Argyriou, Asterios, “Weather”, honorary volume to the colleague Professor Damiano Ath. Doiko, Thessaloniki 1995, pp. 11-24
Translated From Greek to English (May 14, 2023, Jonathan Photius)
Codex No. 626 of the Panteleimon Monastery of Mount Athos, written in 1872 by the Monk Euthymios of Xiropotaminos (1) and consisting of 94 large format pages, contains a strange, but very interesting text. Its title is as follows:
“Interpretation according to agreement of the Old and New Scriptures concerning the coming of the future and the end of this age and the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I have interpreted it for the benefit of the Orthodox people of God and all humanity, if you repent.
I addressed myself and dedicated myself to the faithful and orthodox king, Zerubbabel, from the tribe of Judah, the Emperor and protector of Philadelphia, the Monarch P.R.A.P. on the 1st of November, in Christianoupolis.”
The date of writing of the Interpretation (1817) is confirmed several times by the text itself. On the contrary, the place of its writing, Christianoupolis, is a conventional name behind which the holy Mount is hidden. The same is true of Philadelphia which symbolizes the Church and the Empire of Russia. As for Zorovabel, the faithful and orthodox king, he is of course the Tsar of the Pasos of Russia Alexander I Pavlovich (the Monarch P.R.A.P.), whom God had destined for the messianic work of liberating the Greeks.
The content of this strange text, the interpretation of historical events and the author’s attitude towards the international situation of the time allow us to identify the name of the “ignorant orthodox eastern unworthy Christian” with the name of Theodoret of Ioannina or Theodoritos Athanasios, the author of Interpretation of Revelation (2), published in Leipzig in 1800. This identification is of particular interest, because it allows us to follow the ideological “belief” of Theodoret for a whole twenty-five years (1792-1817). And this is what we intend to do with this short article, focusing our attention on the attitude of the Athonite hieromonk towards Russia and France, always in relation to his vision of the liberation of the Greeks (3).
Theodoret was born in Ioannina around 1740 and died in Prussia in 1823. A student of Cyril of Agrafiotis in his native country, Theodoret was mainly a self-taught scholar monk, with special interests in History and the fortunes of Orthodoxy and Hellenism. His name is connected to the most important intellectual movements of the last decades of the Turkish rule, the Greek Enlightenment movement and the Kollyvada movement, as well as the hermeneutical movement (4), in which he took an active part and where he often played a primary role.
He must have arrived at Mount Oros after 1754, i.e. after the start of “the quarrel of the collives”. In 1776, he was part of the Agiorite delegation at the Constantinople Council which condemned the ideas of the Kollyvadas. Then Theodoret emerges as a fierce opponent of the Kollyvades, a leader of the holy anti-Kollyvades. From 1802 to around 1812, he will serve as abbot of the Monastery of Esfigmenou, an abbotship that had been prophesied by Saint Kosmas of Aitolos. However, the Monastery prospered especially during this period. Theodoret lived outside Mount Oros from 1790 to 1801 and from 1817 until his death.
In 1800 Georgios Zaviras met Theodoret in Leipzig where he had gone for the edition of the Interpretation, and where he had also taken over the editing of the Pidalion of Nicodemus the Saint. From Xavira we therefore know that Theodoret was called Athanasius and that he is the author of the Interpretation of the Apocalypse which was published anonymously in Leipzig that year (5).
During the time when Theodoret was writing his Commentary (1793-1800), he was in close correspondence with various important church figures, Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite and his company, Dorotheos Voulismas, Athanasios Pario, Nikiforos Theotokis and others, to whose judgment he submits the first three variations of his work. He addressed the interrelated Interpretation to the tsar of Russia who asked him to submit it to the judgment of wise and holy men as well as to the approval of the Church. After any corrections, the tsar had to undertake the publication of the work and its distribution to all the Orthodox hierarchs.
