Thought

Prodromos’ philosophical work focuses exclusively on logic. His major contribution to this field, at least quantitatively, is his still unpublished (Cacouros 1992) Commentary on the second book of Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics. In it, Prodromos overtly criticizes Aristotle for his elliptical style and tries to restore the meaning of the Aristotelian text through various additions and, also, by rearranging the original phrasing (Cacouros 1989:327-328).

The Commentary became a standard work in Byzantine philosophical curricula by the end of thirteenth century (see the Byzantine list of Commentaries on Aristotle published by Hayduck 1885:V) and was later adapted by the eminent Byzantine scholar John Chortasmenos (c. 1370-1431) to fulfill contemporary educational needs (Cacouros 1995-1996:347-352). It is not certain, however, that it was originally conceived to serve didactic purposes. In its prologue (Brandis 1836:241a1-9), Prodromos states that in writing the Commentary, he does not mean to condemn the attempts made by previous exegetes but to test his own skills in such a difficult task. At least once, he is critical of Eustratios oF Nicaea, on whose comments Prodromos’ own Commentary is largely based (Cacouros 1989:333-334). It is perhaps not unlikely that Prodromos was prompted to produce a better commentary than the existing ones by ‘literary’ friends such as Stephen Scylitzes and Michael Italicos.

Another philosophical work by Prodromos, much Shorter than the Commentary on the second book of the Posterior Analytics, was written at the request of Michael Italicos. It is called On ‘Great’ and ‘Small’ (Tannery 1887) and sets out to prove, in quite an original way, that the great and the small are not relatives, as Aristotle has it in the Categories, ch. 6, but quantities. Prodromos gives six arguments, mostly based on linguistic points, to support his thesis, and then takes up another six in order to demonstrate, also against AristOtle, that the great and small are contraries (Ierodiakonou 2005:28-29).

Finally, Prodromos composed a philosophical dialogue in which he combines Plato’s elenctic method with Lucien’s satirical style. The dialogue bears the title Xenedemos, or, Predicables (Cramer 1836) and sets out to unveil, again on linguistic grounds, the difficulties arising from Porphyry’s doctrine in the Quinque voces (Isagoge).

Compared to the extensive work of Aristotelian scholars of the preceding generation, like Eustratios and Michael of Ephesus, Prodromos’ overall philosophical work represents a return to traditional philosophical themes in Byzantium, namely, themes from Aristotle’s Organon and Porphyry’s Isagoge. At the same time, however, it is a fine example of the high-level scholarship of the twelfth century; in Prodromos’ case, broad classical culture, critical assessment ofancient authorities, and elegant style seem to have assured the survival of his philosophical oeuvre in Byzantium.