Глава первая. Космологические воззрения св. Григория Паламы

In Byzantine astronomy, which for the most part remained purely speculative, experiment was given a deliberately subordinate position, which prevented it from acting as a stimulus for the active assimilation of new ideas and knowledge by society. “For the Byzantines,” writes A. Tion, “observation remained something unreal, auxiliary, and imperfect instruments could not be a convincing argument against pure reflection...” 244. Therefore, the cosmology that we are about to consider - the cosmological ideas of the Church Fathers about the creation of the world by God, its subsequent structure and design - was only to a small extent nourished by astronomical information itself, and it is necessary to immediately make a reservation that in further presentation the phenomenon of astronomy as such - astronomy in our understanding - will not play any significant role. The biblical teaching about creation ex nihilo posed a number of questions to the conciliar consciousness of the Church: about the beginning of creation and the evolution of primal matter; about Providence; about history. The Byzantines never forgot that the world - the world as space, nature, as a beautiful and aesthetically marked whole - was created for the sake of some higher goal, which must be achieved in the course of the world process. The beginning of this process marked the beginning of the universe as such. Let's think about it: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). These words express the idea of ​​the historical impetus and the starting point of all created things, the “origin of coordinates” of world history. The dynamism expressed in them is preserved throughout the biblical narrative and organically passes into the works of Bible interpreters and the Fathers of the Church. There is a lot of talk these days about the historicism of the Bible. And as if summing up the centuries-old tradition, Cardinal Jean Danielou wrote: “Truly, what is described to us (in the first lines of the Bible - D. M.) is the beginning of human history... Cosmic events and historical events are miracles of the same God... The Bible includes nature in history... in Sacred history, which is the plan of God and the eternal salvation of man" 246. One and the same God is the Lord of time, “...always hastening forward,” in the words of St. Basil the Great, - and always passing by, and never stopping his run" 247 - and history. The sense of history and the presence in it of God - the Creator and Provider, and at the same time the cosmos as an active link in history, which is called upon to serve the crown of creation - man, runs like a red thread through the cosmology of the Church Fathers, coloring it with bright and major colors. “After all, they say,” testifies Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, “that He is in minds, and in souls, and in bodies, in heaven and on earth, and that at the same time He [remains] Self-identical (καὶ ἅμα ἐν ταυτῷ τὸν αὐτὸν) – Those who exist in the world (ἐγκόσμιον), those who surround the world (περικόσμιον), the most worldly, the most heavenly, the most essential; [that He] is the sun, star, fire, water, spirit, dew, cloud, that He is a stone and [He] is a cliff, everything that exists - and nothing that exists” 248. There is no doubt that the enumeration of the elements of the cosmos serves to glorify the greatness and omnipotence of the Creator, expressing the surprise of the human mind (even enlightened by grace) at the mystery of His transcendence - and omnipresence. And you can complain as much as you like about the unoriginality of this kind of expositions, panoramas of the universe with which church writers decorated their works - but does this reduce the value of cosmology so understood in the eyes of the Byzantines themselves? Does this relieve us of the need to consider it historically? Yes, from our point of view, there is little scientificity in such maxims, but Byzantine cosmology did not always pretend to be scientific, being, in fact, a mental laboratory for working out basic Christian ideas about creation, creatures, man, his life path and ascent to God. That is why it turned out to be necessary in the consciousness and attitude of Homo byzantinus, giving the Byzantine an answer to the question: where am I? How did I get here? What is the meaning of this? If you like, we can say that cosmology was a subsystem of theology, but an internally formed and harmonious subsystem, and therefore claiming some self-sufficient (but associated with the highest levels of this system) meaning. One example will clarify what has been said. Describing the earthquake that occurred in September 1063, Michael Psellus simultaneously reflects on the reasons for what happened and at the same time expresses a thought that is basic to the entire medieval worldview: “However, they (the earth and the sea. - D. M.) do not move by themselves - but God, who created everything, keeps the order of these parts unshakable if we obey His laws and follow them; if we deviate from divine commands, He shakes the universe (τὴν σύμπασαν) - not in order to destroy universal harmony (τὴν ἁρμονικὴν τὸν παντὸς), but in order to keep us [from sin] and reconcile with Himself (συναρμόσηται) thanks to the movement of the elements” 249. So, cosmic events have moral significance - the conclusion may seem trivial, but is this not the sense of St. Basil the Great called the cosmos “a place for teaching and educating human souls” ψυχῶν) 250 Everything that happens in the world can be read as a text, for the world itself is “like a book proclaiming God’s favor towards us” 251, according to the same Psellus. So, the world is the universe, the world is a school, the world is a book. A book for a person and about a person, telling about something very important - placing the hidden and revealed in the visible and accessible - and appealing to a person in order to be read. What we have before us is (as we would say) “cosmology with a human face,” using a standard, but still variable (and evolving in its variability) set of patristic arguments and ad homines arguments - and therefore included as an organic part in the narrative about the relationship between the main participants in the historical drama - God and man. Our immediate task will be to briefly consider these arguments (concentrated around the main themes already mentioned: matter and substance; harmony and Providence; the relationship of the elements and celestial spheres; the anthropocentrism of the picture of the world we are studying) in their historical dynamics. To do this, we preface the characterization of the cosmological views of St. Gregory Palamas a brief outline of the main milestones of Eastern Christian cosmology (I–XIV centuries). Without prior acquaintance with the tradition, it is difficult to understand the silence teacher's own views. So, what did Byzantine thinkers understand by the word “space” and how did they imagine the structure of this space and the movement occurring in it? Section I. Main milestones in the development of Eastern Christian cosmology (I–XIV centuries) § 1.1. Cosmology of the apostolic men and apologists (1st–2nd centuries) Already the apostolic men admire the beauty and harmony of the world created by God. The following words from the First Epistle to the Corinthians by St. Clement of Rome (c. 95–96) 252: Thus, God’s commands about creatures (which are manifestations of God’s will) are identified with the law of existence given to creatures (cf. Wis. 7:17–20). Admiration for the change of seasons, the proportionality of the movement of heavenly bodies and the seasonality of natural processes will also become a commonplace of Byzantine cosmology. The 2nd century was marked by a surge in cosmological speculation. In polemics with paganism and in order to establish a new, Christian wisdom, apologists constantly turn to the doctrine of creation and the arrangement of the world we see 254. In one of the oldest monuments of hagiography, to which A.G. Dunaev recently drew attention - “Apology of St. Aristides" (before 132) 255, - it is said: “I... having seen the sky, the earth, the sea, the sun, the moon and so on, I was surprised at their well-being (τὴν διακόσμησιν τούτων)” 256. The word διακόσμησις is related to the word κόσμος and, according to the observation of A. G. Dunaev, “... indicates an order that unites individual elements (elements) and arranges from them “cosmos” (i.e. “beauty”)” 257. This order is not thought of as something static: celestial bodies “...according to the immutable law (ἀνάγκην) of nature” 258 make their way, determining the change of seasons. Here ἀνάγκη is also associated with the will of God, acting as its visible manifestation, as the implementation of those very commandments of God that St. already taught. Clement. From this circumstance, that the cosmos appears to us not as an independent, but as a subordinate principle, it becomes clear that “... the sky is not God, but a product (ἔργον, thing, creation) of God” 259. “I don’t want to worship the creation He created for us,” echoes Tatian 260. So, the world is a creation of God, proclaiming the Creator with its entire structure, and most importantly, by following the law established for it. The harmony of existence allows us to speak of its Creator as the Supreme Mind and Artist of the world. This idea receives a clear expression from Minucius Felix: “Look at the very sky. How widely it spreads! What rapid movement takes place there! Look at it at night, when it is speckled with stars, or during the day, when it shines with the bright rays of the sun, and you will know in what amazing, divine balance the Supreme Ruler keeps it. Pay attention to how the year is determined by the movement of the sun, and how the moon, now waxing and waning, measures the months. But let us leave it to the astronomers to say in more detail about the stars 261... all this not only could not have happened, formed and come into order 262 without the Supreme Artist, without the most perfect Reason, but it cannot even be perceived, studied and comprehended 263 without the greatest effort and activity of the mind... Such an order would easily be upset if it were not supported by the Supreme Reason "264. The world is like a lyre or cithara, its sound reminiscent of the Creator. This metaphor is used by St. Irenaeus of Lyon to express the most important idea, significant for St. Gregory Palamas 265, - about the harmony of the world as a result of the coordination and unity of the opposites that underlie it, about their reconciliation and the removal of oppositions in a single mood of all creation. Antinomic constructions were not alien to Greek thought even earlier. But if Heraclitus absolutizes fluidity itself as the law of universal instability and mutual transition of phenomena (ὁδὸς ἄνω κάτω μίακαὶ ωὑτή) (Fr. 58DK), then for Irenaeus all oppositions are resolved in a single harmonious sound of the world - cithara. Existence for him is a jubilant apotheosis of stability and euphony, moving the soul to glorify the Creator: “No matter how diverse and numerous created things are, they are in harmonious connection and harmony with the entire universe; but, considered each separately, they are mutually opposite and discordant (contraria et non convenientia); Thus, the sound of the cithara, consisting of many sounds opposing each other, is formed, thanks to [certain] intervals between them, into one consonant melody. Therefore, the lover of truth should not be deceived by the intervals between sounds and believe that one sound belongs to one artist and creator, and another to another; or that one arranged high tones, another – low, and a third – medium; but [must recognize] only one [organizer] as proof of the wisdom, justice, goodness and decoration of the entire work. And those who hear the melody 266 should praise and glorify the artist..." 267. The harmony of the world is a reflection (and consequence) of the measure, number (rhythm), order and harmony in accordance with which God created the world - according to the image of the world created within Himself 268. The divine rhythm transmitted to creation is reflected in its good rhythm; measure and harmony - in the regularity and coherence of the cosmos 269. As if a summary of the teachings of St. Irenaeus sounds the words of Athenagoras: “Therefore, if the world is a harmonious and harmonious organ, then I worship not the organ, but the one who tuned it and produces sounds and produces a consonant song...” 270. So, one of the most important merits of the apologists is in developing what in subsequent scholasticism is known as the cosmological proof of the existence of God. But the significance of the apologists would not be so great if they limited themselves to repeating what was already said by Clement of Rome - albeit in a complicated form. It was they who introduced into cosmology (as representatives of the Alexandrian school did into anthropology) the inoculation of Platonism necessary for the internal stability and integrity of the Christian worldview 271 , thereby determining for centuries the ways of reception by Christianity of elements of Plato’s heritage in this area 272 . We are talking about Plato's theory of matter - such as it is set out primarily in the Timaeus. Let us recall the main features of this theory. According to Plato, matter is “the receptacle and, as it were, the nurse of every birth” τιθήνην) (Tim. 49a), “nature perceiving all bodies” τε γὰρ ἀεὶ τὰ πάντα) (Ibid. 50b), which “...accepts any impressions 273, being in motion and changing forms under the influence of what enters it.” Due to this mobility, moreover, fluidity and elusiveness, matter is not something qualitatively defined, but acts as “a certain formless and formless, all-perceiving form” πανδεχές) (Ibid. 51a). “Matter is formless,” writes V.N. Toporov about Plato’s understanding of matter, “and therefore ideally perceives a model (hence Plato’s comparison: the perceiving principle is the mother, the model is the father, the intermediate nature is the child: 50d). The formless environment in the Timaeus is defined in a variety of ways - as a recipient, a nurse, a mother, space (50d, 52a–b, d), despite the fact that the word ὕλη is absent here” 274. Plato’s matter, in fact, itself “...has not yet been born,” in the words of the poet, but appears before us as the pure possibility of the formation of an ideal example in something else, the otherness of the ideal (as Hegel and Losev would say), as the possibility-potency of any birth, being at the same time its container - “extension,” as A.F. Losev recommended translating the second member of the triad related to matter: ὄν τε καὶ χώραν καὶ γένεσιν εἶναι (Tim. 52a). Having taken shape, it becomes a space filled with specific elements - elements and their combinations, which make up the entire diversity of the world we see; Plato especially emphasizes that primary matter is not identical to the totality of the four elements, but precedes them (each element is formed as a result of interaction with a specific idea). Plato's matter, in the words of T. Yu. Borodai 276, is a pure substrate 277 that is not a member of the value opposition (good = spirit, ideal - evil - matter, decay, death); it is as if it does not exist, always “... intending to be, but never achieving existence” 278. Similar tendencies of non-recognition of any mode of existence for matter (as long as only that which is perfect exists) will intensify in the 3rd century. Plotinus and his student Porfiry 279. Naturally, the concept of matter coined in this form by ancient thought turned out to be convenient for describing that primary state of the world created by God, when the earth was “...formless and empty...” (Gen. 1:2). At the same time, the theory of creation ex nihilo completely refutes the Hellenic doctrine of the coexistence of the Demiurge and matter, which in its purer, “Platonic” form was condemned by the Church in 1076 at the trial against John Italus 280, and in a slightly Christianized version - in the Ten Anathematisms against Origenism, compiled by St. Emperor Justinian in 543 and formed the basis of the Fifteen Anathematisms of the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553 281 This kind of theory, which presented the world process as some kind of game of God with matter adjacent to Him and semi-autonomous from Him, was widespread in late antiquity - in the last centuries BC. e. and at the beginning of AD e. 282 They were characteristic of both the Platonists and the Stoics. Thus, according to Achilles (Introduction to Aratus. 3. 124–126), “Zeno of Citium says that the principles of the universe are God and matter, and God is the active principle, and matter is what is affected (τὸ ποιούμενον). From these two principles four elements arise." 283 In the long term, this explanation of cosmogenesis fits into the pagan scheme of the emergence of the world as the result of a purely natural interaction between a completely this-worldly heavenly god and an equally local, tangible goddess of the earth 284 (cf. later echoes of this scheme in the literary versions of the Greek myths about the adventures of Zeus that have come down to us - for example, the myth of Danae, Ganymede, the abduction of Europa, etc.). The creation of the world was thought of in these interpretations as a completely natural, natural and absorbed process. It is no wonder that Christianity, which came as news about the spiritual and transcendental world, as the preaching of a transcendental and “unknown” God, at the same time present and active in the world thanks to His energies, from the very beginning waged a fight against this kind of views of the “old man.” The apologists bore the brunt of it. And their merit is that they were the first to convincingly refute the cosmological models of the Hellenes 285. Their general argument, which became the general argument of the Fathers in this matter, is extremely clear: God alone is the Creator, He alone is the source of all power and all origin, and to recognize along with Him any principle external to Him and independent of Him means to attribute powerlessness to Him 286 . “What is great,” asks St. Theophilus of Antioch, - if God created the world from underlying matter? And a human artist, if he receives a substance from someone, makes of it what he wants. The power of God is revealed in the fact that He creates out of nothing whatever He wants..." 287. Thus, the decisive words were spoken for the construction of a new – actually Christian – theory of creation. And first of all, according to the teaching of apologists and their followers in all centuries, God creates unformed matter. Among the apologists we find only the most general view of the stages of the formation of matter, as well as some information about the structure of the heavens. But they have already presented the main themes of Christian cosmology. Let's say a few words about this. From formless matter, as St. Justin Martyr, God created everything that exists in the beginning 288. He quotes from Pres. 11:18 (in Russian translation - “... from an ugly substance”), trying to prove that Plato borrowed the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe creation of the world from unformed matter from the prophets 289. Of course, this does not call Christian creationism into question: the first created substance was matter itself, and from it all kinds and types of beings gradually arose. According to Athenagoras, in the beginning matter was “... in the form of qualityless nature and inactive earth - the lightest particles were mixed with the heaviest” 290. Next, a division of the elements occurs, corresponding to the second stage of cosmogenesis, when the power of God adorned the formless and disordered substance with many and varied forms. Finally, at the third and final stage, the parts of the elements are united by God into one and at the same time the simple is divided into many, so that the lifeless substance is given life 291 . So, the scheme “creation (of primary substance) – separation (of elements) – design of existing things” was already developed by apologists. In the form improved by the Cappadocians, it will reach St. Gregory Palamas. Did apologists express specific astronomical ideas? Even if this question can be answered in the affirmative, it is unlikely that the ideas in question can be called new. This is, first of all, geocentrism 292 and the idea of ​​a limited universe: “... the heaven created by God,” writes St. Theophilus of Antioch, - like a roof, a covering of water together with the earth...” 293 This model, generally characteristic of Antiochian cosmology (a flat earth and a tent-shaped firmament above it), was legitimized by Cosmas Indicopleustes 294. The same Theophilus has the idea of ​​two firmaments - but it also goes back to the Bible 295. We don’t see any other ideas of any note – at least upon a quick glance – in the works of apologists. But this does not mean that we have the right to belittle the services of apologists to Christian cosmology. After all, it was they who, having adopted Plato’s theory of matter, as well as other ancient natural philosophical teachings, opened access to Christianity to elements of scientific information. And before we talk about the further development of Christian cosmology itself, let us take a brief excursion into the more than one and a half thousand year history of one of these teachings of paramount importance - the doctrine of the four elements, or elements 296. Thanks to this, we will be able to take a closer look at the processes of assimilation by Christianity of the ancient cultural heritage and the gradual Christianization of the latter, which is extremely important for understanding the ideas of Gregory Palamas and the spiritual history of Byzantium in general. § 1.2. Excursion: the doctrine of the elements in antiquity and Byzantium (until the middle of the 13th century) The importance of the doctrine of the four elements - water, earth, air and fire - is pointed out by the Byzantine authors themselves (and after them by modern science) 297 . Let’s compare two characteristic statements (one is separated from the other by about 400 years): “After all, they say that the world consists of four elements - fire, air, earth and water” 298. This brief statement of theories dating back more than one and a half thousand years ago belongs to the pen of Eustratius of Nicaea, a famous writer and liberal thinker at the turn of the 11th–12th centuries, convicted in 1117 of Christological heresy 299 . Eustratius, a representative of the rationalistic tradition of Byzantine thought 300, is in no hurry to immediately refute this opinion, which in its pure form (without mentioning the act of creation) is unacceptable for Christian consciousness. We find a different approach in St. Anastasia Sinaita (VII – early VIII centuries) 301: “So, what can be the moment [of emergence] and the beginning (tempus et principium) of something that has no beginning? After all, [the world, according to the Hellenes,] does not have any beginning before it, since it is composed of matter and form, and matter precedes form. Likewise, the elements have a beginning - matter and form, since they are composite and consist of matter and form. And they also say that matter is the beginning of everything, since it is incorporeal, without quality (expers qualitatis) 302 - and what is explained only by reason is inaccessible to sense (non cadit... sub sensum). Therefore, says [Plato] 303, she, squeezed by some figure, imprints 304 in herself [its] form. So, the first elements to arise are ether, fire, air or earth. Then, after these elements have entered into a relationship [with each other] (complexis his elementis), what is composed [of them] arises - both animate and inanimate. They also say that it is matter and form that are more similar to the image of the first principle (ad principii formam) than other bodies. We say: the beginning that surpasses all beginnings and therefore the first is God, and after God the elements are the beginnings and natural bodies” 305. Here the presentation of ancient cosmogonic theories is a kind of “historiographical introduction” to the presentation of Christian cosmology proper; It is noteworthy that St. Anastasius, retelling the cosmology of Plato and Aristotle, finds it difficult to name a clear order of the emergence of the elements - in contrast to the mythological texts, Heraclitus, and the Stoics, who teach about the emergence of the elements from each other 306. Zeno clearly expressed this: “After all, the nature of everything [that exists] arose from hot, cold, dry and wet, when they began to [make] the transition from one to another (εἰς ἄλληλα τὴν μεταβολήν)” 307. Such an idea of ​​the mutual transition of elements, which is a manifestation of the universal law of war as the general order of existence, is already characteristic of Heraclitus 308 and, as one might think after the above-mentioned studies of V.N. Toporov, dates back to the turn of the mythopoetic era and the period of the Pre-Socratics. Whereas Aristotle speaks about the origin of the world: “So, this is how the composition of the universe - heaven and earth, i.e., a single cosmos (τοῦ τε σύμπαντος κόσμου) - began to decorate ( διεκόσμησεν) single harmony" 309. The latest version of cosmogenesis formed the basis of the patristic teachings. The most indicative in this regard is the work of Nemesius. In it, the idea of ​​a harmonious combination of elements according to qualities, a list of which we saw in Zeno, found perhaps the most comprehensive expression in Byzantine literature. “Each element,” writes Nemesius, “has two associated qualities that give it certainty. So, earth is dry and cold, water is cold and wet, air is wet and hot,... fire is hot and dry” 310. The elements “... are primary and simple in comparison with other bodies... every element is homogeneous (ὁμογενές) with that of which it is an element” 311. This “understanding of elements as initial, real material-sensory structural principles, fundamentals of the structure of matter, equivalent in relation to each other, thanks to which God created material objects” 312, goes back, as S. V. Bondar, who gave this formulation, points out, to the reworkings of early Christianity (the contribution of St. Justin) to Platonism and Aristotelism, being closer precisely to the late antique version of the latter (cf. Aristotle’s “second matter” - the substrate of a specific thing, close to a specific substance or material: Metaph. V 4, 1014 b26 et seq.; etc.). Among the four elements there are two pairs of opposites: water - fire and earth - air; members of these pairs cannot touch each other. Therefore, the order of the elements is as follows: earth > water (they touch with coldness and heaviness, “...due to which they naturally gravitate towards the bottom”) 313 > air > fire (the general quality is hotness and lightness, “...thanks to which they by nature extend upward”) 314 . “All bodies... come from a combination of the four indicated elements...” 