Daria Szymańska-Kuta

Acta Synodalia ab anno 50 ad annum 381 (Synodi et Collectiones legum vol. I) – Dokumenty synodów od 50 do 381 roku (Synody i Kolekcje Praw tom 1), układ i opracowanie Arkadiusz Baron i Henryk Pietras SJ, Kraków 2006 (Wydawnictwo WAM, „Źródła Myśli Teologicznej” 37), ss. 356.

Bibliografia prac opublikowanych w „Studia Religiologica” w latach 1977–2014

Didymus the Blind – the Master of the Alexandrian School (Source Review) 

The aim of this article is to present a review of the late antique sources showing that Didymus the Blind was a master of the Christian Alexandrian school and to examine them in the context of research on the phenomenon of this school. The author analyses three basic sources with information on the place and role of Didymus in the Alexandrian didaskaleion, i.e. Historia Ecclesiastica by Rufinus of Aquileia (XI 7), Historia Ecclesiastica by Sozomen (III 15), and Christianike Historia by Philip of Side.
The author polemicises with the interpretation of the key source of Rufinus of Aquileia proposed by R. Layton, with which she contrasts her own interpretation founded on the research current of the socalled Alexandrian school. Referring to the history of research on the Alexandrian didaskaleion, the author considers whether and to what extent the designation of Didymus as scholae ecclesiasticae doctor (contained in the writings of Rufinus of Aquileia) might refer to the fact that Didymus operated his own, comparatively independent exegetical school, which as a result of the character of Didymus’ ideas could only be perceived as a continuation of the Alexandrian school led earlier by Clement and Origen.

Some remarks on the ecstasy of Plotinus – the interpretation of Enneads IV 8[6],1,1–11

The starting point of the article is a critical analysis of the possible interpretations of the famous excerpt of Enn. IV 8[6],1,1–11, on the basis of which the image of the ecstasy of Plotinus as a momentary rapture, which Plotinus apparently experienced a certain number of times in his life, was formed. In the next part of the article this analysis becomes a pretext for considering, on the one hand, the elements which show the closely philosophical, rational character of the Plotinian system, yet on the other hand the irrational elements appearing in the text of Enneads. The author also tackles the problem of the continuity of the irrational component of Neoplatonic tradition. In this way she tries to answer the question whether Postplotinian Neoplatonism –sinking to irrationalist positions –broke with the rationalist premises of the philosophy of Plotinus, or, on the contrary, has its basis in certain philosophical assumptions which develop Plotinus’views.

The Conception of the Inner Senses from the Perspective of Late-Antique Theories of Perception

The subject of the article is the idea of a subtle perception which is present in the late-antique tra-dition. The starting point is an attempt to capture the original meaning of the Christian conception of the inner senses in the theory of Origen and placing it in a wider historical, cultural, and above all theoretical context. The article takes up the various points of reference of the conception of the inner senses: 1) the problem of subtle perception in the shape adopted in the Neoplatonist tradition against the background of the development of the idea of the subtle body, and also 2) the issue of cognitive presentation (φαντασίακαταλυτική) in the sense of the Stoical theory of perception. The analysis carried out mainly from the perspective of the research conducted by R. Sorabji and E.R. Dodds shows that an analogous conception of subtle senses was developed by the particularly mature Neo-platonist tradition. Whereas the Christian conception which developed in monastic circles was influ-enced, to some extent by the stoical solutions.

An Attempt to Interpret Augustinian Dialog De Quantitate Animae 32, 69 in the Context of Plato’s Theory of the Soul

The article tries to explain the problem of the number of souls as brought up by St. Augustine in his De quantitate animae 32, 69. Considering that De quant. anim. represents an early stage in Augustine’s thought in which was infl uenced by Platonism, the author discusses two possible ways of interpreting De quant. anim. 32, 69. One assumes that Augustin is referring to the relation occurring between the world soul and the individual soul. In the other, the author proposes that the text may apply to the structure of individual soul. Seen in this light, Augustin’s statement („unam simul et multas”) may express the notion that the plural powers with which the soul splits between many forms of its activity does not contradict its oneness and simplicity. Such an understanding of De quant. anim. 32, 69 may be implied by (1) concurrent arguments for complexity of the soul by Augustin and Plato (Rp. 436 B–C); and (2) similarity linking Augustine’s („unam simul et multas”) to Plotinus’ formula: („[...] Πολλή ή ψυχή και η μία”) (Enn. VI 9, 1)

This article concentrates on the view of the soul-body compound as presented by Didymus the Blind in his Commentary on Genesis, and also on some characteristic traits of Neoplatonic psychology which can be found in this text. A closer inspection of Commentary on Genesis reveals that what Didymus presents as the soul-body compound can be understood equally well as the compound of the superior intellectual soul conceived as a transcendent essence of the soul, and the ensouled body which is already a compound of the material body and the inferior irrational soul acting similarly to the body’s immanent form. Therefore, it seems plausible to surmise that it is this kind of solution to the soul-body problem which Henry Blumenthal called the marriage of dualism and hylomorphism, and which left its mark not only on later Platonic tradition, but presumably also on Didymus.

Studies in the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the Theurgic Ritual (Iamblichus’ De mysteriis). Some Remarks on the Problem of Action

Deriving the etymology of the term theourgia, which is probably made up of the words „god” (theos) and „work” (ergon), the article attempts to explain the role played in theurgy by „work”. The author asks a question about what, and, more importantly, whose action it is that is meant in theurgy and investigates three possible answers: acting on the gods, the gods’ actions, and creating the gods. The analysis is based on a Neoplatonic interpretation of the theurgic ritual as shown in De mysteriis, where Iamblichus questions Porphyry’s view in which theurgists claim a right to influence the gods. The article investigates the concept of theurgic ritual which Iamblichus formulated in response to Porphyry’s accusations. The author concentrates on Iamblichus’ main point which is that active in theurgy is not man, but the gods, who take control over ritual and use it as an instrument to influence men in order to enable them to achieve salvation. She also examines the meaning of ritual techniques performed by men as she addresses invocations intoned by the priest which served as a technique of attainment divine condition.