Plato Christianus

!
"#$% '()*+$*#,-+ :
1he Colonization o Plato and Identity lormation
in Late Antiquity
Niketas SINIOSSOGLOU

1. Approaching the Christian rewriting o Plato : rom the accusation
o textual manipulation to the notion o negotiation
Irony and allegory, obsered Vladimir Janklitch, erbally express one
thing while hinting at another. Seen rom this perspectie, they qualiy as a
type o pseudology. Not only the liar but the ironist too appears to be a
pseudologist, in so ar as what the ironist says diers rom what he really
thinks. Janklitch captures a characteristic peculiar to irony that is absent
rom straightorward lying : the potentiality o truth. 1he ironist is capable
o adancing beyond the selishness o the liar towards an unconditional
idea o truth uninhibited by indiidual interests.

lor the ironist truth extends
beyond the opportunism and egoism that restrict the liar`s epistemological
and moral horizon. Irony represents a state o peace with truth, alsehood
one o war.

1he origin o these considerations is Platonic. In the ')#$."-+ the
word truth ,!"#$%&', is understood as a compressed orm o the phrase a
wandering that is diine ,$%(' )"*, . Conersely, alsehood ,+%,-./, is ex-
plained as an obstruction or opposition ,0.12'20(.2, to the natural motion
o the diine ,3.45,
1
.
1hings appear less straightorward once one begins to indiidually exam-
ine and contrast competing claims o haing walked the diine path o truth.
1hese are accompanied by mutual accusations crediting philosophical and
religious opponents with the unwelcome role o obstructing truth by relaps-
ing into alsehood, pseudology and misrepresentations o all sorts. Plato,
notes Ps. Justin, one o the irst Christian apologists, is at great pains to

1 Janklitch 1964, pp. 42, 59-60, 63 , ')#$. 421b.

146 NIKL1AS SINIOSSOGLOU

aoid the crime o pseudology ,!"#$%&%'()* +',&-!), . 1he problem with
Plato, he says, is that he is sel-contradictory. At some points Plato is in ac-
cord with truth, that is to say with the Scriptures and the prophets o the
Judaeo-Christian tradition, whereas at others he goes on to adocate incom-
patible doctrines such as the perpetuity o matter. Plato is oten lying, and
similarly pagan philosophers represent a ake philosophy ,!"#$./#!%* 01"
&%2%0(), that aims at plausibility and persuasion ,314)/5* ,)6 3127"#71,5*,,
rather than truth
2
. 1ogether with a handul o early Christian apologists, Ps.
Justin went on to inaugurate a hermeneutical strategy that remained popular
until the sixth century. 1his consists o appropriating and recontextualizing
bits and pieces rom Plato that appear to suit the Christian cause, while dis-
missing the rest as pseudology ,!"#$./#!%* 01&%2%0(),. In late antiquity
Clement o Alexandria, Lusebius and 1heodoret o Cyrrhus became the
champions o a hermeneutical !"#$%&'() o Platonic texts skilully applied to
credit the lellenes ,i. e. the pagans , with an obstinate persistence in a
state o theological and moral alsehood.
Ironically, a case can be made that it is this Christian appropriation o
Plato that oten qualiies as an act o pseudology *'" ),$)&&)-$), in so ar as it
oten applies Platonic passages and notions according to a rhetorical
agenda
3
. But one wonders : ancient and Neoplatonic exegesis o Plato was
oten anciul too. In what ways, then, does the Christian use o Plato dier
rom pagan high-handed misinterpretations Could it be that the interpreta-
tion and reception o ancient philosophy potentially deiates to pseudology
and rhetorical applications irrespectie o the religion and intellectual iden-
tity o the exegete - could it be that the misinterpretation o Plato exempli-
ied by Christian apologists in late antiquity is another instance o the innate
limitations o the hermeneutical circle 1his paper addresses this question
by drawing attention to the ideological use o philosophical sources. By
ideological I mean those approaches to philosophical texts that are not
interested in recoering any presumably true meaning inherent in texts but
to expropriate passages, words and categories in order to apply them to a
preconigured political, religious or rhetorical agenda. It argues that the ma-
nipulation o Plato cannot be seen as amounting to his negotiation. But in
so doing, this paper goes on to deal with a second, more diicult question.
Plato and Janklitch approach alsehood ,!"8$%*, *)" $%-."'*%/#.#%-)0 to
truthulness. Any discussion o pseudology presupposes a notion o truth.
In the late antique context this eectiely means that the question regarding
the use or abuse and manipulation o philosophical texts is inextricably con-
nected to that concerning the reality o Christianity and,or lellenism. Put

2 Ps. Justin, 1%2%".'.#% '3 ()-.#&)/ 21L , 20C-D , 32D , 33A.
3 I hae argued in this direction in Siniossoglou 2008.

!"#$% '()*+$*#,-+ 14

otherwise, the problem is whether beneath the surace o the late antique
hermeneutical war between pagan Platonists and Christians lies a deeper,
real essence o lellenism as distinct rom the essence o Christianity - or
whether, as most people tend to think these days, notions o lellenism and
Christianity are socially and culturally conditioned. 1his point requires clari-
ication.
1he polarity between realism and anti-realism in interpretation relects
the deeper quarrel between oundationalist and anti-oundationalist ap-
proaches to the philosophy o knowledge. 1o borrow the ocabulary o
Richard Rorty, this is a quarrel between Platonists aiming to recoer the
intrinsic nature o reality and anti-Platonists holding an anti-dualist, anti-
representational iew o knowledge
4
. 1he relation between interpretation
and knowledge acquires a urther, particular signiicance in the theory o so-
cial sciences, in so ar as interpretation relates to identity ormation. Critical
realists cross swords with adocates o social constructiism and cultural re-
ductionism : the ormer are in search o a deeper reality underlying belies
and processes o understanding and sel-relection, whereas the latter re-
strict themseles to transitory socio-cultural actors, which presumably pro-
ide an adequate explanation or identity construction within a gien con-
text
5
.
In this paper I examine the study o the late antique Christian engage-
ment with lellenism against this theoretical background. As we shall see
presently, the anciul, dominant and conenient line o argument adopted
by specialists in the history o late antiquity is that shiting Christian and
lellenic identities are little more than discursie constructs. lor example, in
the late antique context a pagan might become Christian because o laws
prohibiting paganism, because o a wish to join an army led by a Christian
general or or some other practical reason. lellenism and Christianity
emerge as arteacts deoid o any reality. Assuming this iewpoint has cer-
tain consequences or the reconstruction and ealuation o transient pagan
or Christian appropriations o Plato and ancient philosophy in general. I
one assumes such an anti-essentialist position, that is to say, i one argues
that there is no such thing as an essence or reality o lellenism and
Christianity - but only narraties shaped within competing discursie
contexts, then one is not likely to see the point o exposing any ideological
misappropriation o ancient philosophical texts. Rather, all uses and all ap-
proaches, or example to Plato, naturally appear as transient products o ide-
ology, one way or another.

4 Rorty 1999, pp. xi-xxxii.
5 Sayer 2000.


But what i one takes pagan and Christian appropriators o Plato at their
word and conceies o Christian or lellenic identities as reerring to real
entities , in brie, what i one is not concerned with destroying, but rather
with understanding those absolutes in which pagans, Christians, Jews and
heretics in late antiquity and in the medieal world sincerely belieed One
may then reasonably inquire whether not only identity ormation but also
competing lellenic and Christian interpretations o Plato were ultimately
conditioned by something more than social and cultural contingencies. In
that case it is imperatie to dierentiate between modalities o interpretation
and to authorize the examination o whether and how this or that in-
terpretation comes closer to the doctrinal essence o Plato`s philosophy, or
whether and, i so, how it relates to ideologically motiated alsiication and
pseudology.
1he history o these questions is particularly interesting, albeit insui-
ciently studied. Between the end o the seenteenth century and the middle
o the twentieth century, in a time when cultural studies, postmodernism
and the ield o late antique studies did not yet exist, any classicist could
plausibly make two claims : irst, that the essence o lellenism as a philo-
sophical world-iew is incompatible with the essence o Christianity , and
second, that Christian intellectuals rom the early apologists such as Luse-
bius to Lrasmus misappropriated and manipulated ancient philosophy or
rhetorical and ideological purposes. I hae in mind early Lnlightenment tex-
tual critics who made both these points, such as Pierre Bayle, Jean Le Clerc,
Niklaus lieronymus Gundling and Johann Jakob Brucker. lor example, Le
Clerc thought to hae conclusiely exposed one o the most long-lied
intellectual rauds : the Christian reception o ancient philosophy rom late
antiquity until the last quarter o the seenteenth century. 1he point was
that the lathers o the Church distorted Christianity by experimenting with
Platonism. 1heir selectie and arbitrary reading o ancient philosophy con-
cealed or centuries the radical discrepancy between two mutually exclusie
world-iews. As Jonathan Israel obseres, or his part Gundling eectiely
accused o blindness, pererse error, and conusion the entire Plato schol-
arship o twenty centuries . Lnlightenment thinkers and textual critics were
in step with theologians o the Reormation such as Jacques Souerain, au-
thor o !" $%&'()*+," -"+.(*%/ ,Amsterdam 100,, in a dismissal o all syn-
cretistic experiments that combine lellenism with Christianity, regardless o
whether these took place within the Lastern Orthodox tradition o the la-
thers o the Church, or within the 1homist and the Renaissance humanist
traditions
6
.

6 Israel 2006, pp. 488-490.

!"#$% '()*+$*#,-+ 149

1he next major turning point in the history o the problem is the rise o
postmodernism and cultural history. Seen rom this new angle, the Lnlight-
enment position regarding the Christian manipulation o Greek philosophy
is but one narratie among others. 1here is no real essence o lellenism or
Christianity, rather, culturally, politically and socially conditioned percep-
tions about what Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics said. lellenism and Chris-
tianity are cultural arteacts, ariable notions deriing rom and shiting
according to preailing political, ideological or other priorities.
Nietzsche was one o the irst to argue that philosophical language is by
deault rhetorical, namely that one cannot escape rom what literary critics
sometimes identiy as the rhetoricality o language. I one agrees with this
anti-Platonic position and its contemporary ersions, then there is no reason
to expose Christians as misinterpreting or manipulating ancient philosophy
as Le Clerc, Gundling, Souerain or the present author hae done.

I all phi-
losophy is by deault rhetorical, then any distinction between what Proclus
and what Gregory o Nazianzus read in Plato is blurred and compromised,
i not destroyed. In act, cultural and social historians working on the clash
between Christianity and lellenism in late antiquity tend to apply buzz-
words such as ./01234231., 5/61.2/728493:4231. and ;</24=.455423>/. 1hrough the
application o this ocabulary Christian intellectuals are redescribed as ha-
ing negotiated or recontextualized Plato`s texts according to the
priorities o their priileged narratie . 1he application o this ocabulary
eectiely glosses oer possible cases o manipulation o ancient texts and
consequently downplays the ideological and rhetorical parameters o their
reading. I all exegesis is rhetorical, then nothing is rhetorical in any partic-
ular sense o the word.
Ultimately, this tactic de-emphasizes and compromises the philosophical
and religious polarity implied by terms such as Christianity , paganism
and lellenism , which emerge as highly problematic and debatable. 1his
appears to be the 61<<8.3? 1@3.31 in the current study o late antiquity.
lor example, Alan Cameron correctly obseres that or most Christians
in late antiquity classical literature, including mythological poetry, was quite
literally the culture o the world and was transmitted through a Christian
educational system. But he then concludes that what we misleadingly call
pagan` culture ulilled an oerwhelmingly social unction
. Robert Mar-
kus put this een more expressly : 1he image o a society neatly diided
into Christian` and pagan` is the creation o late ourth-century Chris-
tians... |Paganism| existed only in the minds, and, increasingly, the speech-
habits, o Christians.
8
In the same ein, Isabella Sandwell recently reiter-

Cameron 200, p. 29.
8 Markus 1990, p. 28.