315 “...The Creator wisely arranged so that the elements pass into each other and into the bodies composed of them, and these latter are again destroyed in the elements” 316, due to which the circulation of matter occurs in nature (Athenagoras and St. Gregory of Nyssa, as is known, paid attention to this topic in connection with the problem of the resurrection of bodies). Nemesius is aware of the dispute between Platonists and Aristotelians on the issue of ether (should it be recognized as the fifth element forming an independent sphere around the Earth?), but does not speak out definitely on this matter. We will encounter similar ambiguity when analyzing Palamas’ cosmology; for now we will only note that the Archbishop of Thessaloniki is aware of the “material dyad” 317, but his own cosmology seems more consonant with Platonism... The ancient component of Byzantine spiritual wealth allowed for different interpretations of the cosmos, leaving space for choice among possible alternatives; and this contributed to an increase in the degree of natural philosophical reflection, albeit insignificant at first glance. Psellus 318 taught in a similar way to Nemesius about the order of the elements. Among the Fathers of the Church we can also mention St. Maximus of the Confessor, according to which, matter - ὕλη] - consists of four opposing elements, and therefore the sensory world has existence not in centuries, like the mental one, but in space and time, being subject to the “flow of matter,” that is, decay and decomposition into elements 319. Here cosmology serves as an illustration of the general theological idea of ​​fragility and instability as an integral feature of all created things, which is associated with the very beginning of its existence through the act of creation, that is, change 320. Our knowledge of Byzantine cosmology (especially the last centuries of the Empire) would be incomplete if not for a number of publications in recent decades. These include the publication by G. Hunger of fragments from the treatise of the Nicaean emperor Theodore II Doukas Lascaris (1254–1258) “Review of the World” (Κοσμικὴ δήλωσις) 321. The first book of this curious work is entitled “On the Elements” (B. 129). It is worth quoting an excerpt from it: “It is obvious that water, air and fire with earth in themselves are nothing, because they did not arise by themselves, but received their composition, existence and stability (τὴν πῆξιν καὶ τὸ εἶναι καὶ τὸ ἔμμονον) from another [source]. [This is clear] from the fact that if their emergence (σύστασις) was a flowing from themselves into themselves (ἐξ αὐτῶν εἰς αὐτὰ φθορὰ) 322, then how would they arise from themselves? But even if this were [so], then [even then] what would have arisen from these [elements] would have been destroyed because of them [even] before it arose. And how [in general] were they (the elements. - D.M.) honored, if only not by those who actually openly (ἐναργῶς) think in Hellenic (hereinafter italics in quotations are ours. - D.M.) 323 - since they turned out to be the culprits of their own death? But, truly, both he and the elements were first produced by the truly Existing God (παρὰ τοῦ ὄντως Θεοῦ) - and [thus] came into being” (S. 129; Vindob. phil. gr. 321. Fol. 80 v). These words express the same universal Christian view of the origin of the elements as Anastasius. Although Laskaris's treatise is imbued with ancient wisdom (more on which to come), the more revealing is the zealous defense of Christian dogma in the field of cosmology. The doctrine of the creation and design of the elements by God 324 (despite differences in nuances, which we will talk about later) was the general opinion of church writers, close in its significance and prevalence to the dogmatic one. And shortly before the end of the Byzantine Empire, we encounter the same apology for the old truths with which the history of Christian cosmology once began. § 1.3. Eastern Christian cosmology in the 3rd–4th centuries. And in the 3rd century. writers continue to reflect on cosmological topics. We find the same thing as among the apologists, admiration for the beauty of the created world, in which everything is “very good,” in the Word for the Epiphany of St. Hippolytus of Rome, a famous preacher and commentator on the prophetic books of the Bible, who won the praise of Eusebius of Caesarea and Patriarch Photius 325. It is significant to note that in the 3rd century. - at least in the Alexandrian school - astronomy becomes part of the professional education of future theologians. This is eloquently evidenced by the famous fragment from Origen’s speech of gratitude to St. Gregory the Wonderworker: “... I was amazed at the greatness and miracles, as well as the various wise structure of the world... through the natural sciences, he explained and examined each object separately, and, moreover, very accurately to the very initial elements, then he connected this with his thought and penetrated into the nature of both the whole thing and each object separately and followed the diverse changes and transformations of everything that exists in the world... This sublime and divine knowledge is taught by the most beloved physiology for all. What should I say about the sacred sciences - the beloved and indisputable geometry and astronomy soaring in the heights? And he imprinted all this on my soul... The first, namely geometry, since it is unshakable, he simply made it seem like the support of everything and, so to speak, a strong foundation; and raising to the highest regions through astronomy, through both of these sciences, as if by means of a ladder rising to heaven, making heaven accessible to me” 326. This is not the place to talk about the cosmology of Origen himself - as a heretic, it is unlikely that he could have had any influence on Palamas. Let us only point out that, according to Origen (Contra Celsum. V. 11), all heavenly bodies are servants of God, capable of meaningful prayer and submission to Him; this delusion (as if the stars and the sun are the same particles of the original enada (unity of spirits)!) was condemned by the Sixth Anathematism of 543 and the Third - of the Fifth Ecumenical Council 327. It must be assumed that his teaching about the stars as “divine signs” and “heavenly writings” (see, for example: Comm. in Genesim. III. 20) 328 is connected precisely with this aspect of his teaching. Gregory the Wonderworker himself contains both general remarks in line with the cosmological argument in favor of the existence of God 329 and elementary observations on the properties of the elements 330, as well as echoes of Plato’s 331 and atomistic-Aristotelian 332 doctrines of matter. All of them are subordinated to the tasks of Christian apologetics 333 and do not carry any special semantic load. Only in the 4th century. - in the circle of the Great Cappadocians, and also thanks to the activities of Nemesius of Emesa - an original and detailed Christian cosmology is created, accompanied by a certain revision of the classical and early Christian picture of the world, but basically following the most important achievements of apologists, as well as ancient thinkers (of course, in Christian interpretation) 334. It is reflected mainly in two sources - the “Sex Days” of St. Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa (the second is seen as a polemic with the first) 335. Indeed, the ideas underlying these monuments are somewhat different from each other - despite the fact that the cosmology of Gregory of Nyssa can be called, in our opinion, the most original (and highest) achievement of cosmological and, more broadly, natural scientific thought of early Byzantium; it was not surpassed in the late Byzantine period. The cosmology of Basil the Great follows the principles established by the apologists and develops them: the world was created beautiful and harmonious, and its perfection reflects the wisdom of the Creator 336. God created everything “with a single wave of will” 337, but in the beginning “... everything was mixed with everything,” that is, the elements were in an undifferentiated state 338. Then the ordering of the world takes place for the sake of man, who is called to be its ruler 339. Vasily is familiar with Plato's theory of matter and its criticism in Aristotelianism 340. His own version of cosmogony is closer to the latter. In the exegesis of Gen. 1:1 one could take two paths. It was possible, in accordance with the Aristotelian doctrine of hypostases and the corresponding generic concepts, to teach about the initial creation of the rudiments 341 (or logoi) of specific types of matter - dry, warm, moist, cold, each of which corresponds to a certain concept in God, for “the will [of God] is wisdom” 342. Having willed this, God “hypostatizes” these concepts by will-wisdom, endows them with being for the subsequent design and finishing of the entire diversity of existence in its finished form (πρὸς τὴν ἀπεργασίαν τῶν ὄντων) 343. Every substance, therefore, arises from its own special (“partial”) material first cause, from its “quantum of existence,” as required by the logos of each 344. This is exactly the path of Basil the Great. But Palamas, like many Fathers, followed the second, Platonic path, teaching about common matter for all elements of the world (which did not prevent him from preserving the idea of ​​​​the original mixture of elements). The world whole, says Vasily, God “... linked... by some inviolable law of friendship into a single and consonant community, so that even those that are farthest apart from each other would be united thanks to mutual sympathy” 345. Nevertheless, regarding the movement of celestial bodies, he notes that “... all the components of these complex entities are hardly combined in a common movement...” 346 There is no contradiction here - the fact is that the movements of the upper (light) and lower (heavy) bodies are directed in opposite (circumferential) directions; the ether seems to be singled out by Basil into a special sphere (347). These provisions turned out to be fundamental for Byzantine cosmology as a whole; it seems that O. R. Borodin still underestimated the contribution of Basil the Great when he wrote that the idea of ​​the movement of the lower stars, opposite to the movement of the universe, was “only mentioned” by the Caesarea bishop, and first appears in the “Six Days” of George Pisis (VII century) 348. St. Basil also has another important idea - about the creation of time along with the world itself: “... the world arose... without any delay of time...” - so O. Nesterova conveys ἀχρόνως of the original 349. This means that the will of God was not determined by any time; it itself is a property of the created world, the law of movement and development inherent in the universe is one of the manifestations of that law of existence, which apologists spoke about. The beginning of time is the first moment of time; as J. F. Callahan points out, this idea is close to Aristotle 350 . We also meet it in Augustine 351. According to J. Bernardi, the homily for the Six Days of St. Basil spoke in a week (9 conversations in 5 days) - apparently during Lent between February 19 and March 16, 378 before the Christian community of Caesarea 352. If this is so, then this year can be considered the year of birth of Christian cosmology as a holistic and internally coherent system. Close to Basil the Great, but not so original, the cosmology of St. Gregory the Theologian. This is understandable: the great teacher of Trinitarian theology had no time for cosmological problems, and he limited himself to laconic remarks on this matter. In his cosmology (this is clearly seen in the theory of matter 353 and meteorology) 354 St. Gregory is a consistent supporter of Aristotelianism. God is the Artist of everything: He created matter “having form,” and then put into the world a law according to which everything moves - and moves harmoniously, proclaiming God 355. St. Gregory focuses rather on direct intuition and the early Christian origins of cosmological thought, while Platonism is sharply criticized by him: “Razi Platonic ideas, the transmigration and rotation of our souls, remembrance and not at all beautiful love for the soul for the sake of a beautiful body...” 356 Here the most odious elements of Platonism are rejected - in accordance with the principle of Basil the Great, supplemented by his own argument St. Gregory 357. In the remarks of the Nazianzi bishop, made by him when discussing cosmological problems, a desire to free the Christian understanding of the universe from the “birthmarks” of ancient natural philosophy clearly appears. His thoughts about the world lie in the general mainstream of the quest of the era, preparing the way for a more relaxed use of elements of ancient science of nature when building systems of Christian cosmology proper. One of the most mature fruits of this cosmology is the corresponding teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa. The most important parts of this teaching - the theory of the stages (days) of creation, the theory of matter and its genesis (so to speak, "gilogenesis") and the theory of the balanced movement of celestial bodies - represent, in the language of the old school, perhaps the most mature and perfect fruit of Byzantinism in the corresponding field of knowledge. They were already thoroughly analyzed by V.I. Nesmelov (the importance of his fundamental monograph on St. Gregory should be emphasized in every possible way) 358, and were also considered by some Western scientists (J. Gait and others). Let us dwell on two aspects of St. cosmology. Gregory, which are of greatest interest to our topic. “...God produced,” writes the Bishop of Nyssa, “the beginnings, foundations and powers (τὰς ἀφορμὰς, καὶ τὰς αἰτιας, καὶ τὰς δυνάμεις) of all things gathered together ( συλλήβδην) outside of any duration (ἐν ἀκαιρεῖ) 359, and at the first wave of the will [of God] the essence of each of the existing things crystallized (συνέδραμεν) - the sky, the ether, the stars, the fire, the air, sea, land, animal, plants; all this was contemplated by God’s eye...” 360. “The will of God,” he says in another place, “is matter (ὕλη) and the essence of creation” 361. But she is also wisdom, and it is she who gives rise to the beginnings of all things 362. From this it is clear that, as J. Gait writes, “... the creation of the world is the implementation, materialization, “substantialization” of the will of God” 363. But this will is incorporeal and immaterial! Where then does matter come from? St. Gregory himself poses this question 364. The answer to it is the theory of the emergence of matter as a result of the convergence of primary immaterial qualities, which is of interest not only to the historian of cosmology, the “dynamic theory of matter” 365, related, as noted by V.M. Lurie 366, Aristotle’s teaching about matter as a substrate of ideal qualities. In the treatise “On the Structure of Man” we read: “... from incorporeal nature, these mental impulses for the existence of bodies began to exist: from intelligent nature, intelligent forces are produced, and from their collection with each other, material nature is brought into existence” 367 . And in “Sex Day” St. Gregory explains that the qualities of objects (weight, lightness, moisture, dryness, color, smell, etc.) “... are themselves concepts (ἔννοιαί ἐστι) and pure thoughts (ψιλὰ νοήματα) 368. None of this in itself is matter, but, coming together with each other, [they] become matter (συνδραμόντα πρὸς ἄλληλα, ὕλη γίνεσται)” 369. Each quality, according to the saint, has its own, separate logos; and only when the various qualities-logoi come together, a “corporeal hypostasis” 370 is formed, that is, a specific material object. St. Gregory, like his elder brother Basil the Great, is thus closer to the Aristotelian version of medieval cosmogony; It was he who contributed, more than anyone else, to the crystallization of this version. In the primary chaos - in this “...merged and indifferent state” 371, which Nesmelov identifies with the ἄμορφος ὕλη of St. Justin and παλαιὰ ἀταξία of Clement of Alexandria 372, the separation of qualities and their objects is not yet observed. It was necessary to explain their further genesis. St. Gregory writes: “...if at first the earth arose together with the sky, why is what arose undeveloped (ἀκατασκεύαστον)? After all, the concept of “arrange” (κατασκευάσαι) seems to be no different from “create” (ποιῆσαι). And if creation and arrangement are one and the same thing, why is what was created not equipped?” 373 This question—about the arrangement of the elements of the cosmos, i.e., about their emergence from the beginnings of specific substances—is what cosmology is called upon to answer. The general scheme of the cosmology of Gregory of Nyssa was reconstructed by V. I. Nesmelov. He writes: “Thus, on the basis of the biblical story itself, it is necessary to recognize the dual creation of the world: general and private (author’s italics - D. M.). In the first creation, world forces were instantly brought into existence from non-existence; in the second, the combination of these forces in a sequential order constituted this entire sensory world” 374. These forces, created together with unformed matter at the first moment “beyond all duration,” fulfill the command to be formed that God gave to the universe. Having received this command, the rudiments of the elements began to take shape from the formless mass - first in the elements, and then into bodies and groups of bodies consisting of them, thereby realizing the law of their existence. This law, in essence, is the decree of God’s wisdom about this world, that is, that command given at the beginning to be, which was the cause and basis of cosmogenesis. (We have already seen this line of thought among apologists). The elements, writes Nesmelov, “...arranging themselves according to the law of their own activity, at the same time necessarily carry out the outlines of the wisdom of God, and therefore act as the will of God determined for them to act” 375 . But this also means that their formation, further development and functioning are guided by Providence and subordinated to it. Put into the elements at the first moment of time - together with the emergence of time itself, God’s commission, according to Nesmelov, “... was silently carried out by the elements on every day of creation” 376. On the fourth day, celestial bodies appear. Due to different densities (which is associated with the difference in their constituent substances), they have different speeds of movement, and therefore cannot be on the same line - but some rise, while others fall; This is how star circles arise. This idea of ​​​​the heterogeneity of the movement of celestial bodies, important for experimental science, is extremely important for understanding the subsequent development of cosmology in Byzantium and the Slavic countries. Although consistent with observational data, it still required its theological justification - and found it: although the celestial bodies rotate differently, “and star differs from star in glory” (1 Cor. 15:41), they all ultimately form a single harmony, singing a hymn to the greatness and wisdom of the Creator by the very coherence of their joint existence. The desire to explain the world as a harmonious unity permeates the cosmology of Gregory of Nyssa. Thus, he says that the sun is placed in the middle of cosmic space so that its light (like a distant star) does not weaken and does not burn us 377. Discussions about heaven and earth literally anticipate Palamas's train of thought. Indeed, R. E. Sinkevich notes the influence of the ideas of “Sixth Day” on the corresponding place in the 23rd chapter of “One Hundred and Fifty Chapters” (the text is identical to the passage from the Sixth Homily quoted below, about which in its place) 378. When the world became settled, says the Nyssa saint, “... the celestial body surrounded everything, and in the middle of everything, the heaviest bodies, earth and water, supported by each other, found a place. The earth, “a solid and motionless nature,” acts as the central axis of space around which the rotation of celestial bodies occurs. Their circular motion “...like a wheel surrounded the pole, and thus indestructibility is maintained both in movement and in rest. The rotating essence, due to the speed of its movement, compresses in a circle and compacts the earth, and the solid and inflexible essence, due to the immovability of its hardness, constantly supports the vortex rotating around it. Moreover, both distant entities - the resting nature and the non-stopping environment - with their actions (energies) produce equal repulsion in relation to each other. Therefore, neither the earth moves from its foundation, nor the sky weakens or slows down its movement” 380. This description is subordinated to the main task - to illustrate the harmony of the universe, showing the harmony and balance of the central interaction occurring in it, namely the interaction of the stationary center - the earth - and the moving firmament. Palamas also means this (in his picture of the world, the interaction of heaven and earth remains central) when he says that God “... and held together (ἔπηξε) the world and set it in motion” 381. In the cosmos created by the Good Artist, opposites are dialectically reconciled, which is facilitated by the activity of the creature: “And since heaven and earth are opposite to each other... then the creature, located between the opposites, partly communes with its neighbor, mediating between the extremes, so that through this average (i.e. through the creature. - D. M.) the contact of the opposites becomes apparent" 382. The activity of the creature (and this means, first of all, the rational creature - man) helps to remove the contradiction between various types of movements in the universe. But this contradiction has already been removed in the properties of the moving natures themselves: God, according to St. Gregory, created “... the ever-moving immutable 383, and the immovable changeable 384...” 385. Both natures exchange properties (idioms), so there seems to be no contradiction: it is resolved ontologically, in the very interaction of moving natures. Thus, before us appears an impressive panorama of a multi-level and diverse, but not contradictory cosmos: by the highest right hand and the properties of the bodies themselves, balancedly interacting with each other, the motley mosaic of the visible cosmos turns into a single and harmonious whole, forming, as it were, a visible panel or a visible projection of the wisdom of God operating in the world. Such a picture should have had a strong effect on the consciousness of a theologically educated Byzantine (such as Palamas), prompting him to seek order and harmony in the visible, earthly world, which in its secret essence is a reflection of the inexpressible harmony of the heavenly spheres. The world appeared before the mental gaze of the reader of these lines, like one big book proclaiming the good Providence of the good Creator. After Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa, cosmology was an integral part of the system of theological knowledge (although, as we have seen, it was already taught by Origen); it could not be ignored, and it is no coincidence that St. John of Damascus in his “Exact Exposition” devotes so much space to it. Knowledge itself about the world - like action in the world (see Chapter 3) - thereby received its fundamental justification, provoking not an escape from the world, but an entry into the world - with the goal of changing and transforming it. This position is for St. Gregory Palamas is very principled. A look at space as a single and harmonious whole; as a harmony achieved precisely through plurality and thanks to it, was established in patristic thought. According to Nemesius of Emesa, whose cosmology is a brilliant example of the connection (and verbal explication of this connection) of the actual astronomical and cosmogonic problems with the doctrine of Providence and man, “The Creator ... adapted different natures to each other so that the whole creation was united and related ... everything was harmoniously adjusted to each other and connected, and through the creation of man he connected together the intelligible ( τὰ νοητά) and visible" 386. Creation is related to each other - that is, internally, in its very essence, it is one, and therefore beautiful. “Is it necessary to prove,” asks Nemesius, “that it [creation] cannot be in a better state than it is in now, that... everything was created perfect and beautiful by wisdom and providence?” 387 How was everything created? “Those who adhere to the biblical teaching,” notes Nemesius, “disagree regarding heaven and earth” 388. He himself, relying (according to the convincing assumption of M. L. Khorkov) on one of the discrepancies in Job 38:30 (instead of πρόσωπον δὲ ἀσεβούς - πρόσωπον δὲ ἀβύσσον ) 389, teaches about God’s creation of the primordial abyss (“the very name of the abyss indicates the infinity of matter”) 390, from which over time - thanks to the action of Providence - all things arose. We encounter the idea that is already familiar to us about the law of motion of celestial bodies as one of the aspects of God’s care—Providence—for the world, but in a slightly different formulation. God, says Nemesius, “... put a necessary limit on all things... God Himself not only stands outside all necessity, but is even its Lord and Creator” 391. “...He is the Creator of necessity,” we read elsewhere. “He established the need for the stars to always move in the same way...” 392. The balance of this movement is a clear proof of Providence, understood as “Divine care for existing... the will of God, by which everything that exists is expediently governed” 393. Here is the clearest formulation of this - cosmological - proof: “... the unchanging persistence of everything, especially that which occurs and is destroyed, the position and structure (order) of being, always preserved in the same image, the flow of the luminaries, always invariably monotonous, the annual circle and restoration (alternation) of the seasons, the annual equinoxes of nights and days, the gradual increase and decrease of both in neither greater nor lesser proportions - how could would be accomplished and equally distributed if no one hunted?” 394 Here the theme of the world, created for man and for the benefit of man, is connected, and the theme of man, created in order to wisely use this world and cognize it. Ontological, epistemological and aesthetic ones are intertwined with cosmological reasoning, but the reasoning itself is conducted in a characteristic anthropological manner. The hymn to creation naturally gives way to a hymn to the crown of creation - man: “Who could count (ἐξειπεῖν) all the advantages of this living being? – Nemesius admires. – He crosses the sea, with his speculation (τῇ θεωρίᾳ) goes around the sky, comprehends the movement of the stars, their volume and size... develops all knowledge, skill and skill (ἐπιστήμην καὶ τέχνην καὶ μέθοδον )....” 395 . These words sound almost like a literal extract (or summary) from similar encomia of Gregory Palamas to the human mind. Below, when analyzing Palamas’s views on society, we will also note his closeness to Nemesius. Thus, the main components of Byzantine cosmology (the doctrine of the days of creation; of matter; of Providence; of man as the goal of creation, who cognizes all the wealth of the visible world) were developed and argued in the “golden age” of patristics, the prerequisites for which took shape from the 1st century. (especially active - from the 3rd century). In fact, during the thousand-year period of the history of Eastern Christian cosmology between the Cappadocians and Nemesius, on the one hand, and St. Gregory Palamas, on the other hand, there were only two authors who wrote in relatively detail about space - St. John of Damascus and Michael Psellus (who, however, was only indirectly related to church circles). We could, therefore, shorten our further sketch and include in it only these two figures; but Byzantine cosmology has been unlucky for a long time in generalizing research, so that it is still possible to neglect the elements of cosmological teachings that are contained (albeit in fragmentary form) in the works of a variety of authors. The time has long passed in the study of the historical and cultural process when only the “cream”, the tops, were removed from any phenomenon, and the roots (i.e., the entire soil, genesis, foundation and environment) remained outside the field of view of scientists. Nowadays, there is a need for a comprehensive, integral and comprehensive study of the historical and cultural process within the framework of civilizations and civilizational communities (cf. the experiments of S. A. Starostin and others on the reconstruction of the Nostratic proto-language (i.e., the common ancestor of the Indo-European, Semitic, Caucasian and Finno-Ugric languages)); Byzantine civilization, among other things, by the very fact of its existence proves the continuity of ancient, Hellenistic, Middle Eastern and medieval traditions in ideology, politics, and culture. Therefore, we will try to highlight (in an extremely condensed form) the elements of cosmological views in the works of various church authors of the Middle Byzantine era. An involuntarily dropped phrase, a thought expressed as an example or illustration, a sketch, a vivid image - all this provides material for this work. § 1.4. Cosmology in the Middle Byzantine era (VI–XII centuries) General approach to cosmology of Byzantine church thinkers of the 6th–12th centuries. beautifully expressed by the great teacher of the Church - Rev. Maximus the Confessor (580–662). Reproducing the cosmological proof of the existence of God, he noticeably strengthens the symbolism in the perception and description of the world, which, according to Maxim, is connected with the fundamental epistemological task of the ascetic at the first stage of the spiritual path - finding, discerning and contemplating the logoi of creation, i.e., the ideas of God about existence laid at the basis of creation 396 . This teaching affirms the necessity and significance of the existence of the created world - precisely in its function of being a “ladder” for ascent to the intelligible world. Palamas will also learn this understanding. St. Maximus begins his cosmological reflections with the traditional question: “God created both the invisible world and the visible world; He also created the soul and body. And if the visible world is so beautiful, then what is [the] invisible world like?” 397. The single world created by God consists of the worlds of the intelligible and the sensible. Here it is appropriate to recall the teaching of St., which is directly related to cosmology. Maxim about 5 pairs of opposites that arose as a result of the Fall: 1) uncreated (i.e. God) - created; 2) sensual - intelligible (this is the opposition that interests us. - D.M.); 3) heaven - earth; 4) paradise – inhabited earth; 5) male - female 398. But the quoted words of St. Maxima is nothing more than an analogy. It would be dangerous to take them literally: Palamas’ “One Hundred and Fifty Chapters” opens with a destructive critique of the assertion that the cosmos is a single living organism animated by the world soul 402. For the Archbishop of Thessaloniki, there is no doubt that there is no world soul, because it would claim to take the place of Providence. For St. For Maxim, it is important to show not how the world lives and moves on its own (so to speak, “below”), but how the wisdom of the Creator penetrates into it from top to bottom and spreads in it, which is reflected in creations. What we have before us is what Hans-Urs von Balthasar aptly called “cosmic liturgy” 403 . St. John of Damascus picks up the cosmological themes of Nemesius and Maximus. Having outlined various opinions about the structure of the sky, he emphasizes that the heavens are “soulless and insensitive” 404. Being close to Aristotelianism not only in logic 405, but also in cosmology, he recognizes the existence of ether as the fifth element. Recognizing (as St. Theophilus of Antioch did, for example) the division of the waters into those above the firmament and those below the firmament, St. John answers the question about the meaning of this division: why did God place part of the waters above the firmament? “Because of the strong flammable properties of the sun and ether. For the ether was spread out directly under the firmament, and also the sun with the moon and stars are on the firmament. And if water had not been placed on top, the firmament would have burned due to the heat” 406. Thus, for St. John (for the umpteenth time!) the purposeful structure of the universe is a clear proof (and, moreover, a manifestation) of the wisdom of the Creator. The earth (and here one cannot help but pay tribute to the humility and insight of St. John - insight that deserves to be called scientific) “... is completely insignificant than the sky, hanging in its center, as if like a certain point” 407. And this is immediately followed by: “But this too will pass away and change. Blessed is he who inherits the land of the meek. For the land that the saints will receive is immortal; who will worthily glorify the infinite and incomprehensible wisdom of the Creator (τοῦ Δημιουργοῦ)? Or who will offer due thanksgiving (τῆς...