Dmitry Biriukov

The Neoplatonic Tetrad in the Context of the Topic of the Hierarchy of Beings in the Patristic Thought: Maximus the Confessor and John of Damascus

Dmitry Biriukov - Academic Adviser of Scientific and Educational Center of Problems of Religion, Philosophy and Culture at the State University of Aerospace Instrumentation; Associate Professor of National Research Nuclear University MEPhI (Moscow, Russia), dbirjuk@gmail.com

The article traces how the topic of the hierarchy of the participating beings, given by Dionysius the Areopagite on the basis of the Neoplatonic tetrad (Goodness, Being, Life, Mind), and, as it is supposed, of the doctrine of the hierarchy of natural beings by Gregory ofNyssa, were developed in the doctrines of Maximus the Confessor and,John of Damascus. "Ambigua", 7; 24, along with "Centuries on Charity", 3.24 - 25, by Maximus, and "Exposition of the Orthodox Faith", 86, by Damascene are considered. The paper then analyzes in which way Maximus and Damascus followed Dionysius and in which way they did not. It is shown that Maximus was influenced, through Dionysus, by both the Neoplatonic tetrad and Gregory's teaching on the taxonomy of the beings, while Damascus demonstrates adherence to only the first line.

This article was written with the support of the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation; project N13-33-01299, "Horizons of Natural Science in the Eastern Christian Middle Ages".

page 287
Keywords: hierarchy of natural beings, participation, universale, patristic philosophy, Platonism, the Neo-platonic tetrad.

THIS article is a continuation of the previous article on the relevant topic 1, in which I relied on the material presented in another publication 2. Before going on to cover the topic stated in the title, I offer a brief overview of the relevant conclusions made in these texts.

These articles deal with the theme of nature's evolutionary ascent raised by Gregory of Nyssa in Chapter 8 of his treatise "On the Constitution of Man", together with the related theme of the gens - specific hierarchy (division of beings): existing - corporeal - living - sentient/animate -intelligent , the influence of the authors preceding Gregory on the development of these themes is investigated. I show that there was a direct influence of the hierarchy of beings represented in the so-called Porphyry tree on the understanding of the hierarchy of beings in Gregory, although there are also inconsistencies between the order of steps in these hierarchies: In Gregory, the living precedes the animate, in Porphyry-on the contrary. I conclude that the reason for Gregory's change in the order of links in the Porphyry hierarchy is his desire to reconcile the logical-philosophical scheme of separation of beings common in his time with the logic of the order of creation of natural beings described in the Bible (Gen 1: 11 and 1: 20). Then I consider the teaching of Dionysius the Areopagite on the hierarchy of participants: being -living -feeling -intelligent - intelligent

1. Biryukov D. S. Hierarchies of existence in patristic thought. Gregory of Nyssa and Dionysius the Areopagite // State, Religion, Church in Russia and abroad, 3 (32), 2014. pp. 304-326.

2. Biryukov D. S. "The ascent of nature from small to perfect": a synthesis of the Biblical and ancient logical-philosophical descriptions of the order of natural beings in the 8th Chapter On the dispensation of man by Gregory of Nyssa / / Intellectual traditions in the past and present/Ed. by M. Petrov. Вып. 2. ИВИ РАН, ИФ РАН: Аквилон, 2014. С. 221 - 250; Biriukov, D. (2015) "'Ascent of Nature from the Lower to the Perfect': Synthesis of Biblical and Logical-Philosophical Descriptions of the Order of Natural Beings in the De opificio hominis 8 by Gregory of Nyssa", Scrinium: Revue de patrologie, d'hagiographie critique et d'histoire ecclesiastique, vol. 11: Patrologia Pacifica Quarta, eds. B. Lourie, V. Baranov.

page 288
- of which Dionysius speaks in connection with the names of the first appearances of the Deity: Good, Being 3, Life and Wisdom, so that Good extends to things that are and things that are not; Things that are to things that are; Life to things that are alive; Wisdom to things that are intelligent (angelic powers), things that are rational and sensible4. Dionysius borrowed the names of these speeches - Good, Being, Life and Wisdom - from the neo - Platonic tradition, within which the doctrine of the tetrad Good - Being-Life-Mind.5

