| 50 Scholars Participate in the Conference “The Legacy of Mt Athos and Traditions of Hesychasm in the History and Culture of Ukraine” Source: ROCOR Photos from news.church.ua Some fifty scholars are taking part in the conference “The Legacy of Mt Athos and Traditions of Hesychasm in the History and Culture of Ukraine” held in Odessa, Ukraine, which began on July 20, 2019, on the territory of the former Athonite St Andrew Metochion of St Elias Skete (now the Odessa St Ilya Monastery), scheduled to coincide with the 170th anniversary of the birth and 25th anniversary of the glorification of St Gabriel of Athon the Odessa Wonder-worker, as reported by afon.org.ua. The organizers of the event are Odessa St Ilya Monastery, the International Institute of the Athonite Legacy and “Christian Odessa” Museum. The plenary session began with the customary greetings received from eminent archpastors. The first was from His Beatitude Metropolitan Onouphry, Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, who noted that by studying the importance of the Athonite tradition of Hesychasm and theology in the history of Ukraine, the forum participants are not simply touching upon some theoretical questions, but strive to “recognize and understand the depth and active living tradition of monastic asceticism as being constantly in the presence of God and perpetually praying, which makes monasticism the true ‘salt of the earth,’ defending our world from decay and death.” The Primate of the Ukrainian Church expressed hope that “all who study and analyze this remarkable and blessed theme will not only enrich our knowledge, but become another important milestone on the path of our spiritual perfection and experienced contact with the grace-filled power of prayer.” In his message, His Eminence Metropolitan Savva of Warsaw and All Poland stressed the importance of prayer, and, consequently, the significance of the forum’s dedication to the Athonite traditions. “Prayer, which unites all ascetics, serves as a consolation for many, and the means of resolving earthly problems. Especially today, in this era of spiritual dissolution, both the individual believer and contemporary society need it,” he wrote. |
| Perhaps, too, Augustinés reading of Origen influenced his christology (Grillmeier, p. 325). Although the Bishop of Hippo confessed, unlike Origen, the Logos to be God, he also would not allow Him any contact with the body save through the soul – Quomodo anima humana Verbi Dei copuletur... Verbum particeps carnis effectum est rationalis anima mediante (Ep. CXL. IV, 12 PL 33 542). Moreover, for Augustine the humanity and Divinity of Christ were united by grace, created grace (кτα χριν), not essentially (кατ» oσαν). See the discussion in The Influence of Augustine on the Orthodox Church, pp. 228–231, 254 n. 16. Neither held a traditional Christology. 151 Origen’s doctrine of Christ is ambiguous. In him may be found the seeds of Nestorianism, Monophystism and even Docetism. “De plus, on sait qui Origine conçoit Íunion christologique d’une maniere a al fois nestorienne (Periarch 2, 6, 3) et semble-t-il, eutychienne,” writes Balthasar. “Cette confusion lui permet précisément de voir dans Íunion christologique le type de I’union de gráce a la fois “physique” et “morale.” Sur le “monophysisme” Origine s’imposeraient toutefois d " importantes restrictions” (“Le Mysterion D’Origéne,” 526). On account of such expressions as oovε σρξ γνεται, Origen has been accused of Docetism, especially when combined with the words “and is described in physical terms, until he who has accepted Him in this form is gradually lifted up by the Logos and beholds, so to speak, the προηγουμνην μορν” (Con. Cel. IV, 1 PG 11 1048AB). The force of the accusation is not diminished by his opinion that the Logos took “different forms” (διορει ovoε το λγου μορα). Apparently, He changes to accomodate the spiritual condition of His followers. Hence, not all the disciples were invited to see His transfiguration on Mt Thabor. Balthasar (ibid., 540 n. 6), nevertheless, rejects the charge of Docetism, arguing that Origen never denied that the Logos