Journal articles on the topic 'Byzantine; Teaching'

The Byzantine Empire, which existed for more than 1000 years, holds a special place in the history of civilization. It was the largest medieval Christian state on the crossroad of Europe and Asia. The Byzantine culture belongs to the medieval Christian culture, but it has specific peculiarities in comparison to the Western Christian culture.The phenomenon of Byzantium, as the successor of the Roman state tradition and as the source of Christian culture, is of particular importance in the development of Georgia's historical processes.Understanding the historical processes of the V-XV centuries in Georgia is quite difficult without knowing the history of Byzantium. We cannot analyze even the later period without knowing Byzantium, because this country has left an indelible mark on Georgia, especially on its culture. The purpose of the present article is to show what the position of the Byzantine history is in the national curriculum and school books.

The authors focus how Byzantine motifs are presented in the teaching of humanities subjects. The question of the presence of Byzantine motifs is essentially one about the presence of Byzantine heritage in Polish culture. With reference to two school subjects – Polish and History – the authors seek to establish what Polish school students are taught about the reach of Byzantine culture. Present-day teaching of both political and cultural history is underpinned by Occidentalism. Only occasionally is attention paid to the “Eastern” features of Poland’s past. A good example of this is the treatment of one of the most important Polish literary texts, the school perennial, Bogurodzica. This draws on Greek religious hymns, contain words originating in the Greek liturgy, and also alludes to a particular type of icon. Accordingly, the connections between the oldest Polish literary text and Byzantine culture are very clear. However, when classroom teachers discuss Bogurodzica with their pupils, detailing the above-mentioned features, are they aware that this text is an epitome of the presence of Byzantine motifs in Polish literature? Apparently not. With regard to the teaching of history, Byzantine motifs can be approached from at least three angles; in terms of imperial political events, in terms of religious (Eastern rite) aspects of Byzantine culture, and finally in terms of awareness of connections between Polish culture and Eastern rite Christianity, as well as Eastern nations and states viewed as heirs of Byzantine culture. In Polish history there has been a side-lining of the nation’s break with Eastern Christianity even though during certain periods this was the faith of half the Commonwealth’s inhabitants. The marginalisation of this topic does not simply impose a limit on knowledge but it prevents the understanding of particular aspects of our history.

The article attempts to address the principles of Plato’s teaching in order to indi­cate the influence of the platonic way of philosophizing on Byzantine philosoph­ical practices. The problem of the difference of interpretations of essential mo­ments of Plato’s teaching is raised, bit for the solution of reception of a dialogue form of this teaching, its main sense and strategies, a generalized image of pla­tonism is created. The appeal to Byzantine reality demonstrates the mixture of cultural fields of literature, religion and philosophy, which develops an axiologi­cal manner of writing, requiring a thorough assessment of the text and its con­tent. The overview of “power in literature and philosophy” in Byzantine repre­sents the simultaneity of literary, philosophical and theological works relevant for this period of time with the standards of the living tradition of platonic and neoplatonic classics. At the end of the article there are examples of direct inter­pretation of some statements of Plato by Michael Psellos.

This study aims to present and critically investigate the development of the socalled ?higher education? in the Byzantine Empire. Some institutions will be examined, such as the teaching with public funding (the case of Themistios), the well-known Pandidakterion of the fifth century, Magnaura in a much subsequent age, and, finally, the re-organization of education during the reign of Constantine IX Monomachos in the eleventh century, when, for the last time in its history, a case can be made for a higher education institution in Byzantium.

Abstract Manuel Moschopoulos’ Peri schedon, one of the most popular grammatical manuals in Byzantium and beyond, represents a comprehensive textbook composed with a broader scope in mind, namely to cover not only the teaching of grammar but also poetry and rhetoric.

Abstract At the time after Karl Krumbacher had founded the first modern center for Byzantine studies in Munich, the base for development of up-to-date medieval studies in Belgrade was already under construction. In the years before and after the Seminar for Byzantine studies was founded (1906) at the Belgrade University, some young scholars from Serbia were sent in different occasions to Krumacher’s Institute in order to deepen their abilities in byzantine and medieval studies. Among them, six names should be mentioned for their extraordinary contribution to the research progress: Božidar Prokić, Dragutin Anastasijević, Filaret Granić in byzantine studies and Stanoje Stanojević, Vladimir Ćorović, Nikola Radojčić in medieval studies. All of them habe been learning Krumbacher’s sophisticated methodological approach, introducing it in Belgrade either in pure byzantine studies or in medieval studies in a broader sense. Through their publications and teaching work Krumbacher’s influation brought a great support to development of the research in the above mentioned fields.

In which ways was Medieval and Byzantine History embedded in the Greek national narrative in the first life steps of the Greek state during the 19th century? In which ways has it been related to the emerging nationalism in the Balkans, and to relationships with the West and the countries of south-eastern Europe during the Balkan Wars, the First and Second World Wars, and especially the Cold War, until today? In which ways does Byzantium correlate with the notion of Greekness, and what place does it occupy in Neo-Hellenic identity and culture? Moreover, which role does it play in history teaching, and what kind of reactions does any endeavour of revision or reformation provoke? To answer the above questions I performed a comparative analysis on the following categories of sources: (a) Greek national and European historiography, (b) School history curricula and textbooks, (c) Public history sources, (d) The new History Curriculum for primary and secondary school classes, and (e) The principles and guidelines of international organizations such as the Council of Europe. In the first three sections of this paper, I provide an overview of the conformation and integration of the Byzantine period in Greek national historiography, in association with the dominant European philosophical and historical perspectives during the era of modernity, as well as the evolving national politics, foreign affairs, prevailing ideological schemas and the role of history teaching in shaping the common identity of the Neo-Hellenic society throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. The fourth section briefly deals with the current situation in history teaching in Greek schools, while the fifth section critically presents the innovative elements and features of the new History Curriculum, which, to some degree, aspires to be considered a paradigm shift in the teaching of Medieval History in school education. Finally, I summarize and draw several conclusions.

Ханс Георг Бек (1910-1999), крупнейший немецкий византинист ХХ в., прошёл путь от бенедиктинского монаха до мюнхенского профессора, создателя всеобъемлющей концепции истории Византии и византийской культуры. Вопросы истории Церкви и богословия занимали его с первых шагов научной деятельности. Будучи учеником крупнейшего историка схоластики Мартина Грабмана, Бек усвоил томистский взгляд на богословие и потому отрицал реальное различение в Боге сущности и энергий, раскрытое св. Григорием Паламой. Но если в своей первой статье «Борьба за томистское понимание богословия в Византии» (1935) Бек критикует паламизм «извне», с позиций неосхоластики, то в своей светской диссертации о Феодоре Метохите (1952) - уже «изнутри», пытаясь доказать несовместимость паламизма с халкидонитским православием. Помимо общих соображений о малой креативности византийского народного духа, Х. Г. Бек опирается в этом вопросе на идею В. С. Соловьёва (1853-1900) о том, что византийское монашество с ранних веков было заражено монофизитством. Именно поэтому, по мысли Бека, оно и допустило столь «странное» и «антропоморфистское» учение, как паламитский исихазм (эти два явления Бек чётко не разграничивал). Hans-Georg Beck (1910-1999), the most outstanding 20th-century German Byzantinist, has gone a long way from a Benedictine monk to professor in Munich, a creator of a comprehensive conception of Byzantine general and cultural history. The problems of ecclesiastical history and theology were in the center of his scientific activity from its first steps on. As a student of Martin Grabmann, a prominent historian of Western scholasticism, Beck appropriated the Thomist view of theology. That is why he denied the real distinction between essence and energies in God, which had been disclosed and analyzed by Gregory Palamas. If in his first 1935 article, The Struggle for the Thomist Concept of Theology in Byzantium, Beck criticized Palamism «from outside», i. e., from the neoscholastic viewpoint, it was later then, in his secular thesis of 1952, that the German scholar tried to censure the Palamite doctrine «from inside» by making the case of its incompatibility with the Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. Besides some general considerations about a putative barrenness of the Byzantine folk spirit (Volksgeist), in the question of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy and its survival in the Late Byzantium Beck leaned on Vladimir Solov’ev’s (1853-1900) idea of Byzantine monasticism as being infected from the early stage on with the Monophysitism. Making no clear-cut distinction between Hesychasm in general and Palamism as its most elaborated form, Beck saw in this Monophysite infection the very reason of the Palamite hesychasm being tolerated, accepted and officially stated by the Byzantine Orthodoxy, although it had been a very ‘strange’ and ‘anthropomorphite’ teaching.

