Search

This article examines the definitions of place or location (topos) and as a consequence, space, in Byzantine philosophy, from Maximos the Confessor to Photios. These philosophers draw, on one hand, on the Aristotelian, Platonic, and Neoplatonic sources, and on the other hand, on the Judeo-Christian tradition. Firstly, Maximos the Confessor sets out a novel definition in which place is conceptually inseparable from time, is needed for substances to exist, and in which place is the boundary between the created and uncreated. In Anastasios of Sinai's writing, God is the archetypical place for all things and is likewise necessary for substances. John of Damascus, in contrast, extends Aristotle's definition of place in the Physics in new directions, by investigating the place of angels, which is determined by their incorporeal limits. Finally, Photios produces a systematic and astute account of how the properties of the containing and contained bodies come together to make places. The article concludes with an evaluation of these theories, and briefly considers their relationship to theories of place and location in modern physics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The research is devoted to the ethical views of Vladimir Monomakh, reflected in the “Teaching” of the Grand Duke. The author’s reflections concerning such fundamental moral categories as good and evil, virtue and vice, the meaning of life and death, free will, duty, happiness are considered and analyzed. A partial continuity of the Grand Duke’s views concerning the relationship to the categories of good and evil, as well as virtue and vice, with the Byzantine Christian tradition, in particular with regard to the “theory of three small deeds”, which is based on the theory of repentance of John Chrysostom, and the theory of “asceticism in the world”, based on the writings of Basil the Great. It is revealed that the ethical views of the Grand Duke do not fit into the strict paradigm of Christian medieval philosophy and theology. In this regard, the author of the article draws attention to the syncretic nature of the worldview of the author of the “Teaching”, expressed in a kind of worldview combining Christian and pre-Christian beliefs. In this vein, the specific understanding of the problems of the meaning of life, death, happiness by Vladimir Monomakh is analyzed, which is revealed when considering the peculiar attitude of the author of the “Teaching” to the sacred rites of prayer and burial. The author’s views on the category of duty in the universal and state terms, as well as the principles of practical behavior, are studied. According to the results of the research, the author of the article comes to the conclusion that the work of the Grand Duke is an ethical “micro-treatise”, the ideological content of which fully reflects the moral concept of the existence of the ancient Rus-sian man.

“Knowledge” in Islam, Muslim culture and philosophy is considered as the key to understanding Muslim civilization, the formation of which took place in interaction with the cultures of peoples of the eastern and western parts of the former Roman Empire. The Byzantine theology and philosophy were of great importance for the points of contact and mutual enrichment of Muslim and Christian cultures in the Middle Ages, influencing the formation of Christian orthodox doctrine and the worldview of the ethnically diverse peoples of the Byzantine oikumene. The phenomenon of “knowledge” in Muslim culture is presented in the article in connection with some contexts of Byzantine culture. “Knowledge”, as well as the categorical space of Muslim culture as a whole, on the one hand, allows us to understand the spirit of Islam as a phenomenon of religion, culture and civilization, and on the other hand, to determine the role and significance of this space in the formation and development of the main directions of Arab-Muslim philosophy formed in the “golden era” of Islam. The article considers the spiritual attitude to the “search for knowledge” in Islam: in the Koran and the Sunnah. Particular attention is paid to the concept of “knowledge” in the Arab-Muslim culture, while it is noted that written culture, book knowledge and education in general were the property of not only a narrow circle of rulers and religious figures in the Arab Caliphate. Within the framework of the categorical space of the Arab Muslim culture and philosophy, it should be borne in mind that the categories of “knowledge” (‘ilm) and “action” ('amal) constitute an inseparable unity within the framework of the Arab Muslim spiritual tradition in the context of the relationship between “theoretical” and “practical” mind. The role of “knowledge” and “action” within the framework of the Arab Muslim philosophical tradition is considered on the example of the teachings of al-Ghazali, who had a huge impact on the development of philosophy both in the Arab East and the European West. Being a key figure in the spiritual history of Islam and Muslim civilization, al-Ghazali considered knowledge not just as a value, but also as a virtue. An ardent champion of the role of reason, he connected theoretical reason with the understanding of spiritual realities that give us various systems of knowledge called sciences. The area of competence of practical reason, which should be based on the theoretical, al-Ghazali associated with human behavior. Practical reason directs human actions based on the will, based on and guided by a moral ideal. Al-Ghazali’s teachings are considered in notions and terms formed and developed in the Middle Ages within the Arab-Muslim culture and reflecting some meanings of such historical type of philosophical culture as the Greek-Byzantine classical Patristics. Al-Ghazali and the Byzantine Church Fathers shared a philosophical and theological understanding of man in his relation to the Creator and the phenomenon of “knowledge”.

