Byzantine Science

by

Divna Manolova

• LAST MODIFIED: 24 July 2024
• DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195396584-0338

Introduction

The study of the sciences in Byzantium is not a recent trend in Byzantine studies scholarship. At the beginning of the twentieth century, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and other sciences were defined as publication categories in the Byzantinische Zeitschrift bibliography. Despite this, critical editions were lacking until the 1980s and it is only since the 2010s that the existing research surpassed, in terms of both quantity and scope, a critical threshold that allowed it to form as an independent, sustainable, and growing field within Byzantine and Medieval Studies, as well as within the respective remits of history of science and history of knowledge. It is only in 2020 that the subfield received its first extensive and comprehensive synthetic overview, which employed a wide definition of Byzantine science, thus incorporating a paradigm larger than the commonly applied late antique framework of the four mathematical disciplines of the so-called quadrivium, or μαθηματικὴ τετρακτύς in Greek, that is, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music (harmonics). In other words, Byzantine science as an independent subject of research has received recognition only recently and its scope includes non-mathematical disciplines as well, such as geography, zoology, botany and pharmacology, medicine, meteorology, and physics as well as the so-called occult sciences and the technology of warfare. Even so, the most persistent narrative regarding science (but also other cultural and intellectual products) of the Byzantine millennium is that of the absence of an “original contribution” and the important role Byzantium played, as a depository, preserving ancient and Hellenistic Greek heritage for it to be rediscovered by the Italian humanists and, more generally, by the West during the fourteenth and the fifteenth centuries. Instead, what should be taken into account in evaluating and understanding Byzantine science and intellectual culture more generally includes, first, the educational structures and underlying social, political (imperial and centralized), and institutional infrastructures, and, second, the characteristics of book production and circulation in Byzantium. Understanding the needs of the imperial and ecclesiastical administrations, the functioning of schools, and the structuring of curricula as evidenced in the extant manuscripts is thus essential for the study of the sciences in Byzantium on the terms of the historical actors involved in the creation of knowledge about the world and in its transfer.

General Overviews

In this first Francophone overview of Byzantine science, Théodoridès 1957 asserts that Byzantium’s most notable achievement is the preservation of classical Greek culture even though some scholars did make noteworthy individual contributions. Built on the premise that the history of the sciences in Byzantium is a series of alternating periods of strong interest in and absolute neglect of the subject, the first Anglophone systematic overview in Vogel 1967 perpetuates the position that Byzantium did not develop anything “original” but played an important role in preserving ancient knowledge until its rediscovery by the West. Lazaris 2020, just like Codoñer 2003 and Tihon 2013, adopts a wide definition of the sciences in Byzantium and covers multiple disciplines of interest to historians of science, technology, and knowledge. It discusses the place of Byzantine science in the history of European science and offers a new definition of the subject. Nicolaidis 2011 also offers a comprehensive survey and the longest chronological span among all entries in this section. It has been criticized for perpetuating outdated and old-fashioned interpretations concerning the medieval period and for relying extensively on secondary literature rather than on a direct study of the relevant sources. Codoñer 2003 offers a concise discussion with a useful commentary on the relationship between the ecclesiastical establishment and the pursuers of scientific endeavors and on the transmission of knowledge to and from Byzantium, both west- and eastwards. Tihon 2013 and O’Meara 2017 introduce the theoretical discussion and circumscription of the sciences in Byzantium and the cultural and educational contexts underpinning the scientific pursuits of the Byzantines. Finally, Glynias, et al. 2022 offers a brief and recent assessment of the processes of scientific knowledge transfer via translations in between Greek and Arabic, based on a survey of a thematic section in the journal Mediterranea 7 (2022).

• Codoñer, Juan Signes. “Ciencia y técnica en Bizancio.” In Ciencia y cultura en la Edad Media: Actas VIII y X. Edited by Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deportes del Gobierno de Canarias, 215–252. Tenerife, Spain: Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deportes del Gobierno de Canarias, 2003.

