PHILOSOPHY PATHWAYS ISSN 2043-0728
Issue number 117 19th May 2006
I. 'On criticism and the purpose of arts' by Vikram Singh
II. 'Some thoughts on what we call real' by Hubertus Fremerey
III. 'John Argyropoulos teacher of Leonardo Da Vinci' by Fotis Vassileiou and Barbara Saribalidou
In a continuation of his earlier article 'Monologue on art' (Issue 80) Vikram Singh argues that there is no single, 'correct' way to approach the appreciation of art. There is far more to the appreciation and reception of art than, for example, looking at the historical circumstances or at the intentions of the artist. 'The fundamental purpose of arts is to inspire further arts.'
Hubertus Fremerey in his contribution piece examines the nature of religion. Is a religion merely a primitive theory of how the world came to be, or does it have some other function? Can religion show us some aspects of reality which science does not know? What is it for something to be 'real' anyway?
Fotis Vassileiou and Barbara Saribalidou focus on the life of the great teacher John Argyropoulos, placing his work in the context of the explosion of learning in the 15th century, a time when many of the great European universities were founded.
I. 'ON CRITICISM AND THE PURPOSE OF ARTS' BY VIKRAM SINGH
I come straight to the point. The most famous french composer of the 20th century, Maurice Ravel composed one of the best loved pieces in orchestral music. 'Bolero', as it came to be known, which was commissioned by dancer Ida Rubenstein to be played while she performed on the stage. Soon it was famous all over the world as a stand alone orchestral composition.
It has become a method of critics to encompass in their dissection, the very state of the creator at the time of piece's creation. It has been drawn from the delicate melodies of Schubert, that they are not unconnected with his homosexuality. Ravel himself described Bolero as an experiment; a gradual crescendo. And it found me, among the composition's many admirers. But the purposes of a piece is incomplete without presence of an observer. It is a different thing, how much the observer derives from his interactions. This is my first point. Although my examples could be extended to any piece of art.
My perception of Bolero is formed on its maintained hypnotic rhythm, persistent theme and evolving orchestration. I must say that I need not build any hypothesis on ideas of Ravel to define the pleasure which I receive while hearing it. But soon I learned that, above the Spanish atmosphere, which Bolero's rhythm so emphatically confirms, it was the sounds of industrial machines that inspired Ravel to compose it. Certainly, this is quite contrary to what I have come to associate with it. Even more so, I find it hard to see it through eyes of the composer. And sometimes it seems even an repulsive idea to reorganize my thoughts in this direction. Is it possible to attain something from an piece of art which its creator never fused it with? Is a piece of art an intellectual property of its creator, such that it should be be looked through his perception of the world?
Ever since turn of the 19th century, critics have increasingly peeked into the lives of creators to look out for meaningful explanation for their works. Many times, the links are quite obvious. And it has almost re-awakened the world's interest in Da Vinci's paintings ever since the claims of hidden clues have started to emerge. But how can a critic pass a judgement on a piece linked with an artist's homosexuality, when half of the audience see wild ocean or flying birds in it? Is that kind of criticism meant only for the creator, who in many cases is dead by decades?
Pieces of art and literature, are outbursts of creativity and rhetoric. The creator might have put many years in contemplating the piece, but the moments of creation are like mind full of sparks. It would be proper to define these to timelines before we proceed to outline the proper critic's method. First we have to look at the process of observation.
Art is a language. It conveys so many things that oral linguistics cannot. The word 'happy' has a different meaning for everyone. And for everyone its meaning changes over time. I have discussed this in detail, in my last article, 'Monologue on Art' (Philosophy Pathways 80). If a piece of art is defined by emotional state of the creator, than it is worthwhile to understand, what brought the creator to that mental state. But this also intimately links the purpose of creation to the thought process of artist's mind. This is important because it rules out the notion that great pieces of art are already made somewhere and an artist is just God's translator. Many times they reflect the overall thought process that the world is going through.
If a person is introduced to certain painting through certain dialogue, then that dialogue is going to have an intermittent effect on the person's perception of that painting. As I had said before, it is not possible to recall (or remember) a rather closed chain of thoughts, without committing itself to other thought processes. The person may know the original intentions of the creator over a course of time. This means that it is possible to grow totally different ideas about a piece of art than someone else who is interacting with the same, side by side. This is even without resorting to our very own ideas which will be induced after the purporting effect of personal interaction. And it is not necessary that those two persons' ideas are congruent with that of the creator. If the artist has created the piece with an intention to convey a 'very defined' state of emotion to the observer, then he has failed. It can be drawn from this that it is not possible to transit a certain state of mind to another through process of arts. If any artist sits with these intentions, he is bound to fail himself.
