| John Anthony McGuckin Iconography, Styles of PHILIP ZYMARIS Christian art, while initially linked to the artistic style of Antiquity, baptized the existing forms with a new religious content. The methods worked out to accomplish this led to the evolution of different styles of iconography. These styles evolved over three major productive periods of Byzantine history. These three periods may be defined as the Early Byzantine (4th-8th centuries), the Middle Byzantine (867–1204), and the Late Byzantine (1204–1453). These periods of Byzantine art also laid the foundation for all the various schools of Orthodox iconography that continued to develop after the fall of the Byzantine Empire. EARLY BYZANTINE PERIOD The acceptance of Christianity as the official faith of the Byzantine Empire freed Christian art from its previous attachment to symbolic representations common in the catacombs and sarcophagi of Late Antiquity. The grand building programs of Constantine (4th century) and later of Justinian (6th century) fostered the development of an explicitly Christian iconographical style. Art of this early period represented two main tendencies: a Hellenistic and an oriental style. The former, based on Hellenistic naturalism, was dominant in the centers of Greek culture such as Constantinople. In this style classical forms were imbued with a Christian spirituality as can be seen in the renowned Pantocrator icon (6th century) at St. Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai. Atypical example ofthe oriental or ascetic style, originating in the eastern reaches of the empire and Egypt, can be seen in the icon of Christ and St. Menas (in the Louvre collection). Typical of this style are bright colors, strongly marked outlines, and isocephaly of rigid, frontal, and symmetrical figures – features that are common to the art of Syria and Egypt. MIDDLE BYZANTINE PERIOD The defeat of iconoclasm and the ascendancy of the Macedonian dynasty in the second half of the 9th century was a turning point for Byzantine art. During this period a renewed interest in classical models is evident. Yet, at the same time, the desire to point to the spiritual dimension beyond, and the transformed life of the kingdom, leads to a departure from classical three-dimensional depictions and an emphasized tendency towards reverse perspective that becomes a hallmark of Byzantine iconography. This is evident in even the earliest mosaics of Hagia Sophia that are typical of this early Macedonian Renaissance style. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Bulgaria, Patriarchal Orthodox Church of STAMENKA E. ANTONOVA The Bulgarian state was established in 681 CE by Khan Asparuch (681–700) on the territory of the Roman imperial provinces of Thrace and Illyria to the south of the Danube river. Khan Asparuch was the leader of the Bulgars, who were Turanian nomads originating from Central Asia, who first led his people across the Danube into territory of the Roman Empire, and then established a long line of successors. In addition to the Bulgars, who possessed warlike tendencies and initiated later expeditions and territorial expansions, there were also Slavs who had been gradually immigrating and settling in the same region from the beginning of the 6th century. In spite of the fact that the Slavs were more numerous than the Bulgars, the latter gained hegemony due to their more aggressive policies. In 681 the Byzantine Empire was compelled to negotiate a peace treaty with Khan Asparuch and to legitimize the claims to power and territory by the immigrant population. In spite of the fact that a peace treaty was made, however, the Bulgars continued to pose a challenge to Byzantine authority. In 811 Khan Krum (803–14) defeated and killed the Byzantine Emperor Nicephorus I (802–11), after an unsuccessful attempt on the part of the emperor to vanquish the new state. In 813 Khan Krum defeated Emperor Michael I, in addition to sacking the city of Adrianople and advancing as far as the walls of the city of Constantinople. After the sudden death of Kahn Krum, his successors Khan Omurtag (814–31) and Khan Malamir (831–52) agreed terms with the Byzantine Empire, and stopped the expansion of the Bulgar state to the east, turning instead to Macedonia and territories westward. Although there were pockets of Christians in the new Bulgar state from its inception, they were not only marginal in number but were also suspected by the political leaders as having allegiance to the emperor at Constantinople. In addition to the local Christians (who were indeed under the influence of Byzantine Christian civilization at the time), the Bulgars and the Slavs followed ancestral religious practices and worshipped the sky-god Tengri. Most of the hostile attitude toward Christianity in this era was primarily due to the Bulgars’ fear of Byzantine imperialism and the possibility of strengthening Byzantine influence among the more numerous Slavs. As a result, when Khan Omurtag’s son Enravotas converted to Christianity, he was executed publicly along with others in 833. In order to protect the political and religious integrity of the Bulgar state, Khan Omurtag also formed an alliance with the Frankish Kingdom against Byzantium. |
