| Drs. Ingrid Zoetmulder 2. Where do we find icons? Where do we find icons? Icons can be found in all those areas that form the legacy of Byzantine Orthodoxy: in the Greek Mediterranean world (from the early Middle Ages), in the Orthodox areas of the Balkans and the former Soviet Union (since the 9th and 10 th centuries), in certain small areas in the Arab world and in Ethiopia. 8. St George and the Mother of God, 1st half 16th century, Ethiopia, 17 · 10 cm, private collection (The Netherlands) Byzantine icons Icons surviving from before the Iconoclasm can be found in the Monastery of St Catherine and in Rome. They vary greatly in style and form. At this early period, no clear norms had been established. The resumption of icon painting in 843 coincided with – or perhaps gave rise to – the start of a great cultural flowering. The crisis of the Iconoclasm had resulted in a theological definition of the icon, and clear guidelines were drawn up for painting specific types of icon. Various styles are discerned, such as the mid-Byzantine style, also known as the Macedonian Renaissance, which occurred when the Empire was ruled by the Macedonian dynasty (876–1081) and the Comnenan dynasty (1081–1204). In these periods, the style is strict and dignified, but also detached and spiritual. Comnenan rule ended in 1204, when during the Fourth Crusade, Crusaders conquered and sacked Constantinople. Once again, many precious works of art were destroyed, while others were carried off to the West as plunder. The Crusader government lasted for nearly sixty years. 2 This period saw the production of what are known as Crusader icons. In 1261, Constantinople was retaken by the first emperor in the Palaeologan dynasty (1259–1453), marking the opening of a final flowering of Byzantine culture. In this Palaeologan Renaissance, the artistic style became livelier and more refined, and emotion made its entrance into art. This style was to be especially influential in Russia. After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Byzantine traditions were continued, particularly in Crete, where many artists had sought refuge, but also in Macedonia and the Balkan countries. The names of many Cretan icon paintershave survived. The Cretan tradition experienced a high point during the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. The workshops offered various styles. For example, the customer could choose an icon ‘alla latina’ or ‘alla greca’. The ‘alla latina’ style showed noticeable Italian influences, such as flowing folds of cloth and engraved ornaments. The ‘alla greca’ style, on the other hand, showed a sharper contrast between light and dark, and the colours were more expressive. New types of icons were also developed in Crete, such as the Mother of God of the Passion and the Madre de la Consolacione. In addition, an influential group of Greek artists living in Venice at this time produced icons in a more Western-oriented style. |
| 138 Подлинное название источника в рукописях – «Как, почему и когда италийцы отделились от православных христиан?» См.: Silvano L. «How, Why and When the Italians Were Separated from the Orthodox Christians». A Mid-Byzantine Account of the Origins of the Schism and its Reception in the 13th–16th Centuries//Réduire le schisme? P. 117–149. Текст датируется (согласно Т. М. Кольбабе), скорее всего, XII в. (Ibid. P. 118, n. 7). 139 С незначительными отличиями (подчеркнутыми в издании М. Фанелли) текст ороса Собора 879–880 г. идентичен в: анониме Хергенрётера – Сильвано («О начале схизмы»), в 44-й гомилии св. Каллиста I Константинопольского «О том, как подобает наставнику управлять вверенной ему паствой» и в труде св. Нила Кавасилы «О Соборе, бывшем при Фотии». См.: Concilium Constantinopolitanum 879–880. ρος/ed. P. Gemeinhardt//Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta. Editio critica. Vol. IV/1. From Constantinople 861 to Constantinople 1872. Р. 37.1–38.41; Silvano L. «How, Why and When the Italians Were Separated from the Orthodox Christians». P. 144.103–121, 146.133–143; Fanelli M. Un’omelia inedita del patriarca Callisto I e l’uso dei testi conciliari foziani nella disputa contro i Latini alla metà del 14° secolo//RÉB. 2016. Vol. 74. P. 71–121, P. 185–187 (часть сопоставительной таблицы с текстами трех авторов), 217.69–219.105 (текст св. Каллиста). 140 Gemeinhardt P. Synod of Constantinople, 879–880//Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta... P. 25–34, P. 31. 142 Nil Cabasilas. Sur le Saint-Esprit/Intr., texte critique, trad. et notes par hiérom. Th. Kislas. Paris, 2001. 148 Georg. Асгор. De processione... Oratio secunda... P. 63.17–18. 24–25; ср. о том же у Николая Мефонского : Nic. Steth. [Nic. Methon.] Antidialexis adversus Filioque [=«Другой свод... " ], 11//Michel A. Humbert und Kerullarios. P. 386.12–13; у Мосхамбара: Mosch., P. 349.122–125; 393.154–157; 419.135–138; 420.157–160. Речь у этих богословов идет, говоря словами М. Ставру, о «подлинном присутствии Божием, которое совершается вне Его сущности» (Stavrou M. The Divine Unity... P. 309). |