ated the !" $%&'! distinction between what a late antique Christian author,
such as John Chrysostom, belieed and thought about the essences o lel-
lenic and Christian identities, and our modern, presumably correct as-
sumption, that these identities are but constructs : |a|s external obserers,
(! can see that Chrysostom had to construct Christian and Greek identities
where they did not objectiely exist. loweer, it is clear that )! saw both
being Christian and being Greek as ixed identities
9
. lrom this iewpoint,
what appears to matter is that ordinary indiiduals adopted one or the
other religious allegiance according to what Bourdieu calls practical knowl-
edge . In the last analysis, the dierence between pagans and Chris-
tians ades away as social interaction comes to the ore
10
.
1hese are examples o how the social and cultural history dominating the
ield o late antique and Byzantine studies progressiely absorbs intellectual
history and dierts rom the underlying philosophical and theological in-
compatibility between the Judaeo-Christian world-iew and the lellenic
world-iew. Paradoxically though, this incompatibility was perectly obious
to late antique Christian theologians as well as to philosophers such as Julian
and Proclus, whose work proided abundant arguments or its substantia-
tion.
Margaret Archer describes the problematic consequences o cultural re-
ductiism and social constructionism. listorical agents are held to be
nothing but cultural arteacts, they are depried o their subjectiity which
dissoles into society`s conersation . Personal identities are treated sepa-
rately rom the conception o onesel as onesel. 1hey melt into negotiated
social constructs
11
. In the remainder o this article I assume a realist perspec-
tie and argue that this is particularly pertinent to contemporary study o
late antiquity. 1o hold that lellenism and Christianity are illusory once
beyond the leel o their social unction amounts to maintaining that Luse-
bius and Proclus neer really agreed with themseles when deining them-
seles as a Christian and a lellene respectiely. John Chrysostom and Julian
perceied a deeper intellectual essence underlying lellenic and Christian
identities that escapes the modern preoccupation with social and cultural
history. Seen in this light, my contention is that the Lnlightenment intel-
lectuals and the theologians o the Reormation were absolutely right in gi-
ing due account to a orm o non-physical iolence that we might call today
hermeneutical iolence, and which combines pseudology with conscious
and unconscious types o misappropriating ancient philosophical texts. By
implication, they were equally right when suggesting that there is something

9 Sandwell 200, p. 6.
10 Sandwell 200, pp. 280-281.
11 Archer 2003, pp. 12-14, 40-41.

!"#$% '()*+$*#,-+ 151

like a reality or essence o lellenism that is incompatible with that o Ju-
daeo-Christianity.
1o be sure, Lnlightenment textual critics and philosophers are consid-
ered outdated in the best case, or oppressie in the worst. According to the
current state o aairs, anyone talking o a Platonic or lellenic essence is
likely to be looked upon with circumspection. A notable exception is lein-
rich Dorrie. It is worth giing due credit to a now orgotten paper in which
Dorrie suggested that it might be better to speak o Christian Anti-Platon-
ism .'/0123415/60 76869:4;3<912=>2? than o anything really close to a Chris-
tian Platonism . lis point was that scholarship had too early and uncrit-
ically accepted a misunderstood legelian synthetical schema, without pro-
perly ealuating the sources. In reality, Christian theology is the antithesis o
Platonic theology. Dorrie daringly suggests that the assumption o anything
like a Christian Platonism is as grae an error as it would be to conound
the Anti-Reormation with the Reormation :
\as den Platonismus anlangt, so sind wir, ielleicht om misserstandenen
Schema legels erhrt, zu rh und ohne ausreichende Klarstellung zur
Synthesis bergegangen. Noch ist nicht hinreichend dargestellt, wie tie der
Gegensatz reichte. Christliche 1heologie dar, ja muss als Antithese zur
1heologie des Platonismus begrien werden |...| \issenschatliche Lhrlich-
keit macht es zur Plicht, nicht nur die wenigen und durchweg ormalen Ge-
meinsamkeiten, sondern ganz besonders die tiegreienden Absonderungen
und Grenzziehungen |...| zu achten, und mit gebotener Behutsamkeit in
Rechnung zu stellen. \er die deutlich orgetragene und mit klarer Argu-
mentation begrndete !"#$%&' ()' *+%($,' ,~ conessio idei,, wie sie on
den grossen und on den mittleren Kirchenlehrern in eindrucksoller Lin-
stimmigkeit niedergelegt ist, auch nur in ihrem Ansatz respektiert - der wird
es kaum mehr wagen, on christlichem Platonismus` zu reden.
\re es nicht besser und richtiger, kntig on christlichem Gegenplato-
nismus` zu reden Die Vergleichbarkeit mit dem 1erminus Gegenreor-
mation` liegt au der land
12
.
Dorrie is one o the ew modern scholars to hae asked the crucial question,
which may be rephrased as ollows : does the Christian adoption o any par-
ticular Platonic word or notion really add another brick to the construction
o a presumably continuous Platonic wall, or, rather, does it do precisely the
opposite - take one brick rom an already abandoned wall
13
By the time
Dorrie asked this question in 192, it had already lost its power and rele-
ance. Anti-oundationalist approaches were emerging in literary and cul-
tural studies together with the hypothesis o a !4;3< '/01231;9>2, a Plato
among other Platos, according to which an ostensibly uneigned assimilation

12 Dorrie 196, pp. 522-523.
13 Dorrie 196, p. 518 : Vollzieht sich in solcher Ubernahme eines Platowortes ein
Stck Platonismus, oder gerade das Gegenteil


and unorced reception o Platonism took place within the Christian tra-
dition. 1his was suggested by Lndre on Ianka in a 1964 book that is now
considered a classic
14
. In other cases, tentatie conceptual similarities be-
tween Christianity and Platonism led to attempts at identiying a Christian-
Platonic conluence on philosophical grounds
15
. 1his obuscated the act
that in like ashion any selectie and arbitrary application o theological
categories that are generic and commonplace in the history o religion can
equally well sere a Christian-Islamic, Christian-Buddhist, or any other syn-
thesis.
1his is not to deny the permanently open possibility o coming up with a
personal interpretation o Christianity, one presumably more compatible
with Platonism than are orthodox doctrines as deined by bishops and
clerics in successie synods in late antiquity and Byzantium. But ineitably
such philosophical hybrids will hae little in common with the Christianity
that pagan Platonists came to know. 1here is little in their discursie context
to authorize the anachronistic substitution o what really counted as ortho-
dox at one point or another by personal interpretations o Christianity.
Alain de Benoist incisiely employed a ersion o this argument against
modern attempts at rendering Christianity conormable to non-Christian
notions :
|O|n peut toujours redinir le christianisme selon des criteres personnels de
aon a le rendre conorme a autre chose que lui-mme. Mais, je le rpete,
quelle est la alidit de cette dmarche
16

By ocusing on the question o how Christians rewrote Plato according to
an Orthodox agenda as understood in their context, this article proides a
response to the type o hermeneutical relatiism and cultural reductionism
that has so eectiely blurred the distinction between the interpretation and
misappropriation o Plato in late antiquity. It is not enough to show that the
Greek lathers o the Church construed a !"#$% '()*+$*#,-+. 1he crux o the
matter is how this !"#$% '()*+$*#,-+ came about and at what cost. On a
deeper leel, this will contribute to re-opening the old ile concerning the in-
tellectual relation between the reality o Platonism and the reality o Chris-
tianity.
2. Rewriting Plato : a ./01%+*-0 o irgins
lrom the second century until the early sixth, Christians and lellenes
,namely philosophical pagans , crossed swords in some sort o intellectual
arena. 1his phenomenon was elt, described and understood by contempo-

14 Von Ianka 1964.
15 See here lindlay 1982, pp. 223-231.
16 De Benoist 1990, p. 58.

!"#$% '()*+$*#,-+ 153

raries as an intellectual war concerning more than religious conersion or
the assumption o competing roles in changing socio-political discursie
contexts. Rather, pagans and Christians sought to deine in theological, cos-
mological and moral terms what it actually meant to be a lellene, or to be a
Christian. In this context the world-iew o lellenism is eectiely iden-
tiiable with that o pagan Neoplatonism. 1he quest or the essence o lel-
lenism was tantamount to a quest or the essence o Platonism. As a conse-
quence, the clash between the Christian and the pagan Neoplatonic intel-
lectual camps in late antiquity oten used as a aade the interpretation o
Plato. 1o a large extent, the conlict between Celsus and Origen, Cyril and
Julian, Porphyry and Augustine was one o interpretations oer the alidity
and potential o a genuine Platonic world-iew. A central issue was whether
Platonism could really oer a sustainable world-iew antagonistic to the
Judaeo-Christian one.
Modern scholars reading Plato are preoccupied with ery dierent ques-
tions. 1o make this more explicit, suppose that one is transported in ourth
century Athens into the middle o a debate between Gregory o Nazianzus
and Julian. Ater all, they studied together and they both knew their Plato.
1he principal dierence between their approach to Plato and modern aca-
demic scholarship is that rom where they were standing the way one inter-
prets Plato`s text is inextricably connected to questions o one`s spiritual and
intellectual identity. 1oday it is common to publish an article on Plato or
reasons relating to proessional identity, that is to say or academic deelop-
ment. 1he way one reads Plato`s likely tale in the $./0123 hardly aects
or relates to one`s religious and social identities. Rather, most people would
agree that it is wrong to ilter Plato through religious and ideological persua-
sions. Dorrie correctly reminds us that it is a secular, or secularized Plato
that we are studying today. But to Gregory o Nazianzus and Julian this
would appear to be an incomprehensible position. 1he way a pagan or
Christian read the likely tale in the $./0123 was part o a process o sel-
understanding that led to perceptions o competing collectie identities. In
brie, the way one read Plato concerned one`s being. 1his signiicance o
Platonism or identity ormation in late antiquity combined with the attribu-
tion o religious signiicance to Plato`s text is a unique phenomenon in the
history o the reception o ancient philosophy. In a sense, Plato mattered
more in late antiquity than he did in his own time and certainly more than
he does today.
1o ully appreciate the pagan interpretation o Plato one has to go
beyond the texts o the Platonists and approach their project through the
eyes o their opponents : the Christians acknowledged something in Platon-
ism that threatened their reealed truth and which they were eager either to
expel completely rom their outlook ,as 1atian, 1ertullian or Lactantius did,


or to rewrite in order to neutralize ,as Basil, Gregory o Nazianzus and the
majority o the Greek lathers o the Church did,. 1his concern or unco-
ering and understanding the essence o pagan Platonism in order to dier-
entiate it rom the competing Judaeo-Christian world-iew amounts to the
birth o philosophical hermeneutics in the \est. During this process Plato`s
text became a double-edged knie. Christian apologists and rhetors used it as
a weapon o attack. 1he Christian rewriting o Plato made the claim that
Christianity is preigured by Plato. lor ie centuries the lathers o the
Church exempliied an almost obsessie preoccupation with showing that in
some regards Plato anticipates Judaeo-Christianity and that Plato is an im-
perect Christian. 1he way they applied Plato`s text to this end is particularly
interesting - or it is oten, though not always, a ery Machiaellian and util-
itarian way by means o which Plato was deconstructed and reconstructed.
lor their part, Celsus, Porphyry and Julian explicitly accused the Christians
o misconstruing Plato`s text, that is o misunderstanding and misappropri-
ating it or their own ends. !" $%" &"'() *+,-, protests Julian, .'-+ *+$/-* /"$-+"%"0
/%,1 ,2% ,.( .'()*
1
3
A classiication o the Christian rewritings o Plato conirms Julian`s anx-
iety. 1wo main classes are distinguishable. 1he ormer includes conceptual
shits, oten stretching oer long periods o two or three centuries, which
reconigure a pre-existing philosophical ocabulary, albeit without any ap-
parent or conessed intention o conerting pagan Platonists to Christianity.
Crucially, this irst class excludes those changes o meaning o philosophical
ocabulary that occurred within the explicitly anti-pagan apologetical rame-
work. Rather, it includes those that took place in the monastic and ascetical
discursie context rom the time o Lagrius to that o Gregory Palamas.
lor example, the word 4,5'-"'$ shits meaning in a monastic ramework to
suit new needs. It does not reer to a orm o goernment or constitution as
it does in the Platonic-Aristotelian philosophical ramework, but to the exact
opposite : to a personal rule o psychosomatic exercises, chastity and contin-
ual prayer. !"#$%& '()*%+#, becomes !(-,.*/0 '()*%+#,
18
. Shits o this type
complemented the ongoing process o de-paganizing Greek technical and
non-technical ocabulary inaugurated by Paul Compare, or example, the
usage o the word $1%&"#, in a Platonic as opposed to a Christian context.
In Plato`s 6"42&5'7 the word !"#$%&' reers to the preseration o the 4,5'*,
rather than to its abolition or the sake o a heaenly city
19
. 1he Platonic

1 1heodoret o Cyrrhus, 89 3. 8. 1-2 ,185. -15 Parmentier,. C. Siniossoglou 2008,
pp. 43-61.
18 C. or example Arist. :,5'-'7$ 1262b. 38-39 , Ps. Daid, ;( :,%4+3 ;*$). 44. 15-16 , 1hdt.
<2$"*-3 '( =7-3 158. 6-8 , >?4'7$ @,($*-'7$ AB,(*-'-2-', 1,($*-"%'' :%,0%,1' #() *(+,%()C 28.
16-18.
19 6"4. 429b-d.