| Thomas E. FitzGerald BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY This essay is intended to be a guide for further investigation into aspects of Orthodox Christianity in general and the Orthodox in America in particular. It is not meant to be an exhaustive bibliography. Special attention is given to the writings of American Orthodox theologians and church historians. GENERAL HISTORIES AND INTRODUCTIONS TO ORTHODOX THOUGHT General introductions to the history of the Orthodox Church can be found in John Meyendorff " s The Orthodox Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir " s Seminary Press, 1981) and Alexander Schmemann " s The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy (Crest-wood, NY: St. Vladimir " s Seminary Press, 1977). The most popular general history, and often more accessible than the two books previously mentioned, is from the British Orthodox bishop Timothy (Kallistos) Ware, The Orthodox Church (New York: Penguin Books, rev. ed., 1993). For studies dealing with particular historical periods of the Orthodox Church, see John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir " s Seminary Press, 1989) and Byzantium and the Rise of Russia (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir " s Seminary Press, 1989); Richard Haugh, Photius and the Carolingians (Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1975); Anthony-Emil Tachiaos, Cyril and Methodios of Thessalonica: The Acculturation of the Slavs (Thessaloniki: Rekos, 1989); Demetrios Constantellos, Byzantine Philanthropy and Social Welfare (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1968); J. M. Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986). Among the best general histories of the Byzantine period are George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968) and Dimitri Obolinsky, The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe, 500–1453 (London: Cardinal, 1971). Issues related to the schism between Eastern and Western Christianity are discussed in John Meyendorff " s Byzantine Theology (New York: Fordham University Press, 1974). Some aspects of the church under Ottoman rule are covered in Steven Runciman " s The Great Church in Captivity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968). |
| Graham Speake, Kallistos Ware GRAHAM SPEAKE AND KALLISTOS WARE. Introduction Most of the papers collected in this volume were first delivered at a conference entitled ‘Mount Athos: Microcosm of the Christian East’ which was held by the Friends of Mount Athos at Madingley Hall, Cambridge, in February 2009. Both the speakers and the delegates were drawn from all corners of the Orthodox world and, as far as was possible, the presenters were chosen to speak about the traditions which they themselves represented. All the same, there were gaps in the coverage and, in an attempt to fill them, we have commissioned a number of additional papers which are now included in the volume. We are conscious that the collection here presented is still not entirely comprehensive, but we hope that it does at least convey something of the remarkable diversity of traditions that has characterized Mount Athos throughout the 1,200 years or so of its existence as a holy mountain. Holy mountains were a not uncommon phenomenon in the Byzantine world. There were notable examples in various parts of Asia Minor such as Mount Olympos in Bithynia, Mount Latros near ancient Miletus, Mount Auxentios near Chalcedon, and Mount Galesion near Ephesus. But as the Byzantine empire contracted before the advance of the Seljuq Turks, all these monastic centres went into irreversible decline and, after the disastrous Byzantine defeat at Mantzikert in 1071, most of them were overrun and their monks either enslaved or expelled. All this meant that Athos acquired an ever-increasing prominence, since it emerged from the period of the Latin empire (1204–61) as almost the sole survivor. Since that time it has been known throughout the Orthodox world as the Holy Mountain, and so it will be referred to in this book The significance of monasteries in the Byzantine world-view should not be underestimated. Jonathan Shepard has recently described the restoration of the capital in 1261 as signalling ‘the rehabilitation of Constantinople as a locus of God-blessed authority on earth’. He continues: |
