Hostname: page-component-7857688df4-qjfxt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-12T20:26:13.766Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘alternative preface’ to Theophilos Korydalleus’ Logic: a minor episode of factional intrigue in the Patriarchal School of Constantinople in the seventeenth century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2025

Chariton Karanasios Open the ORCID record for Chariton Karanasios [Opens in a new window]  and
Vasileios Tsiotras Open the ORCID record for Vasileios Tsiotras [Opens in a new window]
Chariton Karanasios
Affiliation:
Academy of Athens chariton@academyofathens.gr
Vasileios Tsiotras
Affiliation:
Academy of Athens/Aristotle/University of Thessaloniki tsiotras@edlit.auth.gr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article offers the first critical edition of and philological commentary on a previously unpublished prefatory text (Ἕτερον προοίμιον) transmitted under the name of Theophilos Korydalleus and found in over forty-five manuscripts of his Aristotelian Logic. It examines the status, content, and manuscript transmission of this brief philosophical treatise, which has hitherto been neglected in favour of the more extensive prologue printed in the 1729 edition. Drawing on new manuscript evidence, particularly a marginal scholion by Iakovos Argeios (Add MS 7143, British Library), the study argues that the Ἕτερον προοίμιον constitutes the authentic preface by Korydalleus himself, whereas the longer prologue should be attributed to his disciple and successor Ioannes Karyophylles. This attribution, if accepted, sheds light on the process of textual interpolation and ideological appropriation within the Patriarchal Academy of Constantinople during the late seventeenth century. The study situates the controversy over the two prologues within the broader intellectual and political conflict between the Korydallean tradition, represented by Karyophylles, and the faction aligned with Alexander Mavrokordatos. By highlighting the interplay between manuscript transmission, authorship, and institutional power, the article contributes to ongoing efforts to reassess the contours of post-Byzantine philosophical education and the editorial challenges posed by early modern Greek Aristotelianism.

Keywords

KorydalleuslogicprefacemanuscriptsPatriarchal Academy of ConstantinopleIoannes KaryophyllesAlexander MavrokordatosNeo-Aristotelianism

Information

Type
Article
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , First View , pp. 1 - 20
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham.

Introduction

Theophilos Korydalleus (1574–1646), the most prominent interpreter of Aristotelian philosophy in modern Hellenism, occupies a pivotal position in the history of early modern Greek thought.Footnote 1 His commentaries are preserved in a wide array of manuscripts and were also disseminated through several printed editions during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.Footnote 2 Nevertheless, a number of these commentaries remain unpublished, largely due to the breadth of the manuscript tradition and the considerable challenges posed by the primary sources. A critical desideratum in the field of modern Greek philosophy is the production of a comprehensive, critically edited, and fully annotated edition of Korydalleus’ commentaries. Such an edition should be based on the extensive manuscript corpus and include a thorough examination of his engagement with Western philosophical sources.

Korydalleus composed commentaries on the most significant Aristotelian works, with a particular emphasis on Logic, which have been transmitted in three distinct versions:Footnote 3 i) The most extensive and analytically detailed is the Εἰς ἅπασαν τὴν Λογικὴν Ἀριστοτέλους ὑπομνήματα καὶ ζητήματα (Commentaries and Questions on the Whole of Aristotle’s Logic), published in Venice in 1729 under the editorial supervision of Alexandros Kangellarios (hereafter referred to as Logic).Footnote 4 ii) The second is the Ἔκθεσις κατ’ ἐπιτομὴν τῆς Λογικῆς πραγματείας (A Concise Exposition of the Treatise on Logic), first published in 1970 (hereafter Epitome of Logic).Footnote 5 This work was written by Korydalleus in Athens for his Athenian students in response to their questions (κατ᾿ ἐρωταπόκρισιν),Footnote 6 and serves as a succinct summary of the Aristotelian Logic, as indicated by the titles of its first two sections. The composition of the Epitome likely dates from Korydalleus’ time in Athens, during a period when he had travelled from Zakynthos, where he was teaching, to Constantinople, having been invited for a third time around 1636 by Patriarch Cyril Loukaris to teach at the Patriarchal Academy and to strengthen the Patriarch against his enemies.Footnote 7 The available testimonies, however, remain somewhat ambiguous. iii) The third version is a Greek translation and partial paraphrase of the Latin commentary on Aristotle’s Logic by his Italian teacher, Cesare Cremonini: Κατὰ Κρεμονέαν τὸν ἐν Παταβίῳ […] ἐκφωνηθέντα ὑπὸ Θεοφίλου Κορυδαλλέως […] Προοίμιον εἰς ἅπασαν τὴν τῆς Λογικῆς πραγματείαν. This is the earliest of the three works and dates to Korydalleus’ time in Italy (Padua and Venice), where he attended Cremonini’s lectures.Footnote 8

It is noteworthy that Greek translations of two other Aristotelian commentaries by Cremonini —De Anima and De Divinatione per Somnum— also rendered into Greek by Korydalleus, are preserved in cod. Marcianus gr. IV, 47, ff. 152r–160r.Footnote 9 It is therefore reasonable to surmise that these translations served as the groundwork for his own original commentaries. A thorough analysis of the relevant sources will shed light on the extent of Korydalleus’ intellectual debt to his teacher.

The major commentary on Aristotle’s Logic opens with the Προοίμιον εἰς ἅπασαν τὴν Λογικὴν πραγματείαν, as found in the 1729 edition (pp. 1–2: inc. Οὐ μόνον καλῶς, ἀλλὰ καὶ λίαν ὀρθῶς; des. οὐ παντάπασιν ἐλπίδος ἀποπεπτώκαμεν). In the Epitome of Logic, a much shorter preface consisting of thirteen lines appears under the title Ἔκθεσις κατ’ ἐπιτομὴν τῆς λογικῆς πραγματείας (ed. 1970, p. 3: inc. Οὐδὲν οὕτω τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τίμιον ἐν τῷ μετὰ σώματος βίῳ; des. δεῖν ἔγνων παραδοτέα εἶναι τὰ δοκοῦντα κατ’ ἐρώτησιν καὶ ἀπόκρισιν). This text functions more as a secondary title than a conventional preface. Subsequently, the Epitome of Logic presents 191 paragraphs, all structured in a question-and-answer format. The first of these paragraphs is titled Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς λογικῆς πραγματείας κατ’ ἐρώτησιν καὶ ἀπόκρισιν; it serves both as a further clarification of the work’s structure and, potentially, as an alternative title. Finally, the Greek translation of Cremonini’s Logic begins in comparable fashion with a Προοίμιον εἰς ἅπασαν τὴν τῆς Λογικῆς πραγματείαν (inc. Ἐπειδήπερ τῶν ὄντων ἕκαστον ὡς ἔχει φύσεως οὕτω καὶ ἐνεργεῖν πέφυκεν). The commentary then proceeds sequentially through Porphyry’s Isagoge and Aristotle’s Categoriae, De Interpretatione, Analytica Priora, and Analytica Posteriora, and concludes with the Sophistici Elenchi.Footnote 10

A closely related title is borne by a brief and hitherto unpublished prefatory text on logic, extending to approximately one manuscript folio and preserved in certain codices under the name of Korydalleus: Ὅσα ἕνεκά του κινεῖται (τοιαῦτα τά τε φύσει ἢ καὶ λόγῳ χρώμενα) ἀγαθοῦ τινος ἐφιέμενα πάντως, des. ὥστε πρὸ τῶν ἄλλων τὸν ὁριστικὸν λόγον ὡς ἐν βραχεῖ ληπτέον. In the two earliest extant manuscript witnesses – Jerusalem, St Savvas Monastery 117 (dated 1645) and Athens, MSS 524 (dated 1662) – the text has been transmitted under the title: «Τοῦ σοϕωτάτου καὶ λογιωτάτου κυρίου κυρίου Θεοδοσίου τοῦ Κορυδαλλέως, πρώην μητροπολίτου Ναυπάκτου καὶ Ἄρτης, ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης συλλογιστικῆς πραγματείας». The work unfolds in continuous prose and bears no substantive relation to the previously mentioned introductory section of the Epitome of Logic, titled «Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς λογικῆς πραγματείας κατ’ ἐρώτησιν καὶ ἀπόκρισιν».

The principal aim of the present study is to identify as many manuscript witnesses of this short treatise as possible, with particular emphasis on the earliest surviving exemplars; to produce a critical edition of the text, which markedly diverges from the preface found in the printed edition of Korydalleus’ Logic; and to undertake a philological and historical examination of both its content and its authenticity.

Furthermore, the study presents newly uncovered evidence from the manuscript tradition, which suggests a connection between the composition of the two proemia to the Logic and the intellectual milieu of the Patriarchal Academy of Constantinople in the seventeenth century. In this context, particular focus is placed on two of the Academy’s most prominent headmasters representing two opposing ideological factions: Ioannes Karyophylles (c. 1610–1692), disciple and successor of Korydalleus, and Iacovos Argeios (c. 1660–1736), a close associate of Alexander Mavrokordatos (1641–1709).

