patristicБиблия и христианская древностьBible and Christian Antiquity2658−78152713-1122Московская духовная академия10.31802/2658-4476-2019-3-3-140-174patristic-280Research ArticleПЕРЕВОДЫ, ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ И КОММЕНТАРИИ. Поздневизантийское богословие и полемикаTRANSL ATIONS, RESEARCH AND COMMENTS. Late Byzantine theology and polemicsОт мариологии до тритеизма: о возможных поздневизантийских параллелях к идеям Леонтия Византийского и Иоанна Филопона (Феофан Никейский, Иоанн XI Векк, Георгий Мосхамбар). Часть перваяFrom Mariology to Tritheism. On Some Possible Late Byzantine Parallels to Leontius’ of Byzantium and John Philoponus’ Ideas (Theophanes of Nicaea, John XI Veccus, Georges Moskhambar). Part OneМакаровД. И.MakarovD. I.

Дмитрий Игоревич Макаров, доктор философских наук доцент и заведующий кафедрой общих гуманитарных дисциплин; профессор библейско-богословской кафедры

620014, г. Екатеринбург, пр. Ленина, 26

Dmitri˘ı Igorevich Makarov, DhD in Philosophy Professor and Head of the Department of general humanities; Professor of the Department of Bible and Theology

Av. Lenina 26, Yekaterinburg 620014

dimitri.makarov@mail.ruУральская государственная консерватория им. М. П. Мусоргского; Екатеринбургская духовная семинарияUrals State M. P. Mussorgsky Conservatoire (Yekaterinburg); Yekaterinburg Orthodox Theological Seminary20190403202603141174Copyright © Макаров Д.И., 20262026Макаров Д.И.Makarov D.I.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.patristic.ru/jour/article/view/280

Статья представляет собой первую часть исследования о возможных перекличках и влияниях между мыслителем VI в. Леонтием Византийским, в трудах которого фор­мируется утончённый логико-философский и богословский аппарат для разрешения догматических споров, и, соответственно, паламитской и протоантипаламитской (лати­нофильской) мыслью Византии XIII‑XIV вв. Хотя о прямом влиянии Леонтия на пред­ставителей обоих лагерей (соответственно, Феофана Никейского и Иоанна XI Векка) говорить не приходится, ряд звеньев логической преемственности в плане истории идей всё же удаётся установить. Это типология «вертикальных» и «горизонтальных» отношений человека с Богом у Леонтия и Феофана, с одной стороны (пример условно-положительной рецепции Феофаном идей Леонтия); и, с другой стороны, почти пол­ный отход от идей и наследия Леонтия (при использовании ограниченного числа его категорий) в хаотичной догматической системе Векка. На примере труда Векка «Об унии между Церквами старого и нового Рима» выделяются и анализируются трид­цать четыре пункта, по которым патриарх-латинофил отходит как от православной догматики, так и от византийской философии. В качестве главной черты учения Векка называется тритеизм, бывший мишенью и для Леонтия.

The article is the first part of our study concerning some possible repercus­sions and influences between the sixth-century thinker Leontius of Byzantium, in whose writings a complex logical, theological and philosophical apparatus for solving dogmatic controversies was being formed, on the one hand, and proto-Palamite and proto-anti-Palamite (Latinophile) thought of the thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Byzantium, on the other. Although one cannot say about Leontius’ direct influence upon the representatives of the both hostile camps (resp., Theophanes of Nicaea and John XI Veccus), we can still discern some links in the logical chain of continuity between their ideas and Leontius’. These links include: a typology of «vertical» and «horizontal» Divine — human relations in Leontius and Theophanes (this is an example of Leontius’ ideas being possibly positively received and appropriated by Theophanes); but on the other side we see an almost complete setback from Leontius’ ideas and heritage in the chaotic dogmatic system by Veccus, although some limited number of Leontius’ categories might have been used by John. We make the case study of Veccus’ On the Union Between the Churches of the Old and the New Rome in which text we single out and analyze the 34 points of thought in which the Latinophile patriarch dissociated himself from both the Orthodox dogmatics and Byzantine philosophy in general. As the main trait of Veccus’ doctrine which had been criticized earlier by Leontius we call tritheism.

