| 2. 9. Выводы 4. 3. Представления о материи в сочинениях свт. Григория Богослова 4. 3. 1. Обзор литературы 4. 3. 2. Учение о воскресении и об обожении плоти 4. 3. 3. Онтологический статус материи, телесности и плоти 4. 3. 4. Грехопадение Адама как нарушение меры и порядка созерцания 4. 3. 5. Терминология обновления творения 4. 3. 6. Евхаристический реализм 4. 3. 7. Выводы 4. 4. Представления о материи в сочинениях свт. Григория Нисского 4. 4. 1. Обзор литературы 4. 4. 2. Свт. Григорий и его философское знание 4. 4. 3. Творец и творение – различие природ 4. 4. 4. Разнообразие и гармония материального мира 4. 4. 5. Апофатика в богословии материального мира 4. 4. 6. Отрицательные характеристики вещества 4. 4. 7. Антропология свт. Григория 4. 4. 8. Происхождение зла и его действие в природе человека 4. 4. 9. Древо познания и кожаные ризы 4. 4. 10. Восстановление первичной гармонии 4. 4. 11. Изменения природных стихий в природе 4. 4. 12. Анализ контекстов употребления глаголов «μεταποιω» и «λλοιω» и их производных 4. 4. 13. Анализ употребления глагола «μεταστοιχειω» и его производных 4. 4. 14. Анализ терминологии, использованной для описания воскресших тел 4. 4. 15. Выводы 4. 5. Представления о материи в сочинениях свт. Кирилла Александрийского 4. 5. 1. Обзор литературы 4. 5. 2. Творец и творение 4. 5. 3. Учение о космосе и его частях 4. 5. 4. Анализ употребления термина «λη» 4. 5. 5. Учение о материальной природе человека до и после грехопадения 4. 5. 6. Учение свт. Кирилла о животворящем Теле Христа 4. 5. 7. Евхаристический реализм свт. Кирилла 4. 5. 8. Терминология обновления свт. Кирилла 4. 5. 9. Выводы Глава 5. Представления о материи в ареопагитском корпусе и у преп. Максима Исповедника 5. 1. Сакраментально-антропологический аспект учения о материи в Ареопагитиках 5. 1. 1. Краткий обзор литературы 5. 1. 2. Общие определения и свойства материи, согласно Ареопагитикам 5. 1. 3. Негативные свойства материи 5. 1. 4. Антропологические (нравственно-аскетические) аспекты 5. |
| Jean//Le Muséon. 1959. Vol. 72. P. 101-151, 277-299; Wiles M. F. The Spiritual Gospel: The Interpretation of the Forth Gospel in the Early Church. Camb., 1960; Pagels E. H. The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis: Heracleon " s Commentary on John. Nashville, 1973. (SBL.MS; 17); Blanc C. Le Commentaire d " Héracléon sur Jean 4 et 8//Augustinianum. 1975. Vol. 15. N 1/2. P. 81-124; M ü hlenberg E. Wieviel Erlösungen kennt der Gnostiker Herakleon?//ZNW. 1975. Bd. 66. N 3/4. S. 170-193; Orbe A. Cristología gnóstica. Madrid, 1976. 2 vol.; Aland B. Erwählungstheologie und Menschenklassenlehre: Die Theologie des Herakleon als Schlüssel zum Verständnis der christlichen Gnosis?//Gnosis and Gnosticism/Ed. M. Krause. Leiden, 1977. P. 148-181. (NHS; 8); Devoti D. Remarques sur l " anthropologie d " Héracléon: Les psychiques//StPatr. 1985. Vol. 16/2. P. 143-151; Poffet J.-M. La méthode exégétique d " Héracléon et d " Origène: Соттепт. de Jn 4: Jésus, la Samaritaine et les Samaritains. Fribourg, 1985. (Paradosis; 28); Bammel C. Herakleon//TRE. 1986. Bd. 15. S. 54-57; Trumbower J. A. Origen " s Exegesis of John 8. 19-53: The Struggle with Heracleon over the Idea of Fixed Natures//VChr. 1989. Vol. 43. N 2. P. 138-154; Kaestli J.-D. L " exégèse valentinienne du quatrième évangile//La communauté johannique et son histoire: La trajectoire de l " Évangile de Jean aux deux premiers siècles/Ed. J.-D. Kaestli et al. Gen., 1990. P. 323-350; Ehrman B. D. Heracleon, Origen, and the Text of the Fourth Gospel//VChr. 1993. Vol. 47. N 2. P. 105-118; idem. Heracleon and the «Western» Textual Tradition//NTS. 1994. Vol. 40. N 2. P. 161-179; Castellano A. La exégesis de Orígenes y de Heracleón a los testimonios del Bautista. Santiago, 1998; Nagel T. Die Rezeption des Johannesevangeliums im 2. Jh. Lpz., 2000; Wucherpfennig A. Heracleon Philologus. Tüb., 2002. (WUNT; 142); L ö hr W. Valentinian Variations on Lk 12. 8-9/Mt 10.32//VChr. 2003. Vol. 57. N 4. P. 437-455; Il Commento a Giovanni di Origene: Il testo e i suoi contesti: Atti dell " VIII Convegno di Studi del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la Tradizione Alessandrina (Roma, 28-30 settembre 2004)/Ed. |