The manuscripts

The Commentary on Logic is preserved in approximately 120 manuscript witnesses. Among these, the preface beginning Ὅσα ἕνεκά του κινεῖται has been identified in 45 codices, most of which are associated with prominent higher educational institutions of the early modern period —specifically, those of Constantinople, Adrianople, Bucharest, Ioannina, Aitolikon, Kozani, Patmos, Tyrnavos, the Monastery of Iviron, and Metsovo. It is highly likely that the text is transmitted in additional manuscripts, the identification of which, however, is rendered exceedingly difficult due to the absence of comprehensive, up-to-date catalogues of Greek manuscript holdings.

The majority of manuscripts transmitting the extended version of the Logic have been consulted either by autopsy in situ or through high-resolution digital facsimiles. In the preparation of the present critical edition, priority has been accorded to the earliest and most authoritative witnesses, selected on the basis of palaeographical and philological criteria.Footnote 11

  1. 1. Athens, NLG 2325, a. 1691, pp. 1–2.Footnote 12 Title: «Ἕτερον προοίμιον», followed by the published «Προοίμιον εἰς ἅπασαν τὴν λογικὴν πραγματείαν» (inc. Οὐ μόνον καλῶς), subsequently by Korydalleus’ Ὑπομνήματα Λογικῆς. The text includes marginal line numbering every five lines. The codex was copied, according to a scribe’s note, by the monk Damaskenos, a native of the Adrianople region, and was taught in Ioannina in 1691.

  2. 2. Athens, NLG 2631, a. 1691, f. 1r. Title: «Ἕτερον προοίμιον», followed by Korydalleus’ Commentary on Logic, Georgios Sougdoures’ Logic (Vienna 1792) and Proclus’ Sphaera. Scribe (note on f. 291r): hieromonk Euthymios from Dipalitsa/Pogoniani. The codex was copied in 1691, possibly in Ioannina (cf. cod. NLG 2325). Provenance: cod. Serron 224 (479).

  3. 3. Athens, MSS 86, a. 1683, f. ΙΙv.Footnote 13 Title: «Λογικῆς ἀπανθίσματα καὶ προοίμιον τοῦ Κορυδαλέως». Inc. Περὶ ὁρισμοῦ. Ὁρισμός ἐστι λόγος σύντομος. A scribe’s note appears at the end of the text. The text was copied in Constantinople by Georgios, ex-bishop of Lakedaimon: ͵αχπγ΄ κατὰ μῆνα σεπτέμβριον. Ἐξεδόθη ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει, Ὁ πρώην Λακεδαιμονίας Γεώργιος.

  4. 4. Athens, MSS 189, 17th c. (second half), f. 1r.Footnote 14 Title: «Τοῦ σοϕωτάτου καὶ λογιωτάτου κυρίου κυρίου Θεοδοσίου τοῦ Κορυδαλλέως, πρώην μητροπολίτου Ναυπάκτου Ἄρτης, ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης συλλογιστικῆς πραγματείας». Brief comments by Korydalleus follow on De interpretatione, Analytica Priora and Posteriora.

  5. 5. Athens, MSS 524, a. 1662–3, f. 16r.Footnote 15 Title: «Τοῦ σοϕωτάτου καὶ λογιωτάτου κυρίου κυρίου Θεοδοσίου τοῦ Κορυδαλλέως, πρώην μητροπολίτου Ναυπάκτου Ἄρτης, ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης συλλογιστικῆς πραγματείας». Follows a series of scholia by Korydalleus on the De Interpretatione, Analytica Priora, and Posteriora, as well as on cod. MSS 189. The codex was transcribed in Constantinople in 1662–3, as evidenced by bibliographical notes on ff. 99v, 123r, and 158v. It was formerly owned by Kaisarios Kontes of the Peloponnese (note on f. 16r) and subsequently entered the library of the Metochion of St Sepulchre via Chrysanthos of Jerusalem (note on f. 1r).

  6. 6. Athens, MSS 601, 17th c. (second half), f. 1r.Footnote 16 Title: «Τοῦ σοϕωτάτου Κορυδαλλέως ἔκδοσις εἰς πᾶσαν τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους τὴν λογικὴν πραγματείαν».

  7. 7. Athens, MSS 692, ante 1675, f. 4v.Footnote 17 Title: «Τοῦ σοϕωτάτου Θεοδοσίου τοῦ Κορυδαλλέως προοίμιον εἰς τὴν λογικὴν πραγματείαν». The manuscript is dated 1 December 1675 (f. 4v) and was owned by the hierodeacon Chrysanthos of the Peloponnese (note on f. 5r), presumably the future Patriarch of Jerusalem, Chrysanthos Notaras; the hand may be his.

  8. 8. Athos, Iviron Monastery 249, a. 1682–3. Title: «Προοίμιον τοῦ σοϕωτάτου Θεοδοσίου τοῦ Κορυδαλλέως, εἰς τὴν λογικὴν πραγματείαν». Scribe: Hieromonk Joasaph, who copied the Commentary on Logic from October 1682 to September 1683, according to his own notes: (f. 1r) Ἐκ τῶν Ἰωάσαφ. Ἀρχὴ σὺν Θεῷ ἁγίῳ ἐν ἔτει 1682, ὀκτωβρίῳ 30, ἡμέρᾳ δευτέρᾳ, ἠρχήσαμεν (βοηθείᾳ Θεοῦ) τὴν παροῦσαν πραγματείαν; (f. 262r) 1683 Σεπτεμβρίῳ 4, ἔλαβε πέρας τὸ παρὸν διὰ χηρὸς ἐμοῦ τοῦ Ἰωάσαφ τάχα καὶ ἱερομονάχου.

  9. 9. Athos, Iviron Monastery 251, a. 1697–8. Title: «Λογική, Προοίμιον». Preceding the main text is the Ἕτερον προοίμιον, followed by the published Προοίμιον εἰς τὴν λογικὴν πραγματείαν (inc. Οὐ μόνον καλῶς). Scribe: Hieromonk Neophytos, in the Iviron Monastery: (f. 1r) Ἡψάμεθα τῆς λογικῆς πραγματείας τῷ̗αχϟζ΄, Νοεμβρίου β΄, ἡμέρᾳ τρίτῃ; (f. 222) εἴληφεν ἡ τῆς λογικῆς πραγματείας βαρύμοχθος μὲν ἀλλὰ γλυκύκαρπος βίβλος […] κατὰ τὸ̗ αχϟη΄ ἔτος, τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς βροτείου γένους ἐλευθερώσεως, μῆνα ἰούνιον κς΄, ἡμέραν κυριακήν. Γέγραπται δὲ διὰ χειρὸς ἐμοῦ Νεοφύτου ἐλαχίστου ἱερομονάχου, τοῦ ἐκ τῆς βασιλικῆς τε καὶ πατριαρχικῆς μεγίστης μονῆς τῶν Ἰβήρων.

  10. 10. Athos, Panteleimonos Monastery 225, ca 1696, f. 1r.Footnote 18 Title: «Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης συλλογιστικῆς πραγματείας, ἐκδοθεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ λογιωτάτου καὶ σοϕωτάτου Θεοδοσίου τοῦ Κορυδαλλέως πρώην μητροπολίτου Ναυπάκτου καὶ Ἄρτης». The manuscript contains (ff. 1r–32r) a revised and abridged version of the opening section of Korydalleus’ Commentary (pp. 3–132 in the 1729 edition: Prolegomena and Porphyrius’ Eisagoge). The first paragraph is titled «Περὶ ὁρισμοῦ» (inc. Ὁρισμὸς λόγος ἐστὶ σύντομος). The codex also preserves notes on Logic by Anastasios Gordios and was written, based on ductus analysis, by Gordios himself, by one of his students, and by his brother Athanasios Elachistos. It was used by Gordios in his teaching at Aitolikon (ff. 43r, 67r).

  11. 11. Jerusalem, Patriarchal Library 191, 17th c.Footnote 19 Title: «Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης συλλογιστικῆς πραγματείας ἐκδοθεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ σοϕωτάτου καὶ λογιωτάτου Κορυδαλλέως». The codex also contains additional texts on logic, the Canons of the Apostles, homilies by Gregory of Nazianzus, and the Amphilochia of Photius.

  12. 12. Jerusalem, Patriarchal Library 217, a. 1666.Footnote 20 Title: «Τοῦ σοϕωτάτου καὶ λογιωτάτου κυρίου κυρίου Θεοδοσίου Κορυδαλλέως, πρώην μητροπολίτου Ναυπάκτου καὶ Ἄρτης, ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης συλλογιστικῆς πραγματείας». The codex contains Korydalleus’ commentary on the Aristotelian Analytica Posteriora and the Letters of Libanius.

  13. 13. Jerusalem, St Savvas Monastery 116, a. 1674.Footnote 21 Title: «Τοῦ σοϕωτάτου καὶ λογιωτάτου κυρίου κυρίου Θεοδοσίου Κορυδαλλέως, πρώην μητροπολίτου Ναυπάκτου καὶ Ἄρτης, ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης συλλογιστικῆς πραγματείας». The codex contains Korydalleus’ commentary on Logic, De interpretatione, Analytica Priora and Posteriora.