εὐχαριστίας) to the Giver of so many benefits?” 408 In essence, here, in a semi-paradoxical manner for us (but quite natural from the point of view of the Byzantines), the glorification of the arranging-ordering wisdom of the Creator is combined with the idea of ​​geocentrism and the idea of ​​an infinite universe. Summing up the cosmological section of his work, Damascene teaches: “So, let us assume that it (the earth. - D. M.) established on itself 409, or on the air 410, or on the waters 411, or on nothing, one must not deviate from a pious way of thinking, but confess that everything is preserved and supported by the power of the Creator” 412. This is the general position of Byzantine cosmologists, despite their particular differences on individual issues. Before the Palaiologan era, not much new was said. So, Elijah of Crete, commentator on St. Gregory the Theologian, who apparently lived in the middle of the 11th century, says: “...thanks to order, the universe took shape and was brought into existence out of nothing” 413. Thanks to order, we see God in creation, as in a mirror 414. If order is destroyed, the world - κόσμος - becomes ἀκοσμία and ἀταξία, that is, ugliness and disorder - in fact, chaos (for the meaning of the word “cosmos” in Palamas, see below). St. Elijah apparently assimilates Maximus’s doctrine of logoi: the logoi of creation, laid down by the Creator in the nature, according to him, remain unchanged, which is why they are called the laws of God (νόμοι) 415. Behind these words lies the same idea about the will of God as the source of laws and the ruler of creation, which ultimately correlates with the Christian concept of God the Provider. St. Elijah points out, finally, that the intelligible world (ὁνοητὸς κόσμος) 416 is symbolically consistent in types with the sensory perceived (τῷ αἰσθητῷ) 417. This sounds like an adaptation of the corresponding ideas of St. Maxima 418. Thus, Byzantine cosmology of the 6th - early 11th centuries. developed in a traditional way. Its new rise, as A. Tion points out, begins in the 11th century. 419 She associates this rise with the experience of mastering Arab astronomy, which entailed the progress of empirical knowledge. At the same time, she speaks critically about the astronomical knowledge of Michael Psellus 420. Indeed, Psellus does not introduce anything seemingly extraordinary. But if you look closely at his description of nature 421, you will find a change of emphasis that is remarkable for the history of Byzantine natural scientific thought. For Psellus, beauty and order are also unshakable concepts. All parts of the universe observe the laws they received from God, following a higher necessity: their origin and movement are controlled by Providence, and not by fate (τύχη) 422. The concept he introduced is ἡ ἀκολουθία τῆς φύσεως (literally “sequence of nature”; we would translate “lawfulness of nature” or “lawful movement of nature”) 423. This concept plays an important role in Psellus. This attempt to develop (albeit on a limited scale) a new categorical apparatus for improving old schemes is noteworthy: it means that traditional patterns of thinking no longer satisfied the consciousness of the advanced part of intellectuals, increasingly turning into “old wineskins”, a screen hiding those new images and ideas that are being formed behind it. Of course, Psellus has a lot of traditional things. He recognizes the world and the human body as consisting of four elements 424, and the earth as the immovable center of everything. Around it there is a circular motion of planets and stars 425. At the upper limits of the world there is a fire that is not involved in other parts of the universe; further – air, sea and land 426. “And just as God in relation to the elements,” says the philosopher, “brings everything together, divides and directs each [of them] towards each other, so that there is harmony and consonance of the parts 427, so the soul in the body 428 not only maintains its composition, but also gives life, and qualitatively determines (πεποίηται) the relationship of the parts and the whole in itself” 429. The impressive analogy between man and the world (which, however, we have already seen in Maximus the Confessor) also finds Western parallels - say, in Honorius of Augustodunus 430. For Psellus, man is a microcosm 431, and it is on his behavior that the fate of the universe depends (cf. quote in the introduction to this chapter). The following phrase makes it possible to feel what the quintessence of Psellus’s natural philosophical views is: “After all, God did not create (πεποίηκεν) the creature so that some unheard-of luminaries would be invented in the heavens, all kinds of ghosts (φάσματα) would appear in the air, the sea would raise its waves until heavens, and the earth shook like a ship that had fallen from its anchors - but in order for the universe to rest, maintaining the primordial order within itself (ἡ τιρώτη τάξις), so that the sky calmly made its movement (εὐδρομοίη), in the most gentle way ( προσηνέστατα) the air flooded, the sea cast a light wave and swayed in quiet waves, like a flowering field, slightly agitated by light breezes, and the earth remained unshakable, having received the middle region and [corresponding to it] order” 432. So, each of the elements is characterized by its own order of being (and all together they are called upon to maintain the general order of the universe). In order for the elements to follow him, they contain “logoi for governing parts [of the universe]” 433, identified, in essence, with laws - God’s commands regarding creation. Through a series of these logoi - intermediate causes of movement - we, considering the order of creation, must come to knowledge of the supreme cause - the Creator 434. The significance of this causal chain is especially emphasized by Psellus. The basis of his reasoning about the cause-and-effect relationship is Christianized Aristotelianism, colored, apparently by the influence of Maximus the Confessor, the classical version of which is found in Thomas Aquinas: “It is also impossible to imagine that a series of producing causes would go to infinity... Therefore, it is necessary to posit some primary producing cause, which everyone calls God” 435 . It seems that the similarity of the above reasoning is far from accidental: Psellus and Thomas - and primarily due to the rationalization that occurs in their works in solving epistemological problems, systematization and sharpening of the categorical apparatus and the emphasis on the universal cause-and-effect chain of world phenomena, leading ultimately to the supramundane, i.e. to God (but in the same way from the supramundane - “down”, to the real reality and life of the world) - represent links of one chain, at the end of which the figures of Kepler, Newton and Laplace are already distinguishable. Of course, Psellus strongly emphasizes the role of God - the Creator and Manager of all things: the world, in his words, is moved by the forces of God (θείαις δυνάμεσι); “... the earth is moved by the spirit, which, however, has received permission from God (σύνθημα) for such movement” 436. Something else is more significant: nature in the work of Psellus is given a much greater degree of freedom and autonomy than was the case in Byzantine literature before him. The idea of ​​a universal causal connection of phenomena, a universal series of causes, which he persistently pursued, stood at the origins of the formation of the categorical apparatus of modern European science. Of course, it would never have occurred to him to formulate Spinoza’s famous alternative: “Deus sive natura,” and yet it is clear that the second part of this sive, in comparison with the previous tradition, wins over him in its weight and meaning 437. From Psellus, in particular, there is a line of spiritual continuity to the already mentioned Eustratius of Nicaea. The Renaissance, often associated with his name, bore fruit 438. § 1.5. Development of cosmology during the era of the Nicene Empire (1204–1261) and during the Palaiologan dynasty (1261–1453) The connection between the Middle Byzantine (Psellian) and Palaeologian renaissances (as it is more convenient to call these cultural upsurges), and the connection is largely spiritual and genetic, is becoming clearer these days - thanks to new publications by Byzantinists. Cultural figures of the Nicene Empire also expressed thoughts similar to Psellus. Theodore II Lascaris is characterized by the same idea of cognition of God the Artist (τεχνουργὸν καὶ Θεόν) from “...their (elements. - D.M.) affinity generated by interweaving (διὰ τῆς ἀλληλοπλόκου συμφυΐας), unanimity (ὁμονοίας) and harmony, order and combination (τάξεώς τε καὶ συνθέσεως), disintegration and unification...” 439 In this deliberately antique description, order is not only an ontological (the principle of the structure of all things), but also an axiological (as something that gives things value and goodness) and an aesthetic (correlating with the activity of God the Artist) category. Creation is designed to adequately reflect the Creator - and therefore is beautiful. That is why Laskaris, speaking generally, considers the world as the realization of perfection, as a projection of God’s perfections (of course, in a diminished form, so it is more accurate to talk about the similarity of the created with the Uncreated) outward, into that other thing built by Him, which will be called the cosmos. Lascaris also draws parallels between the structure of the cosmos and the spiritual nature of man. The mind, according to him, is in spheroid (σφαιροειδῆ) movement, and therefore it can be called the sky, while thoughts, in fact, are ever-shining stars (ἀστέρας λαμπροφανεῖς καὶ ἀειφανεῖς ) 440 . This image is quite remarkable. The centrality of the universe around man, the analogy of the cosmos and the human body - as one of the leading ideas, almost axioms of Byzantine cosmological thought - explains quite a lot in it: both the geocentrism familiar from mythological and Ptolemaic times, and the doctrine of man as a microcosm, adopted by Christianity from the heritage of the mythopoetic era, as it seems, precisely to give strength to this anthropocentricity of medieval consciousness... 441. However, the immediate source for Lascaris appears to have been Plotinus, who poses a similar question—and answers it: “Why does [the sky]... move in a circle? “Because it imitates the mind” (Enn. II. 2. 1). “This is how the mind moves,” we read further, “it remains motionless and moves... around yourself. In the same way, the whole cosmos moves in a circle and at the same time stands still” (Enn. II. 2. 3). The search for sources can continue. But still, something very ancient and alluring appears in the words of the crown prince... The glorification of the mind as heaven, therefore, the highest part of our nature, is in tune with the ideas of the hesychasts and Palamas. And if one is considered humanism 442, then is it really so necessary and legitimate to continue to deny this to the second, that is, the patristic tradition? Without isolating or separating itself from the wealth of ancient learning, the Church, no worse than secular thinkers, was able to take advantage of it and adapt its various aspects to solve its own problems. As J. F. Callahan writes, patristic cosmology can only be understood by bearing in mind that “...the universe is centered around man and must ultimately be explained in terms of the human destiny that God foresaw at creation.”443 This is true for St. Gregory Palamas and for the Palaeologian era as a whole (with its burning interest in man 444), the main exponent of which, in thought, he was. The era of Palaiologos was marked by a rapid surge in astronomical and astrological research. It goes hand in hand with the general cultural upsurge 445, in the center of which is the strengthening of philological - translation and commentary - activity: already the philologist-polyhistor Maximus Planud (1255-1305) was interested, among other things, in Diophantus, Euclid, Ptolemy, Synesius, etc. 446 The merit of the first humanists, Theodore Metochites and his student Nikephoros Grigory, it was precisely that they “...gave astronomy, esoteric science,...social prestige in the circles of intellectuals” 447. In the 1310s Metochites writes a huge (and still in manuscript) “Introduction to Philosophy,” in which he expresses the general conviction of the “new wave” intellectuals: “... it is prudent for philosophy to strive for the [scientific] study of nature” 448 . In the same book, he argued in favor of the fact that everything visible in the heavens can be comprehended with the help of astronomical knowledge 449. Gregoras, in the words of the best specialist today in his astronomical views, “...believes that he can comprehend the meaning of history by discovering in it - of course, this is already discussed in Posidonius 450 - the plan of divine Providence. After all, both heaven and earth are silent heralds of the divine μεγαλοιργία (greatness. - D. M.), the glory of which is even more exalted thanks to historical writing" 451. Space, thus, increasingly appears as one of the main objects of studia humanitatis, and cosmology turns out to be one of the outposts of scientific and philosophical thought. Representatives of the new galaxy of scientists argued about private issues of the structure of the universe. Thus, Nikephoros Humnus (c. 1250/1255–1327) recognized the existence in a closed universe of eight spheres - seven planetary and the sphere of fixed stars, moving in the opposite direction; in turn, Metochites postulated the existence of two “first” spheres, thereby increasing the total number of spheres to nine: of these, the highest, “starless” sphere moves opposite to the eight stellar spheres 452. But the general scheme of stellar and planetary movements, oppositely directed and thereby mutually balancing each other, remained in force. It will be significant for Palamas as well. Not only were the models of the universe created in that era similar, but the very understanding by Byzantine intellectuals of the features and goals of astronomy as a science was similar. Interesting statements on this topic are contained in the astronomical work of Theodore Meliteniot (c. 1320–1388) 453 “Three Books on Astronomy” (Ἀστρονομικὴ Τρίβιβλος) 454. Let us compare his following statement with similar statements by Theodore Metochites and Joseph Bryennius (c. 1350–1432) 455: “So, the reflections of the most sublime philosophy about heaven are the best and most important part of an all-surpassing theology” 456. Τῆς τοίνυν σεμνοτάτης φιλοσοφίας τὰ περὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν τὸ κράτιστον καὶ κεφάλαιον· (Theodore Meliteniot); ... ἐπιστήμης γνωρίζεσθαι πέφυκεν· 457 (Theodore Metochites). The highlighted expressions are almost identical, while they are translated differently: “reflections (thoughts, speculations) about heaven” (Melitheniot) and “visible in heaven” (Metokhites). This once again shows that the thought forms themselves, as well as the ideas that crystallized in them, were very close to each other - so to speak, “floating in the air.” Was this air of humanistic salons saturated with the fumes of science, scientificity as such - or was it dominated by the heavy and stale aromas of syncretic astrology and magic, in which St. Nicholas Cabasilas in 1354 will reproach Nikephoros Grigora? 458 bears clear traces of the intellectual situation of the first half of the 14th century. (see below in main text). A. Tion is probably right. According to her assessment, this work is “a very clear and complete work” (Tihon A. L’astronomie... R. 618). We can only agree with this – that’s why we present excerpts from it as a sample. Here is the definition of astronomy given by Meliteniot: “Astronomy is an art (skill, τέχνη) that deals with celestial bodies and aims at understanding their movements” 459. The emphasis on movements is especially important here: the Byzantines of the Palaiologan period, for whom the familiar appearance of the world was collapsing before their eyes 460, wanted to see constancy in movement: thanks to the current antinomian attitude of knowledge, the contradiction between rapidly rushing history and the immutability of celestial movements was removed. And here one cannot help but see the spiritual power of Christianity, mobilizing thought: in a similar situation in late antiquity, pagan Neoplatonist philosophers (Proclus Diadochus) thought much more statically and ahistorically... 461. Now let’s look at what Josephus Bryennius says about astronomy: astronomy is “...a science that, with the help of reason, comprehends the configurations that the Sun, Moon and other stars form at one time or another in relation to each other and to the Earth” 462. These words turn out to be an extract from the same Meliteniot 463. We thus encounter a typical situation for late Byzantium 464 of the continuity of spiritual apprenticeship and mentoring: the knowledge that Meliteniot considers supreme (cf., however, already Gregory the Wonderworker), “this most exalted [or “super-venerable” - ὑπέρσεμνον ] astronomy” 465 , capable of making prophecies (θεσπέσιόν τι χρῆμα) 466 “...and possessing the most divine status in comparison with other [types of] speculation” 467, he transfers to his student through direct personal contact. So why is astronomy divine? The answer is traditional: due to the fact that it directly raises the mind to the contemplation of the Creator - as happened with Abraham, who “...thanks to what he saw in heaven, he perfectly knew the Supreme Mind” 468. The very order (διακόσμησις is a term familiar to us from Christian literature from the 2nd century) of the celestial bodies, their beauty, coherence and harmony of movements are the reason that astronomers are the first of the scientists (γραμμάτων) to discover “... the signs and omens of the sky, as well as the seasons of the year and the week...” 469, giving names to the stars - both wandering ones and those that strictly follow the path outlined for them from above 470. These words truly breathe traditionality, strictly following the centuries-old canon. But what is important is not even this deep traditionality, adherence to the original axioms of Byzantine cosmological thought (and who among us - within the limits of earthly, “Euclidean” experience - is not convinced that two and two are four, that the visible world has three dimensions, etc.) etc.!), but the fact that the history of astronomy itself - the history that he traces back to the Chaldeans - Meliteniot understands in full agreement with the most ancient Christian apologists (Tatian). Meliteniot recounts the history of astronomy in a very in detail. In addition to the Chaldeans (descendants of Arphaxad, the only one who preserved their language during the Babylonian pandemonium 471), it goes back (and here Theodore refers to Strabo) 472 to Zoroaster 473, Otanus, Cavurian and others - the ancestors of Abraham 474. Hermes Trismegistus and the Egyptians received astronomical wisdom from the Chaldeans, and from them the Greeks. The pinnacle of this science is Ptolemy 475. Meliteniot, thus, turns out to be (thanks to his interest in the East and the deep origins of astronomical teaching) an intermediate link between representatives of the traditional Byzantine science of the starry sky, which was characterized by the “restoration of Ptolemaic astronomy” 476, and those who perceived, translated and disseminated (from the end of the 13th century) 477 new for the Byzantines Arab-Persian astronomical literature: as D. Pingree showed, Meliteniot drew a number of information in this “historiographical” excursion from an Arabic source (the 1st chapter of the zij of Shams-ad-Din in the translation of Gregory Chioniades) 478 . This is all the more remarkable since the saying of Metochites, a Ptolemaic like Meliteniot 479, has been preserved: “Be a Greek and beware of the theories of the Hindus, Scythians, Persians - and any other foreign ideas!” 480 This attitude, associated with the nurturing of a great power complex by some intellectuals, has been around since the mid-14th century. begins to give way to a more pragmatic view of things in its realism 481. So, Meliteniot turns out to be open to outside influence - and at the same time he is deeply faithful to tradition. How to explain this paradox? How could detailed knowledge of one’s own Greek origins and openness to someone else’s experience and someone else’s world, the distant and unknown world of the East, coexist and peacefully coexist in one mind? Here it is fitting to cite the words of Tatian, which capture the deep essence of the attitude of Byzantine (and pre-Byzantine) Christianity to scientific knowledge: “Do not, Hellenes, be hostile to the barbarians and do not hate their teachings... Astronomy was invented by the Babylonians, magic 482 by the Persians, geometry by the Egyptians, writing by the Phoenicians 483. Therefore, stop calling what you adopted from others your inventions” 484. So, two positions occupied by late Byzantine intellectuals in relation to ancient astronomy and, more broadly, education, philosophy, science and culture in general 485 become distinguishable; St. Gregory Palamas will take the third possible position. They will correspond to three possible (and historically established) types of what in historiography is usually called Christian humanism. In the conditions of that time (as in all centuries of the existence of Byzantine culture), this was a vital and far from painless choice. Let us be grateful to the teacher of silence for this. After these clarifying remarks, we can begin to consider the cosmological views of St. Gregory Palamas. Section II. Cosmological views of St. Gregory Palamas § 2.1. On the analysis of the language of cosmological descriptions: on the meaning of the word “cosmos” in homilies One of the reasons that our knowledge of late Byzantine cosmology is far from being at the proper level is that researchers, carried away by the macro approach to this problem and broad historical comparisons, sometimes forgot about the prospects and, moreover, the need to combine it with a micro approach, that is, with a close study of the works of one author in order to penetrate into the subtlest shades of his train of thought and the picture of the world he creates. It would be useful to begin moving along this path by clarifying the specific use by each specific author of the key concepts and terms through which he expressed his cosmological research 486 . It is especially important to do this in relation to church writers, for whom astronomy was neither a direct specialty nor any noticeable subject of hobby, and therefore can serve as an expression of the dominant tendencies of the average level of consciousness of the era. The same is true for the homilies of St. Gregory Palamas, to which the above principles - using the example of analyzing the concept of “space” - is an attempt to apply this paragraph. Without exaggeration, we can say that the word κόσμος shimmers in the homily of Palamas with various shades of its meanings. Most often it means “this (local, sensory perceived) world, universe” and is found in the phrases ὁ κόσμος οὗτος, ὁ κόσμος παρών (“this world”, “real world”), ἐπὶ ... καταβολῆς τοῦ κόσμου (“at the creation of this world” – 221Α), ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου (“from the creation of the world” – 33C). This can be considered its first meaning. Here are typical examples: “Do you see,” asks Palamas, “that through the fault of those who indulge in debauchery, this world would perish (ὁ κόσμος οὗτος) (hereinafter, italics in quotations are ours. - D. M.), if it were not maintained by those who maintain chastity?” (72A) “And what earthly blessing could become compensation (ἀντάλλαγμα) for a rational soul, of which the whole world here is unworthy (ὁ κόσμος ἅπας οὗτος)?” (137D) “For the entire sensory world (αἰσθητὸς ἅπας κόσμος) is one...” (224C) “So, this whole entire world (Τούτον ... τὸν σύμπαντα κόσμον) for the sake of the formation of our body, the Creator [even] before our creation, created from nothing...” (36A; cf.: 33C; 80D). Here the word κόσμος is used in the story about the world order and, naturally, is one of the key concepts. It is noteworthy that it is combined – in this meaning – with a limited number of stable attributes, the most important of which indicate the integrity of the world and its property of being perceived by the senses. It seems that this is not accidental: the unity and integrity of the world is one of the basic intuitions pointing to the unity of the Creator (cf.: 224AB). Finally, the apostles Peter and Paul are characterized as “... lamps spreading the word of life (ἐν κόσμῳ) into the world” (356B). Here the “world” is “the ikumen inhabited by people,” “the universe of human existence.” A special variety of this meaning is contained in the phrase δεύτερος κόσμος, which appears in the story of the Flood and means “new world”, “a new human race descended from Noah after the flood”: Noah was saved by πρὸς δεύτερου κόσμου γένεσιν (“...so that a new world is born” – 49D). This phrase is found in the same meaning in Theodore Meliteniot: “...and only Noah was saved, the founder (ἀρχηγοῦ) of the second world (δευτέρου κόσμου), which appeared [after the flood]” 487. But for the most part, the word κόσμος is found in complex, multifaceted contexts, where a number of its meanings intersect. Palamas’ efforts as a preacher in a number of cases are aimed precisely at the maximum possible intensification of the various meanings of the word “cosmos” in their semantic and textual juxtaposition, at playing with related meanings in one context and at highlighting these meanings through each other. The following metaphor is one of the most typical of Byzantine literature. It doesn’t even require parallels - it’s so revealing and recognizable: “...and we,” says the archbishop, “having crossed the stormy sea of this life (τὴν πολυκύμαντον τοῦ βίου ... θάλασσαν), we will ascend to the land of the meek...” (408С) 491 . And in 157B Palamas calls the Church a ship (οἷάτις ναῦς ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκκλησία) sailing across the sea of ​​this life. This metaphor, therefore, being typical for Palamas, reflects the essential facets of his personal experience. Its logical development is the words of Joseph Bryennius that the only insurmountable and strong rock in this sea is the Holy Church 492, which generally corresponded to the state of affairs in Byzantium of the Palaiologos 493. The second meaning of the word κόσμος – “sinful (carnal, worldly) life” – is also quite traditional and is translated by the word “world (mir)”. This meaning is found in quotations from the New Testament and contexts close to them. Thus, Palamas says that the contemplation of God (ἡ θεωρία τοῦ Θεοῦ) “... crucifies to the world ( σταυροῦσα τῷ κόσμῳ) those who are worthy of it” (129C). Just before this (128B) comes the definition of the cross (“crucifixion of the flesh with its passions and lusts”), going back to Gal.5:24. Palamas himself points to this, noting: “...to speak again in accordance with the divine Paul...” (Ibid.) 494. The flesh here is clearly identified with the world as the receptacle and focus of sin. The following text can be called classic in its expressiveness and dominant eschatological attitude: “Life is fleeting, death is near, this world is perishable (ὁ κόσμος οὗτος), another [world] abides forever; to the same [world] it lifts us up... contempt of the present world (τοῦ παρόντος κόσμου), preparation for that coming (πρὸς τὸν μέλλοντα ἐκεῖνον [i. e. κόσμον])..." (261D; compare: 264B). The word κόσμος thus correlates not only with the present, but also with the coming world (age) (however, in the Church it has already arrived 495), with the Kingdom of God. This can be considered its third meaning. Here is a typical example: “Each of the saints boldly expressed his confession [of faith]... for a short period of this century (ἐπὶ καιροῦ βραχέος τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου) 496 ... Our Lord Jesus Christ... will intercede ( παῤῥησιάσεται) for them in the eternal and indestructible world 497 in the face of God and the Father...” (324C). This world is the Kingdom of God prepared for the righteous. This motif sounds constantly in the homilies 498. The fourth meaning of “space” is more familiar – “beauty, decoration.” Thus, the “wedding garment” (Matthew 22:12) is called by Palamas “the grace-filled ornament of virtue (τὸν κεχαριτομένον τῆς ἀρετῆς κόσμον)” (349Α). When, on the day of the Resurrection of the Lord, an angel appeared at the Tomb in the