| Pagels, «Exegesis» Pagels, Elaine H. «Exegesis of Genesis 1 in the Gospels of Thomas and John.» 751 118 (1999): 477–96. Pagels, Gospels Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Random House, 1979. Pagels, Paul Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Painter, «Christology» Painter, John. «Christology and the Fourth Gospel: A Study of the Prologue.» ABR 31 (1983): 45–62. Painter, «Church» Painter, John. «Christ and the Church in John 1,45–51 .» Pages 359–62 in L " évangile de Jean: Sources, rédaction, théologie. Edited by Marinus de Jonge. BETL 45. Gembloux: J. Duculot; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1977. Painter, «Discourses» Painter, John. «The Farewell Discourses and the History of Johannine Christianity.» NTS 27 (1980–1981): 525–43. Painter, «Glimpses» Painter, John. «Glimpses of the Johannine Community in the Farewell Discourses.» ABR 28 (1980): 21–38. Painter, «Gnosticism» Painter, John. «Gnosticism and the Qumran Texts.» ABR 17 (1969): 1–6. Painter, «Israel» Painter, John. «The Church and Israel in the Gospel of John: A Response.» NTS 25 (1978–1979): 103–12. Painter, John Painter, John. John: Witness and Theologian. Foreword by C. K. Barrett. London: SPCK, 1975. Painter, « John 9 » Painter, John. « John 9 and the Interpretation of the Fourth Gospe1.» JSNT 28 (1986): 31–61. Painter, «Opponents» Painter, John. «The Opponents» in 1 John.» NTS 32 (1986): 48–71. Painter, «Tradition» Painter, John. «Tradition and Interpretation in John 6 .» NTS 35 (1989): 421–50. Palatty, «Ascension» Palatty, Pau1. «The Ascension of Christ in Lk-Acts: A Study of the Texts.» Biblebhashyam 12, no. 3 (1986): 100–17. Palatty, «Covenant» Palatty, Pau1. «Discipleship and the Covenant (continued).» Biblebhashyam 15, no. 4 (1989): 254–72. Palatty, «Disciple and Thomas» Palatty, Pau1. «The Beloved Disciple and Apostle Thomas.» Bible Bhashyam 27, no. 3 (2001): 161–73. Palmer, «Monograph» Palmer, Darryl W. «Acts and the Ancient Historical Monograph.» Pages 1–29 in The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting. Edited by Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke. Vo1. 1 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Edited by Bruce W. Winter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. |
| For all the stated reasons, the Catholic Eastern Church severed its communion with the local Church of Rome, which had fallen away from the truth and from the canons of the catholic Orthodox Church. Just as The Roman bishops had begun with pridefulness, they are also ending with pridefulness. They are intensifying their argument that allegedly the Orthodox Catholic Church fell away from their local Church. But that is wrong and even ridiculous. Truth testifies that the Roman Church fell away from the Orthodox Church. Although for the sake of imaginary rightness papists promote the view that during the time of union with the Catholic Orthodox Church, their patriarch was first and senior among the five patriarchs, this was true only for the sake of Imperial Rome, and not because of some spiritual merit or authority over the other patriarchs. It is wrong that they called their Church " Catholic " , i.e. universal. A part can never be named the whole; the Roman Church