Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Rouwhorst Mystagogical Terminology in Liturgical Contexts

    Uploaded by

    Octavian Gordon
    18 views8 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    18 views8 pages

    Rouwhorst Mystagogical Terminology in Liturgical Contexts

    Uploaded by

    Octavian Gordon

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 8
    LATE ANTIQUE HisToRY AND RELIGION Goneral Editor Hagit Amiray (VU Amsterdam) Series Editors Paul van Gees (Tilburg, Bas tr Haar Romeny (VU Amsterdam), ‘Gavin Kelly (Edinburgh), James Carleton- Paget (Cambridge) Advisory Bard -Averil Cameron (Oxford), Evangelos Chrysos (Athens), Elizabeth A. Clark (Durham, NC), [Nina Garsoian (New York), Christoph Markschies (Berlin), Fergus Millar (Oxford), Lorenzo Perrone (Bologna) LAHR Volume 11 Late Antique History and Religion isa peer-reviewed series SEEING THROUGH THE EYES OF FAITH New Approaches to the Mystagogy of the Church Fathers edited by Paul van Geest PEETERS LEUVEN ~ PARIS ~ BRISTOL, CT 2016 2 PAUL VAN GREST projection, the existence of God - if not denied altogether ~ was inter. preted as something that ‘happens’ between human beings. In spite of, bbut atthe same time also thanks to the development of ideas concerning God and His existence, investigation of the manifold theologies deve: oped during the first centuries of Christianity and their counterparts in the many mystagogical approaches, remains valuable, Ths is true because the history of mankind he been determined juct ae much by formation processes in which, witha large variety of rhetorical, literary, catechetical and psychological methods, but also plastic techniques, efforts were made to make visible Him who is Invisible (ef. Hebr. 11, 27). It is fascinating to (be in a position to) study the efforts made by these mystagogues from the first centuries of Christianity to intensify, by means of perceptible reality, a kind of awareness in which it is nat excluded in advance that ‘there may bea reality that is invisible to the eye or unverifiable by reason. Post scriptum [As this book was being completed, one of the contributors, Fe, William Harmless, $1, suddenly passed away on October 13, 2014. He collapsed while he was out for his evening walk on Creighton University campus (Omaha, Nebraska). William Harms, who had been living at Creighton since 2005, was a professor of historical theology and patristic studies in the Department of Theology. He was 61 years old and had been 2 Jesuit for 36 years and a priest for 27 years. At the congress that forms the basis of this book, he again proved to be a real scholar, showing himself to be aan excellent and exciting guide, both academically and spiritually, for beginning as well as advanced scholars inthe field in which international research concerning St. Augustine takes place. His legacy is witnessed to by his abundant scholarly work. His active and thoughtful study and teaching and especially his engaging and enthusiastic personality will be sorely missed. R.LP Cuarrer Two MYSTAGOGICAL TERMINOLOGY IN LITURGICAL CONTEXTS Gerard Rouwnonst 1. Iwrropverton During the last few decades, the term ‘mystagogy’ has become increas ingly popular among theologians, especialy with liturgical scholars and practical theologians. It is mostly associated by them with the idea that various types of believers beginning believers, hesitant believers, advanced believers ~ are step by step being initiated into a mystery which involves a long and basically never-ending process of initiation. Understandably, this concept is very attractive to theologians who are confronted with the complex mixture of traditional and non-traditional religiosity, of Chris- 1a belief, agnosticism, unspecified religiosity or spirituality, all of which are characteristic of modern, Western society ‘Many liturgical scholars and theologians who advocate a mystagogical approach to catechesis, liturgy and other pastoral activities, show a par- ticular interest in the role which mystagogy ~ as they understand itplayed inearly Christianity, especially in the fourth and fifth centuries, the period in which large numbers of people with a non-Christian, pagan back- ground were initiated into Christianity and the Christian way of lf. Its remarkable that most of these scholars, while talking and writing about ‘mystagogy’ in relation to early Christianity, appear to associate the term 1, The recent practical theslogil interest nthe concept yetagogy hasbeen kn Alby the theca Kal Raber (ee especialy