The story behind John Monfasani's recent publications on George Amiroutzes is worth retelling by way of an introduction in this review: it is of an enviably dramatic nature. Until very recently, Amiroutzes's known works were very few, and the main work, the Dialogus de fide, was known only through a Renaissance Latin translation. Monfasani's work has changed all that. Asked to review the edition of the Dialogus de fide published in 2000 by Oscar de la Cruz Palma, Monfasani started on a voyage of discovery. First, he was able to rediscover the fifth part of the Latin translation itself: the edition was based on the translator's autograph manuscript, located in Paris, from which a fifth of the text was missing. Monfasani realised that three Vatican manuscripts contained the full text, and published an article recording this and providing an edition of the missing text. But the story does not end there. Monfasani was next able to make a connection with a manuscript in Toledo, when he realised that the incipit of a text recorded in an 1892 catalogue as being the work of Theodore of Gaza corresponded to the opening of Amiroutzes's Dialogus de fide. Thus was the original Greek rediscovered. But still the story continues: this manuscript, Biblioteca Capitular 96–67, itself a rather fascinating compendium of texts, also contained a set of tractates by ‘The Philosopher’, clearly, by virtue of context and content, indicating their composition by Amiroutzes himself. It is these tractates, with introduction, edition and translation, which are made available by Monfasani in the volume at present under review.

The rarity and interest value of this material are considerable. To set the basic historical context, Amiroutzes was one of a trio of Byzantine lay scholars who played a major role at the Council of Ferrara-Florence, the other two being the far better-known George Gemistus Pletho (sic) and George Scholarius. A native of the far-flung Byzantine territory of Trebizond, Amiroutzes was involved, as a high-ranking official, in the surrender of Trebizond to Mehmed II in 1461, and subsequently enjoyed esteem as a philosopher in the household of the Conqueror. However, although Amiroutzes was evidently, like Pletho and Scholarius, a figure of considerable note in his time – albeit one with rather different intellectual bias, as will be seen – his career, particularly with regard to intellectual contribution, has hitherto been something of a blank.

The fleshing-out of our knowledge and understanding of Amiroutzes enabled by Monfasani's work is thus an extremely valuable addition to what is available for understanding Late-Byzantine intellectual history. The fifteen tractates published by Monfasani are not, it should be emphasised, polished works; not, so to speak, prepared for publication. Monfasani describes them as ‘a residue of George Amiroutzes's teaching as a philosopher’ and suggests that ‘at least some of the tractates reflect Amiroutzes's activities as a school teacher’. The tractates are of unequal length, at times rudimentary, at times disjointed. However, what they contain should be of interest to a wide range of scholars dealing in intellectual history.

A particular group to whom they should be of interest is one likely to form part of the readership of this review: namely, Thomists, or those with an interest in Thomism. It is well known that, following the translations of Aquinas (and other Latin theologians) into Greek from the middle of the fourteenth century, by Demetrius Kydones most notably, but also by later figures following his lead, Thomist influences spread amongst Greek intellectuals. The extent of this, and its impact, is an under-studied, but increasingly widely-appreciated, phenomenon. A major project is currently under way aimed at advancing study into this phenomenon: I refer to the Thoma de Aquino Byzantinus project (see: www.rhul.ac.uk/Hellenic-Institute/Research/Thomas.htm). Amiroutzes's tractates, as Monfasani emphasises, clearly demonstrate the impact of Thomism in his thinking and approach. I leave it to others far more expert to evaluate the value and nature of the Thomist element in Amiroutzes: but it is clearly an important piece in the jigsaw puzzle that makes up the attempt to trace the course and nature of ‘Byzantine Thomism’.

Briefly, to conclude, a few words about the general tenor of the tractates, and the kind of material to be found in them. The level, as already mentioned, is very varied; at times they are little more than very basic introductory notes, at other times the sequence of thought is lost; the tractates certainly do not represent a cohesive whole. However, at the same time certain emphases recur and are developed within them. A particular interest is the nature of being, a subject which recurs in more than half of the tractates. Amiroutzes, firmly anti-Platonic and pro-Aristotelian, insists repeatedly on following the opinion of the ‘legists’ (nomikoi: apparently religious lawgivers in general, not necessarily of the Christian tradition) rather that the ‘philosophers’ (philosophoi: specifically, it would seem, in the Platonic tradition) in viewing existence as the product of divine will rather than as necessary emanation. Monfasani compares this with another known writing of Amiroutzes, his ‘supplicatory prayer’, which, while containing no specifically Trinitarian allusions, enunciates this theme, and others found in the Tractates, strongly.

In terms of style, there is much in the tractates which chimes with Aristotelian/Thomist traditions, and will be familiar to readers of such material. Deducing precisely where the elements discussed come from and why they are managed in the specific way in which they are managed would, however, be a complex task, which Monfasani has started upon but (self-confessedly) by no means completed. In terms of originality, it is fair to say that a sense emerges that Amiroutzes was engaging as an original thinker with his material, although the nature of the text makes it difficult to build up a comprehensive picture of his teaching and ideas. In general, the tractates are tantalising rather than fully satisfying; but that they are now available is a huge benefit to scholarship.