before its fall from Orthodoxy, comprised only a fifth part of the one Catholic Church. Especially since it rejected the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils the Roman Church should not be called catholic, as it follows its own incorrect theorizing. To some, the sheer numbers and widespread distribution of adherents to the Latin Church is eye-catching, and therefore those who unreliably understand truth deliberate: should it not be for this reason that the Latin Church be called Ecumenical or Catholic? But this view is extremely erroneous, because nowhere in Holy Scriptures are special spiritual rights ascribed to great numbers and large quantity. The Lord clearly showed that the sign of the true Catholic Church does not consist in great numbers and quantity when he spoke in the Gospels, Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom (Lk. 12:32). There is another example in Holy Scripture which does not favor quantity. Upon the death of Solomon, the kingdom of Israel was divided in the presence of his son, and Holy Scripture presents ten tribes as having fallen away; whereas two, having remained faithful to their duty, had not fallen away. Therefore, the Latin Church in vain tries to prove its correctness by its multitude, quantity, and widespread distribution. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Paradise PETER C. BOUTENEFF The Greek Paradeisos (cf. the Persian Pardez, meaning “enclosure”) in the Septuagint refers to any enclosed garden (cf. Num. 24.6 ; Neh. 2.8; Eccl. 2.5 ; Jer. 29.5 ), but remains particularly associated with the Garden in Eden ( Gen. 2–3, 13.10 ; also Is. 51.3 ; Ezek. 28.13 ). In Second Temple Jewish literature (e.g., 1 Enoch 60.8, 23, 61.12; Apoc. Abraham 21.3, 6; 3 Baruch 4.10) as well as in the New Testament ( Lk. 23.43 ; Rev. 2.7), Paradise comes to refer also to the destination of the righteous, whether it is an earthly or heavenly topos. St. Paul’s mystical experience which associates Paradise with the Third Heaven ( 2Cor. 12.2–3 ) has deeply influenced the Greek patristic literature, and is frequently cited. PARADISE AS THE GARDEN OF HUMAN ORIGINS Paradise as the earthly garden in Eden, into which the first-created humans were placed, and which Genesis 2 locates on Earth (in what is modern-day Iraq), is treated variously in the Greek fathers. Theophilus of Antioch, almost unique among the early writers for the absence of a typological (christological) exegesis of the Paradise narrative, is concomitantly almost unique in attempting to pinpoint the chronological dating of the events narrated in Genesis 1–3 (as did Eusebius of Caesarea, in his Chronicle, no longer extant). Conversely, and possibly following Philo (cf. Laws of Allegory 1.43), Origen practically mocks anyone who would interpret Paradise as an actual place with physical trees and chewable fruit (On First Principles 4.3.1). Precisely this notion, however, featured strongly in Ephrem’s Hymns on Paradise (Brock 1990). Gregory of Nazianzus is open and provisional in his interpretation: God placed the human person in Paradise, “Whatever this Paradise actually was,” and introduced him to trees which Gregory supposes might represent contemplation (theoria) (Oration 38.12). Contemporary Orthodox theologians tend to follow the fathers in paying scant attention to the question of the physical historicity of the Paradise of Genesis 2–3 , focusing rather on its existential significance or more often on its christological sense. |
| The importance of fasting and its observance today: Draft document of the Pan-Orthodox Council Source: DECR Draft document of the Pan-Orthodox Council, adopted by the 5th Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference in Chambésy on October 10-17, 2015. Photo: http://www.patriarchia.ru/ Published in compliance with the decision of the Synaxis of Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches, Chambésy, January 21-28, 2016. 1. Fast is God’s commandment (Gen 2:16-17). According to St Basil the Great, fasting is as old as humanity itself; it was prescribed in Paradise (On Fasting, 1,3). It is a great spiritual endeavour and the foremost expression of the Orthodox ascetic ideal. The Orthodox Church, in strict conformity with the precepts of the holy apostles, the rules of the Councils and the patristic tradition as a whole, has always proclaimed a great significance of fasting for people’s spiritual life and salvation. The annual cycle of liturgical celebrations fully reflects the patristic teaching on fasting, as well as the teaching on the necessity of constant unrelaxing watchfulness and on how to succeed in spiritual endeavours. The Triodion praises fasting as bringing the light of grace , as the invincible arms , the beginning of spiritual warfare , the perfect path of virtues , the nourishment for the soul , the source of wisdom , the life imperishable and imitation the angelic life , the mother of all blessings and virtues , and as the image of the life to come . 2. As an ancient institution, fasting was mentioned already in the Old Testament (Deut 9:18; Is 58:4-10; Joel 2:15; Jonah 3:5-7) and affirmed in the New Testament. The Lord Himself fasted for forty days before entering upon His public ministry (Lk 4:1-2) and gave to people instructions on how to practice fasting (Mt 6:16-18). Fasting as a means of abstinence, repentance and spiritual growth is presented in the New Testament (Mk 1:6; Acts 13:3; 14:23; Rom 14:21). Since the apostolic times, the Church has being proclaiming a profound importance of fasting, having established Wednesday and Friday as fast days (Didache, 8,1) and the fast before Easter (St Irenaeus of Lyons in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 5, 24). |
| ATHANASIUS ALEX, Ad Amunem, 545–60, 26, 1169–76. Ex tricesima nona festali, 559–66, 26, 1175–80. Ad Rufinianum, 565–72, 26, 1179–82. BASILIUS CæS. Ad Amphilochium 1, 571–644, 32, epist. 188; 2, 843–738, 32, epist. 199; 3, 737–808, 32 epist. 217. De ciborum differentia 807–10; 32 epist. 236. Ad Diodorum Tars, de matrimonio, 809–22, 32, epist. 160. Ad Gregorium presbyterum, 821–28, 32, epist. 55. Chorepiscopis, 827–32, 32, epist. 54. Ad episcopos sibi subjectos, 831–38, 32, epist. 53. Ad Amphilochum de Sp. S., 839–52, 32, ex cap, 27 et 29. GREGORIUS NYSSENUS ad Letoium, 851–888, 45, 221–36. TIMOTHEUS ALEX. Responsa, 889–902, 33, 1295–1308. THEOPHILUS ALEX. Edictum, 901–2, 65, 33–4. Commonitorium, 903–12, 65, 35–44. Narratio de Catharis, 911–2, 65, 43–44. Agathoni, 911–14, 65, 43–6. Menæ , 913–4; 65, 45–6. CYR1LLUS ALEX. Epistola in hymnis, 915–22, 77, epist. 78. Epistola ad episcopos Lybiæ, 921–24, 77, epist. 79. GREGORIUS THEOLOGUS. De libris canonicis V. T. et N. Т., , 923–26, 37, 472–74. AMPH1LOCHIUS. Iambi ad Seleucum, , 925–28, 37. 1593–98. GENNADIUS. Epistola encyclica, 929–34, 85, 1613–22. BASILIUS CÆS. Ad Nicopolitanos,933–36, 32, epist., 240. TARASIUS. Epistola ad Adrianum, papam, 935–38, 98, 1441–55. NICOLAUS CP. Interrogationes et Responsiones ad monachos synodicæ, 937–50. B) SYNTAGMATA PHOTIUS. Syntagma canonum, 104, 441–976. Nomocanon, 975–1218. SYMEON METAPHRASTES. Epitome canonum, 114, 235–92. MICHAEL PSELLUS. Oblatio nomocanonis, , 122, 919–24. ALEXIUS ARISTENUS. Synopsis canonum, 133, 63–114. ARSENIUS. Epitome canonum, 188, 9–62. MATTHÆUS BLASTARES. Syntagma alphabeticum canonum, 144, 959–1400 et 145, 9–212. CONSTANTINUS HARMENOPULUS. Epitome canonum, 150, 45–168. Narratiuncula de tribus tomis synodicis, 41–44. C) JUS ECCLES1AST1CUM GRÆGO ROMANUM i. imperatorum novellæ constitutiones de rebus ecclesiasticis: Justinianus, PL., 72, 921–1100. Leo VI imperator, 107, 419–66. Constantinus VII, 113, 549–604. Delectus legum, 113, 453–550. Romanus senior, Bulla аигеа, 113, 1059–68. |