K. Rainy, Die grundlegenéen Temper. Sine fi den Sabai der Kirche in der ggenwitigen Stuston, in PX. Arnold (ed), Handbuch der Pastoaliolgiepratsche Theol rer Gegenwart, Band TP (Greig, 1968) pp 256-76, xp. pp 29-70). CL algo forte rle which the concept f| ‘nyetgoty plys to Rahner's theslogy ~ whlch has not boon systematically and fly ‘deeoped by self for tat mater: |Back, Apologies and the Eclipse of Mystery. atopy acorn o Kar Raber (Notre Dane-Lonon, 1980) and for ts enalsanee in modern pastoral theology: S. Knobloch and H. Haslinger (a) Mtaggicke Se Lng: einebberageschhtichaientetePostoral (Min, 1951) CE leo A. De Jong {Catapen, Mystaggte In werk Hoerenswording en gomeenschapvoraig geben in ‘hitlie nw (Zoctermee, 2009p. 49-68. um (GERARD ROUWHORST primarily with the initiation of adults as it took place in the fourth and fifth centuries and even moze specifically with the catechetical sermons that were held in the week after Easter for the so-called neophytes ~ who had been baptized during the Faster Vigil - and are commonly designated by the term’ mystagogical catecheses.? 1, prompted by ths interest in early Christian initiation rites and mys tagogical catecheses, we start to study the use of the word ‘mystagogy" and of terms that are closely connected with it (for instance pvé00; Hicmng: Hosttxés) in early Christian sources, we will soon make some unexpected and even perplexing discoveries. First, apart from the term uothptov itself, terms derived from the verb ys are quite rare in the texts that are called ‘maystagogical catecheses”. On the other hand, those verbs frequently occur outside of these specific texts in other contexts. Some of these texts have a connection with liturgical themes, but many do nat. ‘This observation may be understood as a challenge to examine more closely and study in detail what I would like to call the mystagogical word field which is formed by terms derived from the Greek verb yoéo as it appears in carly Christian writings. What do we know about the (pre (Christian) provenance and development ofthat verb and of words derived from it, and what was their primary meaning and connotation? And what ‘other words were often associated with it? Secondly, we are challenged to distinguish and to differentiate between the various early Christian contexts ~ liturgical or otherwise ~ in which the terms belonging to this semantic field played a role. Thirdly, it should be asked what precise and specific ‘meaning(s) these terms involve in each of these contexts, i might perhaps be objected that narrowing down the concept of mys- tagogy to the use of a specific Greek terminology derived from a Greek ‘word involves a linguistic reductionism which does not do justice to the centize range of connotations the concept has acquired in recent theological research, and to the broadening it has thereby undergone. To avoid any misunderstanding, there can be no question of refusing to theologians, philosophers and patristic scholars the right to reinterpret or to broaden the theological meanings of specific words and terms. This is what has 2. See in partcalar H. Riley Christian Initiation. A Comparative Sty ofthe Inter pretation of the Baptismal Litany ne MystagoicalWoins of Cr of erase, foe Ehrosovoms Theodor of Mopavestia and Ambrose of lan (Washington DC, 1970, E, Morea Aytaggy. A Talay af Liturgy inthe Partie Age (New York, 1989 HH. Hasingar Was MysagogePrakiech-theologhche Annsherung un einen sap siete egrila KablachHaslager, Mtoe Seog, Pp. 1-15... 20-24 5. See fora survey of the most important terms and an abundance of peeences © carly Cheatin sources: G. Lampe, pase Great Zeaton (Oxioed, 1968) ‘AL TERMINOLOGY IN LITURGICAL CONTEXYS 25 happened throughout the centuries and it would be ridiculous to object tot Stil, atleast in e volume devoted to a concept like mystagogy, it may be helpful to consider at some length the origins of such a key term and tostudy in more detail its development in the early Christian period from which modern theologians have ultimately borrowed it This article will consist of two parts will first try to demarcate more precisely the mystagogical word field. In the cecond part, I hope to clar ify the role mystagogical terminology has functionally played in one of. the contexts in which it appeared in early Christianity, namely the litur- gical one, which naturally includes the initiation of the adults but also other rites. 