Abstract

Shortly after Thomas Aquinas’ death, his thought spread not only in Europe but also in the Christian East. This transmission was a side effect (or even part) of the missionary activity of the Dominicans in the East. From the beginning (c. 1300) up to the end of Byzantine Thomism, Aquinas was almost exclusively noted for his arguments on behalf of the Filioque. Yet Demetrios Kydones’ translation of the Summa contra Gentiles in 1354 and Demetrios and Prochoros Kydones’ translation of the Summa theologiae in the few subsequent years showed to the Byzantines that the range and the quality of Aquinas’ thought was wider and higher than the Latins’ use of his arguments in the discussion between the Roman See and the Byzantine Church allowed them to recognize. The reaction by the earliest Byzantine readers of Aquinas (Demetrios Kydones himself, John VI Cantakouzenos, and Neilos Kabasilas) bears marks of a ‘‘culture shock.’’ Byzantines were particularly impressed by the apologetic skills of Aquinas, which they put in the service of their own discussions with Islam. In this context, Demetrios Kydones translated Aquinas’ De rationibus fidei and De articulis fidei, too. At the purely philosophical level, Aquinas promoted Byzantine Aristotelianism. This was used by Nicholas Kabasilas in order to combat Gregory Palamas’ repudiation of human knowledge and by

Prochoros Kydones in order to combat Gregory Palamas’ distinction between God’s ‘‘essence’’ and ‘‘energies.’’ It was also fervently embraced by George Scholarios (Gennadios II) in order to defeat George Gemistos’ (Plethon) paganism. Scholarios also contributed to the Byzantines’ knowledge of Aquinas’ commentaries on Aristotle’s writings by translating some of them (on the De interpretatione, De anima, Physics, and Posterior Analytics) into Greek.

Historical and Literary Facts

Byzantine Thomism, that is, the Greek translation, spread, and influence of several important writings of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) on Late Byzantine theological and philosophical thought (fourteenth to fifteenth century) forms the most important part of the spread of Aquinas’ thought in the Christian East. It is divided into three phases.

From the Beginning of the Byzantines' Acquaintance with Aquinas (c. 1300) up to Demetrios Kydones' Translation (1354) of the Summa Contra Gentiles

This phase is obscure, because of the scarcity of the relevant evidence. The origins of Byzantine Thomism are connected with the history of the missionary activity of the Dominican friars in Byzantium from the last decades of the thirteenth century onward. In late 1299, the Dominican Guillaume Bernard de Gaillac arrived at Constantinople, where he learnt Greek and translated (not earlier than 1305) into Greek some parts of Thomas’ works (probably Summa theologiae I, qu. 36, art. 2-4 and Summa contra Gentiles IV, 24-25, which touch upon the Filioque). A report of the Latins’ arguments for the Filioque by Manuel Moschopoulos (c. 1265-c. 1316) probably reflects this translation. In 1307, Guillaume and his company, expelled by the emperor Andronikos II (12821328), moved to Pera (by then a Genovese colony near the capital city of the Byzantine state); there, their convent became a channel of transmission of Scholastic theology, especially that of Aquinas, in Byzantium. Most probably, it was a member of this convent, Philip de Bindo Incontri (or Philip of Pera), who taught Demetrios Kydones (c. 1324 - c. 1397) Latin, by using Aquinas’ Summa contra Gentiles as a means ofpracticing translation from Latin into Greek.

From 1354 to the End of the Fourteenth Century

Within less than a year, Demetrios Kydones produced a translation of the entire Summa contra Gentiles. The first readers of the translation, namely, the emperor, John VI Cantakuzenos and Kydones’ former teacher, Neilos Kabasilas, were startled by the apologetic skills of Aquinas. Soon afterward, Demetrios converted to Catholicism (1357), and in collaboration with his younger brother Prochoros (c. 1330-c. 1369), carried out a translation of the Summa theologiae. He also translated Thomas’ De rationibus fidei contra Saracenos, Graecos et Armenos ad cantorem Antiochenum, and De articulis fidei et Ecclesiae sacramentis ad archiepiscopum Panormitanum, as well as Chaps. 53-54 of Bernardus Guidonis’ (c. 12611331) Vita sancti Thomae Aquinatis, where a list of Aquinas’ writings is contained. In addition, Prochoros translated the De spiritualibus creaturis, the Prologue of Thomas’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics and some questions of the first book of Thomas’ Commentary on the ‘‘Sentences.’’

From the Third to the Sixth Decade of the Fifteenth Century

Another Latin-learned scholar, George Scholarios (Gennadios II) (c. 1400-c. 1472), translated some other Thomistic works: the De ente et essentia (along with Armadur de Bellovisu’s Commentary on it), Commentary on Aristotle’s ‘‘De interpretatione,’’ the Commentary on Aristotle’s ‘‘De anima,’’ part of the Commentary on Aristotle’s ‘‘Physics,’’ and the De fallaciis (probably not a genuine work). Scholarios’ version of Aquinas’ Commentary on Aristotle’s ‘‘Posterior Analytics’’ is not extant. Besides, he elaborated, for personal use, a compendium of the Summa contra Gentiles and of the Ia and the Ia IIae of the Summa theologiae (as well as two of Florilegia Thomistica), which he constantly used in his writings instead of having recourse to the full texts themselves.