  14. 14. Jerusalem, St Savvas Monastery 117, a. 1645.Footnote 22 Title: «Τοῦ σοϕωτάτου καὶ λογιωτάτου κυρίου Θεοδοσίου τοῦ Κορυδαλλέως, πρώην μητροπολίτου Ναυπάκτου καὶ Ἄρτης, ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης συλλογιστικῆς πραγματείας». The codex also contains Korydalleus’ commentaries on Categoriae, De interpretatione, Analytica Priora and Posteriora, and Sophistici Elenchi. Possibly the earliest extant copy of the Logic, transcribed in Athens in 1645, during the lifetime of Korydalleus. The colophon reads (p. 124): ἐξεδόθη ἐν Ἀθήναις κατὰ τὸ̗ αχμε΄ ἔτος τὸ σωτήριον, μεταγειτνιῶνος ζ΄ φθίνοντος. It may be tentatively attributed to the then hieromonk Nektarios of Sinai (1600–1676), later Patriarch of Jerusalem, who at the time was residing in Athens and attending the philosophical lessons of the elder Korydalleus.Footnote 23

  15. 15. Jerusalem, Timios Stavros Monastery 33, a. 1675. Untitled. The manuscript opens with the «Ἕτερον προοίμιον» (f. Ir, unnumbered), followed by the «Προοίμιον εἰς ἅπασαν τὴν λογικὴν πραγματείαν» (f. 1r). It was copied at the Patriarchal Academy of Constantinople. In the margins, the scribe records exegetical comments by his teacher, Antonios Spandones (d. 1726). At the end: Κατὰ τὸ̗ αχοε΄ ἔτος τὸ σωτήριον ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει νοεμβρίου κθ΄, ἡμέρᾳ δευτέρᾳ, πατριαρχεύοντος τοῦ κυρίου Παρθενίου, και ἑρμηνεύοντος τοῦ λογιωτάτου κυρίου Σπαντωνάκη διερμηνευτοῦ τῆς Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας.

  16. 16. Kozani, Municipal Library 46, a. 1685–6, f. 1v.Footnote 24 Title: «Ἕτερον προοίμιον». The codex contains the Logic of Korydalleus, copied by hierodeacon Gregorios of Myrokovon (notes in ff. 1r and 328v), while the possessor of the manuscript was Joakeim of Chios, Metropolitan of Veroia.

  17. 17. Kozani, Municipal Library (fragment), end of 17th – beginning of 18th c. Inserted within the printed edition of Korydalleus’ Logic. Title: «Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης συλλογιστικῆς πραγματείας ἐκδοθεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ λογιωτάτου καὶ σοϕωτάτου Κορυδαλλέως».

  18. 18. London, British Library Add MS 7143, a. 1700, f. 9r. Title: «Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης λογικῆς πραγματείας ἐκδοθεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ λογιωτάτου καὶ σοϕωτάτου Κορυδαλλέως». Preceeded by the «(Ἕτερον) προοίμιον». Followed (f. 10r) by the «Προοίμιον εἰς ἅπασαν τὴν λογικὴν πραγματείαν». Complete text (ff. 9–361). Marginal and interlinear scholia explaining Korydalleus’ commentary. Scribe: Antonios Byzantios, student at that time at the Patriarchal Academy (f. 361r): Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον, καὶ Ἀντωνίου πόνος ἐν ἔτει ᾳψῳ, Βοηδρομιῶνος α΄ φθίνοντος τὴν εὐχάριστόν σοι φωνὴν φέρω Λόγε ἰδὼν ποθεινῶς τέρμα τῶν ἐνηργμένων.

  19. 19. Meleai, Municipal Library 91, end of 17th c. Untitled. Begins with the unpublished «Προοίμιον εἰς τὴν λογικήν». Contains excerpts and selections from the Logic.

  20. 20. Nicosia, University Library 3, a. 1684, f. 1v.Footnote 25 Title: «Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης λογικῆς πραγματείας ἐκδοθεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ λογιωτάτου καὶ σοϕωτάτου Κορυδαλλέως». The preface precedes the Ὑπομνήματα Λογικῆς. The codex also includes philological and rhetorical texts and is related to the Patriarchal Academy of Constantinople. Its script resembles that of the hieromonk Bessarion Makres from Ioannina (1635–1699).

  21. 21. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Miscellaneus gr. 234, 17th c. Title: «Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης συλλογιστικῆς πραγματείας ἐκδοθεῖσα παρὰ Θεοϕίλου τοῦ Κορυδαλλέως τοῦ Ἀθηναίου». Ιnc. Ὅσα ἕνεκά του κινεῖται. Contains excerpts and selections from the Logic (pp. 1–86 of the edition).

Among the manuscripts copied during the eighteenth century, the ‘alternative preface’ is attested in:

  1. 22. Alexandria, Patriarchal Library 166, beginning of 18th c. Title: «Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης λογικῆς πραγματείας ἐκδοθεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ λογιωτάτου καὶ σοϕωτάτου Κορυδαλλέως».

  2. 23. Athens, NLG 1146, beginning of 18th c., p. Ι. Title: «Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης συλλογιστικῆς πραγματείας ἐκδοθεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ σοϕωτάτου καὶ λογιωτάτου Κορυδαλλέως». Scribe (f. Ιr): Ioannes Belisarios from Methoni in the Peloponnese. Possessor: hieromonk Leontios.

  3. 24. Athens, NLG 2127, 18th c., ff. 1r–v. Title: «Ἕτερον προοίμιον». Provenance: Gymnasion of Thessaloniki, no. 58.

  4. 25. Athens, NLG ΣΕΒΕ 154, f. 4v. Title: «Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ […]».

  5. 26. Athens, Benaki Museum 176 (ΤΑ 11), first half of 18th c., f. 1r.Footnote 26 Title: «Προοίμιον τῆς λογικῆς». At the beginning of the manuscript (pp. α΄–δ΄ + γ1), before the preface, there is an interpretation of the text in demotic Greek, in the form of a commentary (original passage and interpretation), which would merit study and publication. Possessor: hieromonk Ignatios Saraphes. Provenance: Greek Gymnasium of Adrianople, codex no. 1047.

  6. 27. Athos, Iviron Monastery 113, f. 6v. Title: «Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης συλλογιστικῆς πραγματείας».

  7. 28. Athos, Iviron Monastery 228. Title: «Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης συλλογιστικῆς πραγματείας ἐκδοθεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ λογιωτάτου καὶ σοϕωτάτου Κορυδαλλέως».

  8. 29. Athos, Iviron Monastery 250, a. 1741. Title: «Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης συλλογιστικῆς πραγματείας, ἐκδοθεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ λογιωτάτου καὶ σοϕωτάτου Κορυδαλλέως κυρίου Θεοϕίλου μητροπολίτου Ἀθηνῶν».

  9. 30. Berkeley, University of California 3, a. 1726. Untitled, preceded by the «Ἕτερον προοίμιον». Scribe: Konstantinos from Zagora (f. 132r): Ἐν ἔτει [[χιλιοστῷ ἑξακοσιοστῷ]] ˏαψκς΄ μαρτίῳ ιδ΄ ἐγράφη διὰ χειρὸς Κωνσταντίνου τοῦ ἐκ Ζαγορᾶς.

  1. 31. Bucharest, BAR 47 (Litzica 64), a. 1743, f. 23r.Footnote 27 Title: «Εἰς ἅπασαν τὴν λογικὴν πραγματείαν προοίμιον». Scribe: possibly Diamantes Petalas Bryllos from Tyrnavos in Bucharest.

  2. 32. Bucharest, BAR 419 (Litzica 82), first half of 18th c.Footnote 28 Title: «Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης συλλογιστικῆς πραγματείας, ἐκδοθεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ λογιωτάτου καὶ σοϕωτάτου Κορυδαλλέως κυρίου Θεοϕίλου μητροπολίτου Ἀθηνῶν». Possessor: Ioannes Moschos from Tyrnavos, 1749.

  3. 33. Bucharest, BAR 429 (Litzica 83), 18th c.Footnote 29 Title: «Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης συλλογιστικῆς πραγματείας ἐκδοθεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ λογιωτάτου καὶ σοϕωτάτου Κορυδαλλέως κυρίου Θεοϕίλου».

  4. 34. Elassona, Olympiotissa Monastery 28, 18th c. Title: «Προοίμιον εἰς ἅπασαν τὴν λογικὴν πραγματείαν». Scribe (f. 5r): Damianos Sparmiotes.

  5. 35. Istanbul, Archive of the Ecumenical Patriarchate 60, 18th c., pp. 1–2. Title: «Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ […]».

  6. 36. Istanbul, Megales tou Genous Scholes 26, a. 1726. Title: «Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ […]». Scribe: Ioannikios Kyprios (f. 1r): 1706 Μαΐου 7, ἡμέρα Κυριακή, αὕτη διὰ χειρὸς μεταγραφεῖσα Ἰωαννικίου τοῦ Κυπρίου. Ioannikios was supervisor and preacher at the Church of Christ in Galata, and preached for many years in other churches as well.

  7. 37. Jerusalem, Patriarchal Library 142, 18th c.Footnote 30 Title: «Ἔκθεσις τῆς ὅλης συλλογιστικῆς πραγματείας ἐκδοθεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ λογιωτάτου καὶ σοϕωτάτου Κορυδαλλέως κυρίου Θεοϕίλου Ἀθηναίου».