AbstractThe Byzantine Church adopted a Chalcedonian identity only slowly. At first the majority even of Chalcedonians played down the significance of the council, claiming that it did little more than repeat the teaching of the Nicene Creed. Down to 518 committed Chalcedonians, strongly upholding the teaching of the council, were vocal, but few. It is with Justin I (518–527) and his nephew Justinian I (527–565) that State and Church came to insist on the council. Justinian's commitment to it has sometimes been doubted because of his repeated attempts to win back the non-Chalcedonians (Miaphysites) to the imperial Church by inviting them back without requiring subscription to the Chalcedonian Definition. He was motivated by a desire that even the Miaphysites would look to him as their patron, as required for the maintenance of the unity of the empire. But his theological writings make it clear that he was convinced of the truth of the teaching of Chalcedon. The age of Justinian thus saw the attainment of a truly Chalcedonian identity in the imperial Church. This was a matter of official doctrine. In the sphere of popular piety Chalcedon had less impact. The affirmation of Chalcedon shaped Byzantine communal identity less than the rejection of Chalcedon shaped that of Miaphysite Syria and Egypt.

Abstract The Compendium on Physics (Epitome physica) by the Byzantine theologian and philosopher Nikephoros Blemmydes (13th cent.) was a very successful textbook on Natural Philosophy containing a summary of physics, meteorology and astronomy. This compendium was also conceived for being used as support for teaching. For his purposes, Blemmydes combined passages taken from different sources into a new text: Aristotle and his commentators as well as Cleomedes were his main sources. Since a manuscript with an earlier version of the text still survives, it is also possible to go deeper into the workshop of this Byzantine author and to investigate the use of the sources in both textual stages. This paper will therefore be devoted to analysing the inner structure of the Epitome physica and Blemmydes’ activity as an author.

The article aims to present how the Byzantine scholar St Maximus the Confessor perceived the notion of movement (kinesis). St Maximus exposed his teaching on movement in the course of his refutation of Origenism, which regarded the movement of created beings away from God as the cause of breaking the original unity that existed between the Creation and the Creator. By reversing Origen?s triad ?rest? - ?movement? - ?becoming? into the triad ?becoming? - ?movement? - ?rest?, St Maximus viewed the movement toward God as the sole goal of created beings, finding in the supreme being the repose of their own movement. In addition to the cosmological view of the movement, St Maximus developed a psychological and an ontological view on movement, relying on previous Christian tradition. By transforming and adapting Aristotelian and Neoplatonic notions to the basic principles of Christian metaphysics, St Maximus creates a new Christian philosophy of movement which he supported primarily with the views of the Cappadocian Fathers and Dionysius the Areopagite.

Robert Ousterhout, the author of a magnificent book “Eastern Medieval Architecture. The Building Traditions of Bizantium and Neighboring Lands”, published by Oxford University Press in 2019, the remarkable scholar and generous friend, was so kind to mention in his C. V. on the sight of Penn University (Philadelphia, USA) that he had been the Visiting professor of the Moscow architectural Institute (State Academy), as well as simulteniously of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, but he did not say that he had been awarded the degree of professor honoris causa by the academic council of MARHI. Unfortunately, his life in muscovite hostel, nevertheless we tried to do our best to provide the best possible accommodation in a “suit” with two rooms with a bathroom, had been radically different from the wonderful dwelling chosen for the visiting teaching stuff from MARHI in the University of Illinois. And Robert called our hostel “Gulag”. He had been joking probably. It is impossible to overestimate the role of professor Robert Ousterhaut in the studies of the history of Byzantine art. At the present day he is the leader in the world studies of the architecture of Byzantium, the real heir of the great Rihard Krauthaimer and Slobodan Curcic, whom he had left behind in his works. His books are known very well in Russia. R. Ousterhaut graduated in the history of art and architecture at the University of Oregon, the Institute of European Studies in Vienna, Universities of Cincinati and Illinois. Не worked at the department of history of art at the University of Oregon, department of history of architecture at the University of Illinois, had the chair of the history of architecture and preservation at the University of Illinois, which is considered, as we know, one of the twenty best American universities. He always worked hard and with success. When I had finished reading my course of the history of Russian architecture at Illinois, he said: “Yes, next term the students are to be treated well…” Now he is professor emeritus of the history of art in the famous Penn University. He taught the courses of the “History of architecture from Prehistory to 1400” and “Eastern medieval architecture” as well as led remarkable seminars devoted to the different problem of the history of architecture of the Eastern Meditarenian, including the art of Constantinopole, Cappadoce, meaning and identity in medieval art. His remarkable 4-years field work at Cappadoce, which he described in several books, and his efforts of the preservation of the architectural monuments of Constantinopole are very valuable, Among his books one certainly must cite Holy Apostels: Lost Monument and Forgotten Project, (Washingtone, D. C., 2020); Visualizing Community: Art Material Culture, and Settlement in Byzantine Cappadocia, Dumbarton Oaks Studies 46 (Washington, D. C., 2017); Carie Camii (Istambul, 2011); Architecture of the Sacred: Space, Ritual, and Experience from Classical Greece to Byzantium (Cambridge University Press, 2012), ed. with Bonna D. Wescoat; Palmyra 1885: The Wolfe Expedition and the Photographs of John Henry Haynes, with B. Anderson (Istanbul: Cornucopia, 2016) John Henry Haynes: Archaeologist and Photographer in the Ottoman Empire 1881–1900 (2nd revised edition, Istanbul: Cornucopia, 2016). Several of his books were reprinted. He edited Approaches to Architecture and Its Decoration: Festschrift for Slobodan Ćurčić (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2012), with M. Johnson and A. Papalexandrou. His outstanding book Мaster Builders of Byzantium (2nd paperback edition, University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications, 2008) was translated into Russian and Turkish. In this work Robert Ousterhaut for the first time in English speaking tradition is regarding the architecture of Bazantium from the point of view of building art and technology. On the base of the analysis of primary written sources, contemporary archeology data, and careful study of existing monuments the author concludes that the Byzantine architecture was not only exploiting the traditions, but was trying to find new ways of the development of typology and construction techniques, which led to transformation of artistique features. Professor R. Ousterhaut discusses the choice of building materials, structure from foundations to vaults, theoretical problems which solved the master masons of Byzantium. In his recent book Eastern Medieval Architecture: The Building Traditions of Byzantium and Neighboring Lands, (Oxford University Press, 2019) Robert Ousterhaut is going further. He writes in the introduction: “I succeded my mentor at the University of Illinois… I had the privilege and challenge of teaching “Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture” to generations of the architecture students inspired my 1999 book, Master Builders of Byzantium. The work of Robert Ousterhaut, published 2019, is the new and full interpretation of the architectural heritage of Byzantine Commonwealth. The author devoted the first part of his book to Late Antiquity (3–7 centuries), beginning with the relations of Domus Ecclesiastae and Church Basilica, then speaking of Konstantinopole and Jerusalem of the times of St. Constantine the Great, liturgy, inspiration, commemoration and pilgrimage, adoration of relics as ritual factors which influenced the formation of sacred space, methods and materials, chosen by the Bizantine builders with their interaction of the mentality of the East and West. Special attention is given to dwelling, urban planning and fortification Naturally a chapter is devoted to Hagia Sophia and the building programs of Emperor Justinian. The second part speaks of the transition to what is called Middle Byzantine architecture both in the capital and at the edges of the Empire. The third part tells the story of the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries and includes the rise of the monasteries, once more secular and urban architecture, the craft of church builders. Churches of Greece and Macedonia, Anatolia, Armenia and Georgia, as well as of the West of Byzantium – Venice, Southern Italy and Sicily. The chapter is devoted to Slavonic Balkans – Bulgaria and Serbia and Kievan Rus. The last fourth part of the book describes the times of the Latin Empire, difficult for Byzantium, to the novelty of the architecture of Palewologos and the development of Byzantine ideas in the Balkans and especially in the building programs of the great powers of the epoch Ottoman Empire and Russia. There is a lot more to say about the book of professor Robert Ousterhaut, but we have to leave this to the next issue of this magazine, and better give the space to the words of the author – his text on the architecture of Kievan Rus.

