Katelis Viglas

Among the works of the ancient Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata, well-known for his scathing and obscene irony, there is the novel True History. In this work Lucian, being in an intense satirical mood, intended to undermine the values of the classical world. Through a continuous parade of wonderful events, beings and situations as a substitute for the realistic approach to reality, he parodies the scientific knowledge, creating a literary model for the subsequent writers. Without doubt, nowadays, Lucian’s large influence on the history of literature has been highlighted. What is missing is pointing out the specific characteristics that would lead to the placement of True History at the starting point of Science Fiction. We are going to highlight two of these features: first, the operation of “cognitive estrangement”, which aims at providing the reader with the perception of the difference between the convention and the truth, and second, the use of strange innovations (“novum”) that verify the value of Lucian’s work by connecting it to historicity.

We are going to present a panorama of Byzantine Philosophy. As starting point should be considered the Patristic Thought, which preceded the Byzantine Philosophy and was established in the first centuries A.D. into the Greek-Roman world. It was based on the Old and New Testament, the apostolic teachings, as well as on Judaism and Greek Philosophy. Also, the Ancient Oriental Religions – especially those of the Greek-Roman period, i.e. the Gnosticism- exerted an influence on it. The Patristic Thought and the Ancient Greek Philosophy were the two main pedestals of Byzantine Philosophy. But, we cannot separate completely Patristic thought from the Byzantine Philosophy, first because the Byzantine Philosophy used all the corpus of the preceded texts of the Church Fathers and second because the Patristic Thought was continued to the end of Byzantium in interaction with Byzantine Philosophy. When we use he term Byzantine Philosophy we refer to the ideological currents that flourished from the 9th century till the 15th in the geographical area of the Greek East. Its main task was the quest for truth from the metaphysical point of view. In this era we have not only commentaries and scholastic works, but also an assimilation of the previous philosophical and scientific developments in purpose of an interior evolution. The opposition to, and the use of, the Western scholasticism were also another two special characteristics of Byzantine Thought. The use of the logical works of Aristotle and the metaphysics of Plato made up its main theoretical body, always in relation to the Christian dogmas. The logical, metaphysical, cosmological, ethical, aesthetical and anthropological subjects were closely connected with the fixed Christian view of the World, God and Man. But despite the influence of the Christian religion and the Aristotelic, Platonic, Stoic, Neoplatonic etc. teachings, today we can arrive at the conclusion that from the ninth through the fifteen century a relative autonomy of Philosophy in Byzantium was emerged. Also, the Philosophical thought in Byzantium gave some new solutions to the old problems and dared sometimes to proceed in new rational, mystical or even empirical elaborations of original philosophical questions.

In the present paper, the meanings the term “Chaldeans” acquired during the Antiquity and the early Middle Ages are presented, but mainly the role the Chaldean Oracles played inside the movement of Neo-Platonism is emphasized. The stratification of Being according to the theology of the Chaldean Oracles, suggests a reformation of the ancient Chaldean dogmas by the Neo-Platonists. The kernel of this paper is the demonstration of the similarity between the name “En” that the ancient Babylonians used as the first part of many compound words for their gods, with the One (Ἕν=En), the first theological principle in the Neo-Platonic system. Yet, a comparison between the Chaldean theology and the Neo-platonic views on Mysticism and religiosity follows. As it is well known, the later Neo-Platonism will be led to the creation of a way of thought and practice as impacts from the ancient tradition.

The article seeks to present an overview of the history of Byzantine philosophy. It takes its point of departure in the most important factors that influenced and shaped the Patristic thought. Subsequently, the paper considers the relative autonomy of Byzantine philosophy and offers a brief profile of major philosophers that contributed to the stream in the period from 9th to 15th century. From the numerous subjects that were taken into account by the most prominent Byzantine philosophers, the article discusses such issues as: the view of God, the problem of ‘conceptual realism’, the relationship between such ‘disci plines’ as logic, metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics and philosophical anthro pology. Furthermore, such questions as the place of man in the world, the scope of their freedom and the problem of evil are also touched upon here. The paper concludes with some remarks on the develop ment of Byzantine philosophy after the fall of Byzantium.

Leonardo Da Vinci’s Notebooks. From Neo-Platonism to Physicalism. The epistemological thinking of Leonardo Da Vinci does not continue the tradition of Neo-Platonic thought, but surpasses it in order to abandon it. Generally, it comes to a rupture with the authorities of Antiquity and the Middle Ages. But, on close reading of the Notebooks of Da Vinci, some structural and morphological parallels with the Neo-Platonic principles and ideas become apparent, which the Renaissance man converted to laws of nature. The presence of these correspondences indicates the existence of a transition phase, when the new way of thinking progressively replaces the previous one. The physicalistic view of reality is gaining ground as the metaphysics was replaced by the study of the sensible world as an autonomous reality.Ο επιστημονικός τρόπος σκέψης του Λεονάρντο Ντα Βίντσι δεν συνεχίζει τη Νεοπλατωνική παράδοση σκέψης αλλά την υπερβαίνει για να την εγκαταλείψει. Γενικά, έρχεται σε ρήξη προς τις αυθεντίες της Αρχαιότητας και του Μεσαίωνα. Ωστόσο, κατά την ανάγνωση των Σημειωματάριων του είναι εμφανείς δομικές και μορφολογικές αντιστοιχίες με ορισμένες Νεοπλατωνικές αρχές και ιδέες, οι οποίες έχουν πλέον μεταμορφωθεί σε φυσικούς νόμους. Η παρουσία αυτών των αντιστοιχιών υποδηλώνει την ύπαρξη ενός σταδίου μετάβασης, όταν ο νέος τρόπος σκέψης υποκαθιστά ολοένα και περισσότερο τον προηγούμενο. Η φυσιοκρατική αντίληψη για την πραγματικότητα κερδίζει έδαφος, καθώς η μεταφυσική υποκαθίσταται από την αντιμετώπιση του αισθητού κόσμου ως αυτόνομη πραγματικότητα.

