Приложение

G.I. Benevich. St. Maxim the Confessor in Russia The publication of a commented translation of the theological and polemical works of St. Maxim has completed an important stage in the dissemination and study of the saint’s works in Russia - from now on, almost all of his main works are available in Russian translation. Based on this, we considered it appropriate to place in the Appendix an article briefly reviewing the almost thousand-year history of the assimilation of the legacy of St. Maxim in Ancient Russia and in Russia 1757. From Ancient Rus' to the beginning of the twentieth century In the 11th century name of St. Maxim was already known in Ancient Rus'. M. F. Muryanov published two church services of St. Maxim, based on the Novgorod Menaions, dating them to the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th centuries 1758. A.I. Sidorov found 26 quotes from various works of St. Maxim in the Izbornik of Svyatoslav (1073) 1759. Although St. Maxim, as Muryanov notes, was not a popular saint in Ancient Rus'; his name (in addition to liturgical books) could also be known from the florilegion Bee (Μέλισσα) translated from Greek in 1760. In some manuscripts it is inscribed with the name of “Abba Maximus, philosopher and martyr.” From the authentic works of the saint, according to A.I. Sobolevsky, in Church Slavonic translation in Rus' at least from the 14th century. read Capita de caritate 1761. A Slavic translation of Liber asceticus later appeared. St. Maxim was also known in Rus' as the scholiast of the Areopagite; Corpus Areopagiticum was translated into Church Slavonic in the 14th century. He was known, in particular, to the leader of the Old Believers, Archpriest Avvakum Petrov, who used him in polemics with the Nikonians. In 1675 the Corpus was translated again by the monk Euthymius Chudovsky, but was not published. A hundred years later, some parts of the Areopagitik were again translated into Church Slavonic by the monk Moses, and in 1825 the first Russian translation of the treatise On Mysterious Theology appeared. In all these translations the name of St. Maxima was listed as the name of the author of the scholia. In Ancient Rus', the Greek Life of St. Maxim was known in Slavic translations and various paraphrases used in the Prologues of 1762. Based mainly on Baronia 1763, St. Demetrius of Rostov in 1692 compiled the Slavic Life of St. Maxim, adding some information from the Slavic Prologues. His version of the Life was widely distributed in the Great Chetya Menaion (translated into Russian in 1904). Later, some of the Prologues, taken from the library of the Solovetsky Monastery and transferred to the Kazan Theological Academy, were used by priest Zefirov in the first Russian reconstruction of the life of St. Maxim, already implemented using Combefis 1764 (1857) 1765. Since the 17th century. and further opposition to St. The maxim of the heresy officially professed in the Byzantine Empire was used by the Old Believers in their polemics with the dominant Church in Russia. One of their leaders, Deacon Theodore, whose tongue and right hand were cut off, claimed that they were miraculously healed, “like St. Maxim." Habakkuk supported this myth for some time, but after a quarrel with Theodore he accused him of lying in 1766. Some of the Old Believers quoted the famous words of St. Maxim on the refusal to commune with heretical patriarchs as a justification for the possibility of the existence of the Church without priesthood and hierarchy 1767. Zefirov gives another example of the Old Believers using the works of St. Maxima; Thus, referring to the Dispute with Pyrrhus, they tried to justify the possibility for a layman to accept repentance from priests and bishops in 1768. In his research, Zefirov disputes both of these claims. St. Paisiy (Velichkovsky) (1722–1794) translated a number of works by St. Maxim from the Greek Philokalia into Slavic. However, this translation was not published in his Slavic Philokalia (1793) and remained in manuscripts circulating in the Slavic lands, Moldovala, Romania and Athos 1769. The first Russian translation of Capita de caritate appeared in 1817–1822 1770. In 1830–1835, Archpriest Gerasim Pavsky (one of the founders of biblical studies in Russia, and at that moment also a teacher of the Law of God of the future Emperor Alexander II) published a Russian translation of Capita theologica et oeconomica 1771. This was a clear sign that, despite his commitment to the historical method, Pavsky showed interest in the exegesis of St. Maxim and his mystical teachings. Contacts about. Gerasim and the royal family could prove fruitful for the development of biblical studies in Russia, and possibly for the study of St. Maxim (one can only guess how these interests were combined in this outstanding man of 1772), however, in 1835 Pavsky was removed from the crown prince on the initiative of Metropolitans of St. Petersburg Seraphim (Glagolevsky) and Moscow Philaret (Drozdov), who were opponents of his approach to the Bible and Christian teaching and accused him of “Lutheranism” and “neo-Protestantism.” Pavsky was soon removed from his professorship at the Theological Academy. In 1853 in Moscow, the famous hesychast monastery Optina Pustyn published a parallel Slavic (St. Paisius) and Russian translation of Expositio orationis dominicae and Liber asceticus 1773. The first anonymous Russian translation of Mystagogia appeared in 1846, followed in 1855 by the publication of a more accurate and complete version. The translator and/or editor of this translation was, in our opinion, Prof. Vasily Ivanovich Dolotsky, founder of the department of liturgical theology at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, under whose auspices the two-volume edition of the Scriptures of St. fathers and teachers of the Church related to the interpretation of Orthodox worship, which included the translation of Mystagogy. In the preface to the publication of the 1855 translation, Rev. Maximus is named one of the most important philosophers among the holy fathers. At the same time, when Ivan Orlov defended his dissertation on the polemics of St. Maxim with the Monothelites, in St. Petersburg in 1888, he emphasized only the importance of St. The maxim of this polemic and his Christological teaching, practically without dwelling on his mystical teaching and the connection of some parts of his heritage with others 1774. It seems that the translations of such mystical works by St. Maxima as cap. theol. , or. dom. and myst. , already implemented by the middle of the 19th century, had virtually no impact on Russian scientists of that time, since the anagogical and spiritual approach of St. Maxima on Holy Scripture and liturgy was completely alien to the positivist and moralistic approach that dominated the Theological Academies of that time, where professors openly ridiculed the allegorical and spiritual interpretation of the Holy Fathers or (at best) did not understand it 1775. For the most part, the mystical aspect of Orthodox Tradition was forgotten in the Academies. So, in the first Russian course of patristics (1859), Archbishop. Filaret (Gumilevsky) clearly underestimates the exegetical writings of St. Maxima 1776. Even the famous church historian V.V. Bolotov, in lectures on church history in St. Petersburg in 1886/87, mentioned St. Maximus only as an ascetic writer and polemicist. Only Alexander Brilliantov (who later took Bolotov’s chair) in his master’s thesis paid special attention to the mystical teaching of St. Maxim, appreciating this thinker 1777. Brilliantov’s dissertation “The Influence of Eastern Theology on Western Theology in the Works of John Scotus Erigena,” written in 1893, was defended at St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in 1898. In one of the notes, Brilliantov cites, clearly joining him, the opinion of H. Weser that “if Christian philosophers ever appear in the Eastern Church, they will accept [and restore] the teaching Maxim" 1778. He notes that a thorough monograph is urgently needed that would be devoted to “the Maxim system as a whole.” The solution to this problem will be undertaken in Kyiv by Sergei Epifanovich, who undoubtedly experienced the ideological influence of Brilliantov. But A.I. Brilliantov himself played an important role in the study of the legacy of St. Maxima in Russia. His dissertation on Eriugena includes a fairly detailed description of the main themes and ideas of Ambigua ad Iohannem. He also compared St. Maxima and Blessed Augustine, within the framework of his main opposition between the Eastern and Western approaches to Christian theology, and studied the nature of Eriugena’s assimilation of the heritage of St. Maxima. According to Brilliantov, while St. Maximus was a mystical writer deeply interested in the study of the paths leading to deification; Eriugena was the author of a rationally constructed system. His thought was discursive, and not mystical, unlike the thoughts of the Areopagite and St. Maxima. The difference between St. Maxima from the blessed Augustine, according to Brilliantov, was the difference in the starting points in their epistemology. For Rev. For Maximus these were God and the sphere of the Divine, and for Augustine they were psychology and the human soul. Brilliantov also made a very interesting, although not free from some bias, comparison between the role of will, faith and knowledge among the blessed. Augustine and etc. Maxima. In general, his book was one of the first attempts to free Eastern Orthodox thought from what later Fr. Georgy Florovsky will call it “Western captivity.” A.I. Brilliantov is also the author of the study “On the Place of Death and Burial of St. Maximus the Confessor" (1917) 1779, in which he compared the data obtained during the archaeological expedition in Georgia, organized by the Holy Synod and the Imperial Academy of Sciences under the leadership of Nicholas Marr, with information from the so-called "Documents from Exile", as well as from a number of other sources. His conclusion, although with reservations, was that the last days of the earthly life of St. Maximus took place in Lazika, not far from the fortress of Muri, which he identified with Schimarus, mentioned in ep. An. 4. It would be appropriate to note here that recently A. Yu. Vinogradov, a specialist in church archeology of the Caucasus, wrote a study that should appear in the next issue of Theological Works (2013). In it, he criticizes all previous (including Brilliant’s) hypotheses about the last days of St. Maxima in the area of ​​the Muri fortress in Georgia and instead proposes a new hypothesis, localizing the place of the death of St. Maxim in the area of ​​the Omarishar fortress (in the upper reaches of the Kodori River, at the confluence of Gvandra and Klych) (modern Abkhazia) or, less likely, in the area of ​​the Chkhalta or Klych fortresses (also in the upper reaches of Kodori) 1780. At the same time, Vinogradov refused to accept the version of the place of death of St. Maxim, expressed in the just published article by J.-C. Larcher 1781. Returning to those related to St. Maximizing Brilliantov’s works, it should be noted that he did not manage to complete the most important of them, but it was to him that the scientist’s scientific work in recent years was mainly devoted, evidence of which can be found in Brilliantov’s archive, stored in the manuscript department of the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg. As noted, referring to the research of A. G. Grushevoy, O. L. Abyshko, the main work, the expected result of A. I. Brilliantov’s entire life in science, is the History of the Monothelite dispute, preparatory materials for which in huge quantities (OR RNB. F. 102, op. 1, storage units 51–81, thirty storage units!) have been prepared over the last 17 years of active scientific life (1912–1929). As A. G. Grushevoy, a researcher of the archive of A. I. Brilliantov 1782, writes about this, “from the available materials it is clear that the work should have been something much more than just a description of theological and philosophical disputes around the doctrine of monothelitism. The history of the Monothelites was to be shown against the broad background of the history of all confessions of early Byzantine times and the history of Byzantium, Armenia, the formation of the Arab Caliphate... It is clear that A.I. Brilliantov returned to this topic constantly, and the development of individual plots of the never-written work sometimes stretched for many years" 1783. One of the topics that could have “spun off” from the study on the Monothelite disputes, but apparently formed the basis for an independent study, is of particular interest. As Grushevoy notes, “for 17 years, Brilliantov developed the topic “The Concept of Person, Personality in Ancient Philosophy, Christian Theology and Modern Philosophy” (item 54)” 1784. Unfortunately, Brilliantov’s notes on this topic are fragmentary (mainly extracts from various authors, ancient and modern), but even from them one can say that Brilliantov set himself the most serious tasks. As for his study of the polemics with the Monothelites, then, as Abyshko writes, “the theological and church-historical understanding of the entire long history of Christological disputes, which ended ... with the positive teaching on this most complex issue of St. Maximus the Confessor, it was decided to give in a broad philosophical context. A.I. Brilliantov was ready to try to give a synthesis of history (since Christianity is a historical religion), theology (in the person of its central problematic - Christological) and philosophy... A similar synthesis on Russian soil, in the person and works of the outstanding historian of the ancient Church and theologian A.I. Brilliantov, failed to be realized, and we do not see, either around or far away, anyone equal to him in talents and scientific competence, capable of completing what he started them, or go through this path again" 1785. Currently, the issue of at least partial publication or at least a description of this work of Brilliantov, interrupted by arrest and exile, in which he died in 1933, to a certain extent repeating the fate of St. Maximus the Confessor. In general, although the first Russian dissertations that examined the legacy of St. Maxim, in many respects are outdated, with regard to historical and textual issues, the work of I. Orlov and especially the first book of A. Brilliantov retain their philosophical and theological significance, so it is no coincidence that they were republished more than a hundred years after they were written. These authors were able to quite accurately describe the teachings of St. Maxim about the deification of human nature in Christ and in the saints and emphasize the fundamental role of this teaching in his thought. Perhaps for the first time in Russian academic science, the topic of deification took its rightful place in 1786 as extremely important in the study of patristic theology, precisely in connection with the interest in St. Maxim. At the end of the nineteenth century, the name of St. Maxim and his legacy were revealed to a wider audience also by two influential figures in Russian culture. The famous Russian religious philosopher Vladimir Solovyov wrote several articles for the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, including the article “Maxim the Confessor” (1896), where he emphasized the prominent place of St. Maxim in the history of Christian thought and, in particular, in Christian philosophy. He called him “the strongest, after Origen, philosophical mind in the Christian East” (Brilliantov quotes these words in his book about the place of death of St. Maximus). Solovyov, it seems, was the first thinker in Russia to connect St. Maxima with Origen. In an article about Origen, Soloviev emphasized that “one can notice traces of Origenism, although significantly softened by a true Christian consciousness, in the great fighter for Orthodoxy against monothelitism - St. Maximus the Confessor. Through his writings, some of Origen’s ideas, combined with the ideas of the so-called Dionysius the Areopagite, were transferred to Western soil by John Scotus Eriugena, who read Greek, and entered, as an element, into his unique and grandiose system” 1787. After Solovyov the name of St. Maxim entered into Russian religious philosophy. Another author who contributed to the fame of St. Maxim in Russia, was bishop. Theophan the Recluse. He carried out the Russian translation of the Philokalia, the third volume of which (published in 1889) contained the writings of St. Maxima. However, in addition to Liber asceticus and Capita de caritate, St. Theophan translated only 236 chapters out of 700 so-called Speculative and Active chapters of the Greek Philokalia (compilation from various works of St. Maximus). By his own admission, he chose “the easy to understand and more moralizing and ascetic chapters” and skipped the more complex, theoretical 1788. Translation of St. Theophan is inaccurate and often simplifies the thought of St. Maxima. So, while Russian scientists and philosophers at the end of the 19th century. began to open St. Maxim as a great philosopher and theologian, readers of the Russian Philokalia (mainly monks and less educated people) became acquainted with his ascetic writings. Before the appearance of the work of S. L. Epifanovich (only part of it was published before the revolution), there was no research that would connect the mystical and ascetic teachings of St. Maxim, his philosophy and teaching about love. This situation, in a certain sense, reflected the gap between educated and uneducated people in Russia, between the practical and speculative side of Christian life. S.L. Epifanovich and M.D. Muretov The first full-scale study of the life and legacy of St. Maxim the Confessor not only in Russia, but also in the world was undertaken by S. L. Epifanovich (1886–1918), who