in English by Dmitry Biriukov
I find two lines of interpretation of the philosophical status of "Palamism" and "Barlaamism" in ... more I find two lines of interpretation of the philosophical status of "Palamism" and "Barlaamism" in the Russian thought of the late 19th to early twentieth centuries. One of these lines links Palamism with Aristotelianism and nominalism, and Barlaamism with Platonism and realism. The other line, conversely, connects Palamism with Platonism and Barlaamism with nominalism. I trace in detail the development and transformation of these lines in the course of the Name-Glorifiers controversy of the 1910s. I show the impact of the academic Byzantine studies of that time on the course of the theological debate.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
St Gregory Palamas and Hesychasm. Past and contemporary challenges and perspectives. Proceedings of the Internationan Scientific Conference Holy Metropolis of Trimithountos (1-3 July 2022), Edited by A. P. Zachariou. Cyprus., 2024
This article traces some of the lines of St Gregory Palamas’ teaching on the activities of the hu... more This article traces some of the lines of St Gregory Palamas’ teaching on the activities of the human mind based on the material presented mostly in his Triads, in particular, his teaching on the functions of scholarly knowledge and the forms of wisdom. It also clarifies the place of wisdom (as a human ability as well as the divine energy) in the structure of the ontology presented in Gregory Palamas’ doctrine.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Journal of Orthodox Christian Studies, 2023
Dmitry Biriukov, PhD, is a scholar of the work of the late Byzantine theologian and authoritative... more Dmitry Biriukov, PhD, is a scholar of the work of the late Byzantine theologian and authoritative church teacher Gregory Palamas (1296–1359). This conversation with Dr. Biriukov is devoted to the peculiarities of Palamas’s doctrine and to the reception of his legacy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, after centuries of oblivion. In the course of the discussion, the basic metaphysical scheme of Palamite theology is explained—namely, the distinction between essence and energies in God. On the one hand, the continuity of this scheme in relation to the theology of the Cappadocian fathers is traced, and, on the other hand, its novelty is revealed. The origins and parallels of the distinction between essence and energies are discussed, in particular the connection with Christology and the influence of Evagrianism on Palamas. The conversation addresses the types of divine energies in the Palamite doctrine and the question of the difference in theological languages in which the idea of deification (theosis) as a union of man with God is expressed. Particular attention is paid to the concept of energy and its various connotations, including those associated with its modern natural-science understanding. The philosophical dimension of the theology of Palamas, including in connection with the intellectual culture of his time, is discussed, as is the relationship between Hesychasm as a monastic practice and Palamism as a theological and philosophical doctrine. The concluding part of the conversation, dedicated to the reception of Palamism after centuries of neglect, traces the history of the study, interpretation, and actualization of the teachings of Gregory Palamas over the past two centuries, from Slavophiles to Soviet and contemporary researchers. Particular attention is paid to the so-called neo-Palamism in its various versions—both religious-philosophical and theological.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Religions, 2023
This article analyzes the evolution of Pavel Florensky’s teachings about language from the end of... more This article analyzes the evolution of Pavel Florensky’s teachings about language from the end of the 1910s to the early 1920s in the context of the two lines of influence (Humboldtian–Potebnian and Palamite) on the basis of which this teaching developed. In his reasoning about language, Florensky, proceeding from intuition, declares that there is a rigid connection between the word’s sound/phoneme; its morpheme, etymon, and sememe (the given here and now meaning); and its denotate. According to Florensky, this points to the magicism of the word as such. At the beginning of the 1910s, Florensky, having become a participant in the name-glorifying debates, also adhered to the line presupposing a rigid connection between the word’s sound (the name, which is applied to God), its meaning, and its denotate. All these lines converged in Florensky’s thoughts on the nature of language in the late 1910s and the early 1920s. He turned again to the Humboldtian–Potebnian language scheme but rethought it, speaking of the intentionally charged sememe as the word’s inner form. In texts written in the late 1910s and the early 1920s, we single out two aspects of the understanding of the magicism of the word which were key for Florensky, namely the aspect revealed in the discourse of the independent and autonomous existence of words and names and the aspect presupposing the intentionally willed moment in the phenomenon of the magicism of the word.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
