Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy

Living Edition
| Editors: Henrik Lagerlund

Logic, Byzantine

  • Katerina Ierodiakonou
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1151-5_305-2


The Byzantine attitude toward the study and use of logic was ambivalent. Although some Byzantine thinkers argued that logic is of no value in the search for true knowledge, and so logical studies should be dismissed, some others treated logic as the preliminary stage of the philosophical curriculum as well as an instrument in defending Christian doctrines or in rejecting heretic and pagan views. Thus, there were Byzantine philosophers who wrote commentaries and paraphrases of the Aristotelian Organon, small essays on specific logical issues, and brief introductions to logic. Their interpretations of Aristotle’s texts are not always original, but they are worth studying as important sources of ancient logic and as stepping-stones in the history of logic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


Primary Sources

  1. Anonymus Heiberg. (1929). Anonymi logica et quadrivium, J. L. Heiberg (Ed.). Copenhagen: Andr. Fred. Høst.Google Scholar
  2. Arethas of Caesarea. (1994). Arethas of Caesarea’s Scholia on Porphyry’s Isagoge and Aristotle’s Categories (Codex Vaticanus Urbinas Graecus 35) (Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi: Commentaria in Aristotelem Byzantina 1), M. Share (Ed.). Athens: The Academy of Athens.Google Scholar
  3. Eustratios of Nicaea. (1907). Eustratii in Analyticorum posteriorum librum secundum commentarium (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 21.1), M. Hayduck (Ed.). Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
  4. George Scholarios. (1936). Œuvres complètes de Gennade Scholarios (Vol. VII), L. Petit, X. A. Sideridès, and M. Jugie (Eds.). Paris: Maison de la bonne presse.Google Scholar
  5. John Italos. (1924/1926). Johannis Itali Opuscula selecta, Vol. I: De arte dialectica & Vol. II: De syllogismis, De arte rhetorica, G. Cereteli (Ed.). Tbilisi.Google Scholar
  6. John Italos. (1956). Ioannes Italos Quaestiones quodlibetales (AΠOPIAI KAI ΛYΣEIΣ) (Studia Patristica et Byzantina 4), P. Joannou (Ed.). Ettal: Buch-Kunstverlag.Google Scholar
  7. John Italos. (1966). Ioannis Itali Opera, N. Ketschakmadze (Ed.). Tbilisi.Google Scholar
  8. John Italos. (1999). Byzantinische Kommentatoren der aristotelischen Topik. Joannes Italos & Leon Magentinos, S. Kotzabassi (Ed.). Thessaloniki: Vanias.Google Scholar
  9. Michael of Ephesus. (1898). Alexandri quod fertur in Aristotelis Sophisticos elenchus commentarium (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 2.3), M. Wallies (Ed.). Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
  10. Photios. (1986). Photii Epistulae et Amphilochia (Vol. V, qu. 137–147), L. G. Westerink (Ed.). Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
  11. Michael Psellos. (1992). Michaelis Pselli Philosophica minora, 1. Opuscula logica, physica, allegorica, alia, J. Duffy (Ed.). Stuttgart: Teubner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nikephoros Blemmydes. (1885). Nicephori Blemmidae Epitome logica, J. Wegelin (Ed.). In J.-P. Migne (Ed.), Patrologia graeca (Vol. 142, pp. 685–1004). Paris.Google Scholar
  13. Sophonias. (1884). Anonymi in Aristotelis Sophisticos elenchos paraphrasis (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 23.4), M. Hayduck (Ed.). Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
  14. Theodore Prodromos. (1887). Théodore Prodrome sur le grand et le petit. In P. Tannery (Ed.), Annuaire de l’Association pour l’encouragement des études grecques en France (Vol. 21, pp. 104–119).Google Scholar
  15. Theodore Prodromos. (1963). Ξενέδημος ἢ φωναί. In J. A. Cramer (Ed.), Anecdota graeca e codicibus manuscriptis Bibliothecarum Oxoniensium (Vol. III, pp. 204–215). Oxford, 1836 (Reprinted Amsterdam).Google Scholar

Secondary Sources

  1. Benakis, L. (1988). Commentaries and commentators on the logical works of Aristotle in Byzantium. In R. Clausen & R. Daube-Schackat (Eds.), Gedankenzeichen. Festschrift Klaus Oehler (pp. 3–12). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
  2. Cacouros, M. (1994–1995). La tradition du commentaire de Théodore Prodrome au deuxième livre de Seconds Analytiques d’Aristote: quelques étapes dans l’enseignement de la logique à Byzance. Diptucha, 6, 329–354.Google Scholar
  3. Ebbesen, S. (1981). Commentators and commentaries on Aristotle’s Sophistici Elenchi: A study of post-Aristotelian ancient and medieval writings on fallacies (3 Vols.). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  4. Ierodiakonou, K. (1996). The hypothetical syllogisms in the Greek and Latin traditions. Cahiers de l’Istitut du Moyen-Age Grec et Latin, 66, 96–116.Google Scholar
  5. Ierodiakonou, K. (2002). The anti-logical movement in the fourteenth century. In K. Ierodiakonou (Ed.), Byzantine philosophy and its ancient sources (pp. 219–236). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Ierodiakonou, K. (2005). The Byzantine reception of Aristotle’s categories. Synthesis Philosophica, 39, 7–31.Google Scholar
  7. Podskalsky, G. (1977). Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
  8. Sinkewicz, R. E. (1980). A new interpretation for the first episode in the controversy between Barlaam the Calabrian and Gregory Palamas. Journal of Theological Studies, 31, 489–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of History and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of AthensAthensGreece
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland