Une question souvent posée par les spécialistes de la culture byzantine est celle qui concerne les relations entre littérature et réalité à Byzance - relation réputée «obscure» (comme si la dite relation était «claire» ou «évidente» pour les autres littératures). Le mélange entre théologie et paganisme, intellectualisme et passion, haute culture et amoralisme, réalisme et abstraction, continue à poser des problèmes, jadis escamotés sous le nom de «byzantinisme». Dans ce cadre général, on doit inclure une question plus concrète sur la (...) philosophie et son exercice à Byzance et, plus précisément, celle qui concerne la «persona» du philosophe, ses attributs et sa vocation. En tant que cas exemplaire, et en même temps extraordinaire, nous avons choisi le destin de Jean Italos. (shrink)

The article examines how Hegel’s negative view of Byzantium is different from the Enlightenment’s critique and especially from Voltaire’s criticism of medieval history. In order to account for the Hegelian specificity of interpretation an effort is made to translate the chapter on Byzantium from the Philosophy of History in terms of the analysis of the Phenomenology of the Spirit and, more precisely, on the basis of the chapters on sensible certitude and on the domination and servitude. Considering that for Hegel (...) every philosophical school possesses an autonomous value, one has to wonder why the Byzantine moment of the Spirit is destined to stagnation. The question about Hegel’s Neoplatonism, especially his affiliation with Proclus’s system, shows how the distance separating the Hegelian system from the Proclusian one explains the inadequacy of the latter as to drawing the consequences from the Byzantine spiritual stagnation. (shrink)

The article examines the state of research on Michael of Ephesus as a probable author of the Commentaries on Metaphysics E–N, mainly the works of Leonardo Tarán and Concetta Luna. In spite of their opposed views, they both agree on the mediocrity of the Byzantine author. The article questions the criteria for this negative appraisal and offers some material for reconsidering Michael of Ephesus’ idea of philo­sophical culture.

The Byzantine philosopher Michael Psellos wrote a brief treatise entitled An Explanation of the Drive of the Soul Chariot and the Army of Gods According to Plato in the Phaedrus. The treatise consists of a compilation of excerpts from Hermias’ commentary on the Phae­drus. Psellos does not mention Hermias’ name but rather traces the origins of the treatise back to some “Greek theologians”. Psellos’ text presents a great interpretative challenge: the order of the myths about the charioteer and the parade (...) of gods is reversed so that the former explicates the latter in such a way that the whole Platonic argument is dismissed as “absurd”. The Phaedrus in the Neo ‑Platonic tradition is considered to be a strictly theological dialogue. Yet, Psellos’ arrangement shows that he was not interested in the mythographical or allegorical dimension of the excerpts. He rath­er focused on the epistemic problem, i.e., a reduction of the trichotomy of the soul into a duality of principles. Thus, he followed certain Aristo­telian commentators. Psellos suggests a reduction that is subjectivist or individualist in its nature and he refuses to identify individual intellect with any particular piety. (shrink)

The paper examines the relation of esotericism and oblique politics in the Byzantine philosopher Michael Psellos on the basis of Eva De Vries’ study of the letters that Psellos addressed to the statesman Leo Paraspondylos. Traditionally, the name of Psellos signifies a revival of Neoplatonism in medieval Constantinople according to researchers like Chr. Zervos in the beginning of 20th century. Contemporary researchers such as Anthony Kaldellis and Stratis Papaioannou point to a more organic than speculative theorization in Psellos’ work while (...) another contemporary scholar, Frederick Lauritzen, undertakes a synthesis of the two approaches. In any case, as this paper supports, it would be inadequate to consider the relation of esotericism to politics without referring to the evolution of the moral standards considered in a contextualized manner. (shrink)