This article deals with the question of the interrelation between two papers, both called, in sho... more This article deals with the question of the interrelation between two papers, both called, in short, "Onomatodoxy", dedicated to the doctrine of Name-glorification (Imiaslavie, Onomatodoxy), both of which were created in line with the Neo-Patristic movement in the Russian philosophy of the Silver Age. One of these papers is by Alexei Losev and the other by Pavel Florensky. In my opinion, there are sufficient grounds to state that Losev's "Onomatodoxy" was written either after Florensky created his own "Onomatodoxy", i.e., after November 1922, or, at the earliest, after Florensky started to give clandestine lectures about Onomatodoxy in Moscow (where Losev lived), i.e., not earlier than spring 1921. Therefore, Losev's article "Onomatodoxy" could have been intended for the religious-philosophical collection of articles planned for publishing by Yaschenko in 1922 in Berlin.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Studies in East European Thought, 2022
I detect a specific attitude to Byzantium ("the Byzantine Enlightenment") in Ivan Kireevsky' Slav... more I detect a specific attitude to Byzantium ("the Byzantine Enlightenment") in Ivan Kireevsky' Slavophile article "On the Character of Enlightenment in Europe" (1852). I qualify this attitude as Byzantinocentrism. I take that as a focal point and, against this background, consider the image of Byzantium in Kireevsky and some thinkers of his social circle. It allows me to trace the most important lines of attitudes to Byzantium in the Russian historiosophical literature and opinion journalism of the nineteenth century. I detect two opposite lines in perceiving Byzantium in Kireevsky's early social circle: the anti-and pro-Byzantine ones. The first line goes back to an anti-Byzantine message, characteristic of the epoch of Enlightenment. It found its manifestation in G. W. F. Hegel's Lectures on the Philosophy of History. I point to the traces of the implicit polemics with Hegel's anti-byzantinism in Kireevsky and identify the context of these polemics in Arist Kunick. As well, I outline how these lines worked in Pyotr Chaadaev and Alexander Pushkin. Then I distinguish between how the image of Byzantium was presented, first, in Kireevsky's earlier Slavophile article "On the Character of Enlightenment in Europe" and, second, in his last article "On the Necessity and Possibility of the new Foundations for Philosophy" (1856). In the latter article, which sees Byzantium as bipolar, I find another view on Byzantium. I suggest that this view on Byzantium as a bipolar entity goes back to Alexey Khomyakov's Semiramis. My point is that this difference in the views on Byzantium is paradigmatic and it reflects a division that was present in the Russian Slavophile-conservative milieu of that time. I suggest that this division stands behind another division within the same milieu, which was politically oriented, the one in relation to the Greek-Bulgarian ecclesiastical question. I analyze how both monopolar (Byzantinocentric) and bipolar views on Byzantium were reflected in the Greek-Bulgarian question as it was considered by Alexey Khomyakov and Terty Filippov. I find a context for developing Kireevsky's attitude towards Byzantium in François Guizot's historiosophic scheme as well.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Conceptualising Divine Unions in the Greek and Near Eastern Worlds. Edited by Eleni Pachoumi (Ancient Philosophy & Religion. Vol. 7), 2022
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Studia Patristica. Volume CXXIX: From the Fifth Century Onwards (Greek Writers). Edited by MARKUS VINZENT. Volume 26: Following the Holy Fathers: Patristic Sources in the Palamite Controversy (Edited by TIKHON ALEXANDER PINO), 2021
Gregory Palamas has faced a problem of compatibility of two theological provisions within his doc... more Gregory Palamas has faced a problem of compatibility of two theological provisions within his doctrine based on the distinction of substance and non-created activities in God: these are, firstly, that God is unalterable, and, secondly, that He acts accordingly with time in relation to the created world, in particular, having made the created being. This background caused polemical argumentations on the possibility of signifying the divine activities as accident. The notion of accident here refers to the context ascending to the Peripatetic tradition, yet modified in writings of such Christian authors as Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria and John Damascene. Palamas addresses this topic in two of his works, Antirrh. c. Acind and Capita 150, written within the interval of five or six years. We see that Palamas is moving towards a more detailed notion of accident while considering its applicability to divine activities: this is him moving to the notion of inseparable accidents. But even in this sense, the accident, compliant to Palamas, must not be attributed to God and divine activities, though the Church tradition used to do this. Palamas finds a solution of this tension by pointing out that the notion of accident was used by the Church tradition in an improper sense. Meanwhile, his ally David Dishypatus takes a more subtle position: he admits a possibility to apply the notion of accident to the divine activities, but minding core restrictions of the human language, which speaks of God only within the horizon of human nature.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Scrinium: Journal of Patrology and Critical Hagiography, 2021