took a genuine body. Henry Chadwick mentions that Origen, against his opponents, denied that the form and nature of the resurrected human body was accurately described in the Gospel narratives. He permitted no comparison between it and the resurrected Christ. He insisted that the body of Jesus was sui generis, as is immediately apparent from the Virgin Birth, His transfiguration on Mt Thabor and, after the Resurrection, His passing through locked doors. Chadwick concludes that Origen “was perhaps well on his way towards docetism” (“Origen, Celsus and the Resurrection of the Body,” HIhR XLI, 1 (1948), 100. Chadwick later modified his opinion. |
| – What is the reaction of the Orthodox world to the Phanar’s actions? What is your prognosis as to further developments in the world Orthodoxy in the face of this unexpected challenge? – The Orthodox world is trying to preserve its unity. As of today, we have not seen any Church unanimously supporting the actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Moreover, the Church of Antioch, the Serbian and the Polish Churches, and the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia have already openly spoken against the recognition of the newly-created quasi-church organization (OCU). Patriarch Bartholomew’s actions in Ukraine are bringing schism into the Orthodox world. We see this schism beginning to show today even on Mt Athos where some (yet a minority) monasteries receive the schismatics, while the majority refrain or even shut their gates before the schismatics. This is a challenge for the whole Orthodoxy. I am deeply convinced that we in the Church must not be guided by mundane interests, that is, interests of either the Hellenism (Greek world), or the Russian world, or the Ukrainian world. We must think, first and foremost, about the Church, about its unity. In this regard it is gratifying to see that representatives of both Greek and other Churches state that it is not the Ukrainian autocephaly, but the unity of the universal Orthodoxy that is important to them. It is very good, it gives hope. – We see that President Poroshenko played a leading role in establishing the OCU and that the U.S. Department of State actively interfered in this process. What is the role of politics and politicians in the developments in Ukraine? – The interest of the United States in the autocephaly of the Church of Ukraine is quite obvious. We can say that, basing ourselves on official comments and other actions coming from the Department of State and the U.S. ambassadors to different countries. As for the latest characteristic examples, I would like to recall a recent meeting of the U.S. Ambassador to Greece, Geoffrey Pyatt, with the Civil Governor of Mt Athos, Kostas Dimtsas, that took place exactly on the day when a delegation of the so-called OCU visited Athos. Some U.S. officials repeatedly spoke in support of the OCU’s autocephaly. For example, the U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, stated that the creation of the OCU is a manifestation of “religious freedom” in Ukraine. Yet, in reality the manifestation of such “religious freedom” led to the seizure of dozens of church buildings of our Church in Ukraine. Besides, a desire has been expressed to rename our Church, contrary to the Constitution of Ukraine and all the basic human rights principles. Our Church is being placed under colossal pressure, and for some reason it does not cause concern or produce statements of high representatives of the United States who stand up for religious freedom. |