| I. Император Константин и христианство Александр Дворкин. Очерки по истории Вселенской Православной Церкви. Литература: Walker; Карташев А. Вселенские соборы. Париж, 1963; Chadwick; Runciman S. Byzantine Civilization. N.Y., 1956; Runciman S. The Byzantine Theocracy. Cambridge, 1977; Meyendorff J. Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions. N.Y., 1989; Meyendorff J. The Orthodox Church; Шмеман, Исторический путь; Болотов; Ostrogorsky G. History of the Byzantine State. New Jersey, 1969; Vasiliev A.A. History of the Byzantine Empire (2 vols.). Wisconsin, 1952; Jones A.H.M. The Later Roman Empire (2 vols.). Baltimore, 1986; Previte-Orton C.W. The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History (2 vols.). Cambridge, 1982. 1. Обращение Константина - поворотный момент в истории Церкви и Европы. Оно значило гораздо больше, чем просто завершение эпохи гонений. Император - суверенный самодержец - немедленно и неизбежно оказался вовлеченным в развитие Церкви, и, соответственно, Церковь оказалась все более и более втянутой в принятие важных политических решений. Радикальная трансформация, которой в IV в. подверглись отношения христианской Церкви и римского государства, всегда была предметом особого внимания ученых и исследователей, пытавшихся определить последствия ее для государства и Церкви. Когда государство прекратило преследовать христиан, изменилось ли оно фундаментально? Или на самом деле изменилась Церковь? Интересно, что в западной историографии отношение к обращению Константина было куда более двойственным, чем в восточной. Согласно старому - еще со средних веков - традиционному взгляду, императоры внезапно преобразились из гонителей в «равноапостольных», и все, что они делали с тех пор, было в соответствии с Евангелием. Однако западные либеральные теологи, в Особенности протестантские историки XIX в., считали, что христианство было настолько порабощено государством и настолько отравлено проникновением в него в IV в. элементов язычества, что это равнялось измене евангельской Благой Вести. В конечном итоге, были ли последствия деятельности Константина на пользу Церкви или они изменили ее изнутри, направив ее по ложному пути? |
| Byzantine empire established its most close contacts with the region of Doros (Crimean Gothia), which adjoined Cherson and covered plateaux of the Second and Third Ridges of the Crimean Mountains, valleys of Chyornaya and Bel’bek, Kacha and Alma rivers, and a part of the Southern littoral. Justin II (565–578) created there a frontier unit headed by the doux thus making the first real step to forming a ‘contact zone’ in Taurica, where the process of unification, uniting territories would be faster. This was contributed to a great extent by the necessity to develop local settlements, preurban structures, and reconstruction of the system of fortifkations because of the menaee from the Turkuts in the second half of 570s and 580s. Civil administrative reorganization consisted of establishment of new units, which were later called archontiai or klimata, with their cen-tres in corresponding kastra or polismata – it took place most likely in the same period. The lack of their own forces made the Byzantines to develop a defensive strategy there, to rely on multi-echelon but not very effective system of fortified kastra and phrouria and on enspondoi, who were allies, federates from the poly-ethnic barbarian tribes settled there. Almost every third family from the local dwellers of the south-western Crimea should supply a warrior to serve the Byzantine empire in case there was a necessity to take the field against its enemies. This position in foreign policy, however, should bring economic profits to those who accepted patronage from the Byzantine state and should be secured not only in treatises, agreements, and as a matter of fact tributary relations of the pakton but also in the development of economic contacts with such a remote and at the same time relatively close to the core of Byzantium province as Taurica. One should take into account established long time before, unimpeded, not very difficult navigation between the Crimean peninsula and the Southern coast of the Black Sea being under Byzantien control. Justin II, Tiberios, and Maurice successfully combined interests of a greater part of local nobility and approximately 60,000 population of the south-western Taurica, the Dory country, with their empire’s interests. Nevertheless, Buzantium’s allies would forget the ‘ephemeral’ influence of the empire unless its great material effort. That was the reason for the money, gifts, and goods went in front of the sword and cross. Byzantine emperors and officials held a tool capable of forcing the Chersonites and federates to fulfil their orders, supply them with armed forces, and pay taxes. Chersons dependence on Byzantium had certain economic roots, so it is not to be called unilateral, based on the empire’s political and ideological domination only. The given city’s history supplies evidences that there were various active forces of mutual attraction. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Constantinople, Patriarchate of JOHN A. MCGUCKIN The patriarch of Constantinople is today rooted in the ancient former capital city of the Roman Empire (not Rome, but after the 4th-century Christian ascent to power, “New Rome” or Constantine’s City, Konstantinopolis). The city retained the ancient name of Constantinople until the early decades of the 20th century when Ataturk, signaling new beginnings after the fall of the Ottoman sultans whose capital it had also been, changed the name to Istanbul (originally another Greek Christian shorthand for “To the City” – eis tin polin) and at the same time moved the capital of Turkey to Ankara. After the rise of Turkish nationalism, and the disastrous Greco-Turkish War of the early decades of the 20th century (reflected, for example, in Kazantzakis’ novel Christ Recrucified), Constantinople, which had always been a major hub of world affairs, and a massively cosmopolitan city, changed into becoming a monochromatic backwater. The many religious communities that had remained there even after its fall to Islam in the 15th century dwindled, until today, demographically, Orthodox church life in that once great metropolis is a sad shadow of what it once was. From the foundation of the city as a Christian hub of the Eastern Empire by Constantine in the early 4th century, the city was the center of a great and burgeoning Christian empire: the Christian style and culture of Byzantium made its presence felt all over the world, from the Saxons of England, to the Slavs of the cold North, to the southern plateaux of Ethiopia. The Great Imperial Church (once the cathedral church of the patriarchate, too) was Hagia Sophia. After the conquest of the city by Islamic forces in 1453, the last emperor was killed and Byzantine dynastic rule was ended, and the patriarchate took over (under the sultans) political and religious supervision of all the Christians of the large Ottoman dominion. Under Mehmet II and his successors, many churches in Constantinople were seized as mosques. It had lost the Great Church of Hagia Sophia at the time of the conquest, but was also later ousted from the large headquarters of St. Mary Pammakaristos. After many vicissitudes and sufferings, the patriarchate came in 1603 to be established in its present location in the very modest Church of St. George at the Phanar in Istanbul. |
| Материал из Православной Энциклопедии под редакцией Патриарха Московского и всея Руси Кирилла ЛАФОНТЕН-ДОЗОНЬ Жаклин [франц. Lafontaine-Dosogne Jacqueline] (23.11.1928, Брен-л " Аллё, Бельгия - 21.05.1995, Брюссель), исследователь визант. и восточнохрист. искусства, представитель иконографического метода исследования. Л.-Д. окончила Свободный ун-т Брюсселя (Université libre de Bruxelles), в котором изучала классические языки, историю искусства и археологию, была ученицей Ш. Дельвуа. В 1958 г. принимала участие в работе семинара А. Грабара в Высшей практической школе в Париже (École Pratique des Hautes Études), где представила доклад о фресках храма Фортуны Вирилис в Риме, переработанный и изданный в 1959 г. в виде монографии (Peintures médiévales dans le temple dit de la Fortune Virile à Rome). Тема иконографии Богородичных сюжетов в средневек. искусстве, затронутая в этой работе, была раскрыта Л.-Д. в диссертации (1961) и в кн. «Иконография детства Богородицы в искусстве Византии и Запада» (Iconographie de l " enfance de la Vierge dans l " Empire byzantin et en Occident), вышедшей в Брюсселе в 1964-1965 гг. и переизданной с дополнениями в 1992 г. К этой теме она возвращалась в течение всей жизни. Значение этого труда Л.-Д. сопоставимо, как писала Н. Тьерри, с известной работой Г. Милле ( Millet G. Recherches sur l " iconographie de l " Évangile aux XIVe, XVe et XVIe siècles d " après les monuments de Mistra, de la Macédoine et du Mont Athos. P., 1916). с момента издания книги Л.-Д. были открыты новые памятники и уточнены сведения, приводимые в монографии, но эта работа остается базовым исследованием по теме житийного цикла Пресв. Богородицы в визант. искусстве ( Thierry N. [Рец. на:] Lafontaine-Dosogne J. Iconographie de la Vierge dans l " Empire byzantin et en Occident//REB. 1965. T. 23. N 1. Р. 288-290). В 1958-1966 гг. Л.-Д. работала в Бельгийском национальном фонде содействия научным исследованиям; в 1960-1962 гг. сотрудничала в Центре византиноведческих исследований Дамбартон-Окс (США). С 1967 по 1972 г. являлась научным сотрудником Королевского ин-та культурного наследия (L " Institut royal du Patrimoine artistique). В кон. 50-х - нач. 60-х гг. XX в. путешествовала по территориям, некогда занятым Византийской империей, и странам, находившимся в период средневековья в орбите визант. влияния. Результатом научной экспедиции в район Антиохии (ныне Антакья, Турция) в 1965 г. стала работа «Археологические маршруты Антиохии: Исследование о мон-ре прп. Симеона Столпника Младшего на Дивной горе и об иконографии святого» (Itinéraires archéologiques dans la région d " Antioche: Recherches sur le monastére et sur l " iconographie de S. Syméon Stylite le Jeune), написанная совместно с Б. Оргелем, к-рая помимо детального исследования мон-ря на Дивной горе, иконографии прп. Симеона Столпника Младшего, содержит список археологических памятников близ Антиохии. |
