The Memra on the Parrot by Isaac of Antioch.
In this paper, I will first focus on the existing studies of the Addition to the Trishagion, and what can be produced to understand the spiritual approach of Peter the Fuller. Secondly the content and the structure of the poem will be analysed. Thirdly, the rich theology of the Cross and the Eucharist, which emerges around the Trishagion in the poem, will be put into connexion with later polemical literature in the Caucasus, where the person of Peter the Fuller is the primary protagonist. In conclusion, I will show that Isaac of Antioch or of Edessa is a very precious piece of evidence as to how Peter the Fuller was able to provoke riots in more than one region where he innovated in the liturgical field.
To start with, it should be recalled that the identity of our Isaac was already explained by Jacob of Edessa, who observed that he was a monk from Edessa who wrote in the time of the emperor Zeno (474-91).(3) Jacob was well aware of the discussion on the Trishagion in Antioch, and knew that it was only in the time of Zeno that Peter the Fuller sought to impose the Qui pro nobis crucifixus es in the sacred song of the Cherubim under the very throne of God. The history of that innovation is quite long and complicated. The first to write of this history at length was J. S. Assemani, in his large work on civil and canonical Law in the East which appeared in the eighteenth century.(4) This work devotes no less than 240 pages to the topic: he does not however mention the homily of Isaac. With a more specifically liturgical interest, J. M. Hanssens included the Addition to the Trishagion and the various struggles which it provoked, amongst a large number of testimonies.(5) But here too, nothing will be found about Isaac of Edessa. More recently, in 1966, V. Inglisian summed up what can be known of the Armenian Xacecar but here too, no mention can be found of Isaac's Memra.(6) Even here the Memra on the Parrot does not appear.
The circumstances surrounding Peter the Fuller are related by several historians. The most reliable seems to be Theodore Anagnostes, even if his work has to be reconstructed from the writings of several other authors. He is still very close to the events, and gives details which are omitted by Evagrius Scholasticus, Nicephorus Xanthopoulos and Theophanes. Theodore explains the first public entrance of Peter the Fuller as follows:
In the time of Martyrios in Antioch, Zeno was the son in law of the emperor Leo through his daughter Ariadne. Peter (the priest of the church of the holy martyr Bassa in Chalcedon) whose nickname was the Fuller, journeyed to Antioch with Zeno the emperor's son in law. As he considered the See, he persuaded Zeno to help him. He paid the party of the Apollinarists and provoked several riots about the faith in the town against the bishop Martyrios. He anathematized those who did not say that God has been crucified. And so he introduced a division in the people, and Peter added to the Trishagion `Thou who hast been crucified for us!'(7)
This is the most clear testimony, which refutes a lot of other later stories about the beginning of the addition to the Trishagion. Not only Proclus of Constantinople ([dagger] 446), but even Ignatius Theophorus, or still more incredibly Joseph of Arimathea was considered by some apologists to have introduced if not the addition, at least the Trishagion itself.(8) On the character of Peter the Fuller, we have a vivid portrait by Alexander of Cyprus in his Panegyric on Barnabas, which has recently been critically edited by P. van Deun. He appears to have belonged originally to the monastery of the Akoimetoi, famous for their strong position in favour of the Council of Chalcedon. But unable to suffer the milieu of that monastery, Peter lived in the capital of the Empire, where he became a friend of the Emperor's son in law(9). This testimony is rarely brought forward by historians, for later on Alexander changed the chronology of the banishments of Peter, since he had to conceal the fact that the ecclesiastical autonomy of Cyprus was obtained by Peter, most probably in the time of his second episcopate in Antioch from 475 to 476. The testimony indeed throws much light on the temperament of Peter.
