Biography

Nikephoros Gregoras is a Byzantine polymath, philosopher, and historian. He was born between the summer of 1291 and May 1295 (Beyer 1978, pp. 127–130; Guilland 1926, 1927) in Herakleia Pontike (Karadeniz Ereğli in modern-day Turkey). Before the age of 20, G. moved to Constantinople (Beyer 1978, p. 130). There he received a literary and rhetorical education under Patriarch John XIII Glykys (1315–1319) (PLP 4271, cf. Schopen 1829/1830, I, 270, 20–271, 2) and became acquainted with the statesman, scholar, and patron of the arts Theodoros Metochites (PLP 17982). G. rapidly won Metochites’ confidence and was introduced by him to the study of astronomy and entrusted with the education of his children Nikephoros (PLP 17986) and Irene (PLP 5972). In 1321/1322 (van Dieten 1973/2007, I, 5; Beyer 1978, p. 131) G. was presented to the emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos (1282–1328) and quickly acquired a prominent status in the intellectual life of the Byzantine capital. Probably in the same year, the emperor offered G. the office of chartophylax, but G. declined the offer (Schopen 1829/1830, I, 339, 22–340, 10). In the following years G. opened a school (Bezdeki 1925, Ep. XXIII, 251, 42–252, 11) and went on a diplomatic mission to Serbia in 1326/1327 (Schreiner 1999/2000, pp. 334–335). After the deposition of Andronikos II by his grandson Andronikos III (1328–1341) on May 24, 1328, G. found himself in a difficult situation on account of his close ties to both the deposed emperor and his prime minister Theodoros Metochites. G. was virtually banned from participation in the public life of the Byzantine capital. During the same period, G. got embroiled in the bitter dispute between G. and the scholar and theologian Barlaam of Calabria (ca. 1290–1348), which was made public in three pamphlets written by G. himself (“Reply to those who say that there is no humility among human beings,” “Philomates or on insolent people,” and the dialogue “Phlorentios or on wisdom”). G. eventually succeeded in winning the support and friendship of John Kantakouzenos (ca. 1295–1383), a figure of paramount importance in the new regime of Andronikos III and returned to play an important role in the intellectual life of Constantinople, without abandoning his allegiance to his old friends Andronikos II and Metochites. Following the death of Andronikos II on February 13, 1332, and of Metochites on March 13, 1332, G. continued his scholarly activities, residing in the Chora monastery, which Metochites had bequeathed to him. A new period of his life began with the civil war that broke out after the death of Andronikos III on June 15, 1341, and eventually led to the victory of his friend John Kantakouzenos. Kantakouzenos was crowned emperor in Thessalonike on May 21, 1346 and entered Constantinople on February 3, 1347. In the 1340s, G. got involved in the Hesychast controversy, and, after becoming a monk in 1351, he advanced to the position of the spiritual leader of the anti-Palamite movement. The struggle against the Palamites dominated almost all his activities during the last part of his life. After the death of Patriarch Isidore I Boucheras (PLP 3140), probably between 1350 and 1352, G. was offered the office of patriarch on the condition that he would join the Palamite camp, but he declined the offer. Owing to his uncompromising anti-Palamite stance, G. eventually lost the friendship and support of emperor John Kantakouzenos. In 1351 a synod convened by the emperor confirmed Palamas’ teachings and condemned G. In the summer of the same year, G. was placed under arrest in the Chora monastery. The conditions of his confinement became progressively more adverse during the following 4 years of imprisonment: his servants were taken away from him, and he was denied any contact with the world outside his cell. After Kantakouzenos was forced by John V Palaiologos to abdicate on November 2, 1354, the decision about G.’s arrest was revoked. There is little information about the last years of G.’s life, during which he continued his fight against Palamite theology. Palamas died on November 14, 1357 or 1359 (PLP 21546, Beyer 1978, p. 150), and his enemy G. sometime later, most probably between 1358 and 1361 (Beyer 1978, pp. 153–155).

The most important work of Gregoras is his Rhomaike Historia (Schopen 1829/1930), in 37 books, which covers the period 1204–1359 and presents the material in an annalistic fashion. His literary output was enormous, cf. the list in van Dieten (1973/2007, vol. I, pp. 44–62). It includes treatises on rhetorical, grammatical, musicological, astronomical, and mathematical subjects. G. maintained an extensive correspondence and engaged in doctrinal polemics. He did not author a single treatise dedicated exclusively to a philosophical subject, but a number of his works contain longer passages on philosophical questions. These are:

  1. 1.

    Commentary on Synesius of Cyrene’s De insomniis (= Nr. 39 van Dieten 1973/2007; ed. and it. tr. Pietrosanti 1999)

  2. 2.

