International congress of byzantine studies belgrade, 22 27 august 2016

Sotiris Mitralexis
City University of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey /
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece;
[e-mail]
Rethinking the Problem of Sexual Difference in 
Ambiguum 41
Maximus the Confessor’s Ambiguum 41 contains some rather untypical observations 
concerning the distinction of sexes in the human person: there is a certain ambiguity as to whether 
the distinction of the sexes was intended by God and is “by nature” (as would the Old Testament’s 
Genesis and most Church Fathers assert) or whether it is a product of the Fall, while Christ is 
described thrice as “shaking out of nature the distinctive characteristics of male and female,” ((PG91, 
1305C) “driving out of nature the difference and division of male and female” (PG91, 1309A) and 
“removing the difference between male and female” (PG91, 1309D). Different readings of those 
passages engender important implications that can be drawn out from the Confessor’s thought, both 
eschatological implications and otherwise. The subject has been picked up by Cameron Partridge, 
Doru Costache and Karolina Kochanczyk–Boninska, among others, but is by no means settled. I 
will attempt to address this anew, providing a different reading.
Dionysios Skliris
Athens, Greece;
[e-mail]
The Notions of 
ἐπικράτεια
and 
ἐγκράτεια
in Maximus the Confessor
In our paper we will examine how Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662) is using the terms 
ἐπικράτεια
and 
ἐγκράτεια
in order to denote a domination which is not free from passion. Even 
though the two words might have a positive meaning, signifying for example the mastery over one’s 
desires, they are inferior to 
ἀπάθεια
, to which they might be contrasted. According to Maximus, 
domination might also be viewed as a form of weakness, since the one who has to dominate someone 
or something is somehow affected by the dominated. On the contrary, true love is linked only to 
ἀπάθεια
, which signifies a deeper overcoming of the dominated passion. Maximus’ thought presents 
thus some dialectical insights, since it highlights the affection of the dominator by the dominated 
and a possible shifting of roles in a vicious circle. But in its depth, it is non dialectical since the goal 
is absolute freedom from the dialectics of domination (
ἐπικράτεια
). We will examine this topic in 
the consideration of desire where freedom is achieved through transformation (
μεταστοιχείωσις, 
μετατροπή
) rather than through domination and power over passions. We will focus particularly on 
the vicious circle of pleasure and pain (
ἡδονή- ὀδύνη
) and one significant use of the term 
ἐπικράτεια
in this context. And we will conclude by Maximus’ Christology, in which Maximus is emphatically 
rejecting the notion of a Monothelitism in which Christ would have a unique will through the 
domination of his human will by his divine one.

---