!"#$% '()*+$*#,-+ 155

thesis is that the !"#$%&' o the ./012 is humanly attainable. Any ./012 can be
saed , in so ar as it is presered through the turmoils o history by
means o irtue, philosophy and the resuscitation o the best constitution.
In the Christian monastic and ascetic ramework the signiication o !"#$%&'
shits towards indiidual redemption and spiritual salation. It is not the
work o history but o Christian (310243256156738 1hus !"#$%&' does not rely
upon political and moral philosophy but upon deotion to an indiidual
godhead. 1he selsame signiiers acquire opposed signiications.
Apparently all types o philosophical discourse could be utilized as suit-
able mines or the extraction and reconiguration o Greek ocabulary and
philosophical notions. Logical handbooks were adapted in order to sere
Christian theological and monastic purposes. 1he hermeneutical conse-
quences o this process o reconceptualizing Greek logic hae been noted
by Mossman Rouech and Andrew Louth. As Louth notes, when dealing
with Aristotle`s '9734/:132 and Porphyry`s *294/43 Christians replaced the
names Socrates and Plato with Peter and Paul but then pro-
ceeded to conound theologically crucial concepts such as actiity and
will or tamper with terms like /;219 and 6<./279212
20
8 1he result becomes
obious in the case o John o Damascus` =1903571598 1here, the purpose is
neither independent philosophical relection nor the exegesis o Aristotelian
logic and Platonic 763/:19, but the application o philosophical ocabulary to
the theological outlook o Christian Orthodoxy. John`s oice is not so
much o the scholar, as o the monk
21
. lor example, when John uses the
word immaterially` ,!"#$% : =190. 1. 35,, he does not mean, ollowing Plato,
that pure knowledge is ree rom the always deceitul perceptions, but rather
that the intellect has reed itsel rom the storm o distracting thoughts.
1he word 9>0?2 is puriied o potential Platonic doctrinal connotations and
becomes a tool o ascetical discourse. 1he Platonic polarity between sense
perception and truth is reconigured, i not reersed. \hereas in Platonism
the senses were negated in order to achiee truth, this noel tradition o
Christian asceticism and monasticism airms the senses and renders them
the proper ehicle to attain wisdom
22
.
One wonders how ar could Christians inspired by the emerging ascetic
ideal go in this game o expropriating and re-applying words and orms.
I am tempted to consider Methodius` +<@./21;@ as the most extreme case o
the Christian rewriting o Plato. Methodius has more reerences to Plato
than any other late antique Christian author. But these concern Plato`s style

20 Louth 2002, pp. 42-43 , Rouech 194 and 1990.
21 Louth 2002, p. 45.
22 Louth 2002, pp. 45-46.


and phraseology rather than the doctrinal core o the dialogue
23
. \ritten
sometime in the late third century, this !"#$%&'(# poses as an imitation o
Plato`s dialogue o the same name. In the place o philosophers and poets
discussing loe, Methodius` !"#$%&'(# eatures ten irgins discussing
chastity. 1hough closely emulating the orm o Plato`s dialogue, Methodius
has his irginal interlocutors discuss *+,-'* ,chastity, and $*./0-,-'* ,irginity,.
1.%& o all sexual persuasion is associated to eil. Bodily beauty 23*44%&5 is
despised
24
. Plato`s allegory o the cae and the myth o the 60*-7.(& are
also adapted to adocacies o irginity. 1he drier o the chariot that is sup-
posed to eleate the soul to a spiritual realm in the 60*-7.(& myth is no
longer ,%(& but Christ and chastity itsel
25
8
1he reersal o pagan alues and philosophical concerns in Methodius`
emulation o Plato extends to the modiication o the oath By lera ! in
9'$$'*& :*;%. to By chastity !
26
. Gien the long-standing sexual associa-
tions o the Greek sympotic setting, Methodius` perersion o the Platonic
dialogue appears highly original, though occasionally bordering on absurdity
and the grotesque
2
. On the other hand, Methodius` !"#$%&'(# is more than
a literary experiment. It shows how Plato`s 4-<'& and een the orm o a
whole dialogue could be applied not only independently o the issue o their
philosophical associations and meaning, but een purposeully in direct con-
traention and ull opposition to the doctrinal core o Platonic philosophy.
1he Christian eclectic and sel-sering recalibration o Aristotelian logic
and Platonic notions oten amounts to a conscious alsiication o ancient
philosophical texts. But een in the case o Methodius` !"#$%&'(#, the
orthodox and monastic appropriation o classical style, literary orms and
philosophical ocabulary was not intended as an interpretation o ancient
authors. 1he actual tendency towards raudulent alsiication and pseudol-
ogy becomes ully explicit only in a second class o experimentations with
philosophical ocabulary.
1his includes texts usually produced outside the ascetic-monastic rame-
work, which are directly conditioned by the pagan-Christian interaction. In
most cases, Christian apologists rom Ps. Justin in the second century to
1heodoret o Cyrrhus in the sixth rewrote Plato by separating Plato`s 4-<'&

23 See Musurillo 1958, p. 1 : |.| despite the ast wealth o Platonic quotation and allu-
sion, one has the deinite impression that where Methodius has not positiely mis-
understood Plato and ailed to comprehend the complexities o his system, he was not
really interested in its doctrinal content.
24 Bril 2005, p. 295.
25 Methodius, !"#$8 56. 3- , 82.-83.16. 60*-7.8 254e.
26 9'$$8 :*'8 28a , Method. !"#$. 13. 19 Bonwetsch. C. Musurillo 1958, p. 15.
2 As a modern scholar ,Bril 2005, p. 300, put it : Something akin to this would happen
i a modern writer were to set a religious conention not o magdalens, but o sexually
nae Carmelite nuns in a brothel or a gay bar.

!"#$% '()*+$*#,-+ 15

rom Plato`s ./01. Apologists and rhetors such as Clement, Lusebius or Gre-
gory o Nazianzus were guided by an interest in possible applications o
Plato`s text, not what this text really means. \e shall see in the next section
that this was not the case with the Neoplatonists : occasionally their inter-
pretations were allacious, but their intention was to get to what Plato really
meant. 1he Christian reconiguration o ocabulary was dependent upon a
criterion that was external to Plato`s text and irreleant to the question o
Platonic exegesis. 1his authoritatie criterion was the Bible and doctrinal
orthodoxy. Christians used Platonic terms such as 2134151, 6/7/1, 2849: or ex-
pressions such as the study o death , but only ater these terms had
shited their meaning through a metonymical process
28
.
One o the irst treatises to inaugurate this class o hermeneutical strate-
gies is the '/;/89295/ 2< =4.95641 attributed to Justin. 1he point in this treatise
is that Plato was amiliar with the truth o Moses but hesitated to conront
the polytheist ramework o his time. 1hough we hae seen that the author
o '/;/89295/ criticized Plato or his indulgence towards pseudology, he hard-
ly escapes the same accusation. 1he uncritical obserations regarding the
origins o Plato`s philosophy, the arbitrary reconceptualization o its
contents and the expropriation, decontextualization and manipulation o
phrases ully qualiy as pseudological, not only according to modern, but
also according to ancient exegetical criteria
29
. lor example, Ps. Justin claims
that Plato`s notion o irtue >2849:? in @4./ 100b is modeled upon the diine
blessing oered by the loly Spirit, on the grounds that according to So-
crates 2849: is ound to be neither natural nor taught but is imparted to us
by a diine dispensation without understanding in those who receie it
30
.
Similarly, he claims that Plato`s description o the winged chariot o Zeus in
!;24<801 246e is an adaptation o Lzekiel 11. 22 : So the cherubim lited up
their wings, with the wheels beside them, and the glory o the God o Israel
was high aboe them. More signiicantly, what is always and has no
Becoming ,!" #$ %&'" ()$&*+$ ,- ./0 12.$, in $5A2401 2d-28a is identiiable
with the Judaeo-Christian notion o god in Lxodus 3. 14 : And God said
to Moses, * 2A B;/ * 2A. lere the crucial dierence between Platonic cos-

28 lor examples, see Siniossoglou 2008. In this context the metonymy o the word (4664.4
is releant. lrom the ourth century onwards the word (4664.4 means whoeer is nei-
ther Christian nor Jewish. lence lellenism is not deined according to any natural
sel-relectie process o identity ormation and sel-understanding, but according to
the authority o external criterion : Judaeo-Christianity.
29 1he hermeneutical criteria by means o which I talk o manipulation and misappropria-
tion are not modern. Notions o corruption and distortion o texts ,%3.043!&+$, 3&5+#
043!&+$, $.6&7&+$, 385&!9:;;&+$, etc., were aailable to late antique authors. See here the
important book o Speyer on alsiication o texts in antiquity ,191, pp. 112-128,. C.
Siniossoglou 2008, p. 20.
30 Ps. Justin, '/;. 30B-D , @4./ 99e-100a.


mology, which has strong monist tendencies, and Judeao-Christian creation-
ist theology, which postulates an extramundane godhead, is coneniently re-
duced to grammar alone : Moses said ! "#, whereas Plato $% &#!
31

1he "#$#%&'&(# '* +,-&(.,/ is also one o the irst Christian texts to use
Jewish and Christian raudulent abrications circulating under the names o
Orpheus, Sibyl and ancient pagan authors in the cause o apologetics. 1hese
impostures oten claim to discoer the conenient ormula One God ,!"#
$!%#, in Greek texts such as the abricated ragments ascribed to Xeno-
phanes. Clement, Lusebius and 1heodoret reiterated and elaborated urther
on these orgeries. 1hey thus anachronistically projected the exclusiist and
monotheist character o Christianity onto the undamentally pluralistic and
henotheist character o ancient religiosity. \hereas in the genuine ragments
o Xenophanes the One God and the many gods appear to be interchange-
able, the Christian apologists managed to credit the ancient philosopher
with a distinctiely Judaeo-Christian ersion o theism. As Ldwards writes
o the Christian rewriting o Xenophanes, trimeter and hexameter took the
place o elegiacs, new tropes and new ocabulary supported a new quarrel
with the idols, and to the one God o theism were addressed the acclama-
tions that his Presocratic erses had bestowed upon the All
32
.
1his tendency to tamper with the text o pagan philosophers resulted in
alsiications that are more subtle. In 0%',1'%'&(# 23'-4,.(5' Lusebius changes
two letters in a word in the 0$',*# and manages to cite Plato as a supporter
o the resurrection o the bodies in a presumed end o time. O all distor-
tions o Plato`s text in late antiquity, this transormation o Plato`s '#()
*+!,$+# ,without bodies, at 0$',*# 114c into '#() -.!,$+# ,without toil,
should be singled out or its admirable economy. A minor, discreet change
in two letters o a single word Christianizes hal o Plato`s philosophy :
0$',*# 114c2-6 : &'(&)* +, -.&/* '0 123'4'156 07-*/# 7-$89:!!*'2 ;*!< &! 4)"
!:&)* =/42 &> ?-9:?-* !@# &>* A?!2&- B9%*'*# 7-C !@# '@7D4!2# A&2 &'(&)* 7-3"
35'<# E127*'F*&-2# G# 'H&! IJ+2'* +83/4-2 'H&! K B9%*'# 07-*># L* &M ?-9%*&2.
Lus. 02 11. 38. 6 : &'(&)* +, -.&/* '0 123'4'156 07-*/# 7-$89:!!*'2 ;*!< &!
7-!:&)* =/42 &> ?-9:?-* !@# &>* A?!2&- B9%*'* 7-C !@# '@7D4!2# A&2 &'(&)*
7-335'<# E127*'F*&-2# G# 'H&! IJ+2'* +83/4-2 'H&! K B9%*'# 07-*># L* &M ?-9"
%*&2.
One might object that this is not necessarily an ideological interention, but
a 6#-' 7(*, textual emendation. But as ar as this passage is concerned, no
textual deiciencies or problems could possibly authorize such a diergence
rom the textual transmission or justiy the Christian rewriting. On the con-
trary, the Lusebian emendation clearly and eectiely shits the doctrinal

