иеромонах Мефодий (Зинковский)

The Theology of Beauty in the Context of the Theology of the Person

Содержание

Beauty according to the ancient philosophers Trinity – The True Beauty The Trinity – archetype of creation’s beauty, beauty of logoi and man Beauty revealed through the Triplicity of Revelation Unity in diversity and order in creation as a reflection of the Trinitarian beauty Hypostatic properties of beauty Irreducibility of beauty to natural aspects and its irrationality The expression of beauty through the kinetics of personal communion and the dynamics of nature Beauty and Religiousness Beauty and Catholicity Beauty and Freedom Beauty and Creativity Beauty and Uniqueness Beauty and Integrity Beauty and Verbality Beauty and Morality Conclusion  

 

This article shows the direct correlation there is between the theology of personhood and the generalized category of “beauty”, which, if it is considered in isolation, proves to be ambiguous. Beauty and ugliness correspond to the tropos of a nature’s existence as defined by the person whose nature it is and through whom these categories are perceived. When the tropos conforms to the logos of the nature, beauty dynamically increases; in the case of inconsistency it is distorted. It is precisely the theology of the person that gives an opportunity to adequately assess the beauty of the different phenomena of culture, art and other aspects of human activity. The criterion of beauty is considered as the degree of realization of the key characteristics of the hypostasis.

“As in beauty is expressed the deepest nerve of life, so it influences the inmost center of the human being”1. (V.V. Rozanov. Beauty in nature and its meaning)

“Beauty is a mysterious thing. God and devil are fighting over it and the battlefield is the heart of man”2. (F. Dostoevsky. The Brothers Karamazov)

“Modern man does not trust abstract truths, but believes in his intuition of Beauty, Good and Truth”3. It is beauty that “is the only or almost the only thing today that can arouse people”4. Christianity undoubtedly entails a “personal experience of involvement”5 with objective Beauty, Good and Truth. And if the “constitutive principle of spirituality” can be recognized as “belief in the objective existence of Truth, Good and Beauty”6, then it is essential to identify the main theological aspects of these generalized categories. In particular, it is important to analyze the theological criteria of authentic beauty, in order to understand where Christianity’s power of attraction actually lies.

Beauty according to the ancient philosophers

The impersonal cosmos is “for the whole of ancient philosophy the most important, primary, and most perfect work of beauty and art”7. Roman thought focused on the “social cosmos”, glorifying “a purely social” ideal of beauty, with its “very material and impersonal, elemental” character8. As a result, beauty threatens to become an “idol, detached from its personal basis”. For example, Lucian underlines the “great power” which beauty has over man” and notes that “beauty transcends moral principles”9! And while it is possible and even necessary to emphasize some insights of ancient thinkers on beauty’s essence, such as Socrates’ thoughts on “purposefulness as a logical principle” of beauty10, the intuition of the plasticity of beauty (beauty in the plastic arts), the Plotinian “hierarchical approach to the field of beauty”11, his distinction between the object’s inner and outer beauty12, and the εδος, a theory that reminds us of the patristic theory of logoi13, nevertheless, there is in ancient thought no integral definition of the concept of beauty.

As for the aesthetics of Neoplatonism it can be stated as follows: “beauty is perceived by the senses – a visible and audible cosmos that is centred on the Earth”14. “Plotinian ‘being’ has the power to ‘objectively’ bloom with beauty, yet ... it is a special kind of objectivity, which is not correlated with subjectivity”15, i.e. with the personal origin, as the role of first violin in the Neoplatonic understanding of beauty is played by “the all-encompassing oneness of being”16. Plotinus’s One is absolutely single and does not within itself hold any trace of differentiation. Plotinus's thought could be said to “escape” from beauty as perceived by the senses ‘to its native Fatherland’, to a higher level of spiritual beauty”17. True Christianity never was or is a place for such escapes from the material world. Every sphere of life receives its integrity through its hypostatic origin and plays an important role in the beauty of existence – the possibility of transfiguration is inherent in it. “The beauty of Plotinus is inseparably connected with the essence” which is “the indication of its bearer’s existence”18 but it cannot escape having something of the character of a totalitarianism, lacking its own originality. In Christianity, as we shall see, beauty is simultaneously and inseparably related to both the personhood and essence, which is what gives it its true freedom.

Trinity – The True Beauty

In Christian tradition it is the God of Revelation, the unity and triplicity of the Holy Trinity which become the ontological foundation of beauty. “The entire range of beauty’s classical definitions was already well known to the apologists who made an effort to rethink them in the spirit of new Christian values”19. In Christian thought beauty receives its definition through the name and properties of God20. The author of the Corpus Areopagiticum calls God «ατόκαλλος» – Self-beauty, Beauty by Itself21, original Beauty22, and in the relevant Scholia God is called the first Beauty23. Reflecting on the Union of the Trinity, the Areopagite speaks of it as full of every kind of divine harmony and sacred beauty24. St. Gregory the Theologian, describing the mystery of the Trinity as “infinite connectedness of three infinities”25, compares the beauty of the Trinity to the beauty and majesty of the sky26. He also calls the beauty of God first (primary)27, innermost28, accessible to us only at the threshold29. St. Gregory of Nyssa maintains that God is the fullness of beauty30 that is completely inexpressible and inconceivable31. Venerable Maximus the Confessor speaks of “the unapproachable beauty of the holy and majestic Trinity”32 and of “the invisible beauty of divine glory”33.

Thus, original beauty is the Trinity, for the Trinity itself is at once both a paradoxical and magnificent unity in diversity and diversity in unity. The basis for this paradox is exactly the Hypostatic principle of existence in God. The Essence taken by itself is not paradoxical and would not give place to the “play of beauty”34. The three Hypostases or Persons differ in the Unity of Their existence and are united in Their diversity. This is the eternal beauty of Personal Existence of the Three in unity of Their essence and of the One in the triplicity of the Hypostases. “God by Himself is the fullness of beauty, He is beauty of beauty, simultaneously in an ontological and a personal sense: truly His essence shines from the depths of love, of the mutual gift of the Persons that committed Themselves to unity35. Thus, to be beautiful implies to be involved in the eternal beauty of the Personal communion in the unity of existence, the eternal image of the existence of the Trinity – the triplicity of the tropoi of existence and the unity of the logos of being36. “The whole … pattern of three-Personal life is to be played out in each of us” or, in other words, “each of us has got to enter that pattern”37.

The Trinity – archetype of creation’s beauty, beauty of logoi and man

“From You does beauty flow out to all creation”38. God the Trinity, being the original Beauty, is called the Cause of all other beauty39 and that is why He is also called “the archetype of beauty”40. Although God’s beauty is qualitatively superior to all created beauty, so even that divine beauty can be said to be beyond beauty41, however “there is absolutely nothing that exists that would be devoid of participation in this beauty, since as ‘the Truth of all discourses’ declares ‘Behold, it was good exceedingly’ (Gen. 1. 31)”42. The Creator as “the only Good and Beautiful is the only Reason for all beautiful and good”43. «For in the simple, supernatural nature of Beauty everything beautiful universally pre-exists as in the Cause» κατ'ατίαν προφέστηκεν). From this Beauty everything existing is granted to be beautiful in accordance with its own logos44. God pre-possesses beauty in Himself45, He is before creation the Source, Origin and Cause of beauty, and so possesses beauty in abundance46.