божественно-человеческие отношениятритеизмвоипостасноеФилиоквелогико-категориальный аппарат в богословии и философииЛеонтий ВизантийскийФеофан НикейскийИоанн XI ВеккИоанн ФилопонLeontius of ByzantiumTheophanes of NicaeaJohn XI VeccusJohn Philoponusthe usage of the logical and categorial apparatus in theology and philosophyenhypostatontritheismFilioqueDivine — human relationsИсследование выполнено при финансовой поддержке РФФИ в рамках научного проекта № 19–011–00778 «Леонтий Византийский и патристическая традиция». Благодарю О. Н. Ноговицина за консультации по ряду вопросов, относящихся к теме статьи.ReferencesИванов И., свящ. Святой Фотий, патриарх Константинопольский, о философе Иоанне Филопоне (Bibliotheca: cod. 21–23, 43, 55, 75, 215, 240) // ХЧ. 2016. № 6. С. 67–86.Afinogenov D. E., Pospelov D. A. (eds.) Disput s Pirrom: prp. Maksim Ispovednik i hristologicheskie spory VII stoletija [Dispute with Pyrrhus: St. Maxim the Confessor and Christological Disputes of the 7th Century]. Moscow: Hram Sofii Premudrosti Bozhiej v Srednih Sadovnikah, 2004, pp. 146–237 (in Russian).Лурье В. М. [при участии В. А. Баранова]. История византийской философии. Формативный период. СПб.: Axiōma, 2006.Baranov V. A. (2019) “Human Destiny and Divine Providence in Two Byzantine Authors of the Early Eighth Century”. Scrinium, vol. 15, pp. 3–29.Лурье В. М. Понятие числа в триадологии восточной патристики // ESSE. Журнал фило­софии и теологии. 2016. Т. 1. № 1. C. 301–323.Baranov V., Lourié B. (2009) “The Role of Christ’s Soul-Mediator in the Iconoclastic Christology”, in G. Heidl, R. Somos, C. Németh (eds.) Origeniana Nona. Origen and the Religious Practice of His Time. Papers of the 9th International Origen Congress (Pécs, Hungary, 29 August — 2 September 2005). Leuven; Paris; Walpole: Peeters, pp. 403–411.Макаров Д. И. К уяснению ключевых философско-логических категорий в Византии: концепт частной сущности в эпоху догматических споров VI в. и в поздневизан­тийской мысли // Научная сессия ГУАП. Ч. 3. Гуманитарные науки. Сборник докладов 10–14 апреля 2017 г. / под общей ред. Ю. А. Антохиной. 2017. С. 74–78.Campo Echevarría A., del (2013) “Transcendent Exemplarism and Immanent Realism in the Philosophical Work of John of Damaskos”, in S. Mariev, W.-M. Stock (eds.) Aesthetics and Theurgy in Byzantium. Boston; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter (Byzantinisches Archiv; 25), pp. 127–142.Макаров Д. И. Мариология Феофана Никейского в контексте византийской богословской традиции VII‑XIV вв. С приложением переводов трактатов св. Каллиста I Константинопольского и Никифора Влеммида. СПб.: Изд-во Олега Абышко, 2015. (Библиотека христианской мысли).Canart P. (1959) “Nicéphore Blemmyde et le mémoire adressé aux envoyés de Grégoire IX (Nicée, 1234)”. OCP, vol. 25, pp. 310–325.Макаров Д. И. Паламизм до святителя Григория Паламы, спор о Филиокве и примат папы в византийской экклесиологии XII‑XIV вв.: некоторые наблюдения / отв. ред. Д. С. Бирюков. Екатеринбург: Екатеринбургская духовная семинария, 2017.Candal M. (1959) “Juan Ciparisiota y el problema trinitario palamítico”. Orientalia christiana periodica, vol. 25, pp. 127–164.Мейендорф И., прот. Богословие в тринадцатом столетии. Методологические контрасты // Он же. Рим — Константинополь — Москва. Исторические и богословские исследо­вания. М.: ПСТГУ, 2005. С. 105–122.Chadwick H. (1987) “Philoponus the Christian Theologian”, in R. Sorabji (ed.) Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Ithaca (New York): Cornell University Press, pp. 41–56.Ноговицин О. Н. Влияние школьной традиции александрийского неоплатонизма на хри­стологические споры VI в.: понятие «частной природы» в «Арбитре» Иоанна Филопона // Историческое сознание и постматериальные ценности. Сборник научных статей / сост. К. В. Султанов. СПб., 2019. С. 313–327.Constas N. (ed.) Maximos the Confessor. On Difficulties in the Church Fathers. The Ambigua. Cambridge; London: Harvard University Press, 2014, vol. 2 (Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library; 29).Щукин Т., Ноговицин О. Анонимный трактат «Об общей природе и Троице» в контексте христологических и триадологических споров VI века // ESSE. Журнал философии и богословия. 2016. № 1/1. С. 324–349.Cross R. (2002) “Individual Natures in the Christology of Leontius of Byzantium”. Journal of Early Christian Studies, vol. 10/2, pp. 245–265.Baranov V. A. Human Destiny and Divine Providence in Two Byzantine Authors of the Early Eighth Century // Scrinium. 2019. Vol. 15. P. 3–29.Daley B. E. (1993) “‘A Richer Union’: Leontius of Byzantium and the Relationship of Human and Divine in Christ”. Studia patristica, vol. 24, pp. 239–265.Baranov V., Lourié B. The Role of Christ’s Soul-Mediator in the Iconoclastic Christology // Origeniana Nona. Origen and the Religious Practice of His Time. Papers of the 9th International Origen Congress (Pécs, Hungary, 29 August — 2 September 2005) / ed. by G. Heidl — R. Somos in collab. with C. Németh. Leuven; Paris; Walpole: Peeters, 2009. P. 403–411.Daley B. E. (ed.) (2017) Leontius of Byzantium. Complete Works. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Oxford Early Christian Texts).Campo Echevarría A., del. Transcendent Exemplarism and Immanent Realism in the Philosophical Work of John of Damaskos // Aesthetics and Theurgy in Byzantium / ed. by S. Mariev and W.-M. Stock. Boston; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2013. (Byzantinisches Archiv; vol. 25). P. 127–142.Dell’Osso C. (2003) Il calcedonismo di Leonzio di Bisanzio. Roma: Edizioni Vivere In (Tradizione e vita; 13).Chadwick H. Philoponus the Christian Theologian // Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science / ed. by R. Sorabji. Ithaca (New York): Cornell University Press, 1987. P. 41–56.Djakovac A. (2016) “Person and Nature, Hypostasis and Substance: Philosophical Basis of the Theology of John Philoponus”. Philotheos. International Journal for Philosophy and Theology, vol. 16, pp. 73–84.Cross R. Individual Natures in the Christology of Leontius of Byzantium // Journal of Early Christian Studies. 2002. Vol. 10/2. P. 245–265.Evans D. B. (1970) Leontius of Byzantium. An Origenist Christology. Washington: Harvard University Press (Dumbarton Oaks Studies; 13).Daley B. E. ‘A Richer Union’: Leontius of Byzantium and the Relationship of Human and Divine in Christ // Studia patristica. 1993. Vol. 24. P. 239–265.Gunnarsson H. (2002) Mystical Realism in the Early Theology of Gregory Palamas. Context and Analysis, Göteborg: Göteborgs Universitet (Skrifter utgivna vid Institutionen för religionsvetenskap; 28).Dell’Osso C. Il calcedonismo di Leonzio di Bisanzio. Roma: Edizioni Vivere In, 2003. (Tradizione e vita; vol. 13).Ivanov I. (2016), “Svjatoj Fotij, patriarh Konstantinopol’skij, o filosofe Ioanne Filopone (Bibliotheca: cod. 21–23, 43, 55, 75, 215, 240)” [“St. Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, on the Philosopher John Philopones (Bibliotheca: cod. 21–23, 43, 55, 75, 215, 240)”]. Hristianskoe chtenie, no. 6, pp. 67–86 (in Russian).Djakovac A. Person and Nature, Hypostasis and Substance: Philosophical Basis of the Theology of John Philoponus // Philotheos. International Journal for Philosophy and Theology. 2016. Vol. 16. P. 73–84.Jugie M. (ed.) (1935) Theophanes Nicaenus. Sermo in Sanctissimam Deiparam. Romae: Facultas theologica pontificii Athenaei seminarii Romani (Lateranum; 1).Evans D. B. Leontius of Byzantium. An Origenist Christology. Washington: Harvard University Press, 1970. (Dumbarton Oaks Studies; vol. 13).Kislas Th., Sabbatos Ch., Vinel F. (eds.) “Grégoire II de Chypre. Discours antirrhétique contre les opinions blasphématoires de Bekkos”, in J.-C. Larchet (ed.) La vie et l’oeuvre théologique de Georges/Grégoire II de Chypre (1241–1290), patriarche de Constantinople. Paris: Cerf, pp. 166–260.Gunnarsson H. Mystical Realism in the Early Theology of Gregory Palamas. Context and Analysis. Göteborg: Göteborgs Universitet, 2002. (Skrifter utgivna vid Institutionen för religionsvetenskap; Göteborgs Universitet; vol. 28).Kotter B. (ed.) (1973) Die Schriften des hl. Johannes von Damaskos. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, vol. 2 (PTS; 12).Krausmüller D. Does the Flesh Possess Hypostatic Idioms, and If So, Why Is It Then Not a Separate Hypostasis? On a Conceptual Problem of Late Patristic Christology // Scrinium. 2019. Vol. 15. P. 193–210.Krausmüller D. (2019), “Does the Flesh Possess Hypostatic Idioms, and If So, Why Is It Then Not a Separate Hypostasis? On a Conceptual Problem of Late Patristic Christology”. Scrinium, vol. 15, pp. 193–210.Lang U. M. John Philoponus and the Controversies over Chalcedon in the Sixth Century. A Study and Translation of the Arbiter. Leuven: Peeters, 2001.Lang U. M. (2001) John Philoponus and the Controversies over Chalcedon in the Sixth Century. A Study and Translation of the Arbiter, Leuven: Peeters.Larchet J.-C. The Mode of Deification // The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor / ed. by P. Allen and B. Neil. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. P. 341–359.Larchet J.-C. (2015) “The Mode of Deification”, in P. Allen, B. Neil (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 341–359.Lourié B. Peter the Iberian and Dionysius the Areopagite: Honigmann — van Esbroeck’s Thesis Revisited // Scrinium. 2010. Vol. 6. P. 143–212.Lur’e V. (1989 [1991]) “L’attitude de S. Marc d’Ephèse aux débats sur la procession du Saint-Esprit à Florence. Ses fondements dans la théologie post-palamite”. Annuarium historiae conciliorum, vol. 21, pp. 317–333.Lur’e V. L’attitude de S. Marc d’Ephèse aux débats sur la procession du Saint-Esprit à Florence. Ses fondements dans la théologie post-palamite // Annuarium historiae conciliorum. 1989 [1991]. Vol. 21. P. 317–333.Lur’e V. M., [Baranov V. M.] (2006), Istoria vizantijskoj filosofii. Formativnyj period [History of Byzantine Philosophy. Formative Period]. Saint-Petersburg: Axiōma, (in Russian).Makarov D. I. The Target of George Pachymeres’ Polemics in his Treatise on the Holy Spirit // Scrinium. 2008. Vol. 4. P. 235–248.Lourié B. (2010) “Peter the Iberian and Dionysius the Areopagite: Honigmann — van Esbroeck’s Thesis Revisited”. Scrinium, vol. 6, pp. 143–212.Makarov D. I. Theology for Rent: Nicholas Mesarites as a Compiler of Andronicus Camaterus // Scrinium. 2016. Vol. 12. P. 291–307.Lur’e V. M. (2016) “Ponjatie chisla v triadologii vostochnoj patristiki” [“The Concept of Number in the Triadology of Orient Patristic”]. ESSE. Zhurnal filosofii i teologii, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 301–323 (in Russian).Makarov D. The Holy Spirit as Life and Energy. The Treatment of Athanasius’ Ad Serapionem I, 20–21 in the Late Thirteenth Century and Its Implications for the Hesychast Controversy // Byzantion. 