studied and then taught at the Kyiv Theological Academy. The history of the writing and publication of Epifanovich's works about St. Maxime is quite confused. It became clearer after Russian and Ukrainian scientists and admirers of St. Maxim (S.I. Bilokon, N. Gorshenkova and Yu.P. Chernomorets) were recently able to find parts of Epifanovich’s works that were not published during his lifetime. The found materials were prepared for publication by Yu. Chernomorets and D. Biryukov and have just been published by the publishing house O. Abyshko, collected in a two-volume volume 1789. Summarizing what Yu. Chernomorets said in the preface to the published two-volume book, we can say that in 1910 Epifanovich dedicated St. Maxim his candidate's thesis, and then, in 1913, prepared the first version of the master's thesis with a total volume of more than 2,400 pages! It was recommended for publication, but Epifanovich decided to postpone the defense. Unfortunately, the full text of Epifanovich's master's thesis, which was finally defended in 1917, was never published, and only some parts of it have been discovered recently. In general, after these findings, we can say that we currently have a complete version of the first volume of Epifanovich’s master’s thesis of 1913, which is in fact a corrected text of his candidate’s thesis (all corrections were made according to the text of the first dissertation, so it is easy to trace the development of the author’s thoughts). So, the first volume of the edition prepared by Chernomorets and Biryukov contains the first volume of Epifanovich’s master’s thesis of 1913. It (in addition to reviews of this work) consists of an introduction containing a review of previous works, in which a conclusion is made about the unsatisfactory state of the study of St. Maxim, the first chapter (it is devoted to a detailed review of sources on the life of St. Maxim) and five more chapters devoted to the reconstruction of the life of St. Maxim. Maxim and a brief description of his works in the context of his biography. Some additions and corrections to the first chapter of this volume, made for the dissertation of 1917, were also found; they were published in the second volume of the two-volume work. Epifanovich himself prepared the publication of his dissertation in two volumes, but, as he himself wrote, due to the outbreak of the First World War and high prices for printing costs, this publication was stopped. However, perhaps another reason for stopping publication was Epifanovich's desire to improve his work in the light of new publications and findings, in particular the Syrian Psogos. The Russian translation of Psogos was given to Epifanovich by Brilliantov, who had a photocopy of Codex 7192 from the British Museum, which contained Psogos. From the preface to the newly discovered version of the first chapter of the dissertation of 1917, it is clear that Epifanovich wanted to critically respond to some of the ideas of Archpriest. Cornelia Kekelidze and prof. Mitrofan Muretov (1850–1917). The first published the Russian translation of the Georgian Life of St. Maxim in Kyiv in 1912 1790, and the second - various versions of the Lives of St. Maxima in 1913–1915 (see below). Epifanovich disagreed with both researchers regarding the date and reliability of the great Greek Life (Recensio Mosquensis), which, in his opinion, depends on the versions of St. Theophan the Confessor and St. Anastasia Sinaita, not them from him. In this statement, Epifanovich was ahead of such famous researchers as St. Maxima as Lackner and Van Dieten. It is interesting to note here that, speaking about the Life of St. Maxim, already Bolotov in his lectures on church history expressed the opinion that his great Life is not a reliable source and was compiled by later compilers. Be that as it may, the most important part of the second volume of Epifanovich's dissertation, the so-called Introduction, was published in Kyiv in 1915 under the title: “St. Maximus the Confessor and Byzantine Theology” 1791 (republished in 1996, 2003 and 2011). This is small in volume, but has made a real breakthrough in the study of St. Maxim and the entire Orthodox theological and philosophical tradition, the book brought Epifanovich fame in Russia and is still widely read, although it essentially reflects only a small part of his work. In 1917, he also managed to publish “Materials for the study of the life and works of St. Maximus the Confessor” 1792, which was originally an appendix to his dissertation. This publication, containing some unknown works of St. Maxim and Ps.-Maxim and several versions of his Lives, are still widely used by researchers of St. Maxima, and it was she (consisting mainly of Greek texts) that made Epifanovich famous in the West. In contrast to the materials of the first volume, only a small part of the materials of the second volume of Epifanovich’s master’s thesis was found in the 1913 and 1917 versions. They were included in the second volume of the two-volume work being prepared for publication, along with recently discovered new parts of the first chapter of the 1917 dissertation. It is clear that in general the second volume of Epifanovich’s dissertation was devoted to the analysis of the teachings of St. Maxim and a description of his personality, while the first volume was devoted mainly to his life. A detailed analysis of Epifanovich’s newly discovered works is beyond the scope of this article. We only note that, comparing them with the studies of St. A maxim of our time, at first glance it can be said that the biographical, historical and textual aspects of his work, carried out a hundred years ago, are largely outdated. However, here too some of Epifanovich’s hypotheses can stimulate the thoughts of an attentive reader. In general, as the work progressed, Epifanovich became bolder in his criticism of the traditional church version (or rather, versions) of the life of St. Maxim (as can be seen from his criticism of Kekelidze and Muretov). Although he rejected the authenticity of the Syrian Psogos of 1793, he was willing to accept some of its information. In particular, Epifanovich was inclined to consider information about the Cyprus Council reliable, although not regarding the issues discussed at it and the consequences from it; He dated the cathedral itself to approximately 635, which almost coincides with its current dating by Jankowiak and But. Epifanovich also believed that Rev. Maximus spent part of his life (though not his childhood, as Psogos suggests) in Palestine and was closely associated with Palestinian monasticism. In general, Epifanovich recognized that Psogos contains the earliest version of the life of St. Maxim, although he believed that this version was significantly distorted. He assumed that the most ancient Greek Life was the short Life (included in the Materials of 1917), believing that it dates from the end of the 7th or beginning of the 8th century. 1794 According to Epifanovich, the version of Theophan the Confessor and the version of the Synaxarion of the Great Church are based on this short Life. However, modern scholarship believes that none of the Greek Lives (including the short ones) were written before the end of the 10th century, so the version of St. Theophanes precedes all these Lives of 1795. In general, although Epifanovich’s historical and biographical analysis is largely outdated, his theological consideration of the legacy of St. Maximus, as presented in the book St. Maximus the Confessor and Byzantine Theology, retains its value and power. Epifanovich deeply and accurately managed to carry out in it in a condensed form a synthesis of the thought of St. Maximus, emphasizing its features and revealing its origins in Byzantine theology, the “best representative” of which he calls St. Maxima 1796. In the preface to one of the editions of this work, A. I. Sidorov noted that Epifanovich was able to present the thought of St. Maxim within the framework of the very tradition to which St. Petersburg belonged. Maxim 1797. In fact, in this book Epifanovich appears not only as a patrolologist, but also as an Orthodox theologian; he focuses on the spiritual essence of the teachings of St. Maxim, without being distracted by historical details and research into the context of his writings. Thus, high printing costs resulted in a masterpiece that might otherwise have been lost in the detailed historical and textual analysis contained in the rest of the dissertation. Epifanovich himself, in a review of P. Minin’s book Main Directions of Ancient Church Mysticism (1916), emphasized how important it is for a scientist to be capable not only of detailed analysis, but also of synthesis, of broad generalizations 1798. Epifanovich's small book of 1915 was itself such a generalization. The review of Minin’s book contains another thought that allows us to understand the reasons for the success of Epifanovich’s book. As he notes, in the modern world there is a great interest in mysticism (he probably means the culture of symbolism and Russian religious philosophy then popular among the intelligentsia in Russia). In this situation, it was important to give the realization of this interest the right direction. Epifanovich himself found this direction in the legacy of St. Maximus, whom he calls "the creator of Byzantine mysticism" 1799. (Minin, in his study, also devoted a separate chapter to St. Maxim, containing very interesting considerations about the features of his mysticism). For Epifanovich, mysticism is the real experience of communion with God, gained through the paths of asceticism, spiritual contemplation and prayer, the goal of which is unity with God, deification. The teaching of St. Maximus, especially in his first published book, is explored from this perspective. Another strong point of Epifanovich's book was that he tried to present the teachings of St. Maxim as a “system”. Epifanovich admits that Rev. Maxim developed his “system” not systematically, but his teaching embraces all aspects of Christian life (asceticism, philosophy and mysticism), so that he has a complete and comprehensive vision of it. Epifanovich also managed to present the thought of St. Maxim as a synthesis of the entire previous Orthodox tradition. For the most part, he accurately indicated the main sources of his teaching (not noting perhaps the direct influence of Origen, but at the same time correctly identifying the influence of Evagrius). He was also clearly aware of the meaning of St. Maximus for Late Byzantine Theology, Including the Palamites and Anti-Palamites. Among the many important theological issues raised by Epifanovich in his 1915 book, it is worth noting how he speaks about the teaching of St. Maxim on the Atonement, understood as the healing and deification of human nature in Christ, emphasizing the superiority of his vision over the “Western external legal idea of ​​satisfaction” 1800. Criticism of the Latin theory of the Atonement was popular in Russian theology at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. However, unlike Met. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) (his famous book The Dogma of Redemption (1917) and previous publications), Epifanovich contrasts “legalism” not with some theory he himself invented, but with the teaching of St. Maxim, rooted in Orthodox Tradition. Concluding this brief description of the contribution of S. L. Epifanovich to the study of the heritage of St. Maxim in Russia, it is necessary to mention the project for the translation of Quaestiones ad Thalassium. As can be seen from the surviving parts of his 1917 dissertation, Epifanovich made a detailed description of Thal. , a kind of summary of them. However, only the first 25 quaestiones with comments by Epifanovich were published in 1916–1917. in its excellent Russian translation in the Theological Bulletin (MDA). Further publication was interrupted by the revolution, and soon, in 1918, Epifanovich died of a sudden illness, before his 32nd birthday. His translations of Thal. were continued by A.I. Sidorov. As can be seen from the latest publications of Epifanovich and Muretov, the MDA has begun to implement a project to publish Russian translations of the main works of St. Maxima. As part of this project, only the first volume was published in 1915, prepared by M. D. Muretov, containing various versions of the Lives of St. Maximus (including Greek texts) and church services dedicated to him 1801. This edition was based on the manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library (No. 380 [1022] and No. 391 [XII-692 XIII centuries] - a version of the Life published by Combefis (PG 90, 68-109)). Muretov also used the Combefis edition, Acta Sanctorum, Baronia, Life of St. Demetrius of Rostov, Georgian Life, published by Kekelidze, and some other sources. Until the appearance of the critical edition by P. Allen and B. Neil in 1802, Muretov's edition retained its scientific value. Since his translation has undoubted literary merits, we considered it possible to take it as a basis for the new Russian publication of Documents from Exile (2007), although in our edition Muretov's translation was edited in accordance with the critical edition of Allen and Neil. It should be noted that Muretov’s edition contains not only the Russian translation of the letter of Anastasius Apocrisiarius to Theodosius of Gangra, but also the so-called Testimonies (falsely attributed to Hippolytus, Bishop of the Roman Port) and Syllogisms (obviously belonging to Anastasius himself), which were not published by Allen and Neil. However, in general, the publications of M.D. Muretov and others. Cornelia Kekelidze represent the kind of publications in which an attempt is made to combine the incompatible - in this case, loyalty to the “iconic” tradition of the Great Four Mena and a scientific approach to the text. Novoselov, Bulgakov, Florovsky and Lossky After the revolution of 1917, dedicated to St. Maxim's research was interrupted in Russia for many decades (with the exception of Brilliantov's work, but it was not completed and published) in 1803. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the life of St. Maxim and some aspects of his thought had a strong influence on one of the most important figures in the history of the Russian Church in the first half of the twentieth century. – St. Mikhail Novoselov (1864–1938). Novoselov, a follower of Leo Tolstoy in his youth, later returned to Orthodoxy and became a spiritual writer, publisher and organizer of a circle of Russian Christian thinkers, which included such famous figures as Fr. Pavel Florensky and Sergei Bulgakov. For his work in the field of Christian education, Novoselov was elected an honorary member of the MDA. He actively participated in the controversy surrounding the Name of God on the side of the name-slavers and in the struggle against the influence of Grigory Rasputin on the Royal Family, in which he acted together with Grand Duchess Elisaveta Fedorovna 1804. However, Novoselov gained the greatest fame for his role in church life after the 1917 revolution. In 1924, the authorities forced Patr. Tikhon to enter into communication with the leaders of the so-called “Living Church”, who were in fact destroyers of church tradition. Patr. Tikhon even agreed to their participation in church administration. After leaving prison, trying to save at least some church hierarchs from prison and death, Patr. Tikhon announced this “compromise” decision regarding the “Living Churchers.” However, Novoselov did not agree that such a price could be paid. He believed in the Holy Church and believed that it was absolutely impossible to accept such people into church communion and admit them to church administration, no matter how this was justified. In his Letters to Friends (1922–1927) 1805 Novoselov defended the right of any member of the Church, including laity, to criticize church hierarchs and even interrupt church communication with them. (In his case it was St. Patr. Tikhon, despite his enormous popularity). According to Novoselov, the laity are no less responsible for the Church than the priesthood. In his letters he developed the teaching about the Church of 1806 and it was in this context that he referred to the example of the life of St. Maxim, which he knew from Muretov’s 1915 edition and from the Great Four Mena. In particular, in Letter 14 (October 1, 1924) 1807 Novoselov admits that the Life of St. Maxima is his favorite reading; he retells it, quotes extensive passages from what are now called the Documents of Exile, and discusses the ideas most significant to it. According to Novoselov, Life of St. Maxim, other saints clearly show that in the struggle for the Church and Orthodoxy, only the loyalty of the saints to God and Tradition has always mattered, and not their number or their place in the church hierarchy. It is interesting to note that, following Muretov’s preface to the 1915 edition, Novoselov argued that St. Maxim influenced not only Pope Martin and the African bishops who opposed the Monothelites, but also the patriarch. Sophronius of Jerusalem (in this regard, paradoxically, Novoselov agreed with the author of Psogos, which he had not read) 1808. According to Novoselov, the simple monk Maxim was a real pillar of Orthodoxy, he did not appropriate this role to himself, but rather it was a revelation of the power given to him from above, thanks to which he was exalted above the entire Christian world of his time; he played this role due to his loyalty to Christ, His Gospel and the understanding of the Holy Fathers. In Letter 15 (December 7, 1924) 1809 Novoselov developed his ideas, discussing the difference in the struggle of St. Maxims for Orthodoxy from Luther's polemics with the Roman Church. In this context, Novoselov wrote what he himself called a “dialogue” between St. Maxim and Luther. (In reality, this was not a dialogue, but rather a consistent presentation