| Plate 32 Nun painting an icon. RIA Novosti/Topfoto. It continues in the second phase of the Macedonian period (first half of the 11th century) where classical and Justinianic models were employed with renewed interest. The exquisite mosaics of the Monastery of Daphne (near Athens, ca. 1080) and Hosios Loukas (Phokida, ca. 1030) are products of this period. This style is marked by seemingly immobile, austere, static figures with heavy, powerful proportions, symmetrical features, and proportionately large eyes. The Comnenan dynasty (second half of the 11th-12th centuries) brought with it different emphases in iconography. The ascetic forms of the preceding period tended to be abandoned in favor of more classical models characterized by a subtle spirituality, elegance, peace, and harmony (Zachaeus 2007: 53). This period also saw the genesis of the Menologion type of icon, that is, a calendrical icon of many figures, depicting the feasts and saints celebrated on a given month. The end of this period (early 12th century) saw once again a revisiting of the ascetical ideals of the early 11th century coupled with a return to classical balance conveying subtle spirituality. The most representative icon of this era is the so-called Vladimirskaya Icon (Tretyakov, Moscow). The second half the 12th century then developed three main styles: a classical style evident in icons such as the St. Demetrios mosaic (Xenophon Monastery, Athos); a dynamic style marked by efforts to express inner fervor as well as external physical expression, as seen in the Descent into Hell (St. Catherine’s, Mt. Sinai); and a so-called “post-Comnenan mannerism” seen in the restless contours, aristocratic features, and elegant gestures in the annunciation (St. Catherine’s, Mt. Sinai). LATE BYZANTINE PERIOD In 1261 Michael VIII Palaeologos regained control of Constantinople from the Crusaders who had taken the city in 1204. This marked the beginning of a final golden age in imperial Byzantine art despite the rapid dwindling of the empire. |
| Quizás objetarás entre otras cosas que, algunos por haber sido excesivamente generosos con los pobres ( Mt. 6:1–4 ) han quedado reducidos a la pobreza y no han obtenido más que desprecio y malestar. Responderé, diciéndote ante todo, que tales hombres son poco numerosos; además, que entre número tan limitado, no encontrarás ninguno de los que llamamos filósofos, a saber, que haya abrazado un género de vida más espiritual. Una cosa, es dar libremente y otra es someterse a sufrir una total privación. ¿Pero por qué hablar de sufrir? Cristo ha dicho algo mucho más importante ( Mt. 5:38–42 ). Su discurso ha querido eliminar del corazón del ofendido la ira por la injusticia sufrida, no sólo hasta el punto de no lamentarse del robo padecido, sino hasta dar gustosamente cuanto le haya quedado, mostrándose deseoso de padecer el mal, con más ardor que el que muestran los que locamente nos ultrajan. Porque cuando el ofensor encuentra al ofendido, dispuesto a padecer más de cuanto él mismo no quiere y, lo ve aún deseoso de nuevos ultrajes, mientras él no haya completamente satisfecho su ira de ofender, termina con alejarse vencido y humillado de tal extraordinaria tolerancia. Como si fuese aún un salvaje o peor todavía, al comparar la propia maldad con su virtud, termina moderándose. Pero estoy aún buscando semejante modelo de vida encarnado, y no lo encuentro más que en la Escritura. No puedes decirme que encuentras en otro lugar alguien que, insultado sufra con paciencia. Pues, sucede que algunos soportan por no poder hacer menos; pero si bien da pruebas de paciencia con sus semejantes y con quien puede ofenderlo, no llega al extremo de vencer la avidez, darle más de cuanto él pretende, o de mostrar su magnanimidad, con ofrecerle voluntariamente más de cuanto él puede arrancar por la fuerza. Lo que ha ordenado Cristo es algo más sublime que toca los vértices de la perfección, es decir, tratar como amigos y aún más, de verdaderos amigos, a los que nos maltratan, poniendo sus manos sobre nuestros bienes, nuestras personas y demás cosas. Él dijo: «No solamente tienes que dar a quien te roba y se hace rico dañándote, sino también amarlo con gran cordialidad y sinceridad.» Sí, verdaderamente, esto quiso decir con estas palabras: «Oren por aquellos que les maltratan» (Le. 6:28); nosotros, normalmente, lo hacemos por aquellos que amamos mucho. Porque tú, por engaño diabólico pudieses interpretar estas expresiones hiperbólicas, Él las acompañó con oportuna argumentación y justa motivación, concluyendo: «Si amaseis a quien os ama, ¿qué mérito tendréis? También los publícanos hacen así. ¿Y si saludareis a aquellos que os saludan, qué cosa hacéis demás? ¿No lo hacen así también los paganos?» (Le. 6:32). Ahora, si en esto no nos comportamos diversamente de los publícanos y de los paganos, ¿cómo podremos no afligirnos y llorar de modo adecuado? Amar a los Enemigos |
