Timur Shchukin, Oleg Nogovitsin. Anonymous treatise “On the Common Nature and the Trinity” in the context of christlogical and triadological discussions of the VI century. Vol. 1. No. 1. 2016

Publication Details

Anonymous treatise “On the Common Nature and the Trinity” in the context of christlogical and triadological discussions of the VI century
Title in the language of publication:
Анонимный трактат «Об общей природе и Троице» в контексте христологических и триадологических споров VI века
Timur Shchukin
Research Fellow at the Institute of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, Campus in Perm.
Address: 38 Studencheskaya Ulitsa, Perm 614070, Russia.

Oleg Nogovitsin
PhD in Philosophy, Associate Professor, Associate Research Fellow at the Sociological institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Address: 25/14 7-ya Krasnoarmeyskaya str., St. Petersburg 190005, Russia.
P. 312–337.
Language: Russian
Document type: Research Article (introdaction)


The anti-Monophysitic anonymous treatise On the common nature and the Trinity was written in the 550–560s for the educational purposes in philosophy and theology. Therefore, its content was perceived in this time as something certainly traditional. It reflects theological discussions of its time, thus making feel the degree of complication of the current theological situation and the extent of mutual comprehension between the rivalry parties. The anonymous author normally keeps himself within the conceptual language of the late Neoplatonism, especially the school of Ammonius of Alexandria known by its interest to peripatetic instruments. The author himself is a Chalcedonian. When rejecting both “Nestorian” and “Severian” Christologies, he claims that the human nature became a constitutive element of the hypostasis of Christ (consisting of two common natures) and by no means an independent hypostasis. There are some similarities with the teaching of Leontius of Byzantium’s Against the Nestorians and the Eutychians and Refutation of the Syllogisms of Severus, whereas the present author is much more succinct, and his exposition is simplified. For instance, unlike Leontius of Byzantium, he does not distinguish the contexts, where the notions of nature and essence could be used differently; he does not states explicitly that the human nature within the hypostasis of Christ is the common nature and not a particular nature. The latter term is used but never explained. The treatise is a curious witness of the relevance of an inter-Monophysite controversy for the Chalcedonians.


Christology, Chalcedonism, Monophysitism, Tritheism, particular nature, Leontius of Byzantium, John Philoponus, Severus of Antioch.


Allen P., Hayward C. T. R. (2004) Severus of Antioch. The Early Church Fathers. London; New York: Routledge.

Ananian P. (1969) “L’opusculo di Eutichio patriarca di Costantinopoli sulla ‘Distinzione délia natura e persona’”. Armeniaca. Mélanges d’études arméniennes. Publiés à l’occasion du 250e anniversaire de l’entrée des pères mekhitaristes dans l’Ile de Saint-Lazare (1717–1967). Vénise: St. Lazar’s Press: 316–382.

Benevitch G. I. (2011) “Leontii Ierusalimskii. Protiv monofizitov. Predislovie” [Leontius of Jerusalem. Against the Monophysites. Preface]. Leontius Hierosolymitanus, Theodorus Abucara, Leontius Byzantinus. Polemicheskie sochineniya [Polemical Works]. Krasnodar: Tekst (Patristika: teksty i issledovaniya [Patristics: Texts and Studies]; Vizantiiskaya filosofiya. T. 7 [Byzantine philosophy. Vol. 7]): 6–24. (in Russian).

Busse A. (ed.) (1891) Ammonius in Porphyrii isagogen sive quinque voces. Berlin: Reimer (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. Vol. IV. Pars 3).

Busse A. (ed.) (1895) Ammonius in Aristotelis categorias commentaries. Berlin: Reimer (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. Vol. IV. Pars 4).

Cross R. (2002) “Individual Natures in the Christology of Leontius of Byzantium”. Journal of Early Christian Studies. Vol. 10. No. 2: 245–265.

Dodds E. R. (ed.) (1977) Proclus. The elements of theology (a revised text, tr., intr., comment. by E. R. Dodds). Second Edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Evans D. (1970) Leontius of Byzantium: Аn Origenist Christology. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks (Dumbarton Oaks Studies. Vol. 13).

Grey P. (ed.) (2006) Leontius of Jerusalem. Against the Monophysites: Testimonies of the Saints and Aporiae (ed., tr. by P. T. R. Gray). Oxford: Oxford University Press (Oxford Early Christian Texts).

Grillmeier A., Hainthaler T. (1995) Christ in Christian Tradition. Vol. 2. From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590604). Part 2. The Church of Constantinople in the sixth century (tr. by J. Cawte, P. Allen). London: Mowbray; Louisville, KY: WJK.

Hayduck M. (ed.) (1882) Simplicii in libros Aristotelis de anima commentaria. Berlin: Reimer (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. Vol. XI).

Hayduck M. (ed.) (1891) Alexandri Aphrodisiensis in Aristotelis metaphysica commentaria. Berlin: Reimer (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. Vol. I).

Hayduck M. (ed.) (1897) Ioannis Philoponi in Aristotelis de anima libros commentaria. Berlin: Reimer (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. Vol. XV).

