Kallistos Ware
What is a merciful heart? It is a heart on fire for the whole of
creation, for humankind, for the birds, for the animals, for the demons, for
all that exists.
–
St. Isaac the Syrian (seventh century)
A
Place for Animals in Our Worship?
As I sit writing at
my table, I have before me a Russian icon of the martyrs St. Florus and St.
Laurus. At the top of the icon is the archangel Michael, and on either side of
him are the two saints. Below them there is a concourse of horses, old and young:
some have riders, some are riderless but with saddle and bridle, and others are
running freely. I am not sure what the connection is between horses and these
two stonemasons from Constantinople who suffered martyrdom in the early fourth
century. But there the horses are, prominently depicted in the icon, and their
presence gives me continuing pleasure.
Beside my bed I
have another icon that shows the leading Russian saint of the nineteenth
century, Seraphim of Sarov. He is seated on a log outside his wooden cabin in
the forest, with his prayer rope in one of his hands, and with the other hand
he is offering a piece of bread to a huge brown bear. Great was the surprise
and alarm of visitors to the saint’s hermitage when they came upon him in the
company of his four-footed friend Misha.
For members of the
Orthodox Church, an icon is not to be regarded in isolation, simply as a
picture on a religious subject, a decorative item designed to give aesthetic
pleasure. Much more significant is the fact that an icon exists within a
distinct and specific context. It is part of an act of prayer and worship, and
divorced from that context of prayer and worship, it ceases to be authentically
an icon. The art of the icon is, par excellence, a liturgical art. [1] If,
then, Orthodox icons depict not only humans but also animals, does this not
imply that the animals have an accepted place in our liturgical celebration and
our dialogue with God? We do not forget that when Jesus withdrew to pray for
forty days in the wilderness, he had the animals as his companions: “he was
with the wild beasts” (Mark 1:13).
What the icon shows
us – that the animals share in our prayer and worship – is confirmed by the
prayer books used in the Orthodox Church. [2] It is true that when we look at
the main act of worship, the Service of the Eucharist, we are at first sight
disappointed, for in its two chief forms – the Divine Liturgy of St. John
Chrysostom and that of St. Basil the Great – there are no direct references to
the animal creation. Yet when we pray at the beginning of the liturgy “for the
peace of the whole world,” this surely includes animals. As one commentator
puts it, “we pray for the peace of the universe, not only for mankind, but for
every creature, for animals and plants, for the stars and all of nature.” [3]
Turning, however,
to the daily office, we find not only implicit but also explicit allusions to
animals. A notable example comes at the beginning of Vespers. In the Orthodox
understanding of time, as in Judaism, the new day commences not at midnight or
at dawn but at sunset, and so Vespers is the opening service in the
twenty-four-hour cycle of prayer. How, then, do we begin the new day?
Throughout the year, except in the week after Easter Sunday, Vespers always
starts in the same way: with the reading or singing of Psalm 103 (104). This is
a hymn of praise to the Creator for all the wonders of his creation, and in
this cosmic doxology we have much to say about the animals:
You
make springs gush forth in the valleys;
they
flow between the hills,
They
give drink to every beast of the field;
the
wild donkeys quench their thirst.
Beside
them the birds of the air have their habitation;
they
sing among the branches.
The psalm continues
by speaking of cattle, storks, wild goats, badgers, and young lions, and it
concludes this catalogue of living creatures with a reference to Leviathan, who
must surely be a whale:
Yonder
is the sea, great and wide,
which
teems with things innumerable,
living
things both small and great.
There
go the ships,
and
there is the great sea monster
which
you formed to sport in it.
In this way,
embarking upon the new day, we offer the world back to God in thanksgiving. We
bless him for the sun and moon, for the clouds and wind, for the earth and the
water; and not least we bless him for the living creatures, in all their
diversity and abundance, with whom he has peopled the globe. We rejoice in
their beauty and their playfulness, whereby they enrich our lives:
How
marvellous are your works, O Lord!
In
wisdom have you made them all.
As we stand before
God in prayer, the companionship of the animals fills our hearts with warmth
and hope.
Nor is it only in
the service of Vespers that animals have their assured place. In the Orthodox
book of blessings and intercessions known in Greek as the Evchologion,
and in Slavonic as the Trebnik (Book of Needs in English), there
are prayers for the good health of sheep, goats, cattle, horses, donkeys,
mules, and even bees and silkworms; also, on the negative side, there are
prayers for protection from poisonous snakes and noxious insects. Up to the
present day, the great majority of Eastern Christians have dwelled in an
agricultural rather than an urban environment, and so it is only natural that
their prayers – rooted in the concerns of this world as well as being
otherworldly – should reflect the needs of a farming community. In daily prayer
as in daily life, humans and animals belong to a single community.