The ontology of artefacts in Byzantine philosophy is still a terra incognita. One way of mapping this unexplored territory is to delve into Michael of Ephesus' commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics. Written around 1100, this commentary provides a detailed interpretation of the most important source for Aristotle's ontological account of artefacts. By highlighting Michael's main metaphysical tenets and his interpretation of key-passages of the Aristotelian work, this study aims to reconstruct Michael's ontology of artefacts and present it as one instance, which is perhaps exemplary, of the Byzantine ontology of artefacts. In particular, the study shows that this commentary holds a definite position on the nature of artefacts, according to which they are neither substances nor hylomorphic compounds. Indeed, artefacts lack a form altogether and their forms exist only in thought. As a result, Michael's commentary provides an ontological interpretation of artefacts as accidental beings, i.e., as matter which acquires a mere property as opposed to a substantial form. While such an interpretation shows originality when compared to the Aristotelian text, it also indicates adherence to the reading established by Alexander of Aphrodisias, despite important departures concerning the status of natural forms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been much attention devoted in the last decade and especially in the last few years to Maximus the Confessor’s beliefs concerning sexual difference and its removal. The most important text on this topic is Ambiguum 41. There has been mixed reception of this text, with some scholars advocating that Maximus believes that sexual difference was absent from original human nature and will return to such a state in the eschaton; and other scholars believing that this should be read as a metaphorical absence. This article re-evaluates the text in question and argues that the former position should be maintained. It goes some way to bring together current scholarship on the text and to answers questions that arise from the opposing reading.

In middle to late Byzantium, one finds dogmatic‐style sceptical arguments employed against human reason in relation to divine revelation, where revelation becomes the sole criterion of certain truth in contrast to reason. This argumentative strategy originates in early Christian authors, especially Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215 CE) and Gregory Nazianzen (c. 329–390 CE), who maintain that revelation is the only domain of knowledge where certainty is possible. Given this, one finds two striking variations of this sceptical approach: a "mild" variant (represented by Clement), where knowledge derived from human reason admits partial access to truths manifested in revelation, if imperfect; and a "strict" variant (represented by Gregory), where knowledge derived from human reason does not admit any access to truths in revelation. This paper analyzes the three Byzantines, Nicholas of Methone (d. 1160/66 CE), Theodore Metochites (1270–1320 CE), and Gregory Palamas (1296–1357/59 CE), who each display certain tendencies toward these two "poles" in their respective epistemological positions on knowledge through reason and faith. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article studies the fi rst episode in the encounter of Eastern theologians with theology of Thomas Aquinas (as it was presented by papal legates) which took place in the 1330s. It shows that of the two Orthodox authors, Barlaam and St. Gregory Palamas, the former took a harshly negative position, whereas the latter was positive. Barlaam, Thomas, and Palamas had similar views on natural theology which they considered to be possible, but Barlaam did not share Thomas’s opinion about the possibility of building the “sacred doctrine” (doctrina sacra) as an Aristotelian science. The article discusses Barlaam’s critical arguments against Thomas. It demonstrates that, on the one hand, Barlaam did not know many important points of Thomas’s theology (the theory of subalternation, the use of names “by analogy”), but, on the other hand, he found a number of weak points in his opponent’s reasoning (the problem of uniqueness and causality in theology). It is concluded that Barlaam had no acquaintance with the original texts of Thomas but used their interpretation. In a dispute with Barlaam, Gregory Palamas fi rst defended the possibility of building dogmatic theology as a science; at this stage he was methodologically close to Thomas using his own syllogisms of the procession of the Holy Spirit, but during the dispute he reshaped his position. Although at this stage of the development of his system, his proposed “demostration above demostration» did not became a programme, but the beginning of developing a question about the relationship between the essence and energy in God marked not only introducing the problems of Hesychasm to the discussions, but also made up a new step in the search for a way of including the reason into the process of cognition of theological truths. The article also concludes that Barlaam succeeded in playing the role of a critic of his opponents’ systems, which furthered their development. However, he himself did not manage to create his own synthesis.