Thus, the beauty of creation has its basis in God and in the «logoi» of God. “Beautiful in the true sense is what follows its natural purpose, God’s plan – that is one of the basic premises of patristic thought”47. Matter is involved in beauty48, contrary to the attribution to it of evil in Neoplatonism, Origenism and Gnosticism. St. Methodius of Olympus observes that all creation undoubtedly needs God’s beauty49 and at the same time it manifests the Creator’s beauty50. Thus, St. Maximus, following St. Gregory of Nyssa51, asserts that knowledge of the Creator comes “from the greatness and beauty of creation”52. God’s logoi reveal through the beauty of creation God’s beauty, and though they are His energy, they still belong to the Three Persons of the Trinity. Consequently, the logoi are not an impersonal energy of thought, but rather the personal energy of the Hypostases of the Trinity – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Personal relationship of Each Person to the logoi of creation constitutes their eternal relationship to creation itself, to each of us, it determines our beauty, as well as our love and commitment to God:«τῷ ἀῤῥήττς θείας καλλονς ρωτι»53. The Beauty draws (attracts-καλον) everybody to it, which is why it is called beauty (κάλλος), for it brings all in union54 and “being True Beauty, arouses love and becomes Beloved”55.

If the logoi and their innate beauty constitute a fundamental and inalienable part of the created being, the diversity of creation’s possible responses to God's love corresponds to the free choice of its tropos of existence. In case of conformity between the tropos of existence and logos of nature, the beauty of the individual develops dynamically, yet if the tropos and logos are inconsistent, then a gradual disfigurement, a distortion of the initial beauty occurs. Thus, St. Gregory of Nyssa says that angels “continually behold the ‘Father of immortality’ and this vision” promotes “permanent transfiguration in their imitation of the beauty which they behold in the Archetype”56. The topic of the Archetype and its image is closely tied in with the concept of the beauty of God and creation, creation’s imitation of the Creator according to the tropos of existence chosen by rational creation. The same can be attributed to man: “People who love God ... look like the Lord”57 and this similarity gradually develops into something great and profound.

“Endowed with a special beauty, even in comparison with visible Paradise, was one in whom was implanted knowledgeable Paradise – Adam, the crown of God’s creation, created “in the image” of God Himself, in contrast to the rest of creation. For, in the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa the first man was “great in merit, because he was put to reign over the earth and all upon it, and was beautiful being the image of the Archetype’s beauty”58. St. Gregory the Theologian calls ‘concealed’ the best beauty of man59, that the Lord wishes to revive in us already here60 and in the age to come61, and which is the envy of the devil62.

Beauty revealed through the Triplicity of Revelation

The Son of God is called by David “the Father’s hand and strength”63. He is “the miraculous beauty”64 of God the Father65. “Beauty” is understood to be the “divine dignity of the Lord”66 and His Divinity is inseparable from His Person. According to Psalm 15 (16).11, communion with God gives joy and His beauty gives life. The Son of God is spoken of as an imprint of The Archetype’s Beauty who comes to his own image – man, and who in turn, in his own “God-like beauty” recognizes the beauty of the Archetype revealed in Christ67. The “model of beauty” and the fullness of human beauty is the “God-man, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”68.

Made possible through the hypostatic unity of natures, “the great attraction of the Person of Christ is that at one time He is both God and Man, not just God and not just a man”69. It is exactly the hypostatic union of the Divinity and humanity in the Person of Christ that makes “incorruptible and divine the beauty of flesh, substance, and matter”70. Hence St. Athanasius of Alexandria asserts that the beauty and glory of Christ’s body is incomprehensible to human mind71. The human being as one whole can acquire its absolute beauty72 only through Christ’s Person and conformity with the divine-human tropos of existence revealed in Him.

However, the beauty of Christ’s Person is not closed in on itself or withdrawn, for it consists in the beauty of His relationship with the Father and Holy Spirit, as well as “in His divine delicacy”73 towards the human person, which is the image of the divine Hypostases’ uncreated beauty, that very beauty through which God draws mankind to Himself74. From the Father through the Son and in the Holy Spirit man is granted beauty and love for beauty. “The Holy Spirit is directly called the Source and Cause of luminous beauty”75, for He is the Communicator of uncreated energies and divine light to us. The beauty of the Trinity, the communion of Persons comes to us in the light of God’s Energy. “Absolute light is absolutely beautiful – Love itself (of the Three Persons of the Trinity – Hieromonk M.Z.) in its completeness and it makes spiritually beautiful any personality. Crowning the love of the Father and Son, the Holy Spirit is the means of beauty’s contemplation”76. It is the Spirit that reveals to us the ineffable beauty of the inter-Trinitarian communion and the beauty of the relation of the Trinity to each created person. The third Hypostasis of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit gives “direct understanding of beauty, the prophetic awareness of harmony and therefore the steady pursuit of it”77.

Unity in diversity and order in creation as a reflection of the Trinitarian beauty

God is the Heavenly Image through which “everything is delimited78 and at the same time united. “The union, love, and communion of all occurs due to the Beautiful One”79 (ibid). This unity in diversity is one of the main themes of St. Maximus the Confessor80. At every level of existence there is present the beauty of diversity, which was introduced by the Creator Himself in a single cosmic order. But, as in God Himself, neither difference, nor unity dominate. “The logoi of the separate and individual are embraced ...by the universal logoi”81, just as the individual tropoi are included into the higher ranking integral tropoi.

While being integrated into the wider cosmic hierarchy, the human being, according to the Creator's plan, has in its origins an ontologically central position in the universe. Man has been endowed with “primeval beauty”82 not only for his own sake. His “soul is in between God and matter, having the power to connect itself with One and the other”83. According to Ven. Maximus man’s main purpose is “the task of uniting in himself” without fusion, that is with the preservation of distinctions, “as in a microcosm the whole cosmos” through beauty and for the sake of the beauty of “union with God”84. Despite the fact that the world appears to us consisting of “independent existing units”, it is called to be bound by means of human personal participation “into an integral harmonious unity, witnessing to its One Creator”85. “Beauty is a fulfilled unity”. And it is personal “love that ensures within the unity the splendor of diversity”86.

St. Gregory the Theologian underlines the relationship between God’s “immutable beauty” and the rule of order in the organization of the world87. The world’s order is directly related to the way of the delimitation and unity of things, like love and peace, about which it is said that the law of love and peace via its bonds makes the cosmos “incomparably beautiful”88. Given the correct order, beauty is structured in a certain hierarchical subordination, one beauty shines through another – beauty of the soul through beauty of the body89. (ibid) However, as in God there is no hierarchy of Hypostases in the strict sense, so the order and hierarchy of the cosmos, firstly, does not introduce a hierarchy of created hypostases-persons, and secondly, they are embedded in the world’s organic integrity. Thus, the beauty of the Theotokos was both external and internal90. According to St. Maximus the Confessor, the body and soul are mutually complementary91, forming the unity of created human hypostasis which possesses priceless value in God’s eyes. It is important to emphasize here that the principle of order is grounded in the hypostatic and natural origins of existence. The structure of the logoi and tropoi defines the beauty of existence. In contrast to the disregard of the hierarchy’s lower levels of being that inevitably arises in Neoplatonic and Origenistic ideologies, in Christianity nothing in God’s creation can be defined as superfluous in its origins, lacking in fullness of existence or distorted.