I point out a fundamental difference in the understanding of the structure of hierarchies in Dionysius and Gregory: in the latter, the hierarchy does not presuppose transcendental principles corresponding to the links to which these links participate; the former, based on the philosophy of Proclus, introduces such principles, so that his hierarchy is a hierarchy of participants. I will relate this to the reinterpretation in patristics of the concept of participation in essence, in particular, participation in the Divine Essence. In this regard, I distinguish between three participation paradigms used in patristics. According to one of them, the partaker is understood as different in nature from the partaker and in participation is said in terms of opposition to what is in nature (I call this platonic discourse of participation). According to the second paradigm, which is the opposite of the first, the concept of participation expresses a logical relation between generic predicates of different degrees of generality: the less general is involved in the more general, but not vice versa; therefore, according to this paradigm, by participation means the same as by nature (I call this the Aristotelian participation paradigm). The third paradigm of participation, introduced into patristics by Dionysius, involves distinguishing between three elements of the situation of participation: the non-participative, the participative, and the participative (I call this the Neoplatonic paradigm of participation). At the same time, although Gregory and Dionysius differ in the basic concept of hierarchy, their hierarchies also have common elements, which is manifested in the similarity of the links being - living - feeling - reasonable. I note that the presence of a feeling link in the Dionysian hierarchy is quite unexpected, since it does not correspond to the position-

3. Sometimes, instead of the concept of Being, Dionysius uses the concepts of Being and Essence in the same context

4. On the Divine Names V, 3, cf. IV, 4.

5. See: Procl. Principles of Theology 101, 102, and 8ff.

page 289
the Divinity that extends to it is Wisdom, and in general it falls out of the Dionysian order of Divine appearances (Being, Life, Wisdom), which are part of the hierarchy 6. At the same time, in the Dionysian hierarchy, this link is located in the same place as it is in the hierarchy of Gregory - between the living and the intelligent. In this connection, I assume that the appearance of the feeling link in the hierarchy of Dionysius is due to the fact that when he developed his teaching about the hierarchy of natural participants, he had in mind the hierarchy of beings represented by Gregory of Nyssa, and borrowed this link from it, placing it in the appropriate place in his hierarchy. Thus, the biblical line in terms of the order of natural beings penetrates through Gregory of Nyssa into the Dionysian discourse, and through him it will also penetrate into the corresponding teachings of some subsequent patriotic authors, including those discussed in this article below.

These are the conclusions of my previous research on the subject of this article.

2. Thus, the discourse of the tetrad Good - Being - Life - Wisdom, borrowed by Dionysius from the Platonists (or, if this tetrad is taken without its first link, the discourse of the triad Being-Life-Wisdom), was also relevant for Maximus the Confessor, and in connection with this, the topic of the hierarchy of beings appears in Maximus. Let's point out a few relevant passages from Maxim's works.

First, in the 24th Ambigva, Maximus, combining ascetic and ontological lines in theology, speaks of a kind of theological categories - the five tropes of contemplation: according to essence, movement, difference, confusion, and position7. The first three are intended for the knowledge of God and point to Him as, respectively, the Creator, Provident and Judge. The latter two have a pedagogical character: the confusion indicates our ability to will, while the position corresponds to the stability of the direction of this will to the good. Saints, combining position with movement, and confusion with difference, that is

6. For the fact that the sentient corresponds to Wisdom, and for the indicated order of Divine appearances, see: On Divine Names V, 1.