The study of Latin and Ancient Greek at tertiary level is crucial for the survival of Classics within the university sector. And it is not too much to say that the serious study of Greco-Roman antiquity in most, if not all, areas is simply impossible without the ancient languages. They are essential not just for the broad cross-section of philological and literary studies in poetry and prose (ranging at least from Homer to the works of the Church Fathers to Byzantine Chroniclers) but also for ancient history and historiography, philosophy, art history and aesthetics, epigraphy, and many branches of archaeology. In many Classics departments in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere, enrolments in non-language subjects such as myth, ancient theatre or epic, or history remain healthy and cater to a broad public interest in the ancient Greco-Roman world. This is, of course, to be lauded. But the status of the ancient languages, at least in terms of enrolments, may often seem precarious compared to the more overtly popular courses taught in translation. Given the centrality of the ancient languages to our discipline as a whole, it is worth keeping an eye on how they are faring to ensure their prosperity and longevity.

The article traces the main lines of the teaching of mind (noology) by one of the largest Byzantine thinkers, Gregory Palamas, on the material of his treatise Triads (1337–1340). The author considers the question of the foundations of thinking ability according to Palamas. Two paradigms – natural and super-natural – manifested in the noology by Palamas are identified, and how these paradigms are manifested in the topics of knowledge and labor is shown. Different modes of mind functioning in Palamas’ teaching are distinguished: one of discursive thinking, one of self-contemplation of mind, and one of repose of mind. The author analyzes the topic of self-contemplation of mind and shows how this topic is integrated into Palamas’ coherent ontological system: the contemplation of the human mind takes place participating in the self-contemplation of the Divine Mind. The author shows that the seemingly contradictory topics of Palamas’ teaching about mind – the topic of self-contemplation of mind and the topic of repose of mind – do not conflict with each other, but do coexist complementarily in Palamas’ teaching. The author considers the concept of knowledge in Gregory Palamas and distinguishes between natural and super-natural types of knowledge in his teaching. Then he turns to the theme of scientific knowledge in Palamas and shows how Palamas’ view on scientific knowledge leads him to formulating the doctrine of dual truth. The author also identifies two Platonically loaded lines in the Byzantine prehistory of the topic of the self-contemplation of mind: one of Dionysius the Areopagite and one of Evagrius of Pontus. The author ties this Platonic background of Palamas’ noology with the specifics of his understanding of nature of the Tabor light, according to which this light is “intelligent” and therefore cannot be contemplated by beings who do not have an intelligent ability (i.e., who are non-human). The author offers the following understanding of the specifics of Palamite ontology distinguishing essence and energy in God: what distinguishes divine energy from essence is the participability and knowability of energy, but, at the same time, energy exists, distinguished from essence, in the situation of absence of someone who would participate in it and know it as well. The author links this ontological schema with the Platonic background of Palamas’ noology that has been identified above, namely, with the “intelligent” nature of the divine energies that Palamas declares, which, in its turn, is related to the thinker’s idea of the affinity between the divine energies and human mind. Finally, the author identifies essential connotations common to the Platonic “idea” and the Palamite “energy”, and points out the nature of the difference between these concepts.

Abstract A complex personality, with multifarious concerns in research as well as in composition, Constantin Catrina (1933-2013) was active as a folklorist, historian, musicologist, Byzantinologist, composer; he dedicated his entire life to the research of the Romanian music, viewed in all its manifold manifestations: folklore music, Orthodox church music of the Byzantine tradition as well as lay music. His investigations were directed mainly towards the area of Brasov and its surroundings. He diligently studied documents about the musical life of the city in archives and libraries, discovered interesting information about the cultural personalities of this old Transylvanian city, with rich cultural traditions and diverse influences. He also managed to reveal their connections with other cultural centres in Romania. He was a pioneer in the field of Byzantinology, filling a space left empty in the history of Byzantine music by emphasizing the activity of an important centre of church music teaching and education in central Transylvania – the School of “Saint Nicholas” Church in Scheii Brasovului between the 15th and 20th centuries. In terms of folklore research, he investigated the areas related to Brasov and collected a rich ethnographic, literary and musical material which he published in reputable collections. In all three lines of activity, he wrote and published an impressive number of articles in the local and specialised national press, thus proving to have a genuine passion for research and for the dissemination of its results to the specialists and the general public.

Статья посвящена русскому религиозному искусству второй половины XIX в., вопросам смены художественных формаций от классицизма к историзму и византийскому стилю. Объектом исследования становится творческое наследие вице-президента Императорской Академии художеств князя Г. Г. Гагарина. Предпринята попытка раскрыть его теоретические взгляды на иконографию евангельской темы в украшении храмов, на методы обучения художников, на будущее русского церковного искусства. Рассматриваются авторские проекты Г. Г. Гагарина по убранству и росписям храмов в византийском стиле: Сионский собор в Тбилиси, церковь Мариинского дворца в Санкт-Петербурге, церкви в имении Ореанда в Крыму и селе Сучки на Волге. Часть представленных проектов публикуется впервые. The article is devoted to Russian religious art of the second half of XIX century. It answers some questions of changing artistic formations from classicism to historicism and the Byzantine style. The object of the research is the creative heritage of the vice-president of the Imperial Academy of Arts, Prince G. G. Gagarin. An attempt was made to reveal his theoretical views on the iconography of the gospel theme in decorating churches, on the methods of teaching artists, and on the future of Russian church art. There are some G. G. Gagarin’s projects on church murals in the Byzantine style such as the Zion Cathedral in Tbilisi, the church of the Mariinsky Palace in St. Petersburg, the churches in the Oreanda estate in the Crimea and the village of Suchki on the Volga. Some of the submitted projects are firstly published.

Abstract Professor Archdeacon Sebastian Babu-Bucur PhD is one of the most prominent representatives of Romanian Byzantology with a tireless activity spreading throughout different fields – research, psalmic musical creation, teaching, performing. Our study focuses briefly on several of the researcher’s achievements, some of his main concerns having been the Romanianisation process of the church chant in the 18th century and the manuscripts elaborated by Romanians. We highlighted the merits of the Byzantinist musicologist who contributed to the discovery of most of the Romanian manuscript no. 61 in the Romanian Academy Library, who tracked down and catalogued over 250 Romanian manuscripts to be found in the libraries from Mount Athos, who demonstrated through documenta and transcripta editions the significance of the activity of various Romanian psalm readers whose contribution to the translation of chants in Romanian had been, up to that moment, almost unknown. Archdeacon Sebastian Babu-Bucur’s tireless work as a researcher of Byzantine music contributes to a better knowledge and understanding of the evolution of this type of music in the 18th and the 19th century and leads the way towards new investigations in the years to come.

Manuel Komnenos, emperor of the Byzantine Empire from 1143-1180, utilized astrology in his political and personal life, as well as supporting translations of occult literature in his court. When the Church Patriarch presented Manuel with a letter from a simple monk claiming that the astrological teaching was a sacrilege, Manuel could not allow a charge of heresy to be leveled against him. He composed a defense of astrology, asserting that it was compatible with Christian doctrine. This treatise is his only surviving document, and this is the first time that it has been translated from the Greek into any language since its composition in the 12th century. The commentary takes up specific points for clarification. The next issue of Culture and Cosmos will contain the text of its refutation by Manuel's nemesis Michael Glykas, a learned theologian.

‘It is one thing for the mother of a family to teach the household by I word and example, but quite another for her, teaching certain useless things, to interfere with bishops or anyone in ecclesiastical orders, or even in a public synod.’ Thus theLibri Carolini, in the 790s, in its continuing attack on the Byzantine empress Irene, defined the proper role for the Frankish woman in doctrinal and educational matters. Dhuoda, wife of Bernard of Septimania, is by this definition an exemplar of Carolingian thought. She explicitly states that she wrote theLiber manualis, addressed to her son William, a hostage at the court of Charles the Bald, because she was unable to educate him in the godly life by her words and deeds. For his sake, then, she committed to writing, in the early 840s, what she would have taught him in person.