Hypostatic properties of beauty

According to our analysis, genuine beauty is fundamentally linked with the hypostatic, personal origin and consequently it should reflect its characteristic properties: irreducibility to nature and inseparability from it, non-rationality and its expression through the kinetics of personal communion and the dynamics of nature, religiousness, catholicity, freedom and creativity, uniqueness and integrity, verbality and morality.

Irreducibility of beauty to natural aspects and its irrationality

Is it possible to express the formula of beauty through certain correlation of natural characteristics which would seem appropriate for something beautiful? The golden section in the material world, self-sacrifice in the spiritual sphere and other principles, might reflect the external “laws of beauty” that define certain tropoi of existence, but they are not able to express the full concept of beauty. Thus, there is a beauty in moderate asymmetry, while spiritual beauty seems to be completely “elusive for logical formulas”92. “Beauty ... is described and ascertained in its existence, yet it stands beyond the methods and means of scientific research”93. In fact “beauty is mysterious”94 and though rationalism tries to reduce beauty to a sensual and emotional perception or to rational principles, yet beauty is something higher. Indeed it brings a certain pleasure to our feelings and satisfaction to our mind but it is rooted in absolute Beauty which is essentially personal. The main reason for beauty’s irreducibility to the natural-material sphere is the transcendence of its Source and the Hypostatic being of this Source, which cannot be reduced, in particular, to the concept of a tropos of existence. “Beauty in its nature is indefinable”95, it’s “not only an aesthetic category, but also a metaphysical category”96. “The question of the value of human beauty is beyond the boundary of aesthetics, though stays in contact with it”97. “Beauty, realized in the nature of creation, is, however, ‘supernatural’, ‘metaphysical’”98.

Furthermore, we are constantly confronted with the subjective aspect of the perception of beauty. Even if beauty is recognized by most observers as beautiful, yet it is reflected in each subject’s mind in a different way. “The experience of beauty, comprehending beauty is a rather mystical experience, it takes man outside of himself and puts him face to face” with the Personal God. It has in itself a “remnant” that is irreducible to natural parameters and is associated with the mystery of personal relationship99.

The inner vector of beauty’s logos leads us beyond the limits of our physical world to the “otherworldly beauty”100, “rising above empiricism”101 and then returning to the transfiguration of this world according to the highest ideals of beauty. Thus, once again beauty is expressed through a particular way of being of nature, while still remaining irreducible to that notion.

The expression of beauty through the kinetics of personal communion and the dynamics of nature

It is necessary to underline the kinetic nature of beauty. Truly beautiful is the eternal hypostatic-natural movement of love between the Hypostases in God, and the beauty of creation should be a reflection of the divine kinetics. Of course, there is also another aspect of the movement of creation – the aspect of becoming. The world began through the movement from non-existence to existence. Yet there is something more to this movement of becoming than just the inertia of creation. Even the very act of creation reflects the eternal kinetics of the Creator: it is the eternal movement of love that has given birth to the beauty of movement in creation. Moreover, creation’s movement possesses its logos: its goal is the development of relations with its Creator, deification, striving to infinity102, which are inseparably connected to the personal communion of created personalities with the uncreated Hypostases of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And even impersonal, soulless matter, through the beauty of its dynamics and the tropoi of its existence, displays a “universal meaning”103, reflecting the creative logoi of the personal God.

In the beauty of created movement there can be distinguished some aspects that are constant and some that are dynamic. The author of the Corpus Areopagiticum distinguishes different types of movement of the mind and souls: circular, straight, and spiral104. And while it can be said that the “the beauty of created being becomes constant and unchangeable to the extent of its involvement with the First Beauty – God”105, this “permanence” and “unchangeableness” of the higher forms of beauty does not imply that it is absolutely “static”. So the Trinity is unchanged, yet the beauty of love’s movement between the Persons is the apogee and archetype of any movement. This beauty is antinomically both constant and dynamic. If the aspect of constancy in the movement may be related to the natural plan, to the logoi of being, then the aspect of novelty in movement is associated with the hypostatic origin that generates new modes or tropoi of the dynamics of nature.

Beauty and Religiousness

Since religion is a union with God, everything which stimulates the soul’s movement towards its Creator and Provider, should be recognized as religious in its innermost essence. True beauty in the life of creation, reflecting the beauty of the eternal Trinity, elevates and excites the human personality to communicate with the Personal Source of Beauty.

“Faith can also transfigure beauty itself: in sacred texts, calligraphy, icons, choral singing, abundance of church art ... The Bible perceives art as a gift .... Everywhere the Creator and His creation meet in the beauty not of ownership, but of collaboration. Universal art can be perceived in the liturgy, where aesthetics become contemplation. Beauty transforms the world into ‘an ocean of symbols’”106, having deep religious meaning.

The perichoresis of the created and uncreated tropoi of existence, realised within the created personality, corresponds to the process of the religious development of the beauty of existence.

Beauty and Catholicity

The property of catholicity requires, above all, a personal openness, a focus on the “other”, interpersonal communion and community. Beauty-in-itself is dead, sick with narcissism, while true beauty is open, it exists for others and presumes “another one”. Above all else it is the property of the giving of oneself that refers “to the Beauty of God”107.

The very principle of the Revelation of God’s beauty and splendour to man is based on the principle of catholicity. God wishes to have Adam included in the beauty of communion with Him. “Revelation means love which reveals the beauty” of God and awaits our personal response108. It is in this personal relationship that the “indispensable and incomparable value of each person’s individuality is revealed in all its beauty”109. Beauty is perceived by the human person and is revealed through interpersonal communion. Here is especially meant the evangelical beauty of a soul giving itself to others.

St. Maximus the Confessor describes the obscuring of divine beauty as being the result of the human refusal to be sustained by the Word and the falling away from the divine life110. Thus, it was precisely because of the interruption of communion with God that man lost the beauty of his existence. Instead of genuine beauty a “fake beauty” emerges that strives to outshine the natural image of the “sacred beauty that is preserved for God and for the world to come”111, i.e. beauty intended for God and communion with Him in love. According to St. Gregory Palamas, Uncreated Light is “the power of resurrection” and “beauty of the world to come”112, for if “sin distorts the human being”, “grace beautifies him”113. The beauty of Adam when he was oriented towards communion with God, consisted in the incorruptibility of his entire composition114, yet once Adam lost contact with God’s grace, he committed according to St. Maximus the Confessor a “flight from Beauty”115. “The idea of autonomous Beauty”116 was fatal for its progenitors exactly because it is foreign to the personal ties that bind God with human being and human beings between themselves117. This actually leads to idolatry, consisting in an “escape” from our personal origin. Only through resuming the dialogue with God can a human being become “noble and beautiful again”118. St. Maximus evokes the restoration of the “undecaying of the ancient beauty” through the Incarnation and through the communion of natures in Christ, and thus through the restoration of communion between man and God119.

Since the uncreated energy by which the communion of man with the Creator is restored belongs to the Three Persons in God at once, it is eternally the energy of personal communion. Realized in the image of the Triune being “for the sake of another One”, the beauty of interpersonal communion, influencing other persons “without command, without violation of freedom ... can overcome not only ordinary selfishness, but also titanic pride: it may encourage a person to forget his proud ‘ego’ and selflessly serve the Good”120. Implemented in the image of communion of the Persons in the Trinity, the kingdom of God presents the fullness of beauty121. In the age to come, those contemplating the beauty and dignity of God’s image in each other “will be filled with mutual joy”122.

