SCIENCE IN WESTERN AND EASTERN aVIL I7~T ION IN CAROLINGIANF~[ i~ by P. L Balzer Ix l D. Lolm~O 1993 BbJdthus~ Verlag Basel

LEO THE MATHEMATICIAN, HIS LITERARY PRESENCE IN

BYZANTIUM DURING THE 9TH CENTURY

Vassilis Kstsaros

Leo the Mathema~iw (c. 790-869), gene~ly Imown in B)"~m~ um as "the Phik~mpher", has beee seea as the 'Tim figun." of an au~entic man of the Rmmissance" (la prcmi~' figure d'un v6Htxble "honuue de la Renaissance', P. Lemerl). It scans that the contempera~ sources about his life are no morn than a "mythology" that has b~m developed abou; him. H was mmhemmician~ physician, poet and he followed a common career pattern by being promoted ~ne, a private teaching post in Cmmantlnople to the archbishopric of 'Thessaloniki (840-8d3). Al~r the re~tc*,atloa oJ" mxhodoxy Leo held a post establistied by the government; he w~s thehead (from 855 m 866) o4f the University of Caesar Batdas and seems Io have been found acccplabie by his studem~ One or them (Cimslantine-Cyril) was the "light-give.x" of Ihe Slavs. Tlmee o/hers ('I'heodm~ "l~eodegios and Kometas) became pm/e.ssofs of geometry, asoonomy and phitOIogF: thcir oanibetiom was enormous to the intellectual life of Byzantium around Ihe middle of the 9th ceal~m'y. Leo's ~ ia the history of sctences has been sufficiently deFmnd and his offer has been almost completely examined. Nevetlheless the research on his literary coeu'ilbmion has no( been covered satisfaclocily as yek LO*S activity depends on the distinctlitenmj po~tioa that ovemms the literary creation and sweeps round the philosophy and the scientific work; he Io(~ks at 8 scientific wot'k as something needing a beautiful finish. An intet~ptetive i~ilology (a clear cot~eption of the problem) is mote impommt men literature. Leo concluded that the lmity of langua~ reflecLs one's dmughL His ideas had great mfiu~ at his time which is widely Imown as "Early By-zJmtine Remdssance" or ~fhe First Renaissmce in Europe",

To attempt to talk about such an important figure as Leo the Mathematician or Philosopher, particularly within the restricted dmc limits imposed by a conference, is a venture which can be justified only by the subject matter of the conference in question,

Before I actually embark upon this venture, I should l ike first to mention the great conu'ibufion made by earlier

scholars who have studied Leo's life and times. The hundred years which separate the studies of L L. HeibergI and Barry

Baldwin2have seen the work

Hnibmg, -I~ byzami.i~che Mathema~cer Leon', pp. 33-3e. Baldwin, "The Epifplms oi" Leo~, pp. 1-17.

The first "myth" has to do with the "Oikoumenlkon Didukaleion"22, that inefitudon offurther education which the Ico*1oclnm EmpcKx Leo nied m close down in an attempt tostrike n blow m the lJ~ologinld upect of Byzantine education23, which was fundamentally infavour of the veneration of icons. I believe that this "myth" has been inflated, for obviousreasons, by iconolnlric writers endeavounng to build up the role of theological studies in theninth century mo24, This has a bearing on my subject with respect, as we shall see, to thecc, nfiict between Leo and the fanatical champions of the theological, and not the classical,ompom:m of education at that time,

The m~ond "myth" is connected with Leo the Mathematician himself. Outside the context of

Leo as war hero2s, fighter for the f~th26 renowned in scholarly circles for his seeminglyboundless knowledge, the info~rnatinn which mythoingises him for the first time and so

strongly in Byzantium is provided by certain Byzantine chroniclere27~ Though few. .bese Jdam have had such an ermm'mus effect that even modern research does tts best to explmt the

ismallest detail. This "mythology" relates to certain pivotal aspec!s of .Leo's b~osraphy, andthey more or less comprise .11 we know about him. At the same u.me, ins cul!u .mi and sociallevel am reflected in the quality of the education he transnmted to hts own dtsctpies and, byextension, to the intellectual classes of the ninth centurya.

22 For the .oekoumenikm didukaleto~* fee: ~hemmel, Die Ilockackule, pp. 9-10; Rein, aiser1.4o IlL sad die 8kumenl$cke Ak.adem/, pp. 3-43. Fochs, Die Mheren Sck~en, pp. 8-18; ~em. Dieakumenlscke &kodeeg, pp, 177-1721 Ktlltulel, I~ 't '~* o~gott~w|a'~tv &6aoIc~{ov, pp. 41-4~ylmlmpou/os. "Notes s~ r emplacement de l' ohco~l~CVt~v 8t&~to~tov'. pp. 64-91; L,emexle, Lep~rmJnr ktmmnisme, pp. 78-89,

23 See KSelK~I, 'le~tvvrp; Keto.uo, tovl~rqG, p, 166.24 See Lemerie, Le premier kamanbme, pp. 89-96.25 Kazhdm, "The Arlstocracy~, p. 45.2 6 Mow'is, "The myzutMe Aristocracy", p. t 13.2 7 See T&ropham~s Cont[nuatus. pp. 185-197; Pseudo-Symeon. pp. 638-MI; Leo Granmm6~.

pp. 224-223; Geor|lu.t Monackus. pp. 805.8G6; Llutpnmd. Anlapodosis 6. 5, pp. 154-155; loan,sSkyl~tgns. pp. t0l- 107'. Ioann~ ZonaraJ. pp. 399~02; Michael Glycas. pp, 540.5,13; ConstantinusManaJr.~,$. pp. 227.228.

2 8 Lemerle. Le preen~,r kumanlsme, pp. 97.106; Zakylhenos. Bu~at,lr~v/I "loxopla, p. 232; cf.T ~ . T h e B y m q l i ~ R ~ v a l . p p . 3 7 3 - 3 7 9 .

V u s i l i s I ~

Wolters, Paulus, "De Consmntini C..ephalae anthologia", RheinischeJ Muse.urn, N. S. 38(1883), pp. 97-119.

Zakvthenos, A. D., Bvawnvll "Icr~op[a 324-1071, Athens 21977.