Patrology,-Hagiography,-Church-History

ских споров B. Lourié Euphemia in Edessa and Euphemia in Chalcedon: two hagiographic legends against their polemical background Summary Two hagiographical legends are analyzed: a Syrian (while composed in Constantinople) miracle story on the martyrs Gury, Samonas and Habib and the Byzantine Constantinopolitan Martyrium of St Euphemia. The study resulted in conclusion that the two legends were polemically counterpoised in the struggle over the Council of Chalcedon. Moreover, the earliest form of the Miracle of St Euphemia about the horos of Chalcedon has been reconstructed and the dating of this legend has been provided (about 510s). The analysis of the earliest recension of the Martyrium of Euphemia leads to the conclusion that this cult absorbed the veneration of Empress Pulcheria immediately after her death. The legend of the Miracle of St Euphemia about the horos has been compared with the legend of the martyrs Gury, Samonas and Habib in Edessa performed for another Euphemia. This comparison of the two legends shows that the latter has been composed as an anti-Chalcedonian answer to the former. В догматических спорах христианского Средневековья агиография традиционно играла роль главного церковного СМИ. Все стороны догматических конфликтов излагали свои позиции на языке агиографических легенд, то есть на языке понятных народу символов, а не только на логическом языке богословско-полемических трактатов. Вопрос о «достоверности» тех или иных текстов может поэтому ставиться аналогично вопросу, с которым сталкиваются историки Новейшего времени, — о достоверности газетных сообщений, современных интересующим их событиям. Конечно, газетные штампы и агиографические символы устроены по-разному, но их функция одинакова: опосредовать отношения массового сознания с реальностью. Именно поэтому оказывается, как это показали в ХХ веке великие болландисты (члены Société des Bollandistes, созданного внутри ордена иезуитов еще в XVII веке исключительно для изучения христианской агиографии), что сколь угодно «неправдоподобная» легенда всегда имеет конкретный исторический смысл. 1 Ниже мы рассмотрим историю двух агиографических легенд, тесно связанных между собой и отражающих догматическую борьбу вокруг Халкидонского (Четвертого Вселенского) собора (451 г.), провозгласившего христологический догмат в весьма спорной, с точки зрения многих современников, формулировке. В течение последующего столетия, вплоть до Пятого Вселенского собора (553 г.), баланс сил между сторонниками и противниками Халкидона неоднократно менялся, что, в конце концов, привело к серьезной корректировке принятых на этом соборе догматических постановлений. 2 1. Чудо святых мучеников Гурия, Самона и Авива Исходным пунктом анализа станет легенда о посмертном чуде Эдесских мучеников — Гурия, Самона и Авива. Она полностью сохранилась на сирийском (две рукописи), но слегка сокращенная греческая версия сохранилась в гораздо большем количестве списков и редакций, не говоря о бессчетном количестве всяких кратких резюме этой истории на греческом языке. Сирийское название — «История о Евфимии, дочери Софии, и о чуде, которое совершили с ними исповедники Самон, Гурий и Авив». В греческом эта история обычно составляет приложение к Мученичеству Гурия, Самона и Авива 3 и называется просто «Чудо мучеников Гурия, Самона и Авива». Это именно то самое чудо, из-за которого этих трех эдесских мучеников стали считать нарочитыми покровителями христианского брака, и которое обеспечило им популярность далеко за пределами Сирии, вплоть до современного народного благочестия всех традиционно православных стран.

проблема (вполне мб., что К.поль, а не Рим). 2. “шесть соборов”, почитавшихся Максимом, — это 325, 381, 431, 536, 553 (т.е. не Латеранский и т.д.). 3. параконсистентная логика в учении о свободе в обожении.

rom completely different incorruptible “elements”. My point is that the impossibility of reconstructing Philoponus’ thought about the Resurrection resulted from our total dependency on the Cononite sources (the monophysite tritheist party of the opponents of Philoponus): Timothy of C.ple (a Chalcedonian) was depending on the Cononite information, too. The Cononites understood Philoponus’ notion of εἶδος as synonymous to σχῆμα, whereas its real meaning was different (the soul as a separable ἐντελέχεια of the body etc.). Thus, the famous knot from the Cononite anti-Philoponian florilegium, the following Philoponian quotation (about the resurrected bodies): ܘܠܐ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܒܡܢܝܢܐ ܐܚܪ̈ܝܢ ܠܗ̇ܢܘܢ ܕܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ܆ ܐܠܐ ܘܠܐ ܫܘ̈ܝܝ ܒܐܕܫܐ ܠܗ̇ܢܘܢ. must be cut with an emendation: ܘܒܡܢܝܢܐ ܐܚܪ̈ܝܢ ܠܗ̇ܢܘܢ ܕܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ܆ ܐܠܐ ܫܘ̈ܝܝ ܒܐܕܫܐ ܠܗ̇ܢܘܢ. which will be in accord with other Philoponus’ works and, especially, a place in the Arbiter (Syriac only) which was so far misinterpreted, too. The resurrected bodies, according to Philoponus, will be different in their elements but the same in their “eidos”.