Let us come back to the quotations from Theodoros Anagnostes; he wrote also: `When Martyrios had been forced to retire, the Fuller seized the See in a tyrannical manner'.(10) The Emperor Leo did not approve of the means Peter found to make himself Bishop, and by 471 Peter the Fuller was removed to the Monastery of the Akoimetoi, from which, according to Alexander the Monk, he had originally come. A certain Julianus succeeded to the throne after the illegal synod of Seleuceia near Antioch which elected Peter around 470 (11)
The political situation of Byzantium changed radically in 475. Basiliskos seized power and introduced absolute monophysite politics. He called Timotheos Aeluros back from his exile in Cherson. The Patriarch of Alexandria immediately got in touch with Paul of Ephesus, and sought to gather a Third Oecumenical Council in Ephesus to abolish that of Chalcedon. At the same time, Basiliskos set Peter up again in Antioch. Theodore Anagnostes wrote:
Julianos, the bishop of Antioch after Martyrios, died from the bitterness of the agitation. The Fuller invaded the See and devoted himself to anathematizings and troubles, during which murders and robberies took place because of the addition to the Trishagion.(12)
In 476, the political context changed, Basiliskos was removed and Zeno came back to his legitimate power. Then the See of Antioch was first given for three months to Johannes Codonatos, whom Peter the Fuller had made bishop in Apameia. He too was removed, and first a certain Stephanus became Bishop, but not for long. Then came a second Stephanus, who probably ruled from 479 to 482. He or the former was killed and thrown into the Orontes as a disciple of Nestorius. As a matter of fact, only in 482 was Calandion, the designated Bishop, able to send his Synodika to Pope Simplicius. To quote the remark of E. Schwartz, `After Stephanus' murder, there must have occurred such a tumult and the party of Peter the Fuller was still so strong that Calandion was unable to occupy his See'(13). About Calandion, Theodoros Anagnostes wrote:
After Peter had made the addition `the crucified' to the Trishagion, Calandion observed that many were scandalized; therefore he put before `the crucified for us' the words `Christos Basileus'. But as soon as Peter returned to the See, the latter suppressed the words `Christos Basileus'.(14)
Calandion however accepted the Emperor Leontios, of the party of Illus, who made his entrance in Antioch on 27 July 484. This provoked the third return of Peter the Fuller to the See of Antioch from 485 till his death in 488. Of this last period, Theodore Anagnostes wrote:
Peter the Fuller entered Antioch and committed several injuries. He anathematized the Synod, removed bishops with incessant substitutions and illegal ordinations and many similar things.(15)
To come back to the See of Antioch, Peter had naturally to agree with the Henotikon, whose wording avoided any discussion about Chalcedon. Otherwise he could never have obtained a pardon from Zeno for having acquired his second episcopate by the grace of Basiliskos. During the interval of his second exile, Peter the Fuller had been sent to Pityounta, (today Pitsounda in Abkhasia). But Theodore adds that he escaped the attention of his guardians, and went into the protection of Theodoros Euchaites.(16) The tomb of Theodoros Euchaites lies in Amasea, the Metropolis of Neocesarea. It has scarcely been noticed by historians that Nil Doxopatres in his description of the ecclesiastical hierarchy of Byzantium writes that the church of the Georgians is dependent upon Amasea. In the Georgian Chronicles, Peter as guardian of the tomb of Gregory Thaumaturgos in Neocesarea, plays a very important role in the ecclesiastical politics of king Vakhtang Gorgasali, just in that period. Even the new variant of the Passion of Theodoros the Oriental has to be understood in this context.(17)
The memory of Peter the Fuller was damned by seven apocryphal letters, which must have been published around 511/512 or 519, when a new episode began for the addition to the Trishagion, but now in Constantinople itself, with the wording `One of the Trinity has been crucified'(18). However this is another story which does not belong to our subject. Of the writings of Peter the Fuller, we possess his Synodica to the See of Alexandria, addressed to Peter Mongos. This letter has been preserved by the History of Zacharias.(19) There indeed, Peter the Fuller tells his brother Peter Mongos of Alexandria that he accepts the Henotikon of Zeno for the peace of the church. When one looks at the long letter of Peter of Alexandria, which is still extant in the History of Evagrius, one wonders if this was a pro-chalcedonian profession. It is quite clear that Peter Mongos accepted Chalcedon only in the sense that this Council did not declare more items on the faith than the previous councils already had.(20) One must observe that Theodore Anagnostes, the most informed source for that period, registered the agreement of Peter the Fuller with the Henotikon as an attack against Chalcedon. This can be understood from the way Peter the Fuller eliminated the opposing chalcedonian Bishops. His position seems to have been essentially opportunistic. Certainly Peter the Fuller wrote more than the Synodicals to his colleague of Alexandria. A letter of Peter is quoted by the Armenians,(21) and much of its content must have been preserved in several Armenian anti-chalcedonian writings, without quoting him explicitly, for the Xacecar remained one of the central points of their theological controversy until the late Middle Ages. On the other side, the Georgians preserved a series of pamphlets where the bishop Mikael, who was removed by king Vakhtang, is directly opposed to Peter the Fuller.(22) This literature is the Georgian pendant to the forged letters around 518, when the Georgians soon agreed with the Byzantine politics and accordingly had to rewrite their historical records.