Beauty and Freedom

Only the innermost beauty of interpersonal love can reveal the mystery of the personal freedom of the one who loves. Only through beauty can freedom be known. “The path to freedom leads through beauty”. Beauty is far from being just an art123 . Authentic beauty is designed to “liberate our freedom”124. Even in the beautiful movement of animals there is freedom, though it cannot be called complete, since it depends on external powers and innate instincts. But how much more full of beauty is the genuinely free love of the Trinity. True freedom is beautiful, while despotism and anarchy are equally hideous. True beauty is free, while false beauty is internally constrained and unstable. “Not through coercion is beauty comprehended in the world”125 and the knowledge of the Truth’s beauty liberates126.

Beauty and Creativity

The beauty of the created world “was designed by God and is also generated by man, yet only through his God-given creativity”127. Although not every kind of creativity can be considered objectively beautiful, yet the classics possess objective beauty, since beauty is not just a “subjective phenomenon”128. “Beauty is one of the divine names, perhaps the most neglected, but in it there is the impulse of creativity”129. The aim of creative work is beauty and good130 and authentic beauty always shows its creative origin. Thus, the Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov was deeply convinced of the creative nature of beauty as the transforming power belonging to the ideal origin: He insisted that “beauty is the transfiguration of matter through an embodiment of another, super-material origin”131.

Those who genuinely create beauty in their lives are holy people who are filled with the Holy Spirit and are in a continuous synergetic co-creation with God. “Man is called to become the deliverer or creator of beauty, restoring its resemblance to the image of God, which is its foundation and vocation”132 .

Beauty and Uniqueness

Real beauty is unique, inimitable, without a trace of “cliché” in it. Its uniqueness surpasses the simple sum of the natural properties of the subject. It is in this very uniqueness that the attraction of beauty is concealed. The uniqueness of beauty consists also in the unique way in which it is perceived by each personality. F. Dostoevsky pondered on the different ways in which human beings perceive beauty, the various “manners of looking at beauty, perceiving beauty, desiring beauty”. Beauty allows us “to shape its inherent ambiguity in accordance with our own ‘ideals’. It allows itself to be viewed according to the beholder’s capability”133. It is the personality that both manifests and perceives itself in the unique complex of the modes of realization of its freedom.

Beauty and Integrity

Integrity implies wholeness as well as purposefulness. In line with this, on one hand, beauty is associated with “rationality”134 and “is the ultimate objective of cosmic and human life”. On the other hand, “if anything is perceived holistically by the human being, then it is beauty”135, which is associated with the “absolute integrity of everything which exists”136. “The combination of truth with beauty is an integral transformation, enlightening our life. If beauty is separated from the true and the good it begins to decompose into ugliness”137. “Schiller ... when studying the nature of art, wrote: ‘Beauty is the merging of reason and sensitivity, and this inter-penetration is the true reality’”138. “Through beauty the value of all the other types of the Good is revealed in an especially fascinating way”139.

“Orthodoxy holds an integral teaching of beauty which fully covers the practical field, extending to all spheres of human life – from the sphere of work to the sphere of mystical experience”140. We believe following the Church Fathers that it is the personal, hypostatic origin of man that is the base (σύστασις) of the integral being of our nature, giving it beauty and uniqueness141. One part of our natural existence is literally enhypostasized by human personality and this is how it acquires its integrity; another part of our nature, which is not to do with our individuality, nonetheless finds its beauty through being included in the energetic sphere of the personality’s actions.

Beauty and Verbality

The verbality of creation reflects the beauty of the Creator’s logoi – God’s plan for the world. They correspond to the beauty of existence, which shines through even despite the consequences of the Fall. According to Berdyaev, “beauty corresponds to God’s ideas about creation and man”142. Beauty is described, glorified and hymned through human words, and although it is only with difficulty that it is reflected by words, it demands the use of words and it corresponds to divine words about it. According to Metr. Kallistos (Ware)'s interpretation of Maximus's theory of the divine logoi everything created is not just an object but a personal word of the Creator addressed to us”143. It’s important to understand that in Christian thought the logoi of creation are intrinsic to God Himself, therefore the beauty of creation through its logoi bears in itself an inseparable imprint of divine eternal beauty.

St. Gregory of Nyssa speaks of the verbal character of our nature as one of the most important features of God’s image in us. “Do you see in yourself word and reason (διάνοιαν), the imitation of the true Reason and Word”144. The beauty of the divine mind, of the Logos “shows and proves the truth”145 for “it is a component of the truth. If something is ugly, then it’s deceptive. If words, by which we express the divine, are not beautiful, then they are false”146. “If everything is determined by the rays of the divine Logos, it is the human being that most fully reflects the Logos, as a conscious personality, and hence it is that human being that should give meaning and words to the silent glorification of the world”147, and thus realize its original beauty. Therefore, “any beauty perceived via the senses... if it is not viewed through the prism of lust, can be evaluated positively and from it can be made conclusions of a spiritual nature”148. Even if beauty is lacking in integrity, fragmented, it still carries imprinted in itself the recollection of the Logos and the hypostatic union in Him of the created and uncreated natures, His divine-human mode (theandric tropos) of existence.

Beauty and Morality

True beauty gradually fosters morality. The beauty of personal relationships is the highest beauty149 that exists in this world. Beauty is not an abstract idea but rather a moral category. Already due to its integrity, beauty must include in itself a moral dimension. Taken separately, beauty “for its own sake” can lead “to madness”150.

That which is truly “beautiful is identical to the Good”151. So, a beautiful face or figure will become a symbol of cold cruelty in the absence of the moral beauty of the heart. Abstract beauty loses its appeal and may even become dreadful. St. Clement of Alexandria in his expanded doctrine on beauty “gives it an important role in his gnoseology and especially in ethics”152. For him “beauty” quite often means moral beauty and, as in Plato’s works, it is often identified with the Good153. “True beauty is seen in a morally perfect man. For the Church Apologists the moral beauty of a person stands as one of the main values in the world of human existence”154. St. John Chrysostom also develops a hierarchical distinction of beauty: “true beauty is not known for its physical appearance but rather in its morals and behavior”155. In the subsequent historical development of Christian ethics “virtue understood primarily as a complex of personality’s active positive deeds becomes one of the important indicators of human beauty”156. The beauty of virtue can be defined as the beauty of a “personal movement” that corresponds to the mode (tropos) of existence of human nature when it is realized “in accordance with the logos of nature”157.

However, the human “thirst for beauty” seems to be too easily satisfied by various surrogates and “the aesthetics of everyday life can be easily mistaken for life in beauty”158. “Spiritual beauty, the dazzling beauty of a radiant and luminous personality, appears for a feeble and carnal man”159 absolutely inaccessible. Yet, it is exactly the genuine beauty of the human person that is crucial to the synthesis of beauty in all aspects of life. That is why a clear hierarchy of beauty is so vital, which, like the hierarchy of morality, is a natural consequence of our hypostatic origin which is the very foundation of the categories of beauty and morality. The highest example of moral beauty is the divine hypostatic love, manifested in the sacrifice of Christ on Golgotha160.