| From the earliest period of Christian monasticism, both men and women enjoyed the same title, monk (monachos in the masculine, monache in the feminine), and were characterized by a distinctive dress or “habit,” and a shaving of part of the hair, “tonsure.” Neither the assumption of the habit nor the tonsure were, however, formalized by a priestly ceremony until the late 5th c. Dionysius the Areopagite (q.v.) is the earliest witness to the treatment of monastic tonsure and vows as sacramental, though the idea caught on and was advocated with great enthusiasm by monks then and now. The vows, or promises, appear to have been formalized by very early times, and included promises of poverty (literally, “non-possession,” aktemonsyne), obedience to the abbot or spiritual father (q.v.), and chastity or celibacy. Some rules, notably that of Benedict of Nursia in the West along with later canonical legislation in the East, added the promise of stability, that is, never to depart from the community where the vows were taken. These promises have always been regarded as permanently binding. They are administered after the candidate has passed an indeterminate period, usually not more than three years, as “novice” (Greek, dokimos, “one who is testing,” and Slavic, poslysh-nik, “one who obeys”). The tonsure today is generally to the rank of “little habit” (microschema) or “crossbearer” (stavrophore), though the “great habit” (megaloschema) is still given at tonsure by many Athonite houses. (The Russians and other Slavs prefer to reserve this last grade of monasticism for monks of the highest achievements, and to require of them a personal prayer rule of daunting asceticism.) Developments in the Byzantine era (q.v.) saw the flourishing of monasticism in Palestine in the 5th c. and 6th c., and in Asia Minor in the monastic concentration at Mt. Olympus in Bithynia from the 8th to 10th c. Mt. Athos (q.v.), however, rose to special prominence in the Empire’s waning centuries and has remained the primary center of Orthodox monasticism to the present. The Holy Mountain did give birth to a corrupted form of monastic life in the last Byzantine century, which predominated throughout the period of the Ottoman Empire (q.v.), idiorhythmia. The latter “individual way” meant the effective elimination of the office of abbot in favor of a committee of elders and permission to hold private property. The measure initially seems to have been taken in several communities to allow for increased personal asceticism. Economic factors might also have played a role in following centuries, particularly under the Turks. Whatever the reason, it worked to lower the overall quality of monastic life; but it encouraged one beneficial side effect, the rebirth of scetes patterned after the original Scete of Macarius. Here, among its scetes and hermitages, Athos gave birth to the kollyvades movement in the 18th c. crowned by the labors of Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain (qq.v.). |
| Totul ce s-a vorbit împotriva lui Hristos Mântuitorul a fost minciun. Doar este uimitor: aceia care au produs aceast minciun, tiau prea bine acest lucru. Ei Îl învinuiau de faptul c El se numete pe Sine rege al Iudeilor, tiind c nu se numea rege. Încercând s capete susinerea politic a ocupanilor romani, ei Îl învinuiau de faptul c pretinde la puterea cezarului. „O absurditate”, ar spune oamenii cu mintea treaz, tiind ce înva Mântuitorul. Unde i când El a ieit împotriva puterii cezarului? Îns aceasta minciun, în care nu credeau nici cei ce au inventat-o, era recepionat de mase de oameni. Anume aceast minciun l-a provocat pe Pilat la pronunarea sentinei cu moarea. Noi suferim atât de mult de pe urma minciunii! Cât de bolnvicios recepionm neadevrul, în special cel rutcios, care se refer la noi! Iar acum clevetirea, capabil s multiplice aciunea sa prin mass-media, devine arm i în lupta politic, i în lupta concurenial, i în lupta cu omul, care