The Memra on the Parrot is an astonishingly vivid testimony to the most agitated period of the controversy in Antioch. It could have been written in 482-85 when Calandion proposed to put the words Christos Basileus at the head of the addition, for something on that topic explicitly appears in the Memra. It certainly might have been written after the longer official period of Peter the Fuller in 475-76, and after the ecclesiastical rule of the two Stephens, one of them having been thrown into the Orontes; that is between 477 and 482. But as we shall see, one cannot exclude the beginning of the third episcopate of Peter the Fuller in 485. We first have to get in mind the general structure of the long poem of Isaac.
The memra is written with all the charm and qualities of the best old Syriac religious poetry. Marking the numbering of the verses by Bickell and the pages of Bedjan, we first give a general description of its main divisions.
I. Invocation addressed to the Cross 1-149 Be 737-741, 4.
II. Occasion and historical context when the bird sang 150-301 Be 741,5-744,20.
III. The implications of the Hagios Hagios 302-453 Be 744,21-748,11.
IV. The joy and praise evoked in the poet's soul 454-685 Be 748,12-754,2.
V. The nature of the singing bird 686-901 Be 754,3-758,22.
VI. Malediction on those who do not accept the Addition and negative moral injunctions to the soul 902-1189 Be 759,1-756,16.
VII. Positive moral injunctions to the soul 1190-1273 Be 765,17 767,17
VIII. The faith of the Fathers as a model 1274-1857 Be 767,18-781.17.
IX. Exhortation to personal transformation 1858-1017 Be 781,18-785,11.
X. The felicity of the Cross obtained by the reader 2018-2139 Be 758,12-788,12.
It has to be observed that the versified form of the Memra made explicit quotations of the scripture very awkward. However, from the very beginning, the Epistle to the Hebrews serves as a guide throughout the poem. The matter of the poem relies on Heb. 12: 2; `Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the origin and the crown of the faith, who, to win his prize of blessedness, endured the Cross and made light of his shame sitting on the right of God on the throne'. The initial invocation to the Cross contains more than one symbolism at a time. In a very Syriac manner, Isaac prays to the Cross to become his pen and his redactor, and praises the Cross not only for its central position in the history of redemption, but also because of the Voice which was heard on the Cross: this is of course Heb. 5: 7: `With heavy crying and tears he offered prayer and entreaty to God who could save him from death', this cry being mentioned by Matt 26: 46 when Christ died on the Cross. So the Cross and the Voice are brought together to become the pen and the author of the poem.
But at the same time, Isaac certainly knew the verses of Ephrem on Faith 18:2
A bird grows up in three stages, from womb to egg, then to the nest where it sings; and once it is fully grown it flies in the air, opening its wings in the symbol of the Cross(23)
So the writer and the pen have to be the bird who sang the Trishagion (7-18).
I shall record the great wonder that Your sign has awakened in the creatures;
Be for me the writer so that I may understand through the great writing of Your wisdom:
Here the treasures are concealed the veiled things which cannot be explored.
O quick writer, make my tongue become a pen fit for your utterances
And by it seal according to Your knowledge the exalted richness of Your Cross!
Your Cross is a speaking pen by which the mute have spoken!
In these opening verses, one can already appreciate how Isaac recognizes through the Parrot the Cross itself, and through its song the object of his theme, the cry on the Cross. Consequently, the address develops a series of invocations to the Voice and the Cross. The latter becomes the harp or the Iyre under the fingers of God who is himself qnoma (38) and meltha (90):
Thy living qnoma (Being) spoke by it [the Cross] a vivid and terrific cry
To which the mute creatures responded by praising, magnifying and honouring.
Thy vivid meltha (Word) psalmed by it and drove away the spirit who agitates
A world liking its diseases that the Evil One had introduced with the idols.