Influence on Speculative Thought

Byzantine authors who benefited from the fact that some of Aquinas’ writings became available in Greek are to be found not only among the pro-Latin circles (Prochoros Kydones, Manuel Kalekas, Bessarion, Andreas Chrysoberges etc.) and among the circles of open-minded thinkers (such as Nicholas Kabasilas) who did not exhibit any hostility to the ‘‘Latins’’; even professed anti-Latin authors (such as John VI Cantakuzenos, Joseph Bryennios, Makarios Makres, Manuel II Palaiologos, Markos Eugenikos, and Scholarios) did not deprive themselves of reading Aquinas (among other Christian Latin authors translated into Greek) and borrowing from him whatever they regarded useful. Even George Gemistos (Plethon) (c. 1360-1452 or 1454), a professedly antiChristian author who, like most of his contemporary intellectuals, did not know Latin, was heavily influenced by the Summae; he not only integrated into his own writings some important Thomistic doctrines and arguments; he also composed a florilegium of extracta from the Summae for his own use, which testify to a careful reading of these works. In addition, his disciple with the eclectic and independent mind, Cardinal Bessarion (1403-1472), elaborated an abridgment of the Ia IIae.

This is a list of concrete cases of Thomas’ influence on Late Byzantine philosophical thought:

1.  Producing numbered arguments both for and against a statement on any topic, imitating the structure of Aquinas’ ‘‘articuli.’’ Some authors compounded some of their works after this pattern (see, e. g., Nicholas Kabasilas’ De rationis valore and Contra Pyrrhonem; George Scholarios’ Against the Impasses Ignorantly Imputed by Plethon to Aristotle).

2.  Anti-Palamite ethical Aristotelianism. Against Gregory Palamas’ (1296-1357) repudiation of secular knowledge and philosophical thinking, Nicholas Kabasilas (c. 1325-post 1391), based both on Aristotle’s ethical writings and on Aquinas’ Summa theologiae, defended human ‘‘reason’’ as a means of attaining truth and acting morally, that is, as a means of ‘‘perfection.’’

3.  Anti-Palamite defense of the unity of God. Prochoros Kydones (On the Essence and Energy of God), John Kyparissiotes (c. 1310? - post 1377; That It Is Impossible to Find The Difference Between Essence and Operation in the Case of God; An Introductory Exposition of Some Fundamental Theological Statements), Manuel Calecas (c. 1350?-1410; On Essence and Energy; Principles of the Catholic Faith), and Bessarion (A Reply to the ‘‘Chapters’’ of Marcos Eugenicos) rejected the high degree of reality attributed by Gregory Palamas to the distinction between God’s ‘‘essence’’ and ‘‘energies’’ by using, inter alia, Aquinas’ doctrine of the coincidence of the absolute properties of God (‘‘being-x’’) with His being ( esse).

4.  Thomistic Palamism. Several defenders of the aforesaid Palamite distinction, such as John VI Cantakuzenos (c. 1892-1393; Third Letter to the Catholic Archbishop of Constantinople Paul), Manuel II Palaiologos (1350-1425; On the Procession of the Holy Spirit), and Marcos Eugenikos (1394-1445; On the Non-Composite Character of the Distinction between God’s Essence and Energies), described it as drawn ex parte subjecti by using the term epinoia, which, in Demetrios Kydones’ translation of the Summa contra Gentiles, renders the Latin intelligentia and intentio.

George Scholarios (Against the Followers of Akindynos; On the Way God’s Energies Are Distinguished From Each Other as Well as From God’s Essence, to Which They Belong and in Which They Abide; cf. his excursus within his translation of the Armadur de Bellovisu’s Commentary on Aquinas’ De ente et essentia) offered the highest philosophical elaboration to this trend; according to him, Aquinas’ analogia entis implies that the ‘‘divine names’’ not only differ really from each other according to their definition but also correspond to some ‘‘forms’’ actually existing in God, though in such a way that God’s infinity renders their plurality harmless for His simplicity.

5. George Scholarios defended the rationality of Christian faith against Plethon’s pagan attack on it by means of Aquinas’ Christian Aristotelianism. Scholarios’ counterattack regarded especially Plethon’s doctrines of the plurality of divine beings as well as of ‘‘fate.’’ Scholarios defended the Christian doctrines ofone God and His Providence, which makes room for free will.

See also: > Augustine in Byzantium > Demetrios Kydones > George Scholarios (Gennadios II) > Nicholas Chamaetos Kabasilas > Prochoros Kydones > Thomas Aquinas > Thomism