Katelis Viglas’ book: Jeremiah II Tranos. Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch (1536-1595) is a historical-theological description and analysis of the most important data and facts concerning the life and works of Jeremiah II Tranos, Patriarch of Constantinople in the 16th century. The book consists of a Prologue, which refers to the aim of the treatise and the method followed. In the Introduction there is a general outline of the era of Jeremiah II and its origins, as well as a brief presentation of his contribution to the Greek Genus. The First Chapter is divided into three subchapters. The first subchapter provides a brief overview of the history of the birthplace of Jeremiah II, Anchialos, a city on the shores of the Black Sea, and describes patriarch’s character and education, along with an extensive reference to his teachers. In this subchapter information is included relative to Jeremiah’s life until his ordination as Metropolitan of Larissa. The second subchapter briefly narrates the glorious ordination of Jeremiah II to Patriarch of Constantinople. In the third subchapter of the First Chapter, the three breaks during Jeremiah II’ patriarchate –caused by the selfish ambitions of his competitors, who coveted the patriarchal throne– are recounted. The Second Chapter consists of four subchapters. In the first subchapter there are a brief reference to the life and religious beliefs of the founder of the Reformation, Martin Luther, and the interest and curiosity of the Lutherans in the situation of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The second subchapter of the Second Chapter contains biographical details of the Protestant scholar and philhellene Philip Melanchthon, and a reference to the first contact attempt of Lutherans with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The third subchapter of the Second Chapter is divided into six other subsections. The first section of the third subchapter describes the way the relationships of the Lutheran theologians of Tubingen with Patriarch Jeremiah II developed and to the starting point of their correspondence. Yet, the Philhellenism of the German Hellenist Martin Crusius and the role he played in the correspondence are highlighted. The second section outlines Jeremiah II’ responses to each article of the Augsburg Confession send to him by the Tubingen theologians. The third section highlights the key points of the reply of the Tubingen theologians to the First Answer from Jeremiah II. The third section refers to the Second Answer from Jeremiah II. In the short fifth section there is a reference to the reply of the Tubingen theologians to the Second and the Third Answer from Jeremiah II. The sixth section provides information related to the publication of that correspondence. In the fourth subchapter of the Second Chapter there are general and evaluative judgments on the correspondence between Jeremiah II and the Tubingen theologians. The Third Chapter is divided into five subchapters. The first subchapter explains the ancient Roman calendars of Numa and Julius Caesar and their shortcomings. The second subchapter presents the findings of these imperfections by various scholars. The third subchapter describes the Gregorian Reform of the calendar. The fourth subchapter analyses the social situation within the Orthodox Church during the Gregorian Reform. The fifth subchapter aims to show the orthodox reaction of Jeremiah II to the Gregorian calendar and its causes. The Fourth Chapter is divided into two subchapters, of which the first is related to Jeremiah’s travels in Poland and the regulation by him of Church life in this country, while the second gives an overview of the circumstances, under which the foundation of the Russian Patriarchate took place. The Fifth Chapter is divided into three subchapters. The first subchapter examines Jeremiah II’s concern on various issues. The second subchapter deals with Jeremiah II’ concern on the education of the Greek Genus. The third subchapter explains the attitude of Jeremiah II towards the Pontifical Greek College in Rome. At the end of the treatise there is an Epilogue, with concluding remarks on the evaluation of the historical figure of Jeremiah II, his spiritual identity and the status of the Orthodox East under his leadership. An extensive Bibliography, a Chronology, an Index of Names, 21 Illustrations and 2 Maps, complete the book.

George Gemistos Plethon was a Byzantine Philosopher, who lived during the 14th and 15th centuries before the fall of the Byzantine Empire. In his writings we can find the feeling of an intense Greek identity. Also, he can be considered as a genuine neoplatonist, who played a decisive role in the controversy between Platonists and Aristotelians in his era. He took part in the Council of Florence and the Council of Ferrara (1438-1439), where he gave a course of lectures on Platonic Philosophy, which was the cause for the founding of Academia Platonica by Cozimo de Medici (1459). His social and political ideas were very important and derived from an ideal for reforming the social reality of his country. But they weren’t appreciated, as he wished, in Peloponnesus, and especially in Mistra, where he lived for the most part of his life. Although his theology and ontology are based on a metaphysical determinism, the human being maintains his freedom because of the rational part of soul. Man and his soul are in a middle position between the intelligible and the sensible world. His ethics was developed on a wide theory of virtues, including the four main platonic virtues, from which derive twelve subdivisions. His anthropological, social and ethical theories belong on the neoplatonic line of thought and had a very large influence not only on Byzantium but also on the whole European culture of Renaissance.

On close reading of the Enneads, the work written by Plotinus, we can see that the One, the ultimate factor in his system of hypostases, can be examined on the base of many concepts that are interwoven, creating many paths for approaching the divine level. Of course, since all the hypostases, Matter — Nature — Soul — Intelligence, are dependent on the infinite power of the One, theoretically and practically everything can be related to the One or the God or the Good. But there are some modes of existence most related to the One, thus illuminating the Plotinian mystical empiricism. The One, on the one hand, is related to empiricism as It presupposes the immediate approach of It, being immanent and transcendent at the same time, and on the other hand, It is related to mysticism as It cannot be perfectly conceived and experienced otherwise than through the mystical union.