morning and shed light so that She “... saw not only that the Tomb was empty, but also that the burial shrouds lay in order ... testifying to the Resurrection of the Buried One” (241C), to describe this orderliness Palamas uses the ambiguous phrase κατὰ κόσμον, with whom we will meet again. To the Ever-Virgin herself, Palamas pronounces the following series of homoeoteleutical praises: “...more radiant than light, more blooming than the pastures of God 499, most beautiful of the entire visible and invisible world (κόσμου παντὸς ὁρατοῦ καὶ ἀοράτου κοσμιωτέρα)" (469С). We encounter a similar play with the first and fourth (according to our classification) meanings a little earlier, in 468AB (the same Thirty-seventh Homily is quoted - on the Assumption of the Mother of God): “God, as if desiring to erect an icon of everything beautiful... produced (ὑποστήσας) the general splendor of visible and invisible blessings ... and the highest beauty (καλλονὴν), adorning both worlds (ἀμφοτέρους ἐπικοσμοῦσαν τοὺς κόσμους)..." (468ΑΒ). The last two fragments, important for understanding the Orthodox veneration of the Mother of God 500, are noteworthy in that they contain another, fifth meaning of the word that interests us - “the invisible, angelic world,” which, according to St. Gregory Palamas (there is no unity of the Fathers on this issue 501) was created simultaneously with the visible world (492BC). At the same time, Palamas names nine ranks of the angelic hierarchy according to the Areopagite (Ibid.). It is curious that in another place he calls the angels κοσμαγογούς (449D), but this expression should be understood in the sense of “mentors (guides) of the visible world” (cf. in the same place: “... and leaders of the nations”). The comparison “world - beauty” has been famous since late antiquity 502, and a lot could be remembered here. Let us only point out the expression κόσμου κόσμος (“decoration of the world” or “world of beauty” - the meaning varies depending on the context), which in the liturgy of the apostolic time and among St. Irenaeus of Lyons is applied to man 503, and in Origen - to the Church as a model of the cosmos, that is, the visible world 504. godlike virtues, which [has] now been enshrined for him in heaven (ἐντεθησαυρισμένος τοῖς οὐρανοῖς)” (537D). The last part of the phrase is a rhetorical formula that has already been found in Palamas: “... and in relation to the world, man is a treasure κόσμῳ)" (333A). St. Demetrius is especially glorified: Palamas calls him “both universal and super-worldly beauty (καλλονὴ παγκόσμιος τε ἅμα καὶ ὑπερκόσμιος)” (540Α). undergoing changes, they come to a state of greater preparedness [for man] – placed below... ordering not only them [themselves], but also their relationships with each other, so that the universe can rightfully be called the cosmos τὸ πᾶν)" (81A). The place is very remarkable for clarifying the terminology: τὸ πᾶν (literally - “everything”) correlates with the initial stage of unformed matter created by God at the very first moment, as well as with the subsequent stages of the world order, when this amorphous mass was brought into order by the power of God; but only the state of complete harmony of everything with everything (Palama here also gives a picture of existence that is universal in scope) is called “cosmos”. This shows both the conjugation of the most important meanings of the word “cosmos” (“peace” and “beauty, improvement, order”) in the specifics of the author’s word usage, as well as its high, marked position on the value scale of the teacher of silence (which, however, was a typical feature of Greek thought since the ancient era 508). And finally - as a final chord - an apotheosis that resolves the disturbing notes is introduced, due to which the tone of the narrative as a whole is modified: “We, who are numbered with Christ 510, will love the world above (τὸν ἄνω κόσμον) (third meaning - D.M.), we will desire the Kingdom that Christ promised us...” (421D). Thus, the purpose of the sermon is achieved. Catharsis is complete. Palamas's pastoral zeal found adequate expression in these words, not least thanks to the power of rhetoric. Rhetoric, as we can see, is connected in Palamas’ homily with the most important theological and worldview issues, being the key to the most comprehensive and intensive coverage of these issues, giving the listener an additional sense of the reality of what is happening, empathy and co-presence - which includes a person in the liturgical action already as a conscious participant. Rhetoric in the texts we have examined is subordinated to the main archpastoral task - to guide souls to the light, and it must be recognized that in fulfilling this mission the Word of St. Gregory Palamas had few equals... 511 It may seem that such a breadth of interpretations belittles and eliminates the original meaning of the word “cosmos” - “world, universe”, so that cosmology turns out to be nothing more than a preparatory department for anthropology and soteriology: Palamas needs space only to illustrate and visualize higher meanings and realities. In general, this is true (after all, the world itself contains a supramundane goal - cf.: 36A), but it is precisely this understanding of the cosmos that gives it value in the eyes of the orthodox Byzantines. Thus, homilies cease to be only an individual reflection of the views of one person and acquire considerable significance as an exponent of the worldview of the era as a whole. § 2.2. The doctrine of the creation of the world by God. Reasons and purpose of creation. The nature of God's presence in the world Let us consider the main texts of Palamas related to cosmology and cosmogony. The main story about the creation of the world - the Christian version of “De mundo”, as R. E. Sinkevich calls it (meaning a simultaneous pseudo-Aristotelian treatise. - D. M.) 512 - is contained in the Sixth Homily 513 and chapters 22–23 of the “One Hundred and Fifty Chapters” 514. We see no argument against Sinkevich's suggestion 515 that the One Hundred and Fifty Chapters is the source of the corresponding passage in the Sixth Homily, which is given below. The texts match almost word for word; A few lexical discrepancies are indicated in the notes. The matching portion of the text is in italics. But awaken, I ask, your reason and now, at this moment, together ascend the steps of Moses’ ascent to the mountain to God, 516 so that on this path, ascending along them ever [higher], you will be lifted up by Christ, ascending no longer to the mountain, but to heaven and elevating us with Him. So, according to Scripture, Moses, observing a forty-day fast on the mountain, sees God in reality, and not in fortune-telling, talks with Him, turns to Him as if someone were turning to his friend, and, taught by God, teaches everyone around him that this is the Ever-Drying One, who does not go to the non-existent, but also calls the non-existent 517 as the existing, bringing everything out of the non-existent and into the non-existent ( τὸ μὴ ὄν) without letting it sink. At the beginning, with just one wave and command, He brought forth from nothing all visible creation, gathered together. “In the beginning,” says [Moses], “God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1) - neither completely empty, nor completely devoid of everything that [is located] between [it and heaven]. For the earth was mixed with water, and both [elements] bore 518 [in themselves] air, as well as animals and plants, according to the type [of each] (κατ’ εἶδος) 519; the sky is a variety of luminaries and lights. This is what the universe was made of. This is how God created heaven and earth in the beginning - as a kind of matter 520, all-receiving and potentially carrying everything, rightly sweeping away those who wrongly believe that matter previously existed on its own (καθ’ ἑαυτὴν). Then [God], improving (καλλιεργῶν) and beautifying the world, over the course of six days, determined the proper order for each of the creatures created by Him and wholly forming His world, highlighting each with just one command. As if bringing out the contents of hidden repositories, He [gave it] a certain appearance (τίς εἶδος); ordered and extremely harmoniously and perfectly combined with each other [celestial bodies] - each with the wind and everything with each. And He surrounded the motionless earth, like a certain center, with the overlying firmament, wisely fastening [with it] the ever-moving sky through the middle [regions] 521, so that one and the same world would remain at rest and at the same time in motion; since all eternally (and, moreover, very quickly) moving bodies are located in a circle, the stationary, of necessity, occupied the middle region and, with its rest, balances their movement so that the universal sphere does not move from its place, like a cylinder 522. Having given such a position to both ends of the universe, this Most Excellent Artist 523 splendidly, so to speak, both held together this whole world and set it in motion. [As for the bodies] - those that are between these ends, He again distributed what was due to each: some [of them] - those that are light in nature and contribute to the benefit of those below - placed them above and commanded them to rotate in the higher spheres, inexorably and unwaveringly - until the end of the world (εὗ μάλα τὸν ἀεὶ χρόνον ) 524 – skirting the highest limit of the universe. For obvious reasons, they are so elevated above the middle [region] that, igniting [everything] around them 525, they are able to eliminate excess cold in it according to the proper measure, and retain the excess of their own warmth 526. Throughout this text, the main themes of patristic cosmology run through us. The history of the world begins with the history of creation. This understanding of history, as noted by R. E. Sinkevich, was common to the Byzantines, since it went back to the Bible; at the same time, Moses was considered the historian par excellence 531. In addition, Moses was an example of a righteous person (cf. “The Life of Moses” by St. Gregory of Nyssa 532), which is why the founding fathers of monasticism (St. Anthony and Pachomius) could be called (each of them) not only the New Abraham, but also the New Moses 533. The appearance of Moses in the story of the creation of the world is more than natural. The Six Days of St. opens with the characterization of Moses as the narrator of the creation of the world. Basil the Great 534. The interweaving of the themes of cosmogenesis (described in the same terms as in Basil) and anthropogenesis with the theme of Moses the contemplator is also observed in Palamas. Let's compare the following fragments: “...This One is the One who calls the non-existent as the existing (ὁκαλῶν τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα) ... and with a single saying in the beginning all things that exist from the non-existent (πάντα τὴν ἀρχὴν ῥήματι μόνῳ [cf.: προστάγματι μόνῳ – 80C] ἐκ μὴ ὄντων τὰ ὄντα ποιήσας )" (184A); “...This... and the non-existent calls as the existing, deducing everything from the non-existent (τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα καλῶν, καὶ ἐκ μὴ ὄντων τὰ ὄντα παραγαγὼν ... "(80ΑΒ; see above); “He who is before being, and who created being out of non-existence by goodness ποιήσας δι’ἀγαθότητα (473D)" 535; “So, God, having created and decorated (ποιήσας τε καὶ κοσμήσας) 536 in six days not only the entire perceptible sense [universe] 537, but also the only living being made of mind and feeling - man - creating and reviving 538, and giving him power (τὴν ἡγεμονίαν) above-ground animals and plants, on the seventh [day] he rested from all His works, as Moses, the later contemplator (θεωρὸς) taught us 539 of the creation of the world that took place long before him (τῆς ... καταβολῆς τοῦ κόσμου), but rather the Holy Spirit, who, by His love for mankind, through his lips, found a response in our ears and souls” (221A). So, the creation of the world is a sacred act, and at least doubly sacred: because God the Creator is holy, who breathed into us the “breath of life” (240B); and because the tradition of this act is sanctified, since it is based on the direct experience of the vision of God, experienced by its initiator. But recognizing the sacredness of the act of creation does not relieve us of the questions: why did the world arise in the first place? For what and for whom was all this visible splendor produced? In the process of searching for the answer to these questions and the thoughts associated with them, the supreme themes of this cosmology arise and take their rightful place in Palamas’ cosmology: the theme of Providence; the theme of the greatness (beauty, goodness, mutual proportionality) of the created; the theme of man, his knowledge of the world and his activity in this world. Here is a text in which the range of issues we have outlined (following the author) is interpreted in the most detailed way: So, [God], as He Himself says, before us - from the creation of the world - prepared for us the eternal inheritance of the Kingdom. Before us [and] for our sake He created angels, sent, as Paul says, to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation (Heb. 1:14). Before us [and] for our sake, He spread out the sky over this entire visible world, as if erecting for all of us in this transitory life a certain tent, common to all and giving equal honor to everyone (ὁμότιμον) 540, which moves continuously and in a variety of ways, so that, being in equilibrium, it holds itself in place; it moves eternally within itself (“by itself” - ἐν ἑαυτῷ) and carries with it many stars, so that we understand the fleeting nature of real life and at the same time benefit from everything that appears in it (i.e., the sky. - D. M.) above our head, [being replaced] by one another. For our sake [and] before us, [God] created a great luminary at the beginning of the day and a smaller one at the beginning of the night, placing them, as well as other stars, in the firmament of the sky (στερεώματι) - both those that move in the same direction with the firmament, and in the opposite direction, converging and diverging in various ways to serve as signs for us ( σημεῖα) seasons (εἰς καιροὺς) 541 and years. Neither the intelligent nature (ἡ νοερὰ φύσις) 542, superior to sense, nor [the nature of] dumb creatures, subject only to sense, lacks any of this. Therefore, [the sky] appeared for our sake, because with our senses we derive various benefits and taste the beauty of visible [phenomena], and with our mind, through the senses, we perceive (ἔχοντας) these signs. For our sake [and] before us, [God] established the earth, stretched out the sea, poured out air over them in abundance, and on top of it - even higher - he wisely kindled the nature of fire, so that, igniting, it would eliminate excess cold in the underlying [regions], and, restraining the excess of its own [heat], would remain in place (ἐπὶ χώραν). So, the world arose for the sake of man. Palamas's entire cosmology is permeated with anthropocentrism, giving it a sublime overtone: the world is a task and a field of action for man, a place of his meeting with the living God. The world was created by the Providence of God - therefore it is beautiful, because it points to its Creator; man is called to recognize the divine origin of the world and, through knowledge, asceticism and conscious-willed participation in the life of the world and the Church, to take care of both the current well-being of the world and, to a greater extent, its future transformation. And we must immediately emphasize that cosmology is incorporated by the teacher of silence into a holistic theological vision of the world and man, being one of the levels of the theocentric picture of the world. The impetus for this train of thought, along with the Archbishop of Thessaloniki’s own mental and theological experience and intuition, seems to have been given by similar reflections of St. Gregory of Nyssa on the interaction and mutual subordination of the motionless Earth, which occupies the middle region, and celestial bodies that move in circular orbits in two directions opposite to each other 545. After St. Gregory of Nyssa, this teaching is also adopted by secular authors (for example, O.R. Borodin draws attention to the reflection of the same idea about the mutually balancing movement of celestial bodies in the poetic “Six Days” of George Pisida 546). In this world, created by Providence, everything is beautiful in its original nature and structure (visible nature still bears traces of this harmony): evil was brought into the world only as a result of the Fall. “After all, except for sin,” Palamas testifies, “nothing in this life is bad by nature (ὄντως), even if it causes evil - even death itself” (213C). Could a representative of biblical theology, oriented toward the Mosaic “καλὰ λίαν,” teach differently? Palamas's view was the general view of the Christian Middle Ages; at the western pole of the Christian icumene (to mention just one name), similar ideas were developed by Boethius. In him we find a clear indication of the will of God as the source of the existing world order: “... the fact that [existing things] are good insofar as they exist (our italics - D.M.) corresponds to the will of the good Creator... “to be good” refers to the essence, and “to be just” - to action 547. In God, being and action are identical; therefore, to be good and to be just is one and the same thing for Him. But for us to be and to act are different things, because we are not simple... So, all [existent things] are good, but not all are fair” 548 . Only God is justly present in everything, being at the same time above all: “He who is before being and what is out of non-being by goodness, He who created is (ἐστιν) in everything, although above all. So He was in the world even before His coming in the flesh (πρὸ τοῦ παραγενέσθαι διὰ σαρκὸς), but did not know His peace, because they did not desire it 549.” “... one God,” says Palamas in the First Homily, “above all [of us], among all and in all of us ( )....”(12Β) is a conclusion that is fundamentally important not only for cosmology (see Chapter 3). And in the Nineteenth Homily of St. Gregory argues this idea in detail: “The fact is that God, being a Spirit 550, is incorporeal; the incorporeal is not located in [any] place and is not encompassed by spatial boundaries (τοπικοῖς ὅροις)... And like the incorporeal, God is nowhere, although as God is everywhere 551. to the very doctrine that Palamas criticizes: here no fundamental distinction is made between God and the created world, while Palamas, with his characteristic clarity and systematic thought, emphasizes precisely this: “Therefore He, as embracing and containing the universe, [being] Himself in Himself, is everywhere - and above all” 554. This highlights the otherness of God and His transcendence in relation to the created world - the world of which He is the Creator and Good Provider. In a strictly Christian spirit, he explains the nature of God's omnipresence in the world and St. Nikolai Kavasila: “For God, who fills every place, is not distinguished by place from people, but is distinguished by difference...” 555 - that is, by the difference of nature. However, He is truly present in the world - in all ages, until the Last Judgment and the coming transfiguration. This presence is not in essence, but in energy. Let us once again give the floor to Palamas: “... and the ointment poured out is His name, thanks to which He filled the universe with divine fragrance...” (240BC). This text does not allow for any other interpretation than the only one: the name of God is the energy of God and God Himself 556. The energies of God, thus, fill the universe, supporting not only the well-being given to it by God, but also its very existence. This position, we recall, is a development of the thought of the Great Cappadocians about the relationship between essence and energy in God; This is what St. wrote about this. Gregory of Nyssa: “...The Divine is present everywhere equally (κατὰ τὸ ἴσον), and in the same way (ὡσαύτως) 557 penetrates every creature...” 558 But this also means that - repeating the famous expression of St. Basil the Great - “His energies descend upon us, but His essence remains unapproachable” 559. Thanks to St. Gregory Palamas provided a further and comprehensive disclosure of this position, based on the central intuition of Christianity - God, incomprehensible in essence, is present and acts in the world 560. Among the forerunners of the doctrine of Providence developed by Palamas, it is necessary to name St. Maximus the Confessor 561 and St. Athanasius of Alexandria, who, in a polemic with Arianism, for the first time distinguished between God's creation of the world, which is the work of His will, and the generation of the Son as an act of nature, or the essence of God 562: this was a huge step forward in the development of both theology itself and cosmology. In 33C, Palamas already expressed the opinion that angels were created for man - to serve him. He develops this position in 449CB: “... and even diverse (πολυειδῆ) and countless myriads (πλήθη) of angels [God] created (ἀπειργάσατο) for the sake of man, appointing them as world leaders (τοὺς ... κοσμαγωγοὺς) and leaders of peoples (ἐξάρχοντας τῶνἐ θνῶν)..." (449CD) 564. The entire multitude of angels was created simultaneously and before man: “[God] could immediately produce all people from nothing (ὁμοῦ ... ἐκ μὴ ὄντων παραγαγεῖν) - after all, angels, archangels, principles, strength, power, dominion, Cherubim, Seraphim and the highest He only thought about thrones - and thought became action, and all of them appeared at once” (492VS). Here are listed the nine ranks of the well-known Pseudo-Areopagite scheme (from lowest to highest) 565, however, in a somewhat non-standard order (perhaps this is due to quoting from memory; but it is possible that St. Gregory could have had at his disposal the corresponding Codex of the Areopagite, where the reading was exactly like this). Here, as in other sections of his system, Palamas wanted to be primarily a reconciliator and creator: he does not pit opposing points of view against each other, but tries to reconcile and resolve their contradictions in a higher synthesis 575. Angels are light-like 576 and subordinate to God 577 . Their function at the Last Judgment is to sift and “sort” the souls of the dead, determining their further fate 578. Some saints (St. Demetrius of Thessalonica) showed themselves to be, in fact, equal in honor with the angels in the face of God (see: 541A). This is the main thing that we learn from homilies. Palamas' information is largely traditional. The idea that God appointed a multitude of “angels and servants” “... to govern the elements and the heavens and the world, and everything in it, and the improvement of them,” is already expressed by Athenagoras 579. The idea of ​​angels as minds, powers and lights can be considered formed in patristics since the times of the Cappadocians and the Areopagite. The latter writes with his characteristic sublimity and panoramic view: “... [God]... to all things - in proportion [to the nature of each] - sends the rays of His perfect goodness (ἀναλόγως ἐφίησι τὰς τῆς ὅλης ἀγαθότητος ἀκτῖνας ). Thanks to them, all intelligent and intelligible (νοηταὶ καὶ νοεραὶ) essences, powers and energies appeared (ὑπέστησαν), thanks to them they exist and have an inexhaustible and inexhaustible life, untainted by any corruption, death, matter and formation ( γενέσεως )....” 580 A little lower, the Areopagite, touching on the angels, calls them “smart powers” 581. Power, as is known from Aristotle (Metaph. XII. 6–7), presupposes nature as its substrate. Therefore, Palamas’s definition of angels (“intelligent nature”) can be considered reaching the highest degree of generalization. The influence of Pseudo-Dionysius on Palamas is well known 582. We believe that in this case it turned out to be decisive. From modern Palamas and literature developing the same ideas, one can recall “Three Speeches to Bishop Ignatius...” by St. Philotheus Kokkin, where angels are spoken of as “more sublime and immaterial minds” 583. Here a rather subtle question arises about how to understand this immateriality. Should we recognize for angels pure spirituality, equal to divine (after all, the opinion of Palamas is known that the spirit of angels is not life-giving, since it is not connected with the earthly body 584), as St. Gregory of Nyssa 585, being alone among the Fathers in this, or agree with Origen that “the bodies of angels are ethereal and [represent] a dazzling light”? 586 V.I. Nesmelov considers the latter opinion to be common to the Orthodox tradition 587 . It is impossible not to admit that it agrees best with the above judgments of Palamas: the light-like appearance of angels is an attribute (and visible manifestation) of their light matter, especially since light is that “new light” with which God illuminated the universe on the first day, producing it from nothing (ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος ἀθρόον προήγαγε τὸ πᾶν, καὶ φωτὶ καινῷ περιηύγασεν αὐτὸ) (221Β) - is a property of the created world. It seems that Palamas occupied that central position in this matter (truly, avoiding extremes - cf. cited in the approx. 333 words by Schulze!), the essence of which was expressed by St. John of Damascus: “An angel, and a soul, and a demon, in comparison with God, ... are bodies. Compared to material bodies, they are incorporeal” 588. He also teaches that the angels, these “intelligent powers (αἵτε νοεραὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων δυνάμεις),” are contained within the sky and only one God is indescribable and infinite 589. We also find reasoning close to this in Palamas: “But both the soul and the angel, being incorporeal, are not in [any] place, but also not everywhere. For they do not contain everything, but they themselves need the Container. Consequently, they [are] in the Container and Encompasser of everything...” (260A), The nature of angels, Palamas explains in chapter 30, has life (τὴν ζωήν) only in essence, but not in energy (since it does not animate the earthly body associated with it). “Consequently, she is also capable of perceiving opposites, i.e., evil and good... it is obvious that the angels are somehow composed (σύνθετοί πως) from their own essence and one of the opposite qualities (των ... ποιοτήτων), i.e., virtue and vice. Thus, it becomes clear that they also do not have good by nature” 590. So, the border between God and creation remains uncrossed. Creation – visible and invisible – resides in the right hand of the Creator. At the same time, “leaders of nations” “because of pride (διὰ τὴν ἔπαρσιν)” 591 are subject to falls, just like mere mortals. § 2.4. The doctrine of the creation of the world by God. The emergence of fundamental principles: days one through three On the first day, says Palamas, “...God in a single moment created the universe out of nothing (ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος ἀθρόον προήγαγε τὸ πᾶν) 593 and illuminated it with new light ( φωτὶ καινῷ περιηύγασεν αὐτὸ), although he has not yet imparted its appropriate beauty by giving order and form to each of the creations (εἰ καὶ μήπω τὸν κατάλληλον ἐπέθηκε κόσμον 594 ἕκαστον)" (221Β). These words describe what Nesmeloe proposed to call general creation, that is, the bringing into existence of world forces, with reference to the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa: “... everything was already possible in possibility, but in reality each individual thing did not yet exist” 595. Next, a private creation takes place, when, according to Nesmelov, the combination of these primary forces constituted the sensory world 596. But what is this “new world”? If we can assume that Palamas knew and accepted the interpretation of Gregory of Nyssa (or thought in the same direction), according to which light appeared simultaneously with the elements, and then the light mass began to make a circular motion, the limits of which were approved by God as the limits of the material world 597, then we will have to - developing the view of the Nyssa saint - admit that enlightenment in Palamas is associated with the idea of ​​​​the structure of the heavenly firmament. In reality, there is nothing of the kind: it is unlikely that Palamas means Gregory of Nyssa in this place, and the Archbishop of Thessaloniki’s ideas about the number of heavens (one or two), as well as the number of elements and the place of the ether, are not distinguished by certainty. He seems to recognize the biblical version, according to which God on the second day created the firmament “... and separated the water that was under the firmament from the water that was above the firmament” (Gen. 1:7), but he may directly doubt this: “... if there is a certain heaven of heavens and if there are certain upper waters covering the heavens...” (Econ. P. 244; Conversations (omilia)... Part 3. P. 179). However, a little further (Conversations... Part 3. P. 205) the “supercelestial spheres” are mentioned, and in the corresponding place of his “mini-Six-day” Palamas says that on the second day God “... strengthened and extended this great vault (τὸ μέγα τοῦτο κύτος ἐστερέωσε καὶ περιέτεινε) - I mean the first sky [visible] by us (ἡμᾶς πρῶτον οὐρανὸν), and after the first - and second..." (221B). Thus, St. Gregory (following, in particular, St. Theophilus of Antioch and Gregory of Nyssa) recognizes two heavens, οὐρανὸς καὶ στερέωμα, as required by biblical tradition. But a few paragraphs further, trying to show the unity and integrity of the world, Palamas states: “... this entire sensory world is one, and the whole sky is one - or [the heavens] are no more than two...” (224BC) 598. It can be assumed that Palamas’ dogma was superimposed on the immediate, resulting from life experience and theoretically thought out sense of the unity of all living things as a consequence of the unity of the First Cause. Unity, before which created differences recede into the background... This intuition of the unity of the universal whole dominates Palamas' cosmology, explaining much of this cosmology. On the third day - in accordance with the Bible (Gen. 1:9-13) - the waters parted and the earth appeared. She embraced the whole world, akin to her (καὶ τὸν ἑαυτῇ σύμφυτον πάντα κόσμον ἀπειλήφει) (221В), and the sky received two great shining like two eyes (Ibid.). God, from the very beginning of its existence, put into the earth the ideas of sensory and sensually perceived creatures 599 (Econ. P. 135). To what moment should τὴν ἀρχὴν be attributed and what creatures are we talking about? Let us compare with this passage two more that are close to it. In one of them, Palamas, characterizing the composition of the cosmos (in its already formed form), speaks of four elements: “... sky, earth, water, air, fire and everything in them - all kinds of animals and plants, which we cannot even list in parts...” (449CD) 600. Here we are faced with the same concept ἰδέα, which (as in Plato 601) means “the principle (of being) of a thing,” its “meaning” or “idea” in a meaning understandable to us, while the expression κατὰ μέρος, which attracts attention, in our opinion, directly correlates with τῶν κατ’ εἶδος ζώων τε καὶ φυτῶν (80V). What is narrated in the text under consideration, it seems to us, correlates with the initial stage of the history of creation: God first put into the still unformed matter the ideas of creatures, which, being realized during the creation itself, on the third day become specific parts - eidos, or “species” (after all, the word εἶδος can be translated this way) of living beings. The ideas of creatures, therefore, were originally present in the world and have the same age as it. The world - like the human body 602 - initially consists of four elements, which from a state of primordial chaos, according to the word of God, gradually come into order and harmony... 603 The emergence of elements and their separation from each other, taking place on the “megascale” of the universe as a whole, should be considered the main content of this - the first - stage of the history of creation. § 2.5. Special problem: the doctrine of ether. Christian Platonism? But even with the number of elements in Palamas’ cosmology, not everything is so simple. We have already quoted the words of St. Gregory that the world consists of four elements (449CD). However, in the 10th chapter of “One Hundred and Fifty Chapters,” he quotes the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise “On the World,” which says: “... there are five elements, and they are spherically located in five regions of the cosmos, so that the smaller sphere is covered by the larger one (earth in water, water in air, air in fire, fire in ether). This is how the cosmos was formed...” 604 Palamas retells the same scheme in his own words in the 11th chapter of the work 605. The question arises: what to do with the ether? To answer this, let us consider a number of additional passages from the writings of the teacher of silence. We present in the original and Russian translation a fragment from the Thirty-seventh Homily; discrepancies with the Conversation on the Introduction... we put them in brackets. “...but the power of the Most High overshadowed the most pure and virgin womb directly, without any veil, so that nothing separated them - neither air, nor ether, nor anything from the sensory or supersensible...” ἀλλ’ ἀμέσως χωρὶς παραπετάσματος τινος 606 ἡ τοῦ Ὑψίστου 607 παρθενικῇ γαστρὶ, μηδενὸς ὄντος μεταξὺ 608 τῶν αἰσθητῶν 609, ἢ τῶν ὑπὲρ ταῦτα (464Α). From this it is clear that air and ether are two border spheres that complement each other and somehow relate to each other. It seems most likely that Palamas assumed the ethereal nature of the stars - along with the existence of a special ethereal region in the “heights”; these two states of the ether correlate with each other and with the nature of the air environment surrounding them. There are at least two considerations in favor of this hypothesis. First. In the already mentioned treatise “On the World” it is said: “The substance that forms the sky and the stars is called ether, but not because it, being fire-like, burns (aithesthai, as some think, but because it eternally runs (aei thein) in a circle, being a pure and divine element, additional to the four ordinary ones (our italics - D. M.)" 610. It seems that these ideas, and especially the idea about the ether as an intermediary element, eternally running and wandering between the other parts of the universe, influenced Palamas. Second. Let us compare two passages from the cosmological texts already cited above. In one of them we are talking about the movement of fiery nature, in the other - about celestial bodies: Δι’ ἡμᾶς...γῆν ἐθεμελίωσεν, ἐφήπλωσε θάλασσαν, ... ἐπ’αὐτὰ τὸν ἀέρα ἐξέχεε, καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦτον ἀνῆψε περαιτέρω πανσόφως τὴν πυρὸς φύσιν, ἵνα καὶ τοῦ ψύχους τῶν κάτω θραύῃ τὴν ἀμετρίαν ?? (36Α; see translation above text with notes 300–302). τοσοῦτον ὑπερανεστηκότα τοῦ μέσου συνετῶς ἄγαν, ὡς καὶ τὴν ἐν τούτοῳ τοῦ ψύχους ἀμετρίαν ἀποχρώντως θραύειν ἔχειν ?? κατέχειν (80D–81А; see translation above text with notes 282–288). In the first case we are talking about the fiery nature, which, when ignited, eliminates excess cold in the lower regions; in the second, the same function is acquired by planets, stars and celestial bodies in general. But the sky by its nature moves forever 611, occupying the highest sphere 612. In this case, it would be logical to assume that the fire mentioned in 36A is the “upper floor” of this sphere, beyond which – as if “outside the world” – is the sphere of ether (remember Palamas’s hesitation on the question of the number of heavens!). The following options are possible: a) the fire mentioned in 36A and the fire from which the stars are made are the same substance; b) (and this seems more likely to us) the stars consist of ether, and at least the highest of them are elevated to such a level that they can come into contact with the boundary of fire (and, if we recognize the existence of a “supramundane” ethereal sphere, through fire - with ether: after all, it is possible to imagine the interpenetration of the last two substances in the upper layers of the atmosphere). Stars can receive their brightness from ether and/or fire 613. And if it is difficult to agree with the statement that “...Plato’s doctrine of ideas dominates church teaching in all its most essential parts,” 616 then recognition of a number of local influences of Platonism on Christian doctrine will only do justice to the greatest of manifestations of sovereign human thought. Among the features that had this impact should be mentioned the doctrine of amorphous and qualityless matter - pure formation, under the influence of the Demiurge (in Christianity, naturally, rethought and replaced by God the Creator) passing into a qualitatively determined, formed space. The fact of this influence (we think, shown by us in the works of St. Gregory Palamas) contradicts the opinion of I.P. Medvedev, that it was precisely this side of the philosophical and cosmological views of Platonism that the Church was most afraid of 617 ... In this unique philosophical and theological synthesis, defined cum grano salis by the internally contradictory and therefore flawed concept of “Christian Platonism,” one can try to identify intermediate links in the argument between Plato and Palamas, who are nevertheless separated by a time interval of about 1644 years 618 . One of these links can be found in Origen (De principiis. II. 1.4), who teaches about the formation of bodies from matter, to which are added qualities typical of Aristotelians 619 - heat, cold, dryness, moisture: “These four qualities, put into matter (as follows from what follows, by the Creator. - D. M.) ... - and form different types of bodies. But although matter in itself is without quality... however, it never exists without any quality (our italics - D.M.)" 620. Matter taken by itself is pure becoming, the potency of form. When God - from the beginning of creation - puts qualities into it, and later combines them, forming forms and species, the material-sensual wealth of the cosmos visible to us arises. As we see, despite all the differences between both versions, what they have in common is the idea of ​​some kind of initial push (or, in terms close to the theory of catastrophes, an “explosion”) that comes from God and determines the subsequent dynamics of cosmogenesis. In the light of this general position, which is fundamental for Christian cosmology, the discrepancies that exist between its individual versions, being of a more local nature, are not so significant. The same can be said about disagreements within individual versions. Despite some inconsistency and reticence that a close look reveals in the cosmology of St. Gregory Palamas, the latter can and should be thought of as one of the most mature fruits of the Byzantine cultural synthesis. § 2.6. The doctrine of the creation of the world by God. From chaos to space: unity and harmony in diversity. Days four to five This design is achieved by the fact that God gives each of the objects of the world (we are talking, as we will see, mainly about astronomical objects created on the fourth day [Gen. 1:14–19]) with its proper order (τάξιν). The idea of ​​order was one of the central ones in Hellenic and Greek-Byzantine thought and culture - in patristics, philosophy, political ideology 623. For Palamas, the most important manifestation of order in the visible world is the mutual consistency and harmony of the movement of planets and stars, making the world from a potentially unformed and undisclosed “cache”, a lair of matter (cf. the image of “hidden hiding places” - θησαυρῶν ἀποθέτων) (80C) by a system of formalized and entered into harmonious relationships with each other objects, i.e. the cosmos. We have already traced in basic terms the initial stage of this process (see Chapter 1.2.2; 1.2.4.). What, according to Palamas, was supposed to happen on the fourth day? How, with the help of what turns and means of language does he describe the changes taking place at this stage of the existence of the universe? Antinomianism serves as the principle that organizes the geocentric picture of the world outlined by Palamas: the Earth, surrounded by a moving ἐν ἑαυτῷ (33D) firmament, acts as a stationary center of the world, located in the middle region in order to balance with its rest the rotational movement of the above celestial spheres. The imperativeness inherent in the words is characteristic: τὸ ἀκίνητον ἐξ ἀνάγκης τὴν μέσην ἔλαχε χώραν (80C), despite the fact that ἀνάγκη is a favorite concept of the ancient Greeks, reflecting their belief in fate (cf. the expressions ἀνάγκη δαιμόνων and αἱ ἐκ θεῶν ἀνάγκαι, their juxtaposition grates on the ears of a Christian, but, in essence, identical to the ancient ear 624. The word χώρα serves in Plato (Timaeus. 50c–52a): the designation of space, and the verb λαγχάνω is colored with a purely ancient flavor - “to receive as an inheritance”, “to acquire by lot” (see Liddell-Scott and Dvoretsky). being is characteristic of mature and late ancient thought (in particular, as noted by A.F. Losev 625, for Aristotelianism, but one can already recall Heraclitus, where fluidity itself acquires the status of a universal dialectical law of things and phenomena). But it is noteworthy that the very adherence of the celestial bodies to these laws is reinterpreted in Christianity as “their monastic obedience” 626, because the source of all laws is ultimately the same - the good will of the Creator. At the same time, Palamas retains, undergoing only a minor modification, the Platonic concept of space as a pure container (εἶδος ... πανδεχές) of the bodies located in it. This is clear from his remark: “...so that the universal sphere does not move from its place, like a cylinder (κυλίνδρου δίκην)” (80C). This means that there is a certain space, so to speak, space, space-potency, which contains this sphere; otherwise, where would she go? The world as a sphere is a visible image of perfection; on the contrary, the cylinder in this argument acts as a beginning, symbolizing the disturbance of cosmic harmony, its disorder and “fluctuation.” We can say that the sphere is an ideal image of “all-unity” and motionless stability, but it can, on the other hand, be presented as a visible embodiment of the harmony of movement and rest (uniform movement in a circle, which is what the movement of celestial bodies is in Palamas’s view); the cylinder is an image of such a movement when the existential dynamics are displaced, being directed towards one of the world poles, and the resulting impulse is not balanced by anything (in order to bring the body back to a state of rest). If we think in terms of the Hellenic natural philosophical tradition, then the image of a cylinder can be associated with the emergence of the One 627 from its rest and the aspiration to the world of multiplicity, immobility and randomness, as well as the stochastic processes associated with them... It seems to follow from the text that the upper ones and those directly adjacent to the “top” move contrary to it, and the lower ones move in the same direction as it. But it is possible that Palamas can think of the movement of celestial bodies as interstriated - one layer in the same direction as the sky, the next in the opposite direction, etc. St. Gregory thinks globally, and his tasks are different. Cosmology serves for him as a prelude to anthropology and hamartology (the doctrine of sin), and he does not have time to dwell in detail on the question of the specifics of the movement of various belts of planets and stars... It would be interesting to emphasize the clearly visible triad of categories that Palamas uses when describing movement in the world; “diversified” (πολυστρόφως) (81 A) – “in the opposite direction” (ἀντιστρόφως) (Ibid.) – “equilibrium” (ἀντιῤῥόπως) (33A). A similar tripartite scheme is characteristic of a wide variety of theological and philosophical systems; Let us point out here the closely related triad of Plotinus, Proclus and the Neoplatonists 628. But if Proclus’s triad is static in nature, then the world described by Palamas harmoniously combines statics with dynamics 629. In general, it is necessary to urgently emphasize the features of dialectics in the thinking of St. Gregory. This dialectic takes on its deepest meaning in connection with the emergence of man. Only in the “anthropic context” does it become clear and obvious that the diversity of movements of celestial bodies serves as the basis of metrology (more precisely, chronology, i.e., a system of measuring units of time, in particular, seasons) 630 . For those who are able to comprehend (τοῖς συνιεῖσι), the visible order of the world communicates, along with purely practical benefits, also the knowledge of the one who created, ordered and beautified the world (τοῦ κτίσαντος καὶ τάξαντος καὶ κοσμήσαντος ) (Ibid.) God, This very indication of three successively successive stages of cosmogenesis 631 is curious. Let us remind ourselves (as Palamas himself reminds us of this in the Third Homily) that the origins of this first patristic argument in favor of the existence of God (from the goodness of creation to the existence of a single Creator) go back to Romans 1:20 632. The Archbishop of Thessalonica combines this teaching with the moralizing interpretation of the cosmos, which was given by Basil the Great. In the following words of Palamas we assume the direct influence of St. Basil: “If we piously turn (καλῶς διαπορθμεύσωμεν) the mind outward - in sensory perception (ἔξω τῇ αἰσθήσει), then “the invisible of God 633 ... through viewing the creatures [will be] visible...” (Rom. 1:20), [as] the Apostle says. After all, [God], having opened in nature, and in [all] creation, a place for teaching [souls] virtue, made angels its guardians” (36VS) 634. These words should already be attributed to the fifth day of creation, when, according to the Bible (Gen. 1:20–23), living creatures were created by God. It must be remembered that there is no direct evidence in Palamas' text for the understanding of cosmology proposed here; but, judging by indirect evidence, it is this that should be accepted. Thus, the main idea reflected in Romans 1:20 clearly presupposes the existence of the created world in all its completeness and design. It is in the interpretation of Romans 1:20 that the key for St. appears. Basil, the concept of διδασκαλεῖον, which reflects, in our opinion, the main idea of ​​patristic cosmology: the world was created as a book and school in order to be a conductor of the signs and commands of God to people (cf. Psellus) 635. Below we will return to the topic of signs. For now, let us note that the first argument itself was developed by Palamas in great detail - perhaps since the time of Psellus no one has written so clearly on such topics. Let us remember the place that we have already attracted: “...and there is one Sun in the universe, and one Moon - not to mention the fact that everything came together (τῷ ἑνὶ συνέστηκε), proclaiming to those with common sense the truly One - [the Being] first of all, in everything and above all God" (224C) 636. So, the whole universe becomes, as it were, the trumpet voice of divine Revelation. But, perhaps, the most striking and most filled with philosophical overtones panegyric of the universe is contained in the famous Discourse on the Entry of the Virgin Mary into the Holy of Holies. “This great world” (τὸν μέγαν τοῦτον κόσμον) is here sublimely and panoramicly described as “this great testimony of [the existence of] God (τὸ μέγα τοῦτο δεῖγμα τοῦ Θεοῦ)" (Econ. P. 151; Conversations... Part 3. P. 101). We have before us a direct indication of the presence of Divine power (as opposed to logically abstract evidence): this is how a masterpiece testifies to the master (cf. similar images in St. Irenaeus of Lyons). So the world bears witness to its Creator. Further in the Conversation a list of the main components of the visible universe is given: “. ..ground; what is around the earth (τὰ περὶ τὴν γῆν) is a combination of elements 637, this is a perfect agreement of opposites 638; the sky is this great limit that embraces everything that is included in the region [of the universe] perceived by the senses (πάνθ ὅσα τῆς αἰσθητῆς μοίρας ἔχει συλλαβὼν): located there are many fixed stars on it 639, their bizarre and amazing arrangement (τὴν ... ποικίλην τε καὶ θαυμασίαν θέσιν) and [along with this,] not monotonous (ἁπλῆν), but, again same, and not overly chaotic (ἐναντιωτάτην), but harmonious (ἐναρμόνιον), harmonious (ἐμμελῆ) and extremely melodic (μουσικωτάτην) the movement of the luminaries (τῶν ἀστέρων), associated with their circular rotations (τὰς παραλλάξεις) and approaches (τὰς συνόδους), confluences (τὰς συνδρομὰς) and displacement angles (τὰς ... περιόδους); those [their] configurations that [are formed] as a result of this and are filled with meaning (τοὺς ... πολυσήμους σχηματισμοὺς), as those knowledgeable in this say; and so on - everything that, being set in motion by the logos of nature (λόγῳ φύσεως τελούμενα) 640, from time immemorial has proclaimed [the Being above all] by this God (τὸν ὑπὲρ ταῦτα Θεὸν κηρύττει δι’αἰῶνος )” (Econ. pp. 151–152; Conversations...4. 3. p. 101). As can be seen from the text, for Palamas there was no doubt that the whole world and everything in the world - every element of a given continuous-discrete set - proclaims God. Both individual creatures and people, in particular the saints, proclaim Him. The above sounds like a generalizing formula. However, in the example we have analyzed there is a much deeper meaning than simple moralization or edifying advice to the flock: this speculation stems from the experience of comprehending the rapprochement and interweaving of two worlds, the local (visible) and the invisible, the sensory and the intelligible, time and Eternity - their contact here and now, in the spatial and temporal reality of each temporal moment and each point being. Isn’t this what St. asks about? Nikolai Kavasila: “For why did He create the heavens, and the earth, and the sun, and the visible world, and the beauty of the invisible, and created everything with His wave, and through it (i.e. beauty. - D. M.) teaches all wisdom, if not in order to turn us to Himself and convince us to love Him? 644 The contrast between Palamas and Cabasilas in this matter - as a reclusive monk who wrote for one group, who did not recognize philosophy and therefore an anti-humanist, on the one hand, and a humanist thinker, filled with an optimistic-major sense of life, on the other 645, seems somewhat far-fetched and does not reflect the more significant similarities in this case in the worldview of both authors. We are talking, ultimately, about the inscrutability of the Lord’s ways, each of which leads to being with God as the ultimate and only worthy goal of human existence. The picture of the world behind such declarations is, in fact, common to both Fathers 646. “Directly opposite, it would seem, value orientations - to the world of eternal meaning and to the elusive moment of the material present - turned out to be combined without absorbing or destroying each other,” writes G. M. Prokhorov insightfully 647 . As we see, cosmology also contributed to the fulfillment of this task, mobilizing - through the works of Palamas - the entire arsenal of arguments available to it for the glorification of the Creator and the infinite goodness He showed to His creation. § 2.7. Man and his path in the universe: peraspera... ad Deum. Days six-seven Considered from this perspective, the theme of space turns out to be inextricably linked with the theme of man. To understand how Palamas thought about the relationship between the cosmos and man (see also a number of quotes in Chapter 2), the following comparison made by the teacher of silence will help us: “After all, that which [is located] between heaven and earth is inferior in dignity to those who are composed of mind and feeling, since as far as their relationships with each other are concerned, they are identical, but in terms of the masses that embrace them, they are very different” (333B; Econ. P. 173) 648. The mind, moreover, is an indispensable guide for a person during active and creative action in this world. According to Palamas, God sanctified the seventh day on which He rested after the creation of the sensory world, so that through the knowledge of the sensory we would ascend to the supersensible; the seventh day, when viewed in this way, turns out to be a kind of return (ὡς ἐπάνοδον οἶον οὖσαν - 225B) to the Creator and entry into the eschatological peace of the Kingdom of God. Knowledge is justified not only ontologically and praxeologically (as - along with keeping the commandments, cutting off one’s own will and enduring temptations - the initial stage of spiritual work), but also morally: “Another part of it (virtue - D. M.) is higher than those already listed - knowledge in general (γνῶσις ἅπαν), with the help of which we discover (ἐρευνώμεθα) logoi of nature and even contemplate (θεωροῦμεν) - to the extent possible - [logoi] of the soul itself, as well as the inextricable interconnections of the parts of matter (τῶν τῆς ὕλης ἀχωρίστας χωριζομένων ἀναλογίας ), [their] outlines and [other] qualities are knowledge in general” (Econ. P. 169). We are talking about knowledge addressed to the created world, directed at it. In the process of acquiring this knowledge, man, comprehending the secrets of the universe, discovers the depths of his own nature, as well as evidence of the existence of that power that existed before the world... Man is directed towards the world, deploys his mental and spiritual powers towards it - but the world, in turn, is directed towards man. In his cosmology, Palamas consistently pursues the anthropic principle: the very structure of the world can be described (and is described) from the point of view of man, his central position in the world 652. Comparing the following two fragments will help understand this: Δί ἤμᾶς οὐκοῦν γέγονε [sc. ὁὐρανὸς ] τοὺς αἰσφήσει μὲν ἀπολαύοντας τῆς τε ἄλλης χρείας καὶ τοῦ κάλλους τῶν ὁρωμένων ... (36Α). ... περιχορεύειν διττῶς ἐφῆκε κάλλους τε παγκοσμίου χάριν καὶ ὠφελε ίаς πολυειδοῦς· (81A). Among the wide range of problems related to the situation of human existence in the world, a special place is occupied by the problem of symbol, symbolism and signification of being. Its formulation and resolution by Palamas and, in particular, his development of the doctrine of celestial bodies as signs (σημεῖα) of the seasons, measures of time, etc., were particularly influenced by the interest in the problem inherent in the Archbishop of Thessaloniki, characteristic of the era as a whole 655. Of course, this kind of symbolism, used in the interpretation of space, astronomical and atmospheric phenomena, is not the creation of the 14th century. It was developed as a systematic whole by Byzantine patristics already in the 4th–7th centuries. (the role of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and St. Maximus the Confessor was especially great in its formation) and since then has been passed down from generation to generation, undergoing ever new variations and improvements - as one of the most organic components of the image of the world of the Christian Middle Ages. A guiding thread in understanding the problems of Christian symbolism can be the statement of the Areopagite that the soul “... rises from external [phenomena] - as from some motley and varied symbols - to simple and indivisible contemplations” 656. From this perspective, it becomes clear that symbolism turns out to be perhaps the most universal way of comprehending reality - and God as the Creator of this reality, being directly correlated, on the one hand, with the apophatic way of thinking about God, and on the other, with the idea of ​​the world as a mirror, in the reflections and shadows of which it is possible to see images of the infinite wisdom of the Creator. Starting from Hebrews 2:4, Palamas makes a distinction between signs (σημεῖα) and wonders (τεράστια): for a husband who is a beginner and not initiated into the truth of Christian teaching, both types of manifestation of the Supernatural in earthly and recognizable existence are required, while for an experienced husband who has already accepted the teaching and Having become skilled in it, only the need for signs remains, but not for miracles (σημείων, ἀλλ᾽οὐ τεραστίων) (248A). This kind of visible sign, which provides the necessary food for the sensory component of our nature, is, according to the explanation of St. Filothea Kokkina, symbol and icon 661. A symbol, according to the teachings of the Byzantine Fathers, is of two types: different in nature from the symbolized and identical with it 662. An example of the first is the world and the church building. The symbolism of Palamas, in turn, is associated with the traditional patristic idea of ​​the world as a mirror, peering into which, both sensually and spiritually, a person is able to reach the contemplation of premium essences (cf. the second text in Chapter 1.2.2). The world serves as a ladder for us (ὡς διά τινος κλίμακος - 36B), along which we ascend to the supra-mundane and - in the long term - to God. This reflects the characteristic difference between the symbolism of Palamas and the symbolism of his opponents - for them (Varlaam, Grigora) symbolism is the last and highest way of knowing the Divine, since It is incomprehensible directly, through direct contact; for Palamas this is only the first step in comprehending the Creator, and here he follows Evagrius, St. Maximus the Confessor and the entire patristic tradition, starting with St. Justina 666. Symbolism understood in this way presupposes a holistic and multi-level picture of the universe, being a doctrine of the connection between the sensory and transcendental worlds, and serves Palamas to form the corresponding picture. Therefore, it is no coincidence that Palamas emphasizes the integrity of the universe (Τοῦτον ... τὸν σύμπαντα κόσμον – 36Α) and its focus on the emergence of man, on the formation of our corporeality (διὰ τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν σύστασιν – Ibid.) and for the improvement (βελτίωσιν – 36B) of human existence in general. For Palamas, man is the crown of creation, therefore, what is associated with him is described in more value-laden terms (βελτίωσις, ἐποίησεν - Ibid.) than the creation of the material world (ἀπειργάσατο - etymological translation “finished”, “processed” i.e. the term has rather a craft-mechanical meaning). We can say that symbolism in the teachings of Palamas serves as a link between cosmology and anthropology. This reveals the general teleologism of his gospel. § 2.9. Reflection of the ancient meteorological tradition in the cosmology of St. Gregory Palamas So far we have talked about fairly general things - on a mega scale, so to speak (about the universe as a whole). But in Palamas there are – albeit occasionally – purely meteorological sketches, in the traditional spirit of medieval Aristotelianism. This refers to the doctrine of the “pores” and evaporations of the earth: “... what is the reason that the earth, having received rain, softens, becomes moist and fat, and the clay remains ossified, dry and hard? “Is it