of the relevant positions). Although perhaps somewhat biased towards Luther's teachings, Novoselov emphasized that his opposition to Rome was of a completely different kind than the opposition to St. Maxims of the dominant Church, infected with the heresy of that time. St. Maxim, who relied in his struggle on the teachings of the Church, did not think that the golden chain of Church Tradition had ever been interrupted on earth, or that he was the founder of some new Church and new tradition. He did not reject the historical Church or the pre-existing church organization, but only separated himself from the hierarchy that covered heresy, while recognizing the hierarchical principle as such, as well as the sacraments of the church. In his teaching, he followed the holy fathers and continued their work. In 1924, Novoselov’s struggle for the purity of the Church was crowned with success; Patr. Tikhon listened to the voice of the church people, both hierarchs and laity, and the union with the Living Church did not take place. However, after the death of St. Tikhon, when Met. Sergius (Stragorodsky) issued his Declaration of Loyalty to the Soviet State in 1927, Novoselov became one of the main ideologists of resistance to the new course. Later, when he and his comrades were convinced that Met. Sergius would not renounce the Declaration and would not cede administrative power in the Church; Novoselov became one of the main organizers of the True Orthodox (Catacomb) Church in Russia, which he considered not something new, but the same Russian Church of the Patriarchs. Tikhon, and Met. Sergius who distorted its essence and separated from it. As can be seen from the Apology of those who departed from Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky) (1928?), released at that time by Novoselov or one of his closest associates, words by St. The maxim that “the Catholic Church is a just and saving profession of faith” was one of the sources of inspiration for the author of this document of 1810. In 1929 St. Mikhail Novoselov was arrested, and in 1938 he died a martyr. A different approach to the legacy of St. Maxim can be found in the writings of the famous Russian religious philosopher Sergei Bulgakov, once one of the members of the Novoselov circle. In his theological and philosophical treatise, the Non-Evening Light, he mentions St. Maxim several times, citing small excerpts from his writings (concerning faith, evil, etc.) and more or less adequately interpreting them. Two pages of this book are devoted to the apophatic and cataphatic theology of St. Maxim, and Bulgakov speaks highly of him in 1811. It is clear that Bulgakov was familiar with the works of Brilliantov and Epifanovich, but he practically did not resort to them. After emigrating, Bulgakov referred to the teachings of St. Maxim on logoi (more precisely, “prototypes” of the created in God) as one of the arguments in favor of his sophiology 1812. However, the greatest interest in relation to our topic is Bulgakov’s approach to the Christology of St. Maximus and his doctrine of two wills in Christ, expressed in his treatise The Lamb of God (1933). At the time of its writing, Bulgakov was already an archpriest and dean of the Orthodox Theological Institute named after St. Sergius in Paris, where he taught a course in dogmatic theology. Unlike Novoselov and his own earlier writings, in this treatise Bulgakov speaks critically about the teachings of St. Maximus (however, he had not previously written about his Christology). The entire conceptual scheme of Rev. The maxim, developed in polemics with monothelitism, seems to him unnecessary or theologically and philosophically insufficiently deep, and sometimes even incorrect. In particular, Bulgakov questions the applicability of the concept of “natural will” to both God and man 1813. Speaking about the dispute of St. Maxim and Pyrrhus, Bulgakov argues that this whole dispute is too scholastic, and that both sides are wrong - Pyrrhus, who considered the will to belong to the hypostasis, and others. Maxim, who considered her only natural. From Bulgakov’s point of view, the very opposition of hypostasis and nature in a conversation about will is wrong; instead, he proposes to think of the integral unity of person and nature, expressing this unity in the concept of “spirit” 1814, 1815. Bulgakov actually repeats Pyrrhus that the attribution of will to nature, and not to “personality,” calls into question freedom, which is supposedly absorbed by natural necessity 1816. Bulgakov also calls the distinction of St. “scholastic.” Maxim of natural and gnomic will. He states that this distinction was due to polemical needs and does not have the status of a dogma in the Orthodox Church, since there is no mention of it in the resolutions of the VI Ecumenical Council of 1817, however, Bulgakov agrees with St. Maxim that Christ did not have the possibility of oscillations of will (“mutability”), but tries to integrate this statement into his idea of ​​​​the growth of Christ’s humanity in the fullness of deification 1818. We will talk about this below, as well as about the specific sense in which Bulgakov calls the divine will of Christ “gnomic”. Bulgakov was not satisfied with the interpretation of St. The maxim of the Areopagitik expression is “The divinely masculine action of Christ,” believing that this interpretation implies only the passive, instrumental participation of the flesh, which actually abolishes human action 1819. In general, Bulgakov says that he reveres St. Maxim for his struggle in defense of the doctrine of two wills and actions in Christ, but at the same time believes that he did not properly develop the doctrine of their interaction, just as he was not consistent and firm in the application of his teaching 1820, so that Fr. Sergius further proposes something like an “improved” (compared to the teaching on this matter of St. Maximus and Damascus) “diophelitism.” This was probably the first “constructive criticism” of this kind. Maxim from the side of the priest and dean of the Orthodox Theological Academy 1821. We cannot enter into an analysis of Bulgakov's arguments here. It is enough to note that he practically does not consider the teaching of St. Maxim about the deification of human nature and will in Christ, or rather, he clearly disagrees with him, believing that the doctrine of deification, as it is understood in the patristic tradition, including St. Maxim, in fact, does not ensure the presence of two wills in Christ, which was proclaimed (but not substantiated) by the VI Ecumenical Council of 1822. Bulgakov proposed an alternative interpretation of the “new God-masculine action of Christ” and the doctrine of deification in general. Christology, which he developed in the same treatise of 1823, is referred to by Bulgakov himself as the so-called “kenotic theology” (he developed the basic ideas of this theological movement of the 19th and early 20th centuries in line with his sophiology) 1824. Within the framework of this model, the Divine Logos in the Incarnation empties Himself of Divine glory (energies), remaining God only in essence. The humanity of Christ was not completely deified from the moment of the Incarnation, but received divine glory step by step during the life of Jesus 1825. And it is in this context that Bulgakov formulates his version of “improved diopheliteism.” Briefly it can be formulated as follows. The Divine will, which the human in Christ follows and submits to, is not identical to the omnipotent will of God as Creator and Provider; it is the Divine will, but in a state of kenosis 1826. Elsewhere, Bulgakov, entering into an argument with St. Maximus, calls this will “gnomic”, understanding it not in the sense of hesitation and choice, but in the sense of a “discursive” and temporal development of the Divine will, specific to each moment of the life of Jesus 1827. It is precisely this “gnomic”, “kenotic” will of God that the human will submits and follows in Christ at every moment of time. As a result of this, what Bulgakov calls “a single God-man will, characteristic of a single God-man” is formed 1828. Moreover, the “discursive development” of the Divine will in Christ, as one can understand, is provided not “from above”, but from below: “the Divine will gives an answer to the movements and questions of the human will” 1829, and the human one accepts it in the image of the Gethsemane prayer: “Not My will, but Yours be done” 1830. In general, this model, although it has its own specific features, resembles the teachings of Nestorius. Bulgakov is similar to the Nestorians in his interpretation of the “ignorance” of Christ, although here he speaks not only about the ignorance of Christ according to the flesh, but also, in the spirit of his “cenotism,” about the self-limitation of God, revealing Himself and the fullness of Divine knowledge gradually during the life of Jesus 1831. Despite its unorthodox nature, or because of it, Bulgakov’s teaching became one of the most stimulating factors in the development of Russian theology in the twentieth century. In the context of the controversy surrounding his views, one should also consider what is written about the teachings of St. Maxima O. Georgy Florovsky. From 1926 until the beginning of the Second World War, he was a professor of patrolology at the Theological Institute, headed by Fr. Sergius. As a rule, Florovsky does not openly criticize Bulgakov in his writings, but, as he noted in a report at a conference on St. To Maxim in Belgrade (2012) Pavel Gavrilyuk, written by Florovsky about the legacy of St. Maxim should be understood precisely in the context of a dialogue with Bulgakov’s sophiology. This applies to the dedicated St. Maximus, the head of Florovsky’s famous course, Byzantine Fathers of the V–VIII centuries. (1933) 1832, as with many of his other works from the Parisian period. However, in relation to the chapter on St. Maxima in these lectures can speak less about polemics or dialogue, and more about the fact that Florovsky places emphasis differently than Bulgakov. So, speaking about the teaching of St. Maxim on logoi, Florovsky emphasizes the difference between God and creatures, unlike Bulgakov, who, based on the same teaching, within the framework of his sophiology, speaks of a certain ideal existence of creatures in God (which, however, can be understood in different ways) 1833. St. Maxim, according to Florovsky, made a clear distinction between the will of God for the world and the very existence of the world 1834. In general, as Gavrilyuk notes in his report, in the presentation of the teachings of St. Maxima Florovsky strongly depends on Epifanovich, although he does not directly refer to him, mentioning him only in the bibliography. Unlike Bulgakov, who, as we have seen, criticizes the teaching of St. Maxim on two wills in Christ, Florovsky, in lectures read several years before the appearance of the Lamb of God and published simultaneously with this treatise, gives, albeit a brief, but quite accurate presentation of the Diophelite teaching of St. Maxim, including the difference between gnomic and natural will, without revealing any contradiction in it, as, indeed, in the teaching of St. Maxima as a whole 1835. Despite all the differences, Bulgakov and Florovsky had something in common, in which they differed from Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky), who condemned Bulgakov's sophiology in a report of 1935 and the corresponding Decree of the Moscow Patriarchate of 1836. While Bulgakov and Florovsky believed that the Incarnation was not caused by the sin of Adam, but was in the eternal Council, that is, the plan of God, Metropolitan. Sergius (and Vladimir Lossky, his supporter and inspirer in Paris) held the opposite opinion. In lectures in 1933, Florovsky already expressed this opinion in the chapter dedicated to St. Maximus 1837, he then repeated it several times, in particular (with reference to Thal. 60: PG 90, 621A–B), in the famous article Cur Deus Homo? (1957) 1838. It is interesting to note that already in M. D. Muretov’s introduction to the publication of the Lives of St. Maxim (1915) teaching of St. The Maxim on the Incarnation is interpreted in this way 1839. Bulgakov does not refer to St. Petersburg in this matter. Maxim, nor Muretov. His doctrine of the unconditioned Incarnation was based on sophiology. Stragorodsky and Lossky criticized him for this, among other things, in 1840. For Florovsky, the reason for the Incarnation was not that “ideal humanity” in some way preexists in God and must certainly be saved, but such a reason was the Divine Council for the salvation of our nature in Christ, and in Him - those who will become partakers of His Flesh. Speaking about this, he referred to the Christology and ecclesiology of St. Maxim, which does not imply the necessary salvation of all people 1841, as it followed from Bulgakov’s sophiology 1842. As for Lossky, in the Essay on the Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, objecting to Florovsky, he notes that St. Maxima deification was the task assigned to Adam, and precisely because it was not accomplished in him, and the Fall occurred, the Incarnation of Christ and the Cross were necessary (which God, of course, foretold in eternity) 1843. In general, in his later writings, Lossky takes a lot from St. Maxim, who was for him one of the most important authorities among the holy fathers in the field of dogmatics and mystical theology. The latter, especially apophatic theology and vision of God, was much more important for him than for Florovsky. And here St. Maximus, along with the Areopagite, is one of the main holy fathers, based on whose teaching Lossky carries out his “neopatristic synthesis.” Despite certain differences between them, Florovsky and Lossky treat Epifanovich with reverence, reproducing and developing many ideas from the published part of his dissertation. Since Lossky belonged to the Moscow Patriarchate, his most important works, written in the original French, were translated and published in the USSR, most fully in Theological Works for 1972. Thus, in the narrow circle of readers of this publication, some information about the teachings of St. Maxim through the works of Lossky were accessible even behind the “Iron Curtain” of 1844. St. Maxim in modern Russia The “first sign” of the resumption of the study of the heritage of St. Maxim in Russia was an article by the late V. M. Zhivov (1945–2013) “The “Mystagogy” of Maximus the Confessor and the development of the Byzantine theory of the image” 1845 (1982, English translation 1986) 1846. Zhivov openly discussed theological issues in his article, and this was unexpected for a secular scientific publication (usually prohibited). His article was written with a good knowledge of the latest Western research literature and attracted the attention of those in the Soviet Union who were looking for alternatives to dominant ways of thinking. After the fall of the communist system in Russia, great interest arose in patristic theology and, in particular, in the legacy of St. Maxima. The decisive contribution to what Rev. Maxim became one of the most popular holy fathers in modern Russia, contributed by A.I. Sidorov. His translations of the works of St. Maximus and studies about him and theology of the 6th–7th centuries. began to appear in 1986. 1847 Sidorov still continues to do a lot to popularize the work of St. Maxim and his studies in Russia. Two volumes of his translations of the works of St. Maxim were published in 1993, and since then the texts included in them have been republished several times. In our opinion, the most important work of A.I. Sidorov is the commented translation of Questions and Answers to Thalassia, almost completed by now 1848. In the approach to the heritage of St. Maxima Sidorov places greater emphasis on the application of his thoughts to life than on his academic (philosophical or historical) study. Regarding the biography of St. Maxima Sidorov (currently a professor at the Moscow Academy of Sciences) moved from accepting a number of important information from the Syrian Psogos (including the Palestinian version of the origin of St. Maximus) in 1993 to almost completely denying the reliability of his information, including the message about the Council of Cyprus, in his later works of 1849, i.e., he returned to the traditional church version of the life of St. Maxima. Among other publications of the legacy of St. Maxim, it is necessary to say something about the book dedicated to the Dispute with Pyrrhus and the Christological disputes of the 7th century, which became an important milestone in Russian studies of his heritage. 