The article examines how the Aristotelian paradigm of participation works in Gregory of Nyssa’s and Gregory of Palamas’ teachings. Gregory of Nyssa uses this paradigm while developing his teaching on human nature as a monad in the treatise “To Ablabius” and relies in this regard on the “Isagoga” by Porphyry. This version of the Aristotelian paradigm of participation, which is present in Porphyry and Gregory of Nyssa, includes, first, the discourse of the participation of hypostases in their own essence, and, second, the discourse of divisibility of the participating whereas the participated remains indivisible. Gregory Palamas also uses the Aristotelian paradigm of participation in his argumentation on nonparticibility of the divine essence, and, as I suggest in the article, borrows it from Gregory of Nyssa. At the same time, Palamas transforms this discourse and associates the category of divisibility with the situation of participation as such, so that the participated appears divisible. This allows him to assert that in God the energies are participable and not the Divine essence.

This paper discusses an episode from the academic biography of Fyodor Ivanovich Shmit (1877–1937), a prominent Russian art historian and art theorist, museologist. The history of F.I. Shmit’s teaching at Leningrad State University during the 1920s and 1930s was covered. The scholar was an alumnus of the university and renewed the relationship with the alma mater following his return from Ukraine to Leningrad in the mid-1920s. Until 1932, F.I. Shmit taught here various disciplines of art history and theory. Since 1930, he had worked as the head of the Department of General History of Art and taught here such courses as History of Byzantine Art, History of Art in Feudal Europe, History of Ancient Art, History of Western European Art of the Age of Primitive Accumulation of Capital. He actively presented the results of his research in the form of academic reports. The analysis of F.I. Shmit’s curricula shows that, on the one hand, he tried to adapt them to the needs of the changing time, but, on the other one, he tried to preserve the traditional academic content. In many ways, his activities during this period helped to uphold the traditions of the St. Petersburg-Petrograd School of Art History. However, F.I. Shmit was deprived of the opportunity to continue his teaching due to the changes in the structure of higher education, which were typical for that period, as well as because of the growing pressure of the totalitarian state. In 1933, he was arrested, expelled from Leningrad, and murdered.

During late antiquity, an interesting doctrinal shift can be observed: Aristotelian logic and its Neoplatonic complements, in particular the teachings of Aristotle'sCategoriesand Porphyry'sIsagoge, were progressively accepted as a tool in Christian theology. This acceptance met drawbacks and was never unanimous. Among the authors who used concepts that originated in logic in order to support their theological thinking, we can mention, on very different accounts, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, John Philoponus, Leontius of Byzantium, Maximus the Confessor, Theodore of Raithu, and John of Damascus, the author of an importantDialectica. In the Byzantine context, handbooks of logic were written specifically for Christian theologians, showing that logic was perceived to be an important tool for theological thinking.

The main aim of this article is the general presentation and description of the eastern liturgy by emphasizing some of its characteristics different from the Latin one. The subject of the analysis was the Slavonic version of Byzantine rite which is better known in Poland and neighboring countries. The worship plays the leading role in the life of Eastern Churches. The liturgy is closely connected with teaching of the Church and it is also the source of theology. The East has never known the separation of spirituality, theology and ecclesiology from liturgy. The article presents some essential information about the Eucharist (called in the east the Divine Liturgy), the liturgy of the hours (the Divine Office), liturgical year and shows some differences in the celebration of the sacraments in comparison with the Latin practice. More important features of the eastern worship are the epiphanic, doxological, dynamic, anamnetical and eschatological ones. What strikes you about Eastern worship from the sociological point of view is its intimate union with culture and history of the lo- cal, national Church. From an external point of view the eastern liturgy is a synthesis of the arts and demonstrates a particular beauty. The liturgical action is not just a ceremony. It is an object of contemplation, an awesome vision, full of mystery. It is our participation in the liturgy of heaven, the implementation of the Kingdom of God on Earth. Therefore, the actual purpose of the liturgy is our communing with God.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:AllowPNG /> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; mso-para-margin-top: .5gd; mso-para-margin-right: 0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom: .5gd; mso-para-margin-left: 0cm; text-align: justify; line-height: normal;">The purpose of the present study is to provide insights into experimental research on Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) for developing English as a Foreign Language (EFL) skills and aspects of Byzantine history and culture in the context of Greek primary education. It aims at a) developing a CLIL project with a focus on Byzantine and post Byzantine history and culture for 6th primary school students; b) investigating the effects of CLIL on students’ skills performance after a total of 30 teaching sessions intervention; c) identifying whether CLIL instruction develops a more positive attitude towards FL and content learning. A multimodal and multisensory learning environment was created in order to support and enhance language skills and content knowledge. In such a context, students were encouraged to use language creatively through getting involved in communicative, problem-solving and inquiry-based activities. The positive effects of the project were indicated, particularly on students’ communicative skills. Also gains were recorded in relation to students’ enhancement of content knowledge and skills, as well their positive attitude towards FL and content learning.</p> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves /> <w:TrackFormatting /> <w:PunctuationKerning /> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas /> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF /> <w:LidThemeOther>EL</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables /> <w:SnapToGridInCell /> <w:WrapTextWithPunct /> <w:UseAsianBreakRules /> <w:DontGrowAutofit /> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark /> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning /> <w:DontFlipMirrorIndents /> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps /> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math" /> <m:brkBin m:val="before" /> <m:brkBinSub m:val="&#45;-" /> <m:smallFrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispDef /> <m:lMargin m:val="0" /> <m:rMargin m:val="0" /> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup" /> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440" /> <m:intLim m:val="subSup" /> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr" /> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading" /> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><! /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Κανονικός πίνακας"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} --> <!--[endif] -->

AbstractSince childhood, AR was attracted by art. His first teacher, E. Sagaidachny, was a former member of the nonconformist groups “Youth Union” and “The Donkey Tail”. Later, in Leningrad, AR enrolled in the V. Serov School of Art. In spite of official Socialist Realism, some teachers (Shablovsky, Gromov, Sudakov) introduced their students to Russian avant-garde. AR educated himself, copying the paintings of Old Masters in the Hermitage Museum. During 1959-1963 AR studied Russian Suprematism and Constructivism in the Leningrad's Institute for eater, Music and Cinema under the supervision of N. Akimov. AR considered himself as a follower of Russian Constructivism with the roots in ancient Mediterranean and Byzantine art. After graduating, AR's life was full of different activities. He preferred teaching at the V. Serov School of Art, but was fired for “ideological conspiracy” as a founder of the new courses – Technical Aesthetics, Yu. Lotman's eory of Semiotics and Russian Constructivism. In the 1970s AR became an active member of a nonconformist artist group TEV (Fellowship of the Experimental Exhibitions) and the co-founder of the ALEF group (Union of Leningrad's Jewish Artists). This activity brought close attention of KGB and he was forced to emigrate in 1976. Living in the USA, AR criticized American contemporary art for its un-spirituality, commercialism and rejection of traditions – a necessary basis of existence of art. He belonged to two traditional cultures, Jewish and Russian, and his art is traditional. His art represents his own thoughts turned into his paintings, with a great appreciation to discoveries of the Old Masters. And the circle is not closed.