The first series of invocations celebrates the peace made between earth and heaven according to Eph. 2: 16-17; the second gives a litany of the Cross as fire, source, bridge, stove, tree, wall, tower, ladder, wing, door, and key. On the topic of fire, there is another short programmatic utterance: (98-103)
Thy Cross is flaming fire probing and purifying the minds
Judging the projects of the heart and the secret movements of the inward parts. By it are the senses excited in an open way and in a secret one.
For it gives sensibility and with astonishment (the heart) will feel everything by it.
Through a glimpse at Heb. 4: 11, Isaac announces here the spiritual perception which is the aim of his poem. The reader will be captured by the sense of the Cross. This occurs through a quest of the senses, where the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, and the touch are involved. They have to become spiritual. In part IV (454-510) the approach clearly attains to the spiritual understanding through eating and drinking, looking, hearing, and smelling in the coronation of the Bridechamber. `Thy cross is the beautiful bridge that leads to the living wedding-room'(110).
On this way Faith is necessary, and the longest section VIII (1274-1857) is entirely devoted to the great believers of the Old Testament, as a sort of paraphrase of Hebrews chapter eleven. Here, between the lines dealing with Moses and Isaiah, two folios of the manuscript have disappeared, where Elijah, Elisha, and David must have played a central role. The catena of the father, in its preserved form, contains more than seventy testimonies, some of them being developed at length, for example that for Shamunith and her seven sons.
The quest for the Cross evidently includes an important role ascribed to the Eucharist. But before analysing that role, I wish to look at the circumstances which provoked the poem. These are recounted in sections II and V: in section II, Isaac gives more than one glimpse of the events. If a clue to the date is detectable in the poem, it will be in that section. In section V, Isaac expresses his own position regarding the parrot, his stepping stone to heavenly praise. Both sections belong to the few not only mystical, but also realistic, descriptive passages by the poet.
Section II does not give the name of any protagonist. It only points clearly to the heavily blood-stained troubles which overwhelmed Antioch in his time with such intensity that the song of the parrot is not a casual event but a sign of God who speaks not only by the sacred Scriptures but also through his creation. I quote here some of the most important verses
(157) The miracle was [directed] against this time for it had come to punish its evils
(175) I looked at the time [to see] what it was like and at the voice [to see] its nature
(177) I wondered at the voice and the time for both were in conflict one against the other.
(187) It was a sign and no accident, so that by it the insolent men should be rebuked.
(189) People who had dared to divide the truth of the crucifixion.
(195) After the terror which occurred for this reason in the middle of the town
(197) There occurred that vision and that audition of the bird
(199) When the dispute still was going on as a sword erected between the parties.
(203) When an idol was put in its middle which was not from the [divine] Being,
(205) But a man whom the error had forged and made of a son of God
(207) When schism thought to establish two natures and two sons
(209) And to make a quaternity in the mystery of the Trinity.
The accusations clearly are very old, and can be found on both sides in the time of the Apollinarists at the end of the fourth century. Let us hear further how Isaac looks at the work of the devil who spreads heresy in the orthodox church (222-65).
When Satan the disturber according to his habits came up as valiant,
And through the parties drew the sword to destroy the church by his hate.
When the bad potentate stood up to wash the church with blood
And made his sabre drunk with the parties as his scimitar licked the blood.
When the sword of contention was imposed and thirsted for the blood of the saints
And Satan became its servant through the wicked and the arrogant
And the scimitar was drawn by him and it devoured the flesh of the righteous ones
And it destroyed the bodies which were fed by the body and blood of the Lord.
When the wicked bow was bent and provided with an arrow of deceit
And a false hand aimed to wound the heart of the righteous ones
When the persecutor openly stood up in another manifestation
To enter with the mask of truthfulness and to put the crime in the centre.
When Satan stretched out to corrupt the solidity of the Cross
And introduced and put as truth one confession in the place of the other,
And claimed through technical terms about the Cross of God
That it had to be confessed as the Cross of a man instead of that of God.
When he sought to introduce the death and the passion of a man
Instead of the passion and death by which God delivered
When Satan stretched out to make a new God--
This one whom the Simonians invented and added to the Only begotten Son--
They called him dwelling-place, and named him temple and nature
And they expanded with two natures to establish two adorations.
