Aesthetics and Theurgy in Byzantium

248 Pages·2013·1.946 MB·English

by  Sergei Mariev, Wiebke-Marie Stock

Aesthetics and Theurgy in Byzantium
Byzantinisches Archiv
Begründet von Karl Krumbacher
Als Ergänzung zur Byzantinischen Zeitschrift
herausgegeben von
Albrecht Berger
Band 25
De Gruyter
Aesthetics and Theurgy
in Byzantium
Edited by
Sergei Mariev and Wiebke-Marie Stock
De Gruyter
ISBN 978-1-61451-327-8
e-ISBN 978-1-61451-261-5
ISSN 1864-9785
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
© 2013 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin
Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH und Co. KG, Göttingen
∞ Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
Acknowledgments
The present volume assembles the papers presented at the round table “Aesthetics
andTheurgyinByzantium”atthe22ndCongressofByzantineStudies,whichtook
placeinSofia,Bulgaria,inAugust2011.
In the first place, I would like to express my gratitude to the Association In-
ternationale des Études Byzantines (AIEB) and the organizers of the congress for
includingthisroundtableintheprogram. IwouldalsoliketothanktheDeutsche
ArbeitsgemeinschaftzurFörderungByzantinischerStudien(DAFBS),theInstitute
of Byzantine Studies at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich and the
Münchner Universitätsgesellschaft (Verein der Freunde und Förderer der Univer-
sität München e.V.) for both academic and financial support they provided. My
specialthanksareduetoalltheparticipantsoftheroundtableandthecontributors
tothepresentvolume.
I owe a debt of gratitude to Prof.Dr.Albrecht Berger both in his capacity as
the President of the Deutsche Arbeitsgemeinschaft zur Förderung Byzantinischer
Studien (DAFBS), for all the guidance and support he provided in the process of
organizingthisroundtable,andastheDirectoroftheseriesByzantinischesArchiv,
for accepting the volume into this series. Special thanks are due to Dr.Sabine
Vogt, Michiel Klein-Swormink, Florian Ruppenstein, Emily Hough and all the
other staff members of the publishing house De Gruyter who have accompanied
this book through the publication process with so much dedication and skill. I
amespeciallygratefultoDr.PhilipRanceforhisscholarlyexpertisebutalsoforhis
exactnessandpatienceincorrectingseveralcontributionsinthepresentvolume.
Lastbutnotleast,IwouldliketomentionDr.Wiebke-MarieStock,whogra-
ciouslyacceptedmyinvitationnotonlytoco-organizethisroundtableinSofia,but
alsotoundertakethearduoustaskofco-editingtheproceedingsafterthecongress.
It was through her participation in the work of the round table that the original
topic of Aesthetics in Byzantium was enhanced by a ‘theurgic’ perspective, as it
wasthankstohereffortasaco-editorthatthevolumehasacquiredsomevaluable
contributionsonthissubject.
Munich,June2013 SergeiMariev

Contents
Introduction: Byzantine Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Sergei Mariev
Theurgy and Aesthetics in Dionysios the Areopagite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Wiebke-Marie Stock
Nikephoros Chumnos’ Treatise On Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Monica Marchetto
Proklos and Plethon on Beauty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Sergei Mariev
Toward a self-determined and emotional gaze: Agathias and the icon
of the Archangel Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Aglae Pizzone
Book and Image in Byzantine Christianity: Polemics or Communication? . . . 105
Barbara Crostini
Transcendent Exemplarism and Immanent Realism in the
Philosophical Work of John of Damaskos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Alberto del Campo Echevarría
‘Fire Walk With Me’: an attempt at an interpretation of Theurgy
and its Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Lutz Bergemann
Contribution of Church Slavonic Translations to Understanding
of Byzantine Anti-Iconoclast Polemics (The Case of the Letter of
the Three Patriarchs to Theophilos) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Dmitry Afinogenov
Historical Memory of Byzantine Iconoclasm in the 14th c .:
the Case of Nikephoros Gregoras and Philotheos Kokkinos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Lev Lukhovitskij
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