1850 The book contains the Greek text of the Disputation, prepared by A. Yu. Vinogradov, its Russian translation, made by D. E. Afinogenov, equipped with a preface by D. A. Pospelov and extensive comments compiled on the basis of the book by G. Bowserhart 1851, translation of the Syrian Psogos by A. V. Muravyov, brief, “Constantinople” Life St. Maxim (Greek and Russian text), taken from Epifanovich’s 1917 edition, as well as an extensive article by Abbot Dionysius (Shlenov) “The Prayer of Gethsemane in the Light of the Christology of St. Maximus the Confessor" 1852. In this article, to which we have repeatedly referred in the preface and comments of this edition, the teaching of St. The maxim on the Gethsemane prayer is discussed, among other things, in the context of disputes between supporters of the “physical” and “moral” theories of the Atonement (Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) also belongs to the latter). At the same time, referring to Doucet and Larcher, Shlenov claims that St. Maxim was generally a supporter of the “physical theory”. Here, it seems to us, it is necessary to make one clarification 1853. Interpretation of St. The maxim of the Gethsemane prayer includes both a “physical” and a “moral” aspect. In fact, he speaks not only about the deification of our nature and will in Christ, which took place in the Incarnation and revealed in Gethsemane, but also about the relative, compassionate assimilation of our reproachful passions (in particular, resistance). Shlenow mentions this, but it is important to note that this compassionate assimilation corresponds to some extent with the “compassion” that proponents of the “moral” theory of the Atonement emphasize, erroneously reducing everything to it and understanding it in their own way. In 2006, the first published Russian translation of Ambigua and the adjoining First and Second Letters to Thomas was published, carried out by Archimandrite. Nectarius (Yashunsky) (now bishop of the Greek Old Calendar Church in St. Petersburg) 1854. Individual Difficulties from the Ambigua corpus were also translated by a number of domestic patrolologists and specialists in late antique philosophy (D. E. Afinogenov, P. K. Dobrotsvetov, S. V. Mesyats, V. V. Petrov, I. V. Prolygina, A. R. Fokin, I. V. Fokina, etc.) 1855. In 2006–2008 In Russia, many interesting studies have appeared devoted to the legacy of St. Maxima. Most of the book by V. M. Lurie History of Byzantine Philosophy. Formative period (2006, Serbian translation 2010) is dedicated to the legacy of St. Maxim, including his polemic with monoenergism and monothelitism of 1856, and we have more than once entered into dialogue with this study in this edition of Opusc. Lurie's attempt to analyze the teaching of St. Maxim in the context of theological and philosophical movements of the 5th–7th centuries certainly deserves attention. It is in this that the author sees his main task, in contrast to the one he solved in his famous study about St. Maxime J.-C. Larche 1857, which in theological terms is largely followed by Lurie, while trying to explore the thought of St. Maxim in the historical, philosophical and theological context. It must be remembered, however, that, as in any extensive course on the history of ideas or the history of philosophy, which claims to reveal internal connections, Lurie’s course expressed many hypotheses and propositions that require careful verification, detailed development and clarification 1858. Regarding the biography of St. Maxima Lurie is an unconditional supporter of his Palestinian origins and emphasizes the influence of the "marginal" Palestinian tradition in shaping his teachings of 1859. As for the history of monothelitism, then, according to Lurie, who relies, in particular, on the Monothelitian Syrian florilegium published by S. Brok, Orthodox monoenergism and monothelitism were mainstream in Chalcedonian theology after the V Ecumenical Council, so St. Maxim had to argue with this most common way of expressing Orthodox teaching in the Church. Lurie believes that St. Maxim, during his polemics with the Monothelites, revised the entire philosophical conceptual scheme of Orthodox Christology in comparison with the legacy of the V Ecumenical Council and with such Chalcedonian theologians as Eutyches of Constantinople, still not free from the influence of Origenism and in a number of points close to John Philoponus (his teaching is also given a lot of space). Lurie believes that the change in the way of expressing Orthodox teaching, finally consolidated at the VI Ecumenical Council, was the reason that the fathers of this council destroyed the acts of the previous one. These and some other hypotheses of Lurie, in particular, about the repulsion of prp. Maxims in polemics with Origenism from elements of the teachings of Leontius of Byzantium require further research. In 2007, V. V. Petrov published the monograph Maxim the Confessor: ontology and method in Byzantine philosophy of the 7th century 1860, and in 2008 he defended his doctoral dissertation in philosophy on the topic: “The teaching of Maxim the Confessor in the context of the philosophical and theological tradition of late antiquity and the early Middle Ages” 1861. In the book and dissertation, Petrov analyzes the basic concepts of ontology, epistemology and anthropology. Maxima. He also makes a detailed analysis of Ambiguum 41 and in this context explores “diairesis” as a dialectical method in metaphysics in St. Maxim in the context of the use of this method in late antique philosophy. Part of his dissertation is devoted to an analysis of the nature of the assimilation of Eriugena's thought by St. Maxima. Speaking about the controversial issues of maximism that Petrov touches on in his works, it should be noted that he refrains from taking any side in Larcher’s polemic with Battrellos regarding human nature perceived in the Incarnation (whether it is general, as Larcher believes, or individualized, as Battrellos believes) 1862, and regarding Larcher’s polemic with Catholic scientists (Rioux, Garrigues and Letel) on the issue about the “physical” (transforming nature, as Larche believes) or “moral” (acting only at the level of the “tropos of hypostatic existence,” as Catholic scientists believe) influence of grace, Petrov says that it is useless to conduct “reasoning in philosophical terms when it comes to the supernatural” 1863, i.e. he sees no philosophical basis for this dispute. As we can see, Larcher’s polemic with a number of Catholic scholars, and now with Zizioulas, who has taken their side, has a certain Christological perspective, and it was started not by Larcher, but by Doucet in relation to the interpretation of the Gethsemane prayer, so it is hardly correct to consider it groundless. Another thing is that the questions posed by Petrov regarding the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of philosophical understanding of the “new dispensation” of 1864 remain unanswered. It should be added here that, in addition to the book mentioned above, V.V. Petrov later published several articles devoted to a number of important philosophical aspects of the legacy of St. Maximus, his doctrine of logoi and mystagogy 1865. In 2007, the St. Petersburg University Publishing House published the first volume in the series “Byzantine Philosophy,” Maxim the Confessor: polemics with Origenism and monoenergism 1866, which opens with a lengthy article by G. I. Benevich and A. M. Shufrin “The Case of Maxim.” It examines the history of the polemics of St. Maxim with monoenergism and monothelitism, taking into account his own views, previously developed in polemics with Origenism. In the preface and commentary to this edition of Opusc. we have repeatedly turned to this article, using its main ideas and clarifying, and partly revising, some of its provisions (in particular, the interpretation of the Gethsemane prayer and relative assimilation). The article “The Case of Maxim” covers a larger historical period than the time of writing Opusc.; except for polemics with the monothelitism of St. Maxim, it also discusses such “inconvenient” issues as the “suppression” by the fathers of the VI Ecumenical Council in his memory and the nature of the “rehabilitation” of St. Maximus in the later Orthodox tradition. The appendix to this work analyzes the unique ecclesiological situation that arose as a result of the betrayal of Orthodoxy by Pope Vitalian in 1867. The second section of the first part of this volume contains the Russian translation of the Documents from Exile 1868. It is based on the 1915 translations of M. D. Muretov, but edited taking into account the critical edition of Allen and Neil. The second part of the volume contains a new Russian interpretative translation of Ambiguum 7 with a parallel Greek text and is accompanied by the scholia of A. M. Shufrin (he also owns the translation) 1869. The scholia analyze the structure and logic of the St.’s argumentation. Maxim in polemics with Origenism, the origins of the philosophical and dogmatic concepts he used, the features of his language and style. Shufrin's comments are significantly more detailed than all previous ones. The last section of the second part of the volume contains a Russian translation of two still relevant studies by P. Sherwood on the polemics of St. Maxima with Origenism 1870. Also in 2007, in the series “Byzantine Philosophy” (vol. 2), a Russian translation of the complete corpus of Letters of St. Maxim, carried out by G. N. Nachinkin (several letters preserved in Latin were translated by Z. A. Barzakh) 1871, the translation is preceded by a preface by J.-C. Larcher. In the appendix we consider, based on the material of a number of letters, the question of the relationship of St. Maximus on the primacy of Rome and the forced conversion of the Jews (analysis of the end of Letter VIII). In 2009, in the second volume of the Anthology of Eastern Christian Theological Thought. Orthodoxy and heterodoxy in the section “St. Maximus the Confessor and theology of the 7th century,” consisting of three parts, examines the polemics of St. Maxima with Tritheism, Origenism and Monoenergism 1872. Translations of two theological and polemical works by St. Rev. were also published there for the first time. Maxim (opusc. 1 and 20), executed by A. M. Shufrin 1873. In 2010, an annotated Russian translation of “Questions and Perplexities” 1874 was published, containing the most detailed analysis of this work to date, also touching on the general problems of the exegesis of St. Maxima, its place in relation to the Alexandrian and Antiochian school and to the Origenistic tradition. Some of the works of Russian scientists dedicated to St. Maxim, published in recent years in English. In particular, this is a monograph by Archimandrite. Kirill (Govorun) Will, action and freedom: Christological polemics of the seventh century 1875, our articles on various aspects of the thought of St. Maxim 1876 and the works of A.V. Nesteruk, in which the teaching of St. The creation maxim is compared with a number of theories of modern cosmophysics 1877. In 2012, P. V. Kuzenkov published a translation and study of the Paschal treatise Computus ecclesiasticus (CPG 7706), the author of which is considered to be St. Maxim 1878. And among the most recent publications dedicated to St. Maxim, our monograph A Brief History of “Providence” from Plato to Maximus the Confessor 1879. The book is a historical and philosophical study dedicated to the history of one of the key concepts of philosophical schools of late antiquity - the providence of God. Most of it is devoted to the teaching about the providence of God by St. Maximus, who owns one of the last major developments of this topic among Christian philosophers of late antiquity. Finally, with the publication of this edition of the commented translation of theological and polemical works, almost all the main works of St. Maximus the Confessor will become available to the Russian reader in 1880, which can be considered a definite milestone in the thousand-year history of the dissemination and development of his heritage in Russia and in Russia. Comparative table of translation options for the main terms in the description of the act of will in St. Maxim and a number of other authors 1881 Chronological table of the history of Monothelite disputes 1906 Bibliography 1907 and list of abbreviations I. WORKS OF THE PREP. MAXIMA: SOURCES AND TRANSLATIONS amb. (Difficulties, in particular: Difficulties on John and Difficulties on Thomas) – Ambigua = PG 91, 1061–1417, ed. Oehler. cap. theol. (Chapters on Theology and Economy) – Capita theologica et oecumenica (I-II) = PG 90, 1084–1173, ed. Combefis. cap. XV (Various theological and economic chapters I, 1–15) – Diversa capita 1–15 [Cap. XV] = PG 90, 1177–1185, ed. Combefis. carit. (Chapters on Love) – Capita de caritate, ed. A. Ceresa-Gastaldo [Massimo confessore. Capitoli sulla carità, Rome, 1963]; Capita de caritate = PG 90, 960–1080. disp. Pyrr. (Dispute with Pyrrhus or Dispute) – Dispute de Maxime le Confesseur avec Pyrrhus, introd., texte crit., trad. et notes par M. Doucet, Montréal, 1972 (Thèse ronéotypée). ep. (Letters) – Epistulae XLV = PG 91, 364–649, ed. Combefis. exp. Ps. 59 (Commentary on Psalm 59) – Expositio in Psalmum LIX, ed. P. van Deun [Maximi confessoris opuscula exegetica duo, Turnhout, 1991 (Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca 23)]. lib. ascet. (Ascetic chapters) – Liber asceticus, ed. R. Cantarella [S. Massimo Confessore, La mistagogia ed altri scritti, Florence, 1931]; Liber asceticus = PG 90, 912–956, ed. Combefis. myst. (Mystagogy) – Mystagogia, ed. R. Cantarella [S. Massimo Confessore, La mistagogia ed altri scritti, Florence, 1931]; Mystagogia = PG 91, 657–718, ed. Combefis. opusc. (Theological-Polemical Works) – Opuscula Theologica et Polemica = PG 91, 9–285, ed. Combefis. or. dom. (Interpretation of the Lord's Prayer) – Expositio orationis dominicae, ed. P. van Deun [Maximi confessoris opuscula exegetica duo], Turnhout, 1991, p. 27–73 (Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca 23)]; Maximus Confessor, Verklaring van het Onze Vader [Uit het Grieks vertaald, ingeleid en toegelicht door P. Van Deun, Bonheiden, 1993 (Kerkvaderteksten met commentaar 10)]; Expositio orationis dominicae = PG 90, 872–909C, ed. Combefis. qu. dub. (Questions and Perplexities) – Quaestiones et dubia, ed. J. H. Declerck [Maximi confessoris quaestiones et dubia, Turnhout, 1982 (Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca 10)]. Thal. (Questions to Thalassius) – Quaestiones ad Thalassium, ed. C. Laga, C. Steel [Maximi confessoris quaestiones ad Thalassium, 2 vols., Turnhout, vol. 1, 1980; vol. 2, 1990 (Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca 7, 22)]; Quaestiones ad Thalassium = PG 90, 244–785, ed. Combefis. comm. (Recollection or Brief History of what was done against Blessed Martin, Pope of Rome, and Saint Maximus and those who were with him) - Theodore Spudaeus, Hypomnesticum (Greek), ed. P. Allen and B. Neil [Scripta Saeculi VII Vitam Maximi Confessoris Illustrantia, Turnhout, 1999, p. 197–227 (Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca 39)]; repr. Maximus Confessor 2002, p. 148–170. disp. Biz. (Dispute in Bizya) – Dispute at Bizya, ed. P. Allen and B. Neil [Scripta Saeculi VII Vitam Maximi Confessoris Illustrantia, Turnhout, 1999, p. 73–151 (Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca 39)]; repr. Maximus Confessor 2002, p. 76–119; Disputatio Bizyae = PG 90, 136–172, ed. Combefis. ep. An. (Letter from Anastasius Apocrisiarius to Theodosius of Gangra) – Anastasius Apocrisiarius, Letter to Theodosius of Gangra, ed. P. Allen and B. Neil [Scripta Saeculi VII Vitam Maximi Confessoris Illustrantia, Turnhout, 1999, p. 173–189 (Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca 39)]; repr. Maximus Confessor 2002, p. 132–146. rel. mot. (Exposition of the debate that took place in a secret room of the palace between Mr. Abba Maximus and those who were with him on the one hand and the superiors on the other) - Relatio motionis, ed. and trans. P. Allen and B. Neil [Maximus the Confessor and his Companions: Documents from Exile, Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 48–74 (Oxford Early Christian Texts)]; Relatio motionis = PG 90, 109–129, ed. Combefis. Maximus the Confessor 1955 – St. Maximus the Confessor, The Ascetic Life, The Four Centuries on Charity, ed. P. Sherwood, Westminster, Maryland, 1955 (Ancient Christian Writers 21). Maximus Confessor 2000 – Maximus Confessor, Ambigua ad Thomam en Epistula secunda ad eundem, kritische editie met Nederlandse vertaling en aantekeningen, ed. B. Janssens, P. Van Deun, Leuven, 2000. Maximi Confessoris, Amb. ad Thom. 2002 – Maximi Confessoris Ambigua ad Thomam una cum Epistula secunda ad eudem, ed. B. Janssens, Turnhout, 2002 (Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca 48). Louth 1996 – Maximus the Confessor, trans. with a preface and introduction. by A. Louth, London–New York, 1996 (The Early Church Fathers). Maxime Confesseur 1998 – Maxime le Confesseur, Opuscules théologiques et polémiques, introd. J.-C. Larchet, trad. E. Ponsoye, Paris, 1998. Maximus Confessor 2002 – Maximus the Confessor and his Companions: Documents from Exile, ed. with an introd., trans. and notes by P. Allen and B. Neil, Oxford University Press, 2002 (Oxford Early Christian Texts). Massimo Confessore 2007 – Massimo Confessore, Opuscoli teologici e polemici, trad., B. De Angelis, Bologna, 2007. 1995 – 1995 Θεολογικὰ καὶ πολεμικά Εἰσαγωγή, κείμενο – μετάφραση – σχόλια ἀπὸ τὸνἸ. Σακαλή (I. Sakalis) “Τὸ Βυζάντιον” Πατερικαὶ ἐκδόσεις “Γρηγόριος ὁ Παλαμᾶς”, 1995 (Φιλοκαλία τῶν νηπτικῶν καὶ ἀσκητικῶν No. 15A). Maximus the Confessor 1993 – The Works of St. Maximus the Confessor, trans. S. L. Epifanovich, A. I. Sidorov, entry. article and note A. I. Sidorova, Prince. I–II, Moscow, 1993 (Patristic heritage). Maximus the Confessor 2004 – Dispute with Pyrrhus: St. Maximus the Confessor and the Christological disputes of the 7th century, rev. ed. D. A. Pospelov, Moscow, 2004 (Smaragdos Philocalias). Maximus the Confessor 2006 – St. Maximus the Confessor, On various perplexities among Saints Gregory and Dionysius (Ambigwa), trans. and approx. arch. Nektaria (Yashunsky), Moscow, 2006 (Bibliotheca Ignatiana). Maximus the Confessor 2007a – Maximus the Confessor: polemics with Origenism and monoenergism, comp. G. I. Benevich, D. S. Biryukov, A. M. Shufrin, St. Petersburg, 2007 (Smaragdos Philocalias, Byzantine philosophy 1). Maxim the Confessor 2007b – Maxim the Confessor, Letters, trans. E. Nachinkina, comp. G. I. Benevich, preface. J.