I analyze the polemically charged exposition of classical cosmologies by Gregory of Nyssa in Agai... more I analyze the polemically charged exposition of classical cosmologies by Gregory of Nyssa in Against Eunomius II, 72–76, and identify probable sources for this passage and the targets of Gregory’s criticism of classical cosmologies, manifested in this passage. In Against Eunomius II, 73–75, Gregory presents the Aristotelian cosmology and polemicizes with it. My analysis shows three avenues of Gregory’s criticism of the Aristotelian cosmology, which are manifested in this passage. As my analysis of Against Eunomius II, 76 shows, in this passage, Gregory summarizes and criticizes the Stoic natural-philosophical and cosmological doctrine that there is the limitless void beyond the limits of the cosmos, in which cosmos moves (probably by expanding and contracting). I identify two points in Gregory’s criticism of this doctrine. Finally, I suggest that the immediate Gregory’s source regarding this Stoic doctrine was a treatise of Cleomedes.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Scottish Journal of Theology, 2021
This article is a study of Pavel Florensky's philosophy of symbol in the context of his discovery... more This article is a study of Pavel Florensky's philosophy of symbol in the context of his discovery of Palamism in the 1910s, when Florensky started to speak of symbol using Palamite language. It proposes a fundamental difference between Florensky's and Palamas' teachings on symbol: Palamas views a natural symbol as the energy of an essence, while for Florensky symbol is the essence itself, the energy of which synergises with the energies of other essence. In this context the prehistory of the concept of synergy in Florensky is studied, leading to the identification of a further difference in the ontologies of Florensky and Palamas: while Florensky's 'essence-energy' has the property of necessary correlation with the 'other', following the tendencies of the philosophy of that epoch, in Palamas 'energy' does not presuppose any necessary correlation with the 'other'. The author connects this difference in ontologies between the two thinkers with their respective teachings on symbol.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Aristotle in Byzantium. Edited by Mikonja Knežević. Sebastian Press, 2020
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Review of Ecumenical Studies, 2019
In this article I seek to show in what manner the Stoic principle of total blending, illustrated ... more 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.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Scrinium: Journal of Patrology and Critical Hagiography, 2019
I consider the ways whereby the Stoic natural philosophical paradigm of total blending, through t... more I consider the ways whereby the Stoic natural philosophical paradigm of total blending, through the example of penetration of fire into iron, was naturalized by the Early Christian and Byzantine theologians who intended to display the penetration of the divine into the created and the conjunction of the created with the divine, with the condition that the created does not dissolve in divine but remains within its own nature being penetrated by the properties of deity.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Gregory of Nyssa at the outset of his 'Against Eunomius' cites Eunomius, where the latter speaks ... more Gregory of Nyssa at the outset of his 'Against Eunomius' cites Eunomius, where the latter speaks about " greater and lesser " activities. However, discussing this quotation later in the treatise, Gregory misinterprets the words of Eunomius. He reads Eunomius as if he applied the principle of 'the more and the less' not to activities but to substances. Such interpretation cannot be proved on the basis of what Eunomius actually wrote. Actually, the two opponents (Gregory of Nyssa and Eunomius) used the same Aris-totelian position, which prohibits the application of the principle of 'the more and the less' to the category of substance. This position was used by the two polemists in order to argue against each other. At the same time, Gregory developed his own philosophical system founded on the principle of 'the more and the less' in the course of this polemics with Eunomius.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
I review the central propositions of Neilos Kabasilas's Rule of Theology and analyze the prehisto... more I review the central propositions of Neilos Kabasilas's Rule of Theology and analyze the prehistory of a particular theme of vital importance for the treatise's wider theological tradition: the distinction between the warmth and light of fire (the sun) in Palamite theology. This analogy meant to clarify the distinction between the divine essence and energies, as well as between the energies themselves.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Scrinium: Journal of Patrology and Critical Hagiography, 2017