nu este dezirabil cuiva. Probabil acei care au suferit de pe urma clevetirii, cândva îi puneau întrebarea: „Dar unde este adevrul lui Dumnezeu?”, uitând c i Însui Mântuitorul a fost victima clevetirii. Împotriva Lui se clevetea permanent, schimonosindu-I cuvintele. „Tu, Cel ce drâmi templul i în trei zile îl zideti, mântuiete-Te pe Tine Însui! Dac eti Fiul lui Dumnezeu, coboar-te de pe cruce!” (Mt. 27:40). Este clevetire, deoarece Domnul nu a spus c va distruge templul. El prezicea distrugerea templului (vezi: Mt. 13:1-2), care a avut loc în legtur cu evenimentele istorice cunoscute, când Tit, fiul împratului roman Vespasian, a distrus templul, dar aceast prezicere a fost folosit pentru clevetire. Putem enumera exemple ale faptului cum Mântuitorul devine victima minciunii, clevetirii, denunului, trdrii – a tot ce azi rnete atât de mult majoritatea oamenilor. Unde este adevrul lui Dumnezeu? Unde este biruina Patelui asupra rului? Doar pregtindu-ne s mergem în bisericile lui Dumnezeu de ziua Sfintelor Pate, noi proclamm în mod real aceast biruin. Rspunzând la marea chemare „Hristos a Înviat!” prin cuvintele „Adevrat a Înviat!”, noi mrturisim biruina lui Hristos asupra celor mai întunecate i mai stranice puteri diavoleti. Biruina care este prezent în mod real în istoria omenirii, dar în msur deplin se va arta în veacul ce va s vie. |
| Важным направлением в христ. экзегезе стала христологическая интерпретация образа И. и основных событий его жизни. Само значение имени Исаак - «смех» свидетельствует о радости спасения, совершенного во Христе; эта радость является отличительной чертой христианства ( Clem. Alex. Paed. I 5; Orig. In Gen. hom. 7. 1). Чудесное рождение И. от бесплодной Сарры (Быт 18. 11) побуждает к вере в воскресение, ибо показывает, что Бог может Своего Сына от смерти пробудить: «…как Исаака воздвиг [Бог] от мертвых тел, так воскресил и Сына Своего, бывшего мертвым» ( Ioan. Chrysost. Non esse desp. 4), а также указывает на сверхъестественное рождение Пресв. Девой Спасителя ( Ambros. Mediol. De Isaac. 1. 1). Брак И. с Ревеккой в христ. истолкованиях становится прообразом мистического брака Христа с Церковью ( Clem. Alex. Paed. I 5; Orig. In Gen. hom. 10. 5), при этом происхождение Ревекки символически указывает на Церковь из крещеных язычников, в которой Христос нашел утешение (по аналогии с И.- Быт 24. 67) после отпадения не уверовавших в Него иудеев ( Caes. Arel. Serm. 85. 5; Ambros. Mediol. De Isaac. 3. 6-7; Суг. Alex. Glaph. in Pent. [Gen.] 3. 2). Образ И., к-рый накануне встречи с Ревеккой предавался размышлению в одиночестве (Быт 24. 63), символически указывает на Христа, Который молился в уединении на горе (Мк 6. 46) ( Hieron. Quaest. hebr. in Gen. 24. 62). Выход И. в поле «при наступлении вечера» (Быт 24. 63) указывает на пришествие Христа при скончании мира (Евр 1. 1-2) ( Caes. Arel. Serm. 85. 4). И.- один из библейских патриархов, чья моногамия особо отмечена в христ. традиции; он стал примером верного супруга и образцом для желающих вступить в брак ( Tertull. De monog. 6; 11; 17; Ioan. Chrysost. In Gen. 48. 6). В то же время, по мнению блж. Августина, не следует «ставить Исаака выше его отца Авраама на том основании, что он не знал других женщин» ( Aug. De civ. Dei. XVI 36. 14). Несмотря на слепоту в старости, И. был одним из патриархов, к-рый обладал даром духовного видения, позволившим ему созерцать небесный свет ( Idem. Confes. X 52; Greg. Nyss. De virgin. 7. 3). И., не видевший во время пророчества перед собой сына (Быт 27. 28), символизирует иудейский народ, к-рый, хотя и был исполнен пророчеств, оказался не в состоянии увидеть в Иисусе Христе Того, о Ком было предсказано в ВЗ ( Greg. Magn. Dial. X; ср.: Aug. Serm. 4. 21). По мнению мн. св. отцов, благословения, данные И. своим сыновьям (Быт 27. 27-29), не были исполнены в истории и потому обладают эсхатологическим характером, тем самым указывая на буд. времена грядущего Царства Христова ( Iren. Adv. haer. V 33. 2; Hipp. De bened. Is. et Jac. 7; Суг. Alex. Glaph. in Pent. [Gen.] 3. 5). Трепет, охвативший И., после того как он узнал об обмане сына Иакова (Быт 27. 33), понимается в свете моления Иисуса Христа за грех неведения распинавших Его мучителей (Лк 23. 34) ( Hipp. De bened. Is. et Jac. 9). |