7. This theme of the five tropes of contemplation, introduced by Maximus, contains an echo of the Platonic tradition, namely, Plato's teaching on the five greatest genera-being, identity, difference, rest, and movement (Sophist 254D-255C) - and Plotinus ' development of this Platonic teaching (Ennead VI 2). Cf. Dillon, J. (2012)" Philosophy and Theology in Proclus and Maximus the Confessor", Quaestiones Disputatae. Selected Papers on the Legacy of Neoplatonism, p. 51.

page 290
by reducing the five tropos of contemplation to three, one comes to the contemplation of essence, difference, and motion, and sees in the effects the Cause (God), contemplating it as Being, Wise Being , and Living Being (one can speak of this triad as Being - Wisdom - Life), thus penetrating the mystery of the tropos of the existence of the Hypostases of the Trinity and of God. learning the God-fulfilling doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit 8. Thus, Maxim reproduces the Dionysian triad Being-Life-Wisdom in the 24th Ambigva in the form of the triad Being-Wisdom-Life, that is, he rearranges the last two links, and Maxim relates the members of this triad to the Persons of the Holy Trinity - the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

As Polycarp Sherwood noted, Maximus here combines two triads: on the one hand, the Origenist-Evagrian Creator-Provident-Judge 9 and, on the other, the Dionysian Being - Life-Wisdom, dating back to Proclus. As a probable source in the Areopagite Corpus for this passage from Maximus, Sherwood points to "On Divine Names", 5-2 and 5-3, where Dionysius talks about the Good, the Existent, Life and Wisdom; in turn, Dionysius relied in this respect on the 101st and 102 th theorems Proclus ' Primordial Theology, which deals with the triad of Being-Life-Mind. According to Sherwood, Dionysius, starting from the scheme of Proclus, changed the link of Mind, which took place in the Proclus scheme, to Wisdom and added a fourth element-the Good. Accordingly, Maximus, according to Sherwood, returned to the triadic structure that took place in Proclus (the latter is not entirely accurate, since in the" Principles of Theology " Proclus also refers to the Good as the highest principle 10), and compared with the scheme of Dionysius, he reversed Wisdom and Life, based on the traditional patristic sequence Enumerating the Father-Son-Spirit Entities and referring Wisdom to the Son and Life to the Spirit (as the Life-Giver)11.

8. Ambigwa XXIV, PG 91, 1123A-1136C.

9. See: Evagrius of Pontus. Selected interpretations on Psalms 138.16, PG 12, 1161CD.

10. Procl. Principles of Theology 8ff. Cf. Perl, E. (2007) Theophany: the Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagitei, p. 66. New-York.

11. Sherwood, P. (1955) "Introduction", St. Maximus the Confessor: The Ascetic Life. The Four Centuries on Charity, pp. 40 - 41/trans. and annot. by Polycarp Sherwood, O. S. B., S. T. D. Paulist Press (Ancient Christian Writers). These observations of Sherwood were further reproduced by subsequent researchers (with references to Sherwood or

page 291
Also traces of the Dionysian tetrad can be seen in Maxim the Confessor's "Chapters on Love", 3 - 24 - 25- Maximus writes that God, by bringing intelligent and rational beings into being, imparted to them the four Divine properties of being ever-being, goodness, and wisdom, which intelligent and rational beings share in by their very existence, fitness to the blessing and grace of ever-existence. Of these Divine Attributes, the first two are granted to the essence, and the last to the gnomic faculty, so that created rational beings may become by participation what God is by nature (here the theme of individual participation in the Deity is expressed in Maxim 12). The first two properties are the image of God in man, the second two are the likeness. Here, the good, being, and wisdom are used by Maxim to indicate both the Divine properties and the properties bestowed by God on a human being.

Finally, in the 7th Ambigva, Maxim speaks of the hierarchy of participating beings:

[We believe that] Word... It is shown and multiplied in proportion to each one in all who come from It, and it is the head of all in Itself. Both being and abiding correspond to it; and those who have arisen from It, inasmuch as they have arisen; and according to what they have arisen for-abiding and moving - they partake of God; for all [creatures], by their origin from God, partake of God in proportion, either according to the mind or according to the mind. reason or feeling or vital movement or essential and holding [in being] fitness as it is considered by the great Epiphanyist Dionysius the Areopagite 13.

without them): Thunberg, L. (1965) Microcosm and Mediator. The Theological Anthropology of Maximus the Confessor, pp. 129 - 130. Lund (Thunberg erroneously claims (p. 130) that, according to Sherwood, Maximus connected the Dionysian links Wisdom and Goodness, while in reality Sherwood's observation is that Maximus reversed the Dionysian links Wisdom and Life); Idem., Thunberg, L. (1984) Man and the Cosmos: The Vision of St. Maximus the Confessor, p. 46. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press; Dillon. Op. cit.