| Epist. 66 (69), 5: The Lord’s words to the Apostles ( Lk. 10:16 ) were addressed to all the Bishops. It should be noted how Cyprian refers to the Apostle Peter as the foundation of the Church’s unity: “God is one, and Christ is one, and the Church is one, and one is the throne (cathedra) which the Lord’s word founded upon Peter” (“Deus unus est et Christus unus et una ecclesia cathedra una super Petrum Domini voce fundata”) (Epist. 43 (40), 5). The nature of this one Church founded upon Peter is made clear by a careful study of the passage immediately following: “no other altar can be instituted, no other priesthood can be established apart from the one single altar, the one single priesthood” (“Aliud altare constitui aut aliud sacerdotium novum fieri praeter unum altare et unum sacerdotium non potest”) (ibid.). From this it is quite clear that Cyprian has in mind here the proliferation of altars within one and the same local Church because of schisms (besides, it is clear from the whole text of the letter that this is what it is talking about); and consequently the ecclesial unity founded on the one throne of Peter is to be found in the episcopal Church which does not admit a second altar. In consequence, each bishop sits on the one throne of Peter. Cf. also De Unit., 4. In view of this, one is justified in asking whether there is any ground, at least as far as the sources of the first three centuries go, for the view (see also in Archim. S.Harkianakis, op.cit, p.44f.) that the hierarchy “in its entirety” constitutes the successor of the Apostles in such a way that the college or “choir” of the Twelve is shared out in the succession to the particular Bishops. Such a collective unity of the episcopate, a unity by addition which easily permits the maintenance of a special office for the Pope as unifying in his person the College of the Apostles which is parcelled out among the various Bishops, is the underlying basis for the theory which has recently appeared among Roman Catholic theologians concerning the “collegiality” of the Bishops. On this see inter alia the collections Le Concile et les Conciles, B.Botte et al., 1960; and L’Épiscopat de l’Église Universelle, ed. Y.Congar and B.Dupuy, 1962, esp. pp.17–28, 227–328, 481–535, and also J.Colson, L’Épiscopat Catholique: Collégialité et Primauté dans les Trois Premiers Siècles de L’Église, 1963; J.Hamer, op.cit., p.237f.; P.Stockmeier, “Bischofsamt und Kircheneinheit bei den apostolischen Vätern” in Trier Theologische Zeitschrift 73 (1964), 321/35; W.de Ries, “Die Kollegiale Struktur der Kirche in den ersten Jahrhunderten” in Una Sancta, 19 (1964), pp.296–317, and P.Rusch, “Bischof. Die Kollegiale Struktur des Bischofsamtes” in Zeitschrift für Kathol. Theologie, 89 (1964), pp.257–85. On this theory from the viewpoint of the conclusions of our research, see general remarks below (General Conclusions) |