Now coming back to segregating the timelines. This is again based on my earlier arguments that no two states of conscious mind are congruent and consequently there is no method to go back to an earlier emotional state. When Ravel saw industrial machines let his mental state be C1. When he sat to write Bolero his mental state be C2. For an authentic reproduction of what he was at C1, it must be that C1=C2; which is not achievable. I should state here that the moment of creation and the moment of inspiration are two different sociological points. They cannot follow each other unless they occur at the same time. So Bolero is an actual reproduction of the state C2. C2 is the moment of composition. So his first inspiration is composition itself. Although it is quite contrary to what we normally believe. And our mind has not evolved enough that we could handle two emotionally complex states as above, simultaneously.
Recently I read that Ravel had symptoms of Alzheimer's Disease and the constant repeating rhythm may have to do with that!
Coming to my earlier question. Is it possible for me to conclude from a piece of art, what the composer never induced it with? Here I assume that I am interacting with a painting, whose creator is alive and standing by my side. Let us think that an event inspired him to paint it. His mental state at the time of event was C1. When he painted, it was C2 and when he is standing by my side, it is C3. Let us also assume that he is aware of what we have discussed so far. So he says that the painting is reflective of his state at C2. I ask, is C2=C3? My argument is that, whatever state in which the artist painted the picture, he cannot recall in authentication while watching it. So even for him the meaning of his creation is constantly evolving.
Let me give you an extreme example; Assume that the painting is of a Tiger shown in its splendor. The artist saw that tiger sometime back. After the creation of that painting, assume his son was attacked by a tiger in a recent attempt to revisit the place of 'inspiration'. How different would you think the state C3 would be from C2? (Will Ravel still admire today's industrial machines? Or what would a boy gather from his remarks who is brought up today?) If the emotional statement of a creation changes when the creator forms the observer, how can we be so definitive about the same? It should be understood, that a creator can be readily changed in place of an observer. His past is going to effect him as much ours effect us. So it is perfectly tangible to form our own perception of a piece of art from any perspective. Understanding the state of creator forms a parallel process and cannot be taken as a more 'correct' or 'positive' approach.
While approaching past masterpieces, it often the case that the artist is dead. The emotions that the creation arouses in us without any knowledge are our sincere evaluation of it. It is worthwhile to understand the social limitations and problems that the artist faced while creating it. But in that case, the creation is assessed bound to the name of the artist and his time. As a standalone piece it can only be compared by its creative intensity. We might think that a certain poem was revolutionary because it broke the mould at that time, but may not stand in creative intensity in front of more modern poems. These pieces gave rise to more brighter pieces but this cannot raise their own intellectual level. Since we can argue that if someone would have written a more revolutionary poem in some other direction, then the present creations might be even brighter.
Art has given rise to many new ideas and even political thoughts. For those who argue that a certain piece of art is higher because it changed the course of history should also say that it changed for good. And those people must also convince me that the present state of affairs could not have been done in a better way, and all is perfect. If the present state of social world is not perfect, then there is always a possibility that the past could have been handled in a better way and so could be direction of certain pieces. The purpose of this is to say that, art and literature changed history, but this can never be said with certainty that it was changed for good. So it might be true that someone who wrote about sex in 12th century, was brave. But brave is all he was.
There is also a method to raise the value of a piece for because it brought about certain positive changes in the overall thinking of the society. Again, it cannot be made certain that the same piece can never be used for opposite purposes in the future. This directly follows from my earlier arguments, that the value of a piece is constantly evolving. It is not in the hands of its creator, to create it in such a way that it remains limited to certain domain of ideas or time. A piece of art is like a two sided window. On one side is the creator's mind and on other side, observer's mind. Once one of them closes it, all it remains for him is to see the window in his own way and dress it in his attire.
Thereof, the methods of a critic should be such that his evaluation should not be rendered meaningless if the social value of the piece of art should change. He cannot take the words or mind of the artist as his stepping stone to dissection. If he looks to produce a definitive argument in either case, he should be aware that such arguments are limiting in nature and could only be considered relevant in a particular time-frame. As such, a timeless, definitive argument could not be produced. So a critic should decide first, what he is looking to attain. An observer oriented argument can be produced, if the critic could make the audience see through his eyes. This can be done through method of dialogue or elegantly produced lecture, preferably at the time of first interaction.