12. Also for this topic, see, for example: Ambigvas XLII, PG 91, 1329A-B.

13. Ambigvas VII, PG 91, 1080A-B.

page 292
Maximus speaks here of the hierarchy of natural abilities of created beings, according to which each created being, according to its nature, participates more or less in God in comparison with those of other natures. Maximus mentions natural participation in God according to the abilities of essential fitness( being), life, feeling, reason and mind. These natural abilities, by virtue of the principle of proportionality, constitute a hierarchy from the level of being to the level of mind, increasing in the ontological sense. The list and order of these natural abilities, as Maximus speaks of it, coincides with the hierarchically organized order of the natural abilities of created beings corresponding to the Divine appearances Being, Life, Wisdom, mentioned by Dionysius in "On the Divine Names", V, 3 and IV, 4, where we are talking about being, living, sentient, intelligent, etc. smart. Obviously, this order is borrowed by Maximus from Dionysius 14. At the same time, it can be noted that if Dionysius clearly states the principle that each subsequent link in the hierarchy of participants includes the previous ones, that is, the possession of each subsequent natural ability implies the possession of previous ones, as well as their corresponding participations (V, 3), then Maxim does not explicitly state this.

Thus, the hierarchy of natural participators in Maximus, being borrowed from the Dionysian teaching about the hierarchy of participators, on the one hand, goes back through Dionysius to the Neoplatonic triad of Being-Life - Mind, and on the other hand, in relation to the link that determines natural participation according to feeling, it goes back to the teaching of Gregory of Nyssa and through him to the Biblical- the cosmogonic order of natural beings.

14. In addition, in this passage from the 7th Ambigva, Maximus collects several Dionysian conceptual concepts related to the subject of the hierarchy of the participle, scattered in Dionysius in the text of his treatise "On Divine Names". These are the concepts of proportionality, see On Divine Names, I, 2: 110.13; IV, 1: 144-5SIV, 33: 178-17 (Suchla); on this concept in Dionysius, see Golitizin, A., hierom. (1994) Et Introibo AdAltare Dei: The Mystagogy of Dionysius Areopagita: with Special Reference to Its Predecessors in the Eastern Christian Tradition. Thessalonike: 86ff.) and fitness (see On Divine Names, I, 5: 118.1; IV, 4. 147.17, 148.18; IX, 10: 214-4 (Suchla)), which suggest the concept of measures of natural participation for various types of created beings.

page 293
Here we can ask ourselves whether Maximus (as it was in Dionysius)has the same meaning as Dionysius. correspondence between the order of links in the hierarchy of a participant and any order within the framework of what this participant participates in. That is, it is a question of whether Maximus has an analog of the participial appearances - principles that took place in the system of Dionysius, which correspond to the Neoplatonic triad (tetrad) (Good) - Being - Life - Mind, and to which the links of the hierarchy of participating beings participate.

The passage just quoted from Maxim (Ambigva, 7, PG 91, 1080A - B) speaks of the participation of created beings, according to their natural abilities, in God. The immediate context of this passage, as well as other passages in Maximus, indicates that, according to it, the types of created beings correspond in God to the logoi that existed before the ages, through which God creates created beings: in Ambigva 7 (PG 91 " 1080A-C) Maximus speaks of the logos of angels, the logos of the forces and essences of the upper world, the logos of men, and the logos of all that exists.

However, one can try to specify what these participating natural abilities of essential fitness, life, feeling, reason and mind are involved in in God, taking into account the Neoplatonic triad (tetrad) (Good) - Being - Life - Mind, which genetically (through Dionysius the Areopagite) influenced the formation of Maxim's teaching about God. hierarchies of participating natural abilities. Indeed, as can be seen from what has been said above, Maximus sometimes mentions the Good, Being, Life, and Mind involved in his theological language.