  Written in Spanish, this extended chapter surveys succinctly the history of the disciplines of architecture, mechanics, and engineering. It also discusses the so-called popular and pseudo-sciences, medicine, astronomy. Suitable for undergraduate teaching.

• Glynias, Joe, Zachary Chitwood, and Johannes Pahlitzsch. “Laying a Framework for Arabo-Greek Studies: The Translation of Arabic Scientific Texts into Greek between the Ninth and Fifteenth Centuries.” Mediterranea: International Journal on the Transfer of Knowledge 7 (2022): 137–142.

  DOI: 10.21071/mijtk.v7i.14368

  An introduction to The Translation of Arabic Scientific Texts into Greek between the 9th and 15th Centuries, a journal issue thematic section. Provides summaries of the section articles (see Roughan 2022 [cited under Astral Sciences: Astronomy]; Glynias 2022 [cited under Astral Sciences: Astrology]; and Pietrobelli and Cronier 2022 [cited under Human and Veterinary Medical Sciences) and therefore, an entry point into current research on transfer of scientific knowledge from Arabic into Greek via translation and vice versa.

• Lazaris, Stavros, ed. A Companion to Byzantine Science. Brill’s Companions to the Byzantine World 6. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2020.

  The most up-to-date systematic survey in English. The best teaching aid for the subject at present. Includes multiple illustrations and previously unpublished material.

• Nicolaidis, Efthymios. Science and Eastern Orthodoxy: From the Greek Fathers to the Age of Globalization. Medicine, Science, and Religion in Historical Context. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011.

  DOI: 10.1353/book.11152

  Surveying the scientific legacy of the Orthodox world (medieval and modern), the book covers both the Byzantine period (the fourth to the fifteenth centuries) and the history of science of Greek-speaking Orthodox Christian communities in Europe from then onwards and into the twentieth century. By now an outdated resource, surpassed by Lazaris 2020.

• O’Meara, Dominic. “Conceptions of Science in Byzantium.” In The Cambridge Intellectual History of Byzantium. Edited by Anthony Kaldellis and Niketas Siniossoglou, 169–182. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2017.

  Innovative in its research question, this short chapter is extremely useful for introducing the discussion of the history of knowledge and the sciences in Byzantium. It is organized chronologically and follows the history of the Aristotelian conception of science in Byzantium. The teaching of Michael Psellos (b. c. 1018–d. 1078) is examined as a representative case study.

• Théodoridès, Jean. “La science byzantine.” In Histoire générale des sciences, publiée sous la direction de René Taton. Vol. 1, La science antique et médiévale (des origines à 1450). Edited by René Taton, 490–502. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1957.

  Adopts a tripartite structure of classification of the scientific domains in Byzantium, namely exact (the mathematical sciences), natural (alchemy, chemistry, botany, zoology), and medical sciences (human and veterinary, pharmacology). Outdated but useful in order to demonstrate the developments within scholarship in terms of approach and interpretation since the 1950s. It has important historiographical value, as it is an early example of incorporating Byzantium into a global narrative of the history of science.

• Tihon, Anne. “Science in the Byzantine Empire.” In The Cambridge History of Science. Vol. 2, Medieval Science. Edited by David C. Lindberg and Michael H. Shank, 190–206. Cambridge History of Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

  Offers a brief sketch of the historical and cultural background to the history of the sciences in Byzantium and then surveys the following epistemic domains: mathematics, astronomy, astrology, music theory, geography, optics and mechanics, alchemy and chemistry, botany, and zoology.

• Vogel, Kurt. “Byzantine Science.” In The Cambridge Medieval History. Vol. 4, The Byzantine Empire; Part II, Government, Church and Civilisation. Edited by J. M. Hussey, 264–305. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1967.

  Outdated but useful in order to demonstrate the developments within scholarship in terms of approach and interpretation since the 1960s. Mistakenly speaks about a “university” in Constantinople and, in general, seeks the Byzantine “original contribution” to medieval science and rarely finds it. Its wide disciplinary scope and manuscript references are useful.