-C. Larcher, St. Petersburg, 2007 (Smaragdos Philocalias, Byzantine Philosophy 2). Maxim the Confessor 2010 – St. Maximus the Confessor, Questions and Perplexities, trans. D. A. Chernoglazova, preface. and comment. G. I. Benevich, Holy Mount Athos–Moscow, 2010 (Smaragdos Philocalias, Byzantine Philosophy 6). Maxim the Confessor 2012 – St. Maxim the Confessor and his associates: documents from exile, comp. and preface G.I. Benevich, resp. ed. D. A. Pospelov, Holy Mount Athos–Moscow, 2012 (Smaragdos Philocalias, Byzantine Philosophy 10). II. ACTS OF THE COUNTERS AND WORKS OF OTHER ANCIENT AUTHORS: SOURCES AND TRANSLATIONS 1908, MATERIALS OF CONFERENCES ON THE PRP. MAXIM Mansi – Mansi J. D., Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, Tomes 10–11, Florence, 1764. Maximus Confessor. Actes du Symposium – Maximus Confessor, Actes du Symposium sur Maxime le Confesseur, Friborg, 2–5 September 1980, eds. par F. Heinzer et C. Schönborn, Friborg en Suisse, 1982. Maximus Confessor. Proceedings of the Symposium 2013 – Knowing the Purpose of Creation through the Resurrection, Proceedings of the Symposium on St Maximus the Confessor, Belgrade, October 18–21, 2012 (ed. Bishop Maxim (Vasiljevic’). Alhambra, Calif., 2013 (Contemporary Christian Thought Series, number 30). ACO 1.2 – Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, ed. E. Schwartz, ACO Ser. 1.2, 6 vols., Berlin, 1983–1987. ACO 1.3 – Acts of the Council of 536, ed. E. Schwartz, Collectio Sabaitica contra Acephalos et Origeniastas destinata, Insunt Acta Synodorum Constantinopolitanae et Hierosolymitanae a. 536, ACO Ser. 1.3, Berlin, 1940. ACO 1.4 – Acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, ed. J. Straub, Concilium Universale Constantinopolitanum sub Iustiniano habitum, ACO Ser. 1.4.1, Berlin, 1971. ACO 2 – Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, ed. R. Riedinger, Concilium universale constantinopolitanum tertium, ACO Ser. 2.2, 2 vols., Berlin, 1990–1992. Anastasius Sinaite 2003 – Venerable Anastasius Sinaite, Selected Creations, intro. article, trans. and comment. A. I. Sidorova, Moscow, 2003. Anthology 2009 – Anthology of Eastern Christian theological thought. Orthodoxy and heterodoxy, in 2 volumes, under scientific. ed. G. I. Benevich and D. S. Biryukov; comp. G. I. Benevich, Moscow–St. Petersburg, 2009 (Smaragdos Philocalias, Byzantine philosophy 4, 5). Aristotle 1975–1983 – Aristotle, Works, in 4 volumes, Moscow, 1975–1983. Athanasius of Alexandria 1994 – St. Athanasius the Great, Works, in 4 vols., Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, 1902; repr.: Spaso-Preobrazhensky Valaam Monastery, 1994. Gregory the Theologian 1889 – Works like the saints of our father Gregory the Theologian, Archbishop of Constantinople, Moscow, 1889. Gregory the Theologian 1994 – St. Gregory the Theologian, Collection of Creations, in 2 volumes, Moscow, 1994. Gregory of Nyssa 1995 – Saint Gregory of Nyssa, On the structure of man, trans., afterword. and approx. V. M. Lurie, ed. A. L. Verlinsky, St. Petersburg, 1995. Gregory of Nyssa 2006 – St. Gregory of Nyssa, Dogmatic works, in 2 vols., Krasnodar, 2006. Diogenes Laertius 1986 – Diogenes Laertius, On the life, teachings and sayings of famous philosophers, trans. from Greek M. L. Gasparova, Moscow, 1986. Dionysius the Areopagite, Maximus the Confessor 2002 – Dionysius the Areopagite; Maximus the Confessor, Works; Interpretations, trans. edited by G. M. Prokhorova, St. Petersburg, 2002. Acts 1996 – Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, in 4 volumes, St. Petersburg, 1996. John of Damascus 2002 – Works of St. John of Damascus. Source of Knowledge, trans. from Greek and comment. D. E. Afinogenova, A. A. Bronzova, A. I. Sagardy, N. I. Sagardy, Moscow, 2002. John Chrysostom - Works of our holy father John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, in 12 volumes, St. Petersburg, 1895–1906. Leonty of Byzantium 2006 – Leonty of Byzantium: Collection of studies, ed. A. R. Fokina, Moscow, 2006. Nemesius of Emesa 1996 – Nemesius of Emesa, On the Nature of Man, trans. from Greek F. S. Vladimirsky, Moscow, 1996. Polemical works 2011 – Polemical works; Leontius of Jerusalem, Theodore Abu-Kurra, Leontius of Byzantium, comp., preface, scientific. ed. G. I. Benevich, trans. G. I. Benevich, D. A. Chernoglazov and F. G. Benevich, Krasnodar, 2011 (Byzantine philosophy 7). Fakrasis 2009 – George Fakrasis, Dispute of St. Gregory Palamas with Grigora the philosopher. Philosophical and Theological Aspects of the Palamite Controversies, trans. from Greek D. A. Pospelova; resp. ed. D. S. Biryukov, Holy Mount Athos–Moscow, 2009 (Smaragdos Philocalias). Theodore Raifsky 2003 – Presbyter Theodore Raifsky. Pre-preparation, in Anastasius Sinait 2003, p. 369–458. Iamblichus 2004 – Iamblichus, On the Egyptian Mysteries, Moscow, 2004. Apollinare e altri 1978 – Apollinare, Epiphanio, Gregorio di Nazianio, Gregorio di Nissa e altri, Milan, 1978. John Philoponus 2001 – Lang U. M., John Philoponus and the Controversies over Chalcedon in the Sixth Century: A Study and Translation of the Arbiter, Leuven, 2001. Lib. Pont. – Le Liber Pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, 2 vols., Paris, 1886–1892. Lietzmann 1905 – Lietzmann H., Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule, Tübingen, 1905. Proclus 2003 – Proclus, Trois études sur la providence. Tome II: 2e étude: Providence, fatalité, liberté, Texte établi et trad. par D. Isaac, 2nd edition, 2003. Proclus 2007 – Proclus, On Providence, ed. and trans. by C. Steel, London, 2007. Rorem–Lamoreaux 1998 – Rorem P. and Lamoreaux J.C., John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus, Oxford, 1998. Synodicon Vetus – The Synodicon Vetus, eds. J. Duffy and J. Parker, Washington D.C., 1979 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 15). Van Roey, Allen 1994 – Van Roey A., Allen P., Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century, Louvain, 1994 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 56). Benevich 2009a - Benevich G.I., “Policy with the Apollinarians of the Cappadocian Fathers and St. Epiphany of Cyprus: Christological and anthropological aspects", in Anthology 2009, vol. 1, p. 369–378. Benevich 2009b – Benevich G.I., “St. Cyril of Alexandria", in Anthology 2009, vol. 1, p. 551–561. Benevich 2010 – Benevich G.I., “Christological polemics of St. Maximus the Confessor and the emergence of Islam on the stage of world history,” State, Religion, Church in Russia and Abroad, 3, 2010, p. 144–150; more complete version (http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/1371847.html). Benevich 2010a – Benevich G.I., “John Philoponus. Teaching", in Orthodox Encyclopedia, vol. 24, Moscow, 2010, p. 635–647. Benevich 2011 – Benevich G.I., “On the same plot with ἐφ’ ἡμῖν and προαίρεσις in late antiquity”, Hyperboreus, 16–17, 2011, p. 362–366. Benevich 2013 – Benevich G.I., A Brief History of “Providence” from Plato to Maximus the Confessor, St. Petersburg, 2013 (Smaragdos Philocalias, Byzantine Philosophy 11). Benevich 2014 – Benevich G.I. “St. Cyril of Alexandria and his work “The Book of Treasures”, St. Cyril of Alexandria. Book of Treasures about the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity. Translation from Greek and comments by R.V. Yashunsky. Introductory article by G. I. Benevich. St. Petersburg, 2014, p. 5–20. Beneshevich 1905 – Beneshevich V.N., Canonical collection of XIV titles from the second quarter of the 7th century to 883. On the ancient history of the sources of law of the Greek-Eastern Church, St. Petersburg, 1905. Biryukov 2009 – Biryukov D.S., “The theme of the penetration of fire into iron and its use in the context of describing the deification of man in the patristic tradition,” Magic Mountain, 15, 2009, p. 58–67. Biryukov 2009b – Biryukov D.S., “The theme of describing a person through the “convergence of features” in St. Basil the Great and its church-historical and historical-philosophical context", Theological Works, 42, Moscow, 2009, p. 87–109. Borodin 2001 – Borodin O.R., Ravenna Exarchate. Byzantines in Italy, St. Petersburg, 2001. Garrigues 1985 – Garrigues J.-M., “Imagination of Roman Supremacy in Maximus the Confessor”, Symbol, 14, 1985, p. 7–31. Glushchenko 2009 – Glushchenko A., diac., “28 comments on the article about ἐνυπόστατον”, Problems of Theology, rep. ed. D. I. Makarov, 5, Ekaterinburg, 2009, p. 4–26. Govorun 2006 – Govorun S., diac., “On the history of the term ἐνυπόστατον “hypostatic”, in Leontius of Byzantium 2006, p. 655–665. Davydenkov 2007 – Davydenkov O., prot., Christological system of Sevirus of Antioch: Dogmatic analysis, Moscow, 2007. Dure 2006 – Dure V., “Peter’s Championship”. The role of the Bishop of Rome according to the canon law of the Ecumenical Councils of the first millennium,” in Peter’s ministry. Dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox, ed. Walter Kasper, Moscow, 2006, p. 182–211. Epifanovich 1917 – Epifanovich S. L., Materials for the study of the life and works of St. Maxim the Confessor, Kiev, 1917. Kulakovsky 2004 – Kulakovsky Yu. A., History of Byzantium, in 3 volumes, St. Petersburg, 2003–2004. Larcher 2004 – Larcher J.-C., St. Maximus the Confessor - mediator between East and West, Moscow, 2004. Larcher 2006 – Larcher J.-C., “The question of the primacy of Rome in the works of St. Maximus the Confessor", in Petrovo service. Dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox, ed. Walter Kasper, Moscow, 2006, p. 212–235. Lurie 2002 – Lurie V.M., “The Time of the Poets, or Praeparationes Areopagiticae: towards an understanding of the origin of the poetic paraphrase of the Gospel of John”, in Nonnus of Khmim. The Acts of Jesus, Rev. ed. D. A. Pospelov, Moscow, 2002, p. 295–337 (Scrinium Philocalicum). Lurie 2006 – Lurie V.M., History of Byzantine philosophy. Formative period, St. Petersburg, 2006. Lukhovitsky 2010 – Lukhovitsky L.V., “John V (III) the Merciful,” in Orthodox Encyclopedia, vol. 23, Moscow, 2010, p. 501–505. Orlov 2010 – Orlov I. A., Works of St. Maximus the Confessor on the disclosure of the dogmatic doctrine of two wills in Christ. Historical and dogmatic research, Krasnodar, 2010. Petrov 2007 – Petrov V.V., Maxim the Confessor: ontology and method in Byzantine philosophy of the 7th century, Moscow, 2007. Petrov 2008 – Petrov V.V., The Teachings of Maximus the Confessor in the context of the philosophical and theological tradition of late antiquity and the early Middle Ages, Dr. diss. , Institute of Philosophy RAS, Moscow, 2008. Popov 1968 – Popov I.V., “St. Hilary, Bishop of Pictavia,” Theological Transactions, 4, 1968, p. 164–165. Seleznev 2005 – Seleznev N. N., Nestorius and the Church of the East. Moscow, 2005. Sidorov 1989 – Sidorov A.I., “The problem of a single action in Anastasius I of Antioch: On the issue of creating the preconditions for Monothelite disputes”, Byzantinoslavica, 50:1, 1989, p. 24–32. Sidorov 1989a - Sidorov A.I., “Logic and dialectics of John Philoponus: on the nature of the transitional era in the development of philosophical thought from antiquity to the Middle Ages,” Historical and Philosophical Yearbook, Moscow, 1989, p. 179–194. Sidorov 1991 – Sidorov A.I., “Theodore of Raifsky and Theodore of Faransky (About one of the authors of the “Svyatoslav Collection” of 1073,” in The Most Ancient States on the Territory of the USSR. Research materials 1990, Moscow, 1991, pp. 135–167. Sidorov 2003 – Sidorov A.I., “Saint Ephraim, Patriarch of Antioch. His life, literary activity and his defense of the Council of Chalcedon", in Anastasius Sinait 2003, p. 321–368. Sidorov 2004 – Sidorov A.I., “Reverend Maximus the Confessor. Epoch, life, creativity", in Selected works of St. Maximus the Confessor, Moscow, 2004, p. 3–108. Sidorov 2006 – Sidorov A.I., “The question of the limits of the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ and its solution in the context of patristic tradition,” Theological Bulletin, 5–6, 2005–2006, p. 255–258. Fidas 2006 – Fidas V., “The primacy of the Pope and the pentarchy of patriarchs in the Orthodox tradition,” in Petrovo ministry. Dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox, ed. Walter Kasper, Moscow, 2006, p. 79–97. Florovsky 1992 – Florovsky G.V., prot., Eastern Fathers of the V–VIII centuries, Moscow, 1992. Christian doctrine. Dogmatic texts of the magisterium of the Church of the 3rd–20th centuries. , trans. N. Sokolova, Y. Kurkina, St. Petersburg, 2002. Shabanov 2012 – Shabanov D. A., ““Oikonomia” in the treatise of Eulogius of Alexandria (581–608)”, Bulletin of Oryol State University. Series: New Humanities, 3, 2012, p. 405–410. Shlenov 2004 – Shlenov D., hierome, “Gethsemane prayer in the light of the Christology of St. Maximus the Confessor", in Maximus the Confessor 2004, p. 339–378. Albert & Schönborn 1978 – Albert M., Schönborn C., Lettre de Sophrone de Jérusalem à Arcadius de Chypre: version syriaque, inédite du texte grec perdu, introd. et trad. française par M. Albert, avec la collaboration de C. Schönborn, Turnhout, 1978 (Patrologia Orientalis 179 (39:2)). Allen 2009 – Allen P., Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-Century Heresy: The Synodical Letter and Other Documents, Oxford University Press, 2009 (Oxford Early Christian Texts). Andia 2000 – Andia Y. de, “Le monastère de Saint-Sabas à Rome: Relations théologiques entre l’Orient et l’Occident aux VIIe et VIIIe siècles”, Proche-Orient chrétien , 50:3–4, 2000, p. 279–296. Bathrellos 2004 – Bathrellos D., The Byzantine Christ: Person, Nature, and Will in the Christology of St. Maximus the Confessor, Oxford University Press, 2004 (Oxford Early Christian Studies). Bathrellos 2013 – Bathrellos D., “Saint Maximus the Conffessor’s Contribution(s) to the Notion of Freedom,” Maximus Confessor. Proceedings of the Symposium 2013, p. 143–157. Bausenhart 1992 – Bausenhart G., In allem uns gleich außer der Sünde. Studien zum Beitrag Maximos’ des Bekenners zur altkirchlichen Christologie. Mit einer kommentierten Übersetzung der “Disputatio cum Pyrrho”, Mainz, 1992. Benevich 2011 – Benevich G., “Christological polemics of Maximus the Confessor and the emergence of Islam onto the world stage,” Theological Studies, 72, 2011, p. 335–344. Blowers 2012 – Blowers P., “Maximus the Confessor and John of Damascus on Gnomic Will (γνώμη) in Christ: Clarity and Ambiguity,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 64:1–2, 2012, p. 44–50. Booth 2013 – Booth P., Crisis of Empire Doctrine and Dissent at the End of Late Antiquity, University of California Press, 2013 (coming) 1909. Boudignon 2004 – Boudignon Ch., “Maxime le Confesseur était-il Constantinopolitain?”, Philomathestatos, Etudes patristiques et byzantines offertes à Jacques Noret à l’occasion de ses soixante-cinq ans, éd. B. Jannsens, B. Roosen & P. ​​Van Deun, Paris–Louvain, 2004, p. 1–43 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 137). Boudignon 2007 – Boudignon Ch., “Le pouvoir de l’anathème: ou Maxime le Confesseur et les moines palestiniens du VIIe siècle”, Foundations of Power and Conflicts of Authority in Late-Antique Monasticism, Proceeding of the International Seminar, Turin, December 2–4, 2004, ed. A. Camplani, G. Filoramo, Louvain–Paris–Dudley, 2007, p. 245–274 (Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta 157). Bradshaw 2013 – Bradshaw D., “St. Maximus the Confessor on the Will", Maximus Confessor. Proceedings of the Symposium 2013, p. 143–157. Brock 1973 – Brock S., “An Early Syriac Life of Maximus the Confessor”, Analecta Bollandiana, 91, 1973, p. 299–334. Ceresa-Gastaldo 1985 – Ceresa-Gastaldo A., Massimo il Confessore, Meditazioni sull’agonia di Gesù, trad., intr. e note a cura di A. Ceresa-Gastaldo, Roma, 1985 (b. 1996), (Collana di Testi Patristici 50). Congourdeau 1996 – Congourdeau M.-H., L’Agonie du Christ, Paris, 1996 (Pères dans la foi 64). Cooper 2005 – Cooper A. G., The Body in St. Maximus the Confessor: Holy Flesh, Wholly Deified, Oxford University Press, 2005 (Oxford Early Christian Texts). Daly 1983 – Daly A., Nestorius in the Bazaar of Heracleides. University of California. – Los Angeles, 1983 (Diss.). Danielou 1962 – Danielou J., From glory to glory. Texts from Gregory of Nyssa’s mystical writings, with an introd. by J. Danielou, London, 1962. Davidson 2005 – Davidson I., “Not My Will but Yours be Done: The Ontological Dynamics of Incarnational Intention,” International Journal of Systematic Theology, 7:2, 2005, p. 178–204. Dieten 1972 – Dieten J. L., van, Geschichte der Patriachen von Sergios I. Bis Johannes VI (610–715), Amsterdam, 1972. Doucet 1972 – Doucet M., Dispute de Maxime le Confesseur avec Pyrrhus, introd., texte crit., trad. et notes par M. Doucet, Montréal, 1972 (Thèse ronéotypée). Doucet 1983 – Doucet M., “Est-ce que le monothélisme a fait autant d’illustres victims? Reflexions sur un ouvrage de F.-M. Léthel", Science et Esprit, 35, 1983, p. 64–78. Doucet 1985 – Doucet M., “La Volonté humane du Christ, spécialement en son agonie. Maxime le Confesseur, interprète de l’Écriture”, Science et Esprit, 37, 1985, p. 123–143. Flusin 1992 – Flusin B., Saint Anastase le Perse et l’histoire de la Palestine au début du VIIè siècle, T. II Commentaire, Paris, 1992. Follieri 1988 – Follieri E., “Dove e quando morì Giovanni Mosco?”, Rivista di studi bizantini e neoellenici, 25, 1988, S. 3–39. Frede 2002 – Frede M., “John of Damascus on Human Action, the Will, and Human Freedom,” Byzantine Philosophy and its Ancient Sources, ed. by K. Ierodiakonou, Oxford, 2002, p. 63–95. Gauthier 1954 – Gauthier R.