| 463 Isidori De eccl. off. II.5.12: Huic autem, dum consecratur, datur baculus, ut ejus indicio subditam plebem vel regat, vel corrigat, vel infirmitates infirmorum sustineat. 465 См., например, C.Th. 1.16.1 – 1.16.14 (a. 315 – 328, Constantinus); C.Th. 2.1.2 [Brev.2.1.2] (a. 355, Constantius); C.Th. 2.1.11 [Brev. 2.1.11] (a. 398, Arcadius et Honorius); C.Th.7.18.4.4 (a. 380, Gratianus, Valentinianus, Valens); etc. 466 Isidori De eccl. off. II.5.13: Quomodo enim valebit saecularis homo sacerdotis magisterium adimplere, cujus пес officium tenuit, пес disciplinam agnovit? 467 См., например, C.Th.1.10.5 (a. 400, Arcadius et Honorius); C.Th. 1.11.1 (a. 397, Arcadius et Honorius); C.Th. 1.27.2 (a.?, Constantinus); etc. 468 См. C.Th. 1.2.1 (a. 314, Constantinus); C.Th. 1.5.11 (a. 398, Arcadius et Honorius); C.Th. 1.5.13 (a. 400, Arcadius et Honorius); C.Th. 1.6.5 (a. 368 Valentinianus et Valens); etc. 470 См. Orlandis J. “Traditio corporis et animae»: la “familiaritas» en las Iglesias y Monasterios españoles en la Alta Edad Media//AHDE 1954. P. 103–124. 471 Isidori Reg. топ. 2: Abbas interea eligendus est in institutione sanctae vitae duratus, atque inspectus patientiae et humilitatis experimentis, qui etiam per exercitium vitam laboriosam tolerans, ac transcendens aetatem adolescentiae, juventute sua senectutem tetigerit; cui etiam majores non dedignentur parere, obedientes ei tam pro aetate quam etiam pro morum probitate. 476 Isidori Reg. mon. 24.3: Haec igitur, o servi Dei, et milites Christi, contemptores mundi, ita vobis custodienda volumus, ut majora praecepta potius servetis. Cfr. Флори Ж. Идеология меча: предыстория рыцарства. СПб., 1999. С. 33–53; Bishko Ch. J. The Pactual Tradition in Hispanic Monasticism//Bishko Ch. J. Spanish and Portuguese Monastic History. London, 1984. P. 8. 477 Isidori Reg. mon. 12.2: Ternis autem tunicis, et binis palliis, et singulis cucullis contenti erunt servi Christi, quibus superadjicietur melotes pellicea, mappula, manicae quoque, pedules, et caligae. О солдатах подробнее см. Balsdon J.PV.D. Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome. New York, 1969. P. 222–223. |
| Conclusions . According to the results of my research, the history of the Russian eucharistic formularies began with an acceptance of the 10 th -century Bulgarian translation of CHR, BAS and PRES. In this translation CHR already was the primary formulary, in BAS some standard prayers were replaced by alternative ones, and in both CHR and BAS there were also additional prayers, which formed new units in the formulary. This happened at the end of the 10 th century. In the 11 th century, presumably, the Russians did their own re-working of the eucharistic formularies, which existed until the end of the 14 th century. In the 13–14 th centuries new additional prayers were added to the formularies, some of them coming from the South Slavonic milieu, others probably being added by the Russians themselves. Finally, by the end of the 14 th century the Russians accepted a completely new translation of CHR, BAS and PRES, where CHR and BAS followed the Diataxis of Philotheos. All the peculiar prayers were gone 23 . The peculiar features of the oldest pre-Philothean Slavonic redaction of the eucharistic formularies, which stand behind the Old-Russian and the most ancient Bulgarian manuscripts, are not attested in the classical Constantinopolitan sources. They bear some resemblance to the characteristic features of the South Italian and Palestinian Greek traditions, yet they are different. Therefore, it is clear that the oldest Slavonic sources are witnesses to some other tradition, the corresponding Greek sources of which are lost (or, let us hope, have not been discovered yet). This should not be a surprise. Everyone knows that the ancient lectionary of Jerusalem is preserved only in Armenian and Georgian translations; the ancient Jerusalem Tropologion only in the Georgian manuscripts of Udzvelesi Iadgari; the Typikon of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Alexios the Studite, only in the Old-Russian translation, etc. Concerning the tradition witnessed in the oldest Slavonic Leitourgika, it is not at all clear what ecclesiastical center it belonged to. I suggest that