  8. 38. Leros, Municipal Library 12, 28, 29, 30. Without title.

  9. 39. Patmos, Monastery of St John 353, a. 1730, ff. αbisr–βbisr.Footnote 31 Title: «Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης συλλογιστικῆς πραγματείας, ἐκδοθεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ λογιωτάτου καὶ σοϕωτάτου κυρίου Θεοϕίλου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Ἀθηνῶν Κορυδαλλέως». On p. 777: ͵αψλ΄ νοεμβρίου ιβ΄ ἐσυμφωνήσαμε οἱ μαθηταὶ [of the Patmias School] νὰ διαβάσωμεν τὴν μικρὰν λογικήν, καὶ ὅποιος ἀθετήσει τὴν συνομωσίαν νὰ μὴν εἶναι ἄνθρωπος. ὅθεν εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς ἀληθείας ὑπογράφομεν ἕκαστος ἰδίᾳ χειρί; followed by signatures.

  10. 40. Patmos, Monastery of St John 355, first half of 18th c., f. 1r.Footnote 32 Title: «Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης συλλογιστικῆς πραγματείας, ἐκδοθεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ λογιωτάτου καὶ σοϕωτάτου Κορυδαλλέως».

  11. 41. Patras, Vlachopapadopoulos private collection 2, 18th c., f. Iv. Title: «Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης λογικῆς πραγματείας, ἐκδοθεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ λογιωτάτου Κορυδαλλέως».

  12. 42. Princeton, Greek MS. 66, a. 1710, p. 1. Title: «Εἰς ἅπασαν τὴν λογικὴν πραγματείαν. Προοίμιον». Inc. Οὐ μόνον καλῶς. On the verso of the previous folio, another scribe has copied the «Ἕτερον προοίμιον». Scribe: Nikolaos Stygnes in Metsovo (p. 491): Πεπόνηται παρ᾿ ἐμοὶ Νικολάῳ τῷ καὶ Στύγνῃ ἐν Μεσόβῳ διατρίβοντι κατὰ τὸ ˏαψι΄ τὸ ἀπὸ θεογονίας, ἐν ἡμέρᾳ Τρίτῃ, δὴ φθίνοντος μηνὸς Ποσειδεῶνος. In 1728, the manuscript was purchased by the professor Alexander Tyrnavites (p. 491): καὶ τόδε πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις Ἀλεξάνδρου διδασκάλου τοῦ ἐκ Τυρνάβου, ἔτει καθ’ ὃ ἠγόρασται̗ ακη΄: λογικὴ τοῦ Κορυδαλλέως. Alexander also copied the Ἕτερον προοίμιον and many of the scholia.

  13. 43. Tyrnavos, Municipal Library 26, 18th c., f. 1r. Title: «Προοίμιον εἰς τὴν λογικὴν πραγματείαν». The manuscript belonged to Archdeacon Athanasios from Chios and later to Gabriel, Metropolitan of Larissa (note in f. 1r). Two metropolitans bore the name Gabriel, Gabriel I (1722–32) and Gabriel II (1803–5).Footnote 33 Based on the ductus of the manuscript, it is more likely to be attributed to Gabriel I and therefore dated to the first half of 18th c.

  14. 44. Tyrnavos, Municipal Library 35, first half of 18th c., f. 1r.Footnote 34 Title: «Προοίμιον».

  15. 45. Zagora, Public Library 62, a. 1728. Title: «Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ […]». Possessor: Patriarch Kallinikos III (c. 1710–91), former Metropolitan of Proilavos.

The authorship of the preface, its authenticity, and its place in the intellectual rivalry in seventeenth-century Constantinople

The title found in most manuscript witnesses of the preface (Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης συλλογιστικῆς πραγματείας or Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης λογικῆς πραγματείας) appears to be influenced by the phrasing of the two introductory texts of the Epitome of Logic: Ἔκθεσις κατ’ ἐπιτομὴν τῆς λογικῆς πραγματείας and Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς λογικῆς πραγματείας κατ’ ἐρώτησιν καὶ ἀπόκρισιν. In those latter texts, however, the terms «Ἔκθεσις κατ’ ἐπιτομὴν συνοπτικὴ» and «κατ’ ἐρωταπόκρισιν» refer to the nature of the Epitome of Logic as a whole, rather than to its two introductory paragraphs. As such, the title «Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ» cannot appropriately be applied to an analytic work such as the Commentary on Logic (Ὑπομνήματα Λογικῆς).

By contrast, the more ad hoc title found in some manuscripts –Ἕτερον προοίμιον or Προοίμιον εἰς τὴν λογικὴν πραγματείαν – is more accurate with respect to the nature of the work as a whole (commentary on Logic). Nevertheless, thorough investigation of the manuscript tradition is necessary to determine whether Korydalleus himself provided a title for this ‘alternative preface’, and whether he regarded it as formally belonging to the Commentary on Logic, or rather as a preliminary draft preceding the final prologue. Thus, in cod. Athens, MSS 692 (dated 1675), a manuscript once belonging to Chrysanthos Notaras, the text bears the title (f. 4v) «Προοίμιον εἰς τὴν λογικὴν πραγματείαν», followed on the next page (f. 5r) by the «Προοίμιον εἰς ἅπασαν τὴν λογικὴν πραγματείαν», opening with «Οὐ μόνον καλῶς». Similar titling is found in Athens, MSS 86, Benaki 176, Tyrnavos 26 and 35, Athos, Iviron 249 and 251.Footnote 35

In all the above manuscripts, the «Ὅσα ἕνεκά του κινεῖται» preface accompanies the Commentary on Logic. Based on its placement, it appears to function as an alternative (Ἕτερον) preface to the commentaries. In the printed edition, however, the editor ignored this preface and instead published as the sole Preface to the Entire Logical Treatise the text beginning «Οὐ μόνον καλῶς». From the manuscript tradition, then, it becomes clear that there exist two prefaces to the Commentary on Logic: one unpublished and brief, the other longer and already published – most likely the principal one. This hypothesis must be examined in detail on the basis of content and context.

However, a further plausible hypothesis may be considered: that the title Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης συλλογιστικῆς [or λογικῆς] πραγματείας represents, not a formal preface, but a general pre-introductory clarification concerning logic, even prior to the actual preface to Korydalleus’ commentary. The distinction is extremely subtle, as is evident from the manuscript evidence itself, since some manuscripts attest the former title and others Ἕτερον Προοίμιον or Προοίμιον εἰς τὴν λογικὴν πραγματείαν. Thus, although the content of «Ὅσα ἕνεκά του» preface could well justify its role as an alternative prologue, the author’s intention is not made explicit in the manuscript record.

As to its content, the unpublished prologue presents logic as an instrument (ὄργανον) of the human soul, by which the human being, through the demonstrative method, is able to distinguish between good and evil. Nature may grant the human being certain seminal notions of truth, but ultimate responsibility lies with reason, volition, and proper desire (Δεῖται γὰρ … ὁ ἄνθρωπος, γνώμης ὀρθῶς βουλομένης καὶ ὑγιῶς ὀρεγομένης ὀρέξεως). Through reason, the human being discerns the end (τέλος) of existence – namely, the Good – and progresses toward perfection. While the content is comparable to that of the Preface to the Entire Logical Treatise in the Commentary on Logic, it diverges notably in wording. There, logos is deemed superior to wealth in the pursuit of eudaimonia, particularly the methodical logos proceeding from a cultivated intellect (λόγος τεχνικὸς ἀπὸ διανοίας ἠσκημένης προελυληθώς). The logical method is described as the means by which beginners are introduced – via the instruments it furnishes – to the royal precincts (ἀνακτώρια) of philosophy.

A similar stance is evident in the opening paragraph of the Epitome of Logic, under the heading Ἔκθεσις κατ’ ἐπιτομὴν τῆς λογικῆς πραγματείας (ed. 1970, 3: «Οὐδὲν οὕτω τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τίμιον»). There, philosophy is presented as the most valuable means for human flourishing, and logic as the sole gateway to philosophy’s royal dwelling. That paragraph explicitly announces that the logical method will follow in the format of question and answer (ἐρώτησις καὶ ἀπόκρισις) – a feature absent in «Ὅσα ἕνεκά του» preface, which is more academic in tone compared to the simpler, shorter, and more didactic preface to the Epitome. The core message across the three texts is consistent, yet the expression and tone vary, with the preface of the edition being significantly longer and marked by an oral style characteristic of a commentator addressing students.Footnote 36

Despite its greater affinity in content to the Epitome’s preface (inc. Οὐδὲν οὕτω τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τίμιον ἐν τῷ μετὰ σώματος βίῳ), the manuscript tradition more frequently associates «Ὅσα ἕνεκά του» preface with the Commentary on Logic, treating it as an «Ἕτερον προοίμιον», a kind of prefatory note. However, Korydalleus’ intention regarding its function cannot be firmly established, and its inclusion in manuscripts of the commentary must also be attributed, at least in part, to the choices of scribes. Clarifying its status requires further research into the manuscript transmission of Korydalleus’s logical works.

