1. The mysticism of Dionysius is liturgical or sacramental mysticism. The path to God leads through the Church and through the sacraments. Divine services are the path of deification and sanctification. For the imaginary Dionysius, the Church is, first of all, the world of the sacraments; it is in the sacraments and through the sacraments that communion with God is realized. Jesus, the divine and super-existent Mind, calls us to the perfect unity of the divine life and elevates us to the priesthood. Jesus is the beginning of every hierarchy, both heavenly, earthly, and ecclesiastical. In the church hierarchy, we are elevated to the angelic world. It can be said that the church hierarchy or priesthood is the highest level in the sensual world, directly adjacent to the heavenly world of pure spirits. In this sense, the earthly Church is an "image" of the heavenly Church – such a comparison was made by Clement of Alexandria... The essence of the earthly hierarchy is in revelation, in the "God-given words." This tradition is not exhausted by Scripture, but also includes oral, secret tradition from the Apostles — here Dionysius resembles the Alexandrians... The hierarch preserves and transmits this tradition, conveys it in sensual symbols, as if concealing the Divine mysteries from the uninitiated. Dionysius emphasizes the motif of mystery. This is required not only by the secrecy of the Divinity itself, and not only by reverence for the sacred—"pure only for the pure"—but also by the benefit of the uninitiated, the unprepared, and the novices themselves. In addition, the beginning of hierarchy requires that at different levels knowledge be revealed to different degrees. The outermost symbols (disciplina arсani) should not be accessible to the outer ones. And then knowledge and enlightenment grow in stages. In the Church, Dionysius distinguishes two triple circles. The first is the sacred ranks, "hierurgi". The second is "the ranks of those who are performed"... The dribbling is passed from top to bottom. The highest rank is episcopal. Dionysius calls it simply: "the order of hierarchs." This is the perfect and final rite, the summit of the hierarchy, the source of power and sacrament. The priests are responsible for education. Deacons or "liturgies" serve as "purification." It is they who deal with the still unenlightened, they prepare them for baptism, they guide those who are baptized, as if grafting them into a new life. They stand on the verge of the sacred rank and the worldly. The presbyters have further guidance, they explain symbols and rites to the enlightened. The bishop alone has the right to perform a sacramental service, in which he is served by presbyters... In the secular circle, Dionysius again distinguishes three ranks, corresponding to the three degrees of priesthood. The lowest order is still in need of purification: catechumens, penitents, possessed. The second order, "contemplative," is the "sacred people," ίερоς λάоς. They contemplate "sacred symbols and their hidden meaning"... The highest category is monks or "therapeuts". They are led by the bishop himself, but they are ordained by the presbyters. According to the interpretation of Dionysius, the name of a monk shows the integral and indivisible, "uniform" or monadic life that they should lead. They must direct their spirit to the "God-like monad," they must overcome all dispersion, they must gather and unite their spirit, so that the Divine monad may be imprinted in it. Dionysius calls the initiation or "performance" of monks a sacrament, and later in Byzantium monastic tonsure was usually considered a sacrament. However, Dionysius sharply emphasizes that monasticism is not a degree of priesthood, and monks are ordained for personal practice, and not for the guidance of others. They are to obey the priestly offices, particularly the elders. Therefore, monks are ordained not through the laying on of hands, and without kneeling before the altar. The priest reads a prayer ("epiclesis"), the initiate pronounces the renunciation of vices and "imagination" (from "fantasy"), — the priest signs him crosswise, with the invocation of the Trinitarian name, tonsures his hair, dresses him in new clothes, and gives him a kiss. Such was the ancient rite of initiation, in which the main place is occupied by the vow... 2. Dionysius speaks of three "sacred rites" – Baptism, Eucharist and Chrismation... Baptism opens the entrance to the Church. Dionysius calls it "enlightenment," "God's birth," or "regeneration." Baptism is performed by the bishop, but together with all the presbytery, and among the holy people, who by their consent ("Amen") seal the sacred rite. Baptismal education gives, first of all, self-knowledge. And for each person who is baptized, as one who enters into communion with God, an integral and collected life, a striving for immutability, is obligatory... Baptism is compensated by the Anointing, which is also performed by the bishop. Dionysius connects the "mystery of the world" with the idea of Divine beauty, which is signified by the fragrance of the world. Dionysius interprets in detail the symbolic actions of the sacraments, his interpretations often resemble Cyril of Jerusalem. It can be thought that it conveys a generally accepted interpretation, but at the same time strives for symmetry and parallelism, hence the sometimes violent comparisons. Attention is drawn to the constant use of expressions taken from the use of the mysteries, often instead of names and words sanctified by church custom. It is hardly accidental, but rather with intention, in order to contrast with particular clarity the true "mysteries" of the Church with the imaginary pagan "sacraments." The focus of sacramental life is the Eucharist, "the sacrament of assembly or communion," as Dionysius calls it. This is primarily the sacrament of union with the One, the completion or fulfillment of every accomplishment, the "completion of union"... An outward sign of unity is communion from one cup and one bread — those who partake of one food must be uniform... In all the symbolism of the Eucharistic service, Dionysius sees and emphasizes precisely this motif. 3. The last chapter of the book "On the Church Hierarchy" is devoted to the description and symbolic explanation of funeral rites. Dionysius speaks first of the fate of the faithful after death — "unfading life," eternal youth, full of light, radiance, bliss... This joy is a reward for podvig and loyalty, and therefore not equal blessedness is prepared for everyone. The path of death is the path of sacred rebirth, the path of "palingenesis." For the resurrection is prepared for all. And in the fulfillment of the terms, the body will also be called to a blessed life. This hope determines the joyful character of the funeral rite. It is curious that catechumens, as they are still external, are not allowed to be present at the final prayers of the burial, at the reading of the prayer of absolution, although penitents and possessed people are allowed. This is because burial is an intra-church and church-wide prayer, a brotherly prayer and action. Prayer for the departed, and especially the prayer of absolution, is a movement of mysterious love. And it is exalted by the bishop, the supreme hierarch of the community, "the messenger of Divine justifications." The last kiss is a symbol of brotherly bond and love. And, finally, the buried person is anointed with oil, as he was anointed at the beginning of his Christian path, at baptism...