it was Thessalonica. First of all, it is natural to suppose that Bulgarian liturgical translations of the 10 th century were made using the Thessalonian originals, because the Greek-Slavonic contacts at the time were the most intense exactly in the Thessalonian region. Secondly, Pentkovsky came to the same conclusions of a Thessalonian origin of the earliest Slavonic liturgy after he studied not the euchological, but the hymnographic and lectionary material 24 . Thirdly, even the late Thessalonian authors of the 14–15 th centuries witness that the Thessalonian Church was observing its own distinct liturgical usages. St Nicholas Cabasilas even cites our prayer 2.3.b (this citation remained unnoticed by the editors of his commentary 25 ). |
| 43. The Meeting of Anna and Joachim, Russia, late 16th century, 32 · 27 cm, Ikonen-Museum Recklinghausen 44. Birth of the Mother of God, Russia, 19th century, 35 · 31 cm, private collection (Belgium) 45. The Annunciation to Mary, Russia (Novgorod), late 15th century, 56.5 · 43 cm, Ikonen-Museum Recklinghausen 46. The Nativity, 16th century, 31 · 26.5 cm, Collection of Jan Morsink (Amsterdam) 47. St Simeon the God-Bearer, Russia, 19th century, 31 · 26.5 cm, private collection (The Netherlands) 48. The Presentation of Christ in the Temple, Russia (Novgorod), late 15th century, 47.8 · 36.2 cm, IkonenMuseum Recklinghausen 49. The Baptism of Christ, Russia, 16th century, 31 · 26.5 cm, private collection (The Netherlands) The Christmas icon is rich in symbolism, elucidating the meaning of Christ’s birth. The black depths of the cave symbolise the darkness surrounding humanity. The child, wrapped in white swaddling clothes, is the divine light. The dark cave, the white swaddling clothes and the coffin are symbols of death. Already from his birth, everything indicates symbolically that Christ has come to conquer death and darkness through his own death. The feast of the Presentation of Christ (2 February) is normally called Candlemas in the Western tradition, because candles used during the Church year are blessed on that day. The oldest representation of this feast dates from the 5 th century, and can be seen on the triumphal arch at the Santa Maria Maggiore Church in Rome. The representation in the icon follows faithfully the account given in Luke 2:22–38. To the right, on a platform by the altar, stands Simeon, an old man from Jerusalem. He bends deeply over the child, which he holds lovingly in his hands. Opposite him stand the Mother of God and Joseph. The Baptism of Christ (6 January) marks the baptism of Christ by St John the Baptist. Early representations of this event are found in the catacombs, but the 5th-century mosaic in the Arian Baptistry in Ravenna is decisive for the iconography. |
| Any scholar of manuscripts is aware of countless fragments of wellknown literary compositions in the manuscript sources. When such a fragment is discovered, nobody claims straight off that this fragment is not just a fragment but the original nucleus of a corresponding composition – such idea deserves a very profound textological argumentation. Therefore, it was absolutely natural that Andrieu and Collomp took the Strasbourg papyrus as just a fragment of the well-known anaphora of Mark, and from the textological point of view there is no need to doubt their interpretation. But liturgical texts are not transmitted in the manuscripts in the same way as literary texts are. They are usually changing together with the changing practice 140 . In other words, if a 4–5 th -century manuscript contains a liturgical prayer, it is quite natural to expect that the form of this prayer corresponds with the actual liturgical practice of the 4–5 th centuries. Consequently, while we knew little regarding the form of Egyptian Eucharistic prayers in the 4 th century 141 , the Strasbourg papyrus could have been interpreted as a stand-alone text of a complete Eucharistic prayer. But the publication of the Barcelona papyrus – which is older than the Strasbourg papyrus (the papyrus itself is not younger than the 4 th century and its text, as was shown above, is not younger than the mid-4 th century and may go back to the 3 rd ) and is of Egyptian provenance as well – shows that at least in the mid-4 th century Egyptian liturgical practice already knew a much more elaborated form of Eucharistic prayer. Consequently, in the light of the evidence of the Barcelona papyrus, we have no longer any reason to interpret the Strasbourg papyrus, which is in fact a fragment of a well-known text, as a stand-alone nucleus of the latter: the doxology in the end of the Strasbourg papyrus, as was pointed out by Spinks, proves nothing, and, as a liturgical text, the prayer from the Strasbourg papyrus should have been mirroring the current Egyptian liturgical practice, which by the time of creation of this papyrus already knew the anaphoral Sanctus, epiclesis etc. The fact that the discovery of the Barcelona papyrus leaves the hypothesis of the Strasbourg papyrus’ integrity unfounded has been already noted by Heinzgerd Brakmann 142 . And, together with this hypothesis, it leaves the different variants of the «4 th -century interpolations» theory without any actual documentary proof. |