;) My first paper ever published. Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 21 (1989 [hrsg.1991]) 317—333

tinian monastic milieu where the Corpus was pseudonymized near ca 500. A review of the status quaestionis and a new study, mostly with the tools of critical hagiography. In additional Notes: 1. Chronology of John of Scythopolis, 2. Establishment of the Feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos in the Temple. Closely connected topic: Establishment of the Dormition of the Theotokos feast in Gethsemane in the 440s.

triarch of C/ple in 1560/61 without being recognised to be a “Third Rome” but with recognition of Ivan IV as a regional “basileus”. The metropolitan of Moscow (Macarius) was recognised as a “patriarchal catholic exarch” (a title known since the 14th cent.), and the Moscow metropolia as separate from the Kievan one was established. The uncanonical Muscovite autocephaly was thus finished.

teenth CenturiesThe Church of Moscow to the Middle of the Fifteenth CenturyThe Period of Self-Proclaimed Muscovite Autocephaly (1441–1589)Two Strategies for the Muscovite Church: the Josephites and the Non-PossessorsCanon Law for the Third Rome: the Reform Programme of the JosephitesA Counter-Reform Programme of the Non-PossessorsThe Non-Possessors’ Programme as the Political Opposition: Prince Andrew KurbskijThe Patriarchate of Moscow: Establishment, Fall, and Reconstruction (1589–1633)The Great Schism (Raskol) and the Old BelieversStart of the Great Schism (Raskol)The Reforms of Peter I and the Synodal Period of the State Church (1700–1917)The Nineteenth Century: Major TrendsCollapse of the State Church in 1917 and its ConsequencesReferences and further readingChristianity in Kievan Rus: Ninth to Early Fourteenth CenturiesThe Church of Moscow to the Middle of the Fifteenth CenturyThe Period of Self-Proclaimed Muscovite Autocephaly (1441–1589)Two Strategies for the Muscovite Church: the Josephites and the Non-PossessorsCanon Law for the Third Rome: the Reform Programme of the JosephitesA Counter-Reform Programme of the Non-PossessorsThe Non-Possessors’ Programme as the Political Opposition: Prince Andrew KurbskijThe Patriarchate of Moscow: Establishment, Fall, and Reconstruction (1589–1633)The Great Schism (Raskol) and the Old BelieversStart of the Great Schism (Raskol)The Reforms of Peter I and the Synodal Period of the State Church (1700–1917)The Nineteenth Century: Major TrendsCollapse of the State Church in 1917 and its ConsequencesReferences and further reading

y. In liturgy, there are some reasons to state that the papar were using an archaic Christian calendar that could be identified with that of the Celtic Church. So, the Celtic monastic colonization of the Northern islands is to be attributed to those who became a persecuted minority after the capitulation of Iona in 716. As to the hagiography, there is an important problem to discern between the legends of the time of the Celtic autarky of the 6th century and the legends generated in the situation of the schism of the 7th century. So, I was able to point out only one source, Bethu Brigte, that is, the original recension of its lost Latin original (composed, according to McCone, by Aileranus in the middle of the 7th century). Here, the scene of the consecration of St Brigit as a bishop has an outstanding anti-Roman meaning.

on and of the Robe (2 July). Attribution and dating of the Historia Euthymiaca and an Arabic Transitus mentioning empress Eudocia; their connection to the Galbas and Candidus story.

3) 91-100. My point is that the impossibility of reconstructing Philoponus’ thought about the Resurrection resulted from our total dependency on the Cononite sources (the monophysite tritheist party of the opponents of Philoponus): Timothy of C.ple (a Chalcedonian) was depending on the Cononite information, too. The Cononites understood Philoponus’ notion of εἶδος as synonymous to σχῆμα, whereas its real meaning was different (the soul as a separable ἐντελέχεια of the body etc.). Thus, the famous knot from the Cononite anti-Philoponian florilegium, the following Philoponian quotation (about the resurrected bodies): ܘܠܐ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܒܡܢܝܢܐ ܐܚܪ̈ܝܢ ܠܗ̇ܢܘܢ ܕܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ܆ ܐܠܐ ܘܠܐ ܫܘ̈ܝܝ ܒܐܕܫܐ ܠܗ̇ܢܘܢ. must be cut with an emendation: ܘܒܡܢܝܢܐ ܐܚܪ̈ܝܢ ܠܗ̇ܢܘܢ ܕܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ܆ ܐܠܐ ܫܘ̈ܝܝ ܒܐܕܫܐ ܠܗ̇ܢܘܢ. which will be in accord with other Philoponus’ works and, especially, a place in the Arbiter (Syriac only) which was so far misinterpreted, too. The resurrected bodies, according to Philoponus, will be different in their elements but the same in their “eidos”.

n the 7th cent.) as a legend on the conversion of Makuria (one of the three Nubian states) in the 560s. It was not the earliest legend on this, however. The remains of the earliest legend are also traced.