-A., “Saint Maxime le Confesseur et la psychologie de l’acte humain”, Rescherches de Theologie ancienne et medievale, 21, 1954, p. 51–100. Grillmeier 1965 – Grillmeier A., Christ in Christian Tradition: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451), London, 1965. Grillmeier 1989 – Grillmeier A., Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, bd. 3, Freiburg–Basel–Wien, 1989. Grumel 1928 – Grumel V., “Recherches sur l’histoire du monothélisme”, Échos d’Orient, 27, 1928, p. 6–16, 257–277; 29, 1930, p. 16–28. Haldon 1997 – Haldon J., Byzantium in the seventh century: the transformation of a culture, Cambridge–New York, 1997. Harrison 1992 – Harrison V., Grace and Human Freedom According to St. Gregory of Nyssa, Lewiston, 1992 (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 30). Hovorun 2008 – Hovorun C., Will, Action and Freedom. Christological Controversies in the Seventh Century, Leiden–Boston, 2008. Jankowiak 2009 – Jankowiak M., Essai d’histoire politique du monothélisme à partir de la correspondence entre les empereurs byzantins, les patriarches de Constantinople et les papes de Rome. Ecole Pratique des hautes etudes, Uniwersytet Waszawski, Paris–Warsaw, 2009 (Diss.). Jankowiak 2013 – Jankowiak M., “The Invention of Dyotheletism”, Papers presented at the 16th International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 2011, Studia Patristica, 53, 2013 (forthcoming). Janssens 2003 – Janssens B., “Does the Combination of Maximus’ Ambigua ad Thomam and Ambigua ad Iohannem Go Back to the Confessor Himself?”, Sacris Erudiri, 42, 2003, p. 281–286. Karayiannis 1993 – Karayiannis V., Maxime le Confesseur: Essence et Energies de Dieu, Paris, 1993. Knežević 2012 – Knežević M., Maximus the Confessor (580–662). Bibliography, Belgrade, 2012. Lackner 1962 – Lackner W., Studien zur philosophischen Schultradition und zu den Nemesioszitaten bei Maximos dem Bekenner, Graz, 1962 (Diss.). Lafontaine 2003 – Lafontaine R., “Gethsémani selon Maxime le Confesseur”, Nouvelle revue théologique, 125:4, 2003, p. 574–595. Laird 2012 – Laird R., Mindset, moral choice and sin in the anthropology of John Chrysostom, Strathfield, 2012 (Early Christian Studies 15). Larchet 1994 – Larchet J.-C., “Introduction”, in Saint Maxime le Confesseur, Ambigua, Paris, 1994. Larchet 1996 – Larchet J.-C., La divinisation de l’homme selon saint Maxim le Confesseur, Paris, 1996. Larchet 1998 – Larchet J.-C., “Introduction”, in Maxime le Confesseur. Opuscules théologiques et polémiques, introd. J.-C. Larchet, trad. E. Ponsoye, Paris, 1998. Larchet 1998b – Larchet J.-C., Maxime le Confesseur, médiateur entre l’Orient et l’Occident, Paris, 1998. Larchet 2011 – Larchet J.-C., Personne et nature: la Trinité, le Christ, l’homme: contributions aux dialogues interorthodoxe et interchrétien contemporains, Paris, 2011. Larison 2011 – Larison D., Return to Authority: The monothelete controversy and the role of text, emperor and council in the Sixth Ecumenical Council, ProQuest, UMI Dissertation Publishing, 2011. Léthel 1979 – Léthel F.-M., Théologie de l’agonie du Christ: la liberté humaine du Fils de Dieu et son importance sotériologique mises en lumière par Saint Maxime le Confesseur, Paris, 1979 (Théologie historique 52). Levy-Rubin 2001 – Levy-Rubin M., “The Role of the Judean Desert Monasteries in the Monothelete Controversy in Seventh-Century Palestine,” in The Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church from the Fifth Century to the Present, ed. J. Patrich, Leuven, 2001, p. 283–301 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 98). Madden 1982 – Madden J., “The Authenticity of the Early Definition of Will (thelêsis)”, in Maximus Confessor. Actes du Symposium, 1982, p. 61–79. Manoussakis 2013 – Manoussakis J.P., “The Dialectic of Communion and Otherness in St Maximus’ Understanding of the Will,” Maximus Confessor. Proceedings of the Symposium 2013, p. 159–180. = http://www.academia .edu/2301351/The_Dialectic_of_Communion_and_Otherness_in_St_ Maximus_Understanding_of_the_Will. McFarland 2005 – McFarland I., ““Naturally and by grace”: Maximus the Confessor on the operation of the will,” Scottish Journal of Theology, 58:4, 2005, p. 410–433. McFarland 2007 – McFarland I., “Willing Is Not Choosing: Some Anthropological Implications of Dyothelite Christology,” Journal: International Journal of Systematic Theology, 9:1, 2007, p. 3–23. Meyendorff 1989 – Meyendorff J., Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church 450–680 AD, Crestwood – New York, 1989. Mueller-Jourdan 2005 – Mueller-Jourdan P., Typologie Spatio-Temporelle de l’Ecclesia Byzantine: la Mystagogie de Maxime le Confessuer dans la culture philosophique de l’antiquité tardive, Leiden, 2005 (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 74). Neil 1998 – Neil B., “The Lives of Pope Martin I and Maximus the Confessor: Some reconsiderations of dating and provenance”, Byzantion, 68, 1998, p. 91–109. Neil 2001 – Neil B., “The Greek Life of Maximus the Confessor (BHG 1234) and its three recensions”, Studia Patristica, 36, 2001, p. 46–53. Noret 1999 – Noret J., “La rédaction de la Disputatio cum Pyrrho (CPG 7698) de saint Maxime le Confesseur serait-elle postérieure à 655?”, Analecta Bollandiana, 117, 1999, p. 291–296. Ohme 2008 – Ohme H., “Oikonomia im monenergetisch-monotheletischen Streit”, Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum, 12, 2008, S. 308–343. Pierres 1940 – Pierres J., Sanctus Maximus Confessor, princes apologetarum synodi Lateranesis anni 649 (Pars historica), Pontifica Universitas Gregoriana, Rome, 1940 (Diss.). Piret 1983 – Piret P., Le Christ et la Trinité selon Maxime le Confesseur, Paris, 1983. Price 2010 – Price R., “Monotheletism: A Heresy or a Form of Words?”, Studia Patristica, 46, 2010, p. 221–232. Price 2013 – Price R., “Introduction,” in Acts of the Lateran Synod of 649, ed. and trans. by R. Price, Liverpool University Press, 2013 (forthcoming). Reidinger 1982 – Reidinger R., “Die Lateransynod von 649 und Maximos der Bekenner”, in Maximus Confessor: Actes du Symposium sur Maxime le Confesseur, Friborg, 2–5 September 1980, eds. F. Heinzer, C. Schönborn, Friborg, 1982, p. 111–121. Riedinger 1989 – Riedinger R., Il Sinodo Lateranense dell’ottobre 649: La nuova edizione degliatti a cura de Rudolf Riedinger, Citta del Vaticano, 1989. Riedinger 1998 – Riedinger R., Kleine Schriften zu den Konzilsakten des 7. Jahrhunderts, Turnhout, 1998 (Insturmenta Patristica 34). Renczes 2003 – Renczes P., Agir de Dieu et liberte de l’homme: Recherche sur l’anthropologie theologique de saint Maxime le Confesseur, Paris, 2003. Rist 1985 – Rist J., Platonism and Christian Heritage, London, 1985. Schönborn 1972 – Schönborn C., Sophrone de Jérusalem: vie monastique et confession dogmatique, Paris, 1972. Schwager 1986 – Schwager R., Der wunderbare Tausch: zur Geschichte und Deutung der Erlösungslehre, München, 1986. Sherwood 1952 – Sherwood R., An Annotated Date-List of the Works of Maximus the Confessor, Rome, 1952. Sherwood 1955 – Sherwood P., The Earlier Ambigua of St. Maximus the Confessor and his Refutation of Origenism, Rome, 1955. Sherwood 1955b – Sherwood P., “Introduction”, in Maximus the Confessor 1955, p. 1–102. Sieben 1979 – Sieben H. J., Die Konzilsidee der alten Kirche, Paderborn, 1979. Sieben 1990 – Sieben H. J., Die Partikularsynode: Studien zur Geschichte der Konzilsidee, Frankfurt am Main, 1990. Siecienski 2005 – Siecienski E., The use of Maximus the Confessors writtings on Filioque at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439), Fordham University, 2005 (Diss.). Siecienski 2007 – Siecienski E., “The Authenticity of Maximus the Confessor’s Letter to Marinus. The Argument from Theological Consistency,” Vigline Christianae, 61, 2007, p. 189–227. Siecienski 2010 – Siecienski E., The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, Oxford University Press, 2010 (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology). Sorabji 2000 – Sorabji R., Emotion and Peace of Mind: From Stoic Agitation to Christian Temptation, Oxford University Press, 2000. Sorabji 2004 – Sorabji R., “The Concept of the Will from Plato to Maximus the Confessor,” in The Will and Human Action, eds. T. Pink and M. W. F. Stone, London–New York, 2004, p. 6–28. Sorabji 2004b – Sorabji R., The Philosophy of the Commentators, 200–600 AD: Physics, vol. 2, ed. by R. Sorabji, London, 2004. Steenberg 2006 – Steenberg M. C., “Gnomic will and a challenge to the true humanity of Christ in Maximus the Confessor”, Studia Patristica, 42, 2006, p. 237–242. Teixidor 1996 – Teixidor J., “Science versus foi chez Paul le Perse. Une note", in From Byzantium to Iran: Armenian Studies in Honor of Nina Garsoïan, ed. J.-P. Mahé and R. W. Thomson, Atlanta, 1996, p. 509–519. Tollefsen 2008 – Tollefsen T., The Christocentric Cosmology of St Maximus the Confessor, Oxford University Press, 2008 (Oxford Early Christian Studies). Torrance 1988 – Torrance I., Christology After Chalcedon. Severus of Antioch and Sergius the Monophysite, Norwich–Norfolk, 1988. Thunberg 1965 – Thunberg L., Microcosm and Mediator. The theological anthropology of Maximus the Confessor, Lund, 1965 (Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis 25). Uthemann 1980 – Uthemann K.-H., “Die “Philosophische Kapitel” des Anastasius I. von Antiochien (559–598)”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 46, 1980, p. 306–366. Walker 2000 – Walker A. J., Creation and human freedom in Maximus the Confessor: a philosophical study of creation out of nothing as the metaphysical foundation of human freedom in light of selected works of Maximus the Confessor, Pontificia universitas Gregoriana, Facultas philosophiae, Roma, 2000 (Diss.). Watts 2009 – Watts T. A. “Two Wills In Christ? Contemporary Objections Considered In The Light Of A Critical Examination Of Maximus The Confessor’s “Disputation With Pyrrhus,” Westminster Theological Journal, 71, 2 2009, p. 455–487. Weiss 1965 – Weiss G., Studien zum Leben, zu den Schriften und zur Theologie des Patriarchen Anastasius I. von Antiochien (559–598), Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia. Hft. IV, München, Institut für Byzantinistik und Neugriechische Philologie der Universtät, 1965 (Diss.). Winkelmann 2001 – Winkelmann F., Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit, Frankfurt am Main–Berlin–Paris, etc., 2001 (Berliner Byzantinistische Studien 6). Zizioulas 2013 – Zizioulas, J., metropolitan, “Person and Nature in the Theology of St Maximus the Confessor”, Maximus Confessor. Proceedings of the Symposium 2013, p. 85–113. November 2012 Ὕπαρξη", Σύναξη, 121, σ. 43–72. This volume contains an annotated Russian translation of a culminating Christological work by Maximus the Confessor: Opuscula Theologica et Polemica (Opusc.). The translation was made by Arkadi Choufrine (Princeton University) and Dmitry Chernoglazov (St. Petersburg State University) and edited by Grigory Benevich (Russian Christian Academy for the Humanities), who also wrote an introduction and commentary to the text. This edition represents the most detailed analysis of the work to date. The book can be treated as a continuation and a development of the work written by Benevich and Choufrine that is represented in a monograph, St Maximus the Confessor. Refutation of Origenism and Monoenergism, published by St Petersburg University Press in 2007. In the previous work, the two major contributions made by Maximus Confessor to the theological tradition, namely his refutations of Origenism and Monoenergism, were studied as belonging to the same context. In the present work, the main emphasis is on Maximus’s polemics against the Monoenergists and the Monothelites. However, his works of the previous period are also taken into consideration as an important basis for the development of his thought. Maximus's views in the Opusc. are shown to be a reformulation and development of his views from the previous period; though some tensions between them (especially in the context of the last period of Maximus’s polemics against the Monothelites) are also noted. In the introduction, G. Benevich gives an overview of the historical and theological context of Opusc. , taking account of the most recent scholarship in patristics and church history. The main themes of the introduction to the present translation can be seen from the titles of its chapters: Opusc. 1 and the combination of Ambigua ad Thomam and Ambigia ad Iohannem; Prehistory of the Monoenergist Union of Cyrus; Monoenergist Union and St. Sophronius's reaction; Letter 19 of Maximus the Confessor; Patriarchate of St. Sophronius and the question of “the Council of Cyprus” (an alternative history); “God-man activity” in the Ambigua ad Thomam in the context of the Monoenergist crisis; Prehistory of Monothelitism and of the polemics against it; Special features of the Ecthesis; After the Ecthesis; Theological and polemical writings of 640–643, their order and main themes; On the interpretation of the unitary formulas in opusc. 7, 8 and 20; Interpretation of the Gethsemane prayer and the problem of the relative appropriation; Opinions and hypotheses on what was new in St Maximus’s position after 643; Opusc. 16 and the issue of natural and gnomic will; Maximus’s refusal of γνώμη and προαίρεσις in Christ, philosophical and theological aspects; Alliance with Rome; Dispute with Pyrrhus, historical reality and text; On the way to the Lateran Council; Historical events and St. Maximus's works of 645–648; Opusc. 11 and the status of the Lateran Council; In lieu of a conclusion, Problems in the current discussions of the Opusc. In the wake of P. Sherwood and D. Bathrellos, a new attempt is made to suggest the order in which the Opusc. were written. In this, not only textual and historical data has been taken into consideration, but also the novelty and complexity of the issues that were, according to our hypothesis, more and more complicated with the growth of the controversy. In the discussion of Maximus’s interpretation of the Gethsemane prayer, emphasis is placed on the importance of his theory of Christ’s relative and compassionate appropriation of our disobedience. Only within a complex understanding of the two dimensions of the Maximus’s interpretation of the Gethsemane prayer (essential or “physical” appropriation of the human will and relative appropriation of our disobedience) can his view of this issue be properly understood. The process of Maximus’s formulation of the relative appropriation concept in the context of his polemics against the Monothelites is analyzed starting with its possible background in amb . 7. Deification of the human energy and will in Christ from the moment of the Incarnation is treated in this study as the foundation of the whole of Maximus’s teaching on Christ’s two energies and wills. This deification was expressed differently in different periods of Maximus’s life. One way of expressing it was the use of the unitary formulas in Christology. However, when polemics against the Monothelites reached a climax after 643, Maximus avoided using these formulas. The same concept of deification, however, was expressed by the notion of the human will’s σύμφυσις (symphysis) with God’s will, which presupposed that from the moment of Incarnation it was shaped and moved by God without losing its freedom. This deification kept both God’s and human freedom, though Maximus’s Christological model was fundamentally different from that of the Nestorians and the semi-Nestorians among the Chalcedonians. His view was not that the two constituents implied by the Areopagite’s expression “theandric energy” were not united in any real way (as a too literal reading of the Tome of Leo might suggest); but that they were united in two ways. For Maximus, (as seen particularly from Ambigua ad Thomam), there were two “theandric” energies in Christ, one of them being manifested in His miracles and the other in His voluntary passions; rather than just two natural energies and wills (one purely human and one purely divine). Even if some of the Monoenergists did have the same idea (as Richard Price had recently proposed), only in Maximus do we find the most clear and elaborate expression of this teaching. In our discussion of Maximus’s refusal of γνώμη and προαίρεσις in Christ, we stress that these notions in his later works were used with a different meaning compared to that of his works written before the controversy against the Monothelites. We do not agree, however, with modern attempts to reject or underestimate Maximus’s later teaching as occasional and purely polemical. Refusal in Maximus’s later works of γνώμη and προαίρεσις in Christ and in the saints expressed an important idea of ​​an absence of the choosing process in a state of deification. In our study a parallel is drawn between the Neoplatonist’s statement (beginning with Iamblichus) that προαίρεσις is absent in gods and godlike souls and Maximus Confessor’s statement (made in his polemics against the Monothelites) that προαίρεσις is absent in Christ and the saints. Our understanding of Maximus’s interpretation of this matter presupposes particularly that in Gethsemane Christ made a choice without choosing. In the last chapter of the introduction, noting a set of problems in current discussions of the Opusc., we touched upon some papers delivered at the International Symposium on Saint Maximus the Confessor (Belgrade, October 18–21, 2012). We focus particularly on those in which a concern was raised about the need to save Orthodox teaching from a “totalitarian” holistic interpretation that would abolish the difference between God and His creatures, as well as between the saints. In this context we emphasize that Maximus’s late teaching, especially expressed in opusc. 