2010. Vol. 80. P. 197–246.Makarov D. I. (2008) “The Target of George Pachymeres’ Polemics in his Treatise on the Holy Spirit”. Scrinium, vol. 4, pp. 235–248.Meyendorff J. Theology in the Thirteenth Century: Methodological Contrasts // Καθηγήτρια. Essays Presented to Joan Hussey for Her 80th Birthday. Camberley (Surrey): Porphirogenitus, 1988. P. 395–407.Makarov D. (2010) “The Holy Spirit as Life and Energy. The Treatment of Athanasius’ Ad Serapionem I, 20–21 in the Late Thirteenth Century and Its Implications for the Hesychast Controversy”. Byzantion, vol. 80, pp. 197–246.Milosavljević B. Palamas’ Understanding of οὐσία and ἐνέργεια // Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of Byzantine Studies (Belgrade, 22–27 August 2016). Thematic Sessions of Free Communications / ed. by D. Dželebdžić, S. Bojanin et al. Belgrade: The Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2016 [2017]. P. 318–319.Makarov D. I. (2015) Mariologia Feofana Nikejskogo v kontekste vizantijskoj bogoslovskoj tradicii VII–XIV vv. S prilozheniem perevodov traktatov sv. Kallista I Konstantinopol’skogo i Nikifora Vlemmida [Mariology of Theophanes of Nicaea in the Context of the Byzantine Theological Tradition of the 7th‑14th Centuries. With the Addition of Translations the Tracts of St. Callistus I the Constantinople and Nicephorus Vlemmid]. Saint-Petersburg: Izd. Olega Abyshko (Biblioteka hristianskoj mysli) (in Russian).Μονιοῦ Δ. Ι. Γεώργιος Μοσχάμπαρ. Ενας ανθενωτικός θεολόγος της πρώϊμης παλαιολόγειας περιόδου. Βίος και έργο. Αθήνα: Π. Κυριακίδης, 2011.Makarov D. I. (2016) “Theology for Rent: Nicholas Mesarites as a Compiler of Andronicus Camaterus”. Scrinium, vol. 12, pp. 291–307.Mureşan D. I. The Hesychasts: «Political Photianism» and the Public Sphere in the Fourteenth Century // The Orthodox Christian World / ed. by A. Casiday. London; New York: Routledge, 2012. P. 294–302.Makarov D. I. (2017) “K ujasneniju kluchevyh filosofsko-logicheskih kategorij v Vizantii: koncept chastnoj sushhnosti v epohu dogmaticheskih sporov VI v. i v pozdnevizantijskoj mysli” [“Understanding the Key Philosophical and Logical Categories in Byzantium: The Concept of a Private Entity in the Era of Dogmatic Disputes of the VI Century and in the Late Byzantine Thought”], in Ju. A. Antohina (ed.) Nauchnaja sessija GUAP. Ch. III. Gumanitarnye nauki. Sbornik dokladov 10–14 aprelja 2017 g. [Scientific Session of SUAI. Part III. Humanitarian Sciences. Collection of Reports, 10–14 April 2017], pp. 74–78 (in Russian).Perez Martín I. P. Byzantine Books // The Cambridge Intellectual History of Byzantium / ed. by A. Kaldellis, N. Siniossoglou. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. P. 37–46.Makarov D. I. (2017) Palamizm do svjatitelja Grigorija Palamy, spor o Filiokve i primat papy v vizantijskoj ekklesiologii XII–XIV vv.: nekotorii nabljudenija [Palamism before St. Gregory Palamas, the Debate about Filioque and the Primacy of the Pope in Byzantine Ecclesiology of the 12th–14th Centuries: Some Observations]. Yekaterinburg: Ekaterinburgskaja duhovnaja seminarija (in Russian).Roueché M. Why the Monad is Not a Number: John Philoponus and In De Anima 3 // Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik. 2002. Bd. 52. S. 95–133.Meyendorff J. (1988) “Theology in the Thirteenth Century: Methodological Contrasts”, in Καθηγήτρια. Essays Presented to Joan Hussey for Her 80th Birthday. Camberley (Surrey): Porphirogenitus, pp. 395–407.Shchukin T. Identity in Difference: Substance and Nature in Leontius of Byzantium’s Writings // Scrinium. 2016. Vol. 12. P. 308–321.Mejendorf J. (2005) “Bogoslovie v trinadcatom stoletii. Metodologicheskie kontrasty” [“Theology in the Thirteenth Century. Methodological Contrasts”], in J. Mejendorf Rim — Konstantinopol’ — Moskva. Istoricheskie i bogoslovskie issledovanija [Rome — Constantinople — Moscow. Historical and Theological Studies]. Moscow: PSTGU, pp. 105–122 (in Russian).Sorabji R. John Philoponus // Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science / ed. R. Sorabji. Ithaca (New York): Cornell University Press, 1987. P. 1–40.Milosavljević B. (2016 [2017]) “Palamas’ Understanding of οὐσία and ἐνέργεια”, in D. Dželebdžić, S. Bojanin et al (eds.) Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of Byzantine Studies (Belgrade, 22–27 August 2016). Thematic Sessions of Free Communications.. Belgrade: The Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences, pp. 318–319.Uthemann K.-H. Definitionen und Paradigmen in der Rezeption des Dogmas von Chalkedon bis in die Zeit Kaiser Justinians // Chalkedon: Geschichte und Aktualität. Studien zur Rezeption der christologischen Formel von Chalkedon / hrsg. von J. van Oort und J. Roldanus. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. P. 54–122.Moniou D. I. (2011) Geōrgios Moschambar. Enas anthenōtikos theologos tēs prōimēs palaiologeias periodou. Bios kai ergo [George Moschabar. An Ascetic Theologian of the Early Paleologian Period. Life and Works]. Athēna: P. Kyriakidēs (in Greek).Zhyrkova A. John of Damascus’ Philosophy of the Individual and the Theology of Icons // The Cambridge Intellectual History of Byzantium / ed. by A. Kaldellis, N. Siniossoglou. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. P. 431–446.Müller F. (ed.) (1958) Gregorii Nysseni Opera. Vol. III/1. Opera dogmatica minora. Leiden: Brill.Zhyrkova A. Leontius of Byzantium and the Concept of Enhypostaton. A Critical Re-evaluation // Forum Philosophicum. 2017. Vol. 22. No. 2. P. 193–218.Mureşan D. I. (2012) “The Hesychasts: “Political Photianism” and the Public Sphere in the Fourteenth Century”, in A. Casiday (ed.) The Orthodox Christian World. London; New York: Routledge, pp. 294–302.Nogovicin O. N. (2019) “Vlijanie shkol’noj tradicii aleksandrijskogo neoplatonizma na hristologicheskie spory VI v.: ponjatie ‘chastnoj prirody’ v ‘Arbitre’ Ioanna Filopona” [“The Influence of the School Tradition of Alexandrian Neoplatonism on the 6th century Christological Disputes: The Concept of ‘Private Nature’ in the ‘Arbitrator’ of John Philopon”], in K. V. Sultanov (ed.) Istoricheskoe soznanie i postmaterial’nye cennosti. Sbornik nauchnyh statej [Historical Consciousness and Post-Material Values. Collection of Scientific Articles], Saint-Petersburg, pp. 313–327 (in Russian).Nogovicin O. N. (2019) “Vlijanie shkol’noj tradicii aleksandrijskogo neoplatonizma na hristologicheskie spory VI v.: ponjatie ‘chastnoj prirody’ v ‘Arbitre’ Ioanna Filopona” [“The Influence of the School Tradition of Alexandrian Neoplatonism on the 6th century Christological Disputes: The Concept of ‘Private Nature’ in the ‘Arbitrator’ of John Philopon”], in K. V. Sultanov (ed.) Istoricheskoe soznanie i postmaterial’nye cennosti. Sbornik nauchnyh statej [Historical Consciousness and Post-Material Values. Collection of Scientific Articles], Saint-Petersburg, pp. 313–327 (in Russian).Orphanou M. A. (ed.) (1986) Kōnstantinos Melitēniōtēs. Logoi antirrētikoi dyo nyn to prōton ekdidomenoi [Constantine Melitiniotes. Two Logoi Antirrētikoi Now for the First Time Edited]. Athēnai: Ekdoseis Symmetria (in Greek).Orphanou M. A. (ed.) (1986) Kōnstantinos Melitēniōtēs. Logoi antirrētikoi dyo nyn to prōton ekdidomenoi [Constantine Melitiniotes. Two Logoi Antirrētikoi Now for the First Time Edited]. Athēnai: Ekdoseis Symmetria (in Greek).Perez Martín I. P. (2017) “Byzantine Books”, in A. Kaldellis, N. Siniossoglou (eds.) The Cambridge Intellectual History of Byzantium. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 37–46.Perez Martín I. P. (2017) “Byzantine Books”, in A. Kaldellis, N. Siniossoglou (eds.) The Cambridge Intellectual History of Byzantium. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 37–46.Roueché M. (2002) “Why the Monad is Not a Number: John Philoponus and In De Anima 3”. Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik, vol. 52, pp. 95–133.Roueché M. (2002) “Why the Monad is Not a Number: John Philoponus and In De Anima 3”. Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik, vol. 52, pp. 95–133.Shchukin T. (2016) “Identity in Difference: Substance and Nature in Leontius of Byzantium’s Writings”. Scrinium, vol. 12, pp. 308–321.Shchukin T. (2016) “Identity in Difference: Substance and Nature in Leontius of Byzantium’s Writings”. Scrinium, vol. 12, pp. 308–321.Shhukin T., Nogovicin O. (2016) “Anonimnyj traktat ‘Ob obshhej prirode i Troice’ v kontekste hristologicheskih i triadologicheskih sporov VI veka” [“Anonymous Treatise ‘On the Common Nature and the Trinity’ in the Context of Christological and Triadological Disputes of the VI Century”]. ESSE. Zhurnal filosofii i teologii, no. 1/1, pp. 324–349 (in Russian).Shhukin T., Nogovicin O. (2016) “Anonimnyj traktat ‘Ob obshhej prirode i Troice’ v kontekste hristologicheskih i triadologicheskih sporov VI veka” [“Anonymous Treatise ‘On the Common Nature and the Trinity’ in the Context of Christological and Triadological Disputes of the VI Century”]. ESSE. Zhurnal filosofii i teologii, no. 1/1, pp. 324–349 (in Russian).Sorabji R. (1987) “John Philoponus”, in R. Sorabji (ed.) Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Ithaca (New York): Cornell University Press, pp. 1–40.Sorabji R. (1987) “John Philoponus”, in R. Sorabji (ed.) Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Ithaca (New York): Cornell University Press, pp. 1–40.Stavrou M. (2007) (ed.) Nicéphore Blemmydès. OEuvres théologiques, Paris: Cerf, vol. 1 (SC; 517).Stavrou M. (2007) (ed.) Nicéphore Blemmydès. OEuvres théologiques, Paris: Cerf, vol. 1 (SC; 517).Uthemann K.-H. (1980) “Die ʻPhilosophischen Kapitelʼ des Anastasius I. von Antiochien (559–598)”. OCP, vol. 46, pp. 306–366.Uthemann K.-H. (1980) “Die ʻPhilosophischen Kapitelʼ des Anastasius I. von Antiochien (559–598)”. OCP, vol. 46, pp. 306–366.Uthemann K.-H. (1997) “Definitionen und Paradigmen in der Rezeption des Dogmas von Chalkedon bis in die Zeit Kaiser Justinians”, in J. van Oort, J. Roldanus (eds.) Chalkedon: Geschichte und Aktualität. Studien zur Rezeption der christologischen Formel von Chalkedon. Leuven: Peeters, pp. 54–122.Uthemann K.-H. (1997) “Definitionen und Paradigmen in der Rezeption des Dogmas von Chalkedon bis in die Zeit Kaiser Justinians”, in J. van Oort, J. Roldanus (eds.) Chalkedon: Geschichte und Aktualität. Studien zur Rezeption der christologischen Formel von Chalkedon. Leuven: Peeters, pp. 54–122.Zhyrkova A. (2017) “John of Damascus’ Philosophy of the Individual and the Theology of Icons”, in A. Kaldellis, N. Siniossoglou (eds.) The Cambridge Intellectual History of Byzantium. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 431–446.Zhyrkova A. (2017) “John of Damascus’ Philosophy of the Individual and the Theology of Icons”, in A. Kaldellis, N. Siniossoglou (eds.) The Cambridge Intellectual History of Byzantium. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 431–446.Zhyrkova A. (2017) “Leontius of Byzantium and the Concept of Enhypostaton. A Critical Re-evaluation”. Forum Philosophicum, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 193–218.Zhyrkova A. (2017) “Leontius of Byzantium and the Concept of Enhypostaton. A Critical Re-evaluation”. Forum Philosophicum, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 193–218.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.