Science and Tech of the Byzantine Empire
nautil.us
nautil.us
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Early_career_...
"The History of Byzantium” is a podcast dedicated to the story of the Roman Empire from the collapse of the West in 476 to the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Byzantine history is fascinating, world changing and largely forgotten. Listen and discover who they were."
http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/
Pierson describes in the first episode how he was inspired to pickup where Duncan left off at the fall of the western empire.
Imagine how many enemies, crisis and emperors they had to go through, yet they survived for a very, very long time.
I think it's fairest to calculate it from the founding of Rome (21 Apr 753 BC) to the fall of Constantinople (29 May AD 1453): 2,205 years. In that time it went from a kingdom to a republic to an empire, but the Roman government continued in one form or another.
Not to mention the forth crusade!!
For anyone interested in learning the history I would suggest John Julius Norwich's trilogy. Impeccable work.
Huh? I'll admit I'm not that well-read about Byzantine history, but I had always been under the impression that from the reign of Heraclius (mid-7th-century) onwards[1] the court language was always or virtually always Greek.
[1] Which is also as good a dividing line as any between the "Roman" and "Byzantine" periods.
Also: take a look at why we have a subject called "algebra" while we have a 17th century system "calculus" named after the roman word for pebble.
Nicely, the Wikipedia's entry for "algorithm" starts with the etymology of the word, which combines these threads (Hindu scholars -> Islamic scholars -> medieval scholars)º. BTW the Indian counting system's roots appear to lie in Babylonian sexagesimal counting but the Indians appear to be the first to figure out position numeration and do 5/10-based arithmetic quickly and simply by taking advantage of it.
º And doesn't mention the congressional funding of the Internet at all (if you remember that hoary joke)
It took a while, but now I know more about 10th century hydrological engineering in Northern Africa than I did before...
Yes, they are entirely different languages, cultures & religions (Persians are traditionally Zoroastrian, although the vast majority of modern Persians are Moslem, like the Arabs).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Persia
That beautiful region, Persia, never really recovered from the Arab conquest. Although its dying embers did fuel the Islamic Golden Age for a few more centuries, until finally and tragically extinguished.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid_Revolution#Discontent_...
The question of the "nationality" of many Islamic Golden Age scientists is interesting, with many people and nations claiming them as "theirs". There are even Soviet [1] and Uzbekistani [2] postal stamps commemorating al-Khwarizmi, since as his name implies he was originating from Khwarezm (now part of Uzbekistan), which at the time was under Persian rule.
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/19...
[2] http://news.uzreport.uz/foto/2014/04/tmb1/13977401582.jpg
Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia's Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane
>"Culturally, politically, and most remarkable of all even religiously, the Iranian contribution to this new Islamic civilization is of immense importance. The work of Iranians can be seen in every field of cultural endeavor, including Arabic poetry, to which poets of Iranian origin composing their poems in Arabic made a very significant contribution."
> Science, medicine, philosophy and technogy in the newly Islamized Iranian society was influenced by and based on the scientific model of the major pre-Islamic Iranian universities in the Sassanian Empire. During this period hundreds of scholars and scientists vastly contributed to technology, science and medicine, later influencing the rise of European science during the Renaissance.
"The real influence of Dionysius in the West began with the gift in 827 of a Greek copy of his works by the Byzantine Emperor Michael II to the Carolingian King Louis the Pious. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Dionysius_the_Areopagit...
Most were disseminated in Europe after the fourth crusade in which Constantinople was sacked.
See also: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/byz/byz-mss-art.asp
The myth that somehow the West owes access to the texts of Ancient Greece to the anti-reason Moslem world is very misleading. One would have to believe that there was zero contact for one thousand years between Western Europe and Byzantium -- an utterly, bizarrely wrong notion.
I can own a book my entire life, it doesn't make me an expert on it and people I interact with won't gain an interest in it.
The fact that Byzantine scholars were inclined to Platonism does not mean that they destroyed or completely ignored Aristotle's works.
The fact that scholars in Europe thought by the 12th century that maybe they should pay more attention to Aristotle does not mean that they had entirely forgotten who he was.
The fact that Pépin the Short (8th century) received a copy of Aristotle's works in Greek from pope Paul I does not mean that the West had completely lost --nor lost interest in-- the Aristotelian body of work.