A marginal annotation in a codex of the Commentary on Logic sheds light upon this seemingly intractable situation. The manuscript in question is cod. British Library Add MS 7143, copied in the year 1700 by Antonios Byzantios, a student of the Patriarchal Academy.Footnote 37 The marginal note, though written in Antonios’ hand, is not his own; rather, it originates from the scholarch Iakovos Argeios, who at the time was head of the Patriarchal Academy and principal instructor of Aristotelian philosophy in the tradition of Korydalleus. In 1708, he was elevated by the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the distinguished title of ‘Supreme among the Philosophers of the Great Church’: a revival of the late Byzantine honorific that affirmed his preeminence in philosophical instruction.Footnote 38 The note reads: ἠρξάμεθα τὴν λογικὴν πραγματείαν κατὰ τὸ̗ αψιβ΄ ἔτος νοεμβρίου κ΄ ἐπὶ διδασκάλου Ἰακουμῆ τοῦ Πελοποννησίου. † ὁ Γεώργιος, καὶ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ γράψαντος ταύτην τὴν λογικήν, Ἀντωνίου δηλονότι, διδασκάλου τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει φροντηστηρίου. There is a brief interlinear and a more extensive marginal comment (f. 11r) on a passage from the preface of the printed edition, which in the manuscript is copied second in order, following the so-called «Ἕτερον προοίμιον».

[Logic, p. 3 Τὸν θειότατον ἡμῶν καθηγητήν] s.v. τὸν Κορυδαλλέα.

in marg. ἰστέον ὅτι τὸ παρὸν προοίμιον νοθεύεται τῶν τοῦ Κορυδαλλέως, φασὶ δέ τινες εἶναι τοῦ πρώην λογοθέτου Ἰωάννου Καρυοϕύλλη, διὸ καὶ καθηγητὴν ἐνταῦθα τὸν Κορυδαλλέα ἐννοεῖ. Τούτῳ γὰρ ὁ προειρημένος ἐμαθήτευσεν Ἰωάννης· τὸ δὲ πρὸ τούτου προοίμιον, οὗ ἡ ἀρχὴ (ὅσα ἕνεκά του κινεῖται) ἔστι τοῦ Κορυδαλλέως ἀναμφιλέκτως, ὅπερ καὶ μᾶλλόν ἐστι φιλοσοφικώτερον καὶ τεχνικώτερον.

It must be noted that the present preface is not authentic Korydallean; some claim that it is the work of the former Logothete Ioannes Karyophylles – hence the reference to ‘teacher’ in this context is to be understood as denoting Korydalleus himself. For the aforementioned Ioannes had, in fact, studied under him. The preceding preface, whose opening words are «ὅσα ἕνεκά του κινεῖται», is indisputably the work of Korydalleus, and is clearly more philosophical and more technically composed.

This comment radically alters the question concerning the origin and purpose of the «ἕτερον προοίμιον». It is not, as previously assumed, an alternative preface, but rather the one composed «ἀναμϕιλέκτως» (‘indisputably’) by Korydalleus himself, according to Iakovos, as a preface to the commentary on Logic. In contrast, the more extensive preface «εἰς ἅπασαν τὴν λογικὴν» is the work of his student and successor at the Patriarchal Academy, Ioannes Karyophylles. The ‘most divine professor’ mentioned in the preface is, therefore, ultimately Korydalleus and not Cesare Cremonini.Footnote 39

Karyophylles was to teach his own interpretation of Logic to his students. In this light, the verbal affinities with the other two prefaces, as well as the oral register and didactic tone previously remarked upon are rendered intelligible. What then arises is the question of why Iakovos chose to include, in his annotations to the work of Korydalleus, this particular reference to Karyophylles.

First and foremost, it indicates that the commentaries of Korydalleus had undergone modifications and interpolations at the hands of those who taught them over time – a fact already well attested, given that many of the extant manuscripts do not transmit the commentary in its entirety, but rather selections and anthologies thereof.Footnote 40 Yet the intervention of Karyophylles in the text of Korydalleus carries greater weight, insofar as he succeeded in imposing his own preface as an integral preface to the commentary. This interpolation was evidently made during his tenure at the Patriarchal Academy in the decade 1640–1650, where he taught Aristotelian philosophy by means of Korydalleus’ commentaries,Footnote 41 and composed brief annotations of his own (at least in the case of Physics).Footnote 42

A few years later (1661), the archon Manolakes of Kastoria resolved to found another school in Constantinople, placing it under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. It was at this school that Alexander Mavrokordatos taught following his return from studies in Padua (1665), representing the new political forces that had then risen to power. In contrast, Karyophylles and the old Patriarchal Academy stood for the ‘old’ regime, which was now to be expunged from the leadership of the Greek Orthodox community. And so it came to pass: Manolakes’ School was transformed into the successor institution of the Patriarchal Academy – yet without Karyophylles, who was expelled from the teaching halls and ultimately stripped of the office of Grand logothete of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, a post now assumed by Alexander Mavrokordatos himself (1691).Footnote 43 This event marked Mavrokordatos’ complete ascendancy and the political elimination of Karyophylles, who sought refuge at the princely court of Bucharest, where he died shortly thereafter (1692).Footnote 44

Through his subtle philological annotation, Iakovos Argeios underscores the evidently superior quality of the «ἕτερον προοίμιον» of Korydalleus in contrast to the philosophically and technically inferior preface composed by Karyophylles. Viewed in this light, the comment constitutes yet another episode in the protracted rivalry between Karyophylles and Mavrokordatos – another arrow aimed at the former logothete, as is evident from Iakovos Argeios’ direct reference to the loss of the office of Grand logothete («τοῦ πρώην λογοθέτου Ἰωάννου Καρυοϕύλλη»).

This note must be dated at least ten years earlier (1691), when Argeios had begun teaching both in the house of the Mavrokordatos family and at the Patriarchal Academy, where he held the chair of rhetoric and logic.Footnote 45 The phrase «ϕασὶ δέ τινες» (in the plural) explicitly indicates that, within the circles of the Patriarchal Academy, a rumor was circulating regarding the adulteration of the preface of the Logic, and perhaps of other passages as well from the commentary of Korydalleus – precisely as Iakovos Argeios wrote in another of his scholia (f. 25r): ἴσθι, ὦ ϕιλαναγνῶστα, ὅτι ὁ ϕιλόσοϕος ταύτην τὴν ϕαντασίαν νοῦν μὲν ὠνόμασεν … Ἴσως δὲ οὐκ ἔστι τοῦτο γνήσιον τοῦ Κορυδαλλέως, διότι ἐν τοῖς περὶ ψυχῆς αὐτολεξεί ϕησιν ὁ συγγραϕεὺς οὕτω …

The edition

What follows is a critical edition of the text, based on a collation of fifteen manuscript witnesses:

Α1 = Athens, MSS 86, a. 1683

Α2 = Athens, MSS 189, 17th c. (2nd half)

Α3 = Athens, MSS 524, a. 1662-3

Α4 = Athens, MSS 601, 17th c. (2nd half)

Α5 = Athens, MSS 692, a. (ante) 1675

Ε1 = Athens, NLG 2325, a.  1691

Ε2 = Athens, NLG 2631, a. 1691

Ζ = Kozani, Municipal Library 46, a. 1685-6

Ζ1 = Kozani, Municipal Library, fragment, end of 17th ‒ beg. of 18th c.

I1 = Athos, Iviron monastery 249, a. 1682-3

I2 = Athos, Iviron monastery 251, a. 1697-8

Κ = Nicosia, University Library 3, a. 1684

L = London, Additional MS 7143, a. 1700

M = Meleai, Municipal Library 91, end of 17th c.

P = Athos, Panteleimonos Monastery 225, ca 1696

The construction of a stemma codicum proved unfeasible, as no substantial distinguishing or connective errors could be identified. In this case, the principle recentiores non deteriores does not hold true, since two of the oldest manuscripts – MSS 524 (dated 1662) and MSS 692 (dated 1675) – transmit the most reliable text. Clarifying the relationships among the extant manuscripts requires a comprehensive examination not only of the full textual content of each witness but also of the entire manuscript tradition that preserves the aforementioned text. Nonetheless, the text may be considered especially secure, since the earliest surviving manuscript was copied sixteen years after the author’s death. In the present edition, we have adopted the title Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης συλλογιστικῆς πραγματείας, though it could alternatively be understood as an Ἕτερον προοίμιον εἰς ἅπασαν τὴν λογικὴν πραγματείαν – that is, to Korydalleus’ entire logical corpus.

