Introduction:
This manuscript is a working autograph, first written
in Crete by its author Michael Apostolis, or Apostolios (c. 1422-c.
1480), probably in 1462. It contains a tract produced as part of an
intellectual controversy over the relative merits of Plato and
Aristotle, partiuclarly with regard to the compatibility of their
theories with Christianity. The debate involved most of the leading
Greek-speaking scholars of the mid-15th century, many of whom had
settled in Italy. The manuscript contains numerous alterations and
expansions of the initial draft.
The author was a native of Constantinople who had received an advanced
education there under the famous teacher
John Argyropoulos (c. 1416-1486)
.
Apostolis was also a follower of the zealous Platonist and alleged
neo-pagan
George Gemistos Plethon (c.
1360-1452)
, and
around 1449 he had felt compelled to address an oration to the
emperor defending himself against accusations that he had become a
worshipper of the ancient Greek gods.
When Constantinople fell to the Ottomans, Apostolis was
captured and held prisoner for some months. Having secured his
freedom, he sought the patronage of
Cardinal Bessarion (1403-1472)
, the most distinguished of the
Byzantine exiles in Italy. Failing to secure the teaching work he
sought in Italy, Apostolis settled in Venetian-ruled Crete, where he
was commissioned by Bessarion to acquire manuscripts for him, as
part of the cardinal's efforts to preserve Greek learning in the
face of the Ottoman conquests. He also worked as a scribe and
apparently commissioned others to copy manuscripts for Bessarion and
other patrons. Throughout his life he continued to petition the
cardinal with complaints of poverty and unsuccessful requests to
help him establish a school on Crete, or preferably to find a
teaching position elsewhere.
The controversy over Plato and Aristotle originated
with arguments for the superiority of Plato and the deficiencies of
Aristotle put forward by Plethon, summed up in a work he released in
about 1448. This line of argument arose out of Plethon's
participation in the Byzantine delegation to the Council of
Ferrara-Florence in 1437-1438, where Union had been concluded
between the Eastern and Western Churches. Confronted at close
quarters by the dominant position of Aristotle in western European
scholarship, Plethon reacted vehemently. The dispute burst fully
into life in the later 1450s, with a flurry of interventions on one
side or the other. These included a criticism of Plato's views on
the prior existence of universals to individuals which was written
in 1459 by
Theodore Gazes (c. 1400-c.
1475)
, a
Byzantine exile teaching in Italy, structured as a dialogue between
himself and Plethon. It was to this text that Apostolis responded
with the far more polemical refutation contained in this manuscript,
laced with personal invective against Gazes, including allegations
of homosexuality and prostitution. Apostolis not only affirms the
superiority of Plato over Aristotle, but asserts that Plethon too
was superior to Aristotle and his contemporaries.
The text begins with a preface addressed to Bessarion,
himself a former student of Plethon and an enthusiast for the
philosophy of Plato. Gazes's tract was written in response to an
essay by Bessarion regarding Aristotle's Περὶ οὐσίας ( De
substantia ), in which the cardinal had sought an
accommodation between Aristotle's views and Plethon's arguments
against them. Apostolis presumably hoped that his intervention
against Gazes would win him favour with his patron. He does not,
however, seem to have presented the text to Bessarion, who became
aware of it only indirectly. Apostolis sent a copy to a friend in
Rome, a Cypriot monk named
Isaias
, who circulated it at his
request in the scholarly community. One of those who read it was
Andronikos Kallistos (d.
1478)
, another
Constantinopolitan exile and a cousin of Gazes, who wrote a response
defending Gazes and Aristotle and then sent both texts to
Bessarion.
Whatever hopes Apostolis had entertained of pleasing
Bessarion with this work, his effort backfired. The extreme nature
of his polemic prompted a letter from Bessarion to Apostolis, dated
19 May 1462,
in which the cardinal reprimanded Apostolis for his attacks on Gazes
and Aristotle, and proclaimed his own great respect for both of the
ancient philosophers. Gazes was himself one of Bessarion's protégés,
while the cardinal, for all his own Platonist leanings, was
committed to upholding the reputation of Aristotle, the chief
philosophical authority of the Catholic Church.
Despite this blunder, Bessarion continued to employ
Apostolis as before, and the incident failed to deter the author
from being drawn back into the controversy. Another refutation of
his tract was produced by another Byzantine exile, the Professor of
Greek at Padua
Demetrios Chalkokondyles (c. 1423-1511)
, prompting Apostolis in 1467 to write another
vituperative response, featuring mockery of Chalkokondyles's surname
and aspersions on the sexual propriety of his mother.
The relationship between this manuscript and the
surviving copies of the text is unclear. Its text differs greatly
from that found across the rest of the textual tradition. Many
passages found here are absent from the other manuscripts, including
the many additions to the text which Apostolis made in the margins,
but also much of the original content. Thus its seems likely that
the copies derive from some other archetype, probably the manuscript
sent to Isaias for circulation. It appears that Apostolis continued
to rework the tract after he had first made it public, expanding on
his first recension in the writing of the original text here and
then expanding further in his revisions. He perhaps intended to
improve on his first attempt before presenting the amended version
to his patron. While for the most part the text of this manuscript
is fuller than that of the copies, it lacks their last passage,
which draws the argument to a conclusion, and ends rather abruptly.