In other cases, it is possible to draw certain ideas from certain pieces of arts which may not even be existent during life-time of the creator. Should the artist be credited for their origination? Here I would like to state that, whosoever derives concrete ideas is a creator in himself. If a 10th century painting gives me an idea to write a monograph on Nihilism, than that painting (and not the artist) is my inspiration. The artist might have got inspiration for the painting, by watching an apple tree; that is immaterial to me. That painting serves me the same purpose that the apple tree served him. It is possible to draw ideas from a piece of art almost contrary to what its creator held in his lifetime. So a piece of art in itself pregnant with possibilities, which its creator has no power upon. Neither the painting, nor the artist can be commented upon being nihilistic.
It must be understood that, just as observer and creator can be interchanged, art and inspiration can too. It is a chain. An artist creates a piece. The piece can create an artist. The fundamental purpose of arts is to inspire further arts. Our method breaks down when we strike out this possibility. Ideas give rise to arts, and arts give rise to ideas. They exist in a general pool of society and time frame. A piece of criticism is a creation inspired by corresponding piece of art. And in that sense, art has succeeded in its purpose, whatever the critic says!
(c) Vikram Singh 2006
II. 'SOME THOUGHTS ON WHAT WE CALL REAL' BY HUBERTUS FREMEREY
Atheists always are struggling with theists about the question whether God is 'real'. When the Sputnik was launched into its orbit, some communist papers jeered that 'it hasn't found God out there'.
It seems quite natural that we should not have our world peopled with 'things that are not real'. This very probably includes unicorns and the Yeti and Bigfoot and witches and many other 'things' -- and maybe even God. This would be a clean and orderly and reliable world, not that of Shakespeare or the Middle Ages, which was full of strange creatures.
Well, but is 'Oedipus Complex' a 'real' thing? Or 'class struggle'? Some people would fiercely defend them both, even as atheists. But they both may be as imaginary and fanciful as any God.
And what about the rainbow? You cannot bag it in. It's only in the eye of the beholder. Should we call this 'real'? But the rainbow is at least not purely imaginary, but is a beautiful pattern of 'real' rays of light broken in the tiny raindrops. In a similar way, 'Oedipus Complex' and 'class struggle' may be 'real' effects broken in some theories. Thus to dismiss 'Oedipus Complex' and 'class struggle' altogether as 'irreal' would screen some true insight from our awareness. Could it be that removing God from our awareness would be a mistake of a similar sort? I think so.
While I am a sceptic and a '95% naturalist' myself, if I had the option to remove religion from the earth I would not do it. There are problems concerning our human existence in this world that we should be sensitive to, and to sharpen our awareness religion in any 'advanced' form (as compared to mere magic and superstition) may be as essential as is good literature or a good work of art or good music.
The world of humans is too complicated by far to be left to the 'dumb scientists'. Why do we read novels or go to the cinema and the theater or attend a talk show or exchange with friends? Because we want to sharpen our awareness of 'things humane'. We need to see all these human dramas and tragedies and comedies to keep our understanding of what it means to be a human in this world alive and sensitive.
The main function of religion is not to explain the world. To think that is an example of what I call 'common nonsense'. To explain the world in a preliminary and pre-scientific way is only one and a minor function of religion. The central function of religion is to give meaning and perspective to our situation in the world, to establish values and goals by which to get orientation for our plans and deeds. This sort of orientation science cannot provide. But since humans are not only thinking ('homo sapiens') but much more 'acting' and 'creative' animals -- and not only re-acting ones -- they have to know why they should act this way and not that way and what to defend and go for. No science will tell them. We overestimate homo sapiens and underestimate homo creator, the creative human seeking solutions to problems which are neither practical nor technical nor scientific.
Morality does tell us in certain cases, but morality is not scientific, it's value ridden. And most of our actions are not even moral actions in the first place. To build a house or a family or to do a work of art is not a moral act, but those are activities we can love or leave, no science will tell us, and no morality either. But religion may do.
Well, religion may not tell us whether to build a house or a family, but perhaps may tell us to become a monk or nun. Would this be bad? By what standard? Who decides? Religion shows us some aspects of 'reality' which science does not know of and which 'common sense' does not know of either. Whatever we may think of the value of Christendom or Islam, the fact is: Both have transformed the world of humankind in a very important way. Our Occidental culture would be very different from what it is today without this strange rabbi Jesus, whoever he may have been. In the same way the world of Asia and Africa would be very different from what it is today without the impact of Muhammad. Same with South East and East Asia without the impact of the Buddha.