Part 1

1. With the name of Leontius, a number of important dogmatic and polemical works have been preserved in many manuscripts. However, it is very difficult and difficult to establish who this Leontius was. Writers of the sixth century do not mention Leontius of Byzantium at all, neither historians nor theologians; nor does St. Maximus the Confessor speak of him. In the VII century, Leontius is mentioned by Patr. Sophronius in the enumeration of men and fathers who "piously taught" about Christ. Anastasius the Sinaite cites many excerpts from his works. But this Leontius undoubtedly lived much earlier, in the time of Justinian. In his writings there is no mention of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, of the condemnation of the "three chapters," of the condemnation of the Origenists. The writer's persistence in defending the Council of Chalcedon, his vehemence in objecting to the Monophysites and Nestorians — all this would have been belated already at the end of the 5th century... The nickname "Byzantine" may indicate not only the place of birth, but also the place of his original activity, probably the latter: in the title of his work "On the Sects" Leontius is called a "Byzantine scholastic." "Scholastic," i.e., a lawyer, although this name was also used in a figurative sense, in the sense of a learned man in general. In any case, Leontius the writer had a serious philosophical training and showed great dialectical resourcefulness in religious disputes. In his youth, by his own admission, he was a Nestorian. He was led out of error by "divine men," i.e., monks; and he himself became a monk (as he is called by Pat. Sophronius and Pat. German) Apparently a monk of Jerusalem. The paucity of biographical information prompted modern historians to guess Leontius the writer in other Leontii known in the history of the VI century. All these attempts must be recognized as unsuccessful. In particular, it is unfounded to identify him with that Leontius, also of Byzantium, about whom, as a zealous Origenist, it is told in the lives of St. Sava the Sanctified and Cyriacus the Hermit. In the writings of Leontius, not only are there no Origenistic motifs, but the impious "Origenian dogmas" (subordination, pre-existence of souls, apocatastasis) are directly and decisively rejected. And besides, there is no mention of the writing activity of Leontius the Origenist in the sources. Obviously, there were some reasons why Leonty's life as a writer remained in the shadows, although his works became more famous and widespread. We cannot unravel them. 2. The works of Leontius have been preserved in many copies, of which the oldest dates back to the ninth or tenth century. If the author's face is unclear, the question of his writer's heritage will always remain doubtful and controversial. First of all, it is necessary to mention the book "Against the Nestorians and Eutychians" — this is a record of oral disputes with heretics. The spelling should be attributed to the time after 527-8 and even after 535 (Antioch is called here Theupolis, and it was renamed so under Patriarch Ephraim, after the earthquake of 527-528, and then the separation of the "Severians" and "Julianists" is considered to have taken place here, which took place after the death of the Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria Timothy Elurus in 535), but in any case before the condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. The author refutes his "impiety", but does not speak of conciliar condemnation. In this book, Leontius analyzes the basic Christological terms and tries to establish their exact meaning, and then offers a positive revelation of Orthodox teaching, in particular on the question of the suffering and death of Christ. In the last part, devoted to Nestorianism, the author dwells on the analysis of the views of Diodorus and Theodore and cites many excerpts from their works and from the works of Nestorius. In conclusion of his reasoning, Leontius cites a collection of patristic testimonies. To this book is adjoined a short work against Severus, "30 Chapters Against Severus." It is a brief compilation, a schematic list of the issues on which Severus differs from the Church. Questions of terminology occupy a large place here as well. To this also belongs the dialogue between the Orthodox and the Acephalus called "Epilysis", an analysis of the arguments of Severus, made in addition to the previous books. A special place among the works of Leontius is occupied by the book "Against the Deceptions of the Apollinarians". In the history of Monophysitism, the so-called "forgeries of the Apollinarians" played a great and fatal role. Many of Apollinarius' writings were hidden and as it were booked under the false inscription of respected and revered names. Trust in such pseudo-patristic works greatly hindered the Alexandrian theologians in their dogmatic confession (suffice it to recall St. Cyril). It is difficult to reconstruct the exact history of these "forgeries" (false inscriptions). But they were especially widespread in the Monophysite environment. Already Eutychius, in his appeal to Pope Leo at the Council of Constantinople in 448, referred to the alleged testimony of Popes Julius, Athanasius, and Gregory (the Wonderworker) — he referred in good faith, not suspecting a "forgery." Emperor Marcian in his letter to the Palestinian monks noted that the books of Apollinarius, passed off as sayings of the Holy Fathers, were being distributed among the people. Justinian also mentions forgeries and forgeries. The historian Evagrius speaks of the influence of these forgeries: the inscription of revered names (Athanasius, Gregory, Julius) on the books of Apollinaris restrained many from condemning the impious opinions contained in them. At the well-known "conference" of 531-533 with the Seberians, Hypatius of Ephesus rejected a number of patristic references by pointing to falsity, i.e. false inscription... Under such circumstances, the disclosure and proof of forgeries became an acute and immediate task of theological polemics. In the solution of this problem, the most prominent place belongs to Leontius of Byzantium. His predecessor was John of Scythopolis, of whose works Leontius speaks with great praise. The works of John of Scythopolis have been lost, which increases the interest of Leontius' works for us. In his book, he collected a lot of material. He adduces false testimonies and compares them with the true judgments of those persons to whom they are attributed. He does the same in his book Against the Monophysites. On the other hand, he compares these testimonies with the indubitable texts of Apollinaris and his disciples and shows their coincidence in meaning. In this connection, Leontius has to enter into a detailed analysis of Apollinarianism. Leontius' critical arguments are distinguished by great accuracy and persuasiveness. Other works by Leonty have come down to us in a reworked, not in their original form and composition. Such, apparently, is the extensive "Treatise Against the Nestorians" in seven books, rich in historical material. The text is constantly interrupted, the plan is confused, there are significant differences in the style of the individual parts – this makes us see here a later revision. The same must be said about the book Against the Monophysites. Here, moreover, the later insertions are clearly visible, indicating events and circumstances of another time. The book "On the Sects" or "Scholia," as its very inscription in the manuscripts shows, has been preserved in a paraphrase by a certain Theodore, written down "from his voice" (under his dictation). It is difficult to say who this Theodore was, "the most God-loving abba and the wisest philosopher." The Scholia are undoubtedly written down from a living voice — traces of living colloquial speech are clearly visible in the text known to us. Subsequently, the book was once again revised, with later insertions. In its content, the book "On Sects" presents a systematic collection of hereseologic material in a historical order, with particular detail in the Christological sections. The very damage of Leontius' works testifies to the fact that they were in frequent use. They were rewritten with abbreviations, excerpts were made from them. Such is the origin of the so-called "fragments" or "scholia" of Leontius, extracted from various collections. Perhaps, however, it is also the individual notes of Leontius himself. It has been suggested that these are excerpts from an extensive polemical work by Leontius (similar to the collection known as The Teaching of the Ancient Fathers on the Incarnation of the Word (late 7th or early 7th century) or the "Guide" of Anastasius the Sinaite, 7th century) and that all the works of Leontius that have survived in general are also a reworking of this main work. Such an assumption is not justified by a closer examination. The question of ancient summaries of patristic testimonies and notes requires, however, a new and further study.