| БИБЛИОГРАФИЧЕСКИЙ СПИСОК 1. Агафангел (Гагуа), игумен. Клонирование: православный ответ на очередной вызов дегуманизации. Электронный ресурс: http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/5706534.html . 2. Алтухов Ю.П. О клонировании человека//Православие и проблемы биоэтики. Сборник работ. М., 2017. С. 99-104. 3. Заявление Церковно-общественного Совета по биомедицинской этике «О морально-этической недопустимости клонирования человека»//Православие и проблемы биоэтики. Сборник работ. М., 2017. С.105-107. 4. Кураев, Андрей, дьякон. Наша брань не против науки: клонирование и Церковь. Электронный ресурс: http://halkidon2006.orthodoxy.ru/lk/kuraev30.htm . 5. О смысле жизни. Беседа прп. Серафима Саровского с Н.А. Мотовиловым «О цели христианской жизни». М.: Издательский Дом «Русский Паломник», 2015. С. 88-91. 6. Папа Иоанн Павел II, Обращение к участникам 35-й генеральной ассамблеи Всемирной Медицинской Ассоциации, 29 октября 1983 г.: AAS 76 (1984), 390. 7. Папа Иоанн Павел II, Обращение к участникам 81-го Конгресса Итальянского общества медицины внутренних органов и 82-го Конгресса Итальянского общества общей хирургии, 27 октября 1980 г.: AAS 72 (1980), 1126. 8. Папа Павел VI, Обращение к Генеральной Ассамлее ООН, 4 октября 1965 г.: AAS 57 (1965), 878; Энциклика «Populorum progressio», 13: AAS 59 (1967), 263. 9. Папа Павел VI, Проповедь во время Мессы, завершающей Святой Год, 25 декабря 1975 г.: AAS 68 (1976), 145; Папа Иоанн Павел II, энциклика «Dives in misericordia», 30: AAS 72 (1980), 1224. 10. Православие и проблемы биоэтики. Сборник работ. М., 2017. 504 с. 11. «Donum Vitae» («Дар жизни»). Инструкция об уважении к человеческой жизни с момента её зарождения и о достоинстве процесса человеческого воспроизводства. Электронный ресурс: . 12. Pontificia Accademia per la Vita ., Reflessioni sulla clonazinm. Citth del Vaticano, 1997. Комментарий к этому документу можно найти у Di Pietro M. L., «Riflessione sulla clonazione» Il documento delta Pontificia Accademia per la Vila, «Camillianum», 1997, VIII (16), с 195-202. |
| Lewicki 1955 – Lewicki T Obrzdy pogrzebowie pogaskich sowian w opisach podróników u pisarzy arabskich gownie z IX–X w.//Archeologia. Wrocaw, 1955. T. 5 (1952–1953). S. 122–154. Lewicki 1958 – Lewicki T. Sur la ville comane de Qay//Vznik a poatky slovan. Praha, 1958. T. 2. P. 13–18. Lewicki 1961 – Lewicki T. Znajomo krajów i ludów Europy u pisarzy arabskich IX i X w.//SA. 1961. T. VIII. S. 61–124. Lewicki 1968 – Lewicki T. S-w-nt-b-lk arabskiej «Relacji anonimowey (2 po. IX w.) i jego «zastpca»//Liber Josepho Kostrzewski octogenario a veneratoribus dicatus. Wrocaw etc., 1968. S. 363–376. Lombard 1971 – Lombard M. L’lslam dans sa première grandeur. Paris, 1971. Ludwig 1982 – Ludwig D. Struktur und Gesellschaft des Chazaren-Reiches im Licht den schriftlichen Quellen. Münster, 1982. Mann 1931 – Mann J. Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature. Cincinatti, 1931. Margoliouth 1918 – Margoliouth D. S. The Russian seizure of Bardha‘ah in 943 A. D.//BSOS. 1918. Vol. I. Pt. 2. P. 82–95. Martinez 1982 – Martinez P. Gardizi on the Turks//AEMA. 1982. T. II. P. 146–172. Marquart 1903 – Marquart J. Osteuropäische und ostasiatische Streifzüge: Ethnologische und historisch-topographische Studien zur Geschichte des 9. und 10. Jahrhunderts (ca. 840–940). Leipzig, 1903. Marquart 1924 – Marquart J. Ein arabischer Bericht über die arktischen (uralischen) Länder aus dem 10. Jahrhundert//Ungarische Jahrbücher. 1924. Bd. IV. H. 3/4. S. 261–334. Melvinger 1955 – Melvinger A. Les premiéres incursions des Vikings en Occident d’après les sources arabes. Uppsala, 1955. Miller 1926–1927 – Miller K. Mappae arabicae: Arabische Welt- und Länderkarten. Stuttgart, 1926–1927. Bd. I–VI. Minorsky 1953 – Minorsky V. F. Studies in Caucasian History. London, 1953. Minorsky 1958 – Minorsky V. F. A History of Sharvan and Darband in the 10th–11th centuries. Cambridge, 1958. Moravcsik 1958 – Moravcsik Gy. Byzantinoturcica. Berlin, 1958. Bd. I–II. Mik 1936 – Mik H. Osteuropa nach der arabischen Γεωγραικ γεσις des KJ. Ptolemaios von Muhammad ibn Musa al-Huwarizmi//Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenländes. Wien, 1936. Bd. 43, H. 3–4. S. 173–184. |
|
|