Ἔκθεσις συνοπτικὴ τῆς ὅλης συλλογιστικῆς πραγματείας

Ὅσα ἕνεκά του κινεῖται (τοιαῦτα τά τε φύσει ἢ καὶ λόγῳ χρώμενα) ἀγαθοῦ τινος ἐφιέμενα πάντως (τοιοῦτον γὰρ εἶναι βούλεται καὶ τὸ οὗ ἕνεκα). Ἀγαθὸν δ’ ἄλλῳ ἄλλο καὶ ἑκάστῳ ἡ οἰκεία αὐτοῦ τελειότης· ἢ γὰρ τὴν ἐνοῦσαν διασῴζειν, ἢ τὴν μὴ οὖσαν προσπορίσασθαι σπουδάζει πᾶν τὸ κινούμενον. Τῆς δὲ ἀνθρώπου τελειότητος, τὴν μὲν προσήκουσαν σώματι φύσις δωρεῖται, ἀλλὰ καὶ διασῴζει μικράν που καὶ τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ λόγου προσλαμβάνουσα ὑπουργίαν. Τῆς δὲ κατὰ ψυχήν, δι’ ἣν καὶ τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων οὐ μόνον ὑπερβέβηκεν ἄνθρωπος, ταῖς σωματικαῖς εὐπορίαις οὐ μετρίως ἐκείνων ἠλαττωμένος, ἀλλὰ καὶ κρατεῖ ῥᾷστα πάντων καὶ δεσπόζει. Φύσις μὲν παρέχει τὰ σπέρματα, λόγος δὲ προάγει τε καὶ ἀπαρτίζει, μελέτῃ καὶ πόνῳ ὑπηρετούμενος. Δεῖται γὰρ μάλιστα πρὸς τελειότητα εὐζωΐας ὁ ἄνθρωπος γνώμης ὀρθῶς βουλευομένης καὶ ὑγιῶς ὀρεγομένης ὀρέξεως, ὅπερ οὐ πέφυκε φύσις χαρίζεσθαι ἀφιεμένη τέχνης. Ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τῆς θεωρίας τῇ πρὸς τὸ ἀληθὲς ὁμοιότητι, πολλάκις καὶ τὸ ψεῦδος ἐγκρίνει, τῇ δὲ ἀγαθοῦ φαντασίᾳ καὶ τὸ μὴ ἀγαθὸν ἐν ἀγαθοῦ χώρᾳ διώκει. Ἀλλ’ ὁ λόγος ἀναπληρῶν αὐτῆς τὸ ἐλλειπές, ὄργανον ἐπενόησε διακριτικὸν πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ὄντος ἀγαθοῦ καὶ ἀληθοῦς διάγνωσιν. Καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν ἡ ἀποδεικτικὴ μέθοδος, πρὸς ἣν ἀναφέρεται ὡς πρὸς σκοπιμώτατον τέλος πᾶσα ἡ τῆς λογικῆς πραγματείας μελέτη καὶ διαπόνησις. Ἀμέλει τοι πρόκειται ἡμῖν εἰς θήραν ἡ λογικὴ πραγματεία, οὐ μόνον λογικὴ καθ’ ἑαυτήν, ἀλλὰ καὶ λόγῳ ποριζομένη τε καὶ διοριζομένη, ὥστε πρὸ τῶν ἄλλων τὸν ὁριστικὸν λόγον ὡς ἐν βραχεῖ ληπτέον.

3 cf. ἀνάγκη πᾶν τὸ κινούμενον ὑπό τινος κινεῖσθαι Arist. Phys. 2141b24, 256a13–14

11–12 cf. ἵν’ ᾖ τοῦ ἑλομένου τὸ ἀγαθὸν οὐχ ἧττον ἢ τοῦ παρασχόντος τὰ σπέρματα Gregory of Nazianzus, PG 36, 324.23, 632.35

4 βούλεται εἶναι Ι1 8 μικράν Α2, Α5 Ι1, Ι2: μικρά cett. codd. || προσλαμβάνουσα Α3, Α5, Ι1, Ι2, L: προσλαμβάνουσαν cett. codd.: προσλαμβάνουσιν Α2: προλαμβάνουσαν Ρ1 M 9 Τῆς: Τὴν Ε2, Ζ || ἀλόγων Κ, L, Ζ1: ἄλλων cett. codd. 10 οὐ μόνον om. L 13 εὐζωΐας Α2, Α3, A4, Α5, L, Κ, Ι1, Ι2, M, Ζ1, Pmarg: εἰς εὐζωΐαν Α1, Ε1, Ε2, Pac: καὶ εἰς εὐζωΐαν Ζac: καὶ εὐζωΐαν Ζpc, Πms 15 ἀφιεμένη Α3, A4, Α5, Ι1: ἀφιεμένης cett. codd. || καὶ ante ἐπὶ add. Ε1, Ε2, Z, Ζ1 16 πολλάκις καὶ τὸ ψεῦδος Α3, Α5, Ι1, M: καὶ τὸ ψεῦδος πολλάκις cett. codd. 20 σκοπιμώτερον Μ 21 Ἀμέλει: Ἀμέλλει Α2, Α3, A4, Κ: λοιπὸν E1mg

Epilogue-conclusion

In the Ἕτερον προοίμιον, the exegete aligns himself with the Aristotelian tenet that πᾶν κινούμενον (‘omne motum’), whether corporeal or rational in nature, is intrinsically teleological, bearing within itself a final cause (ἐντελέχεια) toward which it tends as the fulfillment and consummation of both its existence and its motion. This ‘telos’, invariably conceived as a ‘bonum’, is not uniform but is diversified according to the specific end appropriate to the ontological nature of each entity. In certain cases, nature instills an inherent, immanent δύναμις that is merely preserved through the being’s movement; in others – most notably in the case of man – this immanence proves insufficient, and the being is summoned to cooperate actively in the completion of its teleological trajectory.

Man, as a composite of body and soul, is endowed, on the one hand, with intrinsic and perfected elements that merely require preservation, and, on the other, is summoned to acquire and cultivate further essential properties. Nature bestows corporeal perfection immediately, overseeing its maintenance and development (διασῴζει). To this end, λόγος functions as an auxiliary principle. It remains unclear whether this λόγος denotes human rationality consciously exercised in synergy with nature, or refers instead to some latent principle or ontological substrate from which corporeal rationality emerges. Despite the elliptical and abstract diction of the preface, it is evident that Korydalleus intends λόγος to refer to its active, human manifestation.

With regard to the soul, through the cultivation and actualization of its intrinsic τέλος, man not only surpasses the animal realm but attains dominion over it – despite often being physically inferior to many of its species. Nature grants man σπέρματα – ‘psychic seeds or seminal powers’ – which, though ontologically immanent, require development through both λογισμός and πρᾶξις. At this point, Korydalleus gestures toward patristic anthropology, provided that the term ‘nature’ is understood as ‘God’, and that the Aristotelian νόμος ϕύσεως is reinterpreted through the lens of divine Economy and Providence. The same principle is reiterated with different phrasing: man is summoned to cultivate this gifted immanence through ‘right opinion’ (λογιστική) and sound appetite – that is, through the moral cultivation of the θυμικὸν and the ἐπιθυμητικόν. Accordingly, the human soul must be cultivated in its totality and in its tripartite structure, through the exercise of its rational and moral capacities. The two primary instruments in this endeavour are ὀρθὸς λόγος (‘rightly deliberating reason’ – γνώμη ὀρθῶς βουλευομένη) and ὄρεξις (‘will/desire’). Through these, man progresses toward εὐζωΐα, εὐδαιμονία, and the ontological τέλος of his being.

Yet λόγος on its own proves insufficient. The human subject remains vulnerable to the allure of plausible falsehoods and to misdirection in the pursuit of the true ἀγαθόν. Consequently, λόγος must be refined into ἀποδεικτικὴ μέθοδος: a discriminative instrument capable of distinguishing truth from falsehood (‘tertium non datur’) in all circumstances – a methodological discernment regarded in patristic ethics as the crown of the virtues (διάκρισις). In doing so, man fulfils his nature as a nomologically immanent being, although λόγος – already existing as σπέρμα within human nature – must be actualized through the dual operations of rational demonstration and volitional striving.

The assertion ὁ λόγος, ἀναπληρῶν αὐτῆς τὸ ἐλλειπές, ὄργανον ἐπενόησε διακριτικόν is especially significant. It indicates, first, that human ϕύσις is incomplete with respect to the development of the soul, and second, that man, as a rational and volitional being, is not entirely subject to natural determinism. Rather, he possesses a degree – however limited – of freedom in thought, volition, and praxis. Still, the issue of freedom is subtly displaced onto the principle that activates λόγος: is this the prerogative of human free will, or is even this initiative inscribed within the determinism of nature’s immanent order? The phrase Φύσις μὲν παρέχει τὰ σπέρματα, λόγος δὲ προάγει τε καὶ ἀπαρτίζει, when read with reference to the human soul, suggests a dialectic of human initiative and natural synergy – even if Greek philosophical thought never fully escaped the fatal determinism of Τύχη, Ἀνάγκη, or Εἱμαρμένη.

By contrast, Maximus the Confessor – the most profound patristic thinker on the will – articulates a seminal distinction between the ϕυσικὸν θέλημα and the γνωμικὸν θέλημα, drawing upon earlier Fathers.Footnote 46 Nature itself wills and acts by necessity; the human πρόσωπον, however, chooses or rejects both the manner and content of willing and acting.Footnote 47 Nature thus operates in a quantitative mode, whereas man acts qualitatively – and, indeed, decisively.

It is λόγος, ultimately, that marks the fundamental distinction between man and beast and confers upon the former dominion over the latter. It is in his logical treatise that Korydalleus proceeds to articulate the canons governing the function of ὀρθὸς λόγος by expounding the apodeictic method. The study of the correct function of reason constitutes a necessary – though not sufficient – condition for εὐζωΐα. No discussion is undertaken here concerning the spirit or meaning of λόγος. The treatise limits itself to the mechanics of rational function; its content – its logos proper – is treated elsewhere in Korydalleus’ exegeses on the principal works of Aristotle.