| 3. CHR contains additional prayers in exactly the same positions as in the pre-Philothean Russian Sluzhebniki: an additional prayer before the liturgy and an additional prayer at the end of it (alas, the communion section is lost, but we can suppose again that it also contained the additional prayers). 4. Moreover, the prayer at the end of the liturgy is precisely the prayer 2.3.a from the Old-Russian Leitourgika cited above; the prayer in the beginning, though, is not the same as any of the Russian prayers, although it has some resemblance to the prayer 2.1.b. Obviously, this is something very similar to the pre-Philothean Russian eucharistic formularies. Yet, the language and the wording of the extant parts of the anaphora of CHR in the Glagolitic Sinai Leitourgikon are somewhat different from the Old-Russian redaction. Still, despite the differences, the main features of the Glagolitic Sinai Leitourgikon and of the pre-Philothean Russian Leitourgika are the same. This means that the Russian pre-Philothean redaction is a descendant of the Bulgarian translations of the 10 th century, but at some point the Russians edited and corrected them, most probably in the 11 th century in Kiev. The Glagolitic Sinai manuscript is the only South Slavonic Leitourgikon of the 11 th century. There are five South Slavonic Leitourgika of the 13 th century, and forty of the 14 th 21 . Most of those from the 14 th century date from the second half or even the last years of that century, and they already contain the Diataxis of Philotheos. Most of the earlier manuscripts already show clear signs of standardization and «constantinopolization» of the liturgy. But some earlier Bulgarian Leitourgika 22 still witness to the same peculiarities of the eucharistic formularies, which I have traced in both Old-Russian sources and in the Glagolitic Sinai Leitourgikon. This proves the Bulgarian origins of the Russian pre-Philothean complex of non-standard prayers of CHR and BAS. The same could be also shown on the rubrical and formulaic level: the Old- Russian Leitourgika contain a few very distinct rubrics and formulae, which are also found in the 13 th -century South Slavonic sources. |
| Preliminary Remarks In this article I shall present the main results of my research of the prayers and other euchological elements peculiar to the oldest extant Russian Leitourgika (Sluzhebniki) manuscripts of the 13 th –14 th centuries. These antedate the Russian liturgical reform of the turn of the 14–15 th centuries, when new translations of liturgical texts, including the Diataxis of Philotheos Kokkinos and corresponding new redactions of the eucharistic formularies, were introduced into Russian worship. One can find the details of this research in a series of my Russian articles: «The Rite of the Divine Liturgy in the Oldest (11 th –14 th -centuries) Slavonic Euchologia» 1 (in this article one can also find a full bibliography on the topic), «The Prayers During Clergy Communion in the Old-Russian Leitourgika» 2 , «The Priestly Prayers before the Beginning of the Divine Liturgy in the Old-Russian Leitourgika» 3 , and «Additional Prayers at the End of the Divine Liturgy According to the Slavonic Leitourgika of the 11–14 th centuries " 4 . What follows is but a brief resume of the results I reached in those studies. There are thirty-two manuscripts of the oldest – I will call them pre- Philothean – Russian redactions of the eucharistic formularies of St. Basil (BAS) and St. John Chrysostom (CHR) 5 . These exclude four late-14 th -century witnesses which already contain the Diataxis of Philotheos and any later manuscripts (though many of these could still preserve this or that element of the pre-Philothean practice). What one finds in these sources is by no means a pure Constantinopolitan redaction of the liturgies of CHR, BAS and the Presanctified liturgy (PRES). Of course, this classical set of the three liturgies still consists here of the same prayers as everywhere – i. e., the Prothesis prayer, the prayer of the first antiphon, etc. But the oldest Russian Leitourgika also contain many other prayers, which are not to be found in the famous Constantinopolitan Euchologia. One could compare this phenomenon with other «peripheral» redactions of CHR, such as the South Italian ones studied by Andre Jacob, and, more recently, by Stefano Parenti 6 . Indeed, there are some points of similarity between the South Italian sources and the pre-Philothean Russian Leitourgika, but there are also many differences. Alternative Prayers of South Italian CHR in the Old-Russian BAS |
