Download Download
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Akropolis 3 (2019) 88-109 Dimitrios A. Vasilakis* Hellenism and Christianity: Petros Vrailas-Armenis on the Constituents of Modern Greek Identity1 Abstract: In this paper I examine how Vrailas conceives of Modern Greek identity. After an introduction, I look at Vrailian texts where it is emphasized that Hellenism and Christianity are the two components of Greek national identity. Does this mean, though, that for Vrailas these two elements express a similar mode of being? There are passages that can support this claim. Still, Vrai- las’ reader should not suppose that the Corfiote philosopher uncritically assumes a linear transition from Hellenism to Christianity. But if Christianity denotes the emergence of something new in history, how can it be compatible with Hellenism? Vrailas’ answer is that as with the Mosaic Law, Christianity did not come to abolish Hellenism, but to fulfill it. Furthermore, the association of Christianity with Hellenism enabled the latter to survive throughout history both in the West and the East. Besides, for Vrailas variety has always constituted the “harmony of Hellenism”. Introduction Petros Vrailas-Armenis (Πέτρος Βράϊλας-Ἀρμένης: 1812/13-84) has been brought back from oblivion by Evanghelos Moutsopoulos, the philosopher-schol- ar who edited the complete Vrailian works in the series “Corpus Philosophorum Graecorum Recentiorum”,2 and published a host of relevant books and articles *Independent Researcher, Augsburg, Germany ([email protected]) 1 Versions of this paper were read in London (KCL, 2012) and Berlin (2013: these events are referred to infra in n.19). I thank Niketas Siniossoglou for inviting me to give this paper at KCL, as well as the reviewers of the journal for their constructive criticism and suggestions. I owe my understanding of Vrailas’ philosophy to my father, Antonios D. Vasilakis. Not only did my editorial responsibility for his doctoral thesis on Vrailian ontological aesthetics, (available here: http://thesis.ekt.gr/thesisBookReader/id/18398#page/1/mode/2up, last accessed on 13/06/2015), which subsequently came out as a book (see infra, n.8), enrich my general phil- osophical knowledge, but it also shaped my research interests in ancient Greek philosophy. 2 Vrailas’ philosophical corpus consists of nine volumes (vol.4 is divided into semi-volumes 4a&4b; vol.8 com- prises solely of Indexes) published in the series C.P.G.R., founded and directed by E. Moutsopoulos. Another text being edited in the same series is Demetrios Kydonis’ translation of (part of ) Thomas Aquinas’Σούμμα Hellenism and Christianity: Petros Vrailas-Armenis on the Constituents of Modern Greek Identity 89 in many languages. Moutsopoulos thinks of the Corfiote philosopher and poli- tician3 as “the most important Greek thinker of the nineteenth century”.4 Vrai- las was a follower of V. Cousin’s5 eclecticist school.6 In his eclectic philosophy the Corfiote systematic thinker combines Platonism and Aristotelianism with Church Fathers, as well as modern European philosophical currents from Des- cartes to Hegel.7 However, recent scholars, the characteristic example being A. Θεολογική, (not from Kydonis’ autograph though; the latter’s edition has been undertaken by Ch. Wright as part of the international research project “Thomas de Aquino Graecus”; see Demetrakopoulos,Influence ). Such an enterprise is indicative of Moutsopoulos’ view that Modern Greek philosophy rises before the fall of Con- stantinople, (around 1358 is the year of Kydonis’ completion of the translation of Thomas’Summa Theologiae, while 1354 that of Summa contra Gentiles, to be edited by J.A. Demetracopoulos and Ch. Dendrinos as vol.1 in the aforementioned “Thomas de Aquino Graecus” series), when “Byzantine”/Eastern-Roman/Greek thinkers started actively engaging with the philosophy of Western Europe. Cf. Moutsopoulos, “Roots”, 372, n.1 and the introduction by Moutsopoulos, “L’Ηellénisation du Τhomisme au XIVe siècle” in C.P.G.R. II, vol.15, 7-12. 3 The balanced co-existence of vita contemplativa and activa is a remarkable fact of Vrailas’ personality. For the subsequent information see in general Moutsopoulos, Brailas, 11-13 and 20-6. (Despite the name in the title of this book I use the transliteration “Vrailas”.) Indicatively, before the Union of Heptanese with Greece in 1864, Vrailas had been president of the Ionian Parliament, and after the Union, member and Minister of Foreign Affairs in the State-Council of Koumoundouros. Further, apart from growing up in an island which was a British protectorate, he was twice ambassador in London (1867-73 and 1882-84) and was bestowed the title “Sir” by the Queen of the United Kingdom, Victoria in 1856 (May 10; cf. also the “Chronology” by Chr. Baloglou in Kerkyraika Chronika, 14). 4 Moutsopoulos, Brailas, 6. Cf. also ibid. 7: “… a remarkable and unjustly ignored thinker”. These assertions are repeated throughout Moutsopoulos’ relevant writings. Recently there has been a resurgence of interest in the work of Vrailas, as seen in the organization of the Conference “Petros Vrailas-Armenis: 200 Years from his Birth” at the University of Athens (30-31 Jan. 2014). 5 Victor Cousin (1792-1867) was a French “eclectic” philosopher (see also n.6) and scholar of Neoplatonism. For instance, until fairly recently the standard text of Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides used was in Cousin’s edition. The evidence suggests that Vrailas had never physically met Cousin himself, but the former had relations with the latter’s disciples. Cf. Moutsopoulos, Brailas, 21. Both Cousin and Vrailas were free-ma- sons, but I am not going to engage with this aspect in what follows. 6 For various notions of “eclecticism”, and specifically Cousin’s one, see McClellan, “Eclecticism”, although he does not refer to the case of Vrailas. Usually the notion carries pejorative overtones when used by historians of philosophy (like E. Zeller) with respect to the ancient philosophy between the second centuries BC and AD (cf. Dillon-Long, Eclecticism in general and specifically Donini, “Eclecticism”, esp. 22-27). In contrast to this, Moutsopoulos, Brailas, 29-30 is quite positive, especially in the case of Vrailian eclecticism. It would be also useful to distinguish Cousin’s (second) eclectic current from the earlier French eclecticism of F. Thu- rot (1768-1837), which influenced another Modern Greek thinker of the nineteenth century, Νεόφυτος Βάμβας. Cf. Moutsopoulos, “Vamvas”, 382-4. 7 Cf. also Moutsopoulos, “Roots”, 372. Vrailas was aware of the work of British philosophers, too, such as J. Locke, D. Hume, D. Stewart and Thomas Reid (cf. the Scottish ‘common sense’ school of philosophy, with which Vrailas’ method of eclecticism has some affinities). 90 Dimitrios A. Vasilakis Vasilakis,8 have stressed Vrailas’ dynamic and critical differences from contempo- rary European philosophers such as Hegel, and hence from Cousin as well.9 The reason for this is the Vrailian particular ontological presuppositions which have been shaped on the one hand by a direct engagement with ancient Greek philo- sophical texts and culture, and on the other hand by an internalization of the ex- periences of the orthodox Christian faith.10 Undoubtedly, these basic traits made Moutsopoulos characterize Vrailas as “the highest expression of Eclecticism”.11 Vrailas’ philosophical identity, nevertheless, is not my main subject. Nor shall Ι address the issue of how he can preserve his Hellenic personhood by being in such a constant dialogue with Western philosophy12 and culture.13 This has been an accusa- tion frequently hurled against the Greek nature of the Ionian Islands’ cultural produc- tion,14 notwithstanding the Heptanesian origin and status of two cornerstones of our 8 Vasilakis, Beautiful, in which, among else, the reader will find an extended Bibliography on Vrailas and on the issues with which this paper deals. 9 Cousin, and thus his eclectic school as well, was heavily influenced by Hegelianism. Cf. the editors’ General Introduction in Vrailas-Armenis, Works, vol.4b, 10, n.3 (starting in the previous page) and Moutsopoulos, Brailas, 29. For the issue of Vrailas’ critical differentiations from Hegel (and Cousin) see Vasilakis,Beautiful , 66, 68, 67-8 (:n.5), 79 (and n.2), 110-11, 216-7 (esp.n.3 in p.216 and n.1 in 217), 218, 223-4 (with relevant notes, esp.n.7 in 223), 268, (316-)317 (:n.11), 317 (n.1), 295-300, 357-8 (in English). 10 Cf. Vasilakis, Beautiful, e.g.348-9 (and 358: English equivalent). 11 Cf. Moutsopoulos, Brailas, 133-4 and passim, e.g. 6. 12 Hence, one of the roots of the problem of how to define (what one qualifies as) Hellenic identity. See pertinent remarks infra. 13 With respect to this issue Moutsopoulos, Brailas, 26-7 notes: “Soon after Brailas’s death a new pro- gressive literary movement appeared in Greek literature… Brailas… believed in the European character of Hellenism. The literary generation that followed his own generation believed instead in the fact of Greek national particularism. This seems to be the main reason why Brailas’s message remained in the margin of further Greek literary evolution…” (I assume that Moutsopoulos must have had P. Gi- annopoulos [1869-1910] in mind.) Cf. also ibid. 133 and my concluding remarks. 14 See for instance the case of music by Heptanesian composers such as N.Ch. Mantzaros (1795-1872), the composer of the Greek National Anthem, which is the first of his many settings, based on the two first verses of Solomos’ Ὕμ“ ν ο ς εἰς τὴν Ἐλευθερίαν”. Some critics insist on the accusation that this sort of music is not Hellenic because it has European influences. Of course, they ignore to acknowledge that since the Heptanese, and especially Corfu, was always a part of Europe, its cultural products could not be but European. As to the problem of whether the “European” excludes the “Hellenic” cf. supra, n.13.