During his stay in Thrace (1790-1793), Bucharest (1793-1795), Iași (1795-1798) and Leipzig (1799-1801), Theodoret had the opportunity to meet people and ideas of the Greek Enlightenment. However, great was the disappointment of the self-taught Athonite hieromonk, when he found that the most famous Greek scholars of his time were atheists, followers of Voltaire, that immoral and atheistic French philosopher. A competitive and argumentative spirit, Theodoret then decided to fight the foreign atheism. Thus he will devote the eight years 1792-1799 to the writing of the four variations of his Commentary, the last form of which consists of 412 large format typed pages. The main purpose of the work is to give the orthodox answer to the attacks against religion by the followers of Voltaire. But the Church forbade the circulation of the Commentary within the borders of the Ottoman Empire, because it feared that its content would provoke violent reactions on the part of the Turks.
Indeed, the main point on which Theodoret disagreed with the scholars of his time concerned the claims of the latter that the Holy Bible did not refer to the state of Orthodoxy of their time and that it did not foresee the liberation of the Orthodox peoples from the Turkish yoke. Following a comparative method unknown to his contemporary Greek scholars, Theodoret engages in a long-term study of the Holy Bible, a study which is illuminated by the “outcome of things” and which results in the conception and formulation of a new understanding of History (6). From a philosophical point of view, Theodoret’s idea of History is a universal circular concept; however, from the point of view of the national consciousness of the Greeks, it is a purely Greek-centric and orthodox-centric view of things.
Theodoret’s belief that the liberation of the Orthodox “is near” is based on his circular conception of History: The reign of Orthodoxy had lasted a thousand years, from the foundation of the Church until the reign of the Antichrist. But the Antichrist is not a specific person but the System of Evil that dominates the world in two forms, seemingly different; in the form of Islam and in the form of the Papacy. The two empires of the Antichrist are to rule the world for a thousand years as well. After the end of this second millennium will come the complete destruction of the two forces of evil and the re-establishment of the Orthodox Eastern Empire.
Indeed, in the Epistle that Christ addresses to the sixth Church (Revelation 3, 7-13) there is talk of an “opened door” in heaven. The Church of Philadelphia is the Church of Russia. The renewed door means that Orthodoxy, persecuted from the southern regions of the Byzantine Empire, was able to find refuge in the northern parts, which it itself had Christianized. In this way, the Church of Philadelphia emerges as a “pillar in the temple of God” and its leader, the tsar, becomes “the key of David”, the most ardent defender of the Orthodox faith. The Church of Russia is chronologically the last of the patriarchal Churches of the East and occupies sixth place. Her door, left open, it closes the period of earthly history and inaugurates the period of heavenly History. In Theodoret’s cyclical system of history, the tsar occupies exactly the same position as Adam and Christ; he is the first man of the third creation, that is, of the period following the overthrow of the Antichrist’s power and the establishment of the messianic kingdom.
The Tsar of Russia is still the male child (Rev. 12, 1-6) that the Orthodox Eastern Church “brought forth tormented and tormented” by the persecutions of the Muslims and the Latins. In this way, the Church and Empire of Russia emerge as the heirs of the Church and Empire of Byzantium, while Moscow takes the place of the third Rome and the new Constantinople. After the fall of the Byzantine capital, the tsar succeeded the Byzantine king and continued his role as defender of the Christian faith. As the Greek king had once fought against Islam and the Papacy, which in the Apocalypse are symbolized by the Dragon (12, 3), with the angel of the Abyss (11, 11), and with the two Beasts (13, 1 and 11 ),kings of the earth (17, 2), with the Beast and the False Prophet (19, 20), with Babylon and the Harlot (17, 1-7). In other words, we see that Theodoret attributes to the emperor of Byzantium the eschatological and messianic visions of the first part of the book of Revelation and to the Tsar of Russia the visions contained in the second part of the Revelation. Because the tsar is those “kings from the east” (Rev. 16, 2), for whom the dried up waters of the Euphrates opened the way; that is, after their defeat, the Muslim peoples will leave free passage to the tsar, who will run to liberate Constantinople and resurrect the Byzantine Empire.