because the earth is warmed by the sun’s rays, but is not burned by them, why it has open pores to receive rain, and clay, which is burned by contact with intense heat, has deep pores so tightly compressed and closed that it cannot receive rain, even if it is the lightest?” (Conversations... Part 3. P. 62). Aristotle's meteorological works, in which considerable space was devoted to the description and study of such phenomena, began in the 11th century. studied in Byzantine schools 667, so Palamas’s obvious familiarity with them is not surprising. The gap gives the snow foaminess and whiteness, and the condensation of unshed and undiluted water causes it to freeze” 669. The “gap” in the text of the treatise resembles the “roughness” in Palamas; water as an additional factor in snow formation St. Gregory does not introduce, explaining the genesis of snow by the cold of the air itself. However, the similarity in the designation and description by both authors of essentially identical phenomena and processes (foaminess, whiteness, thickening) is obvious: the common understanding of the process of snow formation is the reason that the terms and designations used by both authors to describe this act are also similar to each other. Even in such purely marginal details for his text, such as the description of snow, Palamas appears as a thoughtful follower of the ancient meteorological tradition in its Hellenistic refraction, striving to organize and clarify the scattered data of the latter. § 2.10. Numerology of St. Gregory Palamas. Space as a projection of divine perfection. Modification of the world picture Further, if this 671 day is blessed because the given number 672 is such 673, then how much more [this would be appropriate] for the first day - especially since Moses said that only one [day] 674 received a blessing! For the monad is by no means born. But they say that, multiplying, it generates all numbers - and [among them] the ten internal [numbers] (τῶν ἑντὸς δεκάδος) 675. The septenary [does not generate] any [of] the ten internal [numbers] - and therefore is virgin. And let a virgin in no way be a woman in labor - even if not out of necessity, but let her not be! After all, abstinent (μετρία) is not one who gives birth to many things: the more [she gives birth], the further away (ἐστίν) she is from virginity in all respects. In fact, when multiplied and added, the septenary does not generate any of the internal [numbers] of the ten, but many beyond the ten. How can she [be] virgin? But those who avoid collisions with us seem to ascend to the Moon and the [celestial] spheres (τοὺς πόλους), saying that there are seven of them, and explaining that the Moon has the shape of a crescent for seven days, and on the remaining days - a full sphere (πανσέληνον), and that after equal [intervals of time] it returns to initial phase (διὰ τῶν ἴσων πάλιν ἐπαναστρέφονσαν). After all, they do not know that if the number “seven” is sacred [only] because of this, then the other numbers are no worse, and most of all their beginning. The question Palamas examines relates more to the field of exegesis rather than cosmology as such. But this exegesis has a direct bearing on understanding creation. If we speak on the scale of the “big time” of spiritual history, Palamas speaks here against the philosophical-gnostic and astrological relics of paganism and late Hellenistic Judaism (cf. the mention of Philo and Josephus in 221D), contrasting them with the Christian teaching about the monarchy of the Father - the only monad, without beginning by nature giving birth to the Son and the Holy Spirit, and by will creating all things 676. Indeed, the veneration of numbers as sacred, either in themselves or because of their connection with the phases of the Moon (an argument that betrays its astrological roots) is a remnant of paganism. The Pythagoreans revered the number as such. Three contradictory interpretations of their views - namely interpretations, not expositions - are preserved in Aristotle's Metaphysics 677. According to these interpretations (as noted by L. Ya. Zhmud (ibid.), mutually exclusive), numbers serve either as a material basis ( καὶ ἕξεις) 678, or similarities of things, that is, they are likened to them, or are elements of existence (στοιχεῖα τῶν ὄντων) 679. It is possible that some fragments of these or similar ideas (through the same astrology) could have survived until the late Byzantine times. The works of astrologers that have survived from that time are numerous (and not all have been studied), which gave S. Kurousis 680 reason to highlight a special, “astrological” direction in eschatology. This is also suggested by the mention of the phases of the Moon and their influence on human destinies. In any case, the surge of intellectual activity that marked the history of Byzantium in the 14th–15th centuries brought with it interest not only in rhetoric, philosophy, astronomy and mathematics, but also in astrology 681. For centuries, it accompanied astronomy, just as alchemy accompanied the experimental sciences, and the 14th century, marked by the awakening of fresh astronomical thought in Byzantium, had not yet brought with it their final separation. Speaking about the era of the Palaiologans, J. Verpo especially emphasizes the fact that the classical heritage of the Greeks, to which interest was awakening again at that time, included not only mathematics and rhetoric, but also “... magic, occult knowledge, alchemy, astrology - everyday companions of mathematical disciplines” 682. It is significant that Metochites, even at the terminological level, does not distinguish between astronomical and astrological knowledge - more precisely, for him the very word ἀστρολογικός means “astronomical”; the meaning of the term is already changing, but the form (“old wineskins”) remains unchanged 683. Grigora, in all his astronomical teachings, follows the Stoic dogma about the kinship of the earthly and heavenly worlds (κοινωνία τῶν ἄνω καὶ τῶν κάτω), about συμπάθεια τῶν ὅλων, about microcosm, etc., from which, as A. notes. Hollweg, it is συμπάθεια as a relationship of mutual influence between the earth and celestial bodies that is important for astrology 684. Is it any wonder then that St. Nikolai Kavasila 685 ridicules Gregoras for the fact that he “... is trying to seem like some kind of soothsayer, weaving something Chaldean...” 686 ? But if in the 14th century, as one might assume, the influence of astrology was considerable, then attempts were also made to criticize it, especially from clergy. Thus, Theodore Meliteniot, who devoted a special section of his work to the harm of astrology, calls it “debilitating futility” (πολυάσχολου ματαιότητός ἐστι) 687, contrasting astrology with “predictions ( θεσπίσματα) godly teachers" and the "divine laws" of the universe. Astrology, from his point of view, is a perversion of both piety and science 688. It seems that criticism of astrology can also be seen in the analyzed text of Palamas. Such an honor is only due to the number 1, for God, who is supernumerically 690 one and one, creates a single and integral world (224D), and this is what deserves worship and admiration. Once again, cosmology acquires meaning and significance as a subsystem of theology and anthropology, crowning the harmonious edifice of Palamas’ thought. This once again confirms its auxiliary value for Palamas, who sought in all the fragments we have analyzed to integrate cosmology into more significant aspects of the Christian picture of the world, sanctified by the authority of Scripture and Tradition - theology and anthropology. That is why he could say: “As we consider this great creation of God—I mean all visible creation—we praise [him] and admire [him]. The Hellenic sages also praise him and admire him, examining [him]. But we [do this] for the glory of the Creator, but they do it contrary to the glory of the Creator” (424AB). The saint’s “epistemological optimism” was emphasized by Abbot Modest (Strelbitsky) 691. It seems that this is fairer than blaming Palamas for his dislike of education and obscurantism. As it was found out by Rev. I. Meyendorff 692, St. Gregory did not attack the intrinsic value of “external” science and philosophy, but only their claim to be adequate to the mystery of Christianity. But this claim, as we partially saw even from a cursory presentation of Grigora’s epistemological views, was put forward by the anti-Palamites. Of course, in cosmology, Palamas pursued very specific interests (his own and those of the congregation of believers), strove to reveal in the mysterious and distant that which is close and understandable (connected with everyday life, and therefore “his own,” “native” in its very ordinariness) that attracted the heart of an ordinary Byzantine, Thessalonian or visitor who could be touched by his preaching. From here it becomes clear and even self-evident that in the continuous sequence of events related to cosmogenesis, the Bishop of Thessaloniki carefully highlights and truly deeply interprets what is relevant to the human situation of being in the world (“being-in-the-world”) and questioning about the world; something that is full of anthropological significance and can be interpreted in an “anthropic” context. At the same time, he omits or does not emphasize a number of other issues and topics that, it seems, could claim greater importance. Let's say, contrary to expectations, he says practically nothing about light, although this topic has been raised in Christian cosmology since time immemorial. “The beginning of creation,” wrote St. Theophilus of Antioch, “there is light, because light makes visible what is being created” 697. The theme of light continued to remain relevant not only for the subsequent Christian tradition 698, but also for Renaissance Neoplatonism, which arose during the time of Palamas. In particular, for Marsilio Ficino, light is an image of the goodness of God, which “... penetrates into everything and, penetrating, forms and calls everything into existence, lives and contains everything in itself... collects and unites everything, and distinguishes... renews everything, preserves everything and does not allow everything to turn into nothing...” - etc. 699. Perhaps precisely because the light for Gregory Palamas was associated primarily with the realm of the sacred, he did not want to casually touch the shrine with fleeting remarks... The noticeable “increase in the degree” of philosophical and scientific reflection in Palamas’ text compared to the era of classical patristics (say, Damascus) does not yet affect the tone of the worldview as a whole. And in this regard, St. Gregory Palamas remains a man of the High Middle Ages. Sevčenko I. Études sur la polémique entre Theodore Métochite et Nicéphore Choumnos. La vie in tel lectue lie et politique à Byzance sous les premiers Paléologues. Bruxelles, 1962. Tihon A. L’astronomie byzantine (du Vе au XVе siècle) // Byz. 198l. Vol. 51. P. 614. Cf. also about “a certain lack of creativity” in Byzantine astronomical literature (p. 619). See in particular: Florovsky Georgy, prot. Revelation and interpretation // His own. Dogma and history. M., 1998. pp. 19–38. A very useful essay by S. S. Averintsev: The order of space and the order of history // Him. Poetics of early Byzantine literature. M., 1997. pp. 88–113. Danielou J. Au commencement. Genese, 1–11. Paris, 1963. P. 19–24.. St. Basil the Great. First homilia on Shestodnev / Transl. and approx. O. Nesterova // Symbol. 1996. December. No. 36. P. 197. PG. 3. 596BC; cf.: Epistle 7 // Dionysius the Areopagite. About the church hierarchy. Messages. St. Petersburg, 2001. P. 206 ff. (Greek/Russian).. Gautier P. Monodies inédites de Michel Psellos // RÉB. 1978. Vol. 36. P. 147. 75–80. About Fr. Paul Gautier (1931–1983), a tireless researcher and publisher of Byzantine and Bulgarian monuments from the Middle Ages, see some data in: Tapkova-Zaimova Vasilka. L'histoire bulgare dans l'oeuvre des Assomptionistes // Γεννάδιος. To the 70th anniversary of Academician G. G. Litavrin. M., 1999. P. 173.. PG. 29. 13V. (Russian translation: p. 197). Wed. 16С: ψυχῶν λογικῶν δίδασκαλεῖον καὶ θεογνωσίας ἐστὶ παιδευτήριον. On the anticipation of the teaching of Basil the Great about the world as δίδασκαλεῖον by Greek philosophers, see: Callahan J. F. Greek Philosophy and the Cappadocian Cosmology // DOP. 1958. Vol. 12. P. 34–37. Gautier P. Monodies... P. 147. 82–83. Of the countless medieval parallels, we will cite only the textbook words of Alan Lille: “Omnis mundi creatura // Quasi liber et pintura...” (Quoted from: Averintsev S. S. Symbolism of the early Middle Ages (To pose the question) // Semiotics and artistic creativity. M., 1977. P. 332, note 61). This interest in signs, symbolism, and symbolism will also be characteristic of the 14th century, as discussed below. Tatiana's speech against the Hellenes / Trans. prot. P. Preobrazhensky // SDHA. P. 14. Wed. in the same place: “We know Him through His creation, and we comprehend His invisible power through His works.” Marcus Minucius Felix takes a step forward and speaks about power: “For in all His deeds, in all the phenomena of the world, we perceive His ever-present power...” (Marcus Minucius Felix. Octavius ​​/ Translated by Archpriest P. Preobrazhensky // SDHA. P. 263). Here is a characteristic remark: for the Fathers, the structure of the stars is important not in itself, but in its function as a herald of the perfection and goodness of the Creator! In these words it is not difficult to recognize the germ of that idea about the stages of the world order, the foundations of which were formed precisely by the apologists (Greek-speaking) and the special merit in the development of which belongs to the Cappadocians. This indication of the three stages of the cognitive process is also noteworthy. In general, in Octavia, as if in embryo, in nuce, many themes of patristic thought are present. Marcus Minucius Felix. Octavius. P. 242; cf.: Theophilus to Autolycus, book one / Trans. prot. P. Preobrazhensky // SDHA. P. 131; Athenagoras the Athenian Petition for Christians / Trans. prot. P. Preobrazhensky // Ibid. P. 57: the grounds for worshiping God are “decency, harmony in everything, greatness, beauty, harmony of the world...” This is the general view of the Fathers on this problem until the 14th century. (except for Palamas, for example, St. Nicholas Kavasila speaks about this). And in Western theology - already for Tertullian (see, for example: Apol. 48). The closeness of this concept to the Pythagorean “music of the spheres” is not accidental and was noted by V.V. Bychkov (Bychkov V.V. Aesthetics of Late Antiquity, II–III centuries. M., 1981. P. 219). Adv. haer. II. 25. 2. Per. V.V. Bychkova cit. by: Bychkov V. V. Aesthetics... P. 219–220. Compare: Shpidlik F. Spiritual tradition of Eastern Christianity. Systematic presentation. M., 2000. P. 164. Adv. haer. 11.26.3. See translation there. Athenagoras the Athenian Petition for Christians. P. 68. See already: Nesmelov V.I. Dogmatic system... P. 328; Wed: Vladimirsky F. S. The relationship of Nemesius’ cosmological and anthropological views to patriotic literature and his influence on subsequent writers // Nemesius of Emesa. About human nature / Transl. F. S. Vladimirsky. M., 1998 (best edition in Russian). P. 218. Among the conclusions of F. S. Vladimirsky, the identity he establishes is of fundamental importance: ἄμορφος ὕλη (St. Justin) = ἀταξία παλαιά (Clement of Alexandria. Strom. VI. 16) = ἄβυσσος (Nemesius). The latter concept has nothing in common with Boehm's Urgrund (see below). Sidorov, according to which, “...elements of Platonism (as well as elements of Stoicism) were actively integrated into Christian theology starting from the era of apologists, but they, assimilated and processed, were included in the living organism of the Christian worldview, playing a subordinate role here” (Sidorov L.I. Notes // John Meyendorff, Protopresbyter. Jesus Christ in Eastern Orthodox Theology. P. 263). Quote based on the translation by S. S. Averintsev (Plato. Works. M., 1994. T. 3. P. 453). Literally – “in essence it is a universal receptacle of imprints (var. – imprints)” (ἐκμαγείον γὰρ φύσει παντὶ κείται) (Tim. 50c). Toporov V. N. Space and text // From the works of the Moscow semiotic circle / Comp. and entry Art. T. M. Nikolaeva. M., 1997. P. 464. Losev A. F. Ancient space and modern science // His own. Genesis – Name – Cosmos. M., 1993. P.471. Boroday T. Yu. On two interpretations of matter in ancient Platonism // Antiquity as a type of culture / Rep. ed. A. F. Losev. M., 1988. pp. 112–132. As O. Nesterova points out, this idea is characteristic “mainly of middle Platonism” (Nesterova O. Comments (on the translation of the First Homily on the Six Days of St. Basil the Great) // Symbol. 1996. December. No. 36. P. 243. Note 13 (there are also links to sources). Through Neoplatonism, this idea was perceived by one of the main opponents of St. Gregory Palamas in the 14th century - Nikephoros Gregoras (we will also talk about the impact of this kind of teaching on him). die Hesychasten // JÖB. 1971. Bd. 20. S. 183–184). given (in the 16th century?) to Platonism. Fragments of the Early Stoics. M., 1998. T. 1. Zeno and his disciples / Transl. and comm. A. A. Stolyarova. P. 44. Wed, by the way, the connection between matter and mother in Plato, which corresponds, according to V.N. Toporov, to the deep reality of mythopoetic consciousness (Toporov V.N. Space and text... P. 464–465). The second pole of their polemic was the refutation of Gnosticism. Compare, in particular, the teaching of Basilides - about zones, archons, their mutual transitions, - generation, etc., as well as Christological docetism, reflected, among other sources, in the “Apocalypse of Peter”. See: Apocalypse of Peter / Transl. from Greek A. L. Khosroeva // Khosroev A. L. From the history of early Christianity in Egypt. Based on material from the Coptic library from Nag Hammadi. M., 1997. pp. 322–323 and approx. 696 on p. 338. As St. says, for example. Athanasius of Alexandria: A Word about the Incarnation of God the Word and His coming to us in the flesh // Creations. M., 1994 (St. Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, 1902). T. 1. P. 193. Theophilos to Autolycus Book One. P. 140. Arol. 1.10. Quote by: Nesmelov V. I. Dogmatic system... P. 327. Approx. 4. Bychkov V. V. Aesthetics... P. 218. Athenagoras the Athenian Petition... P. 63. In the upper sky (corresponding to the biblical οὐρανός), according to Theophilus, “...half of the waters are stored to serve humanity for rains, showers and dew”; the other half "... was left in the earth for rivers, springs and seas." Initially, this water covered the earth, but God, with His word, “...commanded the water to gather in one place and the earth to appear, which was previously invisible.” In the lower sky (στερέωμα) - as one can reconstruct the thought of Theophilus - luminaries are attached. See: Theophilus to Autolycus, Book Two. P. 150; Borodin O. R. Development... P. 433. According to Tatian, beyond the sky begins “... the higher world, which does not know changes in weather that produce various diseases, but has the goodness of the air, constant daylight and light, inaccessible to the local people” (Tatiana Speech against the Hellenes... P. 29). The latter idea partly echoes the cosmology of St. Gregory of Nyssa. We omit in this quick review the cosmology of St. Gregory of Nyssa, which, due to its exceptional importance, we will further consider separately. Vladimirsky F. S. Attitude... P. 233: “...since the time of Aristotle, the doctrine of the elements became the common property of ancient philosophy and from here passed into the cosmology of almost all church writers.” “Thus,” J. Callahan seems to summarize this kind of facts, “each element of any Christian cosmology, including “creation,” had to go through its own path in the history of thought” (Callahan J. F. Greek Philosophy... P. 55). This serves as a justification for the appearance of our essay. See Callahan and the sources of the “Sex Days” of Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa, among whom are the Stoics, Philo, Plotinus and Origen (Ibid. R. 55). Eustratius of Nicea (XI - early XII centuries). Per. from Greek cit. by: Gukova S. N. Cosmographic treatise of Eustratius of Nicea // VV. 1986. T. 47. P. 149. Cf. in Damascene: “Earth is a union (unity, ἓν) of four elements” (PG. 94.908A); etc. See: Joannou P. Der Nominalismus und die menschliche Psychologie Christi. Das Semeioma gegen Eustratios von Nikaia (1117) // BZ. 1954. Bd. 47. Hf. 2.. Gukova S. H. Cosmographic treatise... P. 151; She is the same. Geographical knowledge // Culture of Byzantium. Second half of the 7th–12th centuries. M., 1989. P. 342 (here also about the doctrine of the elements), 337–339 (about the same thing in Psellus). According to other sources, Pseudo-Anastasius (10th century). See: Bibikov M. V., Loseva O. V. Anastasius Sinait // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., 2001. T. 2. P. 251. Most likely, a tracing paper from the original Greek. ἄποιος With the previous phrase (“And they also say...”) begins the transition from the presentation of Aristotle’s natural philosophical views to Plato’s theory of matter. Wed. Plato's text, similar in content, given above, in approx. 31. Anastasii [Sinaitae] Anagogicarum contemplationum in Hexaemeron ad Theophilum libri duodecim // PG. 89.857AB. See a selection of examples and their detailed explanation: Toporov V.N. On the structure of some archaic texts correlated with the concept of the “world tree” // From the works of the Moscow semiotic circle. pp. 117–120; It's him. On the history of connections between the mythopoetic and scientific traditions: Heraclitus // To Honor Roman Jakobson. Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, 11 October 1966. The Hague; Paris, 1967. Vol. 3. C. 2039. Diog. Laert. IX. 29 = Diels 1.248. Quote by: Toporov V. N. On the history of connections... P. 2041. Note. 28. On the enmity see: Fr. 28 Markovich (Russian translation: Lebedev A.V. Fragments of early Greek philosophers. M., 1989. P. 201–202). The main fragments interpreting the mutual transition of elements are collected in: Toporov V.N. About the structure... P. 118–119. Here is just one of them: “...as the death of earth is the birth of water, death of water is the birth of air, air is the birth of fire, and so on in a circle” (translated from: Ibid. pp. 118–119). Arist. De mundo. 5, 396, b 7. See: Toporov V.N. On the history of connections... S. 2040. Nemesius of Emesa. About human nature. Ch. 5. 151–152. P. 48. Bondar S. V. Ancient teaching about the elements and some anthropological views in the Collection of Svyatoslav 1073 // Domestic social thought of the Middle Ages. Kiev, 1988. P. 131. Nemesius of Emesa. About human nature. Ch. 5. 164. P. 53.. Right there. This idea goes back to Anaxagoras; in the same form as in Nemesius, it is presented in Basil the Great (see: Callahan J. F. Greek Philosophy... P. 45–46), Nemesius of Emesa. About human nature. Ch. 5. 158. P.51. Right there. Ch. 5. 156. P. 50. Ἡνίκα δὴ μὴ ὁ νοῦς τὴν ὑλικὴν διάδα διαβὰς (Arseny, bishop of St. Gregory Palamas, Metropolitan of Thessalonica, three creations, hitherto not formerly published. Novgorod, 1895. P. 12 (Epistle to the monks John and Theodore); Russian translation there, p. 14; Conversations (omilia) of St. Gregory Palamas, 1993. Part 3. P. 250). In the note of Bishop. Arseny points to the “Theological and Economic Chapters” of St. as the source of this expression. Maximus the Confessor (PG. 90. 1220; Arseny, Bishop of St. Gregory Palamas ... P. 15), and Archim. Ambrose - on Aristotle. But even in Maximus the Confessor this expression ultimately goes back to Aristotelianism. Gukova S. N. Geographical knowledge... P. 338. Epifanovich S. L. St. Maximus the Confessor and Byzantine theology. M., 1996. P. 69. This idea was clearly expressed by St. Gregory the Theologian: ἁμαρτάνειν, ἀνθρώπινον, καὶ τῆς κάτω συνθέσεως (PG. 36. 365C). Hunger H. Von Wissenschaft und Kunst... S. 123–155. Further, when quoting, we indicate in the text the pages of this publication. Let us note the criticism contained in these words of the Heraclitean-Stoic model of the emergence of beings. We have before us a characteristic condemnation of Hellenism by an author close to church circles (the tutor of Theodore II was, as is known, Nicephorus Blemmydes) - why he cannot be unconditionally attributed to the camp of humanists, but one can only talk about humanistic motives in his work, which is the very appeal of the crown prince - and the treatise, apparently, was written even before his accession to the throne (S. 133) - to astronomical topics. Compare: Zhavoronkov P.I. Humanistic motives in the culture of the Nicene Empire // VV. 1989. T. 50. For a quote from the Word on Epiphany, see: Barsov N. I. History of primitive Christian preaching (until the 4th century). St. Petersburg, 1885. P. 302 (“For what is more beautiful than the firmament of heaven? What is more colorful than the earth’s surface? What is faster than the current of the sun?” - etc., with variations already familiar to us). About the assessment of St. Hippolytus by subsequent church writers, see: Ibid. P. 293. The significance of Hippolytus is also great in Christian exegesis and apocalypticism. See about his role as the first Christian commentator on the Old Testament in general and the Book of Daniel in particular: Podskalsky G. Byzantinische Reichseschatologie. Die Periodisierung der Weltgeschichte in den vier Grossreichen ( Daniel 2 und 7) und dem Tausendjährigen Friedensreiche ( Apok. 20 ). Eine motivgeschichtliche Untersuchung. München, 1972. S. 8–10. St. Gregory the Wonderworker. Speech of gratitude to Origen / Trans. N. [I.] Sagardy // Fathers and teachers of the Church of the 3rd century / Comp., biogr. and bibliogr. articles by Hierom. Hilarion (Alfeev). M., 1996. T. 2. P. 179. See: Averintsev S. S. The order of space... P. 89–90; Guillaumont A. Les "Kephalaia gnostica"... P. 140–141, 144. See, for example: Miller T. Byzantine exegesis // Patristics. New translations, articles / Ed. M. Zhurinskaya. Nizhny Novgorod, 2001. P. 243. “Contemplation of the visible reveals the hidden” (St. Gregory the Wonderworker. To Theopompus, on the possibility and impossibility of suffering for God / Translated by N. [I.] Sagarda // Fathers and Teachers of the Church of the 3rd century. T. 2. P. 205. To similar statements of Maximus the Confessor and Gregory Palamas (cf. also “Spiritual Conversations” (Pseudo-) Macarius of Egypt and many other sources) we will come back. St. Gregory is characterized by, we would say, an atomistic, discrete (in the future - Aristotelian) approach to matter. Thus, he notes that fire “...always remains the same substance and never suffers division...” (Ibid. P. 199) - in contrast to solid and elastic bodies that break, crush (due to the strength of their atomic structure), etc. Thus, the artist “...changes the appearance of insignificant and formless matter and through art... creates... a work of art...” (Ibid. P. 204). This characteristic of matter is characteristic of Neoplatonism contemporary to Gregory (Plotinus, Porphyry) - despite the fact that the aesthetics contained in these words is far from Platonic. Wed. approx. 88. Developing the same idea, St. Gregory writes: “...bodies having different natures...meet no obstacles to passing through others in a refined manner. But if the matter of one being does not prevent the matter of another from passing through it due to its subtlety, then how can one not agree that the Divine Essence... unhindered, due to Its subtlety, passes through all the bodies that It encounters...?” (Ibid. p. 200). And here the thought, natural philosophical in nature, is only ancilla theologìae, additional proof of the power of God. The idea of ​​different matters of different objects (“second matter”) and different environments is inherent in Aristotelianism (see above). According to V. M. Lurie, from the intellectual and factual material accumulated by antiquity, “... only that which serves to establish knowledge that is no longer external is selected” (Lurie V. M. Afterword // St. Gregory of Nyssa. On the structure of man. St. Petersburg, 2 2000. P. 185). See: Callahan J. F. Greek Philosophy...; Nesmelov V. I. Dogmatic system... P. 326–356; Vladimirsky F. S. Attitude...; Nesterova O. Commentaries (on the First and Second Homilies on the Six Days of St. Basil the Great) // Symbol. 1996. December. No. 36. pp. 205–229, 241–262; Lurie V. M. Afterword... P. 184–188; etc. Lurie V. M. Afterword... P. 184 – with reference to: Corsini E. Nouvelles perspectives sur le problème des sources de l’Héxaéméron de St. Grégoire de Nysse // Studia patristica. 1957. Vol. 1. P. 94–103. Wed. opinion of B. Altaner: Gregory of Nyssa used the “Six Days” of Basil the Great, wanting to complement it and protect it from misunderstanding (Altaner B. Patrologie. Leben, Schriften und Lehre der Kirchenväter. 6. Aufl., durchges. und erg. von A. Stuiber. Freiburg; Basel; Wien, 1958. S. 272). See: PG. 44. 64–65 (Russian translation in: Miller T. Byzantine exegesis... P. 245). For an excellent reference about the genre of six-days, see: G. M. Prokhorov. Shestodnevy // Literature of Ancient Rus'. Biobibliographic Dictionary / Ed. O. V. Tvorogova. M., 1996. S. 229–231; see also: Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'. L., 1987. Issue. 1. pp. 478–483. PG. 29. 8B–9A, 17B, 20A, 28AB; Wed: Vladimirsky F. S. Attitude... P. 207–208 and approx. 25–29 (summary of examples from the Fathers); Shpidlik F. Spiritual tradition of Eastern Christianity. pp. 150–151, 166; etc. St. Basil the Great. Second homily. P. 232 and approx. 