Conclusion

If in the pre- and non-Christian world existence and beauty, like “the bloom of existence”, are “attributes of the cosmos”, in the Christian world-view existence with its beauty are “intimate and personal properties of the absolute God, and at the same time His gift to creation”161. It is in our human “personal dignity” that the wealth and imperishable beauty of our existence162 consists. Following Fr. Olivier Clement, one can say that “beauty is personhood, since Christ is beauty in Person, beauty enlightened, transfigured”163. The hypostasis, which defines the particular mode of the existence of nature, is responsible for the beauty of this existence, and the criterion of true beauty is the extent of realization of its key hypostatic characteristics. “The beauty of Paradise”164 which Adam and Eve failed to realize, consisted in the possession and the cultivation of this dignity of the hypostasis. It can now be realized through Christ – the Second Adam – and through our own personal participation in His action which is already possible in this world and, as a result of it, in the eschatological “fullness of time”165.

* * *

1

V.V. Rozanov. Beauty in nature and its meaning / / V.V. Rozanov. Nature and History. Articles and essays. M.: The Republic, St. Petersburg. Rostok, 2008. Pp. 43–103, here: P. 78.

2

F. Dostoevsky. The Brothers Karamazov / / Fyodor Dostoevsky’s complete works in 30 volumes. L., 1976. Volume. 14. P. 100.

3

Yu. Chernomoretz. Orthodox theology of David Bentley Hart – a new beginning in the postmodern era [electronic resource] / / http://bogoslov-club.org.ua/?p=2732 05. 12. 11.

4

O. Clement. Reflections of light. Orthodox theology of beauty. M.: BBI, 2004. P. 37.

5

Yu. Chernomoretz. Orthodox theology of David Bentley Hart – a new beginning in the postmodern era [electronic resource] / / http://bogoslov-club.org.ua/?p=2732 05. 12. 11.

6

D. Kiryanov. Modern scientific cosmology and Orthodox theology [electronic resource] / / http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/253685.html 19.07.12.

7

A.F. Losev. The History of Ancient Aesthetics. Sophists. Socrates. Plato. M.: «Ladomir» 1994. P. 656.

8

A.F. Losev. The Hellenistic-Roman aesthetics of I – II centuries AD. M.: The Moscow University, 1979. P. 89

9

Ibid. P. 223.

10

A.F. Losev. The History of Ancient Aesthetics. Sophists. Socrates. Plato. P. 58.

11

V.V. Bychkov. Aesthetics of the Church Fathers. M.: “Ladomir”, 1995. P. 396.

12

Ibid. P. 404

13

The difference is that if for Plato and Plotinus ‘eidoi’ were only impersonal ideas or forms, then logoi in patristic thought are inextricably linked with the Person of the Logos, though they by themselves, of course, are not personal beings.

14

A.F. Losev. Aesthetics of the Renaissance. M.: “Mysl’”, 1982. P. 89.

15

S.S. Averintsev. Poetics of Early Byzantine Literature. M.: Coda, 1997. P. 41.

16

A.F. Losev. Aesthetics of the Renaissance. P. 89.

17

V.V. Bychkov. Aesthetics of the Church Fathers. P. 402.

18

Ibid. P. 404.

19

Ibid. P. 214.

20

«Θείας καλλονῆς» (Divine beauty, the beauty of God), Dionysius the Areopagite. De coelesti hierarchia. PG 3. 144; Aκαλλονή andκάλλος – beauty, see A.D. Weisman The Greek-Russian dictionary. St. Petersburg. 1899. P. 657). Maximus the Confessor. Quaestiones ad Thalassium. PG 90. 560B; «θείου κάλλους», Maximus the Confessor. Capita Theologia et Oeconomiae. PG 90. 1445C; «θεοπρεπὲς κάλλος» (God-worth beauty), Dionysius the Areopagite. De coelesti hierarchia. 3. 1. PG 3. 164D, Pahimer Paraphrasis. PG 3. 224D; «καλὸν δὲ, ὡς ἀεὶ ὂν» (Beautiful (He is called) – as always existing), Maximus the Confessor. Scholia in librum de divinis nominibus. PG 4. 252C.

21

Dionysius the Areopagite. De divinis nominibus. 11. 6. PG 3. 956B; Pahimer Paraphrasis. PG 3. 968D. See also: The Brill Dictionary of Gregory of Nyssa. Leiden – Boston, 2010. Pp. 376, 147.

22

«Ἀρχικοῦ κάλλους», Dionysius the Areopagite. De coelesti hierarchia. 7. 2. PG 3. 208C.

23

«Τὸ πρῶτον καλόν», Maximus the Confessor. Scholia in librum de divinis nominibus. PG 4. 285C.

24

«Πάσης ἁρμονίας ἐνθέου καὶ ἱερᾶς εὐπρεπείας ἐστὶν ἀνάπλεα», Dionysius the Areopagite. De divinis nominibus. 1. 4. PG 3. 592A. Here, the word «εὐπρεπεία» in context can be translated appropriately as “beauty”, although it has other meanings: respectable, decent.

25

«Τριῶν ἀπείρων ἄπειρον συμφυΐαν», Gregory the Theologian. Oratio XL. In sanctum baptisma. PG 36. 417B.

26

«Ὡς ἓν οὐρανοῦ κάλλος καὶ μέγεθος», ibid. Maximus the Confessor, cites this passage in Ambiguorum liber. PG 91. 1304C.

27

«Τοῦ πρώτου καλοῦ», Gregory the Theologian. Oratio XXX. Theologica IV. PG 36. 121A.

28

«Τὸ ἀπόθετον κάλλος», Gregory the Theologian. Oratio XXXII. De moderatione in disputando. PG 36. 192A.

29

«Κάλλος ἐκπεπληγμένος» (beauty vestibule), Gregory the Theologian. Sectio II. Poemata moralia. PG 37. 749A.

30

Gregory of Nyssa. De anima et resurrectione. PG 46. 96C.

31

«Τὸ ἀμήχανον καὶ ἀπερινόητον κάλλος», Gregory of Nyssa. De virginitate. PG 46. 361B.

32

«Τοῦ ἀπροσίτου κάλλους τῆς ἁγίας καὶ βασιλικῆς Τριάδος», Maximus the Confessor. Epistolae. PG 91. 404A; «ἀπροσίτου κάλλους», Ven. Maximus the Confessor. Capitum quinquies centenorum centuria I. PG 90. 1193A; Quaestiones ad Thalassium. PG 90. 476D, 504B; Capitum quinquies centenorum centuria II. PG 90. 1257B.

33

«Ἀοράτου κάλλους τῆς θείας μεγαλοπρεπείας», Ven. Maximus the Confessor. Ambiguorum liber. PG 91. 1205A.

34

Ven. Maximus, quoting St. Gregory the Theologian (SectioII. Ρoemata Moralia. PG 37. 624A) speaks in particular about the “play” of God («παίγνιον Θεοῦ») and the “play” of the Word, however, in the context of Economy: «Παίζει γὰρ Λόγος αἰπὺς» (The Word plays). Maximus the Confessor. Ambiguorum Liber. PG 91. 1409C, 1413B: We think that it is possible not literally though to translate the meaning of the word “play” in this context as “sparkling of colors”.

35

O. Clement. Reflections of Light. Orthodox theology of beauty. P. 79.

36

See: Maximus the Confessor. Ambiguorum Liber. PG 91. 1401A.

37

C.S. Lewis: Beyond Personality. The Christian Idea of God. The Centenary Press. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1944. P. 27.

