/

St. Tikhon’s University Review . Series III: Philology

St. Tikhon’s University Review III :64

ARTICLES

Shichalin Yury

Homer, the source and bond of European civilization

Shichalin Yury (2020) "Homer, the source and bond of European civilization ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia III : Filologiia, 2020, Iss. 64, pp. 9-35 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturIII202064.9-35
The fi rst part of the article shows that the turn to Homer (the publication of his poems, their translation, study, etc.) is a sign of introduction of a particular people to European civilization at all the main stages of its development. The second part of the article identifi es in Homer’s poems a new way of viewing and describing reality, i.e.“realistic” (or “illusionist”) which allows one to introduce visual impressions and emotional affects into the space-time continuum and present them as “possible from the point of view of probability and necessity” (Aristotle) and therefore recognizable and verifiable. The assimilation of this view of reality and its implementation in various types of creativity led to the development of arts (e.g., of drama) and sciences (e.g., geometry); these, being institutionalized (mainly in the form of various schools and research centres), determined all the further development of European civilization.
Homer, Greek culture, European civilization and Europeans, European culture, mimesis, realism, educational and academic centres
  1. Aleksandrova T. (2017) “Gomerovskii tsenton imperatritsy Evdokii”. Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. 3: Filologiia, 50, p. 63–97 (in Russian).
  2. Auerbach E. (1976) Mimesis: Izobrazhenie deistvitel’nosti v zapadnoevropeiskoi literature [Mimesis. The representation of reality in Western literature]. Moscow (Russian translation).
  3. Egunov A. (1964) Gomer v russkikh perevodakh XVIII–XIX vekov [Homer in Russian translations of the 18th — 19th centuries]. Moscow; Leningrad (in Russian).
  4. Egunov A., Zaitsev A. (1990) “Iliada v Rossii” [Ilias in Russia], in Gomer. Iliada. Leningrad. P. 417–427 (in Russian).
  5. Kostrov E., Lyubzhin A. (transl.) (2019) Gomerova Iliada [Homer’s Iliad]. Moscow (in Russian).
  6. Poeziia vagantov (1975) [Poetry of vagantes]. Moscow (in Russian).
  7. Shichalin Yu. A. (2017) “Oshibka perspektivy, ili eshhe raz o Rossii i Evrope” [Error of the perspective, ot once again on Russia and Europe]. Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. 1: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 74, p. 93–112 (in Russian).
  8. Steiner G. (ed.) (1996) Homer in English. London; New York.

Shichalin Yury


Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philology;
Academic Rank: Professor;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
Post: professor of the Department of Ancient Languages and Early Christian Literature;
ORCID: 0000-0002-1799-2021;
Email: graecolatinum@gmail.com.

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

Braschi Francesco, priest

Ilias picta: a manuscript of many lives

Braschi Francesco (2020) "Ilias picta: a manuscript of many lives ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia III : Filologiia, 2020, Iss. 64, pp. 36-46 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturIII202064.36-46
The manuscript preserved in Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan, known as Ilias picta (i.e. Illuminated Iliad, reference number F 205 inf), is unique in its appearance, antiquity and history. Originating from a pagan, anti-Christian Late Antiquity milieu, it was carefully preserved by Christian scholars who appreciated the literary value of the Homeric Ilias and the artistic quality of its illuminations. The article outlines the history of the manuscript, its origin in Alexandria in the 5th century during the last attempts of pagan culture to withstand the rising of Christianity in the Roman Empire; the way it survived the Arab invasion and was largely used from the 7th to 11th centuries; the dramatic changes it underwent when its pictures were cut out from the parchment original manuscript and re-used to enrich a Latin paper manuscript containing an epitome of the Iliad; the way it became part of the rich collection of the famous Italian humanist Gian Vincenzo Pinelli and – after his death – how it was bought by Cardinal Federico Borromeo in order to enrich the maniscript collection of Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan. Whereas the attention of the owners fi rstly focused on the pictures which survived after the distruction of the original manuscript, scholars of the 19th century came to be interested in it after the discovery of excerpts of the Homeric text on the backside of the miniatures; this was connected with the so-called Homeric question. The article also describes the emergence of the main facsimile reproductions as well as the most valuable relevant studies. The conclusion underlines how the story of the Ilias picta manuscript perfectly shapes the mission of the Biblioteca Ambrosiana, i.e. to preserve and valorise everything that belongs to the Humanities from a genuinely Christian perspective.
Alexandria, pagan culture, Christian culture, Homeric question, illuminated manuscripts, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, text tradition of Iliad, Federico Borromeo, Angelo Mai, Gian Vincenzo Pinelli, Southern Italy, Iliad epitomes
  1. “Allegorismo greco” (1981), in Dizionario di Antichità classiche di Oxford. Roma. P. 81–82.
  2. Bianchi B. (1955) Hellenistic-Byzantine Miniatures of the Iliad (Ilias Ambrosiana). Olten.
  3. Castelli C. (2013) “Euripide, Angelo Mai e l’Ilias picta”, in Miscellanea Graecolatina I, Milano-Roma: Biblioteca Ambrosiana-Bulzoni Editore. P. 49–64.
  4. Cavallo G. (1973) “Considerazioni di un paleografo per la data e l’origine della «Iliade Ambrosiana»”. Dialoghi di Archeologia, 7, p. 70–85.
  5. Davis L. D. (1998) Storia e cronaca de I sette Concili che defi nirono la dottrina cristiana. Casale Monferrato.
  6. Ilias picta: Edicion facsimil (2009). Valencia.
  7. Iustin Filosof. Apologiia II (2017) [Justin Martyt. Apology II], in Sviatye ottsy i uchiteli Tserkvi: Antologiia [Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church: anthology], vol. 1. Moscow.
  8. Jedin H. (ed.) (1992) Storia della Chiesa, vol. 4. Milan.
  9. Lewis B. (2008) “The Arab Destruction of the Library of Alexandria: Anatomy of a Myth”, in M. El-Abbadi, O. Fathallah, I. Serageldin (eds). What Happened to the Ancient Library of Alexandria? Leiden. P. 213–217.
  10. Mai A. (1954) Epistolario, vol. 1. Florence.
  11. Meyendorff I. (1992) Vvedenie v sviatootecheskoe bogoslovie [Introduction to patrisctic theology]. Vilnius; Moscow (in Russian).
  12. “Omero” (1997), in Enciclopedia Garzanti della Letteratura. Milan. P. 739–745.
  13. Palla L. (2004) “’Folia antiquissima, quibus Ilias obtegebatur’: Materiali per una storia dell’Ilias picta’ ambrosiana”, in C. Mazzucchi, C. Pasini (eds) Nuove ricerche sui manoscritti greci dell’Ambrosiana. Milan. P. 315–352.
  14. Pasini C. (2007) Bibliografia dei manoscritti greci dell’Ambrosiana (1857–2006). Milano.
  15. Serventi S. (2019) L’Ilias Picta Ambrosiana (manoscritto). Milano.

