Byzantine Art
Byzantine Art
As has already been mentioned, Constantine the Great confirmed Galerius’ Edict of Tolerance of 313, whereby the Christian faith, together with the other religions in the empire, was officially proclaimed to have the same rights as the State religion. It soon appeared that Constantine allowed Christianity a preferential treatment over other religions. The new capital Constantine built, had for the Christian believers the advantage that in the new city, the New Rome, officially no pagan rites were allowed to be performed, nor was any reference allowed to Old Rome with so many remembrances of pagan rites and temples. The joining of the Roman form of government, Greek cultural inheritance and the Christian faith would lay the foundation of Byzantine art.
The history of the Christian Church goes back to the events of the day of Pentecost, described in The Acts. The disciples of Christ were together in one room on the day of Pentecost. “And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as if a rushing mighty wind and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” [2]. On that day they began preaching and baptising and the first Christian community was formed in Jerusalem. Christianity in the first instance spread along the Jewish Diaspora.
The basis of the new religion was the acceptance of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, as foretold by Jewish prophets, the king sent by God, who would appear at the end of time, with whom and by whom a new world would begin. The name “Christians” was used for the first time in Syrian Antioch.[3] Christian communities arose in a large number of places within the Roman Empire in the course of the years. In particular during the reign of Constantine the Great (306-337) new churches were built in the Empire, especially in Rome. In order not to offend the senate, the greater part of which still clung to the official polytheistic religion of the Empire, Constantine ordered that churches were to be built in the suburbs of the city, preferably outside the walls. The emperor may have favoured Christianity by giving privileges to the Church, such as immunity for its ecclesiastics from compulsory service and freedom from taxation, but he did not immediately accept the exclusive nature of Christianity[4]. He had statues erected for the state religion, and kept the tradition of the Roman emperor as pontifex maximus, in a modified form, in Byzantine caesaropapism.[5]
In the first instance the new religion attracted many people, who saw it as bringing liberation from poverty and slavery, a continuation of faith of the Jewish religion without the stringent rules of circumcision and food prohibition. Those rules were abandoned by what is sometimes called “the First Council” during the years 49-50, as described in The Acts[6], where James remarked that “…we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” The opinion lying behind this statement was that by God’s promise the continuing acceptance of the history of Israel was realised by the coming of Jesus and the time of God had come by the appearance of the Messiah. The sense of what was proper was revealed and the expectations of justice and salvation were realised.
The newly formed Christian communities were governed by bishops assisted by priests and deacons. With so many independently working communities there was a risk that the doctrine they preached would begin to diverge. The early Church was growing and differences arose between the episcopal centres of Alexandria and Antioch. Alexandria had been the capital of the Ptolemaic Dynasty, the kings who ruled over Egypt after the death of Alexander the Great. Philosophised thinking in Alexandria was partly based on Platonism and influenced by the great Jewish-Greek philosopher Philo, and this in its turn had a great effect on the development of Christian thinking, the so-called Alexandrian school. An early Christian theologian was Origenes (185-254), one of the most creative philosophers of his time. He spent his lifetime formulating the beliefs of his church, albeit that the church in a later period did not completely agree with his opinion. When he was in Palestine around the year 230 he was ordained priest without the knowledge of his own Bishop Demetrios, who decided to expel him from the church in Alexandria. Origenes opened a school at Caesarea, where he had a large number of students and taught there until his death. He was strongly influenced by the middle-Platonism, which most probably explains his great interest in the invisible world of God. He was a very productive author and expressed his ideas about the Trinity, gave a description of the Logos[7], and wrote about the relation between the Father and the Logos. His incarnation theology gave direction to the Alexandrian school, although a number of his ideas were later rejected by other theologians.
The intellectual power of their leaders was of great influence upon Christian thinking to such an extent that some centuries later one could still speak of the Alexandrian theology. It is characterised by an allegorian exegesis that starts from the conviction that a scriptural text in fact has a deeper meaning than is represented by the words, even when they do not themselves include a metaphorical language or parable. This way of thinking pays great attention to the mysterious nature of God offered to Christians in word and flesh, namely by the Scriptures and the incarnation of Christ. It was a theology that was philosophic, but at the same time acceptable for those who wanted to live in an evangelical tradition.