29 (on the Stoic origins of the concept of “sympathy”). It's him. First homily... P. 204. The air, he says, commenting on Genesis 1:3, “... reached high... to the very ether and heaven...” (Second Homilia... P. 237–238). O. Nesterova suggests that under the name of ether the heavenly (“ethereal”) fire of the Stoics appears here, “which is not an independent element, but represents only a more“ subtle ”and“ pure ” variety of the fiery element” (O. Nesterova. Note 73. p. 256). If this is so, then Basil shared the same uncertainty regarding the ether (should it be separated into a special sphere?), which would later characterize Palamas’ cosmology. Borodin O. R. Development of geographical thought... P. 444. PG. 29. 17A: ... κόσμον...τουτέστιν, ἀθρόως καὶ ἐν ὀλίγῷ. Rus. trans.: St. Basil the Great. First Homily... P. 199 (“...that is: immediately and briefly”), Arist. Phys. VI, 3; 233 b33–234 a 24. See: Callahan J. F. Greek Philosophy... P. 35. Aug. De civ. Dei XI. 6: “Times would not exist if there were not a creation that changed something by some movement.” Quote from: Anthology of world philosophy. M., 1969. T. 1. 4.2. P.25. See: Bernardi J. La predication des Pères Cappadociens. P. 42–49. So, he calls matter “the seat of forms” (quoted from: Vladimirsky F.S. Attitude... P. 221. Note 37) and asks: “Who has ever seen formless matter (ὕλην ... ἀνείδεον) or immaterial form (ἄυλον μορφήν)?” (PG. 37. 416–417; see also: Hilarion (Alfeev), hierome. The life and teaching of St. Gregory the Theologian. M., 1998. P. 293). Since the time of Aristotle, meteorology has been understood as the science of atmospheric phenomena (including hydrological and seismological phenomena, meteorites, etc.), i.e., the state of the human habitat directly surrounding us (as opposed to astronomy). Aristotle considered the cause of rain, thunder and similar phenomena to be dry vapors rising from the ground (cf.: Gukova S.N. Geographical knowledge... P. 339). We find a similar view in St. Gregory. About rain and thunder, he says the following: “Can you name the reason for this by any vapors coming out of the earth and producing clouds, or some kind of condensation of air, or compression and collision of rare clouds, so that compression produces lightning in you, and dissolution produces thunder? Or do you name some kind of wind that is suppressed and then cannot find an outlet, which, being suppressed, flashes with lightning and, pushing through, makes thunder? "(Sermon 28 // St. Gregory the Theologian. Five words about theology. M., 2000. P. 27. – This edition reproduces the pre-revolutionary translation, therefore we consider it useful to explain the meaning of some words: “we bend” - we compress; “bent” – compressed; “pushing through” – passing, advancing, overcoming (resistance of something)). Right there. pp. 17, 19; Hilarion (Alfeev), priest. Life and teaching... P. 292, 293. St. Gregory the Theologian. Word 27 // Five words about theology. S. 8.. Sciences are like a narthex leading to a Christian church; but even there they do not lose significance, although they no longer have the right to claim absolute value. Nesmelov V. I. Dogmatic system... P. 349–353; etc. Wed. ἀχρόνως from Basil the Great! Gregory expresses the same idea: time began with the existence of the world and did not exist before. S. Gregorii Nysseni Explicatio apologetica... Col. 72B. Gaith J. La conception de la liberté chez Grégoire de Nysse. Paris, 1953. P. 33. Cf.: Ibid. P. 34; PG. 46.124B. Lossky V. N. Essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church // Mystical theology. Kiev, 1991. P. 161. Lurie V. M. Note 56 // St. Gregory of Nyssa. About the structure of man. P. 170 (1 St. Petersburg, 1995. P. 136). St. Gregory of Nyssa. About the structure of man. P. 77. Wed. thesis "universalia ante res". St. Gregory thus approaches realism in its medieval understanding. PG. 44. 69С. Compare: St. Gregory of Nyssa. About the structure of man. P. 77. Nesmelov writes, commenting on these lines, that St. Gregory “...transformed the entire material world into processes of forces that are immaterial in nature” (Nesmelov V.I. Dogmatic system... P. 341). But this was the main task of Byzantine cosmology - to explain the material not from itself, but from higher principles - ultimately, from the creative act of God. Quote by: Nesmelov V. I. Dogmatic system... P. 345. Nesmelov V. I. Dogmatic system... P. 344. Right there. pp. 347–348. The same view of St. Maximus the Confessor. Compare: “God, having immediately formed, as He Himself knows, the logoi of [everything] that has happened and the general essences of existence...” (Questions to Thalassia. Question II // Works of St. Maximus the Confessor. Book 2. P. 30 – and note 1 S. L. Epifanovichan and p. 185). Nesmelov V. I. Dogmatic system... P. 348. Saint Gregory Palamas. The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters. P. 281 (Index fontium). St. Gregory of Nyssa. About the structure of man. P. 9. St. Gregory of Nyssa. About the structure of man. P. 10. PG. 151.80D; cf.: 80C. Same text in: Sar. 22. 10–11; Sar. 23.3 (Saint Gregory Palamas. The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters. P. 104). R. E. Sinkevich defends the primacy of the text of the 6th homily (Ibid. R. 50), but there cannot yet be complete clarity on this issue. Nemesius of Emesa. About human nature. Ch. 1. 39 (p. 6), 1. 44 (p. 8). Wed. Ch. 1. 60 (p. 16). Besides St. Gregory Palamas, a similar idea of ​​man as a “natural connection” (σύνδεσμός τις φυσικός) of all levels of the universe is found in St. Maximus the Confessor, Rev. John of Damascus and other Fathers. See: Meyendorff John, Protopres. Jesus Christ in Eastern Orthodox theology. P. 156; The Humble Monk and Presbyter John of Damascus, Homily for the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary / Trans. priest Maxim Kozlov // Works of St. John of Damascus. Christological and polemical treatises. Words for the Mother of God holidays. M., 1997. P. 249; Kozlov Maxim, priest. Notes and comments // Ibid. P. 383: σύνδεσμος πάσης ὁρατῆς καὶ ἀοράτου κτίσεως. Wed. in Psellus:... δεσμὸς οἷον τῆς τοῦ παντός ἐσμεν φύσεως (Gautier P. Monodies... P. 147. 102). Nemesius of Emesa. About human nature. Ch. 42. Note 338. P. 137. Nemesius of Emesa. About human nature. Ch. 5. 166. P. 53. Compare: St. John of Damascus. An accurate exposition of the Orthodox faith / Trans. A. [I.] Bronzova. M., 1998 (SPb., 1894). P. 55 (127): “However, we should not search for the essence of heaven, since we cannot recognize it.” See commentary by M. L. Khorkov: Nemesius of Emesa. About human nature. P. 160. Note. 18. Right there. Ch. 5.167. P. 54. Wed: Ch. 41.324 (p. 131): “... being arises from the transformation of the subject matter.” And here we encounter echoes of Aristotelianism in Christian adaptation. Right there. Ch. 38. 307–308. pp. 123–124. Right there. Ch. 38. 307. P. 123. Right there. Ch. 43. 343–344. P. 140. Right there. Ch. 42. 334. pp. 135–136. For more information about some aspects of Nemesius’ teaching about the Providence of God in the aspect of its connection with late ancient philosophical teachings, see: Sharples R. W. Nemesius of Emesa and Some Theories of Divine Providence // Vigiliaechristianae. 1983. Vol. 37/1. In particular, the author establishes the closeness of certain provisions of Nemesius to Alexander of Aphrodisias (2nd century), one of the representatives of the late antique Aristotelian tradition (p. 152). PG. 40. 532С–533В. The latest edition was not available to us: Nemesius. De natura hominis/Ed. M. Morani. Leipzig, 1987. We mean the title of his famous book, awarded the Golden Cross of Mount Athos; excerpts from it were published in the Russian translation: Urs von. Balthasar X. Ecumenical liturgy. Venerable Maximus the Confessor // Alpha and Omega. 1997. No. 3 (14); 1998. No. 2 (16) (here about Maxim’s criticism of Origenism, which precisely recognized the animation of stars and celestial bodies - as fallen parts of the premium enad of spirits). Wed. about the unity of the world in Palamas: PG. 151. 224BC. S. Joannis Damasceni Expositio fidei orthodoxae // PG. 94.885A; rus. nep. A. Bronzova: St. John of Damascus. Exact presentation... P. 55 (127). Averintsev S. S. Philosophy // Culture of Byzantium. Second half of the 7th–12th centuries. P. 39; Sukhanova E. I. About the original edition of the Slavic translation of “Dialectics” by St. John of Damascus XIV century. // TODRL. 1999. T. 51. P. 332; Wed examples of defining genera and species in a purely Aristotelian spirit on p. 329 and the entire article, p. 324–336. S. Joannis Damascen i Expositio... // PG. 94.901BC; rus. trans.: St. John of Damascus. Exact presentation... P. 68 (140). Wed. at Palamas: PG. 151. 80D–81A (see below). S. Joannis Damasceni Expositio... // PG. 94.909C; rus. trans.: St. John of Damascus. Exact presentation... P. 74(146). How the traditional cosmology of the Fathers of the Church, which we examined earlier, taught, and how St. will teach. Gregory Palamas. The Stoic concept of σύμπνοια is used here, which, according to Fr. Thomas Shpidlik, “...reflects the theory of the all-pervading logos-pneuma, the common soul of all things” (Shpidlik F. Spiritual tradition of Eastern Christianity. P. 151). Although Psellus is generally inclined to an extra-Christian mentality, he reinterprets this concept in the spirit of church teaching. Cf.: r. 148. 127–128:... σύμπνοα... Wed. above about Maximus the Confessor. Gautier P. Monodies... R. 148. 108–112. See: Gurevich A. Ya. Popular theology and folk religiosity of the Middle Ages // From the history of culture of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. pp. 79–80. Gautier P. Monodies... R. 148. 116: ὁ μικρὸς οὗτος κόσμος, τὸν ἄνθρωπόν φημῖ. Ibid. P. 149. 162: οἱ λόγοι τῶν διοικήσεων τοῖς μέρεσιν. See especially: The Teachings of Michael Psellus in the Field of Dogmatic Theology. 18. Where did people get the concept of God / Transl. archim. Ambrose (Pogodin) // Mikhail Psell. Theological works. St. Petersburg, 1998. P. 83. Thomas Aquinas. Natural theology / Transl. from lat. S. S. Averintseva // Borgosh Yu. Thomas Aquinas. M., 1966. P. 170. The second of 5 proofs of the existence of God is quoted. Gautier P. Monodies... R. 150. 197–198. On the mythopoetic era, see the works of V.N. Toporov, especially: On the structure of some archaic texts...; His same. Space and text; His same. Primitive ideas about the world (general view) // Essays on the history of natural science knowledge in antiquity. M., 1982; His same. Prehistory of literature among the Slavs. Reconstruction experience: (Introduction to the course on the history of Slavic literatures). M., 1998; and others. The works of M. Eliade are also basic: The Myth of the Eternal Return. Archetypes and repetition. St. Petersburg, 1998; Aspects of myth. St. Petersburg, 2000 (Aspects du mythe. Paris, 1963); etc. G. Hunger writes about Lascaris: “I would like to call this the Christian humanism of Greek coinage. At the same time, we are no longer talking about a pure reception of the wealth of ancient education... but about spiritual interaction with antiquity" (Hunger H. Von Wissenschaft und Kunst... S. 136). But already in the works of the early Fathers, pure reception is never accomplished, but a selection and rethinking of ancient material, accompanied at times by its sharp criticism. Callahan J.F. Greek Philosophy... P. 34. What was pointed out by Rev. I. Economtsev, no matter how you feel about his concepts (Economtsev I. Hesychasm and revival (Hesychasm and the problem of creativity) // His. Orthodoxy, Byzantium, Russia. M., 1992. P. 172). However, major scientists write about this. See, in particular: Likhachev D. S. Russian Pre-Renaissance in the history of world culture (Concise presentation of the concept) // Historical and philological studies. Collection of articles in memory of academician. N.I. Conrad. M., 1974. P. 20; His same. Reflection of pre-Renaissance features in hesychasm // Selected works. L., 1987. T. 1; Popova T. V. Classical literature in the era of Palaiologos // Freyberg L. A., Popova T. V. Byzantine literature of its heyday (IX–XV centuries). M., 1978. S. 223, 226 - and especially: Prokhorov G. M. Cultural originality of the era of the Battle of Kulikovo // Him. Rus' and Byzantium in the era of the Battle of Kulikovo. Articles. St. Petersburg, 2000, pp. 111–112. About this whole concept, cf.: Makarov D. I. Essays on Russian historiography of Palamism (1860–1998). P. 347. A very important indication of the Neoplatonic origins of this kind of speculation and ideas. The increased importance of Neoplatonism in the Paleologian era was most deeply analyzed by J. Verpo, R. E. Sinkevich and I. P. Medvedev in the works indicated in the note. 203. See also: Beyer H.-V. Nikephoros Gregoras als Theologe... Hohlweg A. Astronomie und Geschichtsbetrachtung bei Nikephoros Gregoras // Geschichte und Kultur der Palaiologenzeit. S. 53. Sevčenko I. Etudes... P. 91–92. Wed. remark by O. P. Borodin: “Scientists of the Palaeologian time inherited from their predecessors the idea of ​​sphericity of the Earth and the heavens as the only acceptable one for explaining the structure of the Universe” (Borodin O. R., Gukova S. N. History of geographical thought in Byzantium. P. 123). Dates of life are given according to: Πολίτης Ν. Γ. Ο ορισμός της φιλοσοφίας κατά Θεόδωρον Μελιτηνιώτην // JÖB. 1982. Bd. 32/4. S. 379. Wu Ming published an excerpt from this work under the subtitle “Fragmente ex libro de astronomia” (PG. 149. 987–1002). Regarding the dating, the opinions of experts differ: A. Tion defends 1352 (Tihon A. L’astronomie... P. 615), while D. Pingree speaks more cautiously - before 1368 (Pingree D. Gregory Chioniades... P. 140). Indeed, the work of Meliteniot bears clear traces of the intellectual situation of the first half of the 14th century. (see below in main text). A. Tion is probably right. According to her assessment, this work is “a very clear and complete work” (Tihon A. L’astronomie... R. 618). We can only agree with this – that’s why we present excerpts from it as a sample. The dates of Bryennius's life are given according to one of the last special articles devoted to his life and work: Smetanin V. A. Perception of social problems by an orthodox thinker (Joseph Bryennius) // ADSV. 1990. [Vol. 25.] Byzantium and the neighboring world. P. 136. By the way, Meliteniot was the direct mentor of Bryennios, and the latter expressed his deepest gratitude to him (Ibid. P. 137). Wed. above about the assessment of St. astronomy. Gregory the Wonderworker. Theodori Meliteniotae Fragmenta ex libro de astronomia // PG. 149.989B. “[Everything] visible in the heavens can be comprehended with the help of astronomical knowledge” (translated from Greek after: Ševčenko I. Études... P. 71). About the fact that for Metochites ἡ ἐπιστήμη ἀστρολογική is equivalent to ἡ ἐπιστήμη ἀστρονομική, see: Verpeaux J. Nicéphore Choumnos... P. 168. Moreover, according to Grigora, both astronomy and astrology are equally sciences: dualism characteristic of that era! J. Verpo derives it from the dual nature of the ancient heritage adopted by the Byzantines: “The Byzantines fully accepted both aspects of this heritage” (Ibid.). Wed. about similar processes that marked the Western Renaissance: Yeats F. Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic tradition.... See below. Of course, by this we do not want to postulate (in a vulgar sociologizing spirit) the existence of a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the increase in Turkish raids and the newly intensified interest in the movement of celestial bodies: in the same Meliteniot we are unlikely to find the manifestation of any interest in the Turks. But the religious foundations of the worldview of the Byzantine intellectuals in question were indeed eroding, giving way to relativism and a sense of anxiety generated by a sense of the instability of historical existence. From the literature on these issues we will name for now: Beck H.-G. Theodoros Metochites. Die Krise des byzantinischen Weltbildes im 14. Jahrhundert. Munich, 1952; Sevčenko I. Théodore Métochite, Chora et les courants intellectuels... P. 30–36; Medvedev I.P. Neue philosophische Ansätze... S. 542–543; His same. Byzantine humanism XIV–XV centuries. Ch. 5. “In the face of contemporary historical changes,” concludes S.S. Averintsev about Proclus, “his insensitivity to history is especially striking” (Averintsev S.S. Evolution of philosophical thought // Culture of Byzantium. IV - first half of the 7th century, p. 65). Quote by: Verpeaux J. Nicéphore Choumnos... P. 168. Praising Ptolemaic astronomy, Theodore notes that it allows “ κινήσεων ἡλίου τε καὶ σελήνης, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἀστέρων πρός τε ἀλλήλους καὶ τὴν γῆν θεωρεῖν..." (PG. 149. 993Α). Polyakovskaya M. A. On the characteristics of Byzantine education: teachers and students // ADSV. 1987. [Vol. 23.] Problems of ideology and culture. pp. 111–120. Thus, Meliteniot himself studied with Metochites, and it was to Meliteniot that the definition διδάσκαλος τῶν διδασκάλων (“teacher of teachers”) was attached (p. 111). See also: Her same. Portraits... P. 12–13. ... θειοτάτην τῆς λοιπῆς θεωρίας ἔχουσαν τάξιν (Ibid.). τύπους καὶ τὰ σημεία τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ τὰς τροπὰς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ, καὶ τὰς ἑβδομάδας (Ibid. 997Α). Here it would be useful to establish in which edition Meliteniot read it, since, as F. Zbordone found out, there were two editions of Geography in Byzantium. (See: Borodin O.R. Geographical knowledge // Culture of Byzantium. Second half of the 7th–12th centuries. P. 345). What did Byzantium know about Zoroaster? His name was, apparently, shrouded in legends. It is noteworthy that Plithon bowed before him, considering him the most ancient magician, sage, legislator of humanity and exegete (Medvedev I.P. Byzantine humanism of the 14th–15th centuries. C, 58). The parallel drawn by E. Garin with Pico della Mirandola (see ibid.) is very indicative. (However, T. Nikolaou denies any serious influence of ideas associated with Zoroaster on Pletho, believing that the latter’s intellectual horizons were limited to those who philosophized à la Plato and Pythagoras: Nikolaou Th., Georgios Gemistos Plethon und Proklos. Plethons “Neuplatonismus” am Beispiel seiner Psychologie // JÖB. 1982. Bd. 32/4. One could also recall Gregoras, “weaving something Chaldean.” But in Meliteniot, the image of Zoroaster - a sage and astronomer - is interpreted in a completely orthodox spirit, although the very knowledge of the cleric and sacellary of St. Sophia (as he speaks of himself - PG. 149.996A) about such figures as Zoroaster or Hermes Trismegistus is very remarkable. Ibid. 997A–998D. It would be interesting to look for parallels in historical writings contemporary to Meliteniot. Tihon A. L'astronomie... P. 612. Ibid. P. 616, 625; Pingree D. Gregory Chioniades...P. 140 f. Pingree D. Gregory Chioniades... P. 140. Wed. quite numerous since the 50s and 60s. XIV century conversion of anti-Palamite intellectuals to Catholicism. See, in particular: Lomise E. M. Varlaamism and Byzantine Latin thought. Prosopographical observations // Byzantium between the West and the East. Experience of historical characterization / Rep. ed. acad. G. G. Litavrin. St. Petersburg, 1999. pp. 264–269; Weiss G. Johannes Kantakuzenos – Aristokrat, Staatsmann, Kaiser und Mönch – in der Gesellschaftsentwicklung von Byzanz im 14. Jahrhundert. Wiesbaden, 1969. S. 137; Guran P. Jean VI Cantacuzene... P. 105, 110–114; etc. It is also an integral component of the syncretic wisdom of the Hellenistic era. On the prevalence of magic and theurgic practices in late Byzantium, in addition to the literature indicated above, see also: Gukova S.N. Natural science knowledge in the Paleologian period // Culture of Byzantium. XIII – first half of the XV century. pp. 368–369. This sense of historicism is noteworthy, especially in comparison with Proclus, already “in absentia” criticized above. Speaking about this, we cannot but agree with the opinion of many philosophers, theologians and scientists (V.F. Ern, N.A. Berdyaev, I.F. Meyendorff, O. Kuhlman, J. Le Goff, S.S. Averintsev, V.N. Toporov, etc.), happily summed up by S. Senderovich: “History is generally the main dimension of Christian cultural consciousness.” See: Senderovich S. The Word on Law and Grace as an exegetical text. Hilarion of Kyiv and Pauline theology // TODRL. T. 51. pp. 43–57, especially p. 45. See also: Meyendorff I.F. Life and works... Part II. Ch. 4. We also had the opportunity to write about the sense of historicism that permeates the cosmology of Palamas (Creation and organization of the universe in the interpretation of Gregory Palamas (based on the materials of the Sixth Homily) // Medieval Orthodoxy from parish to patriarchy. Volgograd, 1998. Issue 2. P. 101 and note 15 on p. 106). Tatiana Speech against the Hellenes / Trans. prot. P. Preobrazhensky // SDHA. With. 10–11. N.V. Motroshilova, summarizing widely known data, convincingly proves that astronomy played the role of the first historically established locus of the emergence of philosophy, and therefore - free thought, not constrained by the old mythological-tribal ideology (see: Motroshilova N.V. Pre-science and love of wisdom // History of philosophy: West - Russia - East. Book 1. P. 35. Compare: p. 37). This is the enduring significance of ancient astronomy for the history of world civilization and culture. Terminological research has become an integral part of modern medieval and classical studies; a number of terms in relation to Byzantium (including such as “humanism” and “philosophy”) are still debated. In this regard, one should listen to I. S. Chichurov, who speaks of “the lack of development of the problems associated with the study of the conceptual apparatus of the Byzantines” (I. S. Chichurov. Political ideology of the Middle Ages: Byzantium and Rus'. M., 1990. P. 53). On the understanding of philosophy cf.: Malingrey A.-M. "Philosophia". Étude d'un group de mots dans la littérature grecque des Présocratiques au IVe siècle après J.-C. Paris, 1961; we had the opportunity to express our opinion on this matter in: Makarov D.I. From the history of Byzantine philosophy of the 14th century. (On the definition of the term “philosophy” in the “Four Hesychast Treatises” of St. Callistus Angelicuda) // Historical and Archaeological Almanac. Armavir; M., 2000. Issue. 6. pp. 50–52. This kind of research is usually carried out with the compilation of a catalog of terms contained in the writings of a particular author (see, as one example of the application of this approach: Greenbaum N.S. Ostrogorskij G. Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates. München, 1963. S. 416; Meyendorff J. Society and Culture in the Fourteenth Century. Religious Problems. P. 51.54; Prokhorov G. M. Preface by the translator // John Cantacuzene. Conversation with the papal legate. Dialogue with a Jew and other writings. St. Petersburg, 1997. P. 8. A number of studies concern the economic side of the matter - however, it was perfectly disclosed already in the 1960s. in the works of M. A. Polyakovskaya. See, for example: Polyakovskaya M. A. City possessions of provincial monasteries in late Byzantium // VV. 1964. T. 24. P. 202–208; She is the same. On the question of the nature of urban and suburban monastic property in late Byzantium // ADSV. 1966. Vol. 4. pp. 75, 77, 81–82; etc. See also Ch. 3. Wed: 128D; 473D: God “...was in the world (ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ) even before His appearance in the flesh, but did not know (οὐκ ἐπέγνωσαν) His peace, because they did not desire (οὐκ ἐθέλησαν)". Wed: John 1:10–11. The polysemy of the Gospel text finds its adequate correspondence in the words of St. Gregory Palamas: if in the first case the word κόσμος means “world, universe” (as in the first two periods; John 1:10), then in the second - and this is clearly indicated by pluralis - “the totality of people subject to the law of sin and unable to recognize the Divine.” παραδείσων θείων (469C). This is a very important instruction; it means that Palamas admitted (at least theoretically) the existence of a double Paradise - apparently, sensory and intelligible. Similar views were held, in particular, by St. Nikita Stifat and St. Gregory of Sinai (see: PG. 150. 1242; cf. Palamas himself: 224C - about heaven). From the literature on this (and similar) issues, see: Sidorov A. I. The path of Christian philosophy (About St. Nikita Stifat) // ZhMP. 1992. No. 6; Sedel'nikov A. D. The motif of paradise in the Russian medieval debate // BS. 1937–1938. Vol. 7; Uspensky B. A. The dualistic nature of Russian medieval culture (On the example of “Walking across Three Seas” by Afanasy Nikitin) // Him. Selected works. T. 1; etc. By the way, this same tirade also contains a refutation of the Latin dogma of the Immaculate Conception. When Palamas says: “...who began [being] from the earth (ἀπὸ γῆς μὲν ἡργμένην), reaching to heaven...” (468B), it is precisely this that means that the Mother of God began Her earthly existence in the same way as all people. Sinkewicz R. E. Christian Theology and the Renewal... P. 336; Idem. The Early Chapters of the “Capita 150” // Saint Gregory Palamas. The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters. P.5. PG. 151.80A–81A. The passage has not been translated by Archimandrite. Ambrose (Conversations (omilia) of St. Gregory Palamas. M., 1993. 4.1. P. 69). Saint Gregory Palamas. The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters. P. 104. 21. 10–106. 23. 24. These words are almost an allusion to the teaching of Gregory of Nyssa about the unceasing ascent of the soul to God. Compare: “For who does not know these ascents with which Moses ascended, ... never stopping in growing into greater things?” (Quoted from: St. Gregory of Nyssa. Explanation of the Song of Solomon // Creations. M., 1862. Part 3 (rep.: M., 1999). Conversation 12. pp. 359–360). κυόφορον. About this word, see the note by R. E. Sinkewicz, who points to its appearance in the work of Eusebius of Caesarea “Preparation of the Gospel”: Sinkewicz R. E. Note 36 // Saint Gregory Palamas. The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters. P. 105. Wed. translation by Sinkevich (Ibid. P. 105): “...and with animals and plants according to their species...”. On the Platonic origins of the concept, see also: Sinkewicz R. E. Note 37 // Saint Gregory Palamas. The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters. P. 105. Translated by Sinkevich (Ibid. P. 105): “... through the middle regions.” Again, it turns out almost according to Plato: the dynamics of existence (γένεσις) is such that it holds existence (τὸὄν) in place (χώρα): all three members of the triad are present. Apparently, Plato grasped such deep, basic intuitions of the perception of space by the Greek consciousness that even after about 1700 years (if we consider the life years of Plato as 429–348 BC, and Palamas as 1294–1357, taking into account that the 6th homily was written around 1350), they are reproduced, in fact, only in a slightly modified form. Most likely, in this case we are dealing precisely with the commonality of mentality traits, style of thinking, perception and understanding of the world by Greek thinkers of antiquity and the Middle Ages, and not with the result of conscious borrowing (as was apparently the case with Palamas’s assimilation of Plato’s concept of matter). That is, directed in the opposite (circumferential) direction. ἀπογίνεσθαι (81A), μεταγίνεσθαι (Caput 23. P. 106. 21). Lurie V. M. Abraham's Calling. The idea of ​​monasticism and its embodiment in Egypt. pp. 55–78; Wed about the role of Moses as “the first historian on Earth” (in particular, in the understanding of Evagrius Scholasticus): Krivushin I.V. Early Byzantine church historiography. P. 211 (italics by the author); His own. Evagrius Scholasticus V. 24 and the meeting of historiographical traditions // Historical thought and historiography at the turn of antiquity and the Middle Ages. Proceedings of the colloquium (Ivanovo, March 29–30, 2000). Ivanovo, 2000. P. 20–25; His same. Evagrius Scholastic and the ancient historiographical tradition // ADSV. 2001 [2002]. Vol. 32. pp. 86–92, esp. 87–90 (very important work). Wed. problem “Moses or Homer?” and her decision in favor of the first of these characters among the apologists. The figure of Moses, being archetypal of Byzantine Christianity, played an important role in giving religious sanction to imperial power. So, in the 10th century. Arethas of Caesarea describes Leo VI (886–912) as the new Moses and the new Aaron. See: Flusin V. L'empereur hagiographe. Remarques sur le rôle des premiers empereurs macédoniens dans le culte des saints // L’empereur hagiographe. Culte des saints et monarchie byzantine et post-byzantine / Textes réunis et présentés par P. Guran. Paris, 2001. P. 53; see in general: Grabar A. Emperor in Byzantine art. M., 2000. P. 112; etc. PG. 29. 