Braschi Francesco, priest


Academic Degree: Doctor of Theology;
Academic Rank: Professor;
Place of work: Biblioteca Ambrosiana; Piazza Pio XI, 2 — 20123 Milano, Italia;
Post: Doctor of the Ambrosiana Library - Director of the Department for Slavistics of the Accademia Ambrosiana;
ORCID: 0000-0002-9480-7205;
Email: francesco.braschi@gmail.com.
Soloviev Roman

Homer as the first theologian: an allegory and symbol in Porphyry’s treatise ‘’On the сave of the nymphs’’

Soloviev Roman (2020) "Homer as the first theologian: an allegory and symbol in Porphyry’s treatise ‘’On the save of the nymphs’’ ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia III : Filologiia, 2020, Iss. 64, pp. 47-66 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturIII202064.47-66
This article explores the hermeneutical principles that Porphyry of Tyre used for interpreting the description of the cave of the nymphs in the Odyssey. After a brief outline of the origins and development of the allegorical method (used frequently not only by the sophists but also by the orphics), the article analyses Porphyry’s treatise. Taking the literal meaning as a starting point, Porphyry reconsidered Homer’s text as a revelation of the nature of the universe and the fate of souls. For Porphyry, Homer’s poems acquire the status of a sacred text, and Homer himself becomes the fi rst theologian from whom Jews and Christians borrowed episodes, reshaping them in their own way. Porphyry analyses eleven lines from the text which is authoritative for pagans and identifies three possible allegorical interpretations of the cave of the nymphs, i.e. the sensible world, the invisible potencies within the world, the intelligible essence. Having set out the principles of his exegesis, Porphyry focuses on the fi rst allegorical interpretation, i.e. the sensible world. The article identifi es the Neopythagorean sources of this interpretation as well as the specifi city of Porphyry’s approach to myths, which differs from both the previous Stoic and subsequent Neoplatonic tradition of Iamblichus and Proclus. The cave of the nymphs, which was taken as real by Porphyry, is an image of the whole universe created and governed by the Demiurge. The allegory of the cave is analysed by Porphyry within the framework of the Neoplatonic approach to the wanderings of Odysseus as an allegory of the journey of the soul in the unfolding world. For Porphyry, this treatise meant much more than any other didactic treatise, as seen from the analysis of the epilogue.
Homer, Neoplatonism, Neopythagoreanism, Porphyry of Tyre, exegesis, allegory, cave of nymphs
  1. Babbitt F. (ed.) (1927) Plutarch’s Moralia, vol. 1. Cambridge (Mass.).
  2. Borret M.(ed.) (1969) Origène,Contre Celse: In 4 vols. Paris. Vol. 4, p. 14–352.
  3. Brisson L. (1998) Plato the Myth-Maker. Chicago; London.
  4. Brisson L. (2004) How Philosophers Saved Myths: Allegorical Interpretation and Classical Mythology. Chicago; London.
  5. Buffi ère F. (1956) Les mythes d’Homère et la pensée grecque. Paris.
  6. Burkert R. (1972) Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism. Cambridge (Mass.).
  7. Burkert W. (1970) “La gènese des choses et des mots: le papyrus de Dervéni entre Anaxagore et Cratyle”. Les Ètudes Philosophiques, 1970, 4, p. 443–455.
  8. Chevrolet T. (2007) L’idée de fable: théories de la fiction poétique à la Renaissance. Genève.
  9. De Piano P. (2014) “Porfirio e Proclo lettori di Omero: la verità del linguaggio poetico nell’esegesiomerica di tradizione neoplatonica”. Incidenza dell’Antico, 12, p. 155–174.
  10. Diels H., Kranz W. (eds) (1951–1952) Die fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Berlin.