The article examines parallel developments in the study of Byzantine and medieval Islamic philosophy and identifies trends in modern Western thought that led to similar assessments. Debates on "faith and reason" and secularism as a social and political ideal have exerted major influence on both fields of study. However, Islamic philosophy has been granted a role in shaping modern Western philosophy, while Byzantine philosophy has not. The article argues that the concurrent examination of Byzantine and Islamic philosophy can help elucidate the modern concerns that drive the assessment of both and improve our understanding of their history and interaction during the medieval period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The category of the Ethico-Aesthetics, introduced by Søren Kierkegaard, was applied to the study of Byzantine Philosophy by the Greek philoso­pher and theologian Nikolaos Matsoukas (1934–2006). Matsoukas vehe­mently rejected the identification of Byzantine philosophy with a strict Christian moralism. Rather, he viewed it as an ethos which did not lead the ascetics to display Manichean contempt for the body. It was thus a kind of ‘mild asceticism’. This ethical acceptance of the body turns against Neoplatonic speculation and cultivates the habitus that leads to artistic creativity. Byzantine philosophy is thus situated at the midpoint between nominalism and realism, but standing against the realism of the archetypal ideas. The paper concludes with some considerations on the pragmatics of Byzantine philosophy in a Christian world.

Everyone who will deal with Byzantine philosophy must necessarily address several key questions, and the answers then determine what conception of Byzantine philosophy is. He writes six of these questions: 1. Is it possible to speak in Byzantium at all about some philosophy or an original philosophy? 2. From when can we talk about Byzantine philosophy? 3. The question of continuity and discontinuity of Byzantine philosophy. 4. The question of the autonomy of Byzantine philosophy. 5. What is Byzantine philosophy? 6. The question of periodization of Byzantine philosophy. The first question concerns the originality – the non-originality and syncretism of Byzantine philosophy. The paper shows that syncretism does not mean non-original, and also points out that it is an approach that is taken from Helenistic philosophy. The second question concerns the beginning of Byzantine philosophy. Two different aspects can be used here, the first one being connected with the understanding of the Byzantine Empire, the beginning of which is traced differently in the 4th, 6th or 7th centuries. The second point looks specifically at the Byzantine (autonomous) philosophy found in the 9th or 11th century. The third question concerns the continuity of Byzantine philosophy and its link to ancient philosophy. This is mainly about the choice of reference points, since it is possible to compare eg the 2nd century after Christ and the 4th century, but also the 4th century BC. and the 14th century after Kr. The continuity of Helenistic and Byzantine philosophy can certainly be seen. The sixth question compels the attitude to the question of whether the Byzantine philosophy is independent of theology. Proponents of autonomy then considerably narrow the circle of Byzantine philosophers and its period. The fifth question concerns the very essence of Byzantine philosophy. How is she? What are her themes? It is very important to solve the question whether it is autonomous or not. The sixth question is then the result of the penetration of others.

Kujawa Anna, Plethon wobec tradycji teologicznej Greków (Pletho and tradition of ancient Greek theology). Byzantine philosopher Georgios Gemistos Pletho (1355--1452) is regarded as the first Philhellene who rejected Christianity and attempted to restore the pogan religion of Hellenic gods. In his last work Books of Laws (...) he presents his own system of theology based on ancient philosophy and Greek mythology. The aim of the paper is to outline some main features of Plethon's theology and to show the influence of Greek tradition on it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