2. Own ‘Mystany’ aNp Two Semawric Finups To delimit the mystagogical workd and word field and to clarify the meaning the words may have, it is opportune first to make some observa tions about a term which inthis connection should be considered a key ‘word ~ yet which at the same time may easily give rise to alot ofconfu- sion because fits complexity - namely the word puotipov. What makes this word so complex is that it can appear in early Chyistian sources in at least two major semantic contexts ~ or to use a more fashionable, pilo- sophical terminology ~ in two different ‘discourses, which may or may not intertwine or partly overlap. To begin wit, the word ywotipiov may refer tothe mystery of save: tion history, the dispensation of God's plan throughout the course of history: ‘This ‘mystery’ has been revealed in Christ and in the Church, but it was already prefigured, foreshadowed in the events and persons described in the Old Testament; and it will be fully unfelded in the future kingdom of God. Thus the Church and it rituals are positioned between the incarnation and the eschatological kingdom. The frst Christian writer in which we find « more or less fully elaborated version of this concept s Melto of Sardis, the author ofthe oldest Passover homily. Its teresting to note that it hasan exact counterpart inthe Syriac ‘020 ‘raza’ which has the same connotations as the word ostiipiov when ‘understood in this sense. Furthermore, also the early Christian use of 4, Melito of Saudis, On Poscha and fgets (ed. and tans. S. Hall, Oxford, 1973) forthe us of he term ‘mysterio’ Pinal 1 mstero della pasqua in Melamed Sind Padova 1978) 5. C.K. Murray, “Ihe Theory of Symbolism in St. Ephrem’s Theology’, Parle de Orient VICVIt. Malongesofrts eu RP Fronoie Graf). (1975-1979 pp 1-2 26 ‘cunaRD ROUWHORST the Latin words ‘mysterium’ and ‘secramentum’ ~ the complex origin of ‘which has for long been a matter of academic debates ~ has been affected by this specifically biblical and Christian understanding of the term vattipiov’ The concept of ‘mystery’ interpreted in this way, and con- nected with these specific connotations, became a very common theme in patristic literature, fom Justin and Irenaeus onwards, both in Greek,” Sprig eid Latin® weitings, The tec is oftea synonymous with and may alternate with words like tioc/typus and o0,Rotov, symbolum and related terms. It may be used both forthe mysteries contained in the Old ‘Testament ~ prefiguring Christ - but also for the liturgical rituals ofthe Church (baptism; Eucharist) which contain symbols and images referring to the different phases ofthe history of salvation, “The most characteristic feature of the second semantic field I want to distinguish is that itis explicitly connected with the concept of ‘initia tion. Used in this context, the word uetiiptov has a specific connotation which is not entirely lacking when itis part of the first semantic feld, but figures there much less prominently, namely that of secrecy and concealment. To get knowledge of the mystery (or the mysteries) and to arrive at a deeper understanding of them one has to be initiated in the secrets they entail, This initiation is a gradual process, Equally impor- tantly, this concept of mystery presupposes the existence of a social dif ferentiation between the initiated and the non-initiated and, moreover, a differentiation between various degrees of initiation. Some people will have advanced further in the initiation process than others. There is no doubt that this concept of initiation has its original roots in the Greek cults of mystery, but it has been further elaborated and reinterpreted in Platonic and Neo-Platonie philosophy, where the whole concept and its semantic feld were applied to the initiation into philosophical and reli- gious truths’ An interesting example of this reinterpretation is to be 6. CEC. Mohemans,‘Saramentum dans es lus ancens texts cheng nC. Mabe ann, Blades surf latn des tens (Rome, 961), pp 238-49, Ths ofcourse, does ‘ot man thatthe connotation of initiation’ would have been completely absent nthe [ew Testament use ofthe word oop and inthe Latin sacrarmentur’ ( .Henscls, Storamentum en sit sponiemen nde mystagngschekatecesen van Aerasus (Di ‘eration, Universi of Utrecht, 1995, pp. 3-38. Stl. sole doesnot eem to have Been ‘ery prominente one 1 Go tampe, A patric Greck Lesieon, pp 481-95 entry word wtp). 