    Pamphlet “Reply to those who say that there is no humility among human beings” (= Nr. 40 van Dieten 1973/2007; ed. Leone 1970, pp. 480–487)

  3. 3.

    Dialogue “Philomates or on insolent people” (= Nr. 41 van Dieten 1973/2007; ed. Bezdeki 1925, pp. 356–364)

  4. 4.

    Dialogue “Phlorentios or on Wisdom” (= Nr. 42 van Dieten 1973/2007; ed. Leone 1975)

  5. 5.

    Criticism of Senseless Prophecies (= Nr. 43a van Dieten, ed. Guilland 1927, pp. 73–83, written in 1329)

  6. 6.

    Letter to Pepagomenes (= Nr. 43b van Dieten 1973/2007; ed. Guilland 1927, pp. 201–205)

  7. 7.

    Letter to Maximos Magistros (= Nr. 43c van Dieten 1973/2007; ed. Guilland 1927, pp. 195–199)

  8. 8.

    Solutions to Different Problems Posed by Helena Palaiologina (= Nr. 44 van Dieten 1973/2007; ed. Leone 1970, pp. 488–513)

  9. 9.

    On the universal form by itself that is seen only by the Intellect (= Nr. 68a van Dieten 1973/2007; ed. Beyer 1971, p. 183)

  10. 10.

    On the form that is seen together with accidents (= Nr. 68b van Dieten 1973/2007; ed. Beyer 1971, p. 183)

The dialogue “Phlorentios or on Wisdom” offers important insights into G.’s philosophical views. Written sometime after the death of Theodoros Metochites, this text was intended by G. to be an account of a public debate on philosophical subjects between G., Barlaam of Calabria, and an otherwise unknown Latin friar that supposedly took place in the house of John Kantakouzenos. In spite of a quasi-documentary status that G. attributes to this text in his Rhomaike Historia (Schopen 1829/1930, I, 555, 7–556, 14), it probably corresponds closer to what G. wished had happened than to the actual events (Bydén 2003; Mariev 2011; Tinnefeld 2011). In this dialogue, G. demonstrates that the syllogistic techne does not constitute science but is merely a tool for the preliminary instruction of weak and inexperienced minds. G.’s stance on the question concerning the status of logic is almost identical with the views expressed by Plotinus on the relationship between dialectic and logic in his treatise On Dialectics (Enn. I, 3, 1). Furthermore, G. demonstrates that neither the dialectical nor demonstrative syllogisms constitute science. In the case of the dialectical syllogisms, he points out that for Aristotle himself, their premises are merely “generally admitted” and “ambiguous.” His criticism of the demonstrative syllogisms pursues two objectives. First he shows that the demonstrative science is based on the principles which are not themselves demonstrated but are formulated on the basis of inductive reasoning which has as its starting point the observation of the sensible objects. At the same time, G. points out an inconsistency within Aristotle himself, who criticized the Platonic theory of forms and declared in AnPo I 83a 33–35 that the forms are irrelevant for demonstrations. The later part of the dialogue, which portrays a debate between G. and a Latin friar, targets some points of Aristotle’s natural philosophy. It addresses such issues as which qualities should be assigned to each element and especially whether wetness should be assigned to water or air (Leone 1975, pp. 1060–1061); the question of the origin of large rivers, i.e., whether water is heavier than earth (Leone 1975, pp. 1251–1320); whether or not heaven is in a place (Leone 1975, pp. 1340–1358); and whether the element that constitutes heaven is corporeal or incorporeal (Leone 1975, pp. 1467–1497). The philosophical problems discussed in Phlorentios frequently resurface in other texts written by G. For example, his criticism of those who are not able to go beyond a merely discursive reasoning and consider syllogisms to be an art for its own sake is repeated in almost identical terms in G.’s Letter to Pepagomenes (Nr. 6 in the list above). G.’s interest in the status of universal concepts is documented in the two chapters “On the Universal Form” and “On the Form That Is Contemplated Together with Accidents.” Similarly, the discussion of various questions of natural philosophy reappears in his letters and in the Romaike Historia. To a certain extent, G. can be considered a forerunner of the Renaissance in the West (Tatakis 1949, p. 295). G.’s philosophical questions show that he was an intellectual heir to Theodoros Metochites (Bydén 2011). His critical attitude toward logic can also be traced back to the early Church Fathers, such as Gregory of Nazianzus (329/30-ca. 390) and Gregory of Nyssa (between 335 and 340 – after 394), and finds interesting parallels in the writings of several of G.’s contemporaries and intellectual adversaries, such as Gregory Palamas and Barlaam of Calabria (Ierodiakonou 2003; Leone 1971/1972; Moschos 1998).