38

Nicholas the Serbian. Prayers on the Lake. St. Petersburg.: “Redaktor”, 1995. P. 46.

39

«Τῶν ὅλων καλῶν αἰτίας», Dionysius the Areopagite. De divinis nominibus. 4. 7. PG 3. 701CD.

40

«Τοῦ ἀρχετύπου κάλλους», Gregory the Theologian. OratioXXXVIII.Ιn Theophania. PG 36. 325B; Gregory of Nyssa. De anima et resurrectione. PG 46. 89C, De professione christiana. 245A, De perfecta christiani forma. 269D, De virginitate. 348A, 369C, Maximus the Confessor. Capita Theologia et Oeconomiae. Centuria I. PG 90. 1120A;«τοῦ πρωτοτύπου κάλλους» (Beauty of the Archetype), Gregory of Nyssa. De perfecta christiani forma. PG 46. 272B, De virginitate. 368C, In S. Stephanum. 720C.

41

«Πάγκαλον ἄμα καὶ ὑπέρκαλον», Dionysius the Areopagite. De divinis nominibus. 4. 7. PG 3. 701D.

42

«Μηδὲ ἓν τῶν ὄντων εἶναι καθόλου τῆς τοῦ καλοῦ μετουσίας ἐστερημένον, εἴπερ, ὡς ἡτῶν λογίων ἀλήθειά φησι, πάντα καλὰλίαν», Dionysius the Areopagite. De coelesti hierarchia. 2. 3. PG 3. 141C.

43

«Τοῦτο τὸ ἓν ἀγαθὸν καὶ καλὸν ἑνικῶς ἐστι πάντων τῶν πολλῶν καλῶν καὶ ἀγαθῶν αἴτιον», Dionysius the Areopagite. De divinis nominibus. 4. 7. PG 3. 704B.

44

«Τῇ γὰρ ἀπλῃ καὶ ὑπερφυεῖ τῶν ὅλων καλῶν φύσει πᾶσα καλλονὴ καὶ πᾶν καλὸν, ἐνοειδῶς κατ 'αἰτίαν προϋφέστηκεν. Ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦ τούτου πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσι το εἶναι, κατὰ τὸν οἰκεῖον λόγον ἕκαστα καλά», Dionysius the Areopagite. De divinis nominibus. 4. 7. PG 3. 704A.

45

«Προέχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ λέγεται τὴν καλλονὴν», Maximus the Confessor. Scholia in librum de divinis nominibus. PG 4. 252C.

46

«Ὑπεροχικῶς ἔχει τὸ καλόν», Maximus the Confessor. Scholia in librum de divinis nominibus. PG 4. 252D.

47

S.A. Sharapov. Beauty according to the Orthodox Faith [electronic resource] / / http://halkidon2006.orthodoxy.ru/Bogoslovie_10/S_A_Sharapov_Krasota_3.htm 19. 07.12.

48

«Καὶ γὰρ καὶ αὐτὴ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ κάλλους καὶ εἴδους ἔχει μετουσίαν», Dionysius the Areopagite. De divinis nominibus. 4. 28. PG 3. 729A. Here are being considered thematter’s involvement in God’s beauty and the order arising from this involvement (κόσμος – order, dispensation, beauty, glory, attire) and appearance (εἶδους – appearance, look, beauty). Both terms have synonymous meanings with beauty. Thus, in the Scholia we find quotation fromIsaiah:«καὶ οὐκ εἶχεν εἶδος οὐδὲ κάλλος» (Isaiah 53. 2).

49

«Πᾶσα δήπουθεν ἡ κτίσις ἐνδεής ἐστι τοῦ κάλλους τοῦ Θεοῦ», Methodius of Olympus. Homilia de cruce domini. PG 18. 401A.

50

«Τῶν δημιουργημάτων καλλονὴ, [τὸν] γενεσιουργὸν, τουτέστι τὸν τῶν ἐν γενέσει ποιητὴν μηνύει» (beauty of creation, that is, what is in the process of development, reveals the Creator), Maximus the Confessor. Scholia in librum de divinis nominibus. 7. 3. PG 4. 349D.

51

“The knowledge of his existence reaches us through the beauty and greatness of creatures, according to a certain analogy”. The Brill Dictionary of Gregory of Nyssa. P. 238). See also Gregory of Nyssa. De virginitate. PG 46. 365B, De mortuis. 532A.

52

«Ἐκ καλλονῆς καὶ μεγέθους τῶν κτισμάτων», Maximus the Confessor. Ambiguorum liber. PG 91. 1168B; also this: PG 91. 1176D, 1216AB, Maximus the Confessor. Exροsitio In Psalmum LIX. PG 90. 869B.

53

Maximus the Confessor. Ambiguorum liber. PG 91. 1209 A; The reasonable power of the soul “begets the love to God through contemplation of His beauty and goodness”. The Brill Dictionary of Gregory of Nyssa. Pp. 220, 222, 264.

54

«Ὡς πάντα πρὸς ἐαυτὸ καλοῦν (ὅθεν καὶ κάλλος λέγεται) καὶ ὡς ὅλα ἐν ὅλοις εἰς ταὐτὸ συνάγον», Dionysius the Areopagite. De divinis nominibus. 4. 7. PG 3. 701CD.

55

S.A. Sharapov. Beauty according to the Orthodox Faith [electronic resource] / / http://halkidon2006.orthodoxy.ru/Bogoslovie_10/S_A_Sharapov_Krasota_3.htm 19. 07.12.

56

The Brill Dictionary of Gregory of Nyssa. P. 188. (St. Gregory of Nyssa speaks for example, of angels who “unceasingly see ‘the Father of immortality’, and this vision continually transforms them in the imitation of the beauty that they contemplate in the Archetype”).

57

Sophrony (Sakharov), hieromonk. Saint Silouan the Athonite. Life, teachings, and writings. Minsk, “Luchi Sophia”, 2001. P. 369.

58

Gregory of Nyssa. The Great Catechetical Word 6 / / St. Gregory of Nyssa. Dogmatic Works: in 2 volumes. Krasnodar: Text, 2006. Vol. 1. P. 19.

59

Gregory the Theologian. Oratio XXIV. In laudem s. Cypriani. PG 35. 1180A.

60

«Κοσμήτωρ δὲπάντως τῆς νύμφης ὁ Χριστὸς», ibid. PG 46. 600B. Quoting Isaiah (Isaiah 61. 10), St. Gregory interprets the relationship of the soul and Christ as the personal relationship of the Groom and bride that He beautifies with His gifts.

61

«Τὸν ἱερὸν καὶ κάλλιστον τὸν τῆς παλιγγενεσίας», ibid, PG 46. 593B,«τῷ δώρῳ τῆς παλιγγενεσίας ἐγκαλλωπίζεσθε», ibid, P. 46. 596A.

62

Ibid, PG 46. 597B.

63

E. Zigaben. Explanatory Psalter of Zigabena Euphemia (Greek philosopher and monk) interpreted by the Holy Fathers Explanations. Moscow Patriarchate, the Moldovan Diocese. Edinetzko-Brichanskaya Diocese, 2003. P. 114.

64

Justin (Popovich), venerable. Dostoevsky on Europe and the Slavs. Moscow, St. Petersburg.: the Meeting of our Lord Monastery – Chapel in honor of Mother of God «Joy of All Who Sorrow», 2002. P. 21.