He was largely ignored throughout the Christian world, but not completely. I haven't heard this Pepin story, quick research could only find it originating from the thirteenth century. Seems like standard Catholic propaganda, the great Pope sent books to ensure Charles Martel would have the knowledge necessary to stop the Muslim armies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_Aristotle
In fact most of Byzantium natural philosophy was based on Aristotle:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/byzantine-philosophy/#Top
"Leo the Mathematician [790-869] ... appointed to the chair of philosophy at the Magnaura School in the mid-9th century, was to teach Aristotelian logic. In fact, elementary Aristotelian logic and natural philosophy combined with elementary mathematics would always form the standard philosophical curriculum in Byzantium" [for at least the next 400 years].
The heirs of the Roman Empire did not depend on nor need Moslem culture for the study and transmission of Aristotle's works. We know it because the Byzantines kept studying Aristotle for centuries, until they were destroyed by Moslem armies, and at the same time the Carolingians had access to Greek works and Greek translators -- including the Byzantines themselves.
Leo the Mathematician supposedly lived on an island with frequent contact with Muslims, and then supposedly met with the Caliph. Even still, I can't find where this tie to Aristotle comes from.
According to everything I've read about Leo, he was from the Greek mainland, he did not have "frequent contact" with Moslems, and he never "met with the Caliph".
Given your repeated quoting of a thirteenth century source on the alleged seventh century burning of the Library of Alexandria, I'm done.
It's simply not true that Aristotle died out in Byzantium. All these intellectual currents were absorbed into the Christian theology of Byzantium which is Orthodox and different from Western Christiandom.
See also when released: http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/history/europe...
Your first book lists five people covered in the book, all of them outside the period being discussed. I have no idea why you think the second one will support your argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliotheca_(Photius)
Lots of emperors were very learned:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_VII
And there were philosophers throughout that time period:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Psellos
What makes you think Aristotle was neglected?
The neoplatonic views of Christianity during the period are well known, and several hundred years of that lead to Aristotle being neglected.
See: http://neoskosmos.com/news/en/photius-dr-nick-trakakis-2011
Interesting article: http://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/download/11951/4059
Also look at the works of Arethas who was active around this time. The works of Aristotle were frequently cited throughout Byzantine history.
Lots of neoplatonists wrote commentaries on Aristotle so it's not like they're mutually exclusive.
Did you read that article? Again, it agrees with everything I'm saying. Sixth century authors, five centuries with almost nothing, then a return. Even the sixth century mentions they were unfamiliar with Aristotle's actual works, except maybe reading "Categories," the only work I can find Photius or Aretha's commenting on. And it mentions repeatedly that Plato had dominance, even saying Aristotlean views were near heresy at times.
There were no new commentaries on Aristotle for a long time but that doesn't mean he was forgotten.
Notice also throughout all these links that it is unanimous that after Islamic invasion learning in general went into quick and rapid decline.
Good article: http://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanac...
So Photius wrote something on "Topics," we're now at 1/3rd of Aristotle's principle collection on Logic. Nothing about his further philosophical ideas.
You must remember that all the original church fathers quoted and discussed Aristotle, so the Byzantine theology made frequent reference to him. He was part of the religious canon.
Aristotle worship was wrong anyway, the Byzantines and Avicenna were right to concentrate on Plato and not the inferior Aristotle. Most of which was incorporated into early Christian theology, Aristotle was rightly marginalised but that doesn't mean he was forgotten.
Going back to your first source offered,
"It deserves to be noted that before the 12th century, the whole Byzantine output of Aristotelian commentaries dealt exclusively with the works on logic."
Your opinion on what the better philosophy is does not matter. It's funny to see you take a neoplatonic view and try to argue that they welcomed competing ideas.
We have also lost a lot of Byzantium primary sources but it is obvious from reading the remaining primary sources that knowledge of Aristotle was assumed.
It is not stated anywhere that Aristotle was "forgotten", in all the primary documents including Neoplatonic Aristotle is frequently mentioned.
Where do you get the idea that Byzantium and Islam were in philosophic discourse?
Also see this article: https://books.google.com/books?id=uU8Sgwge6NsC&pg=PA15&lpg=P....
What primary sources are you using? As none of the plethora you keep bringing up are primary. And why would something's state it had forgotten Aristotle? If you don't value something, it's just largely ignored.
