and soon non-religious printers will appear in Vienna. Easter knowledge, preserved in partchments, would have found its way in Europe slowly, between the 11-15th centuries, when philosophers in the West turned towards Greek (see my future post about the Latin-Greek controversy). At least this is what happened with Plato:

-The Tubingensis Mb 14 mss. dates back to the 11th century. However, I 've been unable to find any information about the history of it. From a philological analysis, it's a copy of another two mss., probably written in the 2nd and 5th centuries in capital letters.
-The Vindobonensis Phil. Gr. 21 was written at the end of the 13th century by Maximus Planudes, in Constantinople. Some parts were written in Crete. It was in possesion of a Turk intelectual called Simon Atumanos, son of an Orthodox Christian woman, and was later brought to Paris before 1551 (when it was bought by Johannes Sambucus).
-The Florentinus Laurentianus 85,7 ms. was written in 1420, maybe in the Sanctae Crucis monastery of Florence.
-The Scorialensis Psi 1,1 ms. was originally copied by Bessarion's scribe Demetrius Trivolis in 1462, in Corfu.
-The Florentinus Laurentianus 59,1 ms. may have been given to Ficino by Cosimo de Medici, also in 1462.
-The Caesenas D 28,4 ms. was given by Johannes Marcus of Rimini to the convent of St. Franciscus in Cesena, in 1474.
-The Parisinus 1807, the most ancient ms. of Plato (9th century), was brought from the East by Johannes Lascaris, circa 1490.
-The Scorialensis y 1,13 ms. was in possesion of the Spanish priest Juan Paez de Castro, who may have got it in Italy (around 1560).
-The Monacensis 408 ms. was copied in Crete in 1590 by Antonius Mediolansis.

It seems to me that, while copies of Classical writers were still performed between the 9-15th centuries in the East, some intelectual personalities of the West were trying to buy or copy some of these works. The interest may have increase after 11th century, when such intelectuals began to be interested in Greek literature again, but since Aristotle was meant to be a model until Ficino, it's possible that most of the Aristotelian corpus arrived to Europe from the Islamic world. I have not studied the textual tradition of Aristotle manuscripts, but I will have a look tomorrow.

Resuming in some way what I´ve left to say:

Before 11th century: Interest in Latin authors. Plato is read using Calcidius Latin translation.
Around 11th century: Plato and Latin literature is not enought. Need or more scientific works. Aristotle´s revival, together with Greek Literature. Maybe from the Islamic world (Aristotle, Galen)?
11-12th centuries: Platonism/Neoplatonism is used in Christian formulations. Need to recover the original Plato. Mss. from Byzantium are recovered and copied.
13-15th centuries: Plato goes back to West Europe, until Ficino finally makes his famous edition using the mss. copied all around Europe in the previous centuries.

[William O'Chee]

Honam, that is an outstanding post.

Okay, let's start looking at critical dates. St Thomas Aquinas is the earliest of the scholastics, and lived between 1225 and 1274. He is believed to have started writing the Summa Theologica between 1265 and 1268. Before this date he will have read, or have had detailed knowledge of, Plato and Aristotle.

On your bibliography, the Tubingensis Mb 14 can be dated to the 11th century, and so could clearly have been the basis of Aquinas's knowledge of Plato (although he was intellectually much closer to Aristotle). Now this can't be proved, but what can be proved is that there was a manuscript of Plato in Latin in circulation before he commenced the work.

What I think is also not capable of proof is the assumption that Aquinas became familiar with Aristotle and Plato as a result of an import of these authors from the Arabs.

I shall do more digging...!

[William O'Chee]

Ha! From the strangest place I have found evidence that the first meideval translations of Aristotle did not come from the Arabs.