Part 2

3. As a polemicist and theologian, Leontius is first of all a scholastic and dialectician. First of all, he strives for a firm and precise definition of the basic concepts, which was required of him by the very state of theological questions in his time; It was necessary to mint and philosophically substantiate a uniform and complete Christological terminology. But Leonty does not stop there. He seeks to base his theological confession not so much on "natural reasoning" as on the "testimony of the Scriptures," from "the Divine Scriptures and the Holy Fathers." In particular, he makes extensive use of the fathers. In them he sees "wonderful counselors of the Holy Spirit." They did not speak of themselves, but the Spirit of the Father spoke in them, and therefore not to accept the fathers, glorious and famous in the Church, means to resist the command of God. Leontius attaches decisive importance to "agreement with the fathers." For this reason, he added to his writings special collections or "flower beds" of patristic texts. Especially frequent and abundant are references to St. Cyril and to the Cappadocians. However, Leontius treats the testimonies of the fathers not without criticism: "It is proper to take care not of words, but of thoughts; and if there is any new word, since it meets its purpose and agrees with the originally professed Orthodoxy, it must be respected and honored as appropriate." On the contrary, "if any saying used in the Holy Scriptures and in the Holy Fathers, due to impious innovation, is transferred by someone away from the true meaning, then it should be rejected and turned away from them, as from clever cheaters who forge not only the image, but not the inscription" (on coins)... In his theological work, Leontius was guided primarily by the polemical needs and tasks of the time. He was not a taxonomist. If he built a system, it was only in order to eliminate the ambiguity or polysemy of the unspoken patristic testimony that is favorable for heretical reinterpretations. "A general war has been raised about the image of unity, of which many know nothing and doubt it," says Leontius: "therefore it is necessary to philosophize in order to find out what we agree with and what we do not"... Relying on the Fathers ("I take everything from the Fathers!"), Leontius subjects the old and indisputable definitions to a strict analysis, brings them into a harmonious and complete system. Most of all, he relies on St. Cyril, he wants to be an interpreter of his Christology. The Monophysites, in their struggle against the "Synodites," emphasized the divergence of the formulas of St. Cyril and the Oros of Chalcedon. And Leontius first of all tries to show that despite the apparent disagreement and non-coincidence of verbal formulas, St. Cyril and the Chalcedonian Fathers said one and the same thing. On the other hand, he tries to draw a clear line of demarcation between Orthodox teaching and Severian Christology. 4. In dogmatic polemics, first of all, precision and firmness of concepts were required. Leontius, in his Christological usage, repeats the teachers of the second century, and most of all the Cappadocians. The concept of nature, φύσις, is identified with the concept of essence, oύσία. "Nature" indicates, first of all, the community of origin, the unity of the species. And at the same time, the "natural" is something innate or innate. "Nature" is a general concept, a generalizing concept, pointing to the general in things. But only separate or individual things really exist—"nature" is real only in them, in a multitude of individuals. The concept of "essence" has the same meaning. In this Leontius is a consistent Aristotelian. Following the Cappadocians, Leontius defines hypostasis as particular, special, concrete. "Nature" (or "essence") and hypostasis are related as general and particular (or rather, singular). Leontius is aware of the previous vacillations in the definition of these concepts and explains them by inconsistency. However, what is characteristic of Leontius' concept of hypostasis is not its great concreteness. Hypostasis means, first of all, "independent existence" (τό καθ' έαυτόν είναι)—there are only hypostases ("individuals"), and there is no (i.e., non-hypostatic nature). "Nature" is real only in "hypostases", in "indivisible" (in "atoms" or individuals). Everything that exists is hypostatic, i.e. individual. But in the spiritual world, the hypostasis is a person, "a person existing in itself" (cf. in the Chalcedonian Oros). Then Leontius made a very important reservation and introduced a new concept. If there is no "hypostatic" nature, this does not mean that nature is real only in its own individualizations or hypostases. Nature can also be "realized" in another hypostasis, in a hypostasis (or "indivisible") of a different kind (of a different nature). In other words, there are not only "one-natured" individuals or hypostases, but also complex ones: in them, with the unity (or singularity) of the hypostasis, we observe the reality of two or many natures in the fullness of their natural properties. Thus, "man" is a single hypostasis of two different natures, soul and body, defined by different "natural" concepts. "Hypostasis" is not an individualizing attribute. One can say more, it is not a sign at all. "Hypostasis" is the beginning of division and differentiation, not so much "distinction" ("natures" differ from each other in their essential characteristics), but precisely "divisions"... hypostasis is a 'separate', 'separate existence', a 'limit'... In complex hypostases, one nature is realized in the hypostasis of another... It is real "in hypostasis", but not necessarily in its own ... Thus Leontius establishes the concept of "hypostasis", τό ένυπόστατоν. "Ύπόστασις and ένυπόστατоν are not the same thing, just as υσία and ένоύσιоν are not the same thing. For each hypostasis signifies someone, and ένυπόστατоν signifies essence (nature). Hypostasis means a person determined by properties, and "hypostasis" indicates something non-self-accidental, which has its existence in another, and is not contemplated in itself"... "Hypostasis" is reality in a different hypostasis. From this it is evident that the reality of a nature in a definite individual does not yet mean the recognition of the hypostasis of this nature. It is easy to foresee the Christological application of this principle... Leontius logically descends from the general to the particular. The volume is narrowed and the content is enriched with features. This order of thought is just the opposite of the order of reality, where the individual is before the general, for the general is given only in the individual. But it is important that in this logical descent we do not yet reach hypostasis. Hypostasis is described by separating properties, but they do not form hypostasis. One can say that hypostasis is a way of existence, but it is not an individualizing feature... According to Aristotle, Leontius calls the properties that describe or determine each hypostasis "accidental" (τά σχυμβεβηκότα). And at the same time he distinguishes these constitutive (or "essential") accidents as "inseparable" from ordinary "accidental" attributes, always "separable" without violating the indivisible wholeness. "Hypostasis" is one of the possible cases of the union or interaction of natures. Unity without fusion, i.e. without loss or without change of the essential properties of the united natures, such, for example, is the unity of soul and body in man, united by "mutual life," but not changing in their essence. Such a union, in the opinion of Leontius, is its own and complete unity, unity "in hypostasis" — hypostatic unity, ένωσις ύπоστατική. In Leontius, this concept acquires terminological clarity and firmness.

