SCHRENK, LAWRENCE P., Augustine's "De Trinitate" in Byzantine Skepticism , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:3 (1989) p.451 Augustine's De Trinitate in Byzantine Skepticism Lawrence P. Schrenk W. HILE NO SCHOLAR would underestimate the influence of Augustine on the course of Latin philosophy and theology, the (quite belated) influence of Augustine on Byzantine thought has been the subject of little study. Thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Byzantium saw the translation of numerous Latin works: Boethius' De consolatione philosophiae, Cicero's Som­ nium Scipionis, even Ovid's Metamorphoses and Heroides. At the same time, several more philosophically inclined translators turned their hand to Augustine, and we find his treatises translated by such prominent Greek scholars as Maximus Planudes, Demetrius Kydo­ nes, and Prochoros Kydones. 1 In 1280, Planudes undertook a most ambitious project, a complete translation of the De trinitate. In spite of the many surviving manuscripts containing these translations, little research has been devoted to tracing Augustine's inRuence on Greek thought. Here I shall make a small contribution to this larger enterprise by identifying a previously unrecognized use of Augustine's De trinitate and brieRy discussing its role in the Byzantine debate concerning skepticism. There survives in two manuscripts a very peculiar treatise at­ tributed to one 'Herennios' which purports to be a commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics. 2 The neo-Platonic affinities of this work 1 On the Greek translations of Augustine, see E. Dekkeus, "Les traductions grecques des ecrits patristiques latin," Sacri Erudiri 5 (1953) 193-233; M. Rackl, -Die griechischen Augustinusubersetzungen," in Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle I (Rome 1924) 1-38; S. Valoriani, "Massimo Planude traduttore di S. Agostino," in Atti delia VIlla Congresso internazionale di studi bizantini (Palermo 3-10 aprile 1951) I (Rome 1953) 234; and H. Hunger, Prochoros Kydones, Obersetzungen von acht Briefen des hl. Augustinus (Vienna 1984). 2 The text survives in two manuscripts (B.O.Z. Cim. 142, 1r -98V,Biblioteka Naro­ dowa, Warsaw; and Vat. gr. 1442). The former was edited by the Polish humanist, Szymon Szymonowicz (1558-1629), also called Simon Simonides (Samosc 1604), and the latter by A. Mai, Classicorum auctorum e Vatican is codicibus editorum IX (Rome 1837) 513-93. 451 SCHRENK, LAWRENCE P., Augustine's "De Trinitate" in Byzantine Skepticism , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:3 (1989) p.451 452 DE TRINITATE IN BYZANTINE SKEPTICISM were noted in the last century, and it was at that time thought to be a work of a fifth- or sixth-century neoplatonist. 3 In 1889, however, E. Heitz showed this to be a selection from earlier treatises con­ taining passages from, among others, the Aristotelian commentator Alexander of Aphrodisias and the Neoplatonists Proclus and Damascius. <4 One of the sources for the 'commentary' was the epitome of Aristotelian philosophy written by the Byzantine philos­ opher Georgios Pachymeres (1242-ca 1310). Since Pachymeres was active in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, we cannot assign a date to the compilation as a whole prior to the fourteenth century. Heitz attributed it to Andreas Darmarios. With the discovery of the derivative nature of this work, scholars turned their attention from it. Yet, as we shall see, it contains several . . Interestmg passages. While Heitz succeeded in tracing most of the individual chapters of this treatise to their earlier sources, he was unable to discover the origin of the third chapter. S This chapter attacked ancient skep­ ticism; after a brief introduction, the author summarizes the skep­ tical arguments and provides refutation of that position. Heitz was able to show that the summary of the skeptical tropes was derived from Philo of Alexandria's De ebrietate, but he could find the sources for no other sections of the third chapter. Heitz thus concluded that the compiler of the treatise had contributed these sections. But the technique of the compiler, as witnessed in other chapters of this treatise, never involved a complicated synthesis of multiple texts as we find here. It is more plausible to postulate that it is a text incorporated whole (or with few changes) by the com­ piler. Thus, if the compiler was not responsible for the remainder of chapter three, we must continue the search for its sources in other texts. I give here the Greek of Herennios 3.6. The text is that of Mai (supra n.2: 523f) from Vat. gr. 1442, which I have collated against B.O.Z. Cim. 142, 12v-13v (designated C). l The previous interpretations of this text are discussed by E. Heitz, -Die an­ gebliche Metaphysik des Herennios," SBBerl (1889) 1167-90. 