The sacred art of Jerzy Nowosielski, an outstanding Polish painter of the second half of the 20th century, is an example of the creative continuation of the Byzantine tradition in Poland, but also an embodiment of the debate with the painting tradition of the East and with the experience of the Church. Both in theory and in painting practice, the artist redefined the concept of the icon, attempting to expand its formula so that it not only spoke of the Kingdom, but also included the image of the earthly, imperfect reality of the pilgrim Church. In his designs of sacred interiors for churches of various Christian denominations, Nowosielski wanted to combine three theological disciplines and their respective ways of representation: Christology, sophiology and angelology. Beside a classical icon, called by the painter a “Christological- Chalcedonian” icon, Nowosielski demanded a “sophiological” icon, bringing into the space of a church an earthly, painful reality, traces of inner struggle and doubt – hence the presence of doloristic motifs in his icons. The “inspired geometry” also became a complement to the holy images; the artist noticed a huge spiritual potential in abstract painting, to which he eventually assigned the role of icon painting. The poetic concept of “subtle bodies” – abstract angels testifying to the reality of the spiritual world – drew from the early Christian theological thought, which argued about the corporeality of spiritual entities, from Byzantine angelology, the tradition of theosophy and occultism, but also from the art of the first avant-garde, especially that from Eastern Europe, which inherited the Orthodox cult of the image. Nowosielski’s bilingualism as a painter – practicing abstraction and figuration in tandem, including within the church – paralleled the liturgical practice of many religious communities using different languages to express different levels of reality: human affairs and divine affairs. The tradition of apophatic theology, proclaiming the truth about the “unrepresentability” of God, was also important in shaping Nowosielski’s ideas. For Nowosielski’s monumental art, the problem of the mutual relationship between painting and architecture proved crucial. The artist based his concept on the decisive domination of painting over architecture and the independence of monumental painting. His goal was the principle of creating a sacred interior as a holistic, comprehensive vision of space which leads the participants of liturgy “out of everyday life” and into a different, transcendent dimension, in which the painter saw the main purpose of sacred art. From his first projects from the 1950s till the end of his artistic practice Nowosielski tried to realize his own dream version of the “ideal church”. In many of his projects he introduced abstraction into the temple, covering the walls, vaults, presbyteries, sometimes even the floors with a network of triangular “subtle bodies”. Forced to compromise, he introduced sacred abstraction into murals, as accompanying geometries, or into stained glass windows. The interiors, comprehensively and meticulously planned, were supposed to create the effect of “passing through”, “rending the veil” – from behind which a new, heavenly reality dawned. In practice, it was not always possible to achieve this intention, but the artist’s aim was to create an impression of visual unity, a sense of “entering the painting”, of being immersed in the element of painting. Painting in space was supposed to unite a broken world, to combine physical and spiritual reality into an integral whole. When designing sacred interiors, Nowosielski used the sanctity of the icon, but also the pure qualities of painting which were to cause a “mystical feeling of God’s reality”. The aim of sacred art understood in such a way turned out to be initiation rather than teaching. In this shift of emphasis Nowosielski saw the only chance for the revival of sacred art, postulating even a shift of the burden of evangelization from verbal teaching to the work of charismatic art.

В статье анализируется учение о создании человека по образу и подобию Божию в свете антропологии выдающегося христианского мыслителя, философа и богослова Иоанна Филопона (~ 490-575). Этому вопросу посвящена VI-я книга трактата «De opificio mundi» (О сотворении мира) с 1-й главы по 22-ю включительно. Кроме изучения воззрений самого Филопона на библейское учение об образе и подобии Божием, сопоставляются различные толкования указанных терминов Иоанном и его главным оппонентом Феодором Мопсуестийским (~ 350-428) в контексте византийской литературы. Особое внимание уделено многогранности философии Филопона, которая проявляется в том, что его интерес к вопросу о сотворении людей имеет не только богословский характер. Ещё один важный аспект данного исследования в том, что в нём рассматривается сопоставление Иоанном Грамматиком переводов Акилы (II в.), Симмаха (II-III вв.), Феодотиона (II в.) и Семидесяти при толковании Быт. 1, 26-27. В работе применены методы филологического и богословского анализа, сравнительный метод (сопоставление переводов толкований библейских текстов), метод структурного контент-анализа. Основным выводом данной публикации является утверждение Филопона, в котором он отождествляет образ с разумной способностью. Различие же между образом и подобием он видит в том, что первый актуализируется с самого начала, а второе осуществляется свободной волей при проявлении добродетели. The article analyzes the doctrine of the creation of man in the image and likeness of God in the light of the anthropology of the outstanding Christian thinker, philosopher and theologian John Philoponus (~ 490-575). this issue is devoted to the VI-th book of the treatise «De opificio mundi» (On the creation of the world) from the 1st chapter to the 22nd inclusive. In addition to the study of Philoponus’ own views on the biblical teaching about the image and likeness of God, various interpretations of these terms by John and his main opponent Theodore of Interpreter (~ 350-428) are compared in the context of Byzantine literature. Special attention is paid to the versatility of Philoponus’ philosophy, which is manifested in the fact that His interest in the question of the creation of people is not only theological in nature. Another important aspect of this study is that it examines the comparison of John the Grammarian’s translations of Aquila (II c.), Symmachus (II-III c.), Theodotus (II c.), and the Seventy in the interpretation of Gen. 1, 26-27. The paper uses the methods of philological and theological analysis, comparative method (comparison of translations of interpretations of biblical texts), and the method of structural content analysis. The main conclusion of this publication is the statement of Philoponus, in which he identifies the image with a reasonable ability. He sees the difference between image and likeness in the fact that the former is actualized from the very beginning, and the latter is carried out by free will in the manifestation of virtue.

В статье анализируется учение о создании человека по образу и подобию Божию в свете антропологии выдающегося христианского мыслителя, философа и богослова Иоанна Филопона (~ 490-575). Этому вопросу посвящена VI-я книга трактата «De opificio mundi» (О сотворении мира) с 1-й главы по 22-ю включительно. Кроме изучения воззрений самого Филопона на библейское учение об образе и подобии Божием, сопоставляются различные толкования указанных терминов Иоанном и его главным оппонентом Феодором Мопсуестийским (~ 350-428) в контексте византийской литературы. Особое внимание уделено многогранности философии Филопона, которая проявляется в том, что его интерес к вопросу о сотворении людей имеет не только богословский характер. Ещё один важный аспект данного исследования в том, что в нём рассматривается сопоставление Иоанном Грамматиком переводов Акилы (II в.), Симмаха (II-III вв.), Феодотиона (II в.) и Семидесяти при толковании Быт. 1, 26-27. В работе применены методы филологического и богословского анализа, сравнительный метод (сопоставление переводов толкований библейских текстов), метод структурного контент-анализа. Основным выводом данной публикации является утверждение Филопона, в котором он отождествляет образ с разумной способностью. Различие же между образом и подобием он видит в том, что первый актуализируется с самого начала, а второе осуществляется свободной волей при проявлении добродетели. The article analyzes the doctrine of the creation of man in the image and likeness of God in the light of the anthropology of the outstanding Christian thinker, philosopher and theologian John Philoponus (~ 490-575). this issue is devoted to the VI-th book of the treatise «De opificio mundi» (On the creation of the world) from the 1st chapter to the 22nd inclusive. In addition to the study of Philoponus’ own views on the biblical teaching about the image and likeness of God, various interpretations of these terms by John and his main opponent Theodore of Interpreter (~ 350-428) are compared in the context of Byzantine literature. Special attention is paid to the versatility of Philoponus’ philosophy, which is manifested in the fact that His interest in the question of the creation of people is not only theological in nature. Another important aspect of this study is that it examines the comparison of John the Grammarian’s translations of Aquila (II c.), Symmachus (II-III c.), Theodotus (II c.), and the Seventy in the interpretation of Gen. 1, 26-27. The paper uses the methods of philological and theological analysis, comparative method (comparison of translations of interpretations of biblical texts), and the method of structural content analysis. The main conclusion of this publication is the statement of Philoponus, in which he identifies the image with a reasonable ability. He sees the difference between image and likeness in the fact that the former is actualized from the very beginning, and the latter is carried out by free will in the manifestation of virtue.

Introduction. The author shows how the Stoic principle of total blending of physical bodies finds its refraction in the Byzantine Christological teachings on the example of penetration of fire into iron. According to the Stoics, total blending occurs when one body accepts certain qualities of the other, however, remaining themselves, or both mixed bodies acquire qualities of each other preserving their natures. Analysis. The author asserts that Origen’s use of the example of iron incandesced by fire turned out to be paradigmatic for the subsequent Christian literature, and influenced the formation of two directions of using this example at once: in Christological context, as well as to describe deification of man. Further, the author addresses to Christological problematics and claims that using the incandesced iron example in Byzantium literature in properly Christological context began with Apollinarius of Laodicea. The paper also investigates the specificity of the refraction of this example in Christological perspective in (Ps.-) Basil of Caesarea, Theodoret of Cyrus, Cyril of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, John of Damascus, and Corpus Leontianum. Results. In this context, the author pays special attention to the discrepancy between John Damascus and Leontius of Jerusalem regarding the issue of the complexity of Christ’s hypostasis. The researcher clarifies prerequisites of this discrepancy.