Part 3

5. The incarnation of the Word is a mystery and a mystery, a "mystery"; and at the same time, of all the mysteries, it is this that is revealed "in natural appearance" — in the historical image of the God-man. In Christ, the twofold is inseparably revealed and contemplated. He is God and man, "perfect" God and "perfect" man, "One of the Holy Trinity" and "one of us." Thus is revealed the kinship of natures, which is not removed by union. Conjunction, Leontius insists, presupposes the observance of duality: only two can be united, and if those who are united disappear, the union itself will cease. Again Leontius explains his idea with an example of human hypostasis. The preservation of duality, or the presence of natures in union without a change in the "natural properties," does not in the least weaken the unity. To number natures does not mean "to divide"—number does not divide, but distinguishes... Natures are different, but inseparable... Unity is supposed to be unity. In union Christ is one, one hypostasis, or person, or individual, or subject. This unity of person or subject is signified by the name of Christ. This is the name of the hypostasis, as it were, a personal name, "the name of the person" (τоύ πρоσώπоυ όνоμα). It can be said that Christ is the name of the Word in His incarnation, the name of the Incarnate Word. For the one hypostasis of the God-Man is precisely the Hypostasis of the Word. In it the union takes place, in it the human nature is received and as it were "personified" (έπρоσωπоπоίησε!) — and at the same time the Divine Hypostasis remains simple and unchanging, as before the union. After all, fullness cannot be replenished... However, according to the strength of the connection, one can speak of "complexity" (or "addition"), meaning by this the very fact of the Incarnation (i.e. the reality of the two natures)... In the incarnation, the Word does not perceive human nature in general, but individualized human nature. In other words, according to humanity, Christ differs in individual and special attributes or properties from other people (from co-men), just as human individualities differ from one another. That is why we can say: "one of us". However, human nature is individualized "in the hypostasis of the Word" — έν τώ Λόγω ύπоστήναι. The Word perceives human nature not in its "generality" but in its "wholeness" ("the whole man", όλоν άνθρωπоν)... The union begins with the emergence of the human nature of the Word, i.e. with conception. However, Leontius seems to admit (though only logically) the possibility of a certain "pre-existence" of human nature. He is confused by the too precise parallel with the human composition: the soul and the body are separated in death and exist separately for a time, i.e. each nature in its own hypostasis, and only in the resurrection are they reunited in the unity of hypostasis. And often of the "complex" hypostasis of Christ he expresses himself as if it were "composed," and not in such a way that human nature is taken into the very hypostasis of the Word. Here Leonty has ambiguity and understatement... He is too carried away by logical symmetry and does not always note with sufficient clarity the "lack of independence" of the hypostatic being of human nature in Christ. Sometimes he expresses a simple and indisputable idea in a very confused way: according to humanity, Christ differs from "co-men", as "other from others", that is, as "hypostasis" (as individuality), because within the one nature the separateness of existence is determined precisely by "hypostasis". Leontius does not want to say in any way that the humanity of Christ is "self-hypostatic", i.e. exists about itself. Then there would be no true unity of hypostasis or subject, and such a "relative union" (ένωσις σχετική) is emphatically denied by Leontius. It only wants to say that Christ is individual in His humanity, that in comparison with human hypostases He is "different" or "special" among men. But he expresses this idea too sharply and indistinctly. Especially because he compares this difference between Christ and men in humanity with His difference in Divinity from other Trinitarian hypostases, and in the latter case there is a real difference between Hypostases and hypostases. However, for Leontius, this is only an inaccuracy of language, a fascination with the parallelism of natures. He never forgets the distinction he made between "hypostasis" and "hypostasis" and speaks directly of the second birth of the Word, from the Virgin Mary, of the second birth of the Word, and not only of human nature (of course, of the "Incarnate Word" or, better, of the Incarnate Word). After all, humanity exists precisely "in the Word" – Leontius does not say: "in Christ". And the unity of the hypostasis of the Incarnate Word justifies the "transfer of names" as a way of expressing the reciprocity" of attributes. You can call the Word the Son of man. It can be said that the "Lord of Glory" was crucified. It is possible in view of the unity of hypostasis, to which what is said about each nature actually refers: "One and the same thing is said differently." And the difference of nature is fully observed. "Reciprocity" never turns into "fusion." Reciprocity is possible precisely in the "hypostatic" union, and is impossible neither in the "separative union" ("by good will") of the Nestorian doctrine, nor in the "fusion union" of the Monophysites, for in the "unity of nature" the existence of "opposite" properties is impossible, which is assumed by "reciprocity"... Leontius considers the formula of St. Cyril to be unfortunate and careless, suggesting a false understanding, even with the reservation: "one complex nature" (in Severus), which is also logically awkward... Leontius resolutely insists on the "hypostatic" character of the divine-human unity. It is precisely the hypostasis that is one, with the duality of natures. The concept of "hypostasis" best expresses the unity of individuality (όλότης ύπоστατική), the unity of the subject, the unity of Christ. And the concept of "hypostasis" clearly defines the fullness of the reality of human nature without any hint of its "independence". It was not Leontius who first used this term (cf. Pseudo-Athanasius, Against Apollinaris I, Didymus, then Eustathius the Monk), but it was the first to receive all its expressiveness and power... The historical significance and influence of Leontius is determined precisely by the fact that he made an attempt to synthetically reveal the whole of Christology from the concept of a "single hypostasis." This eliminated all the ambiguity of the former "Eastern" Dyophysitism, and thus removed the violent constructions of the Severian doctrine. Leontius adheres to the Aristotelian tradition of the Cappadocians. But this was ecclectic Aristotelianism. In anthropology, Leontius was rather a Platonist (through Nemesius of Emesa, who wrote "On the Nature of Man")... What was not said by Leontius was filled in later, especially in Damascene. 6. In a dispute with the Aphthartodocetes, Leontius reveals in detail the doctrine of the humanity of the Word. It proceeds from soteriological premises. Unlike Julian of Halicarnassus, he believes that the First-Created Adam was created in "perishable" (i.e., mortal) flesh, and immortality was available to him only through eating from the "tree of life"—i.e., it was for him a dynamic task, a possibility, and not a "natural" state. This means that in the Fall, human flesh did not become mortal for the first time, but began to die—the possibility of immortality was lost, the possibility of "corruption" was manifested. Consequently, from the fact that Christ has the nature of the First-Created Adam, it does not yet follow that His flesh is "incorruptible" from the Incarnation itself. For all its purity and purity, the possibility of death or "decay" in it remains and is removed only through actual death, in resurrection. By nature (κατά φύσιν), the flesh of Christ is accessible to suffering, not exempt from "irreproachable passions" or "suffering" states. And not only because of a special indulgence or humiliation of the Word, as Julian thought. But precisely by nature (although there are no actual grounds for death in it)... The hypostatic unity does not require changes in the natural qualities of mankind and is not damaged by the suffering of the flesh. True, by virtue of the hypostatic unity, the measure of nature is exceeded (ύπέρ φύσιν), but the laws of nature are not abolished (not παρά φύσιν). And for the Saviour, incorruptibility is above nature. Before the resurrection, the measure of nature is exceeded only sometimes. It is miracles that are the exception of the Incarnate Word in the Gospel story, and not humiliation, as Julian depicted. For him, salvation in the Incarnation was already complete, as it were, and the life of the Gospel was represented by a series of super-due deeds. For Leontius, on the contrary, the Incarnation is only the beginning, and in the entire life of the Savior he sees inner unity and growth. Leontius reminds us that "incorruption" is not some exceptional gift, for it is promised to everyone. The innate incorruptibility of the flesh would not have increased the glory of the Saviour; on the contrary, the whole life of the Saviour would then have been incomprehensible... Why did He suffer and die on the Cross, if the glorification and deification of human nature had already taken place in the Incarnation itself? And if the human nature of the Saviour possesses actual "impassibility" and "incorruption" by virtue of the hypostatic union, then is not His fullness diminished with each allowance of suffering and infirmity... The whole meaning of Leontius' remarks is to emphasize the perfect reality of the Saviour's bodily life, which is fulfilled through voluntary death in the resurrection, when for the first time the body of the Saviour is actually clothed with incorruption... Leontius sharply distinguishes between the deification of soul and body. The human in Christ is pure from sin. And therefore the soul of the Saviour from the beginning partook of all the blessings of the Word, partook of blessedness and omniscience, on which Leontius insists against Theodore of Mopsuestia with his teaching about the moral perfection of Christ and about His original ignorance. This primordial deification of the soul is connected with its sinlessness and purity. But from this it is impossible to conclude about the incorruptibility of the flesh. Purity does not preclude growth, and the Saviour was born as a babe... Death is actually conquered only through death, voluntary (for "for our sake"), but natural... And the resurrection for the first time actualizes incorruption; it is the Resurrection that becomes the source of life and incorruptibility for the entire human race, as "consubstantial" with Christ in human nature, by virtue of its mysterious "servility" ("homeopathy"). This incorruptibility and "impassibility" will be revealed in the last days. Sinners will fall into new sufferings. However, these future sufferings are essentially different from the present sufferings associated with the natural suffering of mortal flesh. Thus, in his objections to Julian, Leontius successfully brings the dispute back to its anthropological presuppositions, to the doctrine of primordial nature and original sin.