The article provides a classification of different kinds of participation in the conceptual frame... more The article provides a classification of different kinds of participation in the conceptual framework by Origen, namely, those of natural participation and those of individual participation. In these concepts, Origen did not always borrow from Platonic philosophy – as it was commonly thought. In fact, Origen used as well Aristotelian and other approaches to the universalia and related questions. Keywords participation – divine substance – universals – logoi – theosis In order to identify the logical foundations of Origen's doctrine, this article analyzes the way how Origen employed the concept of participation. This study was carried out as a part of my comprehensive research on the subject of participation and universals in Antiquity and Eastern Christianity,1 which * The present study is a part of a larger project Nr 16-18-10202, " History of the Logical and Philosophical Ideas in Byzantine Philosophy and Theology " , implemented with a financial support of the Russian Science Foundation.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Scrinium. Journal of Patrology and Critical Hagiography: Survival of Early Christian Traditions. Edited by Geoffrey D. Dunn, Kazuhiko Demura, and Basil Lourié, 2017
In this paper I will defend an interpretation of Clement of Alexandria's teaching about categorie... more In this paper I will defend an interpretation of Clement of Alexandria's teaching about categories, according to which the categories apply only to the material world, but not to intelligible and divine reality. I draw the parallel between Clement's theory and a corresponding doctrine offered by Eunomius, the leader of Arianism in the second half of the fourth century, which he developed as a reaction to the Nicaean horizontal discourse of Triadology. Keywords universals – genera-species division – categories – Middle Platonism In this essay, I aim to briefly outline the theory of universals in Clement of Al-exandria, and by doing so, I will point out certain features of his teaching that are important for subsequent Eastern Christian thought.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
This article is devoted to the cosmology of John Damascene. The relevant ideas from antique geoce... more This article is devoted to the cosmology of John Damascene. The relevant ideas from antique geocentric teachings in cosmology and natural philosophy are summarized and the proximity of Damascene's views to these teachings is assessed. My conclusion is that the cosmology presented in Damascene is the result of combining elements of Platonic, Aristotelian and Stoic teachings, with the Aristotelian elements tending to prevail. The idea of that Ptolemaic cosmology has an influence on the cosmology of John Damascene is rejected.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
in English by Dmitry Biriukov
защитника греческой стороны в греко-болгарском вопросе. Другой взгляд, предполагающий двуполюсность византийской цивилизации, проводился Хомяковым, который в греко-болгарском вопросе стоял на позициях, противоположных филипповским. При этом в интерпретации Хомякова этот взгляд вбирает в себя антиклерикальную составляющую, что не характерно для интерпретации двуполюсного взгляда на Византию у Киреевского.
«Свет Невечерний» (1917) Булгаков упоминает о Софии как о «четверной ипостаси» в Боге. Желая смягчить это учение, в статье «Ипостась и ипостасность» (1924) Булгаков вводит понятие «ипостасности», как относящееся к Софии, и привлекает паламитское различение сущности и энергий, соотнося Софию с божественной энергией, наделяя таким образом энергию «ипостасностью». Этот ход содержит пантеистические тенденции. Также, Булгаков предлагает «формулы паламизма», предполагающие, что божественность энергий Божества иная, чем сущности. Автор реконструирует интеллектуальный контекст этих формул и показывает их зависимость от трактовки паламизма П. А. Флоренским и С. В. Троицким (при том, что они были по разные стороны баррикад в имяславских спорах). Далее автор обращается к переписке Г. В. Флоровского с С. Н. Булгаковым 1926 г. и анализирует отражённую в ней полемику Флоровского с булгаковским софиологическим паламизмом. Автор показывает, что в ходе этой полемики Флоровский, желая элиминировать тенденцию Булгакова к гипостазированию энергии, говорит об энергии как об акциденции. Затем автор обращается к программному сочинению Флоровского «Тварь и тварность»
(1928) и показывает, что в нем предлагается новое прочтение паламизма по сравнению с трактовкой паламизма у Булгакова (и Флоренского). В отличие от других исследователей, автор находит в этом сочинении прямую полемику с «Ипостасью и ипостасностью»
Булгакова, касающуюся темы ипостасности энергии. Кроме того, Флоровский здесь пересматривает представление об энергии как акциденции и настаивает, что энергии — это тот же Бог, что и божественная сущность. Автор видит в этом новое для своего времени прочтение паламизма и первый шаг неопаламитского движения XX в.