31 Ps. Justin, "#$! 20L.
32 Ldwards 1991, pp. 22-228.

!"#$% '()*+$*#,-+ "#$

%&'()*+*'%) %, *-'. /0+*%)'1 2+..+3(4 5()1(6 '* '. 20+7.'80( *% +..79( *-+* *-'.
:+. '*. 2&'9+&; ')*()*'%)4 /0+*%<. ./012 '. *7&)(= +3+').* /0+*%6 ') %&=(& *%
(>*&+1* + 9(+)')3 +* %==. :'*- /0+*%)'1 2-'0%.%2-; +)= &(0'3'%.'*;4 ?) ,+1*6
@(0.7.< $34/ 5678319/6 2%..'80; *-( %0=(.* 2+3+) +**+1A %) @-&'.*'+)'*;6 '. *;2'B
1+0 %, *-( 2+3+) 8(:'0=(&9()* &(3+&=')3 *-( =%1*&')( %, *-( &(.7&&(1*'%) %,
*-( 8%=;
CC
4 D-( 9(&( *-%73-* :+. ')1%92&(-().'80( *% *-( 5(00()(.6 +)=
;(* -(&( :( -+E( F7.(8'7. G7%*')3 /0+*% +. 2&(,'37&')3 2&(1'.(0; *-'. '=(+4 ?)
.71- 1+.(. /0+*% '. ')*(&2&(*(= +3+').* -'. ')*()*'%). +)= 1&(='*(= :'*- =%1B
*&')(. +0'() *% -'. 1%)E'1*'%)4
H-+* 2&(.79+80; +7*-%&'I(= *-( @-&'.*'+) .-',*. %, /0+*%)'1 1%)1(2*7+0
E%1+870+&; ') *-( ,'&.* 20+1( '. + 2.(7=%B-'.*%&'1+0 ,&+9(:%&A4 D% +220; -(&(
+) (>2&(..'%) :(00 A)%:) *-&%73- *-( :%&A %, 5%8.8+:96 *-( @-&'.*'+)
+2%0%3'.*. ,&%9 E(&; (+&0; %) =(E(0%2(= +) ')E()*(= *&+='*'%)4 J11%&=')3 *%
*-'. 2.(7=%B-'.*%&'1+0 *-(%&;6 +);*-')3 *-+* '. :%&*-; ') /0+*% '. + 9'.7)=(&B
.*+)=')3 %, K(:'.- 0%&(4 @-&'.*'+) &-(*%&. +)= +2%0%3'.*. +&( )(E(& *'&(= %,
)%*')3 *-+* *-( 5(00()(. +&( *-'(E(. L!"#$%&'M4 D-'. 86:62 %, +2%0%3(*'1. '.
.%9(*'9(. &(,(&&(= *% ') *-( .1-%0+&0; 8'80'%3&+2-; +. *-( N =(2()=()1;
*-(9( O P ,%& '* +..79(. *-+* 5(00()'.9 '. 70*'9+*(0; + 1%&&72*(= ,%&9 %,
K7=+'.9
CQ
4 ?* '. *-7. *-+* *-( :2/4;6<63:=6212 %, /0+*% %& %, +); %*-(& 5(00()'1
.%7&1( 9+; 8( &(B=(.1&'8(= ') *(&9. %, + 2(170'+&0; @-&'.*'+) N )+&&+*'E( O4
C4 /.(7=%0%3; %& ;(* +)%*-(& N )+&&+*'E( O R
@70*7&+0 &(=71*'E'.9 +)= *-( .*7=; %, 0+*( +)*'G7'*;
S)( 9+; %8T(1* *-+* *-( E'(: 2&(.()*(= .% ,+& &(3+&=')3 *-( @-&'.*'+)
7.( %, /0+*% '. 8'+.(= +)= .-%&*B.'3-*(= ') *-( .().( *-+* '* &(0'(. %) + &+*-(&
)+&&%: 1%)1(2*'%) %, :-+* '* 9(+). *% 8( ') + ='+0%37( :'*- +)1'()* 2-'B
0%.%2-;6 %& %, :-+* 1+) 8( =%)( :'*- +)1'()* 2-'0%.%2-;4 J11%&=')3 *% +
2%270+& E'(:6 0+*( +)*'G7( @-&'.*'+). +)= .78.(G7()*0; *-( U;I+)*')(. ='=
)%* 9'.&(+= /0+*%4 D-(; @-&'.*'+)'I(= /0+*%4 J. *-( *'*0( %, E%) ?EV)A+<.
8%%A 3%(.6 + N /0+*% @-&'.*'+)7. O (9(&3(= %7* %, +) >?/39@=</ %, W&((A
2-'0%.%2-;4 H-+* +22(+&. +. + ,+0.','1+*'%) %, /0+*%)'.9 *% @(0.7.6 K70'+)6
K+1G7(. X%7E(&+') %& *% *-( +7*-%& %, *-'. 2+2(&6 9+; +22(+& +. + -'3-0;
%&'3')+0 &(1(2*'%) %, /0+*%<. 2-'0%.%2-; *% .%9(%)( (0.(4
?* .((9. *% 9( *-+* *-(&( +&( *:% =',,(&()* 87* )%* 97*7+00; (>107.'E(
:+;. *% +&37( ') *-'. ='&(1*'%)4 D% 8(3') :'*-6 + 1+.( 1+) 8( 9+=( *-+* +)B
1'()* (>(3(.'. :+. %,*() ,+)1',70 +)= -'3-B-+)=(= *%%6 :-+*(E(& *-( &(0'3'%)
+)= .*&()3*- %, *-( (>(3(*(4 J. ') *-( 1+.( %, @-&'.*'+) +7*-%&.6 *-'. :+. +*
*'9(. +) 7)1%).1'%7.6 +* %*-(&. + E(&; 1%).1'%7. 1-%'1(4 ?) /0+*%<. !368@A
B63@26 5'22'+. +22(+&. %2() *% *-( (E()*7+0'*; %, 1%),0'1*')3 ')*(&2&(*+*'%).

CC @(0.7.6 #./8=/2 "6B62 Y4 ##4
CQ X(( -(&( Z'=')3. "$$#4


that do not purport to be true to what Simonides` poem really means. 1hese
transcend the ideal o hermeneutical accuracy in aor o idiosyncratic or
personal interpretations
35
. As Nick Denyer notes, ancient interpretations did
not always aim at accuracy : lomer`s characters were occasionally taken to
be natural stus, or astronomical objects, or states o mind, or bodily tis-
sues and organs
36
. One may identiy urther and more extended examples.
leraclitus` !"#$%&' )*$+,&"-+ merge an arbitrary allegorical mode o exegesis
with rhetorical concerns
3
. Cornutus` ./&0%"#! and Porphyry`s 123$ "4 ,5$
67#/5+ also spring to mind. Ironically, it has been ery recently shown that
the greatest pagan philosopher and coninced opponent o Christianity ater
Proclus, the late Byzantine Platonist Gemistos Plethon, also tampered with
Plato`s text with the clear intention o puriying Platonic philosophy
through ideological emendations. le thus reised Platonic passages rom
the 87#/"+&*#, the 92:+, ./&-"#&+ and the ;"%<&2+ that were inconsistent with
his ersion o philosophical lellenism
38
. Plethon`s aim was to restore an
original mythological and philosophical pattern that was allegedly more an-
cient than that reported by Plato and morally as well as philosophically
superior to the lomeric-lesiodean one. 1he Plethonean rewriting o Plato
was authorized by his undamental position in the 6"#"& that Plato and
Zoroaster are the messengers but neither the originators nor the initiators o
certain true doctrines
39
. It is tempting to see Plethon`s exegetical project
as the pagan equialent to the Christian apologetical ,mis,appropriation o
Platonic texts that sought to render Plato conormable to Judaeo-Christian-
ity by accordingly rewriting his =$>&+?

It would appear then that both pagans and Christians are equally likely to
rewrite Plato. One might say the same about modern interpreters too. It is
impossible to step out o the hermeneutical circle. 1here is no act o inter-
pretation or attempt at creating meaning and, or that matter, orm o
communication that is not naturally and inescapably distorted one way or
another, in brie, ree o a certain background noise. Michel Serres has elo-
quently noted this in 9$ @2%2+&,$ :
Nos langues latines appellent, en eet, parasite le bruit constant qui circule
dans les canaux de communication : pas de passage sans cet obstacle, ni lan-
gage sans chicane ou se risque le sens, pas de dessin sans trembl, de dia-
logue sans malentendu, de canaux sans grsillements accidentels ni de na-
ture, en somme, sans bruit de ond.

35 @%,? 34b.
36 Denyer 2008, p. 168. C. 1heagenes in DK 8. 2 , Metrodorus in DK 61. 4.
3 Russell 2003.
38 Pagani 2008a and 2008b, pp. 16-18.
39 Plethon, 6"#"& 252 ,III. 43. 140-143,.

!"#$% '()*+$*#,-+ 161

Le parasite prcede toute relation de dire et de don
40
.
1he second argument in aor o the Christian experimentations with Plato
is that, as Michael lrede has pointed out, sometimes the product o a reli-
giously predetermined act o interpretation might possess or acquire a new
literary, philosophical or other alue o its own
41
. Similarly, Jonathan Barnes
argued that the Christians o late antiquity hae a right to be seen as philoso-
phers, or we do not hae an exclusie or canonical deinition o philosophy
in antiquity. And i we hae no deinition, then why should Proclus count as
a philosopher, but Gregory o Nazianzus not
42

I think that there is a way to strengthen this line o argument een ur-
ther. 1his is by iewing the Christian as well as Plethon`s rewriting o Plato
through the prism o pragmatism. Lxpressly assuming the iewpoint o an
anti-Platonist, Richard Rorty reerted to the pragmatist tradition and argued
in aor o replacing the distinction between reality and appearance with
that between the more useul and the less useul. \ords are tools that help
the conessed anti-Platonist philosopher to deal more eectiely with the
transient problems o his enironment, rather than uncoer any intrinsic
truth underlying his perception o reality. 1he aim is to assume each time
the optimal or better habit o acting :
1o treat belies not as representations but as habits o action, and words not
as representations but as tools, is to make it pointless to ask Am I disco-
ering or inenting, making or inding ` 1here is no point in diiding the or-
ganisms` interaction with the enironment in this way
43
.
Seen through this prism, a pragmatist or anti-oundationalist might inoke
the criterion o utility and useulness in order to acquit Lusebius rom the
accusations o manipulating texts, intellectual raud and pseudology. locus-
ing on what is useul, rather than on what is true, the apologists rewrote
Plato according to what they elt is right, regardless o what Plato really said.
A case can be made that this was the express interest o Basil, Gregory o
Nyssa, 1heodoret o Cyrrhus, Gregory Palamas and other Christian authors
when reading Plato. 1hey were not interested in the truth o the author but
in rendering Plato useul to themseles and to the Christian community to
which they belonged.
1he present author has encountered criticism on similar grounds. Aaron
Johnson objected that the apologetical writings eince a creatie genius in
compiling and organizing all knowledge ,including Plato`s thought,, and
reormulating it within a new master narratie . 1he Christian rewriting o

40 Serres 1980, p. 11.
41 See lrede 1999, pp. 139-140.
42 Barnes 2002, p. 298.
43 Rorty 1999, p. xx.

"#$ %&'()*+ +&%&,++,-.,/

01234 25 2 6732892::23;<7 ;5 3=>5 5779 25 ? @764A:23;B;9C 29@ @7A7937:;9C 3=7
A7937:5 4D E94F17@C7 29@ 3=7 G23=5 3=23 E94F7:5 6;C=3 32E7 H
II
J )=;5 ;5 2
3KG;A21 2GG1;A23;49 4D G45364@7:9;53 293;8:721;56 34 1237 293;L>7 53>@;75J *5
*9@:7F +2K7: 94375M G45364@7:9;535 379@ 34 577 ? 129C>2C7 29@ 37N3>21;3K 25
4G2L>7 29@ 51;GG7:KM 29@ K73 A4953;3>3;<7 4D E94F17@C7 H
IO
J )=7 7NG:755;49
? 62537: 92::23;<7 H :7D7:5 34 2 6732892::23;<7M 2 534:K G:4P7A37@ 4934 2 <7:8
5;49 4D 3=;9C5 3=23 ;5 A495;@7:7@ 34 Q7 2 534:K ;9 3=7 D;:53 G12A7J &3 ;5 2 534:K
2Q4>3 2 534:KJ )=;5 453795;Q1K 2>3=4:;B75 3=7 7DD7A35 4D 3=7 G57>@48=;534:;A21
@7G79@79AK 3=767 23 3=7 =7:6797>3;A21 17<71 QK 57G2:23;9C 3=7 G:4A755 4D
;937:G:7323;49 D:46 29K A49A7:9 34 Q7 3:>3=D>1M 4: 25 3:>3=D>1 25 G455;Q17M 34
3=7 2>3=4:R5 6729;9CJ
*5 2 A4957L>79A7M 3=7 G455;Q;1;3K 4D G>33;9C 3=7 S=:;53;29 2GG:4G:;23;49
4D 01234 34 2 E;9@ 4D =7:6797>3;A21 3753 2C2;953 :;<21 %74G12349;A ;937:G:738
23;495 ;5 ;6G1;A;31K @79;7@J )=7 D4A>5 5=;D35 D:46 3=7 L>753;49 :7C2:@;9C 3=7
G2C298S=:;53;29 A125= 4D ;937:G:7323;495 4<7: 01234 34 2 @;DD7:793 497 3=23
25E5M 25 T4=9549 @475M ? =4F 2 1237 293;L>7 3=;9E7: :72@ 37N35 3:7237@ 2>3=4:8
;323;<71K QK =;6571DM :23=7: 3=29 =4F =7 :72@ 3=7 37N35 3:7237@ 2>3=4:;323;<71K
QK 3=457 =7 54>C=3 34 2332AE H
I#
J &9 2943=7: <7:5;49 4D 3=;5 2:C>6793M 0737:
<29 %>DD7179 A4::7A31K 255>675 3=23 2 A46G2:;549 4D 3=7 ? ;937:921 @;58
A4>:575 H 4D U71179;56 29@ S=:;53;29;3K F4>1@ G:4Q2Q1K 5=4F 3=23 Q43=
5;@75 76G14K7@ 5;6;12: =7:6797>3;A21 53:237C;75 ;9 :75G7A3 34 @;DD7:793 37N35
3=23 F7:7 A495;@7:7@ QK 72A= 25 2>3=4:;323;<7
IV
J
U4F7<7:M ;@793;3K D4:623;49 ;9 1237 293;L>;3K @;@ 943 7<41<7 54171K 4>3 4D
3=7 ;937:921 @;5A4>:575 4D G2C295 29@ S=:;53;295J )4 :753:;A3 497571D 34 3=7
;55>7 4D =4F 72A= ;937117A3>21 A26G @7213 F;3= 3=457 37N35 :7C2:@7@ QK 72A=
25 2>3=4:;323;<7 ;5 34 71;6;9237 3=7 ;937:5>QP7A3;<7 29@ A4937N3>21 @;6795;49
4D 3=7 G2C298S=:;53;29 @7Q237J )=7 @29C7: =7:7 ;5 34 :7@75A:;Q7 3=7 A125=
Q73F779 G2C29 29@ S=:;53;29 =7:6797>3;A5 ;9 37:65 4D 3F4 ;541237@ @;58
A4>:575 >92F2:7 4D 72A= 43=7: 29@ 21;79 34 7N3:28@;5A>:5;<7 :721;3KJ
)=;5 264>935 34 2 32A;3 :7;93:4@>A3;49 4D 2 @;DD7:793 E;9@ 4D 755793;21;56M
;9 54 D2: 25 3=7 2A3>21 3795;49 G7:A7;<7@ 29@ D713 QK G2C29 29@ S=:;53;29 2>8
3=4:5 ;9 1237 293;L>;3K 23 3=7 :71;C;4>5 29@ G=;1454G=;A21 17<71 :7A7@75 ;934 3=7
Q2AEC:4>9@ 29@ 3=7;: 5>QP7A3;<;3K 67135 2F2K ;934 79@17551K ? 97C43;237@ H
29@ ? :7897C43;237@ H 54A;48A>13>:21 2:37D2A35M ? 92::23;<75 H 29@ 216453 2=;58
34:;A21 ? @;5A4>:575 HJ )=7 D;:53 62P4: G:4Q176 4D A>13>:21 :7@>A3;49;56 ;5
G:7A;571K 3=23 3=7 4QP7A3;<7 A4937N3 ;5 @;5541<7@ ;934 5>A= A4953:>A35
IW
J )4
@4F9G12K 4: ;C94:7 3=7 :;<21:K 29@ @;DD7:79A75 Q73F779 3=7 G2C29 29@