The case of the so-called ‘alternative’ preface is indicative of the common practice among seventeenth-century commentators of producing divergent ‘editions’ of philosophical texts.Footnote 48 This phenomenon must be taken seriously into account in the critical editing of seventeenth-century philosophical writings. Beyond the variatio inherent to the commentators themselves, the study of post-Byzantine philosophical manuscripts is tasked with shedding light on scribal interventions –whether at the level of individual glossai or in the form of entire paragraphs and chapters. It must also attempt to identify and attribute a number of texts of uncertain authorship.

The systematic study of manuscripts and the critical edition of the works of Korydalleus, as well as of other commentators from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries, remains a longstanding desideratum of scholarship and one that is essential if we are to form as complete a picture as possible of the premodern contours of philosophical thought within modern Hellenism.

Abbreviations used

BAR (Biblioteca Academiei Române), MSS (Metochion Sancti Sepulchri), NLG (National Library of Greece).

Chariton Karanasios is a Senior Researcher at the Centre for Medieval and Modern Greek Hellenism of the Academy of Athens. He studied Classical Philology at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and is a Doctor of Philosophy of the Freie Universität Berlin. His research focuses on the philological and palaeographical study of Modern Hellenism, including education, scholars, scientific and philosophical manuscripts, and the history of ideas. In the Academy of Athens he is responsible for the programme Education and Ideology of Modern Hellenism.

Vasileios Tsiotras is research associate at the Academy of Athens (Research Centre for Medieval and Modern Hellenism), and adjunct lecturer and post-doctoral researcher at the School of Philosophy and Education, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. He has taught ancient Greek literature, science, and palaeography courses at the University of Thessaly and the AUTH. He is an adviser on the new national curricula in the Greek Ministry of Education. His teaching and research interests embrace classical studies, palaeography, and history of higher education in the Greek-speaking Orthodox East, especially in Constantinople, during the Ottoman era. His work has appeared in Greek and international peer-reviewed journals.

References

1 C. Tsourkas, Les débuts de l’enseignement philosophique et de la libre pensée dans les Balkans. La vie et l’œuvre de Théophile Corydalée (1570–1646) (2nd edn, Thessaloniki 1967); Τ. Α. Gritsopoulos, Πατριαρχικὴ Μεγάλη τοῦ Γένους Σχολή I (Athens 1966) 154–87; G. P. Henderson, The Revival of Greek Thought 1620–1830 (New York 1970), 12–9; G. Podskalsky, Griechische Theologie in der Zeit der Türkenherrschaft: die Orthodoxie im Spannungsfeld der nachreformatorischen Konfessionen des Westens (Munich 1988) 194–9; V. Tsiotras, Ἡ ἐξηγητικὴ παράδοση τῆς Γεωγραφικῆς Ὑφηγήσεως τοῦ Κλαυδίου Πτολεμαίου: οἱ ἐπώνυμοι σχολιαστές (Athens 2006) 223–362, 445–81; N. Agiotis, ‘Greek Aristotelianism in the seventeenth century: uncovering Cesare Cremonini in the works of Theophilos Korydalleus’, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 43.1 (2019) 105–11; Ch. Karanasios and S. Nezeritis, ‘Ἄγνωστη αὐτόγραϕη ἐπιστολὴ τοῦ Θεοϕίλου Κορυδαλλέως πρὸς τὸν Εὐγένιο Γιαννούλη τὸν Αἰτωλὸ (ἔτ. 1643)’, in D.-E. Tsourka-Papastathi, Μ. Μalouta, and Ν. Τoutos (eds.), Κολοφὼν. Τόμος πρὸς τιμὴν τοῦ καθηγητῆ Εὐθυμίου Κ. Λίτσα (Thessaloniki 2024) 357–74.

2 A. Wartelle, Inventaire des manuscrits grecs d’Aristote et de ses commentateures (Paris 1963); D. Harlfinger and J. Wiesner, ‘Die griechischen Handschriften des Aristoteles und seiner Kommentatoren: Ergänzungen und Berichtigungen zum Inventaire von A. Wartelle’, Scriptorium 28 (1964) 238–57; R. Argyropoulos and I. Caras, Inventaire des manuscrits grecs d’Aristote et de ses commentateurs, Contribution à l’histoire du texte d’Aristote, Supplément (Paris 1980).

3 V. Tsiotras, ‘The manuscripts of Theophilos Korydalleus᾿ Commentaries on Aristotle᾿s Logic’, in E. Riondato and A. Poppi (eds), Cesare Cremonini: aspetti del pensiero e scritti (Atti del Convegno di Studio, Padova, 26-27 Febbraio 1999) I (Padua 2000) 219–48.

4 Εἰς ἅπασαν τὴν λογικὴν τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους Ὑπομνήματα καὶ Ζητήματα ὑπὸ τοῦ σοφωτάτου κυρίου Θεοφίλου τοῦ Κορυδαλέως ἐκτεθέντα, νῦν δὲ πρῶτον τύποις ἐκδοθέντα, καὶ μεθ’ ὅσης οἷόν τε ἦν τῆς ἀκριβείας διορθωθέντα, παρὰ κυρίου, Ἀλεξάνδρου Καγκελλαρίου. Ἑνετίησι, Παρὰ Νικολάῳ Γλυκεῖ τῷ ἐξ Ἰωαννίνων, ˏαψκθ΄[= 1729].

5 T. Corydalée, Introduction à la logique, ed. Α. Papadopoulos, C. Tsourkas, and C. Noica (Bucharest 1970).

6 S. P. Lambros, ‘Βίος Εὐγενίου Ἰωαννουλίου τοῦ Αἰτωλοῦ ὑπὸ Ἀναστασίου Γορδίου’, Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων 4 (1907) 43: «… ἐν ὅσῳ αὐτόθι διέτριβε καὶ τὴν κατὰ πεῦσιν καὶ ἀπόκρισιν συνέθετο Λογικήν, ϕιλολόγων τινῶν νέων τῶν ἐξ Ἀττικῆς χάριν» [‘During his time in Athens, as he was composing his Logic in the form of question and answer, he did so for the benefit of certain young men from Attica with a deep love of learning.’] Cf. Tsourkas, Les débuts, 61, 95 n. 2.

7 Corydalée, Introduction à la logique, ΧΧ, ΧΧΧΙ; V. Tsiotras and V. Syros, ‘Greek identity and education in the seventeenth century: Theophilos Korydalleus’ political movement in the Orthodox East’, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 47.2 (2023) 198–217.

8 Tsiotras, ‘The manuscripts’, 241–4: The work is preserved in six codices dating from the seventeenth century, one of which can be dated with relative certainty to the early part of the century: cod. Alexandria, Patriarchal Library 187, ff. 1r–108r, copied by Metrophanes Kritopoulos (1589–1639) during the period when he was still a hieromonk (1606–1617); Podskalsky, Griechische Theologie, 219–25.

9 Α. Antonioni, Caesaris Cremonini in Aristotelis librum De divinatione per somnum commentarium: adiecta versione graeca anonyma Theophilo Corydalleo fortasse adiudicanda (Rome 1996) (reprint from Miscellanea Marciana 7–9, 1992–1994); V. Tsiotras, ‘Τὰ χειρόγραϕα τοῦ ὑπομνήματος τοῦ Θεοϕίλου Κορυδαλλέως στὸ Περὶ ψυχῆς τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους: Ἀπὸ τὴν ἱστορία τῆς νεοελληνικῆς ἐκπαίδευσης (17ος–18ος αἰ.)’, Ἑλληνικὰ 67.1 (2017) 53–83.

10 Tsiotras, ‘The manuscripts’, 241–2.

11 A detailed account is given of the twenty (plus one) dated manuscripts from the seventeenth century, followed by a concise presentation of the remaining twenty-four from the the eighteenth century.

12 L. Politis, Κατάλογος χειρογράφων τῆς Ἐθνικῆς Βιβλιοθήκης τῆς Ἑλλάδος, ἀρ. 1857-2500 (Athens 1991) 336.

13 A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ἱεροσολυμιτικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη IV (St Petersburg 1899, repr. 1963) 94.

14 Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ἱεροσολυμιτικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη IV, 161.

15 Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ἱεροσολυμιτικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη V, 83–4.

16 Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ἱεροσολυμιτικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη V, 135.

17 Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ἱεροσολυμιτικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη V, 236.

18 S. P. Lambros, Κατάλογος τῶν ἐν ταῖς βιβλιοθήκαις τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους ἑλληνικῶν κωδίκων II (Cambridge 1900) 338.

19 Lambros, Κατάλογος, 277–8.

20 Lambros, Κατάλογος, 297–8.

21 Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ἱεροσολυμιτικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη II, 197–9.

22 Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ἱεροσολυμιτικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη II, 199; cf. L. Benakis, ‘Α. Papadopoulos and C. Noica (eds), Théophile Corydalée, Introduction à la Logique (=Théophile Corydalée Œuvres philosophiques I), Bucharest 1970’, Ἑλληνικὰ 24 (1971) 440.