| 30:18, Ис. 33:1–5, Ис. 59:16–19, Иер. 9:23–24, Иез. 18:20–24, Дан. 9:7. О Божием всеведении: Иер. 17:9-10. О святости Божией: Ис. 6:3, Ис. 57:15, Ос. 11:9. О вечности Божией: Ис. 43:10. О Царстве Божием О Новом Завете: Ис. 55:3, 59:20-21Иер. 31:31–34, Дан. 9:24–27 (см. Деяния 13:34). О призвании язычников в Церковь: Ис. 2:2, Ис. 11:1-10, Ис. 42:1-12, Ис. 49:6, Ис. 54:12–14, Ис. 65:1–2, смотри Гал. 4:27, 1:9 и 2:23. О внутреннем обновлении: Ис. 44:3, Зах. 12:10–13:1, 14:5–9, Ис. 35:1–7, Ис. 55:1, Ис. 55:10–11, Ис. 12:3–5, Иоиль 2:28–32. Сердце единое и дух новый: Иез. 11:19–20, Из. 36:24-2. О Царстве Божием в образе горы Божией: Ис. 2:2–3, Ис. 11:1-10 (см. Рим. 15:12), Дан. 2:34, Иоиль 3:17, Авд. 17, Зах. 8:3. О добродетелях О благоговении перед Богом: Мал. 4:2, Мал. 3:16–18. О вере: Авв. 2:4. О надежде на Бога: Ис. 8:9-14, Ис. 25–27 гл., Ис. 26:2-12, Ис. 30:7, Ис. 30:15, Ис. 40:29–31, Ис. 51:7–8, Ис. 51:12–14, Ис. 54:10, Иер. 9:23–24, Иер. 15:20–21, Иер. 17:7–8, Иез. 34:14–16, Мих. 7:7-19, Авв. 3:17–19. О познании Бога: Ис. 2:2–3, Ис. 11:1-10, Ис. 54:13, Иер. 9:23–24, Иер. 31:31–34, Ос. 6:3. О смирении: Ис. 57:15–16, Ис. 66:1–2, Мих. 6:8. О стремлении к добродетели: Ис. 1:17, Ис. 33:14–16, Ис. 55:6–7, Вар. 4:4, Зах. 7:9-10, 8:16–17. О справедливости: Ис. 1:27, Мих. 6:8 . О милосердии: Ис. 1:17-Ис. 58:2-12, Ос. 6:6. Призыв к покаянию Обличительные речи: Ис. 1:3–6, Ис. 3:9-11, Ис. 5:20–23, Ис. 10:1–2, Ис. 19:13, Ис. 30:1, Ис. 42:18–20, Ис. 45:9-10, Ис. 57:20–21, Ис. 59:1–4, Иер. 2:13, Иер. 5:1–5, Иер. 7-я гл., Иер. 8:9-11, Иер. 9:8, Иер. 15:1–2, Иер. 17:1, Иер. 17:5, Иер. 22:13–17, Иер. 44:4–6, Иер. 48:10, Мих. 7:1–6, Соф. 3:1–5, Мал. 1:6. Призыв к покаянию: Ис. 1:16–20, Ис. 64:6–9, Иер. 8:4–5, Иез. 18:30–32, Ос. 6:1–3, Иоил. 2:11–17, Зах. 1:3–4, Мал. 1:9. О последних временах О духовным голоде: Ам. 8:11 . О лжепророках: Ис. 9:15, Иер. 14:14–16, Иер. 23:15–17, Иер. 23:26–28, Иез. 13:3-16, Иез. 14:9-11, Соф. 3:4, Мих. 3:5–7. О пастырях: добрых — Иер. 3:15; негодных — Ис. |
| Fg. in Matth. (Corderius), 1189–1210. – Marc. (Possinus), 1209–14. – Luc, 1213–30. – Joan. (Corderius), 1231–34. – Rom. (Cramer), 1233–54. – 2. ad Cor. (id.), 1253–54. – Hebr. (id.), 1253–54. Index analyticus, in t. 101, 1255–64. II. Dogmatica, 102. Contra Manichæos, lib. 1–4, 102, 15–264. Wolfii præfatio, 9–14. De Spiritus S. mystagogia, 279–400. Hergenrother præfatio, 263–78. Animadversiones historicæ et criticæ, 399–542. Ill. Parænemica, 102, 547–76. 1 . In SS. Mariæ Nativitatem (Combefis), 547–62. 2 . De Symeone (in Hypapanten), lat. (id.), 563–64. 3 . In Dedicatione novæ basilicæ (id.), 563–74. 4 . S. Athanasii encomium, 575–76. Ineditarum homil. Mosquæ catalogus, 541–6. IV. CARMINA, . 102, 575–84. 1 . Sticheron in S. MemhodiumCP. (AA.SS.),575–78. 2 . Odæ tres in Basilium, imper. (M.), 577–84. IV. historica, 102. Epistolæ, lib. 1–3 (24 102 67), 585–990. Ep. ad ecclesiam Antiohenam, 1017–24 [deest in nova editione]. Maii animadversiones de erroribus Montacutii in edendis Photii epistolis, 989–90. 1) Indices Montacutii (1651) cum ed. Migne, 991–94. 2) Indices ed. Migne cum Montacutio et ceteris, 995–98. Index analyticus, in t. 108, 997–1014. V. BIBLIomheca, 103 et 104, 356; Codd. f.103. 1–280. (Ex ed. Bekker-Schott). Schotti Prolegomena, 9–30, in quibus. Hæschetius Augustæ Vindel. duumviris, 1601, 9–10. Schottus Velsero, 1606, 11–12. Maximus Margunius ep. Cytner. Philologis, græce, 13–14. Eruditorum judicia de Photio, 13–16. D. Hæschelii notæ in Bibl. Pholii, 104. 355–430. J. Scaligeri D. Hæschelio, 1599, 429–30. Index scriptorum, 103, 31–38, ordine alphabetic. Index scriptorum, 103, 39–40, ordine methodic., lndex codicum (C.-I. Bekker, 1824), 41–42. Index analyticus, 104, 1459–1516 VI. CANONICA, 104, 431–1232. Syntagma Canonum (М.), 441–976. Nomocanon cum comment. Th. Balsamonis.(Justellus), 975–1218. Interrogationes decem, 1219–1232. Editorum monitum, 431–32; Maii, 431–40. Index in syntagma analyticus, 1517–24 In opera Photii пипс primum collecta editorum Patrologiæ græcæ. Præfatio (J.-B. Ma-lou), 101, I-X. |
|
|