II. Polemicists of the 5th and 7th centuries

1. At the very beginning of the sixth century, a certain Nephalius, a Palestinian monk, wrote against Severus; A little later, Severus was objected to by John of Caesarea or Grammaticus, who also wrote in defense of the Council of Chalcedon (he should not be confused with John Chozevitus). We also know of these objections only from Severus's books "Against Grammarus." To the same time belongs the polemical speech of John of Scythopolis — his book against Severus is referred to by the fathers of the Sixth Council (cf. in the Doctrina patrum). Heraclion of Chalcedon wrote against the Eutychians; Patras. Photius also notes his extensive refutation of Manichaeism. It is also necessary to mention the "Dogmatic Panoplia", compiled, probably, by Pamphilus of Jerusalem, a friend of Cosmas Indicopleus (a traveler on the eastern seas, the author of the remarkable "Christian Topography"). 2. The time of Justinian was a time of special polemical excitement, in connection with attempts to reach an agreement and reunite the Church. First of all, it is necessary to note the dogmatic epistles of the emperor himself. Justinian was in any case theologically educated and brought up. For all his inclination to reunite with the Monophysites, he himself was a fully Orthodox theologian. Only in his old age did he become interested in the teaching of the Aphthartodocetes, but his edict about it has not reached us. Justinian's weakness was that he hastened to decree his theological views as the norm of confession. And in his striving for unity, he was either too tolerant, or turned into Diocletian. However, in his theology he always strove to proceed from the traditions of the fathers. His theological tastes are very typical: he turned away from Antiochian theology and resented Origen, Cyril and the Cappadocians were closest to him. In general, Justinian is very close to Leontius; however, we do not encounter the doctrine of "hypostasis" in him, his language is less precise... To the time of Justinian belongs the polemical activity of Ephraim of Antioch, who was patriarch from 527 to 546. The writings of Ephraim are known to us in the paraphrase of Photius. He wrote against the Nestorians and Monophysites, in defense of Cyril and the Council of Chalcedon. He was a resolute opponent of Origenism. Especially interesting are his remarks against the Julianists (about the "immortality" of Adam)... Very interesting are the dogmatic-polemical treatises of John Maxentius, who is best known for his participation in the so-called "Theopaschite" disputes. He argued with the Nestorians, the Pelagians, and the Monophysites. He developed the formula of the Skete monks: "The One suffered from the Holy Trinity" into an integral theological teaching about the Redemption... Very interesting is the dogmatic epistle of a certain monk Eustathius "On the Two Natures", in which the dispute with Severus is brought to the question of two actions (in connection with the Monophysite criticism of the "scroll" of Leo)... Patras. Photius recounts in detail the book of a certain monk Job "On the Incarnation", which is very characteristic in its plan and terminology... All these small polemical works are very helpful to enter into the spirit of the epoch, into the spirit and meaning of the Monophysite disputes... Of particular note is the treatise of the Constantinople presbyter Timothy "On the Reception of Heretics," which is rich in factual data on the history of Monophysite interpretations and divisions... 3. To the end of the VI century belongs the activity of Abastius of Antioch. He took the cathedra in 561, but already in 570 he was exiled and imprisoned, and returned to Antioch only in 593. In prison he wrote a great deal, chiefly against the Aftartadocetes and against Philoponus. His works have been published only in Latin translation. Characteristically, Anastasius relies almost exclusively on the Scriptures and hardly mentions the ancient fathers. The main idea of Anastasius is the sufferings of the God-Man. His thoughts found an echo in the Monk Maximus and in Damascene. To the same time belongs the activity of Saint Eulogius of Alexandria. Of the Antiochian abbots, he entered the Alexandrian cathedra in the year 583 and held it until his death, in 607. He wrote a lot, but most of his works are known to us only from extracts from Photius. Of the surviving fragments, excerpts from the large dogmatic book "On the Holy Trinity and on the Incarnation" are especially characteristic. It should be emphasized that St. Eulogius very accurately develops the doctrine of the "natural" human will in Christ, speaks directly of "two actions" and "two wills," and confirms his reflections with a deep analysis of the main Gospel texts. In this respect, he is a direct predecessor of the Monk Maximus. 4. Of the writers of the VII century, it is necessary to mention, first of all, St. Sophronius of Jerusalem. He came from a monastic environment. With great reason the future patriarch can be seen in that Sophronius the sophist who was a friend of John Moschus and his companion in hagiographic travels. Born in Damascus, he was born around the year 550. In his youth he was a "sophist", i.e. a teacher of literature. But early he went to a monastery, to the Lavra of Saint Theodosius, where he met and became close to John Moschus. Together they travel around Palestinian and Syrian monasteries; the invasion of Chosroes prevented them from returning to Palestine, and they went to Alexandria, where they stayed for quite a long time, under Saint Eulogius and Saint John the Merciful. Probably, during these years they traveled around the deserts and shrines of Egypt. Then they go through Cyprus to Rome. John Moschos died here, about the year 620. Sophronius transferred his ashes to the Lavra of Saint Theodosius. He finished and published "Spiritual Meadow", the work of his late friend's life. In the year 630, Sophronius was again in Egypt. He was there in the years when the Monothelite movement began, and immediately came out against Cyrus. In the year 634 he was elected to the Jerusalem cathedra. This was the time of the Saracen invasions, and soon after the capture of Jerusalem by Omar, Sophronius died (638) — Zephanius was not a theologian by vocation. He spoke on dogmatic topics as a pastor. Most important of all is his well-known Encyclical Epistle, published on his accession to the cathedra, in which Sophronius offers a detailed confession of faith in view of the manifested Monothelite temptation. Later, at the Sixth Council, it was accepted as an accurate exposition of the faith. Sophronius' epistle is very mild. He insists only on the main thing. First he speaks of the Trinitarian mystery, then he moves on to Christology. He speaks in the usual antitheses, reminiscent of the Lion's scroll. The Bodiless One is incarnated, and the Eternal accepts birth in time, and the true God also becomes true man. In the Incarnation, the Word accepts "the whole human constitution" — "flesh of one essence with us, and a rational soul, homogeneous with our souls, and a mind completely identical with our mind." And he accepts that everything human begins to be when it begins to be the humanity of God the Word. The two natures are united in a single hypostasis, "being clearly cognizable as two," and each preserves in union all the fullness of its special qualities and determinations. From the immutability of the two natures, Sophronius deduces a distinction between two actions (he does not speak of two wills). For it is in actions that the difference of natures is revealed. "We confess both natural actions in both natures and essences, of which for our sake an unmerged union was made in Christ, and made one Christ and Son a wholly God, Who must also be recognized as a wholly man." Both actions refer to the one Christ, according to the indivisible unity of His hypostasis. And God the Word acts on humanity. However, Christ experiences everything human "humanly" and "naturally" (φυσικώς καί άνθρωπίνως), although not out of necessity or