David Malament, now emeritus at the University of California, Irvine, where since 1999 he served as a Distinguished Professor of Logic and Philosophy of Science after having spent twenty-three years as a faculty member at the University of Chicago , is well known as the author of numerous articles on the mathematical and philosophical foundations of modern physics with an emphasis on problems of space-time structure and the foundations of relativity theory. Malament’s Topics in the foundations of general relativity and (...) Newtonian gravitation theory has grown out of a set of lecture notes on the foundations of general relativity that he has taught for many years. In full agreement with Manchak , it should be pointed out from the beginning that the book neither is and was never intended to be a graduate general relativity a .. (shrink)

Volume 32, Issue 3-4, September - December 2019, Page 232-234.

This is the first complete translation into English of the Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, which covers the period AD 284-813 and is one of the most important sources of Byzantine history, that of the Arabs under the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties and of other neighbouring peoples. The Chronicle is a compilation of earlier sources, many of them now lost: in order to use it critically the historian needs to know what texts Theophanes had in front of him and (...) how he handled them. These have consequently been indicated in the text in so far as they can be indentified. Full annotation has also been provided on points of historical and topographical interest. The career of Theophanes, the character of the Chronicle, its manuscript tradition, and the use of earlier sources are discussed in the Introduction. (shrink)

The views of the Enlightenment in European countries are in general well known, while the attempts to introduce the Enlightenment to countries in the periphery of Europe, like Greece, are not known in the same degree. How did the scientific revolution migrate to the Greek‐speaking regions occupied by the Ottoman Empire? How did the Greeks accept the truly revolutionary ideas of the French Revolution and liberalism? What were the reactions of the conservative Greek Orthodox Church and who sacrificed their lives (...) in the cause of their ideas? Theophilos Kairis (1784–1853), a scholar, philosopher, and priest, was the tragic victim of clerical bigotry. The creator of Theosebism in Greece, Kairis suffered the tragic end reserved by fate for those who, being pioneers, tried to introduce to Greece the liberal ideas of Western Europe and the Enlightenment. (shrink)

Though parts of the text traditionally called Theophanes Continuatus go back to the time of Constantine VII, it is in fact a compilation of various texts put together by a later redactor in the reign of Nicephorus Phokas. Likewise, the original parts of text known as the De Cerimoniis were produced in the reign of Constantine, but the text has come down to us in a later redaction, apparently also from the time of Phokas. In the case of the (...) De Cerimoniis, the final redactor has been identified as Basil the parakoimomenos, the bastard son of Romanus I Lecapenus. Similar interests and coincidences of composition in the two texts, particularly in Book VI of Theophanes Continuatus and chapter I, 96 of the De Cerimoniis, suggest that the compiling of Theophanes Continuatus was also the work of Basil. (shrink)

The article compares selected chapters devoted the problems of mind (anima) from two philosophical courses by Georgii Konyskyi, taught at Kyiv-Mohyla Academy in 1747-1749 and 1749-1751 academic years. As Konyskyi taught his first course using verbatim Teofan Prokopovych’s philosophical course of 1706-08 academic years, the article compares the doctrines on mind by these two Mohylian authors. It also shows the evolution of Konyskyi’s views. -/- There are common elements between the philosophy of mind of Prokopovych and Konyskyi: their interpretations of (...) Aristotle’s definition of the soul; the scholastic concept of the man as an integral mind-body entity; the problem of the unity and multiplicity of forms. It is shown that Prokopovych and Konsyskyi understood the three-level structure of a human soul in the same way as Francisco Suarez and Rodrigo de Arriaga. -/- However, there are some differences between these two Mohylian professors. They interpreted differently sensitive and intellectual cognition. Prokopovych upholds the scholastic doctrine of species. Konyskyi, in his second course, abandons this doctrine and defends the doctrine of impressiones. They are developed by the phantasmata – not received from objects. The impressions are modifications of animal spirits by direct or indirect impact of objects on senses of a human being or any other animated being. In the doctrine on intellectual powers, Prokopovych upholds the scholastic distinction between active and passive intellect. Konyskyirejects this common for scholastic tradition distinction and considers that passive intellect can do full-scale intellectual activity. The influence of Early Modern philosophy, especially Cartesianism, was the reason why Konyskyi changed his position. (shrink)