  11. Festugière A.-J., Nock A. D. (eds) (1946) Corpus Hermeticum, vol. 1. Paris.
  12. Ford A. (2002) The Origins of Criticism: Literary Culture and Poetic Theory in Classical Greece. Princeton; Oxford. P. 67–89.
  13. Gudimova S. (2006) “Porfirii o peschere nimf” [Porphyry on the cave of the nymphs]. Vestnik kul’turologii, 3, p. 165–168 (in Russian).
  14. Hawes G. (2014) Rationalizing Myth in Antiquity. Oxford. Kouremenos Th., Parássoglou G. M., Tsantsanoglou K. (eds) (2006) The Derveni Papyrus. Florence.
  15. Lamberton R. (1986) Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonist Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition. Los Angeles.
  16. Long H. (ed.) (1964) Diogenis Laertii vitae philosophorum, vol. 1. Oxford.
  17. MacPhail J. (ed.) (2010) Porphyry’s Homeric Questions on the Iliad: text, translation, commentary. Berlin.
  18. Männlein-Robert I. (2018) “Kronios”, in: Riedweg Ch. (ed.) Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike. Basel. P. 658–659.
  19. Marantidi E. (ed.) (2018) “Geraklit. Gomerovskie voprosy” [Heraclites. Homeric questions], in Utrique Camenae: Issledovaniia. Perevody. Moscow. P. 127–207 (in Russian).
  20. Marchant E. (ed.) (1971) Xenophontis opera omnia. 2nd ed., vol. 2. Oxford.
  21. Marcovich M. (ed.) (1986) Hippolytus. Refutatio omnium haeresium. Berlin.
  22. Nails D. (2019) Liudi Platona: Prosopografi ia Platona i drugikh sokratikov [Plato’s people. Prosopography of Plato and other Socratics]. Moscow (in Russian).
  23. Obbink D. (2003) “Allegory and Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus: The Origin of Greek Scholarship”, in Boys-Stones G. (ed.) Metaphor, Allegory, and the Classical Tradition: Ancient Thought and Modern Revisions. Oxford.
  24. Pépin J. (1966) “Porphyre, exégète d’Homère”, in Dörrie H., Waszink J.-H., Theiler W. (eds) Porphyre: huit exposés suivis de discussions: Vandoeuvres-Genève, 30 août — 5 septembre 1965. Genevа. P. 241–250.
  25. Pépin J. (1976). Mythe et allégorie. Les origines grecques et les contestations judéo-chrétiennes. Paris.
  26. Popova T. (1975) “Gomer v otsenke neoplatonikov” [Homer as evaluated by Neoplatonics], in Drevnegrecheskaia literaturnaia kritika [Ancient Greek literary criticism]. Moscow. P. 415– 452 (in Russian).
  27. Richardson N. (2006) “Homeric Professors in the Age of the Sophists”, in Laird A. (ed.) Ancient Literary Criticism. Oxford. P. 62–86.
  28. Sedley D. N. (1996) “Plato’s Phaedo in the Third Century BC”, in Funghi M. (ed.) ΟΔΟΙΔΙΖΗΣΙΟΣ: Le vie della ricerca: Studi in onore di Francesco Adorno. Florence. P. 447–455.
  29. Shichalin Y. (ed.) (2007) Plotin. Traktaty 1–11 [Plotinus. Treatises, 1‒11] Moscow (in Russian).
  30. Sidash T. (ed.) (2004) Plotin. Chetvertaia enneada [Plotinus, The Fourth Ennead]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
  31. Sidash T. (ed.) (2019) Porfirii. Trudy [Porphyry. Works], vol. 2. St. Petersburg (in Russian)
  32. Struck P. (2004) Birth of the Symbol: Ancient Readers at the Limits of Their Texts. Princeton; Oxford.
  33. Takho-Godi A. (1976) “Khudozhestvenno-simvolicheskii smysl traktata Porfi riia “O peshchere nimf”. Voprosy klassicheskoi filologii, 6, p. 3–24 (in Russian).
  34. Von der Mühll P. (ed.) (1962) Homeri Odyssea. Basel.
  35. Westerink L. (ed.) (1969) Porphyry. The Cave of the Nymphs in the Odyssey. Buffalo. P. 2–34.

Soloviev Roman


Student status: Graduate student;
Student status: Graduate student;
Academic Rank: Professor;
Place of study: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities;
ORCID: 0000-0002-0833-0624;
Email: solorom@gmail.com.
Moretti Paola Francesca