4 Heitz (supra n.3). 5 I identify Galen's On Medical Experience as an additional source for chapter three in -Byzantine Evidence for Galen's On Medical Experience," BZ (forth­ coming). There I shall consider in more detail the context of chapter three and circumstances surrounding its production. SCHRENK, LAWRENCE P., Augustine's "De Trinitate" in Byzantine Skepticism , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:3 (1989) p.451 LAWRENCE P. SCHRENK 453 npo; 'tau'ta ~E 1tav'ta, av't')1t6.'YO~EV Tt~d; A,Oyou; ~paxu(JuA,A,a~ou; , -'." " ' , , \ r:l r:l ' \ " " , '1', J.L£V, u/\"A l.oxupo'ta'tooe; leal. pEpal.OUe; leal. Al.aV avavnpPl1'toue;, EV Ole; ou q>0J311e"oo~E9a 'tOY 'troy Eq>Elenlerov A1ryov on a1ta'tro~E9a· d yap el1tro 'tO of: 'to PTl~a d leal. a1tAoUV leal. ~OVOE10£e; EO'tW, aAA' o.ov E1t' a1t£1.pov ouva'tal. 1tpoxroPTloal.· (, 'Yap AE'YCOV on otoa E~au'tov on ~ro. EV ~£V 'tOl A.£'YE1· d of: d1tOl otoa E~au'tov doo'ta o'tl. ~ro, ouo OTt1tOU A.£'YEl' d of: et1t01. 1taAW, on otoa 'ta\ha OUO, 'tpi'tov 15 do£val. EO'ttV' OU'tE of: ouva'tal leal. 'tE'tap'tov 1tP008EtVal leal. 1t£~1t'tov' leal. 'tou'to E1t' a1t£1.pov XroPTtO£1 roc; etPl1'tal.· d of: dxn 1taAW, on otoa E~au'tov leal. Qv'ta leat ~rov'ta leal. voouv'ta. 'tiC; iiv EXrov vouv a~V ouode; iiv ~Vl1~OVEU01, ~i1 roy ~i1 of: ~rov ~Tt of: vorov' 1tEPl. 1tOAA.roV ~Ev 1tpa'Y~(i'trov ';~£1C't6~ C 14: ta ouo C 17: ovtco~ C 20 tOV J.llt: to J.llt C 29: ~oUA.tt(X\ del. C The refutation of skepticism is of particular interest to students of Augustine, for the argument used to refute the skeptic is a variant of si enim falIorJ Sh,m ("If I am mistaken, I exist"). The precise ar­ gument of our text is that by virtue of a variety of mental actions, such as doubting or being deceived, we must conclude that we live. Even in doubting, we are aware of ourselves as an existent entity now in the process of doubting. Through the continued application SCHRENK, LAWRENCE P., Augustine's "De Trinitate" in Byzantine Skepticism , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:3 (1989) p.451 454 DE TRINITATE IN BYZANTINE SKEPTICISM of such doubt (i.e., doubting that we doubtt then doubting that we doubt that we doubt), we can multiply our stock of discrete bits of certain knowledge ad infinitum. The arguments that constitute this refutation are in fact derived from Augustine; a comparison of the si enim failor, sum argument found in our third chapter with the Greek version of Augustine's De trinitate translated by Planudes shows that this refutation of skepticism is composed of arguments from that work. Thus Planudes' translation of De Trin. 10.14: 6 CllV ~E Eau'tov Kal IlEIlvllo9at Kal VOElV Kal geAElV Kal A,OYlCE09at Kal 'YlVcOOKElV Kal KPlV£\V. 'tl<; allppcovoC; tOU lCatap(ltou, in A. Elter and L. Radermacher, Analecta graeca (Bonn 1899). 12 From an unpublished letter to Johannes Gahras; tr. Sevcenko (supra n.11) 51. SCHRENK, LAWRENCE P., Augustine's "De Trinitate" in Byzantine Skepticism , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:3 (1989) p.451 456 DE TRINITATE IN BYZANTINE SKEPTICISM with polemics phrased in syllogistic form. It is unfortunate that we lack the specific arguments of this unnamed opponent, for of all these men this interlocutor of Palamas seems to have been the most philosophical in that he applied the skeptical methodology to the theological arguments of current concern. But let us return to our author and an evaluation of his use of Augustine in his contemporary situation. The general orthodox response to the renewed threat of skepticism had been philosophi­ cally banal. The skeptics had seemingly attempted serious philo­ sophical argumentation. Of the orthodox, it is only the author of our text who even attempts to give a rational refutation of skep­ ticism; and, although one might find a number of serious defects in his attack on the skeptical position, he is nonetheless to be credited with presenting the only philosophical response to the enemies of the faith. For the moment this extraordinary philosopher-scholar must remain anonymous. But further study of the revival of skepticism in the fourteenth century might reveal the identity of the man who brought the fifth-century Latin arguments of Augus­ tine to bear on the fourteenth-century Greek debate concerning skepticism. After the generation of Palamas, the eastern interest in skepticism waned, and this argument appears to have had no lasting influence on the Greek tradition. 13 THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA December. 1990 13 I should like to express my gratitude to Richard Sorabji for reading and com­ menting on an early version of this paper and E. E. Benitez for his comments on the present version.