Γεωργίου Γενναδίου Β΄ του Σχολαρίου Περὶ θείας προνοίας καὶ προορισμοῦ: εισαγωγή και κριτική έκδοση.
Date Issued
March 11, 2024
Type
Διδακτορική Διατριβή
Abstract
My critical edition of George Gennadius II - Scholarius’ (c. 1400 - 1472) five discourses On the Divine Providence and Predestination is based on the 15th century codices Parisinus Graecus 1289, 1294, 1292, Vaticanus Rossianus 986 and Pantocratorinus 127. Their relevant parts either are autographs or were written under Scholarios’ supervision; the latter holds for the first Discourse in Vat. Ross. 986, written by Scholarios’ scribe John Dokeianos, and for the Second Discourse in Parisinus Graecus 1289, written by George Amiroutzis. The Introduction offers a sketch of the historical, philosophical, and theological context within which the five Discourses were produced; it is argued that we witness the transformation of the divine providence issue from a particular topic in the context of the late Byzantine Plato - Aristotle controversy to a central theme of a new, both (philosophical and theological, controversy between Scholarios on the one hand and both Plethon and erring Christian theologians on the other. This is shown by means of a full-fledged presentation and systematic comparison of certain passages from the relevant texts, written by Scholarios (Κατὰ τῶν Πλήθωνος ἀποριῶν ἐπ’ Ἀριστοτέλει, Πρὸς Πλήθωνα ἐπὶ τῇ πρὸς τὸ ὑπὲρ Λατίνων βιβλίον αὐτοῦ ἀπαντήσει ἢ κατὰ Ἑλλήνων, Ἐπιστολὴ τῇ βασιλίσσῃ περὶ τοῦ βιβλίου τοῦ Γεμιστοῦ, Περὶ τοῦ βιβλίου του Γεμιστοῦ καὶ κατὰ τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς πολυθεΐας και Περὶ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἐν Τριάδι Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ πάντων τῶν ὄντων δημιουργοῦ, καὶ κατὰ ἀθέων ἤτοι αὐτοματιστῶν καὶ κατὰ πολυθέων) and others shortly before, or by and large at the same time as, the five Discourses (such as Theodore Agallianus’ Περὶ προνοίας).The two major figures in this intellectual wage-war, namely Plethon and Gennadius, converged in arguing that getting back to the true ‘ancient doctrines’ was the only way for the regeneration and prosperity of the Greek nation and humanity. Still, they fiercely disagreed as to what these πάτρια δόγματα actually are, what the correct "religious" or "philosophical" truth is. Plethon looked forward to the revival and continuation of pagan Hellenism on the basis of εἱμαρμένη, whereas Scholarios believed in the survival and salvation of the Christian Greeks by means of returning to the strict application of the moral rules of Christianity and the laws of the ‘kingdom of the Romans’ in the framework of the –Christian-, not Stoically-conceived– ‘divine Providence’. Regardless of the relative relevance of the purely historical and ideological context of the discussion in Scholarios’ Discourses on Divine Providence and Predestination, it is further argued that we cannot claim in a naively reductionist way that their doctrine can be accounted for in terms of their context. Unlike what some of the older and contemporary scholarly-like accounts of Scholarios’ writings assume, there is no evidence that the external canvas, i.e. the conflict between Byzantium and the Ottomans or Christianity and Islam, shaped Scholarios’ doctrine. As is the case with speculative (philosophical and theological) discourse in general, the true, direct context of the doctrine of Scholarios’ five Discourses is the set of the relevant writings on, and discussions of, the core issues by other, Greek and Latin, authors available to him. In Part One, each Discourse is presented in detail, with a parallel recording, of the particular issues raised: providence and determinism; providence and foreknowledge; predestination vs. human deliberation; the question of the usefulness of praying; Anastasius of Sinai’s opposition to Basil the Great’s ‘deterministic’, so to speak, view of Providence; pestilence as a case of autonomous action of natural laws within the Providence framework, etc.Moreover, a detailed investigation into the sources of Gennadius, distinguished as Greek and Thomist, is carried out. Gennadius had a wide and deep knowledge of the Christian and pagan Greek literature on the issue: Mark Eugenicus, Demetrius Cydones, Nikephoros Blemmydes; Nicholas of Methone, Michael Glykas, Germanos I of Constantinople; Proclus, Basil of Caesarea, Anastasios of Sinai, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Some of these authors are seen by Scholarios as deserving the label ‘theologians’, on account of their knowledge of philosophy, which enabled them to properly interpret the fundamental textual source of Christianity, i.e. the Bible. Of course, this does not imply that all of them agreed with each other or that Scholarios felt obliged to agree with this or that ‘theologian’. Some others, he explained, dared to treat of the above issues without being qualified for this. The fact that they were saints is not a remedy for their being unqualified. Thomas Aquinas is, to Scholarios, the best-qualified of all. This accounts for Scholarios’ extensive use of Thomas. Scholarios worked like this. On the one hand, he used the patristic sources he considered correct as ‘auctoritates’; on the other, he exploited Thomas as the