Theodoret wrote the last version of his Commentary after the Treaty of Iasi (1792) and after the death of Catherine II (1796). He wrote it at the time (1798-1799) when Russia and Turkey, worried about the expansionist plans of Napoleon Bonaparte, avoided any new conflict between them. After Napoleon’s victorious campaign against Italy (1797) and Egypt (1798), the other European Powers are forced to cooperate against the new danger (1798). The tsar even places the Russian Black Sea fleet at the sultan’s disposal. An Encyclical of the Patriarch asks the Greek people of the Ionian Islands, who hail Napoleon as their liberator, to remain loyal and grateful to the great sultan, the benefactor and defender of the orthodox faith against the apostate Napoleon, at the very moment when the Turks are slaughtering the civilian Christian populations of Palestine. In that same year (1798) the Patrical Teaching of Athanasios Parios and the Fraternal Teaching of Adamantios Korai were also published. One expresses the ideology of the conservative Phanariot and ecclesiastical circles and the other the liberal and pro-Western sentiments of the majority of Greek scholars (7). It is clear that the evolution of the international political situation and the ideological ferments within the Greek orthodoxy had disproved the predictions of Theodoret and had collided with his schemes regarding the course of history. We observe e.g. that our author makes no reference to the previous Russo-Turkish wars,
However, there is a passage where Theodoret’s misgivings are more clearly manifested. Indeed, who are the “three unclean spirits” that came out as frogs “out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet” (16, 13)? When and how will they disappear? What comes after this? The author wonders. And he answers: The Dragon symbolizes the Papacy, the False Prophet indicates Islam and the Beast, who is in the middle, is the Antichrist, who unites in a single system the two other forces of evil. Accordingly, the three unclean spirits are malevolent powers, projecting from the lands where Islam and the Papacy predominate. “The system of unclean frogs has appeared; the kings are all divided and ready for war.
The preparation for war can only be the alliance of 1798. Of course, Theodoret avoids naming the frogs. However, it is not at all difficult to penetrate his thought: The unclean frogs symbolize first of all the atheism and the liberating spirit of the time, which, born in the regions where the Latin heresy dominated, very quickly spread to the Ottoman Empire, especially between of Greek scholars. “The docile atheists… like other frogs… as God tamed their spirits, the wretched ones roared loudly with unworthy and stinking voices against the eternal truth of the divine Scriptures” (p. 66). Both the Moslem world and the Papist world are filled every day more with the droppings of these filthy frogs.
However, it is hard to believe that the kings of the earth are preparing for war against the unarmed scholars who lived everywhere within the space of the two evil systems. However, interpreting the phrase “dwelling of demons” (Rev. 18, 2), the note-taker notes that these demons, these frogs and these unclean birds are “the now unseen atheists”. In the thought of Theodoret, it is certainly about the France of the French Revolution and Napoleon against whom the “Kings of the earth” were actually preparing the war.
Theodoret was convinced that a new war would soon begin pitting the kings of Europe against Napoleon. But he wonders; “What’s next?”. And he answers: “The destruction of impiety and the awareness of piety is the end of everything” (p. 348). But “these, because they are future, time will clearly teach them” (p. 349). “And the coming of the ages becomes an infallible teacher, and shows us all these things with the result confirmed” (p. 353).
In fact, what bothered Theodoret was his belief that, according to his scheme of the evolution of History, the pity of the Great Harlot (Rev. 17, 1) – of the system of Evil as a whole – and the revenge of of the blood of God’s servants (Rev. 19, 2) – the liberation of the orthodox peoples and the resurrection of their empire – were to be carried out by the one sitting on the white horse who(Rev. 19, 11) and by his believers, that is, by the tsar and the people of Russia, whom the subjugated Orthodox peoples would hasten to help. But in the face of the danger presented by the three unclean spirits as frogs, Napoleon’s godless and liberating France, the tsar seemed to seek the alliance of the other kings of the earth. Theodoret, on the other hand, was convinced that any partnership with heretics and unbelievers would provoke the wrath of God and the punishment of the guilty.