This paper analyses the concept of the Imagination of Henry Corbin (1903–1978) in relation to Daisetsu T. Suzuki (1870–1966). Besides being a renowned orientalist and scholar of Islamic thought, Corbin was a philosopher par excellence whose original thought deserves to be studied. So, I present this paper as a contribution to the evaluation of Corbin as a philosopher. In doing so, I shall shed light upon the philosophical affinity between Corbin and Suzuki, which has thus far rarely been discussed in (...) depth. Their ideas, in fact, resonate with each other—or Corbin is sympathetic to Suzuki—at a deep level, especially on the argument of Imagination, through Suwedenborgian thought, into whom both channel their interests. An exploration of this relationship of influence with Suzuki shall make a great contribution to a better understanding of Corbin’s own concept of Imagination, which could shake up our taken-for-granted idea of “imagination.”. (shrink)

The article supplements the publication of the introduction to Theophan Prokopovych’s philosophical course (taught at Kyiv-Mohyla Academy in 1707-09). It analyses characteristics of Prokopovych’s manuscript in comparison with the manuscript of Georgiy Konyskyi’s philosophical course (taught in 1747-1749). The latter turns out to be a copy of the former, as it does not contain significant differences. The article describes the editorial principles of Prokopovych’s Prooemium and the significance of the text as well as gives short exposition of the content with (...) the analysis of references by Prokopovych. It explains some codicological and textological characteristics of both manuscripts. The analysis of textual relation between the two manuscripts shows that Konyskyi’s manuscript contains much more mistakes than Prokopovych’s manuscript. Most of more than a hundred variations between the manuscripts are mistakes in Konyskyi’s manuscript. The author supposes that the student, the scribe of Konyskyi’s manuscript, not completely understood rather complicated style of Prokopovych. Prokopovych’s position about the style of exposition shows balancing between humanistic and scholastic ideas. It states that Prokopovych refers usually to ancient authors. The references in the text are quite detailed, but not enough accurate. Half of them (6 out of 12) happen to be incorrect. It is probable that Prokopovych made references from memory. (shrink)

The modern critical approach to things hagiographical still wavers when it comes to taking leave of twelve lines of iambic invective, branded with wonderful delicacy of touch on the saintly foreheads of two Palestinian brothers, Theodore and Theophanes, the so-called “Graptoi”. Barry Baldwin, noting that C.A. Trypanis, unlike the great B. Bury and others, was inclined to disbelieve the story, could not help expressing the hope that it was true (An Anthology of Byzantine Poetry, Amsterdam 1985, pp. 142–3). It (...) is of course only one of the many stories concocted by iconodule propaganda. The central question has to be formulated in more general terms: how is history made? History here primarily in the sense of the construction of the past by the Byzantines themselves, was embodied in historical narratives moving between hagiography and historiography. Trying to lay bare the basis and elements of such constructs will always remain a major task of critical historical scholarship. (shrink)