Intersezioni: classico e cristiano nel centone biblico di Proba

Moretti Paola Francesca (2020) "Intersezioni: classico e cristiano nel centone biblico di Proba ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia III : Filologiia, 2020, Iss. 64, pp. 67-81 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturIII202064.67-81
Proba is a 4th century poetess who belonged to the Roman aristocratic family of the Petroni Probi. A very well-educated woman, she reworked Vergil’s hexameters and hemistichs into a biblical cento (approximately 600 verses), starting from the creation of the world and ending with Christ’s Ascension to Heaven. This work was read by and had a deep infl uence on Empress Eudocia, who after Proba composed a Homeric Christian cento in Greek. Proba’s Cento refl ects the scholastic techniques of memorizing and interpreting ancient poetry, especially Vergil, who, although a pagan, is treated as a pivotal author throughout Antiquity, even by Christians. Some scholars suggested that Proba, as a Christian, did intend her poem to replace the reading of Vergil at grammarian schools, by “cleaning” and Christianising his work. However, a close look shows that Proba was skillfully using Vergilian fragments to interpret the biblical episodes which she was retelling. For example, God’s love towards His creatures and Peter’s love towards (dead) Christ are described by quoting words referred by Vergil to Dido’s love for Aeneas, whereas Christ’s injured and wounded body, when he appears to the disciples after resurrection, is “commented upon” by quoting the unjust and cruel deaths of Sichaeus and Deiphobus. As a result, we should think of Proba’s expected reader as being familiar with Vergil’s hypotext quite well; otherwise, he or she would not be able to grasp the Christian meaning of the Cento. Moreover, the Cento’s episode of the Last Supper is analysed in detail. Here, two passages from the 5th book of the Aeneid serve as“Leitreminiszenzen”: ludi funebres in honour of Anchises, and Palinurus’ death. This analysis shows that even those lines that might seem mere mosaics made up of “neutralised” Vergilian tesserae can disclose their treasures if one comprehends them properly. Vergil is defi nitely being made to speak pia munera Christi (Proba 23) to such extent that some of Vergil’s words used by Proba cannot be understood properly unless we reinterpret them in light of their meaning in the Christian Sondersprache. This shows that Proba’s being a Christian is connected inextricably to her being Vergilian, and that her Cento is a goldmine that hides treasures, many of which are still waiting to be dug out.
Faltonia Betitia Proba, Christian Latin poetry, Latin literature, Latin poetry, Latin epics, Vergil, Latin centos
  1. Bažil M. (2009) Centones Christiani. Paris.
  2. Bright D. (1984) “Theory and Practice in the Vergilian Cento”. Illinois Classical Studies, 9, 1, p. 79–90.
  3. Cacioli M. (1969) “Adattamenti semantici e sintattici nel centone virgiliano di Proba”. Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica, 41, p. 188–246.
  4. Clark E., Hatch D. (1981) The Golden Bough, The Oaken Cross: The Vergilian Cento of Faltonia Betitia Proba. Chico (CA).
  5. Fassina A. (2005) “Alterazioni semantiche ed espedienti compositivi nel Cento Probae”. Incontri triestini di filologia classica, 5, p. 261–272.
  6. Fassina A., Lucarini C. (eds) (2015) Faltonia Betitia Proba:Cento Vergilianus. Berlin; Boston.
  7. Formisano M., Sogno C. (2010) “Petite poésie portable: The Latin Cento in Its Late Antique Context”, in M. Horster, C. Reitz (eds) Condensing Texts, Condensed Texts. Stuttgart. P. 375–392.
  8. Geymonat M. (ed.) (1973) Publi Vergili Maronis Opera. Augustae Taurinorum.
  9. Green R. (1995) “Proba’s Cento: Its Date, Purpose, and Reception”. Classical Quarterly, 45, 2, p. 551–554.
  10. Green R. (2008) “Which Proba Wrote the Cento?”. Classical Quarterly, 58, 2, p. 264–276.
  11. Green R. (ed.) (1991) The Works of Ausonius. Oxford.
  12. Hardie P. (2007) “Polyphony or Babel?: Hosidius Geta’s Medea and the Poetics of the Cento”, in S. Swain, S. Harrison, J. Elsner (eds) Severan Culture. Oxford. P. 168–176.
  13. Herzog R. (1975) Die Bibelepik der lateinischen Spätantike, 1. München.
  14. Kirsch W. (1989) Die Lateinische Versepik des 4. Jahrhunderts. Berlin.
  15. Kyriakidis S. (1992) “Eve and Mary: Proba’s Technique in the Creation of Two Diff erent Female Figures”. Materiali e Discussioni, 29, p. 121–153.
  16. Lamacchia R. (1958) “Dall’arte allusiva al centone”. Atene e Roma, 3, p. 193–216.
  17. Mastandrea P. (2001) “L’epigramma dedicatorio del ‘cento Vergilianus’ di Proba, Anth. Lat 719d Riese: Analisi del testo, ipotesi di datazione e identificazione dell’autore”. Bollettino di Studi Latini, 31, p. 565–578.
  18. McGill S. (2005) Virgil Recomposed: The Mythological and Secular Centos in Antiquity. Oxford.
  19. Moretti P. (2008) “Versi didoniani nel centone di Proba”, in Motivi e forme della poesia cristiana antica tra Scrittura e Tradizione classica: XXXVI Incontro di Studiosi dell’Antichità Cristiana, Roma. P. 643–659.
  20. Norden E. (ed.) (1957) P. Vergilius Maro: Aeneis, Buch VI. 4. Aufl . Stuttgart.
  21. Pavlovskis Z. (1989) “Proba and the Semiotics of the Narrative Vergilian Cento”. Vergilius, 35, p. 70–80.
  22. Schanzer D. (1986) “The Anonymous Carmen Contra Paganos and the Date and Identity of the Centonist Proba”. Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 32, p. 232–248.
  23. Schottenius C. (2015) Proba the Prophet. The Christian Virgilian Cento of Faltonia Betitia Proba. Leiden; Boston.
  24. Usher M.(1998) Homeric Stitchings: The Homeric Centos of the Empress Eudocia. Lanham (MD); Oxford.
  25. Verweyen T., Witting G. (1991) “The Cento: A Form of Intertextuality from Montage to Parody”, in H. Plett (ed.) Intertextuality. Berlin; New York. P. 165–178.
  26. Weber R. et al. (eds) (1994) Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem. 4th ed. Stuttgardiae.
  27. Ziolkowski J., Putnam M. (2008) The Virgilian Tradition: The First Fifteen Hundred Years. New Haven; London.