иллюстрировал соединение души Христа с Богом. Дальнейшее развитие этой темы включало в себя две линии, заложенные в оригеновском использовании этого примера: это христологическая и теозисная линии. В данной статье я прослеживаю развитие теозисной линии, в контексте ещё одной линии, в рамках которой пример с железом и огнём использовался для прояснения отличия в способе бытия тварных и нетварных сущих. Я рассматриваю, как эта линия находит своё проявление у Василия Великого и Кирилла
Александрийского и показываю, как она работает у них с различительным потенциалом рассматриваемого примера, тогда как собственно теозисная линия, проявляющаяся в Макариевском корпусе, задействует его объединяющий потенциал.
в виду фундаментальную ограниченность любых высказываний человеческого языка о Боге горизонтом человеческой природы.
Можно сказать, что цель Евномия как раз и заключалась в том, чтобы продемонстрировать переход от имен, установленных «по соглашению» к установлению имен «согласно природе».
status of Palamism and Barlaamism in the context of the Name-Glorifiers’ dispute in Russian thought of the early 20th century. One line, proposed by Fedor Uspensky, associated Palamism with Aristotelianism and nominalism, and Barlaamism – with Platonism and realism. The other, formulated by Mitrofan Muretov, on the contrary, associated Palamism with Platonism, and Barlaamism – with nominalism. The article explores the development and the transformation of these lines in the course of the Name-Glorifiers dispute. Although Anthony Bulatovich did not speak about the philosophical qualifications of Palamism and Barlaamism, he recaptured Palamism, put forward the doctrine of forms in the context of the doctrine of Onomatodoxy, and polemically attributed Barlaamite position to his opponents. Sergey Troitsky, opponent of the Onomatodoxy, criticized Bulatovich’s doctrine of forms and returned the accusation of Barlaamism to him, linking it to Platonism, partly following Fedor Uspenskiy in this scheme. Vladimir Ern and Pavel Florenskiy, on the basis of their own philosophical attitudes and acting as apologists for Onomatodoxy, developed Muretov’s understanding. The article shows that these opposing interpretations of the philosophical foundations of Palamism and Barlaamism are based on various passages from The Synodikon of the Sunday of Orthodoxy in the edition by
Fedor Uspensky.
В статье прослеживаются две линии трактовки философского статуса паламизма и варлаамизма в контексте имяславских споров в русской мысли начала XX века. Одна линия, заданная Ф.И. Успенским, связывала паламизм с аристотелизмом и номинализмом, а варлаамизм – с платонизмом и реализмом. Другая, идущая от М.Д. Муретова, наоборот, связывала паламизм с платонизмом, а варлаамизм – с номинализмом. В статье исследуется развитие и трансформация этих линий в ходе имяславских споров. Показано, что иеросхимон. Антоний (Булатович) хоть и не высказывался относительно философской квалификации паламизма и варлаамизма, однако он рецепиировал паламизм, выдвинул учение об идеях в контексте имяславия и полемически приписал своим противникам варлаамитскую позицию. Противник имяславия С.В. Троицкий подверг критике учение Булатовича об идеях и вернул ему обвинение в варлаамизме, связав последний с платонизмом, частично следуя в этом схеме Успенского. В.Ф. Эрн и П.А. Флоренский же, исходя из собственных философских установок и выступая в качестве апологетов имяславия, развивали понимание Муретова. Показано также, что указанные противоположные трактовки философских оснований паламитской и варлаамитской доктрин опираются на различные места из «Синодика в Неделю православия».
В ходе конференции обсуждались различные аспекты и особенности мистических учений Майстера Экхарта и св. Григория Паламы. При этом состоялись плодотворные дискуссии, продемонстрировавшие актуальность их наследия для современных историко-философских штудий. В рамках культурной программы иностранные гости посетили Эр-митаж, совершили традиционную поездку по рекам и каналам Санкт-Петербурга, побы-вали на концерте джазовой музыки в Государственной академической Капелле.
Важным итогом прошедшей конференции явилось создание международного об-щества св. Григория Паламы, в рамках которого планируется ежегодно проводить науч-ные мероприятия, посвященные исследованиям его учения.