1, put equal stress on the need for a total delivery of the human will to God (according to the pattern compassionately given to us by Christ in Gethsemane), and on the personal difference between the saints in their way of being and movement in God, which corresponds to the measure and character of their love for Him. There is no need to keep deliberate choice and gnomic will in heavens for the preservation of these personal differences. An addendum to the present translation of the Opusc. contains a paper by G. Benevich: “St Maximus Confessor in Russia.” This is a longer version of an article written in English for the Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor (forthcoming), an observation of translations of Maximus and scholarship on him in Russia. In this paper it is particularly noteworthy that many views found in modern “personalistic” interpretations of Maximus’s teaching on Christ’s wills had already been expressed in 1933 by Fr. Sergey Bulgakov. Bulgakov, however, was critical of Maximus and openly rejected some of his ideas, (particularly, regarding the absence of a gnomic will in Christ). On the other hand modern personalists, though they are also unhappy with this teaching, often say that they are following Maximus’s thought. The article is adapted from this edition of Opusc. version written for the Oxford Guide to St. Maxim of the article “Maximus the Confessor in Russia and Ukraine” (expected to be published in 2015). Since this work is placed in the Appendix, we provide in the notes references to the relevant literature in a special way adopted in this article (see the next note). We did not set out to cover all the numerous publications on prp. Maxims, carried out in Rus' and in Russia over the past 1000 years, but sought to note the most significant or characteristic. Directly related to the topics discussed in connection with the Theological and Polemical Works, this article includes an analysis of the criticism of Fr. Sergei Bulgakov's teachings of St. Maxims on the wills in Christ, as well as some remarks regarding the research of Fr. Dionisy (Shlenova), V. M. Lurie and V. V. Petrova. Publications on prp. For Maxim in Russia until 2004, see: A. G. Dunaev, “Maxim the Confessor,” Hesychasm: an annotated bibliography, Moscow, 2004, p. 242–256 (#4, no. 1533–1721). Or on the Internet: http://www.danuvius.orthodoxy.ru/Max_Conf.htm. We will refer to works reflected in this bibliography by indicating the corresponding number. Thus, for the services published by Muryanov, see Dunaev 2004, No. 1544, 1545, 1546. (We refer to the works mentioned in the main part of this publication in the usual way). The most complete bibliography on St. Petersburg today. Maxim, including the Russian one, see: Knežević 2012. Knežević included the entire bibliography of Dunaev, as well as all previous bibliographies on St. Maxima, including included in Maxim 2004. A. I. Sidorov, “The creative heritage of Maxim the Confessor in Ancient Rus' (based on the material of Svyatoslav’s Collection 1073)”, Traditions of ancient Slavic writing and the linguistic culture of the Eastern Slavs. Moscow, 1985, p. 201–208. See also Izbornik Svyatoslav 1073, facsimile edition in 2 volumes, Moscow, 1983. “Bee” or “Theological Chapters” by Rev. Maximus the Confessor, trans., intro. art., note, last. P.K. Dobrotsvetova, Moscow, 2013. “Bee” is a translation of Loci communes, which were attributed to St. Maximus, but in fact were compiled by an unknown Byzantine author of the 9th–10th centuries. A. I. Sobolevsky, Translated literature of Moscow Rus' of the XIV–XVII centuries. Bibliographic materials, St. Petersburg, 1903. Here and further we, as a rule, give the Latin names of the works of St. Maxim, since the names under which they were translated into Slavic and Russian varied. Evidence in favor of the fame in Ancient Rus' of the Life of St. Maximus in the version contained in the Prologues can be considered his icon with “stamps” depicting episodes from the Life of St. Maxim, which is now kept in the Museum of Fine Arts in Solvychegodsk, and was previously in the Annunciation Cathedral of this city. The icon of the so-called “Stroganov letter” was painted by order of the merchant Maxim Yakovlevich Stroganov (he obviously wanted to have the image of his heavenly patron) at the end of the 16th or beginning of the 17th century. http://pravicon.com/images/icons/8/8021.jpg. The publication of Baronius was carried out in 1599–1600. (see S. Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici a Christo nato ad annum 1198, XI). The publication of Combefis dates from 1675; it was reproduced in the Patrology of the Abbé Migne (PG). M. Zefirov, priest, “The Life of St. Maximus the Confessor", Orthodox Interlocutor, 1857, p. 352, 591, 892 ff. This work is scientifically very outdated (and from the very beginning it was not strictly scientific), but this is the first study of the life of St. Maxim in Russia, which used his letters and other documents. S. L. Epifanovich later addressed him in his dissertation. A. N. Robinson, “Comments: [The Lives of Habakkuk and Epiphanius],” Lives of Habakkuk and Epiphanius: Research and Texts, Moscow, 1963, p. 287. Zefirov 1857, p. 619. Zefirov may be writing about this in the context of polemics within the Old Believers against the Bespopovites and/or in the context of a discussion of the formation of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy. See evidence in the history of the formation of this hierarchy with characteristic references to St. Maxim: “Saint Maximus, the confessor of Pyrrhus the Patriarch and Bishop Theodosius, convinced the Monothelites (monothelites) appointed by the heretic to convert to the Orthodox faith, and were kindly received, in their very rank, by the Patriarch in Africa, and the bishop - by the only Saint Maximus in prison only through the promise and kissing of the Cross and the Gospel, may it be firmly (Mineaion of the Genvar 21)” (http://www.semeyskie.ru/history_ioossp.html). Zefirov rightly objects that Pyrrhus’s repentance was accepted by Pope Theodore (St. Maximus only gave him advice to go to him and, perhaps, accompanied him), and in the Dispute in Visia, on the offer to accept into communion the bishop who brought the Diophelite confession. Theodosius St. Maxim replied that only the Pope could do this. At our request, O. A. Rodionov kindly shared his and P. B. Zhgun’s information regarding the manuscripts of translations of St. Maxim, carried out by St. Paisiem. We present his message about these manuscripts and hypotheses about their authorship in full: “Also in the saints of our father Maximus the Confessor, the Word of fasting on question and answer” was preserved in the following manuscripts (from among those stored in the Library of the Nyametsky Monastery, perhaps the most representative collection of Paisian texts): BMN-018 (1771, scribe - schemamonk Mitrofan from the Nyametsky Monastery); BMN-040 (1777, scribe - monk of the Nyametsky monastery Athanasius); BMN-182 (last quarter of the 18th century, scribe - Schemamonk Platon from the Nyametsky monastery); BMN-239 (last quarter of the 18th century, the scribe of the part we are interested in is Hieroschemamonk Iakinthos) (in the same place, the Word of the Fast is followed by the teaching “On monastic life and on eight thoughts”, beginning: “The business of a monk is reading and teaching the Divine Scriptures, and singing, and constant prayer, and a little handicraft”). “A brief interpretation of our father Maximus the Confessor’s prayer to a certain lover of Christ among the saints” is contained in the manuscripts: in the already mentioned above BMN-182 and BMN-270 (last quarter of the 18th century (until 1794), autograph of St. Paisius (Velichkovsky)). “Four hundred chapters about love” are contained in: BMN-058 (last quarter of the 18th century), under the title: “And among the saints of our father Maximus the Confessor to Elpidius the presbyter about love four hundred chapters”; BMN-127 (last quarter of the 18th century, scribe - Hieromonk Dosifei), under the title: “And among the saints of our father Maximus to Elpidia the priest about love in four hundred chapters.” In addition, some Nyama manuscripts (for example, BMN-192 and BMN-264 (the latter is the autograph of St. Paisius)) contain fragments of scholia to the works of Dionysius the Areopagite, attributed by the translator to St. Maximus the Confessor. For example: “St. Maximus the Confessor on Chapter 2 of St. Dionysius the Areopagite on Enlightenment, interpretation.” In later (19th century) manuscripts I came across copies of the Two Hundreds on Theology, but does this translation belong to St. Paisius, it’s hard to say. [Paleographic data reported by P.B. Zhgun; regarding the content of the manuscript, I personally reviewed it from photocopies provided by the same researcher]. Edition: Our Reverend Father Maximus the Confessor’s interpretation of the prayer “Our Father” and his own word of fasting on the question and answer, trans. to the glory O. Paisiya (Velichkovsky); lane in Russian T.I. Filippova with the participation of Hierom. Ambrosiya, Moscow: [ed. Optina Pustyn], 1853, 108 p. For the history of this publication, see: V.V. Kashirina, Literary heritage of Optina Pustyn, Moscow, 2006, p. 119–124. I would like to express my gratitude to O. A. Rodionov, P. B. Zhgun and A. P. Vlasyuk for the opportunity to provide this hitherto unpublished information. Let us add on our own that it would be interesting to compare the manuscript of Two Centuries on Theology, which O. A. Rodionov mentions, with the translation of this work by Fr. Gerasim Pavsky (about this translation, see below). Pavsky, we recall, aroused great sympathy among such figures of Russian culture as V. A. Zhukovsky (he attracted him as the Heir’s teacher) and A. S. Pushkin. Both of them greatly regretted the removal of Pavsky from the education of Alexander Nikolaevich. See note. 12 and Dunaev 2004, No. 1570 (Dunaev does not indicate the authorship of the translations). See Dunaev 2004, no. 1638 (reprint of Orlov 2010). Wed. from the memoirs of Prof. A. L. Katansky about prof. M. A. Golubev (who taught a course on the exegesis of Holy Scripture in St. Petersburg): “He was a very original person; in type he most resembled an Englishman: although he was essentially good-natured, he was distinguished by a kind of cold importance, imperturbable composure and calmness, and was very fond of making jokes. It remains in my memory that he very angrily and wittily laughed at the unsuccessful and strained comments of some passages of Holy Scripture. Unfortunately, he sometimes did not observe the measures, precisely when he had to give allegorical interpretations of Scripture from the works of the fathers and teachers of the Church of the Alexandrian school. I don’t know about my comrades, but M.A.’s witticisms addressed to these ancient commentators did not make a very pleasant impression on me, although at that time I was very little familiar with my father’s works. At the present time, if now I had to listen to M.A., such an impression would probably be many times stronger.” To this passage, Katansky gives the following very characteristic note: “Now for me the ancient allegorism is quite clear and psychologically explainable, as a result (in addition to many other reasons - philosophical school, etc.) of the activity of extremely excited religious thought and a very heightened religious feeling. In such a state, it is natural to look for connections between the present and the long past, for hints and indications in the latter of the former, as often happens in our ordinary life, when we are greatly amazed or shocked by something. Then we remember a lot of things (often little things, signs), to which in our other, usual state we did not pay any attention, but which now seems very significant” (A. L. Katansky, Memoirs of an old professor, Nizhny Novgorod, 2010, p. 106). Filaret (Gumilevsky), archbishop, Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church, St. Petersburg, 1859, vol. 3, p. 171–176. In particular, he cites A. Knöpfler’s opinion about St. Maximus as “a star of the first magnitude in the history of scientific theology” (A.I. Brilliantov, The influence of Eastern theology on Western in the works of John Scotus Erigena, Moscow, 1998, p. 213, note 1). We thank A. Yu. Vinogradov, who kindly introduced us to his research. J.-C. Larchet, “Le martyre, l’exil et la mort de saint Maxime le Confesseur et de ses deux disciples, Anatsase le Moine et Anastase l’Apocrisiaire. Quelques précisions en rapport avec des découvertes archéologiques recentes”, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 2013, vol. 108, No. 1, r. 65–97. Larcher, in turn, told us that he was going to respond to Vinogradov’s arguments against the “Georgian” version. For a report on this manuscript, see A. G. Grusheva. A. I. Brilliantov, “Church History and Byzantine Studies in the Works of a Scientist,” World of Russian Byzantine Studies, St. Petersburg, 2004, p. 286–310. O. L. Abyshko, “A. I. Brilliantov. Biographical sketch”, in: A.I. Brilliantov, Emperor Constantine the Great and the Edict of Milan 313. About the place of death and burial of St. Maxim the Confessor, St. Petersburg, 2013, p. 26–27. The famous work by I.V. Popov, The Idea of ​​Deification in the Ancient Eastern Church (1909), was written later and without taking these works into account. V. S. Solovyov, “Origen”, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron, vol. XXII, St. Petersburg, 1896, p. 145. Since the first version of A.I. Brilliantov’s master’s thesis was ready already in 1893, it can be assumed that his ideas were known to Solovyov. Philokalia in Russian translation, vol. 3, Moscow, 1903, p. 133. S. L. Epifanovich, Venerable Maxim the Confessor. His life and creations, in 2 volumes, St. Petersburg, 2013. Kekelidze K., prot., “Information from Georgian sources about the Monk Maxim the Confessor,” Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy, 1912, No. 9, p. 1–14; No. 11, p. 451–486. Brilliantov also rejected its authenticity in his 1917 book. See Greek. text and Russian translation in Maxim the Confessor 2004. See B. Neil. “The Greek Life of Maximus the Confessor (BHG 1234) and its Three Recensions”, Studia Patristica, 2001, #36, p. 53. Works of our holy father Maximus the Confessor, part 1: Life of St. Maximus and services to him, trans., ed. and approx. prof. M. D. Muretova, Sergiev Posad, 1915. P. Allen, B. Neil, Scripta saeculi VII vitam Maximi Confessoris illustrantia, CCSG 39, Turnhout, 1999. Another Byzantine scholar and historian of philosophy in Russia after the revolution, who did not ignore St. Maxim, was V.E. Waldenberg, but also his essay, which briefly talks about St. Maxim, remained unpublished at that time. See V. E. Waldenberg, History of Byzantine political literature in connection with the history of philosophical movements and legislation, scientific. cons. I. P. Medvedev, prepared by. ed. V. I. Zemskova, St. Petersburg, 2008, p. 116–128. See Life of Mikhail Novoselov, written by Bishop. Gregory (Lurie): http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=monitor&id=19637 and http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=news&id=99158, there are also the third and fourth parts of this Life, which the author kindly shared with us. M. A. Novoselov, Letters to Friends, Moscow, 1994. On the peculiarities of this teaching, see the article by A. M. Shufrin “The Church as an organization and as an organism in Mikhail Novoselov and in the Orthodox Tradition” (http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/2957641.html). Novoselov 1994, p. 175–191. M. D. Muretov, “About St. Maximus the Confessor", Works of our holy father Maximus the Confessor, 1915, p. II; Novoselov 1994, p. 177. Novoselov erroneously claims that Patr. Sophrony participated in polemics with monothelitism, obviously confusing monothelitism and monoenergism. Novoselov 1994, p. 192–196. Let us quote the corresponding passage from it in its entirety: ““Every lie is not from the truth,” says St. John the Theologian (1 John 2:21), and especially when it is directed against the teachings of St. Church, for “Christ is Lord,” said St. Maximus the Confessor to his tempters (Cheti Menaion, January 21), “he called the Catholic Church the right and saving confession of faith, which is why he called Peter (the Apostle), who confessed the right, blessed and at his confession promised to create such a church for everyone,” regardless, we add, of his human infirmities.” (http://www.paraklit.ru/eres/documenti/Apologiya.htm). S. N. Bulgakov, Non-evening light, Moscow, 1994, p. 111–112. Brotherhood of Hagia Sophia. Materials and documents 1923–1939, comp. N. A. Struve, Moscow–Paris, 2000, p. 134 (reference to fraternity meeting December 4, 1928). In “Lamb of God” Bulgakov completely identifies the doctrine of the divine “logoi” of created existence with St. Maxim with his sophiology (Lamb of God, Moscow, 2000, p. 147, note 3). Sergius Bulgakov, archpriest, Lamb of God, Moscow, 2000, p. 107. Bulgakov believes that the concept of will (defined equally in relation to man and God as “an essential striving for something in accordance with nature”), when applied to God, is His anthropomorphization. There, p. 108. Bulgakov’s argument that “volitional movement is just as impossible without a personal impulse, just as a personal impulse is impossible without a corresponding natural aspiration” (Ibid.), is often repeated in modern theology from the lips of “personalists.” At the same time, they do not notice or refuse to admit that St. Maxim clearly distinguishes what belongs to the hypostasis from what belongs to nature, while the contribution of the hypostasis to the act of will (we are talking about created hypostases) St. Maxim never rejected it, but at the same time distinguished it from the contribution of nature. Critics of Bulgakov, for example Vl. Lossky, they will say that he confuses hypostasis and nature (V. Lossky, Dispute about Sophia. Articles of different years, Moscow, 1996, pp. 40–41). The spirit (or mind) in the patristic tradition is not a hypostasis, but the highest power of human nature. But Bulgakov did not share this traditional conceptual scheme. Bulgakov 2000, p. 109. At the same time, Bulgakov mistakenly attributes to St. Maxim’s opinion is that not only God and rational creatures, but also all creatures in general, including inanimate and unreasonable ones, have will (Ibid.). There, p. 109–110. In modern personalistic theology, this argument is often repeated without reference to Bulgakov, who seems to have been one of the first to formulate it. Bulgakov notes from St. Maxima writes only the first kind of divine action - miracles (Ibid., pp. 111-112), but a little further, speaking about Damascus (Ibid., pp. 113-114), he already writes about the second kind - suffering. But Bulgakov is not satisfied with this explanation of the Areopagite’s expression. Oddly enough, in a polemic against Bulgakov’s sophiology, Met. Sergius (Stragorodsky) and Vl. Lossky, this criticism of St. Maxim is not mentioned at all, although Lossky knew Bulgakov's book Lamb of