65

Explanatory Psalter. Kolomna: The Holy Trinity Monastery in New Golutvin, 1994. P. 49 (Sts. Athanasius, Augustine, Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great).

66

E. Zigaben. Explanatory Psalter. P. 392.

67

«Τὸ ἐκμαγεῖον τοῦ ἀρχετύπου κάλλους», Gregory the Theologian. Oratio XXXVIII. Ιn Τheophania.13. PG 36. 325B; «τὸ θεοειδὲς κάλλος», Gregory of Nyssa. De mortuis. PG 46. 536B. See also PG 3. 821C, where the author talks about celestial powers that have “God-like being”:«τὸθεοειδῶς εἶναι ἔχουσι». Dionysius the Areopagite. De divinis nominibus. 5. 8.

68

Ignatius (Bryanchaninov). Ascetic Experience. M., 1998. Volume II. P.124.

69

Justin (Popovich) Dostoevsky on Europe and the Slavs. P. 120.

70

Justin (Popovich). The mystery of Transfiguration of the Savior and the Mystery of Salvation. Translation of S. Fonov. [electronic resource] / / http://preobrazhenie.paskha.ru/Bogoslovie/Prepodobnyj_Iustin_Popovich/ 25.03.12.

71

«Οὔτε γὰρ κάλλος οὔτε δόξαν σώματος Χριστοῦ ἐφικτὸν διανοίᾳ ἀνθρώπου», Athanasius of Alexandria. Historica et dogmatica. PG26.1132Α.

72

Justin (Popovich). Dostoevsky on Europe and the Slavs. P. 126.

73

Amfilohij (Radovich), metr. The Value of Orthodoxy for Modern Youth / / Alpha and Omega. Moscow, 2001, № 3 (29). Pp. 305–312, here: p. 309.

74

J. R. Sachs. Apocatastasis in Patristic Theology / / Theological Studies. No. 54. 1993. Pp. 617–640, here: p. 633.

75

P. Florensky. Pillar and Foundation of Truth: the Experience of Orthodox Theodicy in Twelve Letters. Moscow: Lepta, 2002. Pp. 95–96.

76

Ibid. Pp. 98–99.

77

Notes of Dostoevsky. Moscow-Leningrad: The Academy, 1935. P. 296.

78

«Παραδειγματικὸν ὅτι κατ 'αὐτὸ πάντα ἀφορίζεται», Dionysius the Areopagite. De divinis nominibus. 4. 7, PG 3. 704A.

79

«Διὰ τὸ καλὸν αἱ πάντων ἐφαρμογαὶ, καὶ φιλίαι, καὶ κοινωνίαι», ibid.

80

T. Tollefsen The Christocentric Cosmology of St. Maximus the Confessor. Oxford, 2008. P. 100.

81

Maximus the Confessor. Ambiguorum liber. PG 91. 1313A.

82

«Τὸ ἀρχέγονον κάλλος», Gregory of Nyssa. De anima et resurrectione, PG 46. 157B.

83

Maximus the Confessor. Ambiguorum liber. PG 91. 1193D.

84

P. Nellas. Deification in Christ: Orthodox Perspectives on the nature of the Human Person. N.Y., 1987. P. 54.

85

O. Mumrikov, fr. Matter and Hierarchy of the Universe [electronic resource] / / http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/1704645.html 24. 05. 11.

86

M. Rupnik. Introduction / / O. Clement. Reflections of Light. Orthodox theology of beauty. M.: BBI, 2004. Pp. 11–15, here: P. 13.

87

«Καὶ τάξεως μὲν ἐπι κρατούσης, κόσμος, τὸ πᾶν, καὶ τὸ κάλλος ἀκίνητον», Gregory the Theologian. Oratio XXXII. De moderatione in disputando. PG 36. 184A.

88

«Κάλλος ἀπρόσιτον», Gregory the Theologian. Oratio VI. De pace I. PG 35. 740 C. This expression is often applied to God, but occasionally is used for creatures to emphasize the beauty of the likeness of the Creator and creation.

89

«Ἀντιστίλψει τὸ κάλλος τῷ κάλλει, τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς τῷ τοῦ σώματος», Gregory the Theologian. Oratio XXVI. In seipsum. PG 35. 1241C. The same writes St. Gregory of Nyssa: «ψυχῆς ἀρετὰς συναύξων τῷ κάλλει τοῦ σώματος» (beauty of the soul is revealed via the beauty of the body), Oratio de deitate filii et Spiritus Sancti. PG 46. 568A.

90

Elder Paisios of Mount Athos. Passions and virtue. Words. Moscow: Publishing House “The Holy Mountain”, 2005. Volume 5. P. 154.

91

Maximus the Confessor. Ambiguorum liber. PG 91. 1109CD.

92

Paul Florensky. Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Pp. 7–8.

93

Ibid. Pp. 126–127.

94

O. Clement. Reflections of light. Orthodox theology of beauty. P. 37.

95

N.A. Berdyaev. The Meaning of the Creative Act. M: Art, 1994. P. 235; On the indefinable nature of beauty see also: T. Kasatkina “Beauty will save the World ...” [electronic resource] / / http://www.74rif.ru/Dostoevsky.html 22. 07. 12.

96

N.A. Berdyaev. The Divine and the Human / / N.A. Berdyaev. The Destiny of Man. New York: The Republic, 1993. Pp. 254–367, here: P. 326.

97

I. Lapshin. Aesthetics of Dostoevsky. Berlin, 1923. P. 33.

98

V. Leonov, protopriest. Relationship of the «personality» and the «image of God» in Orthodox theology [electronic resource] / / http://www.pravoslavie.ru/put/35001.htm 20. 07. 12.

99

Hilarion (Alfeev), metr. The Theology of Beauty. Presentation at the Conference “Beauty’s Destiny: beauty from the standpoint of humanities [Electronic resource] http://www.verav.ru/common/mpublic.php?num=1308 19. 07. 12.

100

N.A. Berdyaev. The Meaning of the Creative Act. M., 1994. Pp. 220–221.

101

V.V. Bychkov. Russian Medieval Aesthetics of the XI-XVII centuries. M.: “Mysl’” 1992. P. 192.

102

N.A. Berdyaev. The Divine and the Human. P. 328.

103

N.O. Lossky. Dostoevsky and his Christian Understanding of the World / / N.O. Lossky. God and Suffering. New York: The Republic, 1994. Pp. 11 –249, here: P. 127.

104

A.F. Losev. Historical Significance of the Areopagitica / / A.F. Losev. From the Creative Heritage. Contemporaries on the Thinker. M., 2007. Pp. 152–168, here: Pp. 164–165.

105

S. A. Sharapov. Beauty according to the Faith [electronic resource] / / http://halkidon2006.orthodoxy.ru/Bogoslovie_10/S_A_Sharapov_Krasota_3.htm 19. 07.12.

106

O. Clement. Reflections of Light. Orthodox Theology of Beauty. P. 37.

107

S. A. Sharapov. Beauty according to the Faith [electronic resource] / / http://halkidon2006.orthodoxy.ru/ Bogoslovie_10/S_A_Sharapov_Krasota_3.htm 19.07.12.

108

B. Zelinsky. Conversation with Olivier Clement (1921–15.01.2009). If you were alive [electronic resource] / / http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/2282995.html 02. 12. 11.