Dem Rezensenten obliegt die traurige Pflicht, das letzte Buch des vor kurzem (am 18. August 2003) verstorbenen Berliner Emeritus für Byzantinistik, Paul Speck, zu besprechen. Wie die große Menge seiner früheren Artikel und Monographien beschäftigt sich auch dieses Buch in z.T. polemischer Auseinandersetzung mit den Positionen anderer Forscher mit den Quellen zur byzantinischen Geschichte des 7.–9. Jahrhunderts, also mit der Zeit der sog. Dunklen Jahrhunderte, vor allem mit der Periode des sog. Bilderstreites. Es handelt sich, wie Speck selbst in der (...) Einleitung darlegt (S. 24), bei der vorliegenden Monographie nicht um eine Biographie Kaiser Leons III. (717–741), sondern um eine Analyse der Berichte über die ersten Regierungsjahre dieses Herrschers in drei wichtigen griechischen und lateinischen Quellentexten, nämlich in der Historia syntomos des Patriarchen Nikephoros I. von Konstantinopel (806–815), in der Chronographia des Theophanes (von Speck zu Recht überwiegend als Werk des Georgios synkellos angesehen) und im römischen liber pontificalis. Letzterer spielt allerdings im hier besprochenen Teil 1 nur im XV. Abschnitt (S. 303) eine Rolle. Grundsätzlich gilt nach Speck, daß fast alles, was in der Historia syntomos des Nikephoros berichtet wird, sich meist sogar in derselben Reihenfolge auch in der Chronographia des „Theophanes“ wiederfindet, daß letztere aber zahlreiche zusätzliche Informationen enthält, so daß die Existenz einer beiden gemeinsame Quelle oder Vorlage sehr wahrscheinlich ist (S. 55–56). Bereits in seinen früheren Arbeiten entwickelte er dazu die Hypothese, zwei Materialsammlungen des Georgios synkellos (das sog. vielleicht noch in Palästina verfaßte erste und das dieses bis 815 fortsetzende, in Konstantinopel zusammengestellte zweite Dossier) hätten sowohl für die Historia syntomos des Patriarchen Nikephoros (1. Dossier) als auch für die Chronographia des „Theophanes“ (2. Dossier), aber auch für die christlich-orientalischen Chroniken (diese sind nach Speck vom 1. Dossier abhängig) die Masse der Informationen geliefert (zusammenfassend S. 19–23, ferner S. 95 und S. 375–376). (shrink)

At the beginning of the 9th c. George Syncellus began to write a universal chronicle, the second part of which was completed by the monk Theophanes. According to Byzantine tradition this monk was Theophanes the Confessor. But 10th-century sources note that this Theophanes was the grandfather or greatuncle of the emperor Constantine VII, which is historically impossible. This prompted P. Speck to invent “another Theophanes”, who lived during the second half of the 9th c. and was (...) the editor of the Chronicle of Theophanes. The hypothesis turns out to be unfounded and untenable. Also untenable and unrelated to the sources is the hypothesis of C. Zuckerman that the author of the Chronicle is another Theophanes who lived at the same time as the Confessor. This study, after an analysis of sources, proves in both cases that they are historical phantoms. (shrink)

Die Bestimmung des byzantinischen Gottesdenkens als «System» ist immer ein scandalum gewesen. Es wird als solches eher von seinen Kritikern begriffen, während seine Fürsprecher diese Bezeichnung überwiegend ablehnen. Wenn die byzantinischen Autoren in das Zentrum der Gotteserkenntnis eine Erfahrung oder eine Praxis stellen, die als Quelle der Theologie und als «wahre Philosophie» betrachtet werden, so ist zu erwarten, daß sie, Erfahrung oder Praxis, in systematischen Schriften selten und unwillig besprochen werden. Vielmehr begründen die meisten Autoren das Erscheinen ihrer Texte mit (...) dem Widerstand gegen gewisse Irrlehren. Diese Motivation bestimmt den hauptsächlich polemischen Charakter der Schriften und erklärt auch den Mangel eines explizierten philosophischen oder theologischen Systems im scholastischen Sinn. Das besagt aber nicht, daß die byzantinische Denkweise kein immanentes System und keine eigene Strukturen besitzt. Die Grundelemente dieser Systematik sind der Gegenstand der vorliegenden Überlegung. (shrink)

The phenomenological term “imaginal” was coined and introduced into the French language by Henry Corbin (1903-1978). Throughout his work, Corbin used the “imaginal” as his fundamental concept, as the very foundation of a Weltanschauung. Etymolo-gically, this new term was derived from the Latin phrase mundus imaginalis. As for its meaning, it is synonymous with several Persian and Arabic technical terms, such as alam al-mithal (the world of images, archetypical ideas), malakut (the subtle world of the souls), barzakh (interworld), hurqalya (the (...) world of the celestial Earth, of celestial corporeality), na-koja-abad (the land of nowhere). These technical terms taken from theosophical literature have a meaning very close to that of the term “imaginal.” They translate contemplative experience arising from the theophanic imagination or agent imagination (imaginatio vera). From the point of view of location, they designate the qualitative space of this imagination (mundus imaginalis). (shrink)