Sometime in the XIV century, towards the end of the second or beginning of the third decade, the 'horizontal genealogical image' of the Serbian rulers gave way to a new depiction of their genealogy. We find the earliest surviving Nemanjic family tree, painted in a vertically arranged composition in the narthex of Gracanica, followed by those in Pec, Decani, Mateic and Studenica. The appearance of the new type of image presenting the Serbian dynastic genealogy was, on the one hand, due to the problems caused by the ever lengthening series of rulers' portraits. They led to the deformation of the thematic programmes and did not correspond to the dynamic spirit of 'Palaeologan renaissance' art. On the other hand, from the mid-XIII century there was a obvious intention to link the idea of a 'chosen people' and the genealogy of Christ with the Nemanjic dynasty. This process unfolded simultaneously in literature, royal charters and visual art. It was facilitated by the fact that presentations of Christ's genealogy - the Tree of Jesse - were introduced in the programmes of Serbian churches from the second half of the XIII century. A correspondence had already been established between the presentations of Christ's genealogy and the portraits of the Nemanjic family included in the broader thematic ensembles inspired by dynastic ideology, in Sopocani and, subsequently, in Moraca, Arilje and the King's Church in Studenica. Even in the description of the family tree of the Serbian dynasty itself, the notions of 'pious lineage', 'the holy root', 'the branch of good fruit', 'the blessed shoots' etc. were used in the written sources. In this way, a process gradually matured along the path towards creating a dynastic picture of the house of Nemanjic that was iconographically coordinated to the Tree of Jesse. However, the 'vertical' family tree of the Nemanjici was not a simple transposition of the 'horizontal genealogy' into the structure of the new iconographic scheme. It is possible to notice significant contextual differences between the two types of the Serbian dynastic picture, especially regarding the presentation of the rulers' wives or the rulers' daughters, or male relatives from the lateral branches. A number of questions that had earlier been of particular importance, such as the order of succession to the throne through the direct bloodline, became submerged in a multitude of new messages and slowly lost significance. The 'vertical' family tree of the Nemanjici focused far more on the proclamation of general dynastic messages. As a more developed and complex picture than the 'horizontal' genealogy, it was able to convey more carefully nuanced details about what effect dynastic history had on the awareness of the court. Apart from that, in contrast to the presentations of XIII century 'horizontal genealogies' that illustrated Nemanja and his direct successors as monks, the new type of dynastic picture quite clearly stressed the 'imperial' nature of the ruler's family. A similar change of meaning can also be noted in contemporaneous royal charters. One should view this interesting phenomenon through the prism of the increasingly tangible influences of Byzantine imperial ideology on Serbian dynastic thought. The distinct influence of Byzantine perceptions can also be recognized in the motive of the ruler's investiture being performed by God himself, depicted at the top of the Nemanjic family tree. Therefore, the new Serbian genealogical picture reflected much more clearly than its predecessor, the Byzantine teachings about power, which blended the 'dynastic principle' with dogma regarding the providential election of the ruler. In later monuments, where a composite family tree was depicted, linking the Nemanjic dynasty to the Byzantine and the Bulgarian royal families (Mateic, and perhaps even Studenica), the concept of the 'new Israel' was redefined in Serbian imperial ideology, according to the universalistic views adopted from Byzantium. Although all the essential iconographic details of dynastic genealogy in the form of the family tree were of Byzantine origin, no credible testimonies were found in scientific research that the theme itself was designed in artistic form in Byzantium. Hence, one cannot exclude the possibility that the Nemanjic family tree was an authentic, iconographic creation devised in Serbia. With the necessary caution, here, we should stress that the Serbian environment was quite singular because it had a long lasting and, moreover sacred dynasty. For that reason it was particularly absorbed in dynastic issues and the idea of 'a new chosen people'. That environment traveled the path to a 'vertical' dynastic picture slowly, following the evolutionary logic of its own culture and art.

The article examines the debate as to the direct influence of Bulgarian and Byzantine Bogomilism upon the doctrine of the Bosnian Church. The author traces some scholarly views pro et contra the presence, in the Bosnian-Slavic sources, of traces of neo-Manichean views on the Church, the Patristic tradition, and the sacraments. In analyzing two marginal glosses in the so-called Srećković Gospel in the context of some anti-Bogomil Slavic and Byzantine texts, the article attempts to establish the importance of Bulgarian and Byzantine Bogomilism for the formation of certain dogmatic and ecclesiological views in the doctrine of the Bosnian Church: the negative attitude towards the orthodox Churches, especially the Roman Catholic Church; the rejection of the sacrament of baptism and of St. John the Baptist; the rejection of the sacrament of confession, and hence, of the Eucharist. These doctrinal particularities of the Bosnian Church warrant the assertion that its teachings and liturgical practice differed significantly from the dogmatics and practice of the orthodox Churches. Without being a copy of the Bogomil communities, the Bosnian Church was certainly heretical, and neo-Manichean influences from the Eastern Balkans were an integral element of the Bosnian Christians’ faith.

The article traces the formation of Eastern Christian anthropology as a new religious and philosophical tradition within the Early Byzantine culture. The notion “Patristics” is reasoned as a corpus of ideas of the Church Fathers, both Eastern and Western. The term “Eastern Patristics” means the works by Greek-Byzantine Church Fathers, who in the theological disputes with the Western Church Fathers elaborated the Christian creed. Based on an analysis of the texts of Greek-Byzantine Church Fathers, the most important provisions of Eastern Patristics are deduced and discussed, which determined the specificity of Christian anthropology. In this context, different approaches of the Eastern Fathers to the explanation of the Old Testament thesis on the creation of man in God’s image and likeness and the justification of the duality of human essence are shown. Particular attention is paid to considering the idea of deification as overcoming the human dualism and the entire created universe, the doctrine of the Divine Logoi as God’s energies, and the potential elimination of the antinomianism of the earthly and Divine worlds. The article reflects the anthropological ideas of the pre-Nicene Church Father Irenaeus, the non-canonical early Christian work The Shepherd of Hermas, and the teachings on the man of the classical Eastern Patristics period by Athanasius of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, and Maximus the Confessor.

After the Fall of Byzantium, a large number of Greek humanists arrived in Europe. They greatly affected the study of Greek language and thought in the whole of Europe. This paper investigates three main areas of their influence: teaching, translating, and publishing.

<p>This paper provides an overview of the above research programme, whichwas implemented as part of the PYTHAGORAS II programme administeredby the EU in collaboration with the Hellenic Ministry of Education andReligious Matters and the University of Athens. Professors Olga Katsiardi-Hering and Anastasia Papadia-Lala and Assistant Professor Maria Efthymiou,members of the Department of History and Archaeology, undertook academicresponsibility for the project. The research team consisted of Ph.D. holders andcandidates and post-graduate students (Vassiliki Seirinidou and KaterinaKonstantinidou, as well as Dimitrios Kontogeorgis, Marina Koumanoudi,Sotiris Koutmanis, Ikaros Mantouvalos, Katerina Mousadakou, ChristinaPapacosta, Lambros Travlos), with the contribution of Professor ChryssaMaltezou, Director of the Hellenic Institute of Byzantine and Post-ByzantineStudies of Venice, and Professor Olga Cicanci (Archival Studies at Bucharest).</p><p>The historical category of the community as a factor in the history of NewHellenism lies at the heart of the research, which explored various aspects ofthe phenomenon through an examination of numerous urban communities inGreek lands under Venetian rule (13th-18th centuries) on the one hand, and ofthe communities of the Diaspora on the other: the Greek Brotherhood ofVenice, Greek communities and commercial companies in the HabsburgMonarchy, Greek communities in the Trans-Danubian Principalities/ Romania.The two types of community are linked by their connection with Europe, theirsecularity and by their contribution to the emergence of the identity of theGreek populations in a complex politico-cultural environment. The moststudiedcommunity in the Ottoman Empire is used for purely comparativepurposes.</p><p>The main research axes were: a) the institutional framework of communityorganization, b) intra-community features, c) community activities.</p><p>The research was undertaken in Athens and various sites abroad and wasbacked up by archive material both published and unpublished (embassies,statutes, registers of marriages and baptisms, property registers, wills,commercial correspondence).</p><p>The results of the research include:</p><p>l.The compiling of academic reports detailing the research results;</p><p>2. Electronic processing (a. digital catalogues of archive material, b)electronic publications of transcribed archive material, c) electronic databases,now held at the University of Athens);</p><p>3. Academic papers presented at the One-day Conference held at theUniversity of Athens Historical Archive on February 27,2006;</p><p>4. The production of academic papers published in reputable academicseries and academic journals.</p><p>The historical material assembled and the conclusions drawn from thesubsequent research will contribute to the furtherance of academic researchand teaching at the university level.</p>