Contrary to the Alexandrian school the Antiochian school developed only slowly and in a somewhat later period. From an ideological point of view its followers can be characterised by their great respect for the letter of the Scriptures and the Incarnation. They preferred the acceptance of reality according to Aristotle, from which point of view they developed a sensitivity for historical reality instead of the more mystical Alexandrian tradition.
It is to be remarked that both schools also developed a critical dialogue and from this dialogue they created a theological way of thinking that became one of the strengths of the Christian Church.
Before Constantine’s decision in favour of the Christian religion persecutions of Christians frequently ended in martyrdom. To die for your Christian faith was considered to be the ultimate following of Christ, living and dying as Christ had lived and died, “imitatio Christi”. Martyrdom was considered as Christian perfection and Christians believed that martyrs immediately went to heaven to share in the divine beatitude. When persecutions ended some people began searching for a substitute for martyrdom. They found it in withdrawal into the desert where they lived as anchorites in isolation from society in order to achieve, in a bloodless way, Christian perfection by living in chastity and abstinence, a life of continuous prayer to God, of charity and of absence from worldly pleasures. Justification for this way of life was to be found in the words of the Evangelist Johannes: “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.”[8] Unlike the martyr who gives his life in the fight against the forces of evil in the world the monk lives to fight continuously against the spiritual enemies in accordance with Paul’s letter to the Ephesians: “Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.”[9]
Nevertheless, in the course of time a cult developed around the remains of earlier martyrs. When their names were known, they were called upon in prayers. People visited their graves and in a later period they brought the relics of honoured martyrs into their churches.
The dearest wish of Christians was to be buried close to a martyr, for they believed that the martyr’s bones would have a positive influence on their spiritual welfare. When Christ returned, which in fact was expected to happen any day, He would first of all resurrect the martyrs and those close to them.
The bishops leading their flocks in the important ecclesiastical dioceses, such as Alexandria, Antioch, Rome and Jerusalem had a great influence on the way of thinking and the organisation of the church. The doctrine for the church as a whole had not yet been established. Great thinkers tried to give direction to the religion. They gave rules to the faithful on how to live. However, they did not agree always among themselves and rivalries occurred such as that between the Alexandrian school and the Antioch school.
The difficulties arose from the fact that Christian doctrine had not revealed, but had to be defined. As early as in the second century private councils were held in Asia Minor to counter the montanistic[10] movements and to fix the time of Easter. They stressed the need for solidarity among bishops and ministers who together had to serve the well-being of the whole Church.
Despite all these well-meaning efforts, unity could not be reached and alternative streams of thought about basic forms of religion gained ground. One of those was proposed by Arius, a priest from Alexandria. Arianism denied the divinity of Christ and considered the Son as a superior creature who was not homo-ousios – one in essence - with the Father. Constantine realised that the Christian Church had to be a united church and therefore he would have to end the disputes arising from conflicting theories. In order to solidify Christian thinking and doctrine and to keep the religion free from pagan influences, he summoned the First General or Oecumenical Council at Nicaea in 325, which took place under the pontificate of Pope Silvester I . If the Roman Empire was to be a Christian Empire, then Constantine wished to see it firmly based upon one orthodox faith.[11] Constantine was convinced that the unity and survival of his empire depended upon the unity of the Church.[12] The intention of the Council was to define the teaching of the Church in terms of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith – the Trinity and the Incarnation. All Christians agreed in regarding these as mysteries which lie beyond human understanding.[13] Firstly the Council condemned Arianism which maintained that Christ is not the equal of the Father. That would make man’s deification impossible. Only if Christ is truly God, can he unite us to God, for none but God Himself can open to man the way of union, the Council decided.[14] He is God in the same sense that the Father is God, homo-ousios – one in essence - with the Father. It took, however, a long time before Arianism disappeared.
