International Symposium
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Xl. ve XVIII. yüzyıllar Xl. to XVIII. centuries iSLAM-TÜRK MEDENiYETi VE AVRUPA ISLAMIC-TURKISH CIVILIZATION AND EUROPE Uluslararası Sempozyum International Symposium iSAM Konferans Salonu !SAM Conference Hall Xl. ve XVIII. yüzyıllar islam-Türk Medaniyeti ve Avrupa ULUSLARARASISEMPOZYUM 24-26 Kas1m, 2006 · • Felsefe - Bilim • Siyaset- Devlet • Dil - Edebiyat - Sanat • Askerlik • Sosyal Hayat •Imge fl,cm. No: Tas. No: Organizasyon: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı islam Araştırmaları Merkezi (iSAM) T.C. Diyanet işleri Başkanlığı Marmara Üniversitesi ilahiyat Fakültesi © Kaynak göstermek için henüz hazır değildir. 1 Not for quotation. ,.1' Xl. ve XVIII. yüzyıllar Uluslararası Sempozyum THE ENLIGHTENMENT, THE PORTE, AND THE GREEK CHURCH: A PARADOX OF BALKAN HISTORY Dimitris MICHALOPOULOS* Like Western Christendom in the Middle-Ages, the Eastern one, namely the Byzantines, used Aristotle's thought as a means of philosophical meditation. Nonetheless, from the eleventh century on, it is a revival of Platonic ideas no less than that took place in Constantinople - something very strange, given that the Platonic and neo-Platonic philosophers were considered amongst the bitterest enemies of the Christian Faith. The capture of Constantinople by the Ottomans in 1453 put an end to the development of this neo-Platonic (virtually crypto-pagan) current; and Gennadius II Scholarius, the first Constantinopolitan Patriarch after the fall of the Empire, decisively redirected Christian Orthodox philosophical research towards the beacon of the Stagirite's thought. Moreover, in the seventeenth century another paradox, far more radical that the eleventh-century one, occurred: higher dignitaries of the Greek clergy endorsed and began teaching and openly propagating a materialistic interpretation of Aristotle's philosophical system; and the Porte remained practically idle ... This state of affairs proved to have far-reaching consequences in the Balkans; and it has never been so far the object of an ecclesiastical anathema. The main question is, therefore: ho w a Christian Church might adopt a materiali st W eltanschauung. In fact, this is inexplicable - unless one accepts that the İstanbul Greek Patriarchate is downright Orthodox ... but by no means limited to Christianity alone. It is a fundamental paradox that the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate (Rum Patrikhanesi) was criticized, before the 1829 foundation of an independent Greek state, only mildly by the Left, i.e. by the scholars of the Greek Enlightenment and their followers. The pamphlet Fratemal Exhortation (written by Adamantios Korais and conceived as a response to the Patemal Exhortation, attributed to a Patriarch either of Jerusalem or of İstanbul) was the only reaction of the Greek democrats, i.e. the Left wing intellectuals, vis-a-vis the Church. Of course, it was just a 'paper', an anodyne at that; and for good reason. For the Greek Enlightenment, thanks to the protection of the Greek Church (and Ottoman indifference as well), anticipated the French one by several decades. In other words, materialist theories were taught in Greece, then under Ottoman rule, by Orthodox clergymen; and Enlightenment doctrines became a State ideology in the Balkans long before their prevalence in France. There are two key-personalities in this quite paradoxical evolution: Cyril Lucar (1572-1638) and Theophilus Corydaleus (1570-1646). Both had been Cesare p Cremonini's (1550-1631) disciples at the University of Padua; and both had endorsed Dr., Academic Director, Histarical Institute for Studies on Eleutherios Yeniselos and his Era, Greece. 210 İ s l ii \m - T ü r k M e d e n i y e t i v e A v r u p a 1 his materialistic interpretation of Aristotelian thought and teaching • In fact, though Aristotle was the most widely read classical author of the Renaissance, it is generally believed that his interpretation had followed, in early Modern Times, two separate 2 currents, namely Scholasticism and the Humallistic one ; and one of the most no tab le of Aristotle's admirers was Pietro Pomponazzi (1462-1525), the virtual founder of the so called Paduan school. He had taught at Padua until1509 and at Bologna from 1512 on; and it was the publication of his bookDe immartalitate animae3 in 1516 that triggered a real revolution in Christian thought (and paved the way for the Enlightenment as well). In his book, Pomponazzi openly disagreed with St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), who had followed the Stagirite in defining the rational soul as the "form" of man, believing, at the same time, that the soul could survive separation from the body. Pomponazzi's idea was clear-cut in this matter: the immortality of the soul was incompatible with Aristotle's concept of entelech/. In point offact, Pomponazzi's solution to the afterlife enigma was that the human soul was tied to the body; and so he opened the door to materialism, panegyrically trumpeted later by