109

P. Florensky. Pillar and Foundation of the Truth. P. 435.

110

Maximus the Confessor. Ambiguorum liber. PG 91. 1157A.

111

Gregory the Theologian. Oratio VIII. Ιn laudem sororis suae gorgoniae. «Τὸ νόθον κάλλος» – «ἀποκειμένης λαμπρότητος», PG 35. 800C.

112

Gregory Palamas. The Triads. M.: Canon, 1995. P. 225.

113

Sophronius (Sakharov), hieromonk. St. Silouan the Athonite. Life, teachings, and writings. Minsk, Rays of Sofia, 2001. P. 369.

114

Athanasius the Great, The Word About the Incarnation of God the Word. 4 / / M., Holy-Transfiguration Valaam Monastery, 1994. Pp. 191–263, here: P. 196–197.

115

«Φυγὴ κάλλους», Maximus the Confessor. Quaestiones ad Thalassium. LXIV, PG 90. 693C.

116

O.A. Nikolaeva. Orthodoxy and Creativity / / O.A. Nikolaeva. Orthodoxy and Freedom. M. Ed. Moscow Trinity-St. Sergius Monastery,2002. Pp. 222–270, here p. 239.

117

O. Clement. Reflections of Light. Orthodox Theology of Beauty. P. 82.

118

Macarius of Egypt. Word 63. 3. 4 / / Macarius of Egypt. Spiritual Words and Messages. Collection of Type 1 (Vatic. graek. 694) / Introduction, translation, commentary, pointers of A.G. Dunaev. M. Indrik, 2002. P. 829.

119

«Τὸ ἀρχαῖον κάλλος αὐτὴν τῆς ἀφθαρσίας», Maximus the Confessor. Ambiguorum liber. PG 91. 1320A.

120

N.O. Lossky. Dostoevsky and his Christian Understanding of the World. P. 127.

121

N.A. Berdyaev. The Destiny of Man. P. 214.

122

Gregory of Nyssa. De hominis opificio. PG 44. 201–204, The Brill Dictionary of Gregory of Nyssa. P. 278.

123

N.V. Kashina. The Aesthetics of F.M. Dostoyevsky. Moscow: Higher School, 1989. Pp. 150–151.

124

O. Clement. Reflections of Light. Orthodox Theology of Beauty. P.83.

125

N.A. Berdyaev. The Meaning of the Creative Act. Pp.217–218.

126

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free”. (John 8. 32).

127

A.R. Nebolsin. Beauty in the Apocalypse and beauty of the Apocalypse. [Electronic resource] / / http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/2607687.html 19.07.12.

128

V. Zenkovskiy. Aesthetic Views of Solovyov / / Protopr. V. Zenkovskiy. Russian Thinkers and Europe. M. Ed. Republic, 2005. Pp. 278–287, here: p. 279. The Areopagite talks about the “eternally beautiful” (ἀεὶ ὂν καλόν) – St. Dionysius the Areopagite. De divinis nominibus. 4. 7, PG 3.704Α.

129

O. Clement. Reflections of Light. Orthodox Theology of Beauty. P.49.

130

V.V. Bychkov. Aesthetics of the Church Fathers. Pp. 439–440.

131

Cited from: V. Zenkovskiy. Aesthetic Views of Solovyov. Pp. 279–280.

132

O. Clement. Reflections of Light. Orthodox Theology of Beauty. P.81 (cited from: V. Zenkovskiy. Aesthetic Views of Solovyov).

133

T. Kasatkina “Beauty will save the World ...” [electronic resource] / / http://www.74rif.ru/Dostoevsky.html 22. 07. 12.

134

V.V. Bychkov. Aesthetics of the Church Fathers. P. 215.

135

N.A. Berdyaev. The Divine and the Human. P. 326.

136

A.F. Losev. History of Ancient Aesthetics. Sophists. Socrates. Plato. P. 640.

137

N.A. Berdyaev. The Divine and the Human. Pp. 330–331.

138

Cited from: G.W.F. Hegel. Aesthetics. Moscow, 1968. Vol. 1. P. 68.

139

N.O. Lossky. Dostoevsky and his Christian Understanding of the World. P. 127.

140

S. A. Sharapov. Beauty according to the Faith [electronic resource] / / http://halkidon2006.orthodoxy.ru/Bogoslovie_10/S_A_Sharapov_Krasota_3.htm 19.07.12.

141

D.J. Stead. The Meaning of Hypostasis in Some Texts of the 'Ambiguá of St. Maximus the Confessor / / The Patristic and Byzantine Review. 1989. V. 8 (1). Pp. 25–33, here: p. 32.

142

N.A. Berdyaev. The Destiny of Man. P. 214.

143

K. Ware, bishop. Through the creation to the Creator. Moscow, 1998. P. 10.

144

Gregory of Nyssa. On the Making of Man. St. Petersburg. Axioma, 2000. P. 25.

145

O. Clement. Reflections of Light. Orthodox Theology of Beauty. Pp.62–63.

146

R. Noyka, hieromonk. Philokalia. Love of beauty / / Alpha and Omega № 1 (42) 2005. Pp. 127–144, here: p. 130.

147

O. Clement. Reflections of Light. Orthodox Theology of Beauty. P.81.

148

S. A. Sharapov. Beauty according to the Faith [electronic resource] / / http://halkidon2006.orthodoxy.ru/Bogoslovie_10/S_A_Sharapov_Krasota_3.htm 19.07.12.

149

P. Florensky. Pillar and Foundation of the Truth. P. 74.

150

O. Clement. Reflections of Light. Orthodox Theology of Beauty. P.38.

151

«Δὲ ὅτι ταὑτὸν εἶναί φησι τῷ ἀγαθῷ τὸ καλόν», Maximus the Confessor. Scholia in librum de divinis nominibus. PG 4. 253C.

152

Cit. from: G. Quispel. Gnosis als Weltreligion. Zürich, 1951, P. 39.

153

V.V. Bychkov. Aesthetics of the Church Fathers. P. 207.

154

Ibid. P. 214.

155

John Chrysostom. Collection of Works. St. Petersburg.: Published by the St. Petersburg Orthodox Academy 1906. Vol. 12. Book 2. Word 14. On Women and Beauty. Pp. 579–590, here: p. 581.

156

V.V. Bychkov. Russian Medieval Aesthetics of the XI-XVII centuries. P. 178.

157

S.Tutekov A view on the theology of Will in St. maximus the Confessor// Church Studies. №5, 2008. P. 63.

158

S. Bulgakov. Unfading Light. Contemplation and speculation. Moscow, 1994. Pp. 318–335.

159

P. Florensky. Pillar and Foundation of the Truth. P. 99.

160

R. Noyka, hieromonk . Philokalia. Love of beauty. P. 139.

161

S.S. Averintsev. Poetics of early Byzantine literature. P. 41.

162

Sophronius (Sakharov), archim. To See God as He Is. The Holy Trinity-Sergius Lavra, St. John the Baptist Monastery, 2009. Pp. 240, 226–227.

163

O. Clement. Reflections of Light. Orthodox Theology of Beauty. P.65.

164

«Τοῦ παραδείσου γεωργίας ὑποσημαίνων τὸ κάλλος», Gregory of Nyssa. Oratio de deitate filii et Spiritus Sancti. PG 46. 556A.

165

E. Zigaben. Explanatory Psalter. Pp. 351–352.

Комментарии для сайта Cackle