In his excellent God's Clockmaker J.D. North discusses the earliest translations of Aristotle into Latin in the Middle Ages. Referring to translations at time of Gerard of Cremona, he states at page 237:

The earliest Latin translations of Aristotle in the wave of activity that was by Gerard's time beginning to sweep across medieval Europe, and also the more numerous, were not from Arabic, but from Greek texts. Several of them were made in the second quarter of the twelfth century by a Venetian-Greek cleric, now known as James of Venice, who had contacts in Constantinople. Others, a few years later, were due to a certain Henry, a Norman churchman who moved between Sicily and Constantinople. With the Emir Eugenius, he translated the works of Ptolemy, Euclid, Aristotle and Plato at the imperial court in Palermo. This was a time of much scientific activity in Sicily, enough to draw scholars from as far away as Norman England to study it.

Eugenius of Palermo was in fact an amiratus or admiral in the navy of the Kingdom of Sicily. He was of Greek ethnicity, although born in Palermo.

This work was done a century before Aquinas sat down to write the Summa. Significantly, also, we should note that Averroes (Ibn Rushd) was not born until 1124, so these translations were complete before Averroes started his own writings.

It is true that Averroes' commentaries became very popular in Europe in the third quarter of the 13th century. But Aquinas also wrote two condemnations of Averroes, so it is unreasonable and illogical to argue that Averroes or the Islamic scholars were an influence on Aquinas's work.

Edited by William O'Chee, 19 January 2010 - 09:08 AM.

[Honam]

Ok, let’s try posting this again My previous post was basically a collection of quotes from two books of my former teachers. I got another one, together with some information on Aristotle mss. (quite impressed, they had only two books of Aristotle in original Greek with erudite Latin intro in my University so I can only comment using these two).

First, from the back cover of Francesc Fortuny, De Lucreci a Ockham. Perspectives de l’Edat Mitjana (From Lucretius to Ockham. Perspectives on the Middle Ages):

“The concept of the Middle Ages has evolved recently, and it surely did in order to improve our understanding. As the Renaissance men had perceived, and so they mold the actual name we still use, it is a period between another two. But it is not an empty stage, as they said, but an active mediator between Greece and the Modernity. Driven by an incredible vitality in all levels of its history, the Middle Ages took the great ideas of the Classics to their plenitude, beginning to test solutions that can be still perceived today [...]”.

About the latin culture of the 4th century:

“The West was neither so intellectually neoplatonic, nor so religiously Christian. The East had accepted both of them spontaneously; in the West, however, both came in institutionally. Plotinus was teaching in Rome c. 270, and Marius Victorius translated three Enneads in the 4th century, but at the end of this period and in the Imperial city, the great bishop Ambrosius of Milan was still being considered the main introductor of such novelties, because of the adoption of some neoplatonism from the Eastern part of the Empire. In Cartago, North Africa, Augustine of Hippo did not even heard about it in his former student years.
Actually, the Western intelligentsia was being isolated from the Eastern one, firstly, by chance; later, consciously and voluntarily. Only an small part of the most learned of the Empire were actually bilingual and were fond of both Hellenism and Latin culture.
The first circumstancial cause was the incipient politic rivalties of the metropolis along the 50 years of terror, together with the economic decline of the rural West, while the Eastern urbanism was still strong and rich.
The West enclosed himself and cultured its own [Latin] Classics, [...]
But both Latins and Hellenists boasted in arrogance their ignorance of the other culture. Amongst Latins, because they really ignored Greek and Greece, and looked down upon those whose way of life was so different from the West. Greeks, on the other hand, usually had a great knowledge of Latin culture, but they would never have shamed themselves accepting it, so really inferiors the Latins were considered. Examples could be Libanius of Antioch, with a never-told knowledge, or Augustine of Hippo, Greek-allergic in his studient years, but who, being old, learned it, for it was the original language of the Christian New Testament.”