The political attitude of Nicholas I disturbs Theodoret. However, she doesn’t want to embarrass the tsar; she doesn’t want to become the Cassandra of future villains. “And for this reason I keep silent for the most part about those where I conclude that they are followed on behalf of this system” (of the Church and Empire of Russia). Indeed, the Athonite hieromonk awaits “the outcome of things”, surveys the horizon of History and waits for the right moment to take the floor again and proclaim once more his adherence to the tsar and his aversion to Islam and the west.
This opportune moment seems to have presented itself in 1814. The “outcome of things” regarding the Napoleonic wars had encouraged Theodoret and had opened new horizons in his understanding of history. Indeed, in this year the Athonite hieromonk writes an Interpretation to Daniel the Prophet. The text was written after Napoleon’s campaign against Russia (1812), after the Battle of the Nations (Leipzig 1813) and perhaps after the Allies entered Paris (1814). Unfortunately, however, this memorandum was not found in any library known to date. Therefore, we do not know what was the religious and political significance that the memoirist attributed to the Napoleonic wars, how he dealt with the international situation of 1814 and, above all, how he saw the problem of the liberation of the Greeks and the role that Russia was to play. We can of course assume that the Interpretation of Daniel contained the answers to the questions that Theodoret posed in 1798-1799. However, the Patriarch of Constantinople, fearing the reactions of the Turks, “advised” Theodoret not to publish his new memorandum ( 8 ).
This second prohibition did not discourage Theodoret, nor did it prevent him from his main occupation, the observation of the “appearance of things” and their interpretation in the light of the Holy Scriptures. So in 1817 he writes his third memorandum, Ermineian allenendaton of the Old and New Scriptures. The occult and mystical character of this new work is very impressive. The author presents it as the key that will allow to open the door of the unmanifested and hidden things of God, which has been closed by the world.
‘Interpreting Interrelatedness’ is a summary and simultaneous continuation of the two previous interpretive works of Theodoret, who wants to hasten the time of liberation (1818) that he sees approaching. The three prayers with which the work ends summarize the three main themes of its content. The first prayer talks about the destruction of the Ottoman Empire and the liberation of the Greeks. The second prayer emphasizes the liberating role of the Russian Empire. Finally, the third prayer is dedicated to the description of the messianic kingdom. Then we will mainly see how Theodoret sees France in 1817 and what is the role he entrusts to Russia at that time.
In the Interpretation of the Apocalypse Theodoret attached enormous importance to the Crusades, which had dealt a mortal blow to the Byzantine Empire. The interrelated Interpretation closely links the Crusades with Napoleon’s campaign against Russia. In both cases the Athonite hieromonk discerns Satan’s plot against the Church and the people of God. For this reason, both France and the Papacy are successively and without any distinction called Devil, ancient Ophis, ‘psinthos, etc. Also the visions of the Apocalypse referring to the Beast, Babylon, the Harlot, etc., are taken as symbols of both the Papacy and Napoleonic France.
Interpreting the passage about the “three unclean spirits as frogs” (Ap. 16, 13), a passage that had created many difficulties for him in 1798-99, Theodoret now writes (1817) that the three spirits are the French, the the English and the atheists and that the Beast, that is Napoleon, gathered them for the great war, the long war that humanity has just experienced. The Beast “brought the kings of the earth to the place called in Hebrew Armageddon”, to the place where Moscow is, the holy house of the children of Israel. Thus far God permitted the Beast to advance after the submission of the other kings. Consequently, Russia must not fear her enemies but have absolute trust in God, who dried up the waters of the Euphrates, crushed the forces of heretics and atheists.