So, obviously, Being, Life, and Mind cannot be considered as such principles shared by created beings, when Maximus refers them to the Persons of the Trinity, as is the case in the 24th Ambigva, since the Persons of the Trinity cannot be shared by created beings.

Further, in Chapters on Love, 3-24-25, in the context of the triad of Good - Being - Wisdom borrowed from Dionysius, being (as well as ever-being) is spoken of both as a property of God and as something that a person naturally possesses, by virtue of his natural participation in the Deity. We can also recall a well-known passage from Chapters on the Theology and Economy of the Incarnation of the Son of God, 1.48, where Maximus deals with the timeless works of God that are partaken of

page 294
such are the Good, Life, Immortality, Simplicity, Immutability, Infinity, contemplated around God. Among these properties, Good and Life are included in the Dionysian tetrad.

Thus, it can be said that the doctrine of the higher principles involved in the hierarchy of the natural participant, corresponding to the Neoplatonic triad (tetrad) (Good) - Being - Life - Mind, is poorly developed in Maxim. Nevertheless, it is possible to speak of Being and Life as such principles-Divine properties or works that participate in the corresponding natural abilities of created beings (the Wisdom that participates, which is described in Chapters on Love, 3-25, in contrast to Dionysian discourse, in Maxim does not correspond to the natural ability of a person, but to the disposition of the will and therefore we cannot mention it among the principles included in the non-platonic triad and naturally shared by created beings).

3. Now let us turn to the neo-Platonic triad of Being-Life-Mind within the framework of the theme of the natural hierarchy of participants in St. John of Damascus.

Let us focus on the following passage from the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith:

Good... God... He did not allow the Good, that is, Its nature, to exist alone, and nothing would be involved in it For this reason, first, He created the intelligent and heavenly forces, then-the visible and sensible world, then-man, consisting of the intelligent and sensible, Therefore everything that has arisen thanks to Him is partaken of His Goodness 15 not only because He Himself brought it from non - existence into being, but also because His energy preserves and contains what has come into being through Him), and especially living beings (because they are partakers of the Good and the Good). because they exist, and because they participate in life). But rational beings [are partakers of the Good] both according to the above and according to reasonableness, and these beings - to a greater extent-

15. Rom. 11, 36.

page 295
penalties, for they are in some ways more akin to Him, even though He is superior to all without comparison.16
Following what I call the Platonic paradigm of participation17 - that is, the paradigm in which something that partakes of the nature of something does not, by virtue of this participation, become of the same nature as what is partaken of-Damascene holds that all created things naturally partake of God as the Good that is His. 18.Developing this idea, Damascene speaks of a mode of participation in the Deity of living and rational beings, who, according to him, participate in God through their natural abilities, and in such a way that each subsequent ability and participation takes into itself the previous ones. Namely, living beings participate in God through being and life; rational beings participate in God through being, life and reason. The neo-Platonic triad of Being-Life - Mind is clearly visible here.

Compared to the list of participating natural abilities listed by Dionysius the Areopagite and Maximus the Confessor, Damascene lacks the intelligent as an individual-

16. The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4 XIII (86): 2-14 (Rotter), translated by A. A. Bronzov and D. E. Afinogenov, with ed.

17. In general, John of Damascus uses in his writings all possible paradigms of participation in the application to the essence (nature)of his time: platonic, Aristotelian, and Neoplatonic. The Platonic paradigm is expressed, for example, in the passage "Three Defensive words", 3.33, as well as in the above quotation from Damascene; the Aristotelian paradigm is shown in "On the properties of two natures in one Christ", 7; the Neoplatonic paradigm is used in the following places: "On the Properties of Two Natures in One Christ", 11: 9-10 (Kotter); "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith", 7 (51). Due to Damaskin's use of all the three paradigms of belonging to the essence that I have highlighted, one can even note some inconsistency in his statements on this issue. Namely, in the treatise "Three defensive words", 3-33 > refers to the participation of saints in the Divine essence, while in the work "On the properties of two natures in one Christ", 11: 9-10 (Kotter), refers to the non-participation of the essence of the Deity. For more information, see: Biryukov D. S. Paradigms of participation and the problematics of universals in John of Damascus // Bulletin of the Oryol State University. Series: New humanities research. 2013. 6 (35), pp. 162-166.