Neither the Buddha nor Jesus nor Muhammad even tried to explain something which science would explain better some day. To explain the physical nature of the world was never the concern of these 'religious founding fathers'. Thus to prove them wrong on scientific grounds is just missing the point. This of course may be read the other way round too: To attack scientific findings by religious arguments is missing the point likewise. As was said above: To explain the physical nature of the world at no time was the main concern of any great religion. Thus neither Darwinism nor Marxism nor Freudianism nor the theories of Einstein are in contradiction with true Christian or Islamic or Buddhist convictions. But they may be contradicting vested interests of those who claim to be 'the faithful'.
And one more remark on 'reality'. Not only is the rainbow in the eye of the beholder, not only beauty, but so are freedom and justice and progress and 'the good': Should we skip them all because they are not jumping around on a meadow like horses? No, they are guiding ideas of utmost importance, even while they are not 'real' in the sense an atom is. We all have to do some ontology then and now and accept that the question of what 'reality' means can be very difficult.
Our modern scientific approach tends to dismiss everything which seems not 'methodologically sound'. But images and symbols and 'theory generated concepts' like 'Oedipus Complex' and 'class struggle' all show some important aspects of reality that are missed by scientific methodology. The world of humans is not the world of the physical labs.
The world of humans is what Dante in the opening sentences of the 'Inferno' (1st part of Divina Commedia) depicted as 'a dark wood', a symbol standing for error and sin and confusion where we get lost until some 'light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not'. (John 1,5) The 'Pilgrims Progress' from Inferno through Purgatorio to Paradiso is something no science would ever have suggested, but it is something very characteristic of the human striving for the good, for getting out of the dark wood and its many fearful dangers that life is, to something where light and clarity and eternal peace abound.
Et lux aeterna luceat eis (Let eternal light shine upon them). You cannot approach the Christian requiem (see http:---) or mass with physical or logical devices. It would be meaningless. This text is not science, this is not even Antiquity, but it is what made up the Occidental tradition (think of the masses of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert and many others) and one of the great visions of humankind and of human self-understanding and of understanding the world we live in. Should we call it 'real'? Who decides? By what standard?
It's not all physics and math and 'common sense'. But it's all human. It's about the greatness of human humility. And by this it's even far above Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud. Man is not that simple an animal.
(c) Hubertus Fremerey 2006
III. 'JOHN ARGYROPOULOS TEACHER OF LEONARDO DA VINCI' BY FOTIS VASSILEIOU AND BARBARA SARIBALIDOU
Medieval European philosophy on higher education
The fifteenth century is characterized by the revival of Greek Studies. Seven hundred years before Great Alfred, King of England, translated in English works of Aristotle and Plato (based on Latin text of Boethius). John of Salisbury was the first person to teach the Aristotle's Nuova Logica in Europe. There were many scholars, teachers and philosophers who escaped from Greece (the land of terror during the Turkish Empire expansion) to Italy (the land of freedom). Most of them taught in the schools of Florence, Venice and Rome.
One of those 'immigrant' teachers was John Argyropoulos, a man who came from a Greek family environment, moved to Italy, faced war conflicts around him and taught people coming from all over the Europe to learn from him.
Argyropoulos was born to be a lecturer. Academic work was his great love. Among his students we can find today many geniuses, academics, scientists, scholars, philosophers, politicians and authors. Many of them are famous others not. After all he dealt with sciences, researches, politics, ethics, authoring, teaching and philosophy. Definitely we have to reckon with a very productive personality. His academic and scientific work is still under the eye of research. But what is the ultimate reason one should remember him? He was one of Da Vinci's teachers. This is bound to be an important issue in researching him.
What was the historical background?
Around the fifteenth century the Greek territories were in difficult situation because of war. Many Byzantines began to look the Christian West as a possible escape. Thomas Palaeologus (Despot of Morea and brother of Constantine XI the Emperor) arrived in Rome in March 1461 and threw himself under the mercy of Pope Pius II. His daughter Zoe married the Grand Duke Ivan III of Moscow in 1472 (Ivan the Great) .
In this period the Greek population expansion to Italy was rapidly growing. This was the basic reason for the declaration of Cardinal Bessarion (in 1478): 'Venice is almost another Byzantium'. Such emigrants were Theodore Gaza, George of Trebizond, Demetrius Chalcocondyles and John Argyropoulos.