Another matter to be resolved was the equality of certain episcopal sees. The Council opted for three great centres: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. The see of Jerusalem should remain under the Metropolitan of Caesarea, but it should be given the next place in honour after these three.[15]
The second Council was summoned by Theodosius the Great (379-395) to be held in Constantinople in 381 during the pontificate of Pope Damasus I (366-384). Nevertheless Theodosius did not take part in the Council himself. At this Council the theologians formulated the basic Creed recited in the majority of Christian churches today.[16] The Council expanded and adapted the Nicene creed, developing in particular the teaching of the Holy Spirit, whom it affirmed to be God even as the Father and Son are God: “who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and together glorified.”[17]
The position of Constantinople, the new capital of the Empire, came under discussion. Its position was growing in importance and could not be denied. The bishop of Constantinople claimed to enjoy a similar position as the bishop of Rome because he was the bishop of the New Rome. The Council decided that it was to be assigned the second place after Rome and before Alexandria.
During the fourth and fifth centuries great efforts were made to define Christianity through the formulation of its theology, although controversies still arose between the doctrinal ideas originating from Alexandria and other places like Antioch and Constantinople. Some of these controversies were fought on personal as well as on theological grounds, for instance as in the case of a conflict between patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria, who reluctantly became the patriarch of Constantinople in 399, and Ioannis Chrysostomos (circa 345-407). The latter, nicknamed Golden Mouthed because he was an eloquent preacher, expressed theological ideas in a popular form and had a deep compassion for the poor. His sermons made him famous in the East, but some of his penitential sermons evoked resistance in certain ecclesiastical circles and at the imperial court, where the Empress Theodora in particular was hostile to him. For that reason he was deposed and banished by Theophilus in 403 at a gathering of bishops, known as the Synod of the Oak. Public opinion, however, was so strongly in his favour that the court was unable to prevent his triumphant return.[18]
Another Christological controversy arose from the different teachings of the two theological schools of Antioch and Alexandria, which became further complicated by the ecclesiastical ambitions of the various participants.[19] This was a dispute between Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria and Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, which led to the third General or Oecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431. It was summoned by Emperor Theodosius II and presided over by Cyril.
Nestorius was born ca 382 in Mar’ash in the Commagene, west of the upper course of the Euphrates. He was a Greek theologian who received his education in Antioch where he became a presbyter. Because of his great ability as a preacher he was appointed patriarch of Constantinople. He focused his attention against the heretics, but was soon accused of heresy himself.
Controversy emerged about the person of Christ. Both Cyril and Nestorius agreed that Christ was fully God, one of the Trinity, but they diverged in their description of His manhood and in their method of explaining the union of God and man in a single person.[20] In accordance with the Antioch tradition Nestorius emphasised the difference in the two natures of Christ. He did not accept, like Cyril of Alexandria, a physical, hypostatical union,[21] but saw it more in a psychical way, as a union of will and action. Nestorius upheld the integrity of Christ’s manhood, but distinguished so emphatically between the manhood and the Godhead that he seemed in danger of ending, not with one person, but with two persons coexisting in the same body.[22] Though Nestorius himself evidently did not subscribe to the views with which Cyril charged him, the heresy to which he lent his name emphasised the human nature of Christ at the expense of the divine.[23] Consequently Nestorius had great objections against the generally used definition of Maria as Theotokos, the God bearing, the Mother of God, Meter Theou, but he preferred to use the name Christotokos, the mother of Christ, since she is mother only of the humanity of Christ, not of His divinity.
Cyril of Alexandria, who often misunderstood the declarations of Nestorius, did not agree with him. He had the support of Pope Coelestinus. Cyril sent a letter with twelve anathemas to Nestorius, who in his turn responded with twelve contra-anathemas. The first anathema of Cyril was based on the text of John 1:14 and the reference “The Word was made flesh”, consequently Maria is the mother of God, for she bore the Word of God made flesh. Her son was not a man loosely united to God, but a single and undivided person, who is at once God and man.[24]
Without waiting for the arrival of the bishops of Antioch under the leadership of Patriarch John, who had certain sympathy for Nestorius, Cyril opened the sessions of the Council, whereupon Nestorius was excommunicated and expelled. Of course the Antioch bishops protested. The Council followed the views of Cyril about the nature of Christ and accepted that Maria was Theotokos, because she had given birth to the son of God.