18. There seems to be no reason to think that when John speaks here of the Good that is part of the nature of the Deity, as that which constitutes the nature of the Deity, he is using the concept of nature in the technical sense of what the hypostases of the Trinity possess. I believe that Damascene uses the concept of nature here not in this sense, but-meaning that Goodness is an essential property of God.

page 296
th link, as well as the feeling link. It seems that the course of Damascene's thought in this passage suggests the identification of the intelligent and the rational , since first he talks about the creation of intelligent forces by God and the human being, which also contains the intelligent principle, and then, developing the idea, he speaks of rational beings as participating in God according to reasonableness, as well as about the creation of those who are most involved in God, obviously implying that these intelligent beings are the carriers of the mentioned intelligent principle. The fact that Damascene does not mention the sentient link in his hierarchy of natural communicants can be explained by the fact that although he borrows the paradigm of this hierarchy from Dionysius the Areopagite, however, when listing its links, he relies not on the Dionysian list of links in the hierarchy of communicants, where the Areopagite presents the order containing the sentient19, but on the Dionysian description of the communicants Deity appearances: The Good, the Existent, Life and Wisdom20-and, building his hierarchy of participators, he proceeds from this list of participative performances. At the same time, in accordance with the standard name for Dionysius and Maximus for the corresponding link in the hierarchy of the participant, Damascene changes wisdom to reason.

The closeness of John of Damascus to the Areopagite is also reflected in the words of Damascene that the being who is most rich in natural abilities that allow him to participate in God (that is, a rational being) is the most related to God. The same idea is found in Dionysius when he speaks of the hierarchy of participators: that which has the greatest number of natural perfections (intelligent beings) is closest to God.21
Finally, it should be noted that Damascene does not seem to have a doctrine of shared principles, which are shared by the links of the natural hierarchy of beings; Damascene speaks of the participation of beings through their natural abilities directly to God, or to the Divine Natural Good, but not to some higher realities, as it were, universals-before-things, corresponding to the natural abilities of created beings, such as

19. On the Divine Names V, 3.

20. Ibid., 1-2.

21. Ibid., 3: 182.3-4 (Suchla).

page 297
This is clearly expressed in the teaching of Dionysius and, although not very clearly, in Maxim.

4. Thus, we have traced aspects of the influence of the Neoplatonic tetrad Good-Being-Life-Mind on the theological language of Maxim the Confessor and John of Damascus. Bearing in mind the above, it can be noted that this influence is quite clearly visible in terms of the teaching of these authors about the hierarchy of participating beings. With regard to the transcendental principles involved, the influence of this tetrad, if it is possible to discern it in Maximus the Confessor, is only in a blurred form; in Damascene, however, it seems to be absent. At the same time, if in Maxim the order of the links of the hierarchy of participants is determined by the corresponding Dionysian hierarchy of participants, then in John of Damascus, the order of the links of the hierarchy of participants is influenced by the order in the hierarchy of participating principles, as it is given in Dionysius. This is connected with the fact that Maximus combines the influence of the Neoplatonic tetrad in this respect with the line of teaching of Gregory of Nyssa about the hierarchy of beings, which goes back to the order of creation described in the Bible (which is manifested in the presence of the link sentient in the hierarchy of participators); in the hierarchy of participators, however, this line is absent in Damascene.

