Basil of Caesarea. Homilia I in Hexaemeron [Russian translation, introduction, and commentaries] (original) (raw)
Related papers
Scripture as Tradition: St. Basil of Caesarea on the Book of Genesis [In Russian]
Bible and Christian Antiquity/Библия и христианская древность, 2020
This paper considers the notion of «tradition» in St. Basil of Caesarea’s Homilies in Hexaemeron, with a special focus on the relation between the terms παράδοσις and δόγμα. The author claims that Basil sees non-Scriptural παράδοσις as a result of «extraction» of the theological meaning of the Scriptural παράδοσις. This meaning, in line with the Pauline tradition, can only be revealed by the Holy Spirit, Who bestows the power to contemplate the δόγμα hidden in παράδοσις. It is only in this sense that δόγμα, for St. Basil, is «preserved in silence» (as he says in De Spiritu Sancto). It is not a «secret» source independent of the Scripture that Basil has in mind saying that δόγμα is kept hidden, but the revelatory function of the Spirit which his theological opponents failed to recognize. His Homilies in Hexaemeron confirm this interpretation.
The metaphor “paideia is the lesser mysteries” determines both the substantial and structural unity of St. Basil’s Address to the youth. Initially connected to the Eleusinian cult, the notions of the “lesser” and the “greater” mysteries by the time of St. Basil had formed part of the platonizing philosophical koine and had been consistently applied to the various levels of the philosophical progress. In Basil’s Address, as well as in two other epistles to the youth authored by Basil’s fellow Cappadocians Gregory of Nazianz (To Nicobulus) and Amphilochius of Iconium (To Seleucus), this imagery occupies a prominent place and underlies the proposed model of interaction between Christianity and classical paideia.
The image of the diver in the “Hexaemeron” of Basil of Caesarea
Aristeas , 2019
The article provides a commentary on the “Hexaemeron” of Basil of Caesarea (Hex. 2.7.23–36) where the creation of the light is compared to the way divers push oil out of their mouths under the water. After Basil of Caesarea this comparison was borrowed by Ambrose of Milan and Bede the Venerable in their commentaries on the hexaemeron. The existence of this tradition justifies a more careful study of the subject of comparison, i.e the diving practice itself as described in ancient testimonies. Thus, the article will consider in detail the following texts mentioning diving with oil: “The Natural History” of Pliny the Elder, Plutarch’s “Causes of Natural Phenomena”, “Table-Talk” and the treatise “On the Principle of Cold”, as well as Oppian’s “Halieutica”. Some properties of oil that are useful for diving, such as the ability to not mix with water and to spread widely, mentioned by Plutarch, occur in Hex 2.7. Regarding the composition the comparison used by Basil does not find any parallels in the rest of the text, despite the fact that the theme of the creation of light is exposed throughout the second and sixth homilies of the “Hexaemeron”. Nevertheless, the observations made in this short article are valuable in that they shed light on a place that modern reader and scholars of the “Hexaemeron” do not fully understand. The latter fact is clear in that commentators and translators of Hex. 2.7.23–36 still had settled for an uncomplete explanation of this place which deserves a little more attention.
Бытие и Бог у свт. Василия Великого / God and Being in Basil of Caesarea
В статье рассматривается вопрос о понимании Василием Великим сущности Бога: отождествлял ли святитель сущность Бога и бытие, или последовательно придерживался учения о ее непостижимости? Автор анализирует релевантные высказывания святителя по этому поводу, а также сопоставляет его взгляды с доктриной Евномия, в полемике с которым Василий высказывает ряд основополагающих тезисов. Ключевые слова: Бог, бытие, сущность, тождество, божественные энергии, Сущий, онто-теология, Василий Великий, Евномий. The article deals with the problem of understanding the God's essence by Basil of Caesarea: whether he identifies essence of God with being or he argues consistently for its incomprehensibility? Author analyzes the relevant Basil's propositions concerning this matter and compares his views with the doctrine Eunomius as in controversy with Eunomius Basil makes a number of his fundamental theses.
Св. еп. Василей был первым из семи епископов херсонских. С его почитанием связан ряд памятников на карте Херсонеса-Херсона. В первую очередь это комплекс Западной базилики, который начал формироваться вокруг места погребения святого. Другим памятником может быть склеп «на земле Н. И. Тура», который был перестроен в мемориальную церквушку в воспоминание о «чуде воскрешения мальчика», описанного в Житии. Еще одним памятником может быть церковь, поставленная в центре города над местом убиения святого и известная по источникам как церковь св. Василия.
К вопросу о гуманистической рецепции Василия Великого: латинские переводы "Внемли себе" в XV-XVI вв.
Вестник ПСТГУ I. 2015. Т. 4 (60). С. 9-23.