23 V. Tsiotras, ‘Ὁ Εἰς κοιμηθέντας λόγος τοῦ Θεοϕίλου Κορυδαλλέως καὶ ἡ ἀριστοτελικὴ περὶ ψυχῆς θεματική του’, Ὁ Ἐρανιστὴς 29 (2016) 5–45, n. 23: Ἐρρέθη εἰς τὰς Ἀθήνας, μαθητεύοντι παρὰ τῷ Κορυδαλεῖ, τῇ Μεγάλῃ Παρασκευῇ, ˏαχμε΄.

24 A. Sigalas, Ἀπὸ τὴν πνευματικὴν ζωὴν τῶν ἑλληνικῶν Κοινοτήτων τῆς Μακεδονίας. Α. Ἀρχεῖα καὶ Βιβλιοθῆκαι Δυτικῆς Μακεδονίας (Thessaloniki 1939) 26.

25 Th. Antonopoulou, ‘Τρία ἑλληνικὰ χειρόγραϕα τῆς Βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ Πανεπιστημίου Κύπρου’, Ἑλληνικὰ 58 (2008) 304.

26 V. Chatzopoulou, Κατάλογος τῶν ἑλληνικῶν χειρογράφων τοῦ Μουσείου Μπενάκη (16ος-20ὸς αἰώνας) (Athens 2017) 222–4.

27 C. Litzica, Catalogul manuscriptelor greceşti (Bucharest 1909) 46.

28 Litzica, Catalogul manuscriptelor greceşti, 54.

29 Litzica, Catalogul manuscriptelor greceşti, 54. Probably also included in cod. BAR 442 (Litzica 60).

30 Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ἱεροσολυμιτικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη Ι, 246.

31 Ι. Sakkelion, Πατμιακὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, ἤτοι ἀναγραφὴ τῶν ἐν τῇ βιβλιοθήκῃ τῆς κατὰ τὴν νῆσον Πάτμον γεραρᾶς καὶ βασιλικῆς Μονῆς τοῦ Ἁγίου Ἀποστόλου καὶ Εὐαγγελιστοῦ Ἰωάννου τοῦ Θεολόγου τεθησαυρισμένων χειρογράφων κωδίκων (Athens 1890) 161.

32 Sakkelion, Πατμιακὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, 161.

33 V. Atesis, Ἐπισκοπικοὶ κατάλογοι τῆς Ἐκκλησίας τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς μέχρι σήμερον (Athens 1975) 138.

34 Z. Melissakis, Κατάλογος τῶν κωδίκων τῆς Δημοτικῆς Βιβλιοθήκης Τυρνάβου (Athens 2007) 157.

35 Linos Benakis was the first to address the issue of the two prefaces, in Ἑλληνικὰ 24 (1971) 440.

36 Logic, p. 2: ἐπεὶ καὶ ὑμεῖς, ὦ ϕοιτηταί, εὐγνωμόνως ζῆν ἐγνωκότες, καὶ τὸν λόγον τοῦ πλούτου προκρίναντες, καὶ δὴ ἱκανῶς γυμνασθέντες περὶ κυκλοπαιδείαν […] Διὸ καιρὸς ἤδη ἐϕ’ ἑτέραν δέδοκται μεταβῆναι παιδείαν […] διά τε θεωρίας καὶ δυνάμεως λογικῆς [‘For you too, O students – having chosen to live with gratitude and to prefer reason over wealth, and having been thoroughly trained in the foundational disciplines of general education – it is now the appointed time to move on to a higher stage of learning, one pursued through both contemplation and the exercise of logical faculty’].

37 V. Tsiotras, ‘Ἡ ἀνασύσταση τοῦ “κώδικα Ζερλέντη” καὶ ὁ κώδ. Additional 8234 τοῦ Νικολάου Καρατζᾶ’, Μεσαιωνικὰ καὶ Νέα Ἑλληνικὰ 15 (2023–4) 123–52.

38 V. Tsiotras, ‘Ὁ Ἰάκωβος Ἀργεῖος (ca 1660–1736) στὴν Πατριαρχικὴ Σχολή: Νέα στοιχεῖα καὶ ἀπαντήσεις γιὰ ἕναν παλιὸ γρῖϕο’, Ὁ Ἐρανιστὴς 30 (2021) 113–54, and ‘Education and politics in Iakovos Argeios’ oration addressed to Constantine Bassaraba (1708)’, Icoana Credintei 13 (2021) 61–91; A. Tselikas, ‘Νέα στοιχεῖα γιὰ τὴν προσωπικότητα τοῦ διδασκάλου Ἰακώβου τοῦ Ἀργείου, σύμϕωνα μὲ ἄγνωστες ἐπιστολές του’, in Πρακτικὰ Β΄ Τοπικοῦ Συνεδρίου Ἀργολικῶν Σπουδῶν (Ἄργος 30 Μαΐου – 1 Ἰουνίου 1986), ed. T. A. Gritsopoulos (Athens 1989) 385–404.

39 Logic, p. 3: Ἡμεῖς δὲ σὺν Θεῷ τὸν θειότατον ἡμῶν καθηγητὴν προστάτην τοῦ λόγου ποιήσαντες τῇ τούτου περὶ Λογικῆς ἑρμηνείᾳ τὰ πλεῖστα χρησάμενοι, ἐξ ὧν τε ἐγγράϕως παρελάβομεν, ἐξ ὧν τε καὶ ἀκηκοότες τῇ μνήμῃ συμπεριϕέρομεν, ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς ἐν ταῖς κατὰ λογικὴν σπουδαῖς βοηθήσομεν [‘With God’s help, having made our most divine teacher the guardian of reason, and drawing principally upon his interpretation of Logic – both from the texts we have received in writing and from what we have retained in memory through hearing – we shall endeavor to assist you in your own studies in the field of logic’.]

40 Tsiotras, ‘The manuscripts’, 223.

41 Gritsopoulos, Πατριαρχικὴ Μεγάλη τοῦ Γένους Σχολή, 200–4.

42 See Add MS 8225, ff. 49r‒88v: Συλλογισμοὶ καὶ ἐπιχειρήματα τοῦ ςου, ζου καὶ ηου βιβλίου τῆς φυσικῆς, διὰ χειρὸς Ἰωάννου τοῦ Kαρυοφύλλου; G. K. Papazoglou, ‘Χειρόγραϕα τοῦ Νικολάου Καρατζᾶ εἰς τὴν βιβλιοθήκην τοῦ Βρεττανικοῦ Μουσείου (ἄλλοτε χειρόγραϕα Guilford)’, Ἐπετηρὶς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν 49 (1994–1998) 243 n. 1.

43 It should be noted, however, that this transition was far from smooth, but rather the outcome of a prolonged and at times intense conflict between the two men over the course of twenty-six years: D. Apostolopoulos, ‘Διδάσκοντας ϕυσιολογία τὸν 17ο αιώνα στὴν Κωνστατινούπολη’, in D. Apostolopoulos, Γιὰ τοὺς Φαναριῶτες. Δοκιμὲς ἑρμηνείας καὶ Μικρὰ ἀναλυτικά (Athens 2003) 97–9.

44 Podskalsky, Griechische Theologie, 237–8; C. Tsourkas, Germanos Locros, archevêque de Nysse, et son temps (Thessaloniki 1970), 29–35; N. Miladinova, The Panoplia Dogmatike by Euthymios Zygadenos, A study on the first edition published in Greek in 1710 (Leiden 2014) 114–6.

45 Tsiotras, ‘Ὁ Ἰάκωβος Ἀργεῖος’, 123–4, 128, 134–5.

46 Opuscula theologica et polemica, PG 91, 45D–48Α: θέλημα γάρ ἐστι ϕυσικόν, δύναμις τοῦ κατὰ ϕύσιν ὄντος ὀρεκτική … οὐ ταὐτὸν δὲ τὸ πεϕυκέναι θέλειν, καὶ θέλειν … τὸ μὲν οὐσίας ἐστὶ λόγῳ συνεχόμενον· τὸ δὲ βουλῆς, τῇ τοῦ λαλοῦντος γνώμῃ τυπούμενον. ὥστε ϕύσεως μὲν τὸ ἀεὶ πεϕυκέναι λαλεῖν· ὑποστάσεως δέ, τὸ πῶς λαλεῖν· ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ πεϕυκέναι θέλειν καὶ θέλειν … τὸ μὲν γὰρ οὐσίας· τὸ δέ, τῆς τοῦ θέλοντος ὐπάρχει βουλῆς.

47 Cf. V. Lossky, Ἡ μυστικὴ θεολογία τῆς ἀνατολικῆς ἐκκλησίας (tr. S. Plevrakis) (6th edn, Thessaloniki 2007), 143–4.

48 A representative example is the manuscript held in the Tempelis-Manolea private collection, dated to the first half of the seventeenth century, which preserves an early version of Korydalleus’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics; Ch. Karanasios, ‘Αὐτόγραϕα τοῦ Εὐγενίου Γιαννούλη’, Μνήμη Πηνελόπης Στάθη (Herakleion 2010) 262–4.