involuntarily. It is here that Sophrony's stress lies: "humanly", but without that "suffering" or passivity that is characteristic of the "simple", i.e. sinful, nature of man... Sophronius enters the history of Christian writing not so much as a theologian, but as a hagiographer and hymn-writer. It is difficult to determine the share of his participation in the compilation of "Spiritual Meadow". Undoubtedly, he is the author of the praise and legend of the miracles of Saints Cyrus and John the Healers, and the reason for his compilation was his miraculous healing from an eye disease. To assimilate Patr. Sophronius has no basis for the life of St. Mary of Egypt... The homilies of Sophronius are interesting for those historical details that allow us to imagine the life of the Church in conquered Jerusalem. From a dogmatic point of view, the homily on the Annunciation is especially important... Sophronius was also a hymn-writer. It is not always possible to attest to Sophronius the attribution of the hymns inscribed with his name. The hymns under his name in the Lenten Triodion undoubtedly do not belong to him. The authenticity of the collection of "anacreontic" poems is almost beyond dispute. These are not liturgical hymns, but rather homilies spoken in measured speech... The explanation of the liturgy known as Sophronius does not belong to him. But in general, he worked on the church charter. Symeon of Thessalonica attributed to Sophronius the introduction of the rule of the monastery of St. Sava into general use in Palestine... 5. The Monk Anastasius the Sinaite was the abbot of Mount Sinai. From here he traveled more than once in Syria, Arabia and Egypt, for polemical and missionary purposes. We know little about his life. He died about twenty years after the Sixth Council. He was first and foremost a polymath. All his books are written for controversy. The main one is the "Guide" (Oδηγός; it would be better to translate: "guidance"). It was composed of separate chapters and epistles, in which Anastasius examines the individual and particular objections of the Monophysites, on the basis of the Scriptures and on the testimony of the ancients. The book "Answers to Questions" (in the old days they used to say "Questions and Answers") has the same character. This is more of a guide to heuristics (the art of argument) than to "dialectics". True, Anastasius denounces the spirit of petty questioning; however, he himself analyzes and resolves petty difficulties and perplexing questions. For the historian, there are many unclear details here, especially in the explanation and application of the texts of Scripture. References to the ancients are very important. But the spirit of the system disappears, the connection weakens, and attention is lost in the labyrinth of aporias... It is also necessary to mention Anastasius' commentary on the Six Days, of the 12 books only the last has come down to us in the original. Only an allegorical explanation is given ("anagogical contemplations"). Anastasius explains the Psalms in the same way... It should be emphasized that Anastasius always thinks in Aristotelian categories, although he considers "Aristotle's empty words" to be the source of all heresies.

III. Collections

1. In the Christological controversy, the question of theological traditions was sharply raised. This was due to the struggle of schools or directions. There is a need to sum up historical, sometimes critical, results, and to consolidate one's confession with the testimony and authority of the ancients. Already in St. Cyril's polemical epistles we find a systematic selection of "patristic opinions." The Antiochians were also engaged in the collection of ancient testimonies, especially Theodoret (in the Eraniste). In the West, John Cassian refutes Nestorius with the testimony of former teachers, Pope Leo refutes Eutyches from the ancients. At the councils of the 5th-7th centuries, the collections of patristic sayings are carefully reread (especially at the 5th and 5th Ecumenical Councils, at the Lateran Council of 649). Especially abundant are the excerpts from ancient writers in Leontius and St. Maximus... In this way, dogmatic collections (or "flower beds", "florilegia") were gradually formed. Here the literary form typical of the Hellenistic era comes to life again. For the needs of teaching or for school polemics at that time, numerous collections of exemplary excerpts or testimonies of ancient writers were compiled, most often of edifying content; it is enough to mention Plutarch's "Apoffegmas" or the well-known collection of Stobaeus... It is almost impossible to trace the history of the Christian "florilegia" in detail. The most significant of them is known under the name: "The Words of the Holy Fathers or the Choice of Sayings" (usually called in Latin Doctrina patrum de Incаrantione Verbi). This compilation has been preserved in several copies representing different editions; the oldest of the copies of the VII or IX century. The compilation of the collection should be attributed to the time of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, but before the iconoclastic turmoil. With some reason, one can guess in the compiler the Monk Anastasius the Sinaite. In any case, the choice of texts in the "Words of the Fathers" is very reminiscent of the collection of sayings in the "Guide" of the Monk Anastasius... Of particular note is the collection of "Sacred Comparisons," known under the name of St. John of Damascus. His literary history has not yet been fully clarified... In manuscripts we also encounter collections of patristic sayings on certain issues, for example, on the dogmatic meaning of certain texts (in particular, Matt. 26:39 ff. or Luke 2:52)... These collections were subjected to further processing, supplemented with new articles, when new questions occupied theological attention. In iconoclastic times, there appeared special collections of testimonies about the veneration of holy icons (a collection of texts already in Damascene, then in the Acts of the Eighth Council)... Subsequently, a variety of collections of edifying content became widespread. Their origin is most likely connected with liturgical needs, with the custom of the so-called "statutory readings" that replaced free preaching (cf. Trull. 19). In early times, the acts of martyrdom were usually read during divine services, later they began to be replaced by more or less extensive excerpts from the works of the fathers, most often from the works of Chrysostom. However, the custom of "statutory readings" was finally established relatively late... For the historian, all these collections are of double interest. Firstly, they often preserved important fragments from lost works. Secondly, these codes make it possible to establish the average level and scope of historical and dogmatic awareness in a certain era. They testify to us about readers rather than writers. 