Introduction
Byzantine Aesthetics
SergeiMariev
The first comprehensive work dedicated to the history of aesthetics during the
MiddleAgeswasB’sÉtudesd’esthétiquemédiévale.1 Eventhoughthismonu-
mentalworkwasprecededbyalargenumberofminorstudiesdedicatedtocertain
specific issues, it is generally acknowledged that “B’s study established the
subjectasalegitimatefieldofinquiryandlaunchedawaveofresearchthatcontin-
uestothisday.”2
Some of the most important contributions to the study of medieval aesthetics
in the years following this publication were made by A,3 T4
and E.5 This list of major contributions to the subject would be incomplete
withoutB.6
1 E.deB.Étudesd’esthétiquemédiévale.Vol.1–3.Brügge,1946.Thisbookisalsoavailable
inseveraltranslations: E.deB. TheEstheticsoftheMiddleAges, translatedbyEileenB.
Hennessy.NewYork,1969andE.deB.Estudiosdeesteticamedieval.Bibliotecahispanica
defilosofia.Madrid,1958.
2 M.C. Aesthetics. In: Handbookofmedievalstudies: terms-methods-trends. Ed.byA.
C.2010,1421–1429,1429.
3 R.A. DieTheoriedesSchönenimMittelalter. Köln,1982andR.A. Lacritica
d’artenelpensieromedioevale.Milano,1961.
4 W.T. Historiaestetyki. Wrocław,1960–1967. Thisworkisavailableinavariety
of translations: W. T. History of aesthetics. The Hague, 1970–1974, W. T-
. Geschichte der Ästhetik. Basel, 1979–1986. Cf. also his W. T. Dzieje
sze´sciupoj˛e´c: sztuka,pi˛ekno,forma,twórczo´s´c,odtwórczo´s´c,przez˙ycieestetyczne. Warszawa,1975,
translatedinto, amongotherlanguages, English: W.T. Ahistoryofsixideas: an
essayinaesthetics. TheHague,1980,German: W.T. GeschichtedersechsBegriffe:
Kunst, Schönheit, Form, Kreativität, Mimesis, ästhetisches Erlebnis. Frankfurt am Main, 2003,
andItalian: W.T. Storiadiseiidee: l’arteilbellolaformalacreativitàl’imitazione
l’esperienzaestetica. 5thed.Palermo,2004. Cf. alsoW.T. TheGreatTheoryof
BeautyandItsDecline.TheJournalofAestheticsandArtCriticism31.2(1972),165–180.
5 Cf. U. E. Sviluppo dell’estetica medievale. In: Momenti e problemi di storia dell’estetica.
Milano,1959,116–229,translatedintoEnglishasU.E. ArtandbeautyintheMiddleAges.
NewHaven,1986,cf.alsotheGermantranslationU.E.KunstundSchönheitimMittelalter.
Darmstadt,2002.Someofhisotherpublicationsdedicatedtothesubjectincludehisearlywork
U.E.IlproblemaesteticoinTommasod’Aquino.Milano,1970.
6 H.U.vonB.Herrlichkeit:einetheologischeÄsthetik.Einsiedeln,1961–1969.

Introduction
MostoftheseworksarededicatedtothehistoryofaestheticsintheLatinWest
and pay very little, if any, attention to Byzantium.7 The only two scholars that
havedevotedanentiremonographtothesubjectareM8 andB.9
Taking into consideration that the adjective “aesthetic” was introduced in the
18th century by Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten, who used it in reference to a
specific kind of knowledge (cognitio sensitiva), which he identified as knowledge
ofthebeautiful,andnamed‘aesthetics’thebranchofphilosophywhichconcerned
with this sphere, it must be admitted that most of the works mentioned above
speakofaestheticsinanextendedsenseoftheword.
In an attempt to recapitulate a general sense in which the term aesthetics has
been frequently applied to the Middle Ages, or, more broadly, to any period pre-
ceding the 18th century, H remarked that the word ‘aesthetics’ in these works
“means the theoretical consideration of the phaenomenon ‘beauty’, with or with-
out the consideration of the fine arts, including poetry as well as their explicit or
implicit self-understanding”.10 This remark not only identifies two main areas of
interestonwhichresearchinthehistoryofaestheticshasfocusedinthe20thcen-
tury (i.e. on the one hand, metaphysical theory, most frequently the Neoplatonic
theoryofbeautyinthebroadsenseofthewordanditsvarioustransformationsina
7 OnlyT,Historyofaesthetics,seen.4,vol.2,1–45dedicatesanentirechapterofhis
worktotheByzantineEast. Theotherworkslimitthemselvestomentioningafewprominent
Byzantinenames,suchasPs.-DionysiostheAreopagiteorMaximosHomologetes.
8 G.M.ByzantineAesthetics.London,1963.
9 Only a few of Bs books are available in translation, cf. V. V. B. L’Estetica
bizantina: problemi teorici. [Galatina], 1983. The most important publications in Russian
are:V.V.B.Малаяисториявизантийскойэстетики.Киев,1991andV.V.B.
Византийскаяэстетика.Москва,1977.
10 Cf. W.H. GabeseinemittelalterlicheÄsthetikausplatonischerTradition? In: Neuplaton-
ismusundÄsthetik: zurTransformationsgeschichtedesSchönen. Ed.byV.OL.
Berlin,2007,19–42,19:“WennmantrotzdemvonÄsthetikimMittelaltersprechenwillund
auchimmerwiedergesprochenhat,mussmaneinenerweitertenBegriffverwendenundunter
ÄsthetikallgemeindietheoretischeBeschäftigungmitdemPhänomendesSchönenverstehen,
unterVernachlässigungwieunterEinbeziehungderschönenKünste,einschließlichderDich-
tung,sowiederenexplizitemundimplizitemSelbstverständnis.” Hisremarksexplicitlyreferto
B,Étudesd’esthétiquemédiévale,seen.1,A,DieTheoriedesSchönenimMittelalter,
seen.3andT,Historyofaesthetics,seen.4,vol. II:MedievalAesthetics,butare
equallytrueoftheapproachchosenbyM,ByzantineAesthetics,seen.8,whichisinfact
an attempt to write a history of Byzantine art while making at the same time references to a
varietyoftheoreticaldiscoursesofthetime(theNeoplatonictheoryofthebeautiful,butalso
mathematics,coloursymbolismetc.).TheaestheticsofBoperatewithadifferentconcept.
Inthepreface,B,Малаяисториявизантийскойэстетики,seen.9definesthe“sphere
oftheaesthetical”asthesummaofthenon-utilitarian(‘не утилитарные’)relationsbetween
manandtheworldwhichleadtospiritualenjoyment(‘духовное наслаждение’). Obviously
suchabroaddefinitionof‘theaesthetical’leadsBtowriteaculturalhistoryofByzantine
civilizationwithastrongemphasisonByzantinespirituality.