Finally, it is highly important to remember that those days were established many Academies and Universities: University of Cambridge 1441, University of Bordeaux 1441, University of Catania 1444, University of Glasgow 1451, University of Valencia 1452, University of Graifsvald 1453, University of Basel 1459, University of Nantes 1460, University of Bourg 1461, University of Bratislava 1462, University of Saragossa 1474, University of Magontsa 1476 and University of Uppsala 1477. Many Universities were founded and of course a lot of scientific and philosophical work has survived from those years to now.
Who actually was John Argyropoulos?
John Argyropoulos was born in Greece (Constantinople) in 1415 and died in Rome (Papal States) on 26th of June 1487.
Mr. Dimitris Giakos (Hon. Director of Ministry of Culture in Greece) with Mr. Christos Theologou and Mrs. Emilia Xanthopoulou gave us a very comprehensive analysis of Argyropoulos' life. Argyropoulos studied theology and philosophy in Constantinople. After the Fall of Constantinople he went to Patavio (Italy) and worked as a teacher in the Universities of Patavio, Florence and Rome. He taught Greek Philosophy, Literature and Poetry. He also gave his efforts to transporting Greek Philosophy to Western Europe. It was the best timing for that. Many people were interested in studying Greek and Roman Philosophy in those days.
Here is the place we have to remember the expression 'Sacro nectare' (sacred nectar of the Greeks) from the philosophical dissertation 'De Divisione Naturae' (860-866) by Johannes Scotus Eriugena, Irish theologian and philosopher of the ninth century. After the total Fall of Byzantine Empire (Fall of Moreas) Argyropoulos moved permanently to Italy. Argyropoulos studied philosophy in Patavio as well. He had students such as Peter and Laurent of Medici. It is well known until today that students hailing from different part of Europe came to see and hear of him at those classes, when he taught Greek or Philosophy courses.
Generally we can say that he was teacher of Ancient Greek Philosophy and member of the Byzantine delegation to the Council of Ferrara-Florence. He left a number of Latin translations, including many of Aristotle's works, but his real importance lies in his work as a teacher in Italy.
He translated Greek philosophical and theological works into Latin besides producing rhetorical and theological works in his own. He divided his time between Italy and Constantinople. When Constantinople fell in 1453 he left it for the Peloponnesus and in 1456 took refuge in Italy. Actually he was an official in the service of one of the rulers of the Byzantine Morea and he was sent to Italy on a diplomatic mission.
A general view of his work and his pupils
His basic authoring work consists basically of the following books:
In Greek: 'On Aristotelian Philosophy', 'Introduction and remarks on Porfirius and Aristotelian Organon', 'On Royalty to Emperor Constantine'. In Latin: 'Comentaria in Ethica Nicomachea'. We can also count in his work many poems, letters, notes and translations to Modern Greek from Ancient Greek language as well as a lot of translations of Aristotle's works to Latin. His academic and philosophical work contains teaching and not only authoring activities. But what we actually know today about his students?
Leonardo da Vinci (Born April 15, 1452 in Vinci, Italy, and died in May 2, 1519 in Cloux, France) was an Italian Renaissance architect, musician, anatomist, inventor, engineer, sculptor, geometer, and painter. He has been described as the archetype of the 'Renaissance man' and as a universal genius, a man both infinitely curious and infinitely inventive. The first known biography of Leonardo was published in 1550 by Giorgio Vasari who wrote Vite de' piu eccelenti architettori, pittori e scultori italiani ('The lives of the most excellent Italian architects, painters and sculptors'), and later became an independent painter in Florence. Most of the information collected by Vasari was from first-hand accounts of Leonardo's contemporaries, (Vasari was only a child when Leonardo died), and it remains the first reference in studying Leonardo's life.
Leonardo Da Vinci attended the lectures of John Argyropoulos. This is something that Geanakoplos also referred in his research work. It is a necessary to read Deno Geanakoplos book titled 'Constantinople and the West: Essays on the Late Byzantine (Paleologan) and Italian Renaissances and the Byzantine and Roman Churches' to understand who Argyropoulos was and to realize his significance. This is the most relevant book to the study of the life of Argyropoulos.