Hence it seems likely that the text here was left unfinished. It may
be that Apostolis abandoned it on the arrival of Bessarion's letter,
with its negative verdict on the whole undertaking.
Dr Christopher Wright
Language(s): Greek
ff. 1r-21v
Michael Apostolis (c. 1422-c. 1480)
Apostolius, Michael, approximately
1422-approximately 1480
,
Tract against the objections of Theodore Gazes
against Plethon regarding Aristotle's De
substantia
Filiation: This manuscript is a working autograph of the text, and forms
the basis of Powell's edition. It does not appear among the
manuscripts consulted for the subsequent edition of Ludwig
Mohler, Aus Bessarions Gelehrtenkreis:
Abhandlungen, Reden, Briefe von Bessarion, Theodoros Gazes,
Michael Apostolios, Andronikos Kallistos, Georgios
Trapezountios, Niccolò Perotti, Niccolò Capranica
(Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe, Humanist
und Staatsmann, vol. 3) (Paderborn 1942), Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiete der
Geschichte 24, pp. 159-169. The text
appearing in this manuscript differs very substantially from the
bulk of the tradition and the Mohler edition derived from
it.
Rubric:
f. 1r Μιχαήλου Ἀποστόλου τοῦ
Βυζαντίου· πρὸς τὰς ὑπὲρ Ἀριστοτέλους Περὶ οὐσίας κατὰ Πλήθωνος,
Θεοδώρου τοῦ Γάζη ἀντιλείψεις:- Ἐπιστολὴ· πρὸς τὸν σοφώτατον
Βησσαρίω
Incipit:
f. 1r Οἶδα σε θειότατε
καρδιναλέων· δυοῖν τούτοιν ὄντοιν ἡγεμόνοιν τῶν λόγων
Explicit:
f. 21v τὸν δοξομανῆ κὰν
τούτῳ Ἀριστοτέλη μιμούμενος
Form: codex
Support:
Western paper, folded in quarto, with 6 chainlines per leaf. Watermark:
Bull's
head (
c. 80 × 31 mm.
) in the
gutter, similar to Briquet 14795,
14801. These examples are dated to 1465-1474.
Extent:
Codex:
vi + 22 + vi leaves.
199 × 145 mm.
Foliation: The manuscript is foliated with the
numbers [i-vi] + 1-22 + [vii-xii], in pencil, in Arabic
numerals, recto, upper right.
Collation
The manuscript consists of 3 quires, all quaternia.
- Quires 1-28
ff. 1-16
- Quire 38-2
ff. 17-22
The last two folios have been cancelled,
without loss of text.
There are original quire signatures in
Greek numerals, in brown ink, on the first folio of each
quire, recto, lower right. They survive on all quires
(αʹ-γʹ).
Condition
There are small tears to the edges of some folios, and
some water staining.
Layout
A single column of 24 lines.
135 × 85 mm.
The author's additions to the text have sometimes been
made by continuing it directly into the lower margin with
additional lines of greater length. Some of this text has
been lost to cropping.
Hand(s)
The manuscript was written by Michael Apostolis in mixed minuscule script, with variable
slant, in brown ink, with modest variation in letter size. There
are deletions by strikethrough.
Syllabic abbreviations and superscript word endings usually
appear only at the end of lines, but occasionally elsewhere.
Breathings are round and mute iota is
subscript. There is decorative use of the double dot. Accents
are sometimes joined to breathings.
The modern eta, modern nu and loop epsilon are
present.
Punctuation used includes the lower, middle and upper points,
lower comma, question mark and full stop.
Headings are written in the same style in red ink.
Decoration
The beginning of sections are marked by minor
initials in red ink.
Some spaces have been left for initials which
have not been added.
Additions
There are extensive marginal annotations and additions to the text by
the author.
There are marginal annotations in brown ink, identifiying authors
cited. The same hand added a note in Latin on f. [i] recto citing
Oxford manuscripts containing other works relevant to the same
controversy.
A note of content in Latin in brown ink has been added to f. [i] recto: ‘Michael Apostolius. pro Plethono contra Theodorum
Gazam de essentia defensio’.
Further marginal notes of authors cited have been added in pencil,
along with a list on f. [i]
recto of works relevant to the controversy to be
examined.
Binding
17th-century limp vellum binding, with plain pastedowns. The
classmark appears on patches on the spine.
203 × 150 × 13 mm.
Origin: The manuscript is a working autograph, written and expanded by the
author, Michael Apostolis (PLP 1201; RGK I 278, II 379, III 454) in
Crete
between 1459 and 1462. The tract to which it responded
was produced in 1459, while Bessarions's letter written in response to
the text it contains is dated 19 May 1462. Its apparently unfinished
state suggests that Apostolis may still have been working on it in 1462,
until interrupted by the arrival of Bessarion's reprimand.