Many of the philosophers brought up in this discussion recorded contact with the Abbasid Caliphate in some manner. They shared a border and the Mediterranean, it would be hard not to be in contact.
That one says the same as the rest.
I can keep citing articles claiming Aristotle was not forgotten but it seems pointless at this stage. Many of the early church fathers mention Aristotle.
Aristotle was considered a minor philosopher throughout this time but his work was still available.
Another article for you: https://books.google.ie/books?id=Hkf6n9oKFmYC&pg=PA159&lpg=P...
All of your articles say the same thing, quoting again,
"It deserves to be noted that before the 12th century, the whole Byzantine output of Aristotelian commentaries dealt exclusively with the works on logic."
That's basically my point, his philosophical work was ignored. All of your sources have supported this, you even seem to be searching specifically for sources saying this now judging by that link.
What you haven't shown is any serious thought put into his philosophical work during that period, or given any other cause for his sudden resurgence besides Islamic influence. You're trying to disprove my argument that he was ignored until the Islamic works by saying "see they said Aristotle in 750, he wasn't forgotten."
https://www.amazon.com/Political-Writings-Regime-Summary-Edi...
As the other poster notes, he does have strong connections to Nestorian Christians of the time. They're the group that translated Aristotle from Syriac to Arabic that later led to the Latin translations bring made. And they had little to do with the Romans/Byzantines, having been condemned as heretical by the Roman church in the fifth century.
He probably brushed up on Aristotle at the time.
His early teachers were Nestorian Christians.
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/farabi-i
Either way, you agree his time in Baghdad with the Nestorians came earlier, and they were far more involved in writing about Aristotle than any Byzantine known today. Maybe he did seek Greek versions of his work in Constantinople, those works were not influential in the Byzantine Empire.
I don't see how any of this is overly relevant to the discussion.
I have no idea what manuscripts you're claiming say the Greeks are in full possession of their philosophical heritage, but that is obviously false when you think about how many works have been lost over the millennia. Even being in possession of them wouldn't change that they were being ignored though, the whole "lack of commentary until the thirteenth century" bit.
I agree that no new commentaries were written and that Aristotle was considered a relatively minor philosopher during this time. But it's not true to state that the Caliphate was responsible for preserving his writings or that he was 'forgotten'.
However as I stated above this in my opinion is the correct way to approach Aristotle. Aristotle should be relegated to a minor role as both orthodox Christianity and later Avicennism did.
At no point in this tedious discussion have I said his writing was only preserved in the Caliphate, nor that he was ever "forgotten." I've made it very clear his ideas were ignored outside of Islamic philosophy, and it is contact with that philosophy that led to the it's influence in Christian philosophy. From my first post on this subject,
"I can own a book my entire life, it doesn't make me an expert on it and people I interact with won't gain an interest in it."
Good for you. Personally I find the whole "knowledge is divine insight" thing to be rubbish, but I can see why it would appeal to theistic philosophy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_Aristotle
This was all official dogma and part of the religious canon throughout the Byzantine empire. To say Islamic philosophy lead to the influence of Aristotle in Christianity simply isn't true. You've already admitted as much by saying that Nestorian Christianity was heavily Aristotelian. However that is not to say that later Islamic commentaries were not considered very useful. It's the unfortunate influence of Aquinas that lead to the later Aristotle fetish in the west.
Read all about it here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arabic-islamic-influence/
Also http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2005/07/hyping_islam...
We have also lost a lot of Byzantium primary sources but it is obvious from reading the remaining primary sources that knowledge of Aristotle was assumed.
It is not stated anywhere that Aristotle was "forgotten", in all the primary documents including Neoplatonic Aristotle is frequently mentioned.
Where do you get the idea that Byzantium and Islam were in philosophic discourse?
Also see this article: https://books.google.com/books?id=uU8Sgwge6NsC&pg=PA15&lpg=P...
The Byzantines preserved the classical Greek literature much better. They preserved it in the language it was written and which they still understood. When, starting the early XV, the bulk of that literature was translated into Latin and disseminated, thanks to Guttenberg, through Italy and Europe, the true rebirth started.
It's frustrating that so many people talk as if the Byzantines had zero contact with Western Europe for a thousand years.