The most lively issue in Habakkuk studies is the meaning of Chapter 3 and its relationship to the prophetic corpus as a whole. The vivid and, in its canonical context, unusual imagery of this theophanic hymn has intrigued and puzzled exegetes. The study which follows is an effort to address this issue in a synthetic fashion, employing insights from textual, poetic, linguistic, historical, archaeological, and theological investigations based on the most recent data available in these areas. The intention is to (...) clarify, as far as possible, the source of this poem in Israelite life and the reason for its position in the canon in order to contribute to the developing understanding of this brief but complex prophetic book. - Preface. (shrink)

The article uses typological understanding of the Lord's Supper to analyze Old Testament text. Intertextual hermeneutics, which connects the lexical units of various parts of texts for comprehensive understanding allowed to see an echo of the Eucharist in Old Testament. One of the most expressive prototypes or typos of the Lord's Supper in the Old Testament is the idea of the Covenants and changing of the covenants. The author analyzes the concept of testament and all cases of using this term (...) in Old Testament texts, and concludes that the word “berith” in the biblical text cannot be identified only with the concept of contract, agreement or union. Also, it cannot be identified only with the concept of law, command or statute. The Testament should be taken holistically, combining different meanings of this concept. In this way, the “berith” describes the idea of a specific agreement, which has the character of a bloody decree. Therefore, on the basis of biblical ideas, the concept of a covenant in a broad sense can be presented as a relationship between God and people, which can be described as a God-initiated contract of a personal-corporate nature, which provides for mutual obligations. This kind of relationship is characterized by a fixed immutability and is accompanied by signs, evidence and a special memory procedure. Therefore, in the Old Testament period, we can confidently talk only about the Covenant with Noah, Abraham and Moses, who were revealed and showed their inner, spiritual essence in the New Testament of Jesus Christ. Only in these cases did the signs of covenant relations in the narrow sense be revealed, namely: God's initiative, personal-corporate relations, the invariability and obligatory commemorativeness are caused. Other ancient covenants do not contain a complete religious component and are not eucharistic prototypes. An important sign of the typos of the Lord's Supper in the Old Testament is the blood of the covenant. All covenants were accompanied by the shedding of sacrificial blood, which indicated the sacrifice of Christ and its echo in the Eucharistic cup. This emphasizes the difference between “berith” as a covenant and “berith” as a commandment or statute. Bloodless covenant are not testaments in the full biblical sense of the word. The idea of a testament as a bloodline expresses the highest seriousness of mutual testamentary obligations. That is, a Testament is an inviolable contract, the non-fulfillment of which threatens death. An additional feature of the testament, as shown in the article, was the theophanic Presence. It manifested itself not only at the time of the covenant, but also in an invisible way throughout its validity. The establishment of a covenant relationship has always been associated with theophany and could not have been otherwise, because the covenant is always personal, so God considered it necessary to show a personal presence at this crucial time. The author proves that in all pre-Christian covenants there is a single prototype line that was revealed in Jesus Christ. By the faith and merit of the ancestor, his descendants enter into the covenant and enjoy the benefits and blessings of their predecessor, as well as inherit all his obligations to God. The people of the New Testament enjoy all the benefits and advantages not because of their own merits, but only because of the merits of Jesus. The sign of entering into the Covenant of Jesus is water baptism, which, as an external action, plays the role of a spiritual sign that indicates spiritual circumcision as a clipping of all sins. Thus, the intertextual analysis of the New Testament and Old Testament texts revealed the typos of Lord's Supper and shows the Christ as a single one, who determines the conditions of the covenants and makes it valid. (shrink)

This essay adds a theological voice to the current debate over the legacy of Gilles Deleuze. It discusses Peter Hallward's charge that Deleuze is best read as a mystical, theophanic philosopher who values creativity to the detriment of real creatures. It argues that while Hallward is right to discern a flight from bodies, relations, and politics in Deleuze, this is due not to Deleuze's contemplative mysticism, but rather to his strident rejection of any transcendence. The essay then draws upon Thomas (...) Merton in order to argue that only a fully contemplative engagement with transcendence allows us to save the sort of radical becoming that Deleuze sought but couldn't achieve. (shrink)