1A sqq.; St. Basil the Great. First homily... P. 193–194. Goodness (or “kindness”) is one of the most important and most stable epithets applied by Palamas to the Divine. Compare: “Since the Divinity is absolute goodness (αὐτοαγαθότης)...” (De oratione et puritate cordis capitatria // PG. 150.1117B). See Appendix to this work. Here, as before, two main stages of cosmogenesis are distinguished. Wed. subsequent analysis. τὸ αἰσθητὸ ἅπαν τοῦτο. Since the word κόσμος in Greek is masculine, its synonym is neuter, widely found in Palamas - τὸ πᾶν (literally - “everything”, “universe”). ... πλάσας τε καὶ ζωώσας . (221A). And in this case - in accordance with Gen. 1 and 2 – there are two stages in the creation of man. Let us note the parallelism deliberately emphasized by the author with the story of the creation of the world, despite the fact that the identification of the stages of cosmogenesis is not so obvious and is the fruit of patriotic exegesis. Usually in Palamas (as in general in patriotic and historical literature) the word καιρός means “appropriate (appropriate, appropriate, befitting, timely, due) moment,” and the phrase κατὰ καιρόν “in time,” “in due time.” Compare: “But this will happen (happen) in due time (ἔσται κατὰ καιρόν)” (249CD); “...the moment has not yet arrived (οὕπω καιρὸς ἦν)” (384A); etc. The use of this noun has been well studied. We indicate the following works: Krivushin I. V. Early Byzantine church historiography. P. 221; His same. Evagrius Scholastic: decline of the church-historiographic genre // Medieval Orthodoxy from parish to patriarchy. Vol. 2. pp. 47–48; Moutsopoulos E. La notion de “kairicité” chez Nicéphore Gregoras // XIV Congrès International... Rapports. Vol. 2; etc. Compare, of course, the “Ladder” (Κλῖμαξ) by St. John of Sinai (c. 580–650): For him, see mainly: Meyendorff J. St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality. P. 30–33. Homilia III // 33C–36A. Rus. transl.: Conversations (omilia)... Part 1. pp. 32–33. See: Saint Gregory Palamas. The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters. P. 282 (some borrowings from Gregory of Nyssa are noted in places close in meaning to the “One Hundred and Fifty Chapters”). Borodin O. R. Development of geographical thought... P. 444. It seems to us that O. R. Borodin underestimates the significance of the corresponding ideas of Gregory of Nyssa. For Boethius, this distinction is identical to the distinction between substance and accident. It is worth noting, at least, the phraseological similarity of this doctrine with the teaching of Palamas on essence and energy. No wonder: the basis of the approach proposed by Boethius (and Palamas) is Aristotelianism, common to both systems of education - medieval Latin and Byzantine, usually in its late antique and early medieval processing (for Western Europe, completed by the same Boethius). Boethius. How can substances be good due to the fact that they exist without being substantial goods / Transl. T. Yu. Borodai // Boethius. "Consolation of Philosophy" and other treatises. M., 1990. S. 165, 166. For a commentary on this passage, see the previous paragraph. Or even - “as the existing Spirit”: ὡς μὲν γὰρ πνεῦμα ὑπάρχων ὁ θεὸς ... (257С). Thanks to the energies; see below for typical quotes. Saint Gregory Palamas. The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters. P. 154. 60. 6–8. Quote by: Medvedev I.P. Byzantine humanism of the 14th–15th centuries. P. 74; original see: Beyer H.-V. Nikephoros Gregoras als Theologe... S. 173. Anm. 12. ... οὐκοῦν ὡς τὸ πᾶν συνέχων καὶ περιέχων (Sinkevich has a different punctuation, and this affects the meaning. - D. M.), αὐτὸς ἐστὶν ἐν ἑαυτῷ πανταχοῦ τε καὶ ὑπὲρ τὸ πᾶν . (Saint Gregory Palamas. The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters. P. 154. 60. 13–15). St. Nicholas Cabasilas. Seven words about life in Christ. P. 64. Compare: Schnitze V., S. J. Die Bedeutung des Palamismus in der russischen Theologie der Gegenwart // Scholastic. 1951. Bd. 26. S. 396. T. e. in the same way, evenly. S. Gregorii Nysseni Ad Harmonium, quid nomen professione christianorum sibivelit // PG. 46.248A; cp.: Florovsky Georgy, prot. Creature and creatureliness // His own. Dogma and history. P. 135. Quote from: Ibid. pp. 131–132; compare: Balfour D. Palamas’ Reply to Gregoras’ Account on Their Debate in 1355 // JÖB. Bd. 32/4. S. 254. Cf.: Meyendorff J. Spiritual trends... P. 66. Epifanovich S. L. St. Maximus the Confessor and Byzantine theology. pp. 61–64; etc. See: Florovsky Georgy, prot. The concept of creation in St. Athanasius the Great // Dogma and History. pp. 80–107, especially 104–106. ... καλλοναῖς ... ἀρχιεπίσκοπον Θεσσαλονίκης, τοῦ Παλαμᾶ Ὁμιλίαι κβ’ (22) / Νῦν πρῶτον ἐκδιδόντος Σοφοκλέονς τοῦ ἐξ Οἰκονόμων , 1861. Σελ. 143. Russian translation: Conversations (omilia)... Part 3. P. 93). And here it is characteristic to distinguish two stages of cosmogenesis; Only after the completion of the second of them does the universe receive the right to be called a cosmos (81A): from a cosmos-in-potency it has become a cosmos in actu. The creation of the world by the goodness of God is a dogmatic position of Byzantine Christianity, legitimized by St. John of Damascus (Exact exposition... P. 45 (117). Chapter II. 16). The genetic origins of such speculation are very ancient. About the vision of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:4–26), A. V. Podosinov writes: “... the dependence of Ezekiel’s cherubs on the fourfold Near-Eastern and Middle Eastern images associated with the functions of protecting and supporting the throne of a deity or king, moreover (NB. – D. M.) personifying the four cardinal directions and serving as a symbol of control over the entire universe, can be traced unconditionally” (Podosinov A. V. Symbols of the four evangelists. Their origin and significance. M., 2000. P. 60; see also: Ex oriente lux! Orientation to the countries of the world in the archaic cultures of Eurasia. The idea of ​​power over peoples is undoubtedly akin to the idea of ​​domination over the countries of the world (cf. Byzantine legends about Alexander the Great and the “locked” northern nations, the historical-apocalyptic bookishness of the Christian East in the 6th–7th centuries and in subsequent eras, etc.). In a word, the sources of such a way of thinking could be (and, apparently, were) both Scripture and Tradition. Wed. in part: Florovsky G.V., priest. Eastern Fathers of the 5th–8th centuries. M., 1992. pp. 113–114. See note. 117 and approx. 118. PG. 29.8C; St. Basil the Great. First homilia... P. 195. Palamas's ἀχρόνως of Basil (Ibid. 17A) and ἐν ἀκαιρεῖ of Gregory of Nyssa (see above). Other similarities between these versions of patristic cosmology will be shown below. According to the formulation of S.S. Averintsev: Averintsev S.S. Poetics of early Byzantine literature. P. 49. Creations. St. Petersburg, 1911. T. 1. P. 12; cit. by: Averintsev S. S. Poetics of early Byzantine literature. P. 49. Compare: Vladimirsky F. S. Attitude... pp. 235–236. S. Gregorii Theologi Oratio XL. In sanctum baptisma // PG. 36. 364V. 19–20. At the same time, St. Gregory the Theologian admits that he does not know whether the place of an angel in the hierarchy depends on the degree of his involvement in the light of the glory of God - or: vice versa (Ibid.): after the Pseudo-Areopagite, such fluctuations were hardly possible! Ellerson A.-S. The Dual Nature of Man. P. 18. St. John of Damascus. Exact presentation... P. 49 (121). Davydenkov Oleg, priest. Dogmatic theology. Course of lectures. M., 1997.4.3. pp. 35–36. See: PG. 44. 72V; Nesmelov V. I. Dogmatic system... P. 243, 310. Nesmelov V. I. Dogmatic system... P. 311. St. Gregory of Nyssa also designated angels as νοητὴ φύσις (Ibid. P. 315). PG. 13.1568–1569. Quote from: Ibid. P. 311. Note. 4. St. John of Damascus. Word 3 // His own. Three protective words against those who condemn holy icons or images; Rev. Theodore the Studite. Epistle to Plato on the veneration of icons / Trans. A. [I.] Bronzova. St. Petersburg, 1893 (rep.: Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, 1993). P. 106. S. Joannis Damasceni Expositio... // PG. 94.880AB. Saint Gregory Palamas. The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters. P. 114.30.9–17. Philo of Alexandria, in his work “On Providence,” which has survived in Armenian (the Russian translation is quoted through Latin), describes the teaching of the Eleatics (Parmenides), Empedocles and Cleanthes, according to which “...God did not eternally create the first matter, but the matter was already ready for use, and from it He created heaven and earth, as well as the species of animals and plants and everything else... (our italics - D.M. .)" (Fragments of the Early Stoics. M., 1998. Vol. 1. Zeno and his disciples / Translation and commentary by A. A. Stolyarov. P. 178. Fragment. 509). As we see, this idea expressed by Palamas should be attributed to the heritage of antiquity (minus the position about the uncreatedness of matter). Palamas is like an architect building - largely from old stones - a new building, that is, a new system of world understanding and explanation, addressed to the spiritual needs of the man of his day (and consonant with our today's quests); By combining with each other, old thoughts and trains of thought receive new ideological content. Compare: Saint Gregory Palamas. The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters. P. 102. 21. 7–8 and approx. 35 at p. 103 (about the Cappadocian - St. Basil the Great - origins of the concept of ἀθρόον); St. Basil the Great. First homily... P. 199; PG. 29. 16C–17A. Once again Palamas plays with the meanings of this word. PG. 44.770; Nesmelov V. I. Dogmatic system... P. 344. That is, within the limits that this light mass traversed, the visible world was concluded; behind them the spiritual world begins (Ibid. pp. 350–351). Isn't this reminiscent of the modern theory of an expanding universe? air temperature (224C) Πᾶσαν γὰρ ἰδέαν αἰσθητῶν τε καὶ αἰσθητικῶν τὴν ἀρχὴν έμφυτεύσας ὁ Θεὸς τῇ γῇ ... (Econ. P. 135; Russian translation - Conversations (omilia)... Part 3. P. 87–88). οὐρανὸν καὶ γῆν καὶ ὕδωρ, καὶ ἀέρα καὶ πῦρ καὶ τα ἐν τοῦτοις ἅπαντα, ζώων ἢ φυτῶν παντοδαπὰς ἰδέας, ἅς οὐδὲ ἀπαριθμὴσασθαι κατὰ μέρος ἡμῖν ἔξεσταῖ (449CD; Minh has ἐξέσται, which seems like a typo). See: Losev A. F. Essays on ancient symbolism and mythology... In the homilies we have discovered the only phrase from which we can reconstruct this thought of Palamas. Describing the process of the disease, the Archbishop of Thessaloniki says that it gradually affects “ἑνὸς ἢ δυοῖν...τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν στοιχείων” (397D–400Α). Both the term itself and the phrase as a whole make it clear that Palamas considered the body to be composed of four elements. For the origins of this unusually enduring idea in the Middle Ages, correlating the body and the visible world (space), see the work of V.N. Toporov: Toporov V.N. On the structure of some archaic texts correlated with the concept of the “world tree” // From the works of the Moscow semiotic circle. pp. 74–127. Compare: “Both in India and Greece, since ancient times, there has been a concept according to which the main four (or five) elements served as building material for both the Cosmos and the human body” (Ibid. p. 120). V.N. Toporov draws attention to the fact that Plato explained the occurrence of fever on the basis of various combinations of elements (Tim. 82a–84d) - in a treatise undoubtedly known to Palamas (see: Saint Gregory Palamas. The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters. P. 84:282). In this phrase, the possessive pronoun αὐτοῦ clearly refers to God. Averintsev S. S. The order of space and the order of history...; Krivushin I. V. A story between order and chaos. The concept of political conflicts by Theophylact Simocatta. Ivanovo, 1996. P. 19, 105, 109–110; Γλυκατζί-Αρβελέρ Ε. Η πολιτική ιδεολογία της Βυζαντινής αυτοκρατορίας . Αθήνα, 1977. Σελ. 148–168; etc. Wed. the same expression ἐξ ἀνάγκης, generally widespread, in Pliphon, where it serves to express the idea of ​​​​hard determinism: Medvedev I. P. Byzantine humanism XIV–XV centuries. P. 138. Losev A. F. Comment // Pseudo-Aristotle. About the world. P. 169. Averintsev S. S. Poetics... P. 90. In this scheme, the role of the One in Palamas is played by the world whole, comprehended precisely in the aspect of its internal consistency and unity. Averintsev S. S. Evolution of philosophical thought... P. 52–55, 63. Compare, again, a parallel with Gregory of Nyssa: St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the structure of man. pp. 8–10 (1st ed.); 16–17 (2nd ed.). See text with note. 298 (So, [God], as He Himself says...). Note that the term διακόσμησις denoted the world order among the Stoics (Fragments of the Early Stoics. Vol. 1. P. 57. Phragm. 107; p. 179. Phragm. 512), and in Pseudo-Areopagite this word denotes the ranks of angels. ? καθορᾶται. Let us note in these words the indication of both the visible and the “noematic” planes of being. Palamas has τὰ ἀόρατα τοῦ Θεοῦ. Τῇ φύσει οὖν καὶ τῇ κτίσει τὸ διδασκαλεῖον ἀνοίξας τῶν ἀρετῶν, ἀγγέλους ἐπέατησε φύλακας. (36BC). Сf.: PG. 29. 13B, 16C. When translating the expression τῇ φύσει, you should be careful. See a detailed study on the meaning of this expression in early Christian literature: Dunaev A. G. Preface to the works of St. Meliton of Sardinia // SDHA. pp. 453 (table), 486, 558–559. Palamas uses the word φύσις in its direct meaning - “nature”, “nature”.. The disclosure of this idea is one of the main advantages of S. S. Averintsev’s book “The Poetics of Early Byzantine Literature...”. According to Theodore Meliteniot, “divine astronomy”, like a herald (τρόπον κήρυκος), raises those who practice it upward, clearly proclaiming the God-man to those who understand clearly (PG. 149.984D). Christocentrism remains the dominant attitude of late Byzantine religious consciousness - among representatives of the second and third types of Christian humanism (according to our classification). τὴν ἐπιμιξίαν τῶν στοιχείων. (Econ. P. 151). Here is another - albeit too general - mention of the elements. Rus. translation by archim. Ambrose (Pogodin) is more poetic, but less precise: “a beautiful symphony composed of opposing elements” (Conversations... Part 3. P. 101). Original: τὴν τῶν ἐναντίων ἀρίστην συμφωνίαν (Econ. pp. 151–152). In addition, if we were to develop musical metaphors, then it would be necessary to appropriately translate the following adjective μουσικωτάτην (Ibid. p. 152), but in Fr. Ambrose, it is lost in the neutral “very expedient” (Conversations... Part 3. P. 101). τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ὄντων ἐστηριγμένων ἄστρων ἐν αὐτῷ . (Econ. p. 152). Obviously, this refers to the sphere of fixed stars, about the position of which Humn and Metochites argued (about which see: Ševčenko I. Études...). This is what Theodore II Laskaris called (according to ancient tradition) ἀστέρας λαμτιροφανεῖς καὶ ἀειφανεῖς. He uses the word ἀστέρ to designate both classes of stars - moving and fixed (see below: τἄλλα δὲ πάντα ὡς ἀστέρας πλανωμένσυς καὶ ἀπλανεῖς), while Palamas makes a terminological distinction in this case. (See: Hunger H. Vo n Wissenschaft und Kunst... S. 131; Vind. phil. gr. 321.85 v). We translate ἄστρον as “star”, ἀστέρ as “luminary”. In these words one can discern the influence of St. Maximus the Confessor. βίβλος ζῶσα τε καὶ λαλοῦσα τὰ πρὸς δόξαν καὶ ὁδηγίαν τοῦ κρείττονος (“... saying what [serves] to the glory of the Most High and leads to Him ..." (537A). ... αἰσθανόμενοι καὶ διὰ τούτων ἐπὶ τὰ τῶν ἀοράτων κάλλη διαβαίνοντες τῷ νῷ τὸν κοινὸν ἁπάντων δημιουργὸν ὑμνοῖεν. (“... so that, perceiving with the senses the sky, the earth and [everything] contained in them, as subject to sensory perception, and, from them, ascending with the mind to the beauty of the invisible, sing praise to the common Creator of all...” (Econ. P. 143; Conversations... Part 3. P. 94). At the same time, Palamas is characterized by an indication of the cognitive capabilities of the human mind in the sphere of rational knowledge itself. This knowledge originates from the field of sensory perception: ᾔσθετο διαφόρων, καὶ πολυσχήμονς, τάχα δὲ καὶ πολυσημάντους συνόδους ἄστρων τε καὶ ἀστέρων, ἔγνω καὶ διαστάσεις, κἀντεῦθεν ταῖς κατὰ νοῦν ἐπιστήμαις τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐχαρίσατο. Moreover, each of them emphasizes to a greater extent the nuances characteristic of it (Palama - spiritual warfare and inner enlightenment, Kavasila - tenderness and quiet joy). But the goal of Christian life - being with God - is understood equally by both Fathers. About Kavasil in this regard, see also: Polyakovskaya M. A. Ethical problems of “Words against moneylenders” by Nikolai Kavasila // ADSV. 1977. Vol. 14; Meyendorff John, Rev. Introduction to Patristic Theology. C. 418; Meyendorff J. St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality. P. 129–136; Clément O. Byzance et le Christianisme. Paris, 1964. (Mythes et religions). Passim. Important translation: St. rights. Nikolai Kavasila. Homily for the Glorious Nativity of Our Most Holy Lady Theotokos / Transl. prot. M. Kozlova // Alpha and Omega. 2000. No. 3 (25). pp. 71–88. Next comes a reference to Moses: the words of the Holy Scripture, as always happens with the Fathers, become part of Palamas’s own speech. J. Bernardi said well about this aspect of the preachers’ assimilation of the word of God: “Read and re-read, being the subject of study, reflection and prayer, the word of God became the basis (la substance) of their own word” (Bernardi J. La prédication des Pères Cappadociens. P. 408). In this case, numbers are included in the composition of those elements of the world that are created “καλὰ λίαν”, which makes us think once again about the understanding of number (in Pythagoreanism and other mystical-magical traditions of antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, which have largely survived to this day) as an archetypal phenomenon of being, a kind of protostructure of it, which also turns out to be its paradigm and generative model (A.F. Losev). On Palamas' understanding of numbers, see some remarks in the last section of the chapter. In this understanding of this place, we agree with Archimandrite. Ambrose. See: Conversations... 4. 3. P. 131. Note. 114. Compare, in particular: Freyberg L. A., Popova T. V. Byzantine literature of its heyday... P. 226–227. The identification of different points of view in the text of the homily / homilies can (and, apparently, should) be carried out taking into account the ideological and methodological developments of B. A. Uspensky (see his classic work: Uspensky B. A. Poetics of Composition // His. Semiotics of Art. M., 1995 (1M., 1970); a new Russian edition of the book has just been published: St. Petersburg, 2000. Passim). The scope of applicability of these methods is wider than the space of fiction itself and, apparently, can extend to the body of literature as a whole, covering - in the future - the entire set of texts in the semiotic sense of the word, generated by each specific culture. We try to express some considerations on this topic, accompanied by analyzes of the language and stylistic characteristics of Palamas's homilies, in Chap. 4. From the sources, see mainly: Philotheus, Patriarch of Constantinople in the 14th century, Three speeches to Bishop Ignatius... P. 10–14; St. Nicholas Cabasilas. Seven words about life in Christ. P. 8 (The Sacraments are both symbols of the Death and Resurrection of Christ, and the forces that actually operate in the world and souls of believers); Theodori Meliteniotae Fragmenta... 997A; From the literature on these and similar subjects we note: Meyendorff I.F. Life and works... P. 255–257 and approx. V. M. Lurie on p. 426–427; Polyakovskaya M. A. Eschatological ideas of Alexei Makremvolit // ADSV. 1975. Issue. 11. P. 89; Her same. Portraits... P. 235–238 and approx. 17; Meyetidorff J. Note sur l'influence...; Idem. Spiritual trends... P. 67; Ivanka E. von. Hesychasmus und Palamismus. Ihr gegenseitiges Verhältnis und ihre geistesgeschichtliche Bedeutung. S. 27–29; Sinkewicz R. E. The “Solutions” Addressed to George Lapithes by Barlaam the Calabrian and their Philosophical Context // MS. 1981. Vol. 43. P. 151–217 (in particular, see the corresponding passages in the source: R. 211.3.5; 212.8.4–5); Hohlweg A. Astronomie... S. 55; and others. Towards an understanding of the Sacraments as symbols in Byzantine patristics cf.: Gero S. The Eucharistic Doctrine of the Byzantine Iconoclasts and Its Sources // BZ. 1975. Bd. 68/1. S. 4–22; Polemis I.D. Theophanesof Nicaea. His Life and Works. S. 43–80, 110–112, as well as the literature indicated by V. M. Lurie (Comments // Meyendorff I. F. Life and Works... P. 427). ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν, ὥσπερ ἀπό τινων συμβόλων πεποικιλμένων καὶ πεπλᾶς καὶ ἡνωμένας ἀνάγεται θεωρίας (PG. 3. 705Β). S. Joannis Damasceni Expositio... // PG. 94.841AB. Philotheus... Three speeches... P. 10: the prophets and theologians of the Old Testament “...proclaimed the Divine [acts] in symbols (συμβολικῶς) and taught the rest the most important of them by parables, images and sacred symbols (παραβολαῖς καὶ δράμασι καὶ σνμβόλοις ἱεροῖς)". Thus, in Makremvolit the word σημεῖα means signs by which God foretells the approach of the coming end of the world (see above, in note 412), works by M. A. Polyakovskaya). The historical, oracular and eschatological literature of antiquity and the Middle Ages is replete with indications of this kind of signs, which, as a rule, do not bode well. Let's limit ourselves to one example. Eutropius reports about the death of Constantine the Great: “Denuntiata mors ejus etiam per crinitam stellam, quae inusitatae magnitudinis aliquamdiu fulsit; earn Graeci cometen vocant" (Eutr. X. 8.2.3). Quote by: Kareev D. V. “Breviary” of Eutropius and the problem of the lost “Imperial History” // Forms of historical consciousness from late antiquity to the Renaissance: (Research and texts). Sat. scientific works in memory of K. D. Avdeeva / Rep. ed. I. V. Krivushin. Ivanovo, 2000. P. 37; see the corresponding story by Sextus Aurelius Victor in the same place. Wed. the famous “In hoc signo vinces” and much more. It would be worth recalling that interest in this kind of proclamation intensifies in crisis and transitional moments and eras of history. Byzantium and Europe experienced in the 14th century. one of these eras. Philothea... Three speeches... P. 12–13. Before us is a theoretical justification for the veneration of icons by one of the leading representatives of the hesychast movement. For this reason alone, accusing all hesychasts of secretive iconoclasm would be a sin against historical truth. On this issue, see: Featherstone J. Up Iconoclastic Episode in the Hesychast Controversy // JÖB. 1983. Bd. 33. S. 179–198; Rigo A. Monaci esicasti e monaci bogomili. Le accuse di messalianismo e bogomilismo rivolte agli esicasti ed il problema dei rapportitra esicasmo e bogomilismo. Firenze, 1989. (Orientalia venetiana, II). P. 198–200, 248–254; Lurie V. M. Comments... pp. 379–382. See: PG. 91. 1166D (St. Maximus the Confessor); Polemis I.D. Theophanes of Nicaea. P. 43; etc. Theodori Meliteniotae Fragmenta... 997A. Hohlweg A. Astronomie... S. 55 See literature listed in note. 264, and also: Clucas L. M. Eschatological Theory in Byzantine Hesychasm: A Parallel to Joachim da Fiore? // BZ. 1977. Bd. 70/2. S. 337–339; etc. Gukova S. N. Geographical knowledge // Culture of Byzantium. Second half of the 7th–12th centuries. P. 339. Dry and smoke-like vapors of the earth are discussed in the treatise of Pseudo-Aristotle: Pseudo-Aristotle. About the world. Ch. 4. 394a. 9–14. P. 155. Translated by Archimandrite Ambrose (Conversations... Part 1. P. 177), this fragment is omitted - with a characteristic explanation: “... the following is a reasoning in the spirit of the philosophy of that time... which we omit here due to its specificity and difficulty for the modern reader to understand.” This is not the first time that archimandrites have had popularization aspirations. Ambrose prevail over scientific ones! μίαν αὐτὴν. The place is ambiguous. The word αὐτὴν is asked to πρώτη, but this contradicts the meaning of the biblical narrative, which reads: “...God blessed the seventh day...” (Gen. 2:3). I think the replica of St. Gregory does not mean the serial number of the day blessed by God, but the very fact that of all the days that are narrated in the history of creation, only one day (although not the first) received a blessing. Our assumption is indirectly supported by the fact that the word πρώτη is accompanied by the particle ἄν (referring to Potentialis) - that is, the first day could only have been blessed by the Lord, while the seventh day was actually blessed! That is, 1–10. The doctrine of ten dates back to the Pythagorean Philolaus (1st half of the 5th century BC; French B11). See rus. translation and analysis in: Losev A. F. History of ancient aesthetics: (early classics). M., 1963. pp. 268–269. I already had to write about the fragment of Palamas in question: Makarov D.I. On the issue of numerology of St. Gregory Palamas // Medieval society in the socio-political and cultural aspect. St. Petersburg, 2001, pp. 72–73. Wed. thought of V.N. Toporov: “Christianity was immediately given the dual task of demarcating itself from only monotheistic, world-transcendent Judaism and only pantheistic and world-immanent paganism, the two main religious concepts of the space in which Christianity arose and took its first steps, and not only demarcation, but also assimilating those ideas that were absent in these concepts - monotheism (if we talk about ancient paganism) and the embodiment of absolute religious value (if we keep in mind Judaism)" (Toporov V.N. Holiness and saints in Russian spiritual culture. T. 2. P. 678). Especially about the distinction between the birth of the Son ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας the Father and the creation of the world according to will, which St. worked so hard to develop. Athanasius the Great in his polemics with Arianism, see the already mentioned, extremely valuable study by Florovsky: Florovsky G., prot. The concept of creation in St. Athanasius the Great // His own. Dogma and history. pp. 80–107. τὰ περὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν θεωρήματα διὰ τῆς ἀστρολογικῆς ἐπιστήμης γνωρίζεσθαι πέφυκεν (Quoted from: Ševčenko I. Études... P. 71). This ἐπιστήμη, as we remember, will become the main means of becoming like God for Gregoras (a disciple of Metochites). Hohlweg A. Astronomie... S. 56. What R. E. Sinkevich drew attention to: Sinkewicz R. E. Christian Theology and the Renewal... P. 346. Quote from: Ibid. P. 346. Note 39. Theophylact Simocatta called astrology exactly the same way in the 7th century. (πολυάσχολοι ματαιότητα) (Hist. V, 15). See: Κουρούσης Στ. Αἱ ἀντιλήψεις ... Σελ. 217 καὶ ὑπόσ .. 1. Theodori Meliteniotae Fragmenta... 993В. PG. 96. 560AB (Russian translation by Archpriest M. Kozlov, published by Kotter, see: Alpha and Omega. 1999. No. 4 (22). P. 68); texts. Andrei Kritsky see: PG. 97.940С–944С; "Feast" of St. Methodius of Olympus, see: Fathers and Teachers of the Church of the 3rd Century. T. 2. pp. 437–438. That is, not being the basis of a number of homogeneous objects, but being completely transcendental and different in relation to the created world (“metalological otherness”, according to S. L. Frank). Modest, abbot. Saint Gregory Palamas, Metropolitan of Thessalonica, champion of the Orthodox teaching about the Light of Tabor and the actions of God. P. 60. Meyendorff I. F. Life and works... S. 169, 326; Meyetidorff J. Society and culture... P. 55; cf.: Sinkewicz R. E. Christian Theology and the Renewal... P. 334–351. Meyendorff J. Spiritual trends... R. 71. Compare, for example: Averintsev S. S. Two births of European rationalism // VF. 1989. No. 3 (see also: His own. Rhetoric and the origins of the European literary tradition. P. 329–346). Lyubarsky Ya. N. Mikhail Psell. Personality and creativity. pp. 8–9. Although this comparison is lame with excessive freedom, since Palamas was a bishop and a saint, and Spinoza was an atheist. Theophilus to Autolycus Book Two // SDHA. P. 146. Wed. some remarks about the understanding of the light of St. Basil the Great by O. Nesterova: Symbol. 1996. No. 36. pp. 252–254. Quote by: Gorfunkel A. Kh. "New Philosophy of the Universe" by Francesco Patrizi. P. 49. Gorfunkel A. X. Philosophy of the Renaissance. M., 1980. P. 344. However, when searching for new elements in Christian cosmology, one must be extremely careful: let us remember the texts of the apologists quoted above, Irenaeus, Nemesius, etc.! The advantage of Palamas, perhaps, lies in the fact that this kind of reasoning for him is not just an element of tradition, but a part of individual intellectual experience. They play a significant role in his own picture of the world. It is this kind of consciousness - personally experimenting, not afraid of the new and ready to modify the established tradition in search of this new, sometimes openly overstepping its boundaries - that was inherent in the creators of the new European natural philosophy that arose during the Renaissance (see: Gorfunkel A. X. Humanism and natural philosophy of the Italian Renaissance. Especially: Conclusion. P. 329–346). Gorfunkel is skeptical about attempts to see in the works of representatives of late medieval scholasticism the beginnings of a new – mathematical – picture of the world, astutely noting on this matter: “The development of a mathematical language was hindered by the entire structure of medieval culture” (Ibid. p. 332). “The cosmos of late scholasticism... remained an object of value orientation; it invariably preserved the hierarchical structure of space with its ideas about “above” and “below”, about the superiority of rest over movement... It was a sacralized cosmos...” (Ibid., p. 333). In this regard, the fact that Palamas recognizes the value of movements and describes them as a systematic and steadily occurring process indicates the emergence in his thought of something more than a clichéd adherence to medieval tradition. Should we call this the Orthodox Pre-Renaissance? This would be an exorbitant claim. It is only important to emphasize the wealth of alternatives to cultural development that matured in Palaeologian Byzantium, and in both of its camps - hesychast and humanistic (in the traditional sense of the word). These two movements were not only antipodes and protagonists of the historical drama, but to some extent complemented each other.