Henry R. (éd.) (1967) Photius. “Bibliothèque. Codices 230: Eulogius”. Photius. Bibliothèque (texte établi et trad. par R. Henry). 9 vols. Vol. 5. Paris: Les Belles Lettres (Collection Budé): 8–64.

Iohannes Damascenus (2002) Tvoreniya prepodobnogo Ioanna Damaskina. Istochnik znaniya [The Works of St. John of Damascus. The Source of Knowledge] (tr. by D. E. Afinogenov, A. A. Bronzov, A. I. Sagarda, N. I. Sagarda). Moscow: Indrik (Svyatootecheskoe nasledie. T. 5 [Patristic heritage. Vol. 5]). (in Russian).

Junglas P. (1908) Leontius von Byzanz. Studien zu seinen Schriften, Quellen und Anschauungen. Paderbom: F. Schoningh.

Kotter B. (hg.) (1981) Johannes von DamaskosLiber de haeresibus”. Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos. Bd. IV: Liber de haeresibus. Opera polemica. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter (Patristische Texte und Studien. Bd. 22): 19–67.

Lang U.-M. (2001) John Philoponus and controversies over Chalcedon in the six century. A Study and Translation of theArbiter”. Leuven: Peeters (Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense. Études et documents. Fascicule 47).

Lebon I. (ed.) (1938) Severi Antiocheni liber contra impium Grammaticum. Oratio prima et orationis secundae quae supersunt. Louvain: Peeters (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Vol. 112; Scriptores Syri. Vol. 59 (IV, 4)).

Lemerle P. (1971) Le premier humanisme byzantin: notes et remarques sur enseignement et culture à Byzance des origines au Xe siècle. Paris: Les Presses universitaires de France (Bibliothèque byzantine. Etudes 6).

Lemerle P. (2012) Le premier humanisme byzantin: notes et remarques sur enseignement et culture à Byzance des origines au Xe siècle (intr., tr. by T. A. Senina (nun Kassiya)). St. Petersburg: “Svoe izdatel’stvo” (Seria Bizantina). (in Russian).

Lourié B. (2006) Istoriya vizantiiskoi filosofii. Formativnyi period [The History of Byzantine Philosophy: The Formative Period]. St. Petersburg: Axiōma. (in Russian).

Photius (2009) Photius Constantinopolitanus. “Izlozhenie slova sv. Evlogiya Aleksandriiskogo” [Exposition of the sermon of St. Eulogius of Alexandria]. Antologiya vostochno-khristianskoi bogoslovskoi mysli. Ortodoksiya i geterodoksiya: V 2 t. T. 2 [An Anthology of the East Christian Theological Thought. Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy. In 2 vol. Vol. 2] (ed. by G. I. Benevitch, D. S. Birjukov). Moscow: Nikeya; St. Petersburg: Izd-vo RHGA (Vizantiiskaya filosofiya. T. 5; Smaragdos Philocalias): 89–95. (in Russian).

Rashed M. (2007) “Un texte proto-byzantin sur les universaux et la Trinité”. L’héritage aristotélicien: textes inédits de l’Antiquité (sous la direction de M. Rashed). Paris: Les Belles Lettres: 345–377.

Reichardt W. (hg.) (1897) Joannis Philoponi de opificio mundi libri VII. Leipzig: Teubner.

Ronconi F. (2012) “Quelle grammaire à Byzance? La circulation des textes grammaticaux et son reflet dans les manuscrits”. La produzione scritta tecnica e scientifica nel Medioevo: libro e documento tra scuole e professioni. Atti del Convegno internazionale, FiscianoSalerno, 2830 settembre 2009 (a cura di G. De Gregorio e M. Galante). Spoleto: CISAM: 63–110.

Sanda A. (ed.) (1930) Opuscula monophysitica Ioannis Philoponi (syriac text, latin tr. by A. Sanda). Beirut: Typographia Catholica PP. Soc. Jesu.

Shchukin T. (2016) “Identity in Difference: Substance and Nature in Leontius of Byzantium’s Writings
”. Scrinium. Journal of Patrology, Critical Hagiography, and Ecclesiastical History. Vol. 12: 308–321.

Suchla B. R. (hg.) (1990) Corpus Dionysiacum I: Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita. De divinis nominibus. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter (Patristische Texte und Studien. Bd. 33).

Trizio M. (2013) “A new testimony of the middle Platonist Gaius”. Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies. Vol. 53: 136–145.

Van Roey A. (1985) “La controverse trithéite jusqu’à l’excommunication de Conon et d’Eugene (557–569)”. Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica. Vol. 16: 141–165.

Vitelli H. (ed.) (1887–1888) Ioannis Philoponi in Aristotelis physicorum libros octo commentaria. 2 vols. Berlin: Reimer. Vol. 1, 1887; Vol. 2, 1888 (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. Vol. XVI, XVII).

Wallies M. (ed.) (1909) Ioannis Philoponi in Aristotelis analytica posteriora commentaria cum Anonymo in librum II. Berlin: Reimer, 1909 (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. Vol. XIII. Pars 3).

© Timur Shchukin, 2016  © Oleg Nogovitsin, 2016

Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.