Being the kings from the rising sun, the tsar and his people were destined to fight and destroy the Ottoman Turks. In the Revelation Interpretation, the great river Euphrates and the little horn symbolized the Turks. But the “outcome of things” had proved that Napoleon was an enemy of Christ much more terrible and more dangerous than the Muslims. Hence the victories of the tsar and his soldiers against Napoleon’s troops led Theodoret to conclude that the Euphrates pointed to the regions of the West, which opened the way for the tsar who had come to crush the little horn, Napoleon. This new interpretation clearly shows the new direction that Theodoret’s understanding of History was now taking.
The interpretation of the vision of the Great Harlot {‘Att. 17, 1-14) shows just as clearly the change in the thinking of the Athonite hieromonk. Theodoret indeed writes that the Great Harlot simultaneously symbolizes the Church of Rome and Napoleon’s France, while for other interpreters the Harlot and Babylon always denoted Turkish power. “By great harlot he means the Western Church and the Empire of France, that this has been the cause of all the evils both in the Church and in the people of God… and this Mohammedan is being helped to this day, until Jesus Christ himself appears, God of vengeance, and to judge and render double” (p. 45-46). “Vengeance which we see practically confirmed, in a short period of time, from Moscow to Paris”, writes (p. 49) Theodoret.
It is of course impossible to refer to everything that the Athonian hieromonk writes about France and Napoleon Bonaparte. We quote a single page, as an example: “And before all nations it seems that France must taste the fire of vengeance, because after death, mourning and famine follow fire. This is the great city, which has reign over the kings of the earth; this is the second beast that came out of the earth and from the Dragon Pope this is the Harlot, the one who has the golden cup full of the abominations and impurity of this fornication; this is the mother of harlots and Babels, the great city; she first apostatized from the kingdom of Constantinople and from the Eastern doctrines… she became the instrument of that so-called Holy War, and so much bloodshed, heresies, malice took place, that Lord of Lords is also King of Kings, and those with him (the orthodox) are called and chosen and faithful. Rev. ch. xiv’, v. 14. So (Napoleon) suffered all the odds” (p. 24-25).
Theodoret believed that the liberation of the Greeks would not be long in coming and that the glory that the Greeks would gain by fighting on the side of the tsar would bring about great changes in the international horizon: resurrection of the Greeks, and they stand glorious in spite of this kingdom. And the king of the Ottomans may pass into Asia. And the French and others will envy the resurrection of the Greeks and the glory of the Kingdom of the Hereafter. If, therefore, there will be another rebellion in their whole kingdom and throughout Europe. Perhaps they will also carry the little horn (Napoleon)… Then he takes them with him and they gather to fight after him who sits on the white horse, the Kingdom of the Hereafter…But it seems then that the resurrected Greeks are under the Kingdom of the Hereafter, you invite them to repay the next” (p. 32).
As we see, the events aimed at the establishment of the Greco-Russian messianic kingdom are a simple repetition of the Napoleonic wars. Nevertheless, they allow us to understand the messianic role that, according to Theodoret, the tsar of Russia is to play. Indeed, Christ will subdue “all principality and all authority” through the Empire of the Russians. For this very reason the Athonite hieromonk attributes to the tsar, to his Church and to his Empire all the visions and all the symbols of the Holy Bible that the interpretive tradition attributed to the Messiah.