| Yelnat. (Ed.) It is important to note that the beginning of foolishness-for-Christ correlated to the time when the sanctity of princes as representatives of laymen began to decline. This is not an accidental coincidence. New times required new forms of sanctity from laymen. The fool-for-Christ became the successor of the saint princes in matters of serving the people. Even if foolishness-for-Christ was of western origin, on Russian soil it acquired unprecedented development. It can be said without exaggeration that this way of serving God tugged at the most profound heartstrings of the Russian soul and perfectly fitted Russian people’s views on religious life. Travelers from abroad, visiting Russia in the 16th century reported on fools-for-Christ, describing them as “strange people wandering about the streets with loose hair, a chain around their neck, with no clothes on except linen rags around their waist.” And more: “These madmen honoured as prophets could take from the shops whatever they wanted and the tradesmen poured out their thanks to them without demanding any payment”. This enables us to conclude that there were a lot of fools-for-Christ in Moscow of the 16th century and they represented a special class of society. Noting that, Fedotov continues: “General respect for them with the exception, of course, of some separate cases of mockery from children or mischief makers, the chains worn for show, completely transformed the meaning of the old Christian foolishness-for-Christ. Least of all it was an exploit of humility. At that time foolishness-for-Christ was a form of prophetic service combined with an extreme form of asceticism. And it was not the world that was outraging the blessed, but the blessed were outraging the world.” “The general decline of spiritual life from the second half of the 16th century could not have bypassed foolishness-for-Christ. In the 17th century there were fewer fools-for-Christ and they were not canonized by the Church. Foolishness-for-Christ, like monastic sanctity, became localized in the |
| Accept The site uses cookies to help show you the most up-to-date information. By continuing to use the site, you consent to the use of your Metadata and cookies. Cookie policy " Freedom and Responsibility as Viewed by His Holiness Patriarch Kirill " . Address by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk (International Hellenic University online seminar, 16th February 2021) " Freedom and Responsibility as Viewed by His Holiness Patriarch Kirill " . Address by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate (International Hellenic University online seminar, 16th February 2021). Your Eminence and Your Graces, All-honourable fathers, brothers and sisters, I wholeheartedly greet all of you, the organisers and participants of the inter-Orthodox online seminar held under the aegis of the International Hellenic University. Before getting down to my address I would like to thank the University’s leadership for inviting me to speak at the seminar. In its essential aspects my paper raises the most important topics of human life, such as values, individual liberty, rights, moral choice and ensuing responsibility for its consequences. Inasmuch as the contemporary society has different ways to conceptualize and interpret these fundamental categories, in my address I would like to present the views of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia on the nature of human rights and freedoms in their relation to responsibility, moral choice and dignity. Over the years of his church ministry, His Holiness has systematically explored these issues in his homilies, speeches, lectures and written works. The majority of those who constitute the Russian Orthodox Church’s flock have historically lived in Europe and belong to the European civilisation. Therefore, as the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church His Holiness Patriarch Kirill devotes particular attention to the human rights issues, as well as to the value system in the modern-day European society and in the social, legal and philosophical thought. |
|
|