II T4=9549 $XXYJ
IO +2K7: $XXXM GJ #WJ
I# T4=9549 $XXYJ
IV Z29 %>DD7179 $XXYM GJ WYJ
IW *:A=7: $XX[M GJ "[J

P.1O CR1.^| 163

Christian discourses on Plato, while claiming to reconstruct each or only
one o them, albeit not their clash, amounts to a ersion o essentialism that
is indierent to how pagan and Christian authors really thought about the
ideas and texts o their opponents, about each other and their world.
Moreoer, the shit o ocus rom the pagan-Christian controersy to a
study o parallel narraties and internal discourses alls immediately
prey to a contradiction common to the application o postmodernist theory
in current social sciences. Sayer has described this as a lip rom the idea o
absolute truth to relatiism :
laing realized that words do not establish meanings singly and through
reerence,denotation ,nae objectiism,, it is concluded that they neither
coney authors`,speakers` intentions nor reer to anything outside discourse
at all , veavivg. are evate..t, aeferrea ivtraai.cvr.iret, ritbovt referevce to etraai.
cvr.ire reatit,, ava re are free to ivterret tet. a. re ri.b. 1aken to the extreme,
this embodies a standard contradiction o relatiism, or i we are ree to
interpret what someone writes as we like, then we can interpret them against
their intentions, attributing to them iews diametrically opposed to those
that they ,appear to, proess, or o course they hae denied themseles
grounds or complaining about this
49
.
1his is the second major problem with arguments redescribing the Christian
manipulation o Plato as part o yet another narratie. 1hey either separate
the Christian rewriting o Plato rom the question o Plato`s intentions as a
philosopher or, een worse, liquidate any notion o an essence or truth
within Plato`s text. But hermeneutical relatiism is not the inal diiculty
with the application o an anti-oundationalist ramework to the lellenic-
Christian clash o interpretations.
Interpretatie acts are ealuated according to hermeneutical criteria.
\ithout these criteria, it may be objected that anyone can make an appeal to
his wish to eect the common good or democratize knowledge in order
to redescribe as a master narratie what may be, in reality, a Machiaellian
manipulation o texts. 1he meaning o leidegger`s hermeneutical circle is
not that any interpretation is as alid as any other , rather, that all are un-
damentally wrong. And yet leidegger would agree that some are closer to
the author`s truth than are others. Absolute truth may be untenable. Still,
there is a need or dierentiation between discourses. lor example, the re-
jection o notions o absolute truth need not stop us dierentiating between
statements such as : No one died in the Gul \ar` and 1housands died in
the Gul \ar.`
50
Mvtati. vvtavai., it may be impossible to recoer the ideal
vov. o Plato`s texts as Neoplatonist philosophers such as Proclus and 1ho-
mas 1aylor may hae thought. But it is still possible to distinguish between

49 Sayer 2000, p. 0 ,my emphasis,.
50 Sayer 2000, pp. 1-3.

"#$ %&'()*+ +&%&,++,-.,/

011234053678 69 :2056734 1;326861;<= )6>0< ?@ A0< 5;37B 5;05 5;@ ?0< C320D
A6?35E F@0> :2056 38 56 86A@ @G5@75 6H5>05@>= +5322I 39 67@ ;0> 56 4;668@
J@5?@@7 C320A6?35E 07> 0 ;07>J66B H837K :2056 56 J04B H1 %0536702 +6D
430238A 07> 5;@6F3@8 69 F04@ 1HF35<I 8H4; 08 L078 -M75;@FN8 !"#$%& #"( )*$+,
-+( .+/+&( O"PQRSI 67@ 38 T@F< 23B@2< 56 615 96F C320A6?35EN8 !"#$%&
U"
0 %@35;@F
38 07 3>@02 F@46785FH45367 69 :2056N8 1;326861;<= VH5 67@ >6@8 765 7@@> 56
;0T@ F@46T@F@> 5;@ K@7H37@ 6F F@02 :2056I 37 6F>@F 56 04B76?2@>K@ 5;05 C320D
A6?35E 38 4268@F 56 :2056N8 5FH5; 5;07 -M75;@F=
);@ ?0< 56 0T63> ;@FA@7@H53402 F@2053T38A 38 56 16835 08 16375 69 >@10FD
5HF@ 5;@ 375@753670235< 69 F@81@453T@ 375@F1F@5053T@ 0458= :6F1;<F<I :F642H8 6F
+3A12343H8 A0< ;0T@ @FF@> 37 10F534H20F 375@F1F@5053678 69 5;38 6F 5;05 108D
80K@= :F642H8I 96F @G0A12@I 8374@F@2< J@23@T@> 5;05 :2056N8 >3026KH@ !#,1+&2-+(
>@13458 5;@ T3@?8 69 5;@ ;3856F3402 :0FA@73>@8= W@5 ;38 375@75367 ?08 56 K@5
56 5;@ A@0737K 69 :2056N8 1;326861;<= L38 375@75367 ?08 7@35;@F 5;@ F@23K36H8
467T@F8367 69 ;38 0H>3@74@I 76F 5;@ 8HJ85075305367 69 0 F@23K36H8 ,F5;6>6G<
05 6>>8 ?35; 022 6F 86A@ 69 :2056N8 >645F37@8= *5 53A@8 :F642H8 566 @FF8= VH5
;@ >6@8 86 37 0 1;326861;3402 ?0<I AH4; 08 L@3>@KK@F >6@8I 5;05 38I 37 0 K@7D
H37@ @996F5 56 H7>@F8507>I F05;@F 5;07 0112< :2056N8 5@G5 56 0 1F@46793KHF@>
@G5F0D5@G5H02 0K@7>0=
&7 5;38 8@78@ X;F385307 01626K3858 37 205@ 0753YH35< 7@T@F @FF= );38 38 765
J@40H8@ 5;@< 0F@ F3K;5= Z05;@FI 35 38 J@40H8@ 5;@< 4678436H82< 615 96F 0 F@0>D
37K 5;05 H8@8 :2056 8@2@453T@2< 37 6F>@F 56 K@5 56 86A@5;37K 6H583>@ 6F J@<67>
:2056N8 5@G5I 5;05 38I 56 0 5FH5; 5;05 ;08 02F@0>< J@@7 >3T37@2< F@T@02@>= );38
0A6H758 56 07 3>@626K3402 01123405367 69 :2056I F05;@F 5;07 56 07 @FF67@6H8
375@F1F@505367=
:0K078 8H4; 08 :2@5;67 407 J@ 8;6?7 56 ;0T@ 64408367022< F@T@F5@> 56 0
18@H>626K3402 F@46785FH45367 69 :2056N8 ?6F>8 07> A@0737K= );@8@ 0F@ 05<13D
402 07> 43F4HA85075302 408@8= :0K07 @G@K@5@8 1F6[@45@> 5;@ 375@F1F@5053T@
1F374312@8 69 @4676A< 07> 0KF@@A@75 3(4156%&2#7 6756 5;@ :2056734 46F1H8
07> 1F@8H1168@> 0 >@@1@F >645F3702 H735< 56 J@ F@81@45@> 07> 809@KH0F>@>I
[H85 08 X;F385307 @G@K@5@8 >3> ?;@7 F@0>37K 5;@3F 5@G58 69 F@9@F@74@= &7 J65;
408@8I 5;@ A38F@0>37K8 0F@ 765 5;@ F@8H25 69 07< 4679@88@> 1F6KF0A 69 >@467D
5@G5H023E05367= V< 4675F085I 01626K3858 9F6A V0832 56 );@6>6F@5 0F@ 7@T@F
53F@> 69 0>T3837K 0 8@2@453T@ 011F61F305367 69 ?;05 38 69 T02H@ 37 :2056738A=
);@ J@85 B76?7 @G0A12@ 69 5;38 86F5 69 A0731H205367 69 :2056 38 5;@ X;F38D
5307 011F604; 56 5;@ 821#+9(= *5 2@085 0 >6E@7 01626K3858 386205@> 5;05 7656F3D
6H8 !"!#$%$ O\ 35 40A@ 56 J@ ]S 37 821= QRJ 37 6F>@F 56 1F6T@ 5;05 :2056 ?08 0
4F@05367385= X67T@F8@2<I 10K07 :205673858 ?@F@ 05 KF@05 10378 56 023K7 5;38
85F07K@ !"!#$%$ ?35; 022 5;@ @T3>@74@ 37 5;@ 821#+9( 5;05 163758 56 5;@ 6116D

U" %0536702D+64302385 011F61F3053678 07> F@011234053678 69 :2056 ?@F@ 53A@2< 765@> J<
L6@F72^ "P_RI 11= "`RD"R"=

!"#$% '()*+$*#,-+ 165

site iew, according to which the unierse is perpetually renewed. One does
not need to take sides as to who is right, though my own sympathy is or
Proclus` interpretation o the likely tale . Rather, the decisie point is that
the priority o the pagan exegetes was to sae Plato rom sel-contradiction
by working on what is within the $./0123 and what Plato appears to say in
other parts o his corpus - whereas Christian authors soled the problem by
isolating a single word that appeared to preigure their cosmogony and ig-
nored the whole Platonic context. 1he real issue is not who is right, but
what method is being used.
Another point : pagan exegetes occasionally proceeded to non-accurate
reconstructions o Plato`s ideas. But Christians were 14516718 to do so. 1hey
skilully read Plato in a priileged way that not only was indierent to the
coherence or 39/5:;<.0 o Platonic philosophy but was een dictated and im-
posed by doctrinal Orthodoxy.
Simon Goldhill persuasiely suggested that the end o the classical tradi-
tion o dialogue coincided with the rise o Christianity in late antiquity and
proided insights into the resistance o Orthodoxy to dialogue. As he put it,
the catechism and other question-and-answer structures are not in any sig-
niicant sense a dialogue : they are orms o exchange to aid controlled
learning and to produce certain, ixed responses
52
.