Abstract In this article I seek to show in what manner the Stoic principle of total blending, illustrated by the example of the penetration of fire into iron, finds its refraction in Byzantine Christological teachings. According to the Stoics, total blending occurs when one body accepts certain qualities of the other, while remaining itself, or when both mixed bodies acquire qualities of each other while preserving their natures. I argue that Origen’s use of the example of incandescent iron had an effect on the later theological discourse. There it appears in two contexts, Christology and deification. In this article the focus is on Christology. I claim that the example was introduced into the Christological discourse by Apollinarius of Laodicea. Then, I investigate how it was transformed in later theological writings by (Ps.-) Basil of Caesarea, Theodoret of Cyrus, Cyril of Alexandria, Sever of Antioch, John of Damascus, and the Corpus Leontianum. In this context, I pay special attention to the discrepancy between John of Damascus and Leontius of Jerusalem as regards the issue of the complexity of Christ’s hypostasis. I clarify the causes of this discrepancy.

Early Ukrainian Christianity (XI-XII centuries) was based, as we know, on the one and only faith of Christ, which taught the right (that is, the "right") to believe in Christ and to rightly glorify Him in the presence of various false heretical teachings of that It also had a universal Catholic character, as it recognized, along with the Byzantine Church, as head of the Church the successor of St. Peter, the Pope. This allegiance of the Kiev Church to the apostolic leadership of the Church of Christ, even after the split of the Universal Church in 1054, remained a characteristic feature of Ukrainian Christianity.

Ljubica Maric's music provides manifold encouragements for consideration in the light of the Logos, according to the teaching exposed in the prologue of the Gospel by St. John. It speaks of the essential inconceivability of time and life, which have their cause in God and His Logos. Seeing through and praising 'the logos of things' guide all its aspects: the tone reveals itself as a vibration, as the energy of lasting and existing, as the beginning of every time and motion; the sonority of different instrumental media is freely expressed and mutually determined in co-action with specific musical and contextual moments; the rhythm evades every regularity and mechanicalness, by which both single duration's and the whole metro-rhythmic course gain a vivid expression. The entire shape of the work is also taken from the reality of psychological and historical time, from its unreductable dynamics, being always in a vivid connection with the space, origin and tradition. The respect for 'the truth of things', the awe before the mystery of time and existence, which call upon the very principle of life in the divine Logos are obvious in everything. Designation of man as a being of light and reason created in the image of God to be the likeness of His being, is expressed in Ljubica Maric's music by the measure of human pulse taken as the basic tempo of her entire opus. Ljubica Maric expressed her consciousness of the reason as a special gift to the man by extremely careful treatment of the words - its meanings, melodies, rhythms, which she always considered the very source of music. The relation between the word and the voice - its sonorous body - is shown in the cantata Songs of Space (1956) as a mystery of the encounter of the Logos and the matter. In relation to her earlier works, this one is a marked breakthrough of the composer's authentic 'voice', which will find its full identity only after receiving the divine Word, symbolized by the melodies of the Serbian Octoechos in the cycle Musica Octoicha (1958-1963). Thus, Ljubica Maric's music has entered its 'New Testament' time and become a specific story of the Logos and His presence in the world and history. In the opaque and dramatic course of that related musical time, the melodics of chanting is experienced as the manifestation of the light, meaning, reason freedom, awe. These graceful effects bring into the work a certain beyond-time dynamics - inverse perspective of time - and, like a Byzantine church dome, they bear witness to the divine condescension. Ljubica Maric's music is steeped in the mystery of the beginning and the end, which meet in eternity, in the One who is Alpha and Omega; in its one tone and in its entire course, it grasps the whole of time and existence - through the divine Word itself by which it has also been made.

"The paper gives an answer to the question if and in what way the doctrine of energies is present in De omnifaria doctrina of Michael Psellos, and compared to the background of self-evidence and even simplification of the doctrine in the twelfth century (using the example of Nicetas from Maroneia). It is mainly represented in the form of a valid element of conventional philosophy and theology. It is pointed out that the only model of this doctrine usually considered is the version promoted by Gregorius Palamas in a systematic form, forming the basic axis of his system of thought, which is to serve as the basis for the explanation of all phenomena that can be an object of philosophical and theological reflection. Psellos’ version shows some differences in comparison with this model. It is proven (using the example of Prochorus Kydones) that even in the course of the Hesychast controversy most of Palamas’ opponents do not question the doctrine. The theory of energy proves to be a philosophical instrument that is valid for all philosophers in Byzantium, regardless of the line of thought they represent. It is a specific feature of philosophy in Byzantium, which characterizes its peculiarity in a comparison with the western medieval philosophical paradigms. It is decidedly emphasized that the theory of energy does not have a clearly defined, “essential” constitution, but rather demonstrates a variety of forms of appropriation and use, so that each philosopher applies it according to the peculiarity of his own philosophy program. Keywords: teaching of energies, essence, power, activity/energy, perichoresis, participation, causality, Michael Psellos, Nicetas from Maroneia, Gregorius Palamas, Prochorus Kydones. "

The article discusses the question of interrelation between the promotion of Miaenergism and its influence on the sense of religious identity of non-Chal­cedonian Christians. The purpose of the article if to point that the promotion of Miaenergism was perceived by Miaphysites as an challenge for their religious iden­tity formed in the period after the Council of Chalcedon (451) on the basis of refu­tation of Chalcedon, absolute loyalty to the teachings of their Patriarchs, especially to Christological notions of Cyril of Alexandria. The promotion of Miaenergism became the stimulus that caused the crystallization of a sense of religious identity of the Miaphysites. The promotion of Miaenergism strongly influenced a sense of the Miaphysite political identity, opposite to Byzantine government.

The currently existing type of dialogue of Western and Eastern cultures makes a philosophical exploration of Christianity and Islam compelling as they are fundamental monotheistic religions capable of ensuring the peaceful interaction of various ethnic cultures in the age of deepening secularization. The present analysis of the philosophical and epistemological teachings of the Greek Byzantine Church Fathers and the thinkers of classical Arab-Islamic culture aims at overcoming stereotypes regarding the opposition of Christianity and Islam that strongly permeate both scholarly theorizing and contemporary social discourses. The authors scrutinize the epistemological principles of the exoteric and esoteric knowledge of the Islamic Golden Age and the apophatic and cataphatic ways of attaining the knowledge of God in Early Christianity. Special attention is paid to the analysis of the concepts of personal mystical comprehension of God in Sufism (fanā’) and in Christianity (Uncreated Light).

The trial at Orleans in 1022 of a group of aristocratic clergy, who included the confessor of Queen Constance of France, and their followers on the charge of heresy is the most fully reported among the group of heresy trials which were conducted in the Western Church during the first half of the eleventh century. Although the alleged heretics of Orleans are usually considered a part of a wider pattern of Western religious dissent, the charges brought against them differ considerably from those levelled against the other groups brought to trial in that period. The heterodox beliefs with which the canons of Orleans were charged bear a strong resemblance to the teachings of the Byzantine abbot, St. Symeon the New Theologian, who died in 1022. St. Symeon taught that it was possible for a Christian to experience the vision of God in this life if he or she received ascetic guidance from a spiritual director, who need not be a priest. In the late tenth and early eleventh centuries a significant number of Orthodox monks visited northern Europe, including Orleans, and some of them settled there. It is therefore possible that the Canons of Orleans who were put on trial had been trained in the tradition of St. Symeon by one of those Orthodox monks who were familiar with it. St. Symeon was part of the Hesychast tradition in the Byzantine Church. Even so, his emphasis on the supremacy of personal religious experience at the expense of the corporate worship of the institutional Church was strongly criticised by some of his contemporaries. A study of his writings shows that he was, in fact, completely Orthodox in faith and practice and that these criticisms were ill-judged. Nevertheless, if, as we have suggested, the Canons of Orleans had tried to live in accordance with his teachings, the hostile reactions of the Western hierarchy would be comprehensible. For there was no tradition of Hesychasm in the spirituality of the Western Church, and the fact that the dissidents at Orleans saw little value in observing the rituals of the established Church would have alarmed conventional churchmen.