2. Exegetical collections are of a different nature. They were composed in the process of exegetical work on the Holy Scriptures, developed from notes or remarks to the biblical text, from the so-called "scholia". (This was an ancient custom; cf. scholia to various classical authors; a different kind were the scholia to legislative and other legal acts)... The explanations of various interpreters are layered on top of each other. In the process of correspondence or revision, the so-called "lemmas", i.e. exact references, are very often omitted. Interpretations sometimes merge into a coherent text. Usually, the names of interpreters are indicated by short signs, often conventional, sometimes unclear. Christian exegetical collections (or "chains", catenae) are characterized by the impartiality of the compilers, one might say, their peculiar unscrupulousness. The compilers of exegetical collections usually strive for completeness and variety, of course, within the limits of the material known or accessible to them. And therefore it is not at all difficult to place authors of opposite trends side by side, Origen next to Diodorus, Severus, or even Apollinaris next to Theodore of Mopsuestia. After all, even heretics have sound and valuable thoughts... This "impartiality" gives special importance to exegetical codes. They preserved many fragments from lost and rejected books, from the interpretations of Origen, Didymus, and Diodorus. This often makes it possible to restore forgotten motifs in the history of interpretation in general and the interpretation of individual characteristic texts. Sometimes in the catenae we find exegetical passages from very early authors, for example, Hippolytus and even Papias of Hierapolis, and archaic theological motifs come to life before us. However, the use of catens is not easy. The authors' indications are often unclear, unreliable, and sometimes clearly incorrect. We have to rely not even on the compilers of the collection, but on the later copyists, in fact, on the scribe of the list known to us. Nevertheless, the material extracted from the catena is very important. Until now, it has not yet been exhausted and fully investigated... For the first time, the compilation of the exegetical code was carried out by Procopius of Gaza (ca. 465-528), who for many years in a row stood at the head of the school in Gaza. A number of interpretations have survived from it, first of all, an extensive commentary on the Octobook; it has not yet been published in full. In the preface, Procopius describes the method of his work, first he collects and writes out the opinions of selected interpreters ("selections", "eclogues"). Then, since very often the explanations coincide, he shortens his code, leaving only divergent opinions. Its interpretation is such an "abbreviation". Procopius made the most use of the interpretations of Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and St. Cyril. In addition to the Octobook, Procopius explained the book of Isaiah; his scholia to the books of Kings and Chronicles have been preserved, mainly according to Theodoret. The attribution of Procopius to the commentaries on Proverbs and the Song of Songs, known by his name, is not indisputable... Of the same character are the interpretations of Olympiodorus, the deacon of Alexandria, on the teaching books of the Old Testament, on the prophets Jeremiah, Baruch and the book of Lamentations, on the Gospel of Luke (first half. II century). Later interpreters are more independent: Gregory of Agrigentum in his commentary on Ecclesiastes (c. 600), Icumenius in his commentary on the Apocalypse (c. 600), Anastasius of Nicaea in his explanation of the Psalms (con. III century). Of particular note is the well-known commentary of St. Andrew of Caesarea on the Apocalypse (no later than the year 637); it was later revised by Arethas of Caesarea, a contemporary of Photius. The interpretation of St. Andrew is full of references to the ancients, he often quotes the opinions of even pre-Nicene writers. He understands revelation allegorically; in other copies his book is even directly inscribed with the name of Origen.

IV. The Hymn-Writers

1. Christian worship from the beginning has a dogmatic rather than a lyrical character. This is due to his mysterious realism. From the human side, worship is, first of all, a confession, a testimony of faith, not only an outpouring of feelings. That is why dogmatic and theological disputes have left such a noticeable mark in the history of liturgical poetry... Already in the dogmatic disputes of the end of the second century, the reference to the ancient hymns to the glory of Christ God acquires the force of a theological argument, as a testimony from liturgical tradition. Basil the Great, in his disputes with the Arians about the divinity of the Spirit, again relies on the testimony of liturgical tradition. Subsequently, Pope Celestine put forward the general principle that the law of faith is determined by the law of prayer — ut legem credendi stаtuit lex supplicаndi (Cаpitula Celestini, 8, alias 11 — the wording of these chapters known to us seems to belong to Prosper of Aquitaine). In this way, the liturgical rite is recognized as a dogmatic monument or source... In the early days, creative improvisation occupies a very significant place in the divine services (cf. 1 Cor. 14:26). This was also the case in the second and third centuries (the testimony of Justin the Philosopher and Tertullian). These were primarily hymns and psalms, songs of praise and thanksgiving. Suffice it to mention the great prayer in the Epistle of Clement of Rome. Some of these ancient hymns remained in liturgical use forever (e.g., "O Gentle Light"; cf. also the doxologies and thanksgivings in the Alexandrian copy of the Bible, in the VII book of the "Apostolic Constitutions"). In the 4th century, we observe a liturgical turn. It was partly connected with the dogmatic struggle, partly with the development and spread of monasticism. Very indicative is the well-known 59th canon of the Council of Laodicea, which forbids "reading in church ordinary psalms and books not prescribed by the canon" — διωτικоύς ψαλμоύς, оύδέ άκανόνιστα βιβλία... later Byzantine canonists assumed that this refers to the so-called "Psalms of Solomon" and other similar ones. It would be more correct to think that the Laodicean rule had a broader and more direct meaning. By analogy with Canon 60, which determines the composition of the biblical canon (namely, in connection with the liturgical reading of biblical books), in canon 59 one can see an attempt to fix a certain "canon" in the divine services, with the exclusion of all "non-sacred" hymns from liturgical use. This prohibition applies to all "false" songs, into which dogmatic ambiguity and even outright errors easily crept in. Phrygia has always been a kind of den for heretics. And chants were a very convenient and effective means of spreading and instilling false views. We know very well that this remedy was constantly used by ancient sectarians and false teachers. Suffice it to recall the hymns or "psalms" of the Gnostics and Montanists, and the songs of Arius (his Phalia) in later times (cf. "New Psalter" by Apollinarius). In the conditions of dogmatic struggle, the desire to bring liturgical singing to precise and strict limits is quite understandable. The easiest way was to return to the biblical psalmody, to the "telling" of the canonical Psalms of David. From the beginning they passed into Christian use from the order of synagogue worship. In the 4th century, biblical motifs became even more prominent in worship. And this was a conscious establishment, not only an involuntary recollection. The liturgical order established by Basil the Great in his monasteries had a special influence. His dispute with the Neocaesareans is characteristic. He was accused of innovations – he introduced antiphonal singing of psalms and singing with refrains. St. Basil did not deny that this was a new order, which, however, was already accepted everywhere (cf. the Jerusalem service in the "Pilgrimage" of Etheria). However, the Neocaesareans also have innovations – some "prayers" ("litanies", religious procession) of penitential content. But this is not what Basil stresses: "And we do nothing else but pray for our sins, with this difference, that we propitiate our God, not with human utterances, as you do, but with the words of the Spirit" (Letter 207). St. Basil emphasizes that among the Neocaesareans many things turn out to be insufficient "because of the antiquity of the institution", because of their obsolescence (cf. On the Holy Spirit, ch. 29)... The custom of psalmody with refrains became common at this time in city or "cathedral" churches, both in Alexandria under Athanasius, and in Autiochius under Diodorus and Chrysostom. "In our congregations, David is the first, and the middle, and the last," says Chrysostom. This was a revival of the Old Testament custom (cf. the refrain in the text of Psalm 135 itself). From the refrains, new hymns gradually develop, in close connection with the biblical text, as its revelation or explanation... Psalmody ("the sequence of psalms") receives a special development in monasteries. Here the