This is how the neo-Platonic tetrad Good-Being-Life-Mind is reflected in the teachings of Maxim the Confessor and John of Damascus.22
Bibliography/References

Biryukov D. S. "The ascent of nature from small to perfect": a synthesis of the Biblical and ancient logical-philosophical descriptions of the order of natural beings in the 8th Chapter On the dispensation of man by Gregory of Nyssa / / Intellectual Traditions in the past and present, ed. by M. Petrov. Issue 2. IVI RAS, IF RAS: Aquilon, 2014, pp. 221-250.

Biryukov D. S. Hierarchies of Existence in patriotic thought. Gregory of Nyssa and Dionysius the Areopagite // State, Religion, Church in Russia and abroad, 3 (32), 2014. pp. 304-326.

Biryukov D. S. Paradigms of involvement and problematics of universals in John of Damascus//Bulletin of the Oryol State University. Series: New humanities research. 2013. 6 (35), pp. 162-166.

22. In the next article of this series, I will consider the doctrine of the hierarchy of beings in the Palamitic controversies, where the Neoplatonic triad again, as in Dionysius, becomes connected with the order of the participating transcendental principles.

page 298
Biriukov, D. (2015) "'Ascent of Nature from the Lower to the Perfect': Synthesis of Biblical and Logical-Philosophical Descriptions of the Order of Natural Beings in the De opificio hominis 8 by Gregory of Nyssa", Scrinium: Revue de patrologie, d'hagiographie critique et d'histoire ecclesiastique, vol. 11: Patrologia Pacifica Quarta, eds. B. Lourie, V. Baranov.

Biriukov, D. (2014) "Ierarkhii sushchego v patristicheskoi mysli. Grigorii Nisskii i Dionisii Areopagit" [Hierarchies of Beings in the Patristic Thought: Gregory of Nyssa and Dionysius the Areopagite], Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov'v Rossii i za rubezhom. 3 (32): 304 - 326.

Biriukov, D. (2014) "'Voskhozhdenie prirody ot malogo k sovershennomu': Sintez bibleiskogo i antichnogo logiko-filosofskogo opisanii poriadka prirodnogo sushchego v 8-i gl. Ob ustroenii cheloveka Grigoriia Nisskogo" ["Ascent of Nature from the Lower to the Perfect": Synthesis of Biblical and Logical-Philosophical Descriptions of the Order of Natural Beings in De opificio hominis, 8 by Gregory of Nyssa], Intellektual'nye traditsii v proshlom i nastoiashchem. T. 2. IVI RAN, IF RAN: Akvilon: 221 - 250.

Biriukov, D. (2013) "Paradigmy prichastnosti i problematika universalij u Ioanna Damaskina" [Paradigmes of participation and problematics of universale in John of Damascene], Vestnik Orlovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Serija: novye gumanitarnye issledovanija 6 (35): 162 - 166.

Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos (1969 - 1988), hrsg. B. Kotter. 5 Bande. Berlin. (Mafjgebliche kritische Gesamtausgabe).

Dillon, J. (2012) "Philosophy and Theology in Proclus and Maximus the Confessor", Quaestiones Disputatae. Selected Papers on the Legacy of Neoplatonism, pp. 37 - 55.

Golitizin, A., hierom. (1994) Et Introibo Ad Altare Dei: The Mystagogy of Dionysius Areopagita: with Special Reference to Its Predecessors in the Eastern Christian Tradition. Thessalonike.

Thunberg, L. (1984) Man and the Cosmos: The Vision of St. Maximus the Confessor. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

Thunberg, L. (1965) Microcosm and Mediator. The Theological Anthropology of Maximus the Confessor. Lund.

Patrologia Graeca, ed. J. P. Migne. T. 12; 91.

Perl, E. (2007) Theophany: the Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite. New-York.

Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita (1990) De divinis nominibus, ed. B.R. Suchla. Berlin: De Gruyter. (Patristische Texte und Studien 33).

Sherwood, P. (1955) "Introduction", St. Maximus the Confessor: The Ascetic Life. The Four Centuries on Charity, trans, and annot. by Polycarp Sherwood, O. S. B., S. T. D. Paulist Press (Ancient Christian Writers).

page 299

Permanent link to this publication: