‘Antropological paradigm' and paradigmatic method: particular and common nature in the treatise of Leontius of Byzantium <i>Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos</i> and the Neoplatonic commentary tradition (II)
The article provides an explicated interpretation of Leontius of Byzantium's treatise Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos, positing that almost the entire text of the treatise is a demonstration of the ‘anthropological paradigm', that is, the argument for the bipartition of the hypostasis of Christ, including deity and humanity as its parts, by means of the example of bipartite nature of every human, which includes body and soul, in the context of dogmatical polemic with Monophysites (successors of Severus of Antioch) and Nestorians. The interpretation is based on the application of the paradigmatic method, characteristic of the schools of Neoplatonic commentary tradition, tothe text of the treatise. With this in mind, the article provides an integrated analysis of the logical structure and the rhetorical context of the argument via παράδειγμα (example), relying on the relevant texts of Aristotle and extant texts of Neoplatonic commentators (Ammonius of Alexandria, John Philoponus, David). Leontius of Byzantium had most likely directly relied on this model of the argument and constructed his criticism against the opponents proceeding from the basic principles of its explication. In connection with this, we point out that Leontius, holding strongly to the specificity of the paradigmatic method which presupposes the particular quality of all the logical elements which constitute the minor extreme (πρωτότυπον of Christ) and the example (παράδειγμα of a human) within the argument via παράδειγμα, considers the parts in the hypostasis of each human (soul and body) and in the hypostasis of Christ (Word and human) as particular, individual natures. Since there is still no scholarly consensus in the recent decades' studies of the treatise Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos on whether the deity and the humanity in Christ, as considered in the given text, should be understood in the sense of either common or particular nature, the interpretation represented in this article provides significant reasons in favor of the second position.