This paper deals with the humanist reception of St. Basil’s homily In illud: attende tibi ipsi up to 1532. In the XV cent., three new Latin translations were made in the circle of cardinal Bessarion: by Bessarion himself, by his protégé Athanasius Chalkeopulos, and by an anonymous author, probably Pietro Balbi. The translation of Franciscus Maturantius was published as a separate edition in 1522, and that of Rafaelle Maffei appeared in the first Latin Opera of Basil in 1515. A review of these translations and of the dedicatory epistles shows that not only the humanistic program or theological views of Basil were of interest for the humanists. Attende tibi is valued as an example of biblical exegesis and because of its moral and ascetic content. Although, on the whole, the reception centers in this period tend to distance from the Church, all our translators, except for one, are associated with the Roman Catholic Church. The comparison of the biblical “give heed to thyself” with the Delphic “know thyself”, found in Maturantius’ dedicatory letter and in Maffei’s marginalia, aims at demonstrating the superiority of Christian wisdom, not at promoting the study of philosophy. Only two of the discussed translations were published, and a more or less large-scale dissemination of Basilius Latinus starts no earlier than in the 20s. of XVI cent., when the translation of Maffei was reissued in Paris (1520 and 1523), Cologne (in 1523 and 1531) and Basel (1523).
Petrova M. S., ed. Aristotle: Ideas and Interpretations. Moscow: Aquillo, 2017, p. 116–171 (in Russian)
A new edition of the extant evidence about Dicaearchus of Messana (Mirhady 2001) actualized a longstanding controversy over the Peripatetic teaching on the soul. Did Dicaearchus indeed deem soul to be nothing at all? Did he accept (against Aristotle) the 'harmony' theory of the soul? If so, what kind of harmony was meant? The fragmentary nature of the evidence for Dicaearchus admits, as it is usually the case, various interpretations. Some scholars insist on fundamentally conflicting nature of our evidence (Gottschalk 1971, Sharples 2001), others find it possible to produce a more coherent picture and believe that the interpretative difficulties are not, in fact, intractable (Caston 2001 and the present writer). Placing the controversy in the context of a debate over the nature of the soul within the Lyceum, we observe that against both Plato and Aristotle, Dicaearchus seems to develop a peculiar theory of the soul as an 'attunement', or a harmony of bodily parts. These parts are not necessarily to be viewed as the primary elements (contrary to a single evidence, which is clearly his own interpretation, of Nemesius, De nat. hom. 2), and this bodily attunement is quite different from the 'Pythagorean' mathematical harmony. According to the peripatetic philosopher, there is no thinking beyond body in a certain state (Sextus Emp., Adv. Math. 7.348–349). To put it differently, the body has an innate ability to think while all the talks on possessing and receiving souls (animalia, animantes, empsycha) is misleading. The idea of heavenly travel of the soul may help to account for religious events, such as mantic (divination) and dreams, but it possesses no scientific value whatsoever. Dicaearchus composed a series of works dedicated to the intellectual history of Greece. In a sense, he was the first ancient author to write a comprehensive history of philosophy and culture, centered on such key figures, as the Seven Sages, Pythagoras, Socrates, and Plato. The sages are known for their highly practical maxims and general rules of right conduct; Pythagoras developed a new lifestyle and promulgated it in his public and private teaching; Socrates introduced a new form of intellectual and moral pursuit; while Plato founded an institutional framework for philosophical studies having thus paved the way to a systematic research, conducted by the Peripatetics. Dicaearchus also discussed various literary genres, wrote about politics and composed a series of works on georgaphy. Nothing is preserved. The evidences are translated on the basis of a new edition of Dicaearchus' fragments, prepared by Mirhady (2001).
Вестник Русской христианской гуманитарной академии, 2018
Eusebius’ of Caesarea descriptions of Constantine the Great and his time in the Vita Constantini are discussed from the ahistorical standpoint, primarily in the scope of various Biblical comparisons and allegories, which are used to install the Eusebius’ contemporaries into the flow of Biblical history. It is suggested to divide Constantine’s life into four periods, each being described with a dominating type of comparisons: with Moses, with a Christian bishop, with Apostles, and with Christ. Such an ascend of semantic intensity in Eusebius imagery draws a picture of emperor’s increasing significance, who finally becomes unconstrained by bodily limits after his death just to further expand his power over the Empire. Eusebius’ narrative makes a mythological character of Constantine’s figure, which becomes the identity of Byzantine imperial ethos for a few following centuries. В статье анализируется описание Евсевием Кесарийским личности Константина Великого и его эпохи в «Жизни Константина» с точки зрения внеисторических аспектов, прежде всего, разнообразных библейских сравнений и аллегорий, с помощью которых современным для Евсевия историческим событиям придаётся статус продолжения истории священной. Показано, что биография Константина может быть разделена на четыре периода, в описании каждого из которых превалирует соответствующий тип сравнений: с пророком Моисеем, с христианским епископом, с апостолами и со Христом. Такое нарастание семантической насыщенности образов создаёт картину усиливающейся значимости василевса, после смерти освобождающегося от ограничений телесной природы человека и тем самым не лишающегося, но напротив только расширяющего и усиливающей своё могущество. Так формируется мифологический образ Константина, во многом определяющий этос византийского института императорской власти в последующие века.