5. CEA Bee Diioneie ot rama der ecu tens (Ira, 195411963), pp. 347-48 (enry word: myateriam) and pp. 729-3 erry word: saccamentun). ‘9, CEH. Dorn hjsteren (in Kal und Religion) wed Phesophie tp. Vermasren, DieorintalchenReligonen im Rovmerrich (es pelipinaires ax elgonseientakes| Aang Fempite romain 95; Leder, 1981p. 341-62, C. Ried, Mysieretorminaagle MYSTAGOGICAL TERMINOLOGY IN LITURGICAL CONTEXTS 27 found in the works of Philo of Alexandria." Typical of this understand- ing of the term ‘mystery is also the fact that it may give rise to the use of a wide range of terms and words that originally had a cultic connota: tion, but underwent 2 philosophical or mysteriosophical reinterpretation. Some of them are derived from the same root as pvoviipiov (jvéws LuOnorg: phowng: woottKds) and it isin this context ~ and only in this context ~ thet the words wwotyoryia and jwexayeayée appear. Some cother terms are not derived from the same root, but are frequently used in this context. Examples are for instance then} (cite of initiation), SaSovyia (torch-carrying: illumination) ‘Obviously, the distinction between the two concepts of mystery i not ‘watertight and there can be overlap between them. Thus, the initiation ‘may relate to the mysteries of the history of salvation. This is not, hove- ever, necessarily the case. One may also be initiated into other mysteries, other hidden realities, for instance into philosophical truths or divine mysteries which are not immediately related to the history of salva- tion, into teachings about the incarnation or the Trinity. On the other hhand, in discourses about the history of salvation, the whole concept of initiation and the distinction between initiated and non-initiated is often lacking. ‘With regard to the rest ofthis article, in which I will deal with the use of mystagogical terminology in liturgical settings, itis essential to be aware ofthe fact that Iwill take the word ‘mystery’ in the second, that is the strictly mystagogical and cultc-philosophical sense 3. New Licht ow Ti RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE Mystuny CULTS xp EARLY CHRISTIAN LiTuRGY By addressing the role played by the mystagogical and cultie-philo- sophical concept of mystery in early Cheistian liturgy, I may give the impression of addressing old, antiquated issues which have already been dealt with extensively by scholars affliated with the ‘religions- _geschichtlche Schule" or by Odo Casel who developed the idea of the bei Pato, Pilon und Klemens vor Alxandrien, (Unterschungen rr aaiken Literatur und Geschichte 26; Retin New York, 1987) 10. Se especially Rede Mysteienterminologs, pp 70-115. 1 See for natance =o jt mention the tle of some ofthe most inlet works = I. Reitaasti, Di helletchen Mostrcmreliponen nach tren Grandgdanen und Morgen pg, Dama 197 A, Ly a pte pint ere tien (arin 1930) 28 GERARD ROUWHORST “Mysteriengegenwart™, Indeed, it now is generally agreed that the approaches and methods ofthe religionsgeschichiliche Schule and Casel’s Views on the relationship between early Christian liturgy and the cuts of mysteries have proven to be problematic in many respects and they have been abandoned by most scholars ~ and with good reason." One of the ‘major problems with these approaches was that they were too much con- cetued with the search for origins. they were trying to trace back the origins of Christian rituals to the mystery cults. This approach has proven, to be a blind alley and there is now hardly any scholar to be found who would claim that early Christian rituals like baptism or the Eucharist have their historical origins in the cult of Eleuss, Isis or in any other of the cults which are often considered mystery cults, All this does not alter the fact that the cultic philosophical and mys- tagogical concept of mystery and its (possible) impact upon early Chris tianity, especially early Christian liturgy, remains a fascinating and important issue. The vocabulary which was ultimately derived from the mystery culls ~ mediated by Greek philosophy or otherwise - has unde- niably been used by various Christian authors to describe early Christian rituals, It may be asked why they did so. What made this vocabulary so attractive to them? While trying to answer that question, we should not ‘overlook the social realities that might possibly be reflected in the use of this vocabulary, something that has received lite atteation in publica- tions dealing with this issue. As we have said, the concept of initiation ‘and mystagogy presupposes that a distinction is to be made between the initiated and the uninitiated. If this is the case, it may help us to gain insight in the relations between the various categories of believers that ‘were participating in the liturgy. Who were supposed to be the initiated? Who were not? How were the boundaries between the various categories of participants drawn? If we want to consider the use of the concepts of mystery and mysta {gogy in its historical context, tis implies that we cannot talkin a gener- alizing way about early Christianity. On the contrary, we ought to dif- {erentiate between various traditions and especialy also between periods. 