В первой части статьи было систематически раскрыто учение монаха Студийского монастыря прп. Никиты Стифата о четырёх главных добродетелях. Во второй части статьи делается попытка раскрыть контекст данного учения в античной, раннехристианской, средневизантийской и поздневизантийской традициях. Учение о четырёх главных добродетелях в их определённом составе: мужество, умеренность/целомудрие, разумность и справедливость - формулируется в аретологии Платона, ещё более глубоко и систематично представлено у Аристотеля, стоиков и особенно у неоплатоников. Филон Александрийский поместил античное учение на библейское основание. В византийскую эпоху учение о четырёх главных добродетелях получило особое распространение и было интерпретировано в духе христианской аретологии. Свт. Василий Великий, прп. Феодор Студит писали о данных четырёх добродетелях как об основе нравственности. Особое внимание в статье уделяется выбору самых важных добродетелей из числа главных так же, как и из числа новозаветных добродетелей - любви, терпения и других, что решительно выходило за пределы античных представлений. Общий контекст позволяет выявить своеобразие учения прп. Никиты Стифата, который сравнивает четыре главные добродетели с четырёхчастностью человеческой души как великого мира по сравнению с внешним, малым, миром. В статье показано, что в аскетико-богословском корпусе прп. Никиты Стифата учение о четырёх главных добродетелях является одним из постоянных лейтмотивов. In the first part of the article the author gives a systematic analysis of the doctrine on the four “main virtues” of a monk of Studite Monastery St. Nicetas Stethatus. In the second part of the article, an attempt is made to reveal the context of this doctrine in the ancient, early Christian, middle Byzantine and late Byzantine traditions. The doctrine of the four “main virtues” in this specific composition - courage, moderation/chastity, prudence and justice - is formulated in Plato’s aretology and more deeply and systematically presented in Aristotle, the Stoics and especially the Neoplatonists. Philo of Alexandria placed the ancient teachings on biblical foundations. In the Byzantine era, the doctrine of the four “main virtues” was particularly prevalent and was interpreted in the spirit of Christian aretology. St. Basil the Great, St.Theodore the Studite wrote about these four virtues as the basis of morality.Particular attention is paid in the article to the various types of correlation among the main virtues, by analogy with which Christian authors referred to the main New Testament virtues of love, patience and others, which went way beyond the limitations of ancient ideas. The general context allows to reveal the originality of the St. Nicetas Stethatus, who compares the “four main virtues” with the fourfold nature of the human soul as a great world compared to the external, small, world, which, according to ancient ideas, consisted of four primary elements. In the ascetic-theological corpus of St. Nicetas Stethatus the doctrine of the four “main virtues” is a recurring leitmotif.

The study is an attempt at a comparative analysis of two pseudo-canonical texts: the Slavic Homily of John Chrysostom on How Michael Vanquished Satanael (in two versions) and the Greek Λόγος τοῠ ἀρχηστρατήγου Μιχαήλ, ὃταν ἐπῆρεν τήν στολήν (BHG 1288n). Both texts, very close to each other in terms of the plot, relate an ancient angelomachia between a heavenly emissary and a demiurge expelled from the angelic hierarchy. When examined against the background of dualistic heterodox doctrines on the one hand, and compared to other medieval cultural texts (be they liturgical, iconographical or folkloric) on the other, these works enable insight into how heterodox and pseudo-canonical texts functioned and were disseminated in the medieval Byzantine-Slavic cultural sphere. The Slavic Homily… is not genetically related to its Greek counterpart, which is only preserved in a lat, 16th century copy. Rather, it was composed before the 13th century on the basis of another, non-extant model with a content similar to the pseudo-canonical Greek Homily… It is probable to a certain degree that the emergence of the Slavic work is connected with the growing interest in the cult of Archangel Michael in the First Bulgarian Empire, especially in the Diocese of Ohrid. Certain Gnostic ideas related to dualistic cosmology, as well as cosmogony, angelology and anthropology spread from the Judeo-Christian world to Byzantine literature and culture. Having undergone a number of transformations in the neo-Manichean communities of the Byzantine Empire and Bulgaria, they formed the basis for medieval dualistic cosmogony, as well as angelology and anthropology. Circulated both orally and in written form, beliefs concerning the invisible God, Archangel Michael as a ‘second God’ and the soul’s journey to Paradise became so widespread that they are not only found in heretic texts, but also cited almost verbatim in anti-heretic treatises. The content and later textual modifications of the Slavic Homily… cast a doubt on the hypothesis concerning its Bogomil origin. Furthermore, it cannot be determined to what extent works such as the Homily… were made use of by (moderate?) Bogomil communities. Even before the 14th century, the text underwent the processes of liturgization and folklorization, as proven by the presence of liturgical quotations (absent from the Greek text), the visualization of the story in sacred space as well as the aetiological legends about Archangel Michael’s fight against the Devil. The existence of ancient Gnostic ideas in the beliefs propagated by neo-Manichean Balkan heretic teachings, as well as their widespread presence in “high” and “low” texts originating in medieval communities call for a more cautious evaluation of the mutual antagonisms between them. This raises the problem of a wider look at medieval culture, in fact a syncretic phenomenon, where the distinction between the canonical, the pseudo-canonical, the heretic and the folkloric is not always clear-cut.

A comparative analysis of the philosophical foundations of the teachings on love by Maximus the Confessor and Vladimir Solovyov is presented utilizing the principles of source analysis, comparative philosophical study, and the historico-genetic method. The case is made for the relevance of this research topic, due to the lack of special studies on the reception of Maximus the Confessor’s doctrine of the love in the works of Vladimir Solovyov. An analysis is given of the extent to which V.V. Vysheslavtseva, K.V. Mochulsky, G.V. Florovsky, A.F. Loseva, S.S. Averintseva, V.M. Lurie, I.B. Benevich, A.I. Sidorova knew of the the problem. The focus is also on the works of foreign authors – H.U. von Balthazar, M.-J. Guillau, D.D. Kornblatt, R.F. Gustafson, E.V. Borisova, J.-K. Larcher, Ts. Angelova, J. Sutton, J. Krasicki, O. Smith – which show a genetic affinity between the teachings of Maximus the Confessor and Vladimir Solovyov. This article also takes up the main sources that reveal the content of the concepts of love in Maximus the Confessor and Vladimir Solovyov. Also taken up here is the extent of the Russian philosopher’s acquaintance with the works and heritage of St. Maximus and Solovyov’s assessment of his place and role in the patristic heritage. We find the focus of attention of modern scholars to be on the epistemological and ethical aspects of love as found in the works of the Byzantine thinker. This article also notes the particular importance of studying the ontological foundations of the concepts of love that are found in Maximus the Confessor and Vladimir Solovyov.

The article considers the religious-philosophical anthropological paradigm in Soviet philosophy during the years of perestroika. It was during this period that Soviet idealist philosophers, forced to work under the conditions of a “scientific underground” for seven decades, first gained the right to participate legally in academic discussions. They substantiated the idea of man as a divine immortal being called to deification, restored, and approved in the official discourse the religious-philosophical anthropological model, either reinterpreting it according to the samples of Byzantine patristics, or synthesizing it with oriental beliefs. The article reconstructs and analyzes the basic provisions of this paradigm: ideas about the origin of man, the relationship of soul and body, free will, the meaning and purpose of life, the relationship between the individual and society. It is concluded that the development of late Soviet religious and philosophical anthropological thought was determined by the tendency to self-isolation, associated with the actual refusal of its supporters from a constructive dialogue with adherents of materialistic teachings, and, consequently, the refusal to develop a synthesized concept of man. Adherents of the religious-philosophical approach expressed the hope that Christian anthropology would be taken as the basis for all philosophical developments of the future. However, contrary to their plans, this paradigm did not acquire a dominant position in modern Russian philosophy, and remained an object of interest for historians of philosophy and not for experts in philosophical anthropology and social philosophy.