The Council condemned Nestorius, who was dismissed and expelled. He lived in a number of places of exile in Egypt, where he wrote an apology, the so-called Liber Heraclidis. His followers found refuge in the East Syrian Church. Nestorius died in Panopolis in Egypt in 451.
Another council summoned by Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria was held in Ephesus in 449. The council was called lactrocinium, the Robbery Council by Pope Leo I and its conclusions were not accepted by the church at large. Dioscorus had succeeded Cyril of Alexandria in 444. He was a supporter of Eutyches, who earlier had been condemned for his Christological preaching. The council took the Alexandrian teaching of Cyril to its logical conclusion by stating that in Christ there is not only a unity of person but a single nature, one phusis. This was the so-called doctrine of Monophysitism.
Two years later Emperor Marcianus summoned the fourth Oecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451. The Council opposed the views of Dioscorus and accepted as orthodox formula that while Christ is one person, there are two phuseis in Christ, the divine and the human. This followed the line of the School of Antioch. Christ is one and the same Son, perfect in his Godhead and perfect in his manhood, truly God and truly man.[25] It condemned the Monophysite doctrine and insisted upon the completeness of Christ in both his humanity and divinity.[26] Eutyches was censured, as well as his Bishop Dioscures who supported him. The Council of Chalcedon was a defeat for Alexandrian claims to rule supreme in the east.[27]
The Council also elevated the See of Constantinople to a position that overshadowed the church of Alexandria and claimed equality with Rome.[28] Jerusalem was assigned the fifth place among the great sees and was freed from the jurisdiction of Caesarea. The five sees in the church, the Pentarchy, in order of rank, were Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. All five claimed apostolic foundation and the bishops in each of these cities received the title Patriarch.[29]
The Council of Chalcedon was a major landmark in the ecclesiastical and political history of the world since it completed the definition of Christianity which the Councils of the preceding century had commenced.[30] Historically this Council caused the first definitive schism in the Christian world. Theological differences were made bitterer by cultural and national tension. Egypt and Syria predominantly non-Greek in language and background, resented the power of Greek Constantinople, alike in religious and political matters. Thus, ecclesiastical schism was reinforced by political separatism. The two parties used different languages, but ultimately both were concerned to uphold the same truths.[31]
The number of followers of the Monophysitism, however, was large and the teaching of growing importance in a number of countries. Monophysitism was spreading and had its roots in Egypt and Syria.
The fifth General Council was summoned by Emperor Justinian the Great (527-565) in Constantinople in 553. It had to reinterpret the decrees of Chalcedon from an Alexandrian point of view and to explain, in more constructive terms than Chalcedon had used, how the two natures of Christ unite to form a single person.[32] The aim of the Council in particular was to arrive at a reconciliation with the Monophysitists. The emperor tried by all means to prevent a schism between East and West. Monophysitism had the advantage of very capable leaders in the sixth century who gave the sect articulate form. One such leader was Severus who formulated Monophysite theology.[33] Justinian’s task to bring the Monophysite clergy back into the Church was further complicated by the unashamed patronage of the Monophysites by his wife Theodora.[34]
The problem was complicated some decades later by the rise of a new form of Monophysitism, the so-called Monothelite heresy. The Monothelites argued that although Christ has two natures, yet since He is a single person, He has only one will.[35]
Emperor Constantine IV summoned the sixth Oecumenical Council at Constantinople in 680 for the third time. The Council condemned the Monothelite heresy. It was of the opinion that if Christ has two natures, He must also have two wills. Since Christ is truly man as well as truly God, He must have a human will as well as a divine.[36]
Other councils, not Oecumenical, were held in the course of years, some of which will be mentioned here. A number of them were significant; other councils were of less importance. A council held in 692 ordered that henceforth Christ might no longer be represented as a lamb but only as a human being.[37]