| Свт. Евстафий, еп. Фессалоникийский. Фрагмент росписи жертвеника кафоликона мон-ря Ватопед на Афоне. 1312 г. О происхождении Е. и о его родителях ничего не известно. Предположение С. Кириакидиса, что Е. принадлежал к визант. роду Катафлоронов ( Eust. Thess. Esp. P. XXXV), основано на неоднозначном прочтении именования Е. το Καταφλρον в леммах ( Каждан. 1967. С. 88-89). Согласно А. П. Каждану и В. Лорану, Е. был либо племянником, либо учеником магистра риторов Николая Катафлорона († 1160) и не носил такого родового имени. То, что Е. род. в К-поле, является допущением (ср.: Laurent. 1967. Col. 33). Е. никогда не был монахом в монастырях св. Евфимии и св. Флора, как утверждает Бонис (ср.: Μπνης Κ. Εστθιος Κατφλωρος//ΘΗΕ. Τ. 12. Σ. 1091). Начальное образование он получил в К-поле ( Εθυμου Μαλκη τ σωζμενα. 1937. Σ. 80. 18-19; Eust. Thess. Opusc. P. 111. 57-59), в школе при мон-ре св. Евфимии ( Eust. Thess. Opusc. P. 337. 81-83), затем учился у магистра риторов Николая Катафлорона, «священного и великого мужа» (Ibid. P. 103. 90-93). По окончании обучения Е. стал имп. ритором и, по мнению Ф. Кукулеса ( Κουκουλς Θ. Λαοϒραφικα εδσεις παρ τ Θεσσαλονκης Εσταθ//ΕΕΒΣ. 1924. Τ. 1. Σ. 6) и Лорана ( Laurent. 1967. Col. 34), уже при патриархе Николае IV Музалоне (1147-1151) - диаконом Великой ц., потеряв это место при патриархе Константине IV Хлиарине (1154-1157). При патриархе Луке Хрисоверге (1157-1170) Е. был диаконом храма Св. Софии. Однако, по мнению Каждана ( Каждан. 1967. С. 90), Е. был рукоположен во диакона Великой ц. только при патриархе Луке, до этого оставался мирянином и служил в патриаршем ведомстве под началом буд. К-польского патриарха Михаила III Анхиала сначала писцом в канцелярии, затем в патриаршем суде. Вопреки распространенному мнению Е. не занимал должность патриаршего начальника прошений ( π τν δεσεων), но мог нек-рое время служить в этом ведомстве (см.: Курц. 1910. С. 288; Wirth. 1963. Studien zum Briefcorpus. S. 14; Guilland R. Études sur histoire administrative de empire Byzantin: Le Maître des Requêtes//Byz. 1965. Vol. 35. P. 108). При патриархе Луке Хрисоверге Е. служил в ведомстве священных сокровищ и в патриаршей сакелле ( Laurent V. Corpus des sceaux de l " Empire byzantin. P., 1963. Vol. 5/1. N 462). |
| Emperor Constantine the Great (306–337). The Importance of His Faith in the History of the Church V. Rev. Fr. Thaddaeus Hardenbrook SOURCE: The Journal of the Chicago Pastoral School by V. Rev. Fr. Thaddaeus Hardenbrook This paper was submitted during the Fall '08 semester as a class assignment for course “101 — History and Principles of the Orthodox Church”. Fr. Thaddaeus Hardenbrook is the rector at St. Lawrence Orthodox Church in Felton, California. He and his wife operate an Orthodox business supplying large icon reproductions called Orthodox Images . Head of Constantine " s colossal statue at the Capitoline Museums. St. Constantine the Great, Equal to the Apostles, First Christian Emperor of Rome, builder of Constantinople and founder the Byzantine Empire. He is a military victor, effective ruler and glorified saint. There is no doubt that his contribution to world history and that of the Orthodox Church is indeed spectacular. Eusebius describes him as “such an emperor as all history records not ” and Ware places him “at a watershed in the history of the Church.” As Meyendorff asserts, “No single human being in history has contributed…to the conversion of so many to the Christian faith.” Norwich reiterates this opinion on a global scales stating that “No ruler in all of history…has ever more fully merited his title of ‘the Great’….[Constantine has] serious claim to be considered…the most influential man in all of history..” Among Constantine’s most significant acts and initiatives of importance in church history are his legal initiation of freedom for Christianity with the Edict of Milan (313), his calling of the first Ecumenical Council at Nicaea (325), and moving the capital of the empire from pagan encrusted Rome to Constantinople (330). However, popular and academic loyalty regarding his status as ‘first Christian emperor’ and ‘saint of the Church’ has wavered over time. Dominant opinions have ebbed and flowed in their evaluation of Constantine’s role specifically as a Christian. A religious role of importance that, as Schmemann describes it, no one denies but the evaluators of which are “diametrically opposed.” |
|
|