WESOŁY, Marian Andrzej. Constantine the Philosopher, Who Was He? This outstanding historical figure who died 1151 years ago on February 14, 869, has become known in history under a different name, often known without the eloquent epithet of ‘philosopher’, but with the added religious dignity of St. Cyril. He is usually compared to his elder brother St. Methodius, and they are nowadays commonly referred to as the Apostles to the Slavs, although today hardly anyone knows that their original names were Konstantinos and Michael. There is extensive literature on the importance of these Thessalonian brothers for the creation of the Slavic alphabet (Glagolitic) and the translation from Greek of the liturgical offices. The literature includes mainly religious, philological and historical perspectives, but there are only few philosophical and historiosophical considerations. In respect of the mentioned anniversary of Constantine – St. Cyril, we will reflect on his philosophical education, views and discussions with various interlocutors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The category of the Ethico-Aesthetics, introduced by Søren Kierkegaard, was applied to the study of Byzantine Philosophy by the Greek philosopher and theologian Nikolaos Matsoukas (1934-2006). Matsoukas vehemently rejected the identification of Byzantine philosophy with a strict Christian moralism. Rather, he viewed it as an ethos which did not lead the ascetics to display Manichean contempt for the body. It was thus a kind of 'mild asceticism'. This ethical acceptance of the body turns against Neoplatonic speculation and cultivates the habitus that leads to artistic creativity. Byzantine philosophy is thus situated at the midpoint between nominalism and realism, but standing against the realism of the archetypal ideas. The paper concludes with some considerations on the pragmatics of Byzantine philosophy in a Christian world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Constantine's Letters / Konštantínove Listy is the property of Institute for Research of Constantine & Methodius's Cultural Heritage and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

John the Grammarian and Leo the Mathematician and Philosopher, Byzantine intellectuals of the 9th century who played a major role in the revival of interest in the learning of classical culture in Byzantium, were attacked for their passion for the ancient culture and philosophy, particularly Platonism. Strictly Orthodox opponents accused them of impiety, sorcery and even the worship of pagan gods. Despite the absurdity of such accusations, they show that the orthodox fundamentalists denounced a manifest interest in “human wisdom”, because they considered it as a danger for the “wisdom inspired by God”. Patriarch Methodius of Constantinople accused John the Grammarian both of iconoclastic heresy and of passion for Hellenic writings. Constantine the Sicilian, a disciple of Leo the Philosopher, left his teacher and passed to the circle of admirers of the Patriarch Photios of Constantinople. After Leo’s death Constantin blamed him for his apostasy and excessive devotion to the culture of ancient Greece. 40 years later, Leo Choirosphaktes, a disciple of Leo the Philosopher, was attacked by Arethas, Archbishop of Caesarea, with similar accusations. These cases indicate the presence of various trends among the Byzantine intellectuals of 9th century: one traditionally orthodox, personified by Patriarch Photius, and another more Hellenistic, headed by Leo the Philosopher.

Methodologies and theories for writing histories of philosophy are particularly relevant today due to the abounding challenges to the discipline that have emerged: e.g. the problem concerning the precise mode of the inclusion of non-Western philosophies in the history of philosophy, the response to postcolonial considerations at large, the transformative impact of new media and the question whether the history of philosophy is primarily a philosophical, rather than merely historical, enterprise. À propos the relative scarcity that is to be witnessed in explicit articulations of methodologies and theories for writing histories of philosophy, in this note I focus on certain spontaneous, rather than theoretically planned, responses that have emerged to the above challenges - in particular, Peter Adamson’s History of Philosophy without any gaps - and in conclusion, as an example of methodological development, I touch on some of the problems we encounter in the case of the inclusion of Byzantine philosophy in the history of philosophy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Marian Wesoły devoted a considerable part of his life and research to studying the philosophical thought of antiquity. He is, therefore, widely known to scientific community as an admirer of Hellas, outstanding scholar and expert on ancient philosophy, which is reflected in his many publications in the field. Importantly, however, Marian Wesoły, has also been a pioneer of research into a much lesser known field of research, namely Greek philosophy in Byzantium. While this neglected and often disdained area of research has been the subject of Marian Wesoły’s numerous publications, this article presents an over view of his most important findings.