Moretti Paola Francesca


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philology;
Academic Rank: Associate Professor;
Place of work: State University of Milan; Via Festa del Perdono 7, I-20122 Milano;
Post: Associate Professor of Latin language and literature;
ORCID: 0000-0001-9017-8731;
Email: paola.moretti@unimi.it.

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

Materova Elizaveta

Frog as a symbol in the commentary on the book of revelation by Tyconius the African (Rev. 16. 13–14)

Materova Elizaveta (2020) "Frog as a symbol in the commentary on the book of revelation by Tyconius the African (Rev. 16. 13–14) ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia III : Filologiia, 2020, Iss. 64, pp. 82-94 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturIII202064.82-94
This paper deals with the image of frog in the Commentary on the Book of Revelation by Tyconius the African (Tyconius Africanus), the Christian exegete of the 4thcentury. In his Commentary on Rev 16. 13–14, Tyconius, following the Scriptures, speaks about frogs as a symbol of mud, related to the “Satanic Trinity”, i.e. the Dragon, the Beast and the False Prophet. Such demonisation was not known to Ancient Greek, Roman, and Jewish cultures, where the frogs had other connotations, rather comic than horrifi c. There is only one culture, Zoroastrianism, which had eschatological conception similar to Christianity, and which attributed a demonic nature to frogs. Tyconius comments this place, though he is not satisfi ed with a generalized statement which equalizes frogs and evil spirits. He makes this image more specifi c and it serves as an allegory of hypocrisy. Comparing this episode from Tyconius’ Commentary to the description of a frog in the Late Antiquity text Physiologus (2nd — 3rd centuries AD) allows one to identify certain similarities, i.e. a twofold composition (description of the habits and a subsequent allegorical explanation), an opposition of the righteous and the sinful presented in the Physiologus as the two types of frog, χερσα´ος (living on the ground) and Ëνυδρος (living in water). In Tyconius’ Commentary it is an opposition credentes (believers) — hypocritae (hypocrites). The symbol of water is very important in the two texts because of its connotation of the Baptism. These similarities indicate that the Physiologus, originated in Alexandria, was known to Tyconius, who was a native of North Africa, and perhaps made use of the Physiologus. Tyconius’ interpretation of the frog correlates with his idea of the Church, where the body of Christ is divided into the right (i.e. true) and left (i.e. false, hypocritical) parts. These parts are spiritually opposite but have to remain together till the Last Judgment when the fi nal separation will happen explicitly. Thus, the frog as a symbol of the false part of the Church is in accordance with Tyconius’ system of ideas.
Tyconius, Apocalypse, Book of Revelation, Early Christian exegesis, Physiologus, frog as symbol, Zoroastrianism, allegory
  1. Beale G., McDonough S. (2013) “Otkrovenie Ioanna Bogoslova”, in G. Beale, D. Carson (eds) Commentaryon the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, vol. 3. Cherkasy. P. 459–590 (in Russian).
  2. Blumenthal A., Blumenthal E. (eds) (2018) Tyconius und Apringius. Zwei alte lateinische Kommentare zur Off enbarung des Johannes. Berlin.
  3. Frenschkowski M. (2004) “Parthica Apocalyptica: Mythologie und Militärwesen iranicher Völker in ihrer Rezeption durch die Off enbarung des Johannes”. Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum, 47, p. 16–57.
  4. Gabra G. (1993) Cairo, the Coptic museum, Old Churches. Cairo.
  5. Gumerlock F., Robinson D. (eds) (2017) Tyconius. Exposition of the Apocalypse. Washington (D. C.): The Catholic University of America Press. The Fathers of the Church. A New Translation, vol. 134.
  6. Loubser J. (1997) “Gathering jewels: Biblical Hermeneutics in the Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt”. Journal for the Study of Religion, 10, 1, p. 41–75.
  7. Löw I. (1969) Fauna und Mineralen der Juden. Hildesheim.
  8. Materova E., Nyebolszin A. (eds) (2017) “Tikhonii Afrikanskii. Kommentarii na Apokalipsis (Otkr 2–3)” [Tyconius the African. Commentary on Apocalypse (Rev. 2‒3)]. Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. 3: Filologiia, 1 (50), p. 98–118 (in Russian). doi:10.15382/sturIII201750.98–118.
  9. Materova E., Nyebolszin A. (eds) (2017) “Tikhonii Afrikanskii. Kommentarii na Apokalipsis (Otkr 4–5)” [Tyconius the African. Commentary on Apocalypse (Rev. 4‒5)]. Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. 3: Filologiia, 3 (52), p. 115–130 (in Russian). doi:10.15382/sturIII201752.115–130 (in Russian).
  10. Materova E. (ed.) (2016) “Tikhonii Afrikanskii. Kommentarii na Apokalipsis (Otkr 1)” [Tyconius an African. Commentary on Apocalypse (Rev. 1)]. Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. 3: Filologiia, 2016, 3 (48), p. 108–117 (in Russian). doi:10.15382/sturIII201648.102–117.
  11. Nyebolszin A. (2016) “Tikhonii Afrikanskii — tolkovatel’ Apokalipsisa” [Tyconius the African, the interpreter of the Apocalypse]. Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. 3: Filologiia, 3 (48), p. 102–107 (in Russian). doi:10.15382/sturIII201648.102–117.
  12. Russel J. (1987) Zoroastrianism in Armenia. Cambridge (Mass.).
  13. Sarianidi V. (2010) Zadolgo do Zaratushtry: Arkheologicheskie dokazatel’stva protozoroastrizma v Baktrii i Margiane. Moscow (in Russian).
  14. Steinhauser K. (1993) “Tyconius: was he Greek?” Studia Patristica, 27, p. 394–399.
  15. Tyconius (2004) Le Livre des Règles, introd., trad. et not. par. Paris: Cerf. Sources Chrétiennes, t. 488.
  16. Vercruysse J.-M. (ed.) (2004) Tyconii Afri Expositio Apocalypseos: Accedunt eiusdem Expositionis a quodam retractatae Fragmenta Tauriniensa, cura et studio Roger Gryson. Turnhout. Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina, t. 107 A.
  17. Witetschek St. (2008) “The Dragon Spitting Frogs: On the Imagery of Revelation 16. 13–14”. New Testament Studies, 54, p. 557–572.