C. Cremonini, professor at the University ofPadua from 1591, and regarded by his disciples and admirers as Aristatefes redivivus, 5 Princeps philasapharum, Genius Aristate/is and so on . The result? When the latter's disciple, Cyril Lucar, became Patriarch of Constantinople, he appointed Th. Corydaleus as director ofthe Patriarchal Academ~6 • Avowedly or not, materialism came to be under 7 the aegis of the Greek Patriarchate , and this Academy soon began to develop into the 8 avant-garde of the Left in Europe . It is with good reason, therefore, that the progressive min d of the Patriarch Cyril I Lucar is, even today, enthusiastically acclaimed in Greece and in the Western countries as well. Nonetheless, the point is that, thanks to his admirers and followers (the famous Phanariots in other words), the materialistic interpretation of the Stagirite's thought became a kind of state ideology in the Danubian Principalities, i.e. today's Romania. And Th. Corydaleus, on the other hand, towards the end of his life, founded a school in Thanks are due to Professor Michael Lumley, for having read the manuscript and making many valuable suggestions. Ariadna Camariano-Cioran, Les academies princieres de Bucarest et Jassy et leurs professeurs (Salonika: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1974), p. 181. 2 J. R. Hale (ed.) Encyclopaedia of the Italian Renaissance (London: Thames and Hudson, 1989), entry "Aristotle", p. 36. De immortalitate animae =On. the immortality of the soul. 4 Entelechy=actualizing form. See Cleobule Tsourkas, Les debuts de l'enseignement philosophique et delalibre pensee dans fes Balkans. La vie et l'amvre de Theophile Coryda/ee (1570-1646}, Salonika: Institute for Balkan 2 Studies, 1967 , p. 192. 6 Ca. 1625. See Steven Runciman, The Great Church in captivity. Translated into Greek by N. K. Paparrhodou (Athens: Bergadis, 1979), p. 489; Cl. Tsourkas, op.cit., p. 22. 7 Cl. Tsourkas, op.cit., p. 204: ... on peut deduire ... que si sa philosophie est traversee d'un soujjle puissant, ce soujjle n 'est pas la religiosite, mais le materialisme et le positivisme. S. Runciman, op. cit., p. 489; Cleobule Tsourkas, op. cit., p. 195. See also Ariadna Camariano Cioran, op. cit., p. 181: ... I' historiographie marxiste considere Aristote comme le plus grand penseur de l'antiquite, comme un « titan de la pensee », qui amantre que fes vrais « substances » sont les choses materiel/es concretes, perçues par fes sens. Le point essentiel de .Ja-philosophie aristotelicienne est le postufat de la primaute de la nature par rapport ala connaissance ... D i m i .t r i s Michalopoulos 211 Athens, his native city, where, under the benevolent eye of the Ottoman authorities, continued teaching his own views on Aristotle's works. It was therethat he died as ... an 9 archbishop of the Greek Church • As a matter of fact, the materialism he persisted in propagating practically al'l his life not only did not give him problems, but, on the contrary, proved to be beneficial to him: albeit he became a monk in 1622 before renouncing his vows as early as 1625, this apostasy was never stigmatised by the Greek 10 Church ; and although he created havoc in his Naupactus and Arta archbishopric in merely one year11 and was forced to abandon his diocese, he never gave up his 12 ecclesiastical dignity . Moreover, the books he wrote were very popular in Greece and in Graecized Balkan countries as well right up to the Iate eighteenth century - which 13 was mainly due to the approbation they received by the Greek clergy . There is only one reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the Cyril Lucar/ Theophilus Corydaleus story: the higher-ups among the Greek clergymen concurred - 14 openly or not- with their ideas . I It is well known that the Phanariots were Graecized wealthy people who lived in Phanar (Fener), i.e. the İstanbul area where the Greek Patriarchate's headquarters were set up from 1599/1601 on. The Phanariots' origin was obscure; asa matter offact, they 15 came from all over the Balkans . Nonetheless, they proved astute enough to grasp at once the enormous benefits to be derived from establishing their houses near the Patriarch's headquarters. The Patriarch in fact was the head not only of the Greeks but of the whole of the Orthodox population living within the borders of the Ottoman Empire; and given that the Porte was in need of personuel fluent in European tongues, they used the Patriarchate as a vehicle for their ascendancy over the Ottoman bureaucracy. The Greek Patriarchate,' on the other hand, was quite satisfied with their intrusion into the Ottoman dignitary system, for it was thus able to 'pry' into the Sublime Porte's apparatus. Those who were not satisfied with this state of things initially were the Christian peasants of the Balkans and, later, the Moslem Ottomans themselves. But the peasants' feelings di d not count very much during the early stages of the Ottoman domination in the ·Balkan countries; and the larter did not realize the absurdity of the situation until it was too Iate ..