This paper argues that research in the primary sources must precede the investigation of Byzantine philosophy. Two points are to be considered, on the one hand, the gathering of texts, and, on the other hand, the study of texts in relation to their sources. Thus the external evidence as well as the internal evidence of texts should be examined. In this double regard, the manuscripts containing Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics are considered. Their authors are Michael of Ephesos, Eustratios of Nicaea, "Anonymus", Heliodoros of Prussa, Georgios Pachymeres, Michael Psellos, John Italos, Nikephoros Blemmydes, George Gemistos Plethon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a reception of Hellenism, both in the Syro-Arab world as well as in Byzantium, which started from the fact that Christian thinkers were convinced that some pagan philosophers had also approximated the divine truth, but could not fully understand it. An important aspect that Byzantine thinkers inherited from the ancients is that related to the Christian tradition of logic. The debate among Byzantine philosophers about the value of logic constitutes one of the most interesting problems in the study of Byzantine intellectual life. There are many Byzantine authors who used logic in its traditional ancient forms; however, there were many others who rejected the use of logic in theology and who even argued that logical studies should be rejected altogether. But due to the substantial number of Byzantine manuscripts of Aristotle's logical writings, as well as logical textbooks and treatises, the predominance of Aristotle's logic in Byzantium was indisputable. It is evident that various philosophical traditions influenced Byzantine works on logic. The main influence comes from the Neoplatonic commentators (Porphyr, Ammonios, Philoponus, Simplikios, Olympiodoros, Elias), whose texts the Byzantines knew very well. But the eventual presentation of Byzantine logical works as mere compilations of ideas already found in ancient sources would represent a simplification. There are occasions when Byzantine authors proudly emphasize their own contribution to logic or explicitly criticize Aristotle's logical theories. Indeed, we can detect varying degrees of independent thought on their part. The tradition of "Christian" logic textbooks was an eclectic one, not going back to the original sources, but exploring the Aristotelian commentaries of the 5th-6th centuries. In Greek patristics, a process of transformation of some notions of classical ontology was introduced, in order to adapt them to the expression of new realities, revealed by the Mystery of the Incarnation. The Iconoclastic Controversy also provides a fascinating case of the use of logic in theological argumentation (the Aristotelian notion of homonymy). Therefore, Logic was studied continuously in Byzantium from the patristic period until the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Being the most important philosophical component of the trivium, Logic was studied in its own right, but also as part of the teaching of rhetoric. Any novelty, however, was disguised as tradition, so that a thinker's truly original insights were expressed as reflections or comments on already existing tradition. Greek patristic thought remained open to Greek philosophical issues, but avoided its closure in Greek philosophical systems. Modern adherents of a predominantly Orthodox Byzantine philosophy often posit it as the historical fulfillment of a synthesis between Hellenism and Christianity, an intellectual continuity of Hellenic thought within Orthodoxy and Byzantine spirituality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper examines the relation of esotericism and oblique politics in the Byzantine philosopher Michael Psellos (11th century) on the basis of Eva De Vries’ study of the letters that Psellos addressed to the statesman Leo Paraspondylos. Traditionally, the name of Psellos signifies a revival of Neoplatonism in medieval Constantinople according to researchers like Chr. Zervos in the beginning of 20th century. Contemporary researchers such as Anthony Kaldellis and Stratis Papaioannou point to a more organic than speculative theorization in Psellos’ work while another contemporary scholar, Frederick Lauritzen, undertakes a synthesis of the two approaches. In any case, as this paper supports, it would be inadequate to consider the relation of esotericism to politics without referring to the evolution of the moral standards considered in a contextualized manner.

In his article, the author discusses two excerpts from the dissertation of D. Sudnitsyn The Reign of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Comnenus from the Point of View of Church History, which had been defended in 1896 at the Moscow Theological Academy and which is conserved in the Manuscript Department of the Russian State Library. The fi rst excerpt is from that part of the dissertation which discussed the history of two councils held at Constantinople in 1156–1157. The second excerpt presents the criticism of F. Uspenskijʼs opinion, found in his Sketches from the History of Education in Byzantiumand concerning the infl uence of the dispute between Platonists and Aristotelians on theological movement in Byzantium. Both excerpts are of great interest in the context of the historiography of the disputes which took place in the years 1156–1157

Medieval Serbian philosophy took shape mostly through the process of translating Byzantine texts and revising the Slavic translations. Apart from the Aristotelian terminological tradition, introduced via the translation of Damascene’s Dialectic, there also was, under the influence of the Corpus Areopagiticum and ascetic literature, notably of John Climacus’ Ladder, another strain of thought originating from Christian Platonism. Damascene’s philosophical chapters, or Dialectic, translated into medieval Serbian in the third quarter of the fourteenth century, not only shows the high standards of translation technique developed in Serbian monastic scriptoria, but testifies to a highly educated readership interested in such a complex theologico-philosophical text with its nuanced terminology. A new theological debate about the impossibility of knowing God led to Gregory Palamas’ complex text, The Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. Philosophical texts were frequently copied and much worked on in medieval Serbia, but it is difficult to infer about the actual scope of their influence on the formation and articulation of the worldview of medieval society. As a result of their demanding theoretical complexity, the study of philosophy was restricted to quite narrow monastic, court and urban circles. However, the strongest aspect of the influence of Byzantine thought on medieval society was the liturgy as the central social event of the community. It was through the liturgy that the wording of the translated texts influenced the life of medieval Serbian society.