Regarding the conflict between Pagans and Christians (between two modus videndi):

“Pagans from all around the Empire had a common background, already found in Cicero and Lucretius: it is an indignity for a free man to be voluntarily slaved to any other person, no matter how divine he was; the dignity of the master doesn’t dignify the slavery, and only those who are slaves by nature would have accepted it, the most despicable amongst men. It has to be remembered that, for a Pagan, gods are not persons, but principles, reasons, vital cosmic forces; [...]. A Christian was regarded by them, Pagans, as a prototype of moral and spiritual lowness, instead of a mistaken man. On the other hand, Christians from the cities saw in those Pagans the reflection of the tradition, the rural life of the ignorant peasant: that’s why they were scornfully called pagani, people from the earth, while in the West the truly educated were pagani [...]"

About Augustine of Hippo, he says:

“[...] beginning already with his polemical and voluntary opposition against Paganism, when he asks himself, at the beginning of the De civitate Dei [I, 15 (2)], what would it be the happiness of the city but the total sum of the happiness of its inhabitants. Plato, Aristotle, even Cicero, would have only accepted the opposite question: what would it be the happiness of its inhabitants but the participation in the happiness of the city, previous and superior to its individuals.”

Here, Augustine is establishing the (Christian) basis of modern neo-liberalism and democracy (individualism), together with human rights.


It seems that around the end of the 10th century, the situation shifted. First authors saw Medieval philosophy as a whole, a “seder tra filosofica famiglia”, a big family without disputes. Plato was the model for Pagans, who were basically neoplatonic, and for some Christians (the School of Charters was formed by theologicians and, after the 11th century, Platonics, and in the famous Cathedral some Neoplatonic symbolism was attached (see Wikipedia for this , you can browse the different authors named (John of Salisbury), and those who were teachers of those, and so on, until Anselm of Canterbury, also 11th century)), who believed Plato was a Moses speaking in Attic (some still believe Confucius was a Moses speaking in Chinese). Since the West was not so versed in Greek anymore, Plato was mainly read using Calcidius commentary on the Timaeus, which provided a cosmologic basis and the idea of a Creator. But once Plato was studied, there was a need for more scientific texts, and the East, and supposely Arab authors, provided that knowledge. Aristotle was, after then, and until Ficino made his great translation of Plato, the new model for the intellectual unity of the Greeks and the West, joined together under the 12th century Christianism (scholasticism). Besides Aristotle, Galen also provided a significative basis for scientific thought, and it should be noted that most of Galen works survive only in Arabic. (Source for most of this: Miguel Ángel Granada, El umbral de la Modernidad (Threshold to Modernity)).

For Gerard translations, Granada only says he went to Toledo, Spain, to translate Arabic science, and that he did translate almost all Aristotle´s works on Physics (De caelo, Physica, De generatione et corruptione, Metereologica I-III). He says that these translations came from Arabic, and we had to wait until Roberto Grosseteste (1252) for a translation from Greek of the De caelo (only the first two books). Between 1260 and 1280, Guillermus of Moerbeke translated, from Greek, Metaphysica, Physica and De caelo. So he (Gerard) may have translated from Arabic, but translations from Greek were already beginning to appear in Europe. Scholarly contacts with Constantinople may have helped with this. Looks like from the Arabs the West just got some science (which was not necessarily Greek, but for Galen, who again was NOT Greek(*)) and Aristotle (those who were influenced by Gerard’s translation). Most of Plato and Neoplatonism came from the Eastern Christians, and so did Aristotle in the next centuries.

About Aristotle mss., I will write it in a different post in a few minutes/hours.


(*) I don´t consider Galen Greek because he was born in Pergamum, Turkey. If we examine philosophers before Plato, we can see none of them was Greek, but from Asia Minor or Italy (actually, Asian immigrants). Only Socrates, and maybe his teacher Archelaus of Athens, where truly Greek (but Diogenes Laertius says he may have come from Asia Minor as well). If there was something like a Greek culture common to all the Greek Empire, someone should explain why a) all Philosophy before Socrates-Plato was made ONLY in Greek colonies, and there was such a rupture between pre-Platonic Ethics and Platonic Ethics (as defined by Nietzsche in his Birth of Tragedy)?


More coming soon