However, we should not be left with the impression that in 1817 Theodoret was freed from all his worries of 1798-1799, when he saw the tsar in alliance with the monarchs of Europe as well as with the Turkish sultan. Because we must not forget that the simple partnership of 1798 becomes, in 1815, the Holy Alliance, of which the tsar is the initiator. The Holy Alliance certainly had as its purpose to prevent the spread of atheism and the moral, social and political disorder, whose source was the France of the Revolution and Napoleon. Also the tsar now loomed large in history as the great victor and leader of the anti-Napoleonic European forces. And yet this new political situation did not convince the Athonian hieromonk to the point of freeing him from his first obsessive idea and making him accept the tsar’s alliance with the forces of infidels and heretics. Speaking about the liberation of the Greeks, which in his opinion is “close at hand”, Theodoret addresses the following advice to the tsar: “In this chapter (Acts 18), v. 10, the other voice says from heaven · “Come out of her, my people, so that you do not share in her sins and do not receive from her wounds”. This voice again comes from your kingdom… that you are ready with your people to repay them double … I declare therefore that the mighty God judges and acts all through his kingdom and the humble people… because all the vengeance of God, We must not forget that we are in 1817 and that the Greeks live in an atmosphere of excitement, preparing “for the great war”. The Greek people firmly believed that Orthodox Russia was also preparing for the great, final battle.
It should also be noted that Theodoret was an ardent devotee of millennialism. He believed in the liberation of the Greeks, in the unification of the two Orthodox empires in one Greco-Russian empire, in the complete destruction of the forces of the Antichrist, in the union of the Churches, in the integration of pagans, Jews and heretics into the Orthodox faith. He calls all these events “the second great earthquake” (Rev. 16, 18). However, his first and foremost concern was the liberation of the Greeks, or rather, to use his own expression, the “resurrection of the two dead bodies” (Rev. 11, 11), that is, the Byzantine Empire and the Orthodox Eastern Church. All other events depended on it. Actually, none of the above world-historical events could have taken place before the resurrection of the Greeks. Because the Greeks were to play a leading role in the establishment of the messianic kingdom, whose capital would be Constantinople, even if the tsar remained its king. In reality, Theodoret gave the tsar this role for diplomatic reasons: to flatter him and urge him to undertake the struggle for the liberation of the Greeks, a task, according to the Athonite monk, magnificent, the only one capable of giving the tsar a place special among the other monarchs.
The liberation of the Greeks from the Turkish yoke was Theodoret’s innermost desire. And he was deeply convinced that “the time has come” for the realization of this vision. After all, this is the main idea and the driving force of his interpretative work. As a Greek and Orthodox, the Athonite hieromonk had found the full expression of his national religious consciousness in eschatological writing and thought. So Theodoret will dedicate twenty-five whole years (1792-1817) to the study of this subject.
Of course he wasn’t the only one. Pantazis the Larissaian and Kyrillos Lavriotis consumed, one twenty-five (1767-1792) and the other thirty-four (1792-1826) years of their lives trying to detect the hidden and hidden things of God’s plans and to determine precisely the “time” of the resurrection of Genus (9). From a purely national point of view, they also express the same desire for the liberation of the Greeks as expressed by Rigas Feraios, Adamantios Korais and the “anonymous” writer of the Hellenic Prefecture. But from a purely ideological point of view, the three interpreters are placed on another level, the level of mystical and eschatological contemplation of History. Their thinking is nourished by the Holy Bible and is based on a centuries-old Byzantine eschatological tradition (10).
At the moment when the Greek Enlightenment begins, this tradition takes, with the printed circulation of The Race of Agathangelos (1754) (11), a purely pro-Russian or rather Russian orientation, which Catherine II and her political advisers will cultivate and they will be exploited in the most profitable way possible for the interests of Russia. The interpreters of the Apocalypse of this period express exactly this orientation. It is a purely Orthodox-centric and Greek-centric ideological current, which places the liberation of the Orthodox and the resurrection of the Orthodox Eastern Empire in the immediate future. But God will accomplish this world-historical event, this third creation, through the mighty Orthodox Empire of Russia (12).
It is of course obvious that within such an ideological framework, Post-Revolutionary France and Napoleon’s Balkan policy could have no place; or rather, their position could only be negative. If the tsar of Russia was “the Christ-loving king”, Napoleon could only be the “antichrist”, the instrument of Satan who comes to oppose the divine economy for the liberation of the Gentile Orthodox. The three interpretive works of Theodoret, which closely follow the historical course of Napoleon, express this very idea.