In the 11th and 12th century Moslem leaders were confronted with a choice -- tolerate and encourage scholars of reason, such as Averroes, who were inspired by their reading of Ancient Greek texts; or enforce adherence to faith in the one, holy book and god as the single explanation of all phenomena. They chose faith (and force) over reason. Averroes lived, and suffered opposition, through that period.
According to the annual "UN Arab Human Development Report": 65 million Arab adults are illiterate; only about 300 books are translated from English to Arabic annually; even Greece translates 5x more books into Greek each year than are translated into Arabic (5x with a population ratio of 1/30).
Here is another, detailed report: Illiteracy in the Arab World. [1]
Aside: I just noticed some countries have incredibly low literacy rates. The worst is Niger with 19% [2].
[1] https://www.dvv-international.de/adult-education-and-develop...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_...
Moslem chronicles attribute this to Caliph Omar: "If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them."
Whether the Library was destroyed in stages, and by a variety of earlier parties, is completely irrelevant.
If you are defended "final", last destruction of a rebuilt library intended to be as grand - I am unaware of support for this, but would be interested.
EDIT: A downvote? How about a source instead?
The rediscovery and veneration of Ancient Greek philosophy and science was not caused by a new-found ability to read Ancient Greek texts -- but by a new inclination to respect reason, which had last reigned in full glory during Ancient Greece.
Reference: "The Aristotle Adventure: A Guide to the Greek, Arabic, and Latin Scholars who Transmitted Aristotle's Logic to the Renaissance"
[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/medieval-philosophy/index...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_of_the_Greek_Clas...
The links you provide support my argument, although they incorrectly claim that knowledge of the Greek language and Greek texts themselves at some point almost disappeared from the West. This is false. For instance Pépin le Bref, father of Carolus Magnus (Charles the Great) petitioned pope Paul I and was gifted a large collection of Greek works including a copy of Aristotle's works, as well as access to a contingent of translators (over the centuries Byzantine monks regularly travelled to Italy, teaching Greek and bringing Greek works with them). The Carolingians did not primarily rely on Arabic texts to access the Greek works, and those who did initially use these texts quickly turned to original Greek copies for the sake of quality and completeness. One of the key Latin translations of Aristotle's works in the 12th century was made directly from Greek by Iacobus Veneticus Graecus (James of Venice) who studied in Constantinople; that translation was the one read by Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas.
Also the several attempts at bird-like planes to fly (with movable bird-like wings).
When the western capital Rome fell, people moved east (imagine moving from California to New York). But the Byzantines still called themselves Roman.
When the eastern capital was invaded by the Ottoman Turks, they moved west to rebuild Rome - and started the "Renaissance".
There was no Renaissance, some magical discovery of ancient knowledge, with masterful artists and scientists like the world had never seen. It was a continuation of the Roman tradition!
In fact, one can even go back before Rome to Greece, to Alexander the Great conquering Darius the Mede, to Medo-Persia, to Babylon, to Assyria, to Mesopotamia.
Writing was invented in 3 places: Sumeria, China, and South America. But the Mayan history is almost lost (3 books survive). Western culture split from middle-eastern, and Indian civilisation got fragmented until the British Raj forced everyone to learn English, a Latin language.
Since the dawn of history, there have been Western, Middle Eastern, and China as world powers.
Only in this generation do we have machine translation (Google Translate) to finally share our knowledge more easily between these cultures.
I propose a translated search. Pass the query through Google Translate before loading results. Then if I want to know about the legend of a talking ox, I can find it from Pliny ( http://peterburk.github.io/pliny ) or from the Chinese.
It only needs the simple observation the kind of Philoponos did to refute Aristotle's thesis. And his arguments show that he knew what he was talking about -- very to the point.
What would need "a theory and better experiments" would be to create a physics of falling -- Philoponos didn't do that (or said he did). He merely refuted Aristotle. We celebrate Democritus atomic theory for far less (as he did no experiments and it was just an idea he had).
But there are a few interesting tidbits, and it's a quick read.
Might have been interesting to read if there had been more than clickbait so I only read the first two of the six. The fact that the earth is a globe was known at least 1200 years earlier than Symeon Seth because the circumference had been measured by Eratosthenes <https://www.thoughtco.com/eratosthenes-biography-1435011>.
I'm disappointed, Nautilus is usually a bit better than this.