12, See especially his book Das crite Kutyeteriom (Regensburg 1932: 1960, ffir Casts concept ofthe Myserengegenwart alo. Schl heoage als Sere -mantentcooge. De Myteretheoloie Odo Cals (Tbinger Thelopice Studien 1 ‘Maina, 1982) esp. pp. 21-301 1. Se, espera with raed to the views of Casl and his use of erly Chriian oores, the eric voiced Wyk, Pei, Der ehrsekeGlaube wid de alate ‘Wel, 2 Bande (Leip, 1935): Kem, "Mysterio va Paulus is Origenes Zstchf fa [cthaliacheThelogie 6 (1937), p. 391-425, G, Fata, Der Beg des Myers Bel Johannes Chyertames (Thcopsnei 9; Bona, 1953), ep. 15-2 [MUSTAGOGICAL TERMINOLOGY IN LITURGICAL CONTEXTS 29 More in particular, we should distinguish between, on the one hand, the first three centuries when Christians constituted a minority in Greco- Roman society and, on the other hand, the petiod after the conversion of Constantine when the position of Christians in that society ~ as well as the social steuctures of Christian communities ~ drastically changed. ‘One cannot but expect beforehand that this change had implications for the notions of mystagogy and initiation 34, The First Three Centuries We can be brief about the use of the cultic-philasophical vocabulary in the first three centuries: it appears only seldom in sources derived from this period and even more rarely in deseriptions and interpretations of the Christian lituegy.* (One af the very few authors of this period who make use of mystago- gical terminology is Irenaeus. He does so while describing the ritual practices of the Marcosians, the followers of the Valentinian Gnostic, ‘Mare the magician.” Tt may, however, be asked whether Irenaeus bot owed this mystagogical vocabulary fom the Marcosians themselves or ‘whether he employs it to ridicule their rituals. It may be noted in this connection that Gnostic writings make very frequent mention of hidden ‘mysteries and secrets which are only revealed to select groups of Gnos- tics, but, somewhat surprisingly, apart from the term “mystery” itself ‘there are no clear traces to be found in the extensive Gnostic literature of ‘the use of mystagogical vocabulary. Regarding others, there is only one author from this period who is known to have applied mystagogical ter sinology to describe Christian rituals (in a positive way) and that is (Clement of Alexandria. Clement makes abundant use ofthis terminol- ‘ogy, and sometimes applies it to Christian liturgical forms, such as prayers, hymns, psalms, or (communal) readings of scripture”. Even 50, his primary focus is not on those liturgical forms as such, but on the 14 The situation might be diferent with Gnostic souccer. Er ft there it ofen question in Gnotc writings of mysteriet ehich are only eevealed oor understood by Gnostic Christians, However, typllymystagogia!” terminology is only seldom oF ‘ever ec beter in general nor specially im relation to itegy or ries That ‘nh I shal ot deal wth this qoeston more extensively 15. Cf Irenaeos,Advereushaerese 12, [there areas many mystagoguse af this doctrine ae there are redemptions Se alo, 21,3 they perform 2 mysagagy with vo ‘tions ver the nite”. CE lso Essen, Church Hitory IV 82 16 CE the very helpful and indormatve tematic index of Ue Feach dion pub lhe by joP Mahé and BH, Polir in he Biblonhoque dea Pine Beis gostgues Paris 2007) p. 1750-1823. 1, See expecily Clement of Alexandria, Prorepticu 120, 1-2. 30 GERARD ROUWHORST initiation of the ‘gnostic,’ the chief end of which is to obtain divine knowledge and to arrive at the contemplation of divine mysteries" The fact that the cultic-philosophical vocabulary is used only very rarely to describe Christian liturgical celebrations in the fist three cen: turies of Christianity is interesting from more than one point of view. First, it isnot necessary to point out that this fact clearly demonstrates ‘hat the roots of the earliest Christiaa rituals ~ such as the Euchacist aad baptism - must not be sought in the mystery cults, which the Christians clearly rejected, Moreover, it may also tll us something about the ehar- acter of the early Christian liturgy, Liturgical celebrations were not rogarded as initiations into hidden mysteries, It might be that outsiders saw them as secret and mysterious, bu itcan be no coincidence that ~ in his First Apology (ch. 65~67) ~ Justin Martyr did his best to explain as ‘exactly as possible to the Roman emperor (and to other non-Christians) ‘what happened during the meetings of the Christians. This of course raises the question as to how non-Christians were prepared for baptism and how they were introduced to the Christian communities. Obviously, 4 distinction must have been made between baptized Christians and ‘candidate-Christians, but there is no evidence that these groups were ‘qualified in terms of initiated and noo-initiated. 