FOOTNOTES
(1) On the last page we read: ” Finally and to God be the glory. On February 25. 1872. Euthymios Monk Xiropotaminos “. The time the Commentary was copied takes on particular significance if we relate its content to the history of the Balkans during the 1870s and to the role played by Russia through pan-Slavic ideology.
(2) The exact title is: “Interpretation of the holy Apocalypse of John the Theologian I suffered because of the pious, led to this investigation by the most secret power. Where the klesis and taxis bear the following capital numbers, go, bfge, brxg. him which I published for the benefit of those who love the truth”.
(3) For a more extensive study of Theodoret’s interpretative work, including the relevant bibliography, see A. Argyriou, Les exegè ses grecques de l’ Apocalypse à l’époque turque (1453-1821), T hessalonique 1982, pp. 443-586.
(4) For these three movements, see draft K. T. DIMARAS, The New Hellenic Enlightenment, Athens 1977- X. S. Tziogas, The memorials of eris in Agios Ori during the 18th century, Thessaloniki 1969; A. A. Argyriou, op.p.
(5) G. Zaviras, New Hellas or Greek Theater, Athens 1972 (reprint), p. 322: “Theodoritos Athanasios from Ioannina, archimandrite, painstaking interpretation of the Apocalypse and published in Leipzig (where many met there with him). ..”. For Theodoret’s arbitrary interventions in the text of Pidalius, see A. Argyriou, op. op., pp. 448-450.14
(6) For this matter, see A. Argyriou, “The use of the historical method of interpretation of the Apocalypse during the times of the Turkish occupation”, in The Apocalypse of John , Nicosia 1993, pp. 65-77.
(7) For the relationship of these two texts with the ideological currents of the time, see A. Argyriou, op. op., Les exeg è ses grecques…, pp. 668-678. For the facts, see Rev. Vakalopoulos, History of the New Hellenism, vol. IV, Thessaloniki 1973, p. 465 ff. – History of the Hellenic Nation, vol. IA’, Athens, pp. 55-97 and 366-432.
(8.) See A. Argyriou, op.p., pp. 451-452.
(9) Ibid., pp. 357-389 and 586-645. Also A. Argyriou, “L’ attitude des grecs faca à la Russie orthodoxe et aux Etats Occidentaux (1767-1821), telle qu’ elle appara î t à travers les textes eschatologiques de l’époque”, Cahiers de l’Institut des Langues vivantes 30 (1982), pp. 9-28.
(10) A. Argyriou, The ideological currents in the bosom of Hellenism and Orthodoxy during the years of Turkish rule, Larissa 1980. A. Argyriou, “Les id é es politiques des grecs apr è s la R é volution, Fran ç aise”, E tudes Néo-helléniques, Paris 1993, vol. 3 (in press).
(11) D. Doikos, “Agathangelos as a prophetic apocalyptic work and his message”, in Memory of 1821, Thessaloniki 1971, pp. 93-126.
(12) However, Kyrillos Lavriotis expresses the same ideas at this point as the author of the Hellenic Prefecture: The liberation of the Greeks will be the work of the Greeks alone, without foreign help
ORIGINAL ARTICLE:
Η απελευθέρωση των Ελλήνων και ο εσχατολογικός ρόλος της Ρωσίας και της Γαλλίας μέσα στο ερμηνευτικό έργο του Θεοδώρητου Ιωαννίνων ( περ. 1740-1823)
Αργυρίου Αστερίου,«Καιρός», τιμητικός τόμος στον
ομοτ. Καθηγητ. Δαμιανό Αθ. Δόϊκο,
Θεσσαλονίκη 1995, σελ. 11-
https://apostoliki-diakonia.gr/gr_main/catehism/theologia_zoi/themata.asp?cat=hist&NF=1&main=texts&file=5.htm
Neo-Historicism - End Times Eschatology From A New Eastern Orthodox Christian "Historicist" Perspective 