Materova Elizaveta


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philology;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
Post: Associate Professor;
ORCID: 0000-0003-0776-0515;
Email: materowa@mail.ru.

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

Smirnov Dmitrii

St. Augustine’s treatise ‘’On the spirit and the letter’’: its historical background and principal set of ideas

Smirnov Dmitrii (2020) "St. Augustine’s treatise ‘’On the spirit and the letter’’: its historical background and principal set of ideas ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia III : Filologiia, 2020, Iss. 64, pp. 95-117 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturIII202064.95-117
This article is devoted to the treatise On the Spirit and the Letter, one of the earliest anti-Pelagian works of St. Augustine. It describes the historical and literary context of the initial stage of the Pelagian controversy, which had a decisive infl uence on the topic and content of this treatise. The doctrine of primordial sin and damage to human nature caused by Adam’s fall, which St. Augustine introduced and substantiated in this work, remained fundamental for the subsequent development of his treatment of salvation. The general description of the treatise is accompanied by a review of assessments that were given to its content in the Russian theological literature. The article also gives a structural and thematic analysis of the treatise. It shows a frequent use by St. Augustine of polemic exegesis; its material is predominantly the Epistles of St. Paul. The article examines St. Augustine’s interpretation of the main topics of Christian soteriology raised with regard to the main question about the meaning of law and grace for justifi cation and salvation.The article concludes that the unique role of the treatise On the Spirit and the Letter in St. Augustine’s Corpus is due to the fact that the text expresses his position to the issue of grace which in subsequent Pelagian controversies was condemned in the West as “semi-Pelagianism” and came to be known in the East as the doctrine of synergy.
St. Augustine, treatise On the Spirit and the Letter, Caelestius, Pelagian heresy, Pelagian controversies, law of Moses, grace, free will, justifi cation, salvation, Christian soteriology, Latin patristics
  1. Bochet I. (1992) “‘La lettre tue, l’Esprit vivifi e’: L’exégèse augustinienne de 2 Cor 3, 6”. Nouvelle Revue Théologique, 114, p. 341–370.
  2. Burns J. (1980) The Development of Augustine’s Doctrine of Operative Grace. Paris.
  3. Chéné J. (1959) “Saint Augustin enseigne-t-il dans le ‘De spiritu et littera’ l’universalité de la volonté salvifi que de Dieu?”. Recherches de science religieuse, 47, p. 215–224.
  4. Fokin A. (2019) “Pelagii”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopaedia], vol. 55, p. 258–274 (in Russian).
  5. Geerlings W. (2002) Augustinus: Leben und Werk: Eine bibliographische Einführung. Paderborn.
  6. Golovnina N. (2016) “Rossiiskaia psevdo-avgustiniana v kontekste perevodcheskoi deiatel’- nosti XVIII veka” [Russian Pseudo-Augustiniana and the translaition projects in the 18th century]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia 2: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 5 (72), p. 58–74 (in Russian). doi:10.15382/sturII201672.58-74.
  7. Hwang A. (2006) “Augustine’s Interpretations of I Tim. 2:4 in the Context of His Developing Views of Grace”. Studia Patristica, 43, p. 137–142.
  8. Léon-Dufour X. (1946) “Grâce et libre arbitre chez saint Augustin à propos de: ‘Consentire vocationi Dei... propriae voluntatis est’”. Recherches de science religieuse, 33, p. 129–163.
  9. Lettieri G. (1993) “La dialettica della giustifi cazione nel ‘De spiritu et littera’”, in Ripensare Agostino: Interiorità e intenzionalità : Atti del IV Seminario internazionale del centro di studi agostiniani di Perugia, Roma, p. 123–165.
  10. Lohse B. (1990) “Zum Wittenberger Augustinismus: Augustins Schrift ‘De spiritu et littera’ in der Auslegung bei Staupitz, Luther und Karlstadt”, in K. Hagen (ed.) Augustine, the Harvest, and Theology (1300–1650): Essays Dedicated to Heiko Augustinus Oberman in Honor of His 60thBirthday. Leiden. P. 89–109.
  11. Mandouze А. (ed.) (1982) Prosopographie Chrétienne du Bas-Empire, t. 1. Prosopographie de l’Afrique Chrétienne (303–533). Paris.
  12. McGrath A. (2005) Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justifi cation. 3rd ed. Cambridge.
  13. Meis A. (1982) “La libertad como gracia en «De spiritu et littera» de San Agustin”. Anales dela Facultad de Teología, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, 33, p. 77–95.
  14. Meis A. (1983) “La ‘Impeccantia’ como posibilidad humana segun ‘De spiritu et littera’ de San Agustin”. Teología y Vida, 24, p. 53–68.
  15. Meyer P. W. (1995) “Agustine’s ‘The Spirit and the Letter’ as a Reading of Paul’s Romans”, in L. White, O. Yarbrough (eds) The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of W. A. Meeks. Minneapolis. P. 366–381.
  16. Mowbray A. (2012) “Augustine the Semi-Pelagian”. Augustiniana, 62, p. 189–249.
  17. Mutzenbecher A. (ed.) (1984) Augustinus. Retractationes. Turnholt.
  18. Pietri Ch., Pietri L. (eds) (1999–2000) Prosopographie Chrétienne du Bas-Empire, t. 2. Prosopographie de l’Italie Chrétienne (313–604). Paris; Rome.
  19. Plagnieux J. (1957) “Le chrétien en face de la loi d’apres le ‘De spiritu et littera’ de saint Augustin”, in J. Auer, H. Volk (eds) Theologie in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Michael Schmaus zum sechzigsten Geburtstag. München. P. 725–754.
  20. Refoulé F. (1963) “Datation du premier concile de Carthage contre les Pélagiens et du ‘Libellus fidei’ de Rufin”. Revue d’etudes augustiniennes et patristiques, 9, p. 1–2, 41–50.
  21. Sage A. (1965) “La volonté salvifi que universelle de Dieu dans la pensée de saint Augustin”. Recherches augustiniennes, 3, p. 107–131.
  22. Smirnov D. (2019) “Pelagianstvo”. Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopaedia], vol. 55, p. 224–258 (in Russian).
  23. Stepantsov S., Fokin A. R. (2000) “Avgustin Avrelii”. Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopaedia], vol. 1, p. 93–109 (in Russian).
  24. Teske R. (ed.) (1997) Augustine, Saint, Bishop of Hippo. Answer to the Pelagians. Hyde Park (N. Y.).
  25. Verheij en L. (ed.) (1981) Augustinus. Confessiones. Turnholt.