Copyright of Constantine's Letters / Konštantínove Listy is the property of Institute for Research of Constantine & Methodius's Cultural Heritage and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Constantine's Letters / Konštantínove Listy is the property of Institute for Research of Constantine & Methodius's Cultural Heritage and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Constantine's Letters / Konštantínove Listy is the property of Institute for Research of Constantine & Methodius's Cultural Heritage and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Constantine's Letters / Konštantínove Listy is the property of Institute for Research of Constantine & Methodius's Cultural Heritage and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article examines how Hegel’s negative view of Byzantium is different from the Enlightenment’s critique and especially from Voltaire’s criticism of medieval history. In order to account for the Hegelian specificity of interpretation an effort is made to translate the chapter on Byzantium from the Philosophy of History in terms of the analysis of the Phenomenology of the Spirit and, more precisely, on the basis of the chapters on sensible certitude and on the domination and servitude. Considering that for Hegel every philosophical school possesses an autonomous value, one has to wonder why the Byzantine moment of the Spirit is destined to stagnation. The question about Hegel’s Neoplatonism, especially his affiliation with Proclus’s system, shows how the distance separating the Hegelian system from the Proclusian one explains the inadequacy of the latter as to drawing the consequences from the Byzantine spiritual stagnation.

The present article offers the first Polish translation of Theodore Metochites’ important essay on the philosophers’ use and abuse of irony. The translation is preceded by an introduction which briefly presents the author of the Miscellanea philosophica et historica, upon which it reconstructs the argument of essay 8 and provides an assessment of Metochites’ account of irony.

Linos G. Benakis, Byzantine Philosophy Β’, Athens 2013, pp. 544.

After a very brief presentation of the most important facts concerning the life and writings of Georgius Gemistus Plethon, we shortly summarize the challenging content of his greatest and posthumously published opus entitled Nómōn syngraphḗ (commonly referred to as the Laws). While this paper offers the first Polish translation of this amazing work, the purpose of present article is to familiarize and promote Plethon’s fascinating treatise.

Copyright of Constantine's Letters / Konštantínove Listy is the property of Institute for Research of Constantine & Methodius's Cultural Heritage and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper offers a comprehensive examination of the language of "prosōpon" in Maximus the Confessor. It emerges that "prosōpon" almost never has an autonomous meaning in Maximus' Christology and anthropology. While "person" is either a synonym for "hypostasis" or a term expressing heretical Christological doctrines, it may be used in its own right when Maximus emphasizes the fact that human actions make each of us recognizable as a unique individual. This usage cannot be separated from the colloquial meanings of "face" and "character," or from instances of "prosōpon"exegesis. "The face of the intellect," identified with "the face of Christ" within us and reflected in our actions as "the face of the soul," is the perfect image of the eternal Divine logoi of virtues, impressed by grace in the intellect of saints and reflected in their actions. Possessing one's own "persona" or "face," and building one's uniqueness through one's own decisions, is of less interest to Maximus than assimilation of oneself to Christ. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The importance of philosophical contribution of Byzantium has been strengthened after the World War II by V. Tatakis, professor of philosophy at the Aristotle University in Tessaloniki, Greece. His book La Philosophie Byzantine published in Paris in 1949 is considered a pioneer work in the field. It was also the first general introduction to Byzantine philosophy to appear. It brought the term "byzantine philosophy" into academic field and was the first systematic work on Byzantine philosophy; it was a significant landmark from the international perspective of the later study of Byzantine philosophy. Before Tatakis' book was published, neither Western, nor Greek historiography acknowledged the existence of philosophical thinking in the East Roman (Byzantine) Empire, which lasted 11 centuries. The term "Byzantine philosophy" was officially introduced in 1975 as a name for the international research and study. Byzantine philosophy is not explored sufficiently in Slovakia. This article wants to contribute to the study of Byzantine philosophy in Slovak academic millieu. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Studii Teologice is the property of Studii Teologice and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)