proper theologian, i.e., the interpreter of the ‘auctoritates’. The distinction between 'teachers' and 'theologians' is drawn by Thomas himself as well as by Demetrius Kydones, who was the main transmitter of Aquinas’ oeuvre in Byzantium. So, the apparatus fontium, along with the Adnotationes, where the passages used by Scholarios are fully quoted, shows that our author draws extensively upon the Summa contra Gentiles, Bk. III and the Summa Theologiae, Ia, especially Qu. 19 [On the divine will], 22 [On the divine providence] and 23 [On predestination]. When writing the first of his five Discourses, Scholarios had access to the full version of Cydones’ translation of these two Thomistic works; as for the remaining Discourses, Scholarios was based on his own epitomes of Cydones’ translation of these two theological works. Moreover, I offer an analysis of Scholarios’ doctrine. I argue that Scholarios clearly argues for God’ predestination of man, but in a way that does not cancel man’s self-determination; this was a view shared, with a number of variations, by the majority of the Greek Fathers and Byzantine scholars. Moreover, unlike the Aristotelianism that permeates the relevant views of Marcus Eugenicus, who considered βουλεύεσθαι a cause parallel to, and independent of, divine providence, Scholarios is in sync with Thomas’ neoplatonizing Aristotelianism, where βουλεύεσθαι is not only known by the transcendental God in advance but also determined by Him, though in such a way that its free nature be not removed. Scholarios’ deep knowledge of the philosophical and theological tradition of the question of divine providence and predestination led him to consider and present himself as the unerring guide on the issue, granted, we might say, this right to himself even before others grant it to him. In Part Two, I meticulously present the manuscript tradition of the text of the five Discourses. A description of the five 15th century codices used for the edition is offered, followed by a description of the later extant codices. In the history of the dissemination (disseminatio) of the text of the Discourses, the tradition stemming from cod. Par. gr. 1289 clearly prevails. The fifth Discourse enjoyed no dissemination at all; this was perhaps due to the fact that Scholarios did not include it in the emblematic autographed set of writings in cod. Par. Gr. 1289. This, in turn, may be due to the fact that the fifth Discourse emerged in a context different from that of the previous ones; he is a simply a theoretical defence of praying to God against Predestination.In the stemma codicum I also include all printed versions of the works edited. Based on all of the above, the ratio editionis is offered given. Part Two also includes a section dealing with the issue of how Scholarios himself marked his own quotations of passages. Part Three includes the critical edition of the Discourses. Three apparatuses are offred: two apparatus fontium and an apparatus criticus. Because of Scholarios’ extensive use of Aquinas’ Summa theologiae, Ia and Summa contra Gentiles as well as of the two Florilegia Thomistica compiled by himself, the apparatus fontium is divided into apparatus fontium variorum and apparatus fontium Thomisticorum. The former includes the Scriptural passages and passages from the works of Church Fathers and Byzantine authors used by Scholaros, while the latter includes Thomistic passages. The reason for the distinction is not only practical but also substantial: it reflects the way in which Scholarios resorted to the sources he used: the first apparatus fontium includes the Christian auctoritates, i.e. those texts that contain Christian doctrine but require interpretation by theologians in order for that doctrine to be grasped unerringly; the second one includes passages from the works of Thomas, who, according to Scholarios, is the best theologian ever. In fact, the Scholastic distinction between teacher and theologian makes the construction of two apparatus fontium obligatory. It also explains why Scholarios nowhere mentions Thomas in his Discourses: the reason is that Scholarios mentions only auctoritates that needed to be clarified or interpreted; Thomas does not need clarification or interpretation; it is he who clarifies and interprets. The apparatus criticus includes all the variae lectiones as well as everything written in the margins of the codices. This or that misreading in M. Jugie’s old edition (1928) or in certain even earlier editions is not included. I also offer a partially new division of the writings into paragraphs. The Adnotationes are supposed to make it easier for the reader to compare the passages referred to to the Scholarian writings edited here, so that the reader be enabled to fully understand the exact way in which Scholarios composed his texts. An Appendix presents in an exhaustive way Theodore Agallianos’ so far undetected borrowings from Mark Eugenicus’ Ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Ἰσίδωρον ἱερομόναχον, περὶ ὅρων ζωῆς αἰτήσαντα and from Scholarios’ Περὶ θείας προνοίας καὶ προορισμοῦ, σπουδαῖον in Agallianos’ Περὶ θείας προνοίας. This highlights the earliest instance of reception of the set of Scholarian writings edited critically in Part III.
Subjects