God. She is mentioned in passing in the book: St. Seraphim (Sobolev), New teaching about Sophia, the Wisdom of God, master's thesis, Sofia, 1935, p. 485–486. But the teaching of St. Maxima St. Seraphim, in his polemics with Bulgakov, pays practically no attention, focusing (speaking about the theme of two wills and energies) on the defense of Damascus, St. Sophronius of Jerusalem and the fathers of the VI Ecumenical Council. For Bulgakov, the relationship is the opposite, and he speaks most of all about the teachings of St. Maxim, fully aware of his significance for the Orthodox tradition. Paul L. Gavrilyuk, "The kenotic theology of Sergius Bulgakov", Scottish Journal of Theology, 2005, vol. 58 (3), p. 251–269. “The second hypostasis, preserving the divine nature, leaves the divine life, which is restored in it only together with human life. Through the becoming Sophia, in the deification of man and his deification, Christ returns to Himself and regains the abandoned glory and divine life” (Bulgakov 2000, p. 252, cf. 273–276). "St. Maximus the Confessor (and after him St. John of Damascus) denied “gnomic” will, that is, free in the sense of a creative choice of different possibilities. He, therefore, thought of it as an immovable divine necessity, which was given in the God-Man as an unconditional guide - both for volition and for action. But this denial of the “gnomic” will generally denies the divine will in the God-Man as one of two, which is discursively self-determined in the life process of becoming and therefore is necessarily “gnomic”. This denial can only be interpreted as the infallibility of the divine will. But the will, which is revealed and realized in temporal becoming with its freedom, is necessarily consistent with time or discursive, and therefore must be gnomic” (Ibid., p. 272, note 1). Shlenov cites only the last sentence from this Bulgakov (Shlenov 2004, p. 342, note 14), so it remains unclear what kind of will we are talking about, and one might mistakenly think that it is about human will. G.V. Florovsky, Byzantine fathers of the V–VIII centuries, Paris, 1990, p. 195–227. Bulgakov himself gave a variety of interpretations of his sophiology, including those close to the teachings of St. Maxim and to palamism, but in this he was clearly not constant. Florovsky 1990, p. 206. Florovsky 1990, p. 217. V. Lossky, Dispute about Sofia. Articles of different years, Moscow, 1996. Florovsky 1990, p. 200, 209. G. Florovsky, “Cur Deus Homo? The Motive of the Incarnation", Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, vol. III: Creation and Redemption, Belmont, Mass., 1976, p. 163–70. “According to the idea, the God-manhood of the Logos and His Incarnation, regardless of the Fall of Adam, are self-sufficient moments in the life of Divine and human” (Muretov 1915, p. X). Florovsky 1990, p. 225–226. V. N. Lossky, Essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church. Dogmatic theology, Moscow, 1991, p. 104–105. In general, Lossky believes that the very posing of the question of the unconditionality of the Incarnation was alien to St. Maxim. In contrast to the “Dispute about Sophia” (the teachings of St. Maximus were not yet involved), in the later Essay on Mystical Theology, referring to St. Maxim, Lossky clarifies that in the eternal Council of God there was precisely deification. The historical Incarnation of Christ became the path by which the deification of our nature was accomplished (Ibid.). Here, in order to better imagine that era, it would be appropriate to recall one case of a strange mention of Vl. Lossky Ave. Maxima. In the article “The Personality and Thought of His Holiness Patriarch Sergius” (1947), he writes, characterizing him as a theologian: “Two qualities of Sergius of Moscow necessary for a theologian, according to Saint Maximus the Confessor: always a warm heart with a calm, imperturbable, cold mind” (Lossky 1996, p. 93). Links to a specific place in St. Maxim Lossky does not give, and we do not know such a place. There is, however, another source, a popular expression from which strongly resembles the words of Vl. Lossky - a book about Felix Dzerzhinsky (1941) (see http://www.bibliotekar.ru/encSlov/19/24.htm). V. Zhivov, “The Mystagogia of Maximus the Confessor and the Development of the Byzantine Theory of the Image,” trans. Ann Shukman", St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, 1987, vol. 31(4), p. 349–376. The translation and publication of this article was organized by Fr. John Meyendorff, in particular because her concept, in which an important role was played by the opposition of the Areopagite and St. Maxim, coincided with the concept of Fr. John about the need to “church” the Areopagite, which allegedly was carried out by St. Maxim (http://danuvius.livejournal.com/268328.html#comments). After the works of Fr. Alexander (Golitsyn) about the Areopagite and a number of others, this opinion of Meyendorff was actually rejected. See the bibliography of A. I. Sidorov on the MDA website: http://www.mpda.ru/persons/27951/. The most important for the Opusc edition. For Sidorov's works, see the bibliography for this edition. In the 1993 edition, only the first 55 questions and answers were translated, translations of the rest appeared in various magazines, and soon, we hope, a single publication will appear. See the preface by A.I. Sidorov to the publication Selected works of St. Maximus the Confessor, Moscow, 2004 (in particular, pp. 46, 57), in which is written about Psogos and the early years of St. Maxim has been significantly changed compared to the preface to the first volume of the two-volume edition of 1993 (unfortunately, the author himself does not point out this interesting fact). Dispute with Pyrrhus: St. Maximus the Confessor and Christological disputes of the 7th century, rev. ed. D. A. Pospelov, Moscow, 2004. Dunaev 2004, No. 1592. Unfortunately, many mistakes were made in conveying Bauzenharat’s thoughts. Speaking about the works of contemporaries, we do not pretend to provide detailed reviews, but emphasize only the most significant in the context of this edition of Opusc. For a bibliography of published translations, see Knežević 2012, p. 90–93. However, some of the translations of the Difficulties corpus carried out at this time, as we know, have not yet been published, which can only be regretted. V. M. Lurie himself, like his colleagues, continue to work in this direction. Lurie 2006, p. 279, 302, 309. Petrov 2008, p. 32. Lurie clearly agrees with Larcher on this issue. “ΥΠΑΡΧΩ and ΥΦΙΣΤΗΜΙ in “On the Difficulties” of Maximus the Confessor", ΠΛΑΤΩΝΙΚΑ ΖΗΤΗΜΑΤΑ. Studies on the history of Platonism, edited by. ed. V.V. Petrova, Moscow, 2013, p. 338–375; “Transformation of ancient ontology among the ps. Dionysius the Areopagite and Maximus the Confessor,” collection. XIX Annual Theological Conference of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Humanitarian University: Materials, vol. 1, Moscow, 2009, p. 16–25; “The sacrament of “synaxis” in Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and St. Maximus the Confessor", Bulletin of PSTGU, series I: Theology. Philosophy, 2008. 4 [24], p. 48–59. Maxim Confessor 2007a. To date, a dozen and a half books have already been published in the “Byzantine Philosophy” series (as a rule, together with the “Smaragdos Philocalias” series), many of which are associated with the name of St. Maxima. In describing the analysis of this story by Catholic scholars, we made a number of inaccuracies, which we are going to correct in the re-edition of this work that is currently being prepared. This part of the book was republished in 2012 with a new foreword by G. Benevich and is accompanied by the service of St., compiled by nun Cassia (Senina). Maxim with a new synaxarion written by G. Benevich to replace the very outdated previous one (the synaxarion mentions the Palestinian version of the birth of St. Maxim, however, out of caution, perhaps unnecessary, preference is expressed in favor of the traditional version) (St. Maxim the Confessor and his associates: documents from exile, compiled by G. I. Benevich; chief editor D. A. Pospelov, Moscow; Holy Mount Athos: Nicaea; The Hermitage of the New Thebaid of the Athonite Russian Panteleimon Monastery, 2012. (Byzantine Philosophy, vol. 10; Smaragdos Philocalias) A substantially revised and expanded re-edition of the entire volume of Maximus the Confessor 2007a is currently being prepared, in which we, in particular, plan to publish a translation of the Documents from exile, carried out from a critical perspective. publications The noticed errors were corrected in the new edition of this translation in 2009 in: Anthology, vol. 2 (but this publication is not accompanied by scholia, it is preceded by an introductory article in which we emphasize that St. Maximus in Ambiguum 7 and other works of this period polemicized not only with Origenism, but also with extreme anti-Origenism (see for more details in: G. Benevich “Maximus the Confessor’s polemics against anti-Origenism: Epistulae 6 and 7 as a context for the Ambigua ad Johannem,” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 2009, vol. 104/1, pp. 5–15). Research by Western scientists is also represented in Russia by translations of von Balthasar’s work Kosmische Liturgie (translated in 1997–2000) and J.-C. Larcher Maxime le Confesseur, médiateur entre Orient & Occident (translation 2004). Anthology, vol. 2, p. 69–129. In an article about the controversy of St. Maxim with Origenism it was shown that when writing Ambigua and a number of other works of St. Maxim was no less polemical with the opposite spiritual trend of his time - extreme anti-Origenism. In this edition of Opusc. A new edition of the translation of these works is published. Maxim Confessor 2010. The publication was prepared by D. A. Chernoglazov (translation) and G. I. Benevich (preface and commentary) using the materials of the seminar, the active participants of which were G. N. Nachinkin and V. I. Zemskova. In 2008, P.K. Dobrotsvetov published his translation of the same work (see our review in: Theological Transactions, 2010, issue 42, pp. 383–391). Recently A.G. Dunaev gave his own version of the translation and understanding of qu. dub. 13, different from all the previous ones, which he critically examines (A. G. Dunaev, “On the interpretation of Quaestiones et dubia, 13 St. Maximus the Confessor,” Theological Transactions, 2012, issue 43/44, pp. 343–356). In addition to those listed in the bibliography and mentioned above, these are recent articles: G. Benevich, “John Philoponus and Maximus the Confessor at the Crossroads of Philosophical and Theological Thought in Late Antiquity” Scrinium, 1202, vols. 7–8, eds. R. Krivko, B. Lourié, A. Orlov, Part 1, p. 102–130; Idem, “Maximus Confessor’s polemics against Tritheism and his Trinitarian teaching,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Bd. 105/2, 2012, pp. 595–610. A. Nesteruk, Light from the East: Theology, Science, and the Eastern, Orthodox Tradition, Minneapolis, 2003, p. 25–7; 75–9, 83–5, 101–9, 113; 208–13, 226–336, 244–8; Idem, “The Cosmos of the World and the Cosmos of the Church. St. Maximus the Confessor, Modern Cosmology and the Sense of the Universe, Part 1", The Messenger, Journal of the Deanery of Great Britain and Ireland, 2013, #22, p. 13–36. P. V. Kuzenkov, “Easter treatise of St. Maximus the Confessor", Theological Works, 2012, vol. 43/44, p. 503–540; St. Maximus the Confessor, Paschalistic treatise, preface, trans. from ancient Greek and comment. P. V. Kuzenkova, in: Theological Works, 2012, issue. 43/44, p. 99–178. What has not yet been translated has been preserved in Georgian and attributed to St. Maximus Life of the Virgin Mary (Vita Virginis) (there are French and English translations, see Knežević 2012, p. 133). Also on the agenda is an annotated edition of the translation of Ambigua, which, with the exception of some difficulties, was published without detailed commentary. The table was compiled by G.I. Benevich. The first attempt known to us to compile such a table was carried out by Andrei Viktorov and published on the Internet: http://andrev.livejournal.com/17850.html. Our table is compiled according to a different principle and has a narrower focus - to help study the theological and polemical works of St. Maxim and, in particular, the doctrine of the volitional act, set forth in opusc. 1. We did not involve translations of his ascetic and exegetical works, so as not to create the misleading impression that they belong to the same context as Opusc., because the terms used in them, even if they are denoted by the same words, often have a different meaning; We wrote about some such cases, for example, in relation to γνώμη and προαίρεσις, in the introductory article. The list of terms in the table (first column on the left) is based on terms and their derivatives found in opusc. 1. Differences in translations of seemingly the same terms by different authors from the same translator (as is the case in A. M. Shufrin’s translations of St. Maximus and St. Nemesius) should not come as a surprise. In different contexts, the same words can (and often do) have different meanings. These differences become even more noticeable when different authors are translated differently by different translators who understand them differently. This list of terms does not pretend to be a complete description of the act of will in Aristotle; we present only those terms that - often in a different sense - are found further in Nemesius and others. Maxim, taking as a starting point the system of terms of the latter, and precisely from opusc. 1; the description of the volitional act in it is the most detailed, and its affiliation with St. Maximus is undeniable (unlike disp. Pyrr.). Here and below, “absent” means either the complete absence of a given Greek word from one or another author (more precisely, in one or another text), or the fact that it is not used when describing a volitional act. However, in the Dispute with Pyrrhus there is an expression that D. E. Afinogenov translates as “arbitrary will” (θέλημα προαιρετικόν) (disp. Pyrr: PG 91, 312D). D. A. Chernoglazov translates προαίρεσις as “will.” It is this version of translation that Lurie accepted as the main one “in accordance with the Russian tradition of translating theological, rather than philosophical, literature” (Lurie 2006, p. 393). Shufrin did not translate those chapters where this word appears in Nemesius. In Nemesius, the word γνώμη is rare (for example, Nemes. de nat. hom. 36.17) and is not a term. The word ἐξουσία occurs rarely in the Disputation with Pyrrhus and is not used as a term, in contrast to the frequently encountered term αὐτεξούσια, translated as “autocracy.” D. A. Chernoglazov also translates αὐτεξούσια as “autocracy”. αὐτεξούσια, “literally translated into Slavic as “autocracy”, and into Russian as “freedom” (meaning free will) (Lurie 2006, p. 385). So in Arist. ethical Nic. 10.8. 1178a33. Rarely found in this meaning. More often it means “power”. The word is rare (one example: Nemes. de nat. hom. 38.11, where Vladimirsky translates in context: “(over) we have free power”), in contrast to αὐτεξούσια, translated by Vladimirsky as “free will”. As for αὐτεξούσια, Shufrin, in his translation of Nemesius, translates this term as “autocracy” (Anthology Vol. 1, p. 428). αὐτεξούσια translated ed. D. E. Afinogenova: “freedom of will.” In the sense of practical ability (Nemes. de nat. hom. 40.5). So in the translation of Nemes. de nat. hom. 29.6 (Anthology T. 1, p. 419 and scholium 2, p. 436; cf. scholium 9 to chapter 35 on p. 445). In this form in opusc. 1 does not occur, but only in the verb form: λογίζομαι (opusc. 1: PG 91, 21D, cf. disp. Pyrr.: PG 91, 294C). In disp. Pyrr.: PG 91, 294C provides a slightly different description of the act of will than in opusc. 1: PG 91, 21D–24A; translated by D. E. Afinogenov: “we, wishing, think, and, thinking and wishing, we want. And desiring, we seek, consider and consult, and judge, and tune in, and prefer, and see, and use βουλόμεθα. καὶ κρίνομεν, καὶ διατιθέμεθα, καὶ προαιρούμεθα, καὶ ὁρμῶμεν, καὶ κεχρήμεθα” (Maxim the Confessor 2004, p. 157). In the table, as in relation to the indicated topos in opusc 1, we present nouns denoting the corresponding stages of the act of will. In this form in opusc. 1 does not occur, but only in the verbal form: ζητέω (opusc. 1: PG 91, 24A, cf. disp. Pyrr.: PG 91, 294C). These and the two following words, although they are found in Aristotle, are not directly related to his description of the volitional act. In this form in opusc. 1 does not occur, but only in the verb form: σκέπτομαι (opusc. 1: PG 91, 24A, cf. disp. Pyrr.: PG 91, 294C). Found in Nemesius in verbal form (Nemes. de nat. hom. 33.10–12). In this form in opusc. 1 does not occur, but only in the verbal form: ἀναπαύω (opusc. 1: PG 91, 24A, cf. disp. Pyrr.: PG 91, 294C). The table was compiled by G.I. Benevich using datings from Winkelmann 2001. It should be borne in mind that the latest research by Jankowiak and Booth suggests other (not yet generally accepted in science) dating of some events (we mention the most important of them in the introductory article). The bibliography contains only the literature used in this publication. The most complete bibliography on St. For Maximus, see Knežević 2012. See also the constantly updated website: http://www.bbkl.de/m/maximus_c.shtml. As a rule, we do not include in the bibliography publications contained in the TLG, the publication of which is publicly available, limiting ourselves to indicating the publisher when the publication is first mentioned in the notes. The author kindly provided us with this book before it was finalized, so referenced pages may differ slightly from the printed version. The incorrectness of such references is obvious, but not citing this interesting, and also the most modern, study would be an even greater shortcoming.