daily cycle of prayers and divine services is formed and consolidated. It is based on the "verse" of the Psalter. In Egyptian monasteries, long prayers were avoided. Prayer should be frequent, but abrupt, so that the enemy does not have time to scatter our hearts," Abba Isaac explained to John Cassian... The solemn singing "was considered inappropriate. " The monks did not go out into the desert to sing melodic songs, said Abba Pamba to his disciple, who had been in Alexandria. "What tenderness is possible for monks, if in church or in cell they raise their voices like oxen!" ... Very characteristic here is this striving to pray "with the words of the Spirit", this abstention from new hymns and hymns, composed "according to the custom of the Hellenes"... Sometimes verses from the works of the fathers were added to the Psalms and biblical songs. Abba Dorotheus speaks, for example, of the "singing of the sayings" of St. Gregory the Theologian... Both the Kelliot and the Kinovite services were most likely of a penitential nature, in contrast to the more ancient and "conciliar" services, which were solemn and praised... Comparatively late and very gradually, a new liturgical poetry began to develop on a new basis. New hymns are composed. The story of the Monk Auxentius (from the time of the Council of Chalcedon) is interesting. People flocked to his cave. The ascetic proclaimed individual verses, and the people answered him with short refrains, either from the Psalms or from ancient hymns. Auxentius' friend was Anthimus, the first "creator of troparia"... The liturgical rite develops independently in different places. Especially important centers were the Great Church in Constantinople, i.e. the Church of Sophia, the Sinai Monastery and the Lavra of St. Sava the Sanctified. In the history of liturgical poetry, the decisive influence was at first precisely the influence of the monasteries of Syria and Palestine, from which all the significant hymn-writers of the 5th, 5th and even 7th centuries, up to Damascene, originated. The traditions of Greek and Syrian poetry are crossed here. These new hymns reflect the epoch with its Christological disturbances and disputes. Very early the idea of consolidating the already established rite arises. This is how the "rule" is composed, the "Typikon". The Greek name expresses not only the motif of norm or order, but above all the motif of the pattern. The Typikon is not so much a book of rules as a book of examples or models... The history of the hymns has to be reconstructed from recordings that are relatively late. And it is not always possible to distinguish with complete certainty the oldest layer from under the later strata. The inscriptions of names even in the oldest manuscripts are not very reliable. Generally speaking, the most ancient hymns were supplanted by the works of later hymn-writers, especially in the period of the final consolidation or writing down of the rules... At the same time, divine services are becoming more and more nameless and supra-personal... Early Byzantine liturgical poetry reaches its highest conclusion in the dogmatic hymns of St. John of Damascus. 2. Among the early Byzantine hymn-writers, first of all, St. Romanos the Sweet Singer should be mentioned. Strangely, none of the historians mentions it. We learn about his life only from the Menaion (under October 1). He was born in Syria, from Emesa on the Orontes. He was a deacon first in Verita, then in Constantinople, at the Blachernae Church. This was during the reign of Imp. Anastasia. Apparently, during the reign of Anastasius I (491-518). The Monk Roman lived until the middle of the VI century... He was the "creator of kontakions" (or kondakars), hymns of praise for feast days, usually with an acrostic of his name. It is not easy to determine with accuracy the volume of his creative heritage. Up to 1,000 hymns were attributed to him. Among the best are the kontakions on great feasts, such as the Nativity of Christ, the Presentation of the Lord, the Annunciation, and the day of Pascha ("If thou hast descended into the grave, O Immortal One"...). The works of the Monk Roman stand out for their rare richness and elegance of poetic form. In terms of content, they are very simple, without any allegorism. But the author's dogmatic pathos reaches a high tension. He is always occupied with the Christological theme, sings of the invariable union of the two natures, and constantly goes on the offensive against heretics; His songs are full of polemical allusions. He sharply denounces philosophers and especially doctors. This fully corresponds to the mood of Justinian's time... With the appearance of the canon as part of Matins, most of the works of the Monk Roman were ousted from use. 3. About the life of another great Byzantine hymn-writer, St. Andrew of Crete, we also know little, and also only from the Menaion. Theophanes the chronicler names Andrew of Crete among the members of the Council of 712, which rejected the acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, under the pressure of Emperor Theophanes. Philippic. This was an act of unworthy acquiescence (or "oikonomia"), but not apostasy... The Monk Andrew was a native of Damascus, asceticized at the monastery of Saint Sava, and later was a deacon of the Great Church. It is difficult to determine exactly when he was made bishop of Crete. Apparently, he lived to see the beginning of the iconoclastic disputes (a word in defense of holy icons has been preserved)... The Monk Andrew was a preacher and hymn-writer. Apparently, he was the first compiler of canons (the triodes with the name of Sophronius probably belong to the Monk Joseph the Hymn-Maker, already in the ninth century). Most of the canons of St. Andrew fell out of use very early. The most remarkable work of St. Andrew is, of course, the Great Canon — it is known to us in the later adaptation of the Studites, the irmoses and troparia of St. Mary of Egypt do not belong to Andrew. Most likely, it is a kind of penitential autobiography. Hence the upsurge and intensity of personal feeling, which permeates this poem of a contrite soul... The Monk Andrew is characterized by his biblicism. Sometimes he almost literally repeats biblical texts. The Great Canon is overflowing with biblical memories. A long line of vivid penitential images from the Bible stretches, from Adam to the wise thief. The biblical text is very often perceived allegorically, but this is moral, not speculative allegorism... Dogmatic motifs are little expressed in St. Andrew. Penitential lyrics predominate... It is also necessary to note his three canons in the first days of Passion Week (now sung at Compline), on Cheesefare Wednesday, at Compline of the Sunday of Vai, the complete canons for the Resurrection of Lazarus, on the Sunday of the Myrrh-bearing Women, on Mid-Pentecost, on the day of the Nativity of the Mother of God, and a number of "self-voices"... As a liturgical form, the canon was further developed and completed in the works of Damascene and Cosmas, Bishop of Mayum (he must be distinguished from another Cosmas the hymn-writer, who was his mentor and that of Damascene; but it is almost impossible to distinguish the works of the two authors of the same name). In the VII century, the canons were compiled by Stephen Savvait. The iconoclastic turmoil also had a painful effect on the history of liturgical singing. 4. Of the monuments of Constantinople hymn-making, it is necessary to note the famous Akathist or Non-Sedentary Hymn, which in later rules is timed to coincide with the feast on Saturday of the Fifth Week of the Forty Days. The author of the Akathist is unknown. It was neither George Pisis, a learned poet of the time of Heraclius, nor Pat. Sergius. Apparently, the Akathist has been preserved in a later revision, which changed both the original plan and the very theme of the hymn. Initially, it was more of a Christological hymn than a hymn of the Mother of God. And this initial redaction can be attributed to the time of Heraclius (the beginning of the VII century).

Ascetic Fathers