'Argyropoulos was the leading Byzantine expert on Greek
philosophy and of Greek mechanical literature (eg the
pseudo-Mechanica of Aristotle); the entire edifice of
western engineering is based on the transmission of Greek
manuscripts on engineering which entered Italy at this
time. It is only when it is realised that the Medici, and
their sponsorship of the arts was a direct result of their
encounter with the Greeks from Byzantium that the
importance of this period is best appreciated. Again it is
Argyropoulos who became friends with Cosimo de Medici. It
was under Cosimo's patronage that Argyropoulos taught in
Florence and it was Argyropoulos who Cosimo chose to be the
tutor of his grandson Lorenzo de Medici, who has come to be
known to us as 'Lorenzo the Magnificent' and under whose
reign the Renaissance bloomed in Florence. It is only when
it is realised that the Medici and their encouragement of
intellect was founded on these Greek emigres (Gemistos
Plethon, Argyropoulos and others) that the contribution of
Byzantine Greeks to the Italian Renaissance can ever be
properly appreciated. The Greeks, rather than being
irrelevant to the West were the foundation upon which was
built the pursuit of knowledge which ended the closed
mediaeval mindset of the west European dark ages that had
prevailed until then.'
John Argyropoulos copied an anonymous chronicle which he found in Venice. Theodore Skoutariotes is believed to be the writer of this chronicle. Skoutariotes was an ecclesiastical official and Metropolitan of Kyzikos (1277-1282).
When Argyropoulos was teaching in Constantinople, he had among his pupils the scholar Constantine Lascaris. In 1439 he was in Italy for the Council of Florence and spent some time teaching in Padua. He was professor of Greek in Florence and in 1471 moved to Rome, where he continued teach Greek until his death.
Demetrius Chalcocondyles replaced John Argyropoulos. He was born in Athens in 1424 (his brother was Chalcocondyles Laonicus -- the only Athenian Byzantine writer). In 1447 he migrated to Italy, where Cardinal Bessarion gave him his patronage. He became teacher of Greek letters and Platonic philosophy. In 1463 he was made professor at Padua, and in 1479 he was summoned by Lorenzo de Medici to Florence to fill the professorship vacated by John Argyropoulos. In 1492 he removed to Milan, where he died in 1511. Demetrius Chalcondyles published the editio princeps of Homer, Isocrates, Suidas and a Greek grammar (Erotemata) in the form of question and answer.
The Greek emigres who reached Italy during the fifteenth century played by all means an important part in spreading knowledge of the classical Greek language and ancient Greek literature. This was one of the factors for the robust development of education and philosophy all around Europe called Renaissance.
John Argyropoulos is undoubtedly a part of this European history. It is almost unknown that he was teacher of many scholars and philosophers such as Leonardo Da Vinci. This article was an effort to generally summarize information regarding his life and work.
1. Prof. George Markou, 'The Ancient Greek contribution on the shaping of Medieval Europe', Periplous Publications, Athens, 2001
2. Prof. Anny Baldiserra, 'The sacred nectar of the Greeks', Radio Broadcast in Italy and United States.
3. 'The History of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire', Gibbon Edward, Methuen, London, 1926
5. 'Byzantines in Renaissance Italy', Jonathan Harris, Hellenic Institute-Royal Halloway/ University of London, Surrey, 2002
6. Prof. George Markou, 'The Ancient Greek contribution on the shaping of Medieval Europe', Periplous Publications, Athens, 2001
7. 'Argyropoulos, John'. Episteme Links. 2006. http:---
8. Christos Theologou/ Emilia Xanthopoulos/ Dimitris Giakos, 'Biographical Lexicon', Pagoulatou Publications, Athens.
9. Prof. Anny Baldiserra, 'The sacred nectar of the Greeks', Radio Broadcast in Italy and United States
10. 'Argyropoulos, John' Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2006. http:---
11. Foundation of the Hellenic World- Lexico of Late Byzantine Period. http:---
12. 'Argyropoulos, John' Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2006. http:---
13. 'Byzantines in Renaissance Italy'. http:---
14. Leonardo da Vinci -- From Wikipedia http:---
15. Charles Nicholl, 'Leonardo da Vinci, The Flights of the mind', Penguin, 2005.
16. Deno Geanakoplos .'Constantinople and the West: Essays on the Late Byzantine (Paleologan) and Italian Renaissances and the Byzantine and Roman Churches', University of Wisconsin Press, 1989
18. 'Argyropoulos, John' Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2006. http:---
19. 'CHALCIS.' LoveToKnow 1911 Online Encyclopedia. 2003, 2004 LoveToKnow. http:---
(c) Fotis Vassileiou and Barbara Saribalidou 2006