On the other hand,
Polymnia Athanassiadi has recently demonstrated a concern among later
Platonists to establish orms o philosophical orthodoxy and exclude
thinkers who did not conorm
53
.

loweer, I beliee that these phenomena
were dierent rom their Christian equialents in decisie ways.
1he aim o Neoplatonic exegesis was not the ormulation o an exclusie
set o Platonist orthodox doctrines that would condemn preious inter-
pretations as non-canonical, but rather an exegesis that would ideally en-
compass and complement all partial or speciic interpretations o Plato.
Book I o Proclus` commentary on the $./0123 illustrates this crucial dier-
ence between Christian and Neoplatonic approaches to Plato. lrom a mod-
ern iewpoint one may be keen to regard both with scepticism. Still, it is
signiicant that Proclus` hermeneutical agenda seeks to include rather than
exclude preious interpretations, een at those points where the commenta-
tor strongly disagrees. Proclus is in constant dialogue with preious exegetes
such as Crantor, Atticus, Numenius, Origenes, Porphyry, Longinus, Iambli-
chus and Syrianus, presenting the multiarious linguistic, ethical, psycholog-

52 Goldhill 2008, p. 5. lor a dierent iew, see Cooper and Dal Santo ,2008, p. 189,, who
suggest that Christianity presented dialogue with new subject matter and lent the
genre new impetus . Still, to the extent that dialogue within a Christian ramework
appears to exclude religious and philosophical dissent it cannot be said to be a genuine
dialogue.
53 See here Athanassiadi 2006.


ical and physical interpretations o the !"#$%&'. No partial allegorical inter-
pretation necessarily or completely inalidates one that stays - or whateer
reason - at the (%)"' o Plato`s narratie, as Longinus` does. \ords, numbers,
shapes, images and symbols are hermeneutical tools that hae enabled only
speciic and limited uneilings o the uniersal truth concealed in Plato`s
text. Seen in this light, the interpretations oered by Proclus` predecessors
are +$",%'%"' in the lellenic - as opposed to the Christian - meaning o the
word. 1hey are hermeneutical -+."-%' relecting successie stages o a single
exegetical tradition or organism, growing and dying in an endeaor to as-
cend to those arcane conceptions, at which Plato too presumably aimed.
1his dialogue within Platonism is in itsel characteristic o the dierence
between Platonic orthodoxy and Christian Orthodoxy. Its phenomen-
ology, that is, the manner and tropes through which it is articulated, sharply
contrasts with the methods by means o which Proclus` contemporary
Christians constructed their concepts o Orthodoxy and heresy.
Pagan Neoplatonists were ree to disagree on the interpretation o Plato.
1heir misrepresentations o Plato are the product o hermeneutical ree-
dom. Conersely, the Christian misrepresentations o Plato are the result o
restricting and ultimately marginalizing Neoplatonic hermeneutical plural-
ism. 1hey are canonical . 1he absence o genuine dialogue in early Chris-
tianity excludes the possibility o an unconditional openness o meaning in
the interpretation o philosophical texts. 1he apologetical and rhetorical
rewriting o Plato`s philosophy is the ospring o this rise o exclusiity in
the interpretation o ancient texts. It coincides with the demise o pagan
hermeneutical and mythological pluralism, just as exclusiity in cultic
monotheism coincides with the deeat o polytheism and henotheism.
1he Christian intention to interene in philosophical texts and correct
them according to preailing notions o Orthodoxy was not circumstantial.
A case can be made that it was part o a wider hermeneutical program. 1his
is made suiciently clear by Gregory o Nyssa when adocating the need to
circumcise lellenic philosophy - in order or the true essence o Israel to
surace
54
. In late Byzantium, another signiicant exponent o clerical and
monastic power, Gregory Palamas, made exactly the same point. laced with
the Byzantine humanists, who sought to reintroduce Platonic philosophy,
Gregory Palamas assumed towards the wisdom outside the gates ,!"#$-
!%& '()*$, the old position o Gregory o Nyssa and late antique apologists :
In the case o secular wisdom, you must irst kill the serpent, in other words,
oercome the pride that arises rom this philosophy. low diicult that is !
1he arrogance o philosophy has nothing in common with humility,` as the

54 Gr. Nyss. /0.'. 2. 39. 4- ,tr. Malherbe and lerguson, : 1here is something leshly
and uncircumcised in what is taught by philosophy`s generatie aculty , when that has
been completely remoed, there remains the pure Israelite race.

!"#$% '()*+$*#,-+ 16

saying goes. laing oercome it, then, you must separate and cast away the
head and tail, or these things are eil in the highest degree. By the head,
I mean maniestly wrong opinions concerning things intelligible and diine
and primordial , and by the tail, the abulous stories concerning created
things. As to what lies in between the head and tail, that is, discourses on na-
ture, you must separate out useless ideas by means o the aculties o exam-
ination and inspection possessed by the soul, just as pharmacists puriy the
lesh o serpents with ire and water. Len i you do all this, and make good
use o what has been properly set aside, how much trouble and circum-
spection will be required or the task !
55

Obiously not much remains rom a snake ater such a cooking process. But
then again, this is precisely the point Gregory is trying to make. Philotheus
Coccinus tells us that Palamas was trained in ./012./34 5267362 in order to ap-
propriate missiles and weapons
56
. Palamas was perectly aware o what
exactly renders lellenism threatening to his world-iew - metaphysics, the-
ology, mathematics combined with the arrogance o secular wisdom.
lermeneutical iolence becomes once again the ehicle to neutralize the
threat posed by the open hermeneutical model aored by Greek philo-
sophers.
Christian tactics o rewriting and rereading Greek texts in late antiquity
oten constitute a orm o iolence analogous to the physical and legal io-
lence exercised by bishops. Ater all, as a rule it is the same people, namely
bishops, who address an imaginary or real pagan audience and claim to hae
recoered the genuine essence o keywords o the Platonic world-iew. 1he
massie commentaries o Proclus and Simplicius are, to a large extent, the
pagan reply to a Christian hegemony o discourse that used imperial legisla-
tion, coercion and orced consent to limit the dissemination o a distinc-
tiely and essentially pagan outlook. 1he word hegemony is popular
in postmodernist and postcolonial hermeneutics. 1his is not where I am tak-
ing it rom. I think that the pagan Platonists would approe o it. lorced to
go underground owing to speciic legislation against anything pagan, Neo-
platonists used code-phrases to denote the Christians. 1he most commonly
used by Proclus and Damascius is /86 912.8:4.3;, namely those in power : the
representaties o a hegemony
5
. 1his was a religious, intellectual, cultural as
well as hermeneutical hegemony.
lrom this ollows a serious problem with the application o dominant
relatiistic theories o literary criticism in the late antique and Byzantine
context. 1hey gloss oer the dependence o Christian discourse on clerical
authority and the compromises that this brought about. I would like to elab-

55 Gr. Palamas, $1627; 1. 1. 21 ,tr. Meyendor,.
56 Phil. Cocc. !< 151 : 558D.
5 Siniossoglou 2008, pp. 44-4.

"#$ %&'()*+ +&%&,++,-.,/

01234 05 3678 90753 :736 14;0<184 30 =2>41?28@ 36401A 0B ;0??<57;237C4
2;3705D
=2>41?28 0>E4;34F 30 641?454<37;2G 14G237C78? >A 9075375H 0<3 3623 364
9148<990873705 0B ;0??<57;23705 78 <5F418325F75HI 123641 3625 1643017;2G
8<;;488D /5F418325F75H 9148<990848 25 753418<>E4;37C4 2H144?453 05 364
C2G7F73A 0B G25H<2H4D )678 78 25 2H144?453 3623 1237052GGA ?037C234F F72G0H<4
?2A G42F 30 2 H45<754 ;058458<8D * ;0??<57;237C4 2;3 3623 <848 2 ?0509J
0GA 0B 90:41 75 01F41 30 4G7?75234 364 14878325;4 0B 364 03641 9213A ;25503
>4 827F 30 14GA <905 36084 ;1734172 54;48821A B01 25 605483 ;0??<57;237C4
2;3
K$
D &5 364 92H25JL61783725 ;05BG7;3 0B 753419143237058 0C41 MG230 36414 78 50
?<3<2G 14;0H573705 0B 2<3050?0<8 8<>E4;38 H45<754GA 753414834F 75 B01?<J
G2375H 31<36J;G27?8D L617837258 8<;6 28 N065 L61A80830?I (<84>7<8 25F
)640F0143 214 503 753414834F 75 2117C75H 23 2 ;058458<8 :736 36471 92H25
75341G0;<3018D )64A 214 753414834F 75 :75575HI 503 9418<2F75HD +7H57B7;253GAI
2GG :4 O50: 0B L4G8<8@I M0196A1A@8 25F N<G725@8 2537JL61783725 :01O8 ;0?48
B10? 90:41B<G L61783725 >786098 25F 7534GG4;3<2G8 :60 P<034 92H258 05GA 75
01F41 30 14B<34 364?D *8 364 290G0H7838 844 73I 364 05GA 093705 3623 92H258
62C4 78 30 ;05C413 30 L6178372573AD )6414 78 50 P<483705 0B 36471 ;05C41375H 30
92H2578?D &5 03641 :01F8I 36414 78 50 P<483705 0B ;0?75H 30 25 2H144?453D
=414 78 2 >G75F 8903 75 364 83<FA 0B 364 14;493705 0B MG230578? 75 G234
2537P<73AD * 83<FA 0B 60: 364 ;G417;2G 25F ?052837; 4832>G786?453 86294F 364
14;493705 0B MG230578? 78 2 84170<8 !"#$!"%&'()D )64 L61783725 290G0H7838 :414
;0??05GA >786098D &5 36471 ;284I 364 2<360173A 30 753419143 MG230 H048 30J
H43641 :736 364 2<360173A 30 4Q41;784 503 05GA ;G417;2GI ><3 2G80 E<F7;72G 25F
80;72G 90:41D *G142FA 75 L0583253754@8 37?4 >786098 62F 364 &(*'+%$'&# 30 ;71J
;<?C453 364 4Q78375H G4H2G 8A834? >A ?2O75H 25 29942G 30 364 <G37?234 31<36
0B 364 054 60GA 14G7H705
KR
D &3 78 364 82?4 29942G 30 4Q;G<87C73A >A ?014 01 G488
364 84GB82?4 9409G4 3623 F4341?7548 364 L61783725 14;493705 0B MG23057; 967J
G08096AD S10? (9796257<8I =7990GA3<8 25F +0;12348 +;60G2837;<8 75 G234
2537P<73A 30 -4552F708 +;60G21708 75 G234 TAU2537<?I 36414 78 2 941878375H
8<897;705 3623 MG230578? 78 364 ?03641 0B 2GG 64148748
#V
D &3 2994218 3623 0B345
L61783725 64148A >4;2?4 364 C467;G4 0B 92H25 F0;317548D TA 7?9G7;23705I <5J
;05B4884F 01 G23453 92H25 MG23057; 7F428 910C7F4F 364 C467;G4 B01 L61783725
64148AD

)64 >483 4Q2?9G4 0B 3678 96450?4505 75 G234 2537P<73A 78 (<50?725J
78?
#"
D

K$ LBD =2>41?28 "RRWI 99D "VXJ"V#I 25F =2>41?28 "RRYI 9D $RD
KR ,5 364 788<4 0B 364 E<F7;72G 2<360173A 0B >786098 25F 4978;092G ;0<138 844 Z299 YVVKI
99D YXYJYKYI 25F =211748 YVV"I 99D "R"JY""D
#V (979625D ,&-D "$KD "[JYK \ =7990GD ."/0 2&"%D "D 910GD "D "JR \ "D "RD "BBD
#" *5 4Q9G2523705 78 910C7F4F >A -14H01A 0B %A882D )64 (<50?725 ;G27? 3623 364 52?48
23317><34F 30 H0F 9088488 25 2>80G<34 25F 75F4945F453 31<36JC2G<4 2;;4887>G4 30 364 6<J

!"#$% '()*+$*#,-+ 169

1his recategorization o Platonism as master-heresy aected and deined
the reception o Plato`s text or the centuries to come, in so ar as Christian
heresies were seerely persecuted by a constantly shiting clerical-political
authority
62
.