The seventh Council in 787 was like the first held in Nicaea. It was summoned by Emperor Constantine VI, because of the disagreement within the Eastern Church regarding Iconoclasm. This phenomenon started under the reign of Emperor Leo III of the Isauric dynasty and originated in North Syria. It may be described as a crisis of the empire’s soul.[38] It lasted about 120 years from 726 – 843 and highly influenced life in the Orthodox Church. The main issue had both a dogmatic devotional as well as a political-religious character. The iconodules were mainly the monks, theologians and people who defended the production and veneration of figurative pictures of Christ and saints as an essential element of Christian religious doctrine and practice. The other side, the iconoclasts, consisting mainly of the emperor, the high administration and the population of Asia Minor, tried to secure orthodoxy from idolatrous excesses of the veneration of icons. This veneration the iconoclasts related to pagan practice. Leo III took measures against the veneration of icons and forbade the inclusion of any figurative works of art in the decoration of churches. As a result numerous icons, mosaics and wall paintings depicting Christ, the Virgin or religious scenes were destroyed. A restricted number of wall paintings were white-washed and some mosaics were covered with plaster. The restoration of some churches during the centuries has brought some of them to light again. Any new decoration in churches was only permitted if they strictly depicted non-representational matter. The church in the west opposed the measures of Leo III. Iconoclasm took place with waves of rigour, causing hundreds of artists to try to escape to safer countries, mainly to the West and in particular to Rome. The persecutions subsided somewhat under the reign of Leo IV as a result of the influence of the Empress Irene. She was the guardian of Constantine VI (780-797) who eventually suspended the persecution. At the Council held in Nicaea in 787 it was proclaimed that icons were to be kept in churches and honoured with the same relative veneration as is shown to other material symbols, such as the “precious and life-giving Cross” and the Book of Gospels.[39] The veneration does not relate to the image, but the holy person depicted by the image. The icon is not an idol but a symbol.
Nevertheless a second wave of Iconoclasm occurred, although not as severe as the first wave, which lasted until 843, when under the reign of Empress Theodora, who was the guardian of Michael III (842-867), the iconodules were vindicated and icons reinstated in accordance with the rules of the Council of 787.
After about 120 years the iconoclast movement ended. The final triumph of the Holy Images is known as the Triumph of Orthodoxy and is commemorated in a special service on Orthodox Sunday, the first Sunday in Lent.[40]
The first six Oecumenical Councils were all held in the East and are in effect for the whole Christian Church as such. The seventh Council was only for the Church in the East. The acts of the first four Oecumenical Councils are the conclusions, which Greek theologians, utilising Greek logic, extrapolated from Christian teaching.[41]
A large number of further Councils were held in later centuries. They were organised mainly in the West by the Church of Rome. None of the decisions of these Councils has ever been accepted by the Church in the East.
Controversies arose throughout the years, e.g. about the position of the Pope of Rome. The East acknowledged him as the first Bishop of the Church, but saw him as the first among equals[42] whereas the West considered Rome as the most important apostolic foundation, which in fact it never was. The Petrine doctrine by Pope Damasis I (366-384) made Rome a real apostolic foundation. The Church in the East, Constantinople, and in the West, Rome, became separated, because they could no longer agree with each other on the many topics. One of the main difficulties was the lack of a common language and lack of sufficient knowledge of each other’s languages. These led to theological misunderstandings, often made worse by mistranslations which at times were deliberate and malicious.[43] From the start Greeks and Latins had each approached the Christian Mystery in their own way.[44] The common basis had been the Creed as laid down in the first six Oecumenical Councils. However, around 870 a conflict arose regarding the right words of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, in particular with regard to the Holy Spirit. Originally the Creed ran: “I believe … in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and Son together is worshipped and together glorified”. This original form is recited unchanged by the east to this day.[45] The west inserted an extra phrase: “and from the Son” which is in Latin Filioque. The Church of Rome, though it did not formally accept this doctrine until the early eleventh century, had already unofficially begun to adopt the new text. The Byzantine Church strongly objected to the Filioque, partly on the grounds that any alteration of the Creed had been expressly forbidden by the Oecumenical Councils, and partly because that church believed it to be theologically erroneous.[46] The Filioque was to become the basic theological issue in the medieval controversies between the Byzantine and the Roman Churches.[47]
Another dispute in the tenth century was the use of bread in the Eucharist, either leavened, or unleavened or azymes as became customary in the Roman Catholic Church; the Greeks continued to use leavened bread. The Orthodox Church considered the use of unleavened bread as a serious transgression in the worship of the Eucharist.
In 1054 there was another severe quarrel caused by the fact that the Normans, after having conquered the southern part of Italy and Sicily, forced the orthodox churches in those regions to conform to Latin usages. Thereupon the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Caerularius, in return demanded that the Latin churches in Constantinople should adopt Greek practices. When they refused he closed them in 1052.[48] Caerularius wrote a letter to Pope Leo IX in 1053 to resolve the dispute between them, whereupon Leo IX sent a delegation to Constantinople in 1054. This delegation was led by Cardinal Humbert. The discussions were unfriendly and did not solve the problems. Humbert and others accused the Greeks of omitting the Filioque from the Creed.[49] Humbert laid a Bull of Excommunication against Caerularius and his collaborators on the altar of the Ayia Sophia. The latter answered by promulgating a ban against Humbert and the other delegates. Nevertheless, the two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of the great gulf separating them, and men on both sides still hoped that the misunderstandings could be cleared up without too much difficulty. It was the Crusades which made the schism definitive. They introduced a new spirit of hatred and bitterness, and they brought the whole issue down to the popular level.[50]
There were attempts at reunion in the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries, partly on political grounds. Emperor Michael VIII (1259-1282) desired Christian unity in order to raise support to resist the Turks. Another attempt was made in about the year 1438 - 1439 in the so-called Union of Florence. On paper an agreement was reached, but after returning home many of those who had signed revoked their signatures because there was too much opposition to it from the clergy and people. By reaching an agreement Emperor Johannes VIII (1425-1448) had hoped that the Union would be a basis for military help from the west. However, the sister of the emperor is reported to have said: “I would rather see the Moslem turban in the midst of the city than the Latin mitre”, words that indicate the great suspicion against the Church of Rome. Constantine IX was the last emperor of Byzantium, when on the 29th of May 1453, Constantinople finally fell into the hands of the Turks.
The Bull of Excommunication was never revoked, in spite of the fact that in 1965 both churches expressed their regret about this excommunication and decided to banish the issue from the memory and life of the church.
I owe the title from the work of Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, chapter 2. ↑
The Acts 2:1-4 ↑
The Acts 11:26 ↑
Vryonis, p. 24 ↑
ibid, p. 24 ↑
The Acts 15:1-21 ↑
Logos is the Word as mentioned in John 1:1 – In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ↑
1 John 2: 15-16 ↑
Ephesians 6:10-14 ↑
Montanism was an eschatological or rigoristical movement based on the preaching of Montanus about the year 150-160. It was a heretical sect of Christianity. He prophesied the imminent return of Christ and the coming down of the holy city Jerusalem into a place mentioned by name. The movement was based on ecstasy and severe ethics. ↑
Ware, p. 27 ↑
Vryonis, p. 24 ↑
Ware, p. 28 ↑
Ware, p. 30 ↑
ibid ↑
Vryonis, p. 38 ↑
Ware, p. 30-31 ↑
Book of Saints, nr. 745 ↑
Vryonis, p.38-39 ↑
Ware, p. 32; see for a detailed description of the controversy: Anastos, Milton V., “Nestorius was Orthodox”, DOP 16, 1962, p. 119-140. ↑
Hypostatical union is the union in Christ of human and divine natures. ↑
Ware, p. 32 ↑
Vryonis, p. 39 ↑
Ware, p. 33 ↑
Ware, p. 34 ↑
Vryonis, p. 39 ↑
Ware, p. 34 ↑
Vryonis, p. 39 ↑
Ware, p. 34 ↑
Vryonis, p. 39 ↑
Ware, p. 37 ↑
Ware, p. 37 ↑
Vryonis, p. 58 ↑
Vryonis, p. 57 ↑
Ware, p. 37 ↑
ibid ↑
Vryonis, p. 75 ↑
ibid, p. 74 ↑
Ware, p. 39 ↑
ibid ↑
Vryonis, p. 38 ↑
Ware, p. 36 and 55 ↑
ibid, p. 56 ↑
ibid, p. 56 ↑
ibid, p. 58 ↑
Obolensky, p. 144-145 ↑
ibid, p. 145 ↑
Ware, p. 66 ↑
ibid, p. 67 ↑
ibid, p. 67 ↑