One can hardly read those lines without thinking that the doctrine attacked is that of Chalcedon, which has been completely identified with Nestorianism. One should note that the name of the Simonians is directly borrowed from the Greeks. As Bickell already pointed out, this was the name applied to the Nestorians by Theodosius II.(24) The new introduced man, who has to be adored like the other, is regarded as an idol, made by the hands of mankind. Let us now consider the last lines of chapter II, 289-300.
When the command was roaring that the unique chief had favoured
And other chiefs with him that this idol was to be honoured,
When he used threats against those who refused to honour it
And those who were scandalized and shocked he furiously sent them to death;
When Satan set in the centre that concealed idol,
Then started that bird to sing when the riot still occurred.
Here arises a question: the command alluded to in verse 289 could be the withdrawal of the Qui crucifixus es pro nobis, or perhaps its mixing with the words Christos Basileus, when Calandion added it to the addition. However, it seems to me to be difficult to admit that the idol-theory could have been expressed only with Calandion. Something of Christos Basileus had to appear in the poem. Who is the unique head who gave the command to withdraw? Was he Zeno, Stephanus II, or one of the other chiefs? We could perhaps find an allusion to Peter the Fuller himself in 485. He could be the unique chief, who at the very beginning introduced the Addition by a command. In this case, the command would not be the withdrawal, but the introduction of the Addition by the zeal of the unique head. The roaring command fits the nickname of Peter the Fuller, who is regularly named the Wolf by the Armenians, and allusions to that attribute appear also in the Georgian pamphlets. Then in 485, by accepting the Henoticon, he gave to the Addition a quite different sense, having introduced the duplicity that Isaac denounces. But in this case, the confession of the Parrot cannot be honoured as the source of confusion to the heretics, for he had to sing exactly what was required in 485 by Peter the Fuller. Therefore, the idol must be Christos Basileus, introduced sub specie bond by Satan the enemy of the truth. Consequently, the poem could date from 482.
Chapter V reflects the extraordinary impression made on the writer by the praying bird. It explains how the author was led to weave the crown of his poem (686-761). Then the author devotes some lines to an interesting explanation of the miracle of the singing bird, where his own position becomes clearer. He does not exclude the idea that the bird had been trained by a man. However, if one considers how difficult it is to teach a man, who is a rational being, how much more incredible will be the teaching of an animal without reason. Further, most parrots do not speak so distinctly as the true praising parrot of Antioch. In any case, the strong impression made on the author is in itself much more important, for it brings nature into accordance with the scripture. So Isaac can conclude (881-84):
Holy, Holy, God mighty and immortal
Who for us suffered the Cross! so sang its tongue with wondering.
The allusions to the Eucharist are all in the positive injunctions addressed to the believer. They are closely related to the mystery of the Cross, so chapter seven (1237-48):
For your life has been redeemed by the Cross you have to pay back God for the Cross;
Proclaim its truth openly till you have given back the debt.
You eat the sacrifice of his body you have to pay back the sacrifice of your body:
Proclaim its truth openly till you have repaid his repayments.
You drink the blood of his side you have a debt in the blood of your own self:
Speak on the faith till you are pierced by his lance.
Again just at the final exhortation to the reader to change his life, Isaac writes Chapter X (2027-34):
The bird has spoken of his salvation but did not eat his body;
You should confess his salvation for you eat his body and blood.
The bird sang of his holiness but did not taste his expiation;
You should confess his expiation for you were expiated by his expiation.
Now, looking at the Georgian pamphlets against Peter the Fuller, we see that one of them directly opposes Mikael, the orthodox bishop of Mtskheta to Peter the Fuller.(25) This occurred between 476 and 485. The stories comment upon the Addition to the Trishagion and present Mikael as refusing to obey Peter and killing him on the Mountain of Kangar. In the first story, the Eucharist plays a central role. Some blood of the Queen fell into the eucharistic chalice, and on that occasion Peter refused to consider the blood of the Virgin as pure. As a consequence, the Georgian pamphlets rank Peter as a Nestorian. If the verses of Isaac were written in 485, the accusation of having introduced a quaternity sounds like an accusation of Nestorianism against Peter the Fuller. This is not at all impossible. Isaac seems on the way to Julian of Halicarnassos whose theological views are very similar. The strongest traces of that theology will remain in Armenia for several centuries.
In any case, we are fortunate not to have lost the poem of Isaac, with the enthusiastic adoration of God on the cross, a beautiful pendant to the Anima Christi, the prayer which in the western Middle Ages was known equally as well as the Pater noster. (*) I am grateful to Dr Sebastian Brock for help with the English of the Syriac translations.
(1) P. Bedjan, Homiliae S. Isaaci Syri Antiocheni (Paris, 1903), vii. Quoted as Homiliae.
(2) G. Bickell, S. Isaaci Antiocheni doctoris Syrorum, Opera Omnia, t.1 (Giessen, 883), 84-175. Quoted as Opera. (3) P. Bedjan, Homiliae iv-v, where the Syriac text of Jacob is printed in the footnote.
(4) J. S. Assemani, Bibliotheca juris orientalis canonici et civilis, fiber quietus, pars tertia, (Rome, 1766) 348-589. This somewhat forgotten work is still very useful, but its dates have to be controlled by more recent publications. Quoted as Bibliotheca.
(5) J. M. Hanssens, Institutiones liturgicae de ritibus orientalibus, III, 2 (Rome, 1932), 108-51.
(6) V. Inglisian, Erek'srbean, in Handes Amsoreay, 79 (1965), colt 321-34, 449-58 and 80 (1966), colt 1-18, 257-76 and 417-438.
(7) G. C. Hansen, Theodoros Anagnostes. Kirchengeschichte, (Berlin, 1971), 109. Fagment 390. Quoted as Anagnostes.
(8) These stories are summed up by Assemani, Bibliotheca, pp. 362-64.
(9) P. van Deun, sancti Barnabae Lavdatio Avctore Alexandro Monacho, in Hagiographica Cypria, (Turnhout-Leuven, 1993) 108-13 (= Corpus Christianorum, Series graeca 26).
(10) G. C. Hansen, Anagnostes, fragment 392, p. 109.
(11) E. Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen zum acacianischen Schisma, (Munich, 1934), 178. Quoted as Schisma.
(12) G. C. Hansen, Anagnostes, Epit. 410, p. 114.
(13) E. Schwartz, Schisma, p. 193.
(14) G. C. Hansen, Anagnostes, Epit. 427, p. 118.
(15) G. C. Hansen, Anagnostes, Epit. 443, p. 124.
(16) G. C. Hansen, Anagnostes, Epit. 415, p. 115.
(17) F. Finck, Des Nilos Doxopatres [GREEK TEXT NOTREPRODUCIBLE IN ASCIII] armenisch und griechisch herausgegeben (Vagharshapat, 1902), 30, 19. Acta Sanctorum, Novembris, t. IV (Bruxelles, 1926) pp. 15-17. M. van Esbroeck, The Credo of Gregory the Wonderworker and its Influence throuh Three Centuries, in E. Livingstone, Studia Patristica, vol. XIX (Leuven, 1989), 263-66.
(18) E. Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen zum acacianischen Schisma (Munchen, 1934), pp. 287-300. J. S. Assemani, Bibliotheca, 408-15.
(19) Zacharia the Scholastic, Historia ecclesiastica, ed. E. W. Brooks (Louvain, 1919), 233-35 (= CSCO 83).
(20) J. Bidez and L. Parmentier, The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius (London, 1898) 115-16.
(21) A. Izmireants, Girk' [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCIII] (Tiflis, 1901) 126, in the Explanation of the Fourth Council by Verthanes K'ert'ogh.
(22) L. Melikset-Bek, Gruzinskij izvod skazanija o postje `Aradzavor', in Hristianskij Vostok, t. 5 (1916), 73-111.
(23) S. Brock, The Luminous Eye: The spiritual vision of Saint Ephrem the Syrian, Kalamazoo (Michigan, 1992) p.79.
(24) Bickell, Opera, p. 108, note.
(25) Cf. note 22. On this topic, I have a paper to be printed in Tbilissi under the title: `Vakhtang Gorgasali et l'eveque Mikael de Mtskhetha'.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Syriac poem on Peter the Fuller's Addition to the Trishagion|
|Author:||Van Esbroeck, Michel|
|Publication:||The Journal of Theological Studies|
|Date:||Oct 1, 1996|
|Previous Article:||Paul's protest that he does not lie in the light of his Cilician origin.|
|Next Article:||The structure and aims of the 'Visio Baronti.' (early medieval visionary literature)|