Pagan Neoplatonists degenerated into marginal intellectuals.
1hey were cult igures in the best case, outcasts in the worst. 1he Christian
rewriting o Plato is not the product o any dialogue between Platonists and
Christians. It largely stems rom a dependence o interpretation on centers
o clerical power that were not interested in exegesis o Plato but rather ob-
sessed with hunting down Christian heresy.
1he hitherto unnoticed mutual dependency between hermeneutical au-
thority and political-clerical authority in the case o the Christian reception
o Plato is documented in the './01 23456768734. Article 1. 11. 10 condemns
not only those pagans who perorm rites, but also those lellenes whose
teaching deiates rom the line prescribed by the oicial clerical-educational
establishment. lellenic texts may be taught only as tools or a training in
grammar, literature and generally as a source o encyclopaedic knowledge.
But they cannot be approached as sources o a religious or philosophical
world-iew antagonistic to Christianity. 1his prohibition to teach and study
pagan Platonism in the sixth century presupposes a preious hermeneutical
act that determined what 64 the essence o philosophical paganism. lor this
job the authors o the legal codes relied on those bishops who had already
deined what was the essence o lellenism as paganism in the ourth and
ith centuries. 1o put it in terms borrowed rom Antonio Gramsci, we
should be careul not to blur the distinction between a leading or hege-
monic group o people and those groups ,pagans, heretics, that are being
culturally and intellectually led. Gramsci`s point is that oten passie consent
at the cultural and intellectual leel comes prior to orced consent : a social
group can, and indeed must already lead |i.e. be hegemonic| beore winning
goernmental power ,this indeed is one o the principal conditions or the
winning o such power,
63
. 1hus, the question is not how ar Gregory o
Nazianzus and Gregory Palamas are Platonizing. 1he question is : how ar
were they allowed to Platonize in the late antique,Byzantine context and
how ar did they allow others to Platonize.
Clerical and political power games conditioned not only the pagan-
Christian clash o interpretations oer Plato, but also the dierse modes o

man intellect is tantamount to a relapse to the realism o Plato in the '985:;34. See Gr.
Nyss. '.7598 <37.=. 2. 1. 403-404. C. Gr. Pal. '8>. '" 8-10 , $968/4 3. 2. 24.
62 Just as the establishment o ritual Christianity meant the exclusion o ritual paganism,
so the emergence o doctrinal Orthodoxy meant the exclusion o heretical or unor-
thodox iews on god, man and the world - hence aecting the autonomy o philos-
ophy. C. '$? 16. 1-2 , 16. 5 , 1. . 0.
63 Gramsci 191, p. 4.


interpreting Plato within the speciically Christian rame o reerence. By
ailing to take into account this parameter, contemporary scholarship on the
pagan-Christian debate decontextualizes the products o Christian rhetoric,
theology and clericalism and isolates them rom their proper socio-political
rame o reerence, namely rom those mechanisms o power that autho-
rized and guided the priileged Christian negotiation o Plato in the irst
place.
As a consequence, philosophical discourse becomes indistinguishable
rom that o clerical or rhetorical discourse. 1he distinction between philo-
sophical and theological, rhetorical, apologetical texts is blurred or their
dierent intentionality is disregarded. In this regard, a recent discussion that
has completely missed the relation between the interpretation o philosoph-
ical texts and clerical,political mechanisms o power is particularly illuminat-
ing. 1his concerns the question whether anything like Byzantine philosophy
really exists. In a recent article on the issue, one author replies yes by
eectiely assuming that anti-essentialist position I hae criticized in this
paper :
1he more we study the texts rom the Byzantine philosophical tradition
broadly construed, the more we detect a wide ariety o meanings and unc-
tions attached to the term philosophy.` I beliee that these are traces o the
irreducibility o what scholars call Byzantine philosophy` to any objectie
determination
64
.
In other words, Byzantine philosophy is possible only i the word !"#$%&%!"'
remains undeined and irreducible, in brie, i we do not ascribe any essence
to it. 1hus, one clouds the act that a Christian hegemony o discourse
claimed exclusiity in interpretation in order to utilize ancient philosophy as
a tool o hieratic, monastic and political authority - and not as a means to
achiee a consensus regarding what Plato and Aristotle really meant. 1his
anti-essential conception o Byzantine philosophy is tantamount to a
tacit metonymical process that disentangles rhetorical, ascetical and theolog-
ical texts rom the authoritarian mechanisms that conditioned their deelop-
ment. 1hese texts can then be coneniently recategorized as philosophical in
direct contraention to the qualiications o genuine philosophical discourse.
Distortions o power are not seen, nor properly appreciated. 1he word !"#(
$%&%!"' is applied homonymously to designate products o a clerical and
monastic hegemony that do not unconditionally and uniormly qualiy as
philosophical.
1his shit rom Plato`s concern or the *+,-#-./+ %0 123+& 4%*-"%-5-2 -61 %1%(
32-617 to what Psellos called the *+,-#-./+ %0 /%832& 4%*-"%-5-2 -61 /%832-617 ac-
counts or that rom the late antique to the Byzantine intellectual paradigms.

64 1rizio 200, p. 288.

!"#$% '()*+$*#,-+ 11

Still, this process does not mean that the autonomy o philosophical relec-
tion and exegesis in Byzantium was rendered completely obsolete. Rather
than being subserient to the Christian theological establishment, philoso-
phy reerted to calculated dissimulation occasionally acquiring an anti-
authoritarian character, as in the cases o Psellos and Gemistos Plethon.
4. Concluding thoughts on essentialism and anti-essentialism
in interpretation
I hae argued that the Christian attempt to claim Plato borders on pseu-
dology and misappropriation in so ar as it diers rom the Neoplatonic
reception o Plato in three regards. lirst, it replaces the Neoplatonic prin-
ciple o ./0123456 within the Platonic corpus with a criterion external to
Plato`s text : this is the leel o conormity o itemized Platonic passages to a
shiting notion o doctrinal Orthodoxy. Secondly, it is dependent upon and
conditioned by the agenda o a clerical-political authority. 1hirdly, it is initi-
ated by an oerwhelmingly rhetorical, pragmatic and utilitarian intentional-
ity. Consequently I hae argued against conscious or unconscious attempts
at liquidating the dierence between the pagan and the Christian reception
o Platonic philosophy. 1o a large extent, Christians in late antiquity eec-
tiely colonized Plato`s text and ulilled a program o intellectual imperial-
ism.
1he dierentiation in interpretatie strategies and hermeneutic priorities
between pagans and Christians relects the deeper incompatibility between
lellenism and Christianity at the leel o world-iews. 1his corroborates the
assumption o pagans such as Julian and Christians such as 1ertullian that
intellectually lellenism and Christianity reer to dierent things, that is to
say, they possess distinct essences. \hich begs the question : what could
possibly be meant when talking o the essence o lellenism and the essence
o Christianity
listorians commonly argue that lellenism and Christianity are not im-
mutable or ixed entities. Perceptions o what counts as lellenic, Platonic,
pagan or Christian shit according to social, political and cultural ariables.
Perhaps understandably, we hae seen that anti-essentialist or anti-ounda-
tionalist positions enjoy a growing popularity. Still, I hae argued that the
7300845. 315453 that lellenism and Christianity are discursiely and culturally
constructed is not sel-eident. 1he lathers o the Church and lellenes
such as Julian and Proclus conceied o lellenism and Christianity as es-
sentially dierent. 1o gloss oer this is to argue that or centuries the key
players in the pagan-Christian conrontation ailed to see what is presumably
crystal-clear to us : that the only thing separating Christians and lellenes
was the social unction o their negotiated and renegotiated intellec-
tual and religious identities, rather than the reality o these identities as

"#$ %&'()*+ +&%&,++,-.,/

0123410 56 78191 :;1479< )839 76=1 >2 ?@A7@B:A B10@?73C39D :40 9>?3:A ?>4E
97B@?73>439D :4:?8B>43973?:AA6 ?8:AA14;19 781 91A2E01234373>4 >2 =:;:49 :40
F8B3973:49 :40 34C:A30:719 7813B 4>73>49 >2 =1B9>48>>0 :40 30147376< &7 B1E
0@?19 ?147@B319 >2 =83A>9>=83?:A :40 781>A>;3?:A 91A2EB12A1?73>4 7> 9>?3>E
?@A7@B:A 8397>B6 :40 01=1B9>4:A3G10 H 4:BB:73C19 I<
J1AA1439D :40 F8B3973:4376 34 A:71 :473K@376 =>99199 039734?7 19914?19 34 9>
2:B :9 7816 ?>BB19=>40 7> >==>910 3471AA1?7@:A =:B:03;D9< L@A3:4 :40 MB>?A@9
N1B1 J1AA1419 B:781B 78:4 F8B3973:49O 2>B 7816 98:B10 : =1B?1=73>4 >2 D:4O
;>0O 781 ?>9D>9 :40 8397>B6 78:7 39 34?>D=:735A1 N378 *5B:8:D3? B1A3;3>49<
)81 A>4; :40 @4B19>AC10 P6G:47341 H 41;>73:73>4 I >2 =:;:4 MA:7>439D :40
,B78>0>Q6 >4 781 81BD141@73?:A A1C1A =B19@==>919 J1AA1439D :40 F8B39E
73:4376 7> 51 ?>42A3?734; N>BA0EC31N9 >4 781 3471AA1?7@:A A1C1A< )81 ?>4734@34;
:47:;>439D 517N114 J1AA1439D :40 F8B3973:4 ,B78>0>Q6 2B>D 781 1:BA3197
:=>A>;3979 7> 781 01D391 >2 P6G:473@D ?>BB>5>B:719 781 2:?7 78:7 781 C:B634;
=814>D14>A>;6 N37834 9832734; 8397>B3?:A :40 039?@B93C1 ?>471Q79 2:3A10 7>
1A3D34:71 781 @A73D:71A6 1991473:A 03221B14?1 517N114 ?>D=1734; 78>@;87E
3D:;19 "#$%&'($')*+%$,- :40 D>019 >2 7834R34; B1;:B034; D:4O ;>0O 781
N>BA0 :40 8397>B6 78:7 :B1 ?>4?1=7@:AA6 =>A19 :9@401B< ,4 781 ?>47B:B6O 37 39
7839 ?>B1 03221B14?1 517N114 1991473:AA6 ?>42A3?734; C31N9 >2 781 N>BA0 78:7
:??>@479 2>B 781 ?>4734@:73>4 :40 34?>4?A@93C14199 >2 78:7 41;>73:73>4 2B>D
A:71 :473K@376 7> A:71 P6G:473@D<
*9 :AB1:06 4>710O 781 =>A:B376 517N114 ?>471Q7@:A C:B3:479 :40 3471B=B17:E
73>49 >2 781 J1AA143? :40 781 L@0:1>EF8B3973:4 N>BA0EC31N9 D:6 51 1Q?:E
C:710 56 B1:034; P:93AO -B1;>B6 >2 %:G3:4G@9 >B *K@34:9< P@7 37 N>@A0 51 :
D397:R1 7> 7:R1 78191 03221B14?19 517N114 3471B=B17:73>49 :9 :@78>B3G34; 781
:99@D=73>4 >2 :4 :473E1991473:A397 97:40=>347< F>D=1734; N>BA0EC31N9 D:6
51 ?>4?13C10 34 301:AE76=3?:A 2:983>4< *??>B034; 7> S:Q T151BO ;141B3? ?>4E
?1=79 H ?:4 51 2>BD10 :9 301:A 76=19 56 :597B:?734; :40 :??147@:734; ?1B7:34
?>4?1=7@:AA6 1991473:A 1A1D1479 I
UV
< J1AA1439D :40 F8B3973:4376 :B1 ?>D=17E
34; 301:AE76=3?:A >B D147:A ?>497B@?79 ?>4939734; >2 ?>4?1=7@:A 1A1D1479 78:7
:B1 C:B3>@9A6 D:43219710 34 : =A@B:A376 >2 8397>B3?:A :40 ?@A7@B:A =814>D14:<
)81 H =:;:4 I MA:7>43? 301:AE76=1 1D5B:?19 : 917 >2 D17:=8693?:AO 781>E
A>;3?:AO D>B:A :40 81BD141@73?:A C31N9O 34?A34:73>49 :40 ?>471473>49O 9>D1
>2 N83?8 D:6 51 :59147 2B>D MB>?A@9O N83A1 =B19147 34 M>B=86B6< ,781B9
D3;87 51 :59147 2B>D M>B=86B6 617 =B19147 34 MB>?A@9< J397>B3?:A 019?B3=E
73>49 :40 301:AE76=19 9@?8 :9 MA:7>439D :40 F8B3973:4376 0> 4>7 97B3?7A6 >B
41?199:B3A6 ?>47:34 781 9:D1 ?>4?1=7@:A ?>471479 34 :AA 7813B D:432197:73>49<
S>B1>C1BO 7816 D:6 ?>47:34 01234373>4:A ?8:B:?71B3973?9 34 C:B3>@9 01;B119
:??>B034; 7> 03221B147 ?>471Q79< W>B 1Q:D=A1O &:D5A3?8@9 D:01 D>B1 ?>4E
?1993>49 7> ?@A73? =:;:439D :40 B37@:A D6973?39D 78:4 M>B=86B6 030< +73AAO