3.2, The Fourth ard Fifth Centuries From the fourth century onwards, a remarkable increase is visible in the use of vocabulary connected with the culti-philosophical concept of ‘mystery. A brief consultation of Lampe’s Greek Patristic Lexicon sutices to make this clear. Entries for terms like in, piqors, pom, ponds, muatay@yia and joovay@yéc, as well as related words like teen}, con: tain a great number of references to rich source material that would deserve a systematic in-depth study. Ihave not yet had the opportunity to study all the evidence available exhaustively. But while checking the references that related to liturgical issues and while reading the mysta sgogical catecheses, I was struck by a number of facts that deserve to be noted a. Many of the passages referred to are not related to liturgical topics, but to other issues, such as the secrets of scripture, ofthe divine revelation, 18, See Redes, Mystercnerminoage, pp. 16-61; Jley. “The Mystical Choro ofthe Tuts liturgy and Mystery in Clement of Meeandi in B. Groen, Hawkes Teepes and S. Alexopoulos, Inguis ato Easter Christian Worship, Sled Papers of te Second ternational Congreso he Society of Ortetal tury Rome, 17-21 Seem ber 200 (Eastera Chistian Sus 12; Lewen, 2012) pp 39-46. MYSTAGOGICAL TERMINOLOGY IN LITURGICAL CONTEXTS 31 ofthe incaenation, Traces and echoes ofthe platonic and neo-platonic appropriation and reinterpretation of mystery-teminology can be caily secognized here, It ean be no coincidence that the majority ~ by far = of| hae passages which Lampe refers to have been written by Alexandrian authors (Cyril of Alexandria) or by the Cappadocian fathers who are ‘anown to have been influenced by (Neo)-Platonie philosophy. '. Contrary to what one might perhaps expect, the culie-philosophic xrystery voesbulary rarely appears in the mystagogical catechess. For ance, it plays a very subordinate role in the mystagogical catecheses ascribed to Cyril offerusalem. Mos strikingly, terms ike Taystagogy’ and especially 'mystagogcalcatechess are mainly found in the ites ofthese cexts™ ~ which were added later by the copyists of the manuscripts ~ and only very rarely in the body of the texts themselves The sole author of liturgical eatecheses ~ intended for the instruction of candidates for baptism or for neophytes who had aleady been baptized ~ who proves to have haa special predilection forthe cultic-philosophical terminology is ha Chrysostom. This usage, by the wa, is not only attested by bis bap- ismalcatecheses, but also by other writings which he authored. ‘Why does John Chrysostom make such ample use ofthe cultie-pilo sophical concepts of mystery and mystagogy while dealing with ituegical issues To answer this question it willbe necessary to study more precisely the way John Chrysostom uses this terminology, thats, the specific mean- ings that he gives to certain terms. Moreover, it will be important to take into consideration the general thrust of his liturgical theology and the major concerns underlying this theology. In connection with this T want 10 point tothe following remarkable facts 2), A remarkable diference in connotation isin evidence between the ord puorptov (ased in the singular or inthe plural) on the one hand nd other terms derivd from the verb 0, especially wworarayia and 18, Editon and Freach ransation, se Cyl of Jerusalom, Catches mystagopigus le A. Pidagoel and Paris SC 126 Pas, 196, 2. Cel of frusolem, Cavechtss mysagoyques, ed. Pddagnal-Pals, pp. 82,104, 20,134 and 14, Se this elton fo the variants foun in the manent 21. Apart rom the les the woed puowayoya is only found in he conclusion ofthe frst (1 Cyn of fecusalem, Cutchsesmytagoiques ed. Pago: acs p. 102) and inthe introdacton of the second homuly (ll, Cy of Jerusalem, Catches mystgo ‘gues. Pédagne- Pais, p. 108, The term poovapwyoappeasin Homa V2 2. CL inthisconaection Ph. de Roten aprtme et myst Enquéte su tiation

    You might also like