.ru/collection/2015/product/krugi-vremen-v-pamyat-eleny-konstantinovny-romodanovskoj-tom-2-issledovaniya-posvyashcheniya-i-vospominaniya An anonymous Slavonic sermon is published for the first time according to the unique Russian manuscript of the 17th cent. going back to a Western (“Lithuanian”) Russian protograph. The text quotes a rare recension of the Apocalypse of Paul known only in Slavonic and only in the indirect tradition (being its second witness), refers to the Epistle of Christ Descended from the Heaven, and, most probably, refers to and paraphrases some recension of the so-called Arabic Apocalypse of Peter (not to be confounded with CANT 317!), which is a not earlier than the ninth-century historical apocalypse. The sermon, moreover, could probably shed some light on an almost unknown Byzantine synod dealing with the impermissibility of oath as a part of Church rites. The sermon is, most likely, a middle Byzantine work. Appendix 2 contains an editio princeps of another anonymous sermon known in Slavonic only (within a Slavonic collection of Pseudo-Chrysostomica), Sermon on the Componction of Soul. The whole published volume is downloadable here: http://indrik.ru/collection/2015/product/krugi-vremen-v-pamyat-eleny-konstantinovny-romodanovskoj-tom-2-issledovaniya-posvyashcheniya-i-vospominaniya

ая эфиопистика. Памяти Севира Борисовича Чернецова. К 75-летию со дня рождения. СПб.: МАЭ РАН, 2019, 214–234. A. Yu. Zheltov, S. A. Frantsouzoff, eds., St. Petersburg Ethiopistics: In Memoriam of Sevir Borisovich Chernetsov, to the 75th Anniversary. St. Petersburg, 2019, pp. 214-234

доповiдей мiжнародної науково-практичної конференцiї. , 2017 Доклад 2016 г., опубликован в 2017. После этого Вера Ченцова нашла и опубликовала греческий оригинал самой главной грамоты Константинопольского собора 1686 года (2017), а потом были опубликованы и документы посольства Алексеева (2019). Опубликован в: Константинопольський патрiархат в iсторiї України: минуле, сучасне, майбутнє. Збiрник доповiдей мiжнародної науково-практичної конференцiї. Київ: Свiт Знань, 2017, с. 57–68.

nie. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2021 The recent data related to the legend of St Anastasia in Byzantium require a fresh analysis of the mutually connected cults of Anastasia and Febronia in both the Christian East and West. Part One of the present study is focused on the East, whereas Part Two will be focused on the Latin West. In Part One, the cult of Anastasia is discussed especially in Constantinople from the mid-fifth to the fourteenth centuries, with special attention to the epoch when the Imperial Church was Monothelite (seventh century). In this epoch, a new avatar of St Anastasia was created, the Roman Virgin, whose Passio was written on the basis of Syriac hagiographic documents. The cult of this second Anastasia was backed by Monothelite Syrians, whereas the fifth-century cult of Anastasia in Constantinople was backed by the Goths. Transformations of Anastasia cults in the era of state Monothelitism were interwoven with a new Syriac cult of Febronia of Nisibis that appeared in the capital shortly after its creation in Syria in a Severian “Monophysite” milieu.

nds of Anastasia, are focused on an investigation of the Aquileian legend and, then, going in the reverse chronological order, on the early Roman legend before its reception in Aquileia. The plot line dedicated to Chrysogonus is an Aquileian addition lacking from the earlier Roman legend. The pious mother of Anastasia called Fausta belongs to the same plot line, whereas the mother of the “original” Anastasia was pagan.

. 6 , 2023 The present article is a part of the study of the hagiographical dossier of St Anastasia, where the authors focus on three major problems: 1) the earliest Roman legends containing the name of Anastasia and other names occurring in her dossier; 2) the cult of the historical martyr in Sirmium that was lately transformed into the cult of St Anastasia; and 3) the place of the Anastasia church in the pre-Byzantine stational liturgy in Rome. The latter point involves a study of the original place, in the fifth-century stational liturgy of Rome, of the basilica