Magda Mtchedlidze Ioane Petritsi Philosophic Thought Developed In
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Magda Mtchedlidze Ioane Petritsi Philosophic thought developed in Georgia in direct connection with theological thought and in the bosom of theological thought. After Christianity was established in Georgia, hexaemeral works of cosmological and anthropological content as well as patristic texts of dogmatico-polemical content that cover issues of God's monism and triadism. We also have Christian ethic didaskalia. Although philosophic passages can be seen in works of various literary genres from early periods, special attention seems to have been given only in a later period to reflection on philosophy proper and philosophic thinking, works on logic, popularisation of Classical philosophy in the Georgian language, philosophic compendia. Ephrem Mtsire's translation of Areopagitic works (with an introduction and comments) and the philosophic chapters of Fountain of Knowledge by John of Damascus (omitted in an earlier Georgian translation of the work) were made in the 11th century. In the introduction to his own translation, Ephrem described in a picturesque manner relations between philosophy and theology. He said that philosophy as a thorny fence protected the fruit of vine - theology, which made them absolutely indispensable for each other, as they complemented each other (John of Damascus 1976: 67). Comprehensive interest in philosophy finally ended in the use of The Elements of Theology by pagan philosopher Proclus Diadochus as a school manual by Ioane Petritsi. We do not know much about the personality of Ioane Petritsi. His name, Petritsi, shows that his activities were linked, at least for some period, to Petritsoni, a Georgian monastery that was founded near the modern town of Plovdiv in Bulgaria in 1083 by Gregorios Pakurianos, who was a person promoted at the Byzantine court. According to the postscript to a manuscript of a later period, Ioane Petritsi worked in Georgia at the Gelati Monastery founded by David IV the Builder in 1114. Gelati was well-known for its educational and literary activities. Given the nature of Petritsi's interests in Classical sources, he is regarded as a disciple of the school of philosophy founded in the second half of the 11th century by Michael Psellos. Petritsi attended the school at the time when John Italos was the hypatus. Given this, he is believed to be a figure, who worked on the turn of the 11th and 12th centuries. However, some think that he worked on the turn of the 12th and 13th centuries. It is noteworthy that the most ancient manuscript comprising his works is of the 13th century.1 In addition to translating works of various genres (of which De Natura Hominis by Nemesius of Emesa is particularly interesting as a philosophic work), Ioane Petritsi wrote original comments on The Elements of Theology by Proclus Diadochus, a work Petritsi translated, presenting his own vision of Neoplatonism in comments. In manuscripts, this work is appended with a treatise on the theology of psalms, in which the author makes an attempt to compare and combine Biblical-Christian and Hellenic thinking. 2 Neoplatonist philosopher Proclus Diadochus made an important contribution to the development of medieval philosophy, but open appraisal of his works started in the 11th century, when the interest in Ancient thinking and Neoplatonist philosophy in particular acquired essentially new features in the circles of Byzantine intellectuals. Ioane Petritsi's systemic exegetic comments on The Elements of Theology by Proclus (as well as the aforementioned treatise) and the nature of philosophic thinking that can be found in it belongs precisely to the Byzantine trend of thinking well known for its novelties. The positive explanation written by the Georgian philosopher in the 12th century can be described as distinguished, as no such Byzantine work has been found up to now. It is quite possible that it is a course of lectures that was used to teach Proclus in Byzantine schools, particularly if we take into account that polemic explanation of The Elements of Theology also written in the 12th century by Nicholas the Bishop of Methone aimed at showing that the teaching of Proclus was incompatible with Christianity and protecting from blasphemous heresy people who deemed it expedient to attentively study this work by a pagan philosopher (Nicholas of Methone 1984: 1, 1-2, 12). 1 About Ioane Petritsi, see Marr 1909, Kekelidze 1980, Tevzadze 1996, Melikishvili 1999, Chelidze 1994-1995, Alexidze 2008, Gigineishvili 2007, Iremadze 2005, and others. 2 See the edition of the texts of the comments and epilogue (Ioane Petritsi 1937) and translations (Pantskhava- Tevzadze 1984; Melikishvili 1999; Alexidze-Bergemann 2009; Gigineishvili 2014). Petritsi's work meant for students formally belongs to the genre of exegetic commentary, i.e. to the pedagogical and scholarly research literature, the Byzantine Empire inherited from Hellenism and developed. The genre exposes the content of a text, paraphrases, explains or interprets it, narrates the history of problems related to the text, focuses on the forms of expression and methodology, analyses nuances of the terminology used, and so forth. According to the rules of the genre, in the introduction, Petritsi speaks about the aims of the work, issues discussed, the identity of the author, the Neoplatonic ontology and theory of cognition, and special terminology. At the same time, Petritsi's comments reflect the system of reading, commenting, and teaching works elaborated in the Byzantine school of philosophy in the late 11th century. In this regard, the first thing to be mentioned is the direct presentation of Neoplatonic thinking to students, as well as recognition of the importance of Aristotle's logical works in studying Platonic philosophy like Neoplatonists did, and so forth. It is particularly important to mention those explanations by Michael Psellos, where he does not argue with Ancient authors, but tries to familiarise us with and explain to us his visions even in cases he considers the visions unacceptable to Christianity. This means that Psellos shows scientific interest in philosophic conceptions and not only attempts to find ideas acceptable to Christianity in Hellenic philosophy. The same can be said about Italos. They describe Plato as "divine", Aristotle as "marvellous", and Neoplatonists as "great". The same epithets regarding the same philosophers can be found with Petritsi. However, in accordance with the nature of exegetic comments, Proclus' works, in particular his comments on Plato's dialogues (these comments were also written for lectures to be delivered at schools), are the main examples of Petritsi's explanations both in form and in principle. It is first and foremost necessary to mention that Petritsi remained loyal to the principles Proclus declared, the principle of explaining Plato through Plato, which is the application of Aristarchus' well-known principle of "explaining Homer through Homer" to the philosophy of Plato (Saffrey, Westerink) (Proclus 1968: 132), although the principle of clarifying an author through the author proper can also be found in Biblical exegetics. It can be concluded on the basis of his works that "explaining Proclus through Proclus" means the following for Ioane Petritsi: First, familiarising with and clarifying Proclus' conception through other works he wrote; and second, communicating Proclus' theology by means of Proclus' methods. Proclus said that Plato is conveying his theology either symbolically or through images or dialectically, Plat. Theol. I, 4 (Proclus 1968: 18-24). He uses this as a basis for his methods of explaining Plato's theology. In particular, he said: "We prefer whatever is obvious, clearly formulated, and simple; we convey whatever is expressed through symbols through clear teachings; if images are used (di jeijkovnwn), we point to their patterns; if something is conveyed in a categorical manner (ajpofantikwvteron), we discuss his reasons: as regards demonstrations (di j ajpodeiv- xewn), we research them and explain the nature (trovpo~) of the truth that can be found in them, making them clear for listeners. If something is enigmatic, we try to clarify them through Plato's works, not through external hypotheses; and if something is clear for listeners, we discuss its conformity with things. This clarifies the one and perfect kind (ei\do~) of Platonic theology and the truth expressed in all of his divine ideas...", Plat. Theol. I, 2 (Proclus 1968: 9, 20-10, 10). Given this, in order to clarify the nature of the truth of "theological elements" expressed in the apodictic form, in the introduction to his comments, Petritsi familiarised readers with Proclus' aims and methods, noting that this was the "discovery of the One with the laws of syllogism" (Petritsi 1937: 3, 5-7). Correspondingly, he started the explanations of Chapter 1 of the work with clarifying the essence of the syllogism law (Petritsi 1937: 10, 13-11, 10) (Further in concrete passages of the work, he regularly focused on the methods of substantiation used by Proclus). At the same time, in his explanations, Petritsi familiarised readers with all forms of speaking about the divine (based on images and symbols, and inspired by God) in order to give them knowledge of the "kind of theological vision" (Petritsi 1937: 3, 3- 5) in general. He thus presented all that made the basis of the reasoning of Proclus conveyed in the dialectic form. It is well known that unlike mythology, which is an example of thinking by means of images, philosophy as a science