UV T151B "XYXO =< "ZZ<

!"#$% '()*+$*#,-+ 13

both Porphyry and Iamblichus are classiied as pagans and Platonists
rather than Christians. 1he components o an ideal-typical construct may be
more or less pronounced in a ariety o agents. But the mere act o the
categorization o Porphyry and Iamblichus as well as Proclus as pagans
implies the tacit assumption o a reality o lellenism and Christianity antici-
pating and enabling the act o this categorization.
1he case might also be that under dierse circumstances certain agents
unconsciously become carriers o characteristics pertinent to the opposed
intellectual paradigm. A heretic such as Lunomius regarded himsel as
Christian, yet as Gregory o Nyssa acutely remarked, his thought latently
carries elements peculiar to Platonism and philosophical paganism. 1hus a
historical phenomenology that deals with lellenism and Christianity as
aried phenomena hardly renders obsolete the discussion o lellenism and
Christianity as trans-historical conceptual constructs.
1here is more to the ideal-typical distinction between lellenism and
Christianity than a classiication o heuristic and descriptie alue. An ideal
type may contain a sum o elements that is neer exempliied in the world
o experience and empirical data, while excluding the accidental and, in this
sense, transcending history. Interestingly, the \eberian notion o the ideal
type oten acquires a utopian character : Substantiely, this construct |the
ideal type| in itsel is like a ./0123 which has been arried at by the analytical
accentuation o certain elements o reality
66
. Applied to the study o late
antiquity, this does not necessarily amount to the hypostatization o lel-
lenism and Christianity. \eber warned against the danger o seeing ideas
as a true` reality which operates behind the passage o eents and which
works itsel out in history
6
. Pagan or Christian ideas may not possess a
reality outside history. But this hardly means that they cannot be seen as
parts o a distinctiely pagan or Christian paradigm that is neer ully exem-
pliied or exhausted within social and cultural phenomena.
1his is how Christians and pagans in late antiquity and Byzantium
thought about Christianity and lellenism : as possessing an essential core or
unalienable meaning. 1o study these essentialist world-iews and the texts in
which they are contained by adopting a relatiist non-essentialist standpoint,
means neer to take pagans and Christians at their word, to assume that pa-
gans and Christians were not the persons they thought themseles to be.
1his amounts to a dissolution o their subjectiity into a process o ad
ininitum renegotiated cultural arteacts that anachronistically diests pagans
and Christians o the intellectual and religious identities that they claimed to
possess. Pagans and Christians are depried o the ability to conceie o

66 \eber 1949, p. 90.
6 \eber 1949, p. 90. C. Burger 198, p. 94.

"#$ %&'()*+ +&%&,++,-.,/

0123425624 74 01234256248 97012:; 012 <=02552>0?75 @:A@2:0<24 B<01 :2C2:2=>2
0A B1<>1 D1:<40<7=4 4?>1 74 -:2EA:F AC %F447 7=G -:2EA:F AC H757374 A:
@7E7=4 4?>1 74 H:A>5?4 ?=G2:40AAG 0123425624 7:2 >A=4<G2:2G 74 ?=:275 7=G
G<44A562G <=0A >A=407=05F 41<C0<=E; <3@2:4A=75 >A552>0<62 G<4>A?:4248
)12 @A4<0<A= A=2 744?324 0AB7:G4 012 D1:<40<7= 7@@:A@:<70<A= AC H570A
<= 5702 7=0<I?<0F 7=G <= JFK7=0<?3 G2@2=G4 A= 012 >A=>244<A=4 A=2 <4 B<55<=E
0A 37L2 0AB7:G4 >?50?:75 :2G?>0<A=<43 AC 01<4 0F@28 MA: 012<: @7:0; 012
>A=02N0?75 40:702E<24 AC 7@@:A@:<70<A= 0170 B2:2 7@@5<2G 0A D1:<40<7=<K2 H570A
4?EE240 0170 012 4?407<=7O<5<0F AC 7 H570A D1:<40<7=?4 =2>2447:<5F >7552G CA: 012
2N2:><42 AC >A=4<G2:7O52 12:32=2?0<>75 6<A52=>2 ?@A= H570AP4 !"#$% 7=G &'(%;
7=G; B170 <4 3A:2; ?@A= 012 2442=>2 A: :275<0F AC @1<5A4A@1<>75 Q2552=<438
&= 012 5740 7=75F4<4; @7E7=4 7=G D1:<40<7=4 B2:2 <= 7E:2232=0 0170 H570A=<43
7=G D1:<40<7=<0F 74 425CR4?CC<><2=0 7=G 425CR>A=4<402=0 @7:7G<E34 :237<=2G
@2:37=2=05F <=>A3@70<O52 7=G <::2>A=><57O528

P.1O CR1.^| 15

ARClLR ,Margaret,, trvctvre, .gevc, ava tbe vtervat Covrer.atiov, Cambridge, Cambridge Uni-
ersity Press, 2003.
A1lANASSIADI ,Polymnia,, a vtte ovr tòrtboaoie aav. te tatovi.ve taraif. De ^vveviv. a Da
va.civ., Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 2006.
BARNLS ,Jonathan,, Ancient Philosophers , in Pbito.ob, ava Porer iv tbe CraecoRovav
!orta. ..a,. iv ovovr of M. Criffiv, edited by G. Clark and 1. Rajak, Oxord, Oxord
Uniersity Press, 2002, pp. 293-306.
BRIL ,Alexander,, Plato and the Sympotic lorm in the ,vo.ivv o St Methodius o Olym-
pus , Zeit.cbrift fvr .vti/e. Cbri.tevtvv 9,2, 2005, pp. 29-302.
BURGLR ,1homas,, Ma !eber`. 1beor, of Covcet orvatiov. i.tor,, ar., ava aeat 1,e., Dur-
ham, Duke Uniersity Press, 198.
CAMLRON ,Alan,, Poets and Pagans in Byzantine Lgypt , in g,t iv tbe ,avtive !orta,
edited by R. S. Bagnall, Cambridge, Cambridge Uniersity Press, 200, pp. 21-46.
COOPLR ,Kate,, DAL SAN1O ,Matthew,, Boethius, Gregory the Great and the Christian
Aterlie` o Classical Dialogue , in 1be va of Diatogve iv .vtiqvit,, edited by S. Gold-
hill, Cambridge, Cambridge Uniersity Press, 2008, pp. 13-189.
DL BLNOIS1 ,Alain,, Sacr paen et dsacralisation judo-chrtienne du monde , in Qvette
retigiov ovr t`vroe . |v Debat .vr tìaevtite retigiev.e ae. evte. evroeev., edited by D. 1h-
raios, Genee, Georg, 1990, pp. 30-6.
DLN\LR ,Nicholas,, Ptato, Protagora., Cambridge, Cambridge Uniersity Press, 2008.
DORRIL ,leinrich, \as ist sptantiker Platonismus Uberlegungen zur Grenzziehung zwi-
schen Platonismus und Christentum , in Ptatovica Mivora, Mnchen, link, 196, pp. 508-
523.
LD\ARDS ,Mark Julian,, Xenophanes Christianus , Cree/, Rovav ava ,avtive tvaie.
32,3, 1991, pp. 219-228.
lINDLA\ ,John,, \hy Christians should be Platonists , in êotatovi.v ava Cbri.tiav 1bovgbt,
edited by D. J. O`Meara, New \ork, State Uniersity o New \ork Press, 1982, pp. 223-
231.
lRLDL ,Michael,, .etiava : reiew article o J. Manseld and D. 1. Runia, .etiava. 1be Metboa
ava vtettectvat Covtet of a Doograber, ol. 1 , Pbrove.i. 44,2, 1999, pp. 135-149.
GOLDlILL ,Simon,, Introduction : \hy don`t Christians do Dialogue , in 1be va of Dia
togve iv .vtiqvit,, edited by S. Goldhill, Cambridge, Cambridge Uniersity Press, 2008,
pp. 1-11.
GRAMSCI ,Antonio,, etectiov. frov tbe Pri.ov ôteboo/. of .vtovio Crav.ci, edited by Q. loare,
G. Nowell Smith, London, Lawrence and \ishart, 191.
lABLRMAS ,Jrgen,, lannah Arendts Begri der Macht , in Potiti/, Kvv.t, Retigiov, Stutt-
gart, Reclam, 199, pp. 103-126.
lABLRMAS ,Jrgen,, Morat Cov.ciov.ve.. ava Covvvvicatire .ctiov, Cambridge ,Mass.,, MI1
Press, 1992.
lARRILS ,Jill,, ar ava vire iv ate .vtiqvit,, Cambridge, Cambridge Uniersity Press,
2001.
lOLRNLL ,Alred,, \ould Plato lae Approed o the National-Socialist State Pbito.o
b, 13,50, 1938, pp. 166-182.
JANKLLLVI1Cl ,Vladimir,, `rovie, Paris, llammarion, 1964.
JOlNSON ,Aaron,, Reiew o N. Siniossoglou, Ptato ava 1beoaoret. 1be Cbri.tiav .roriatiov
of Ptatovic Pbito.ob, ava tbe ettevic vtettectvat Re.i.tavce, Cambridge, Cambridge Uniersity
Press, 2008 , MCR 2009.05.05.
ISRALL ,Jonathan,, vtigbtevvevt Covte.tea, Oxord, Oxord Uniersity Press, 2006.
LOU1l ,Andrew,, t ]obv Dava.ceve. 1raaitiov ava Origivatit, iv ,avtive 1beotog,, Oxord, Ox-
ord Uniersity Press, 2002.


MARKUS ,Robert, 1be va of .vcievt Cbri.tiavit,, Cambridge, Cambridge Uniersity Press,
1990.
MUSURILLO ,lerbert,, Metboaiv. of Ot,vv., 1be ,vo.ivv. . 1reati.e ov Cba.tit,, \estminster
,Md.,, Newman Press, 1958.
PAGANI ,labio, 2008a, Davvata rerba : censure di Pletone in alcuni codici platonici , Z
102,1, 2008, pp. 16-202.
PAGANI ,labio, 2008b, lilosoia e teologia in Giorgio Gemisto Pletone : la testimonianza
dei codici Platonici , Riva.civevto 49, 2008, pp. 3-45.
RAPP ,Claudia,, ot, i.bo. iv ate .vtiqvit,. 1be âtvre of Cbri.tiav eaaer.bi iv av .ge of
1rav.itiov, Berkeley, Uniersity o Caliornia Press, 2005.
RIDINGS ,Daniel,, 1be .ttic Mo.e.. 1be Deevaevc, 1beve iv .ove art, Cbri.tiav !riter., Gote-
borg, Acta Uniersitatis Gothoburgensis, 1995.
ROR1\ ,Richard,, Relatiism : linding and Making , Pbito.ob, ava ociat oe, London,
Penguin, 1999, pp. xi-xxxii.
ROULClL ,Mossman,, Byzantine Philosophical 1exts o the Seenth Century , ]abrbvcb aer
O.terreicbi.cbev ,avtivi.ti/ 23, 194, pp. 61-6.
ROULClL ,Mossman,, 1he Deinitions o Philosophy and a New lragment o Stephanus
the Philosopher , ]abrbvcb aer O.terreicbi.cbev ,avtivi.ti/ 40, 1990, pp. 10-128.
RUSSLLL ,Donald Andrew,, 1he Rhetoric o the lomeric Problems , in Metabor, .ttegor,,
ava tbe Cta..icat 1raaitiov, edited by G. R. Boys-Stones, Oxord, Oxord Uniersity Press,
2003, pp. 21-234.
SAND\LLL ,Isabella,, Retigiov. aevtit, iv ate .vtiqvit,. Cree/., ]er. ava Cbri.tiav. iv .vtiocb,
Cambridge, Cambridge Uniersity Press, 200.
SA\LR ,Andrew,, Reati.v ava ociat cievce., London, Sage, 2000.
SLRRLS ,Michel,, e Para.ite, Paris, lachette, 1980.
SINIOSSOGLOU ,Niketas,, Ptato ava 1beoaoret. 1be Cbri.tiav .roriatiov of Ptatovic Pbito.ob, ava
tbe ettevic vtettectvat Re.i.tavce, Cambridge, Cambridge Uniersity Press, 2008.
SPL\LR ,\olgang,, Die titerari.cbe at.cbvvg iv beiavi.cbev vva cbri.tticbev .ttertvv : eiv 1er.vcb
ibrer Devtvvg, Mnchen, Beck, 191.
1RIZIO ,Michele,, Byzantine Philosophy as a Contemporary listoriographical Project , Re
cbercbe. ae tbeotogie et bito.obie veaierate. 4,1, 200, pp. 24-294.
VAN NUllLLLN ,Peter,, Reiew o N. Siniossoglou, Ptato ava 1beoaoret. 1be Cbri.tiav .ro
riatiov of Ptatovic Pbito.ob, ava tbe ettevic vtettectvat Re.i.tavce, Cambridge, Cambridge
Uniersity Press, 2008 , Rbiai 6,1, 2009, pp. 85-89.
VON IVANKA ,Lndre, Ptato Cbri.tiavv.. |bervabve vva |vge.tattvvg ae. Ptatovi.vv. avrcb aie 1a
ter, Linsiedeln, Johannes Verlag, 1964.
\LBLR ,Max,, 1be Metboaotog, of tbe ociat cievce., translated and edited by L. A. Shils and l.
A. linch, Glencoe ,Illinois,, 1he lree Press, 1949.

Plato Christianus

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plato Christianus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

!

You might also like