Smirnov Dmitrii


Place of work: Th e Centre “Orthodox Encyclopaedia”; 10a/1, Nizhniaia Syromiatnicheskaia Str., Moscow105120, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0001-7330-8709;
Email: smirnov.pravenc@gmail.com.

PUBLICATIONS

Fedorova Ekaterina

Jan Amos Komensky. Mathetica

Fedorova Ekaterina (2020) "Jan Amos Komensky. Mathetica ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia III : Filologiia, 2020, Iss. 64, pp. 121-138 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturIII202064.121-138
Nikolay A. Fedorov was a translator of a wide range. He translated texts of the Roman Golden era authors and was considered a major Russian specialist in Ciceronian studies, his work on the ethical terms in Cicero’s works is unique of its kind in the field.Latin authors of XVII century have very specifi c language, and many great philosophers’s works — G. W. Leibniz, F. Bacon, Th. Hobbes, P. Gassendi have become known to the Russian readers through the translations by Nikolay Fedorov. So N. Fedorov was quite experienced to translate a work by Jan Amos Komensky (1592–1670), Czech pedagogue and humanist, writer and religious author. He was a Bishop of the Bohemian Brothers Church as well. His treatise Mathetica had been lost for many years and found about 1892 at the British Museum by a Slovak researcher Jan Kvačala (1862–1934), who came to teach theology at the Derpt University (now Tartu Unoversity). The translation of the treatise was the last one by Nikolay Fedorov before his death in 2016 aged 91. His remarkable approach to the translation process is being described as an examplary one and in accordance with the Classical philology school of Moscow State University which implies slow reading and deep analysis of every word in the Classical text.
Classical philology at MSU, translation school at MSU, principles of translation by Nikolay Fedorov, the first translation of Jan Amos Komensky’s «Mathetika» into Russian
  1. Fedorov Nikolay A. (2015) “Stanovlenie esteticheskoj leksiki Tsitserona”, in Ars docendi — Iskusstvo nauchit’, Moscow: Izdatel`stvo PSTGU, pp. 251–460 (in Russian).
  2. Fedorova Ekaterina (ed.) (2015) Ars docendi — Iskusstvo nauchit’. Moscow: Izdatel`stvo PSTGU.
  3. Firsov E. F. (2018) “Professor teologii Jan Kvačala v svete novykh arkhivnykh otkrytij v Rossii i Slovakii”, in Liberté et Patrie: Miscellany in Honour to Jozef Rydlo, Bratislava, pp. 188–201. Libri Historiae Slovaciae/ Libri Historiae Europae (in Russian).
  4. Dashevskij Grigorij M., Kalashnikova Elena (2001) “’Ne pochtovye golubi naslazhdenij a’: [Intervju s Grigoriem Dashevskim]”. Russkij Zhurnal, 2001, November 15, available at: http://www.litkarta.ru/dossier/dashevskiy-kalashnikova-interview/ (15.05.2020) (in Russian).
  5. Kulkova Natalia A. (2017) “Traktat svt. Amvrosij a Mediolanskogo ‘Ob objazannostjah’ v antichnoj i christianskoj tradicii”, in Amvrosij Mediolanskij , svt. Sobranije tvorenij, Moscow: Izdatel`stvo PSTGU, vol. 7, pp. 21–29 (in Russian).
  6. Vyrubov N. V. (2017) “Uchastnik Osvobozhdenij a: Besedy s Paskalem Mailhosom, Tulon, 1998”, in Russkij barin — geroj Francii N. V. Vyrubov, Moscow: Poligraf-plyus, pp. 9–74 (in Russian).

Fedorova Ekaterina


Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Culturology;
Academic Rank: Associate Professor;
Place of work: Lomonosov Moscow State University; Russian Federation, Moscow Leninskie Gory 1/13;
Post: professor;
ORCID: 0000-0002-5199-3706;
Email: ledentu@mail.ru.

*According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.

Davydenkova Maria; Kaluzhnina Nadezhda; Strievskaya Olga; Mazurina Natalia

A dictionary of locutons from liturgical books by protopriest A. I. Nevostruev (общаюся — оглушеніе)

Davydenkova Maria, Strievskaya Olga, Kaluzhnina Nadezhda, Mazurina Natalia (2020) "A dictionary of locutons from liturgical books by protopriest A. I. Nevostruev (obshtayusia — oglushenіe) ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia III : Filologiia, 2020, Iss. 64, pp. 139-148 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturIII202064.139-148
The “Dictionary of Locutions from Liturgical Books” by Protopriest A. Nevostruev, completed in the middle of the 19th century and never published, can be regarded both as a significant achievement of Church Slavonic studies and as a valuable lexicographic source. The manuscript is kept in the Russian State Library. The decrepit state of the manuscript determines the necessity of its urgent study and edition. The significance of this project is primarily due to the fact that the text of the dictionary is being made accessible to linguists for the fi rst time. The orthography and grammar of the dictionary refl ect the linguistic views of the time of its creation and can be of interest for those who study the history of Russian linguistics. This paper contains the next part of entries in the letter O. The features of the publication of this Dictionary, the lists of sources, abbreviations and symbols were described in detail in the previous issues of St. Tikhon’s University Review http://periodical.pstgu.ru/ru/series/archive/3. All previously published parts of the Dictionary together with the critical apparatus can be found at the website of the Faculty of Philology at St. Tikhon’s University for the Humanities: http://pstgu.ru/faculties/philological/science/proects/slovar-recheniyiz-bogosluzhebnykh-knig-prot-a-i-nevostrueva/.
Church Slavonic Dictionary, Nevostruev, lexicography, Church Slavonic language, liturgical books, parallel Greek versions, translations of Old Testament
  1. Atanasii (Bonchev) (2002) Rechnik na ts’rkovnoslavjanskija ezik, vol. 1. Sofia (in Bulgarian).
  2. Dvoretskii I. (1957) Drevnegrechesko-ruskij slovar’. Moscow (in Russian).
  3. Lampe G. W. H. (1961) A Patristic Greek lexicon. Oxford.
  4. Mineia (1978–1989) Moscow (in Russian and Old Church Slavonic).
  5. Prolog (2002). Moscow (in Russian and Old Slavonic).
  6. Rahlfs A. (ed.) (1979) Septuaginta. Stuttgart.
  7. Rahlfs A., Hanhart R. (eds) (2006) Septuaginta. Stuttgart.
  8. Slovar’ staroslavianskogo iazyka (2006) St. Petersburg (in Russian).

Davydenkova Maria


Place of work: St. Tikhon Orthodox University of Humanities; 6 Likhov per., Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
Post: lecturer;
ORCID: 0000-0002-2999-0154;
Email: mdavydenkova@yandex.ru.

Kaluzhnina Nadezhda


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philology;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s University for the Humanities; 6 Likhov Pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-5676-7345;
Email: nkaluzhnina@yandex.ru.

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.


Strievskaya Olga


Place of work: St. Tikhon's University for the Humanities; 6 Likhov per., Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
Post: lecturer;
ORCID: 0000-0002-8355-6156;
Email: okstr1966@gmail.com.

Mazurina Natalia


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philology;
Place of work: St. George Orthodox Gymnasium; 4/2 Raitsentr st., Krasnogorsk 143406, Russian Federation;
Post: teacher;
ORCID: 0000-0002-5425-1847;
Email: nat-mazurina07@yandex.ru.

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

BOOK REVIEWS

Novokhatko Anna

Rev. of Robert Mayhew. Aristotle’s Lost Homeric Problems: Textual Studies. Oxford University Press, 2019. 256 pp.

Novokhatko Anna (2020) Rev. of Robert Mayhew. Aristotle’s Lost Homeric Problems: Textual Studies. Oxford University Press, 2019. 256 pp., Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia III : Filologiia, 2020, Iss. 64, pp. 151-155 (in Russian).

PDF

Novokhatko Anna


Academic Degree: Doctor of sciences* in Philology;
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philology;
Academic Rank: Professor;
Place of work: University of Freiburg; Aristotle University of Th essaloniki;
Post: associate professor;
ORCID: 0000-0002-3911-2574;
Email: annanovokh@mail.ru.

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.