As a typical
example of a prayer for living creatures, let us take these phrases from a
blessing on bees:
In
ancient times you granted to the Israelites a land flowing with milk and honey
(Exod. 3:8), and you were well-pleased to nourish your Baptist John with wild
honey in the wilderness (Matt. 3:4). Now also, providing in your good pleasure
for our sustenance, do you bless the beehives in this apiary. Greatly increase
the multiplication of the bees within them, preserving them by your grace and
granting us an abundance of rich honey. [4]
A prayer for
silkworms includes the following words:
All-good
King, show us even now your loving kindness; and as you blessed the well of
Jacob (John 4:6), and the pool of Siloam (John 9:7), and the cup of your holy
apostles (Matt. 26:27), so bless also these silkworms; and as you multiplied
the stars in heaven and the sand beside the sea-shore, so multiply these
silkworms, granting them health and strength: and may they feed without coming
to any harm . . . so that they may produce shrouds of pure silk, to your glory
and praise. [5]
Yet not all prayers
for animals are as genial as these, for there are also exorcisms directed
against the creatures who, in this fallen world, inflict harm on humans and
their produce:
I
adjure you, O creatures of many forms: worms, caterpillars, beetles and
cockroaches, mice, grasshoppers and locusts, and insects of various kinds,
flies and moles and ants, gadflies and wasps, and centipedes and millipedes, .
. . injure not the vineyard, field, garden, trees or vegetables of the servant
of God [name], but be gone into the wild hills and into the barren trees
that God has given you for sustenance. [6]
It can be noted
here that the exorcism does not actually pray for the destruction of these
baneful creatures, but prays only that they should depart to their proper home
and cease to molest us. Even rats, hornets, and spiders have their appointed
place in God’s dispensation! [7]
Here, by way of
contrast, is a prayer by St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain (1748–1809)
expressing tenderness and compassion for the animals:
Lord
Jesus Christ, moved by your tender mercy, take pity on the suffering animals…
For if a righteous man takes pity on the souls of his cattle (Prov. 12:10.
LXX), how should you not take pity on them, for you created them and you
provide for them? In your compassion you did not forget the animals in the ark
(Gen. 9:19–20) . . . Through the good health and the plentiful number of oxen
and other four-footed beasts, the earth is cultivated and its fruits increase;
and your servants, who call upon your name, enjoy in full abundance the produce
of their farming. [8]
Many other examples
of such prayers for the animals could be quoted, but these are enough to show
that Orthodox intercessions are not exclusively anthropocentric but encompass
the entire created order. We humans are bound to God and to one another in a cosmic
covenant that also includes all the other living creatures on the face of the
earth: “I will make for you a covenant on that day with the beasts of the
field, the birds of the air, and the creeping things of the ground” (Hos. 2:18;
cf. Gen. 9:15). [9] We humans are not saved from the world but with the
world, and that means with the animals. Moreover, this cosmic covenant is not
something that we humans have devised, but it has its source in the divine
realm. It is conferred upon us as a gift by God.
A striking
illustration of this covenant bond is to be seen in the custom that once
prevailed in the Russian countryside; perhaps it still continues today.
Returning from the Easter midnight service with their newly kindled Holy Fire,
the farmers used to go into the stables with the lighted candle or lantern and
greet the horses and cattle with the paschal salutation “Christ is Risen!” The
victory of the risen savior over the forces of death and darkness has meaning
not only for us humans but also for the animals. For them also Christ has died
and risen again. “Now all things are filled with light,” says the hymn
at the Easter matins.
Do
Animals Have Souls?
St. Nicodemus, in
the prayer quoted previously, cites the words of Proverbs 12:10: “The righteous
man shows pity for the souls of his cattle.” [10] Does this mean that animals
have souls? [11] The answer depends on what precisely we mean by the soul. The
Greek word psyche in the ancient world had a wider application than that
which is customarily given in the present day to our word “soul.” Aristotle,
for example, distinguishes three levels of soul: the vegetable, the animal, and
the human. [12] According to this Aristotelian scheme, the vegetable or
nutritive soul has the capacity for growth, but not for movement or sensation.
The animal soul has the capacity for movement and sensation, but not for
conscious thought or reason. Only the human soul is endowed with self-knowledge
and the power of logical thinking. For Aristotle, then, psyche means in
an inclusive fashion all expressions of life force and vital energy, whereas in
contemporary usage we limit the term “soul” to the third level: the human or
rational soul. If we today were to speak of potatoes or tomatoes as possessing
souls, our remarks would doubtless be considered facetious. But Aristotle was
not trying to make a joke.
Employing the term
“soul” in a restricted sense, as denoting specifically the self-reflective
rational soul, most thinkers in the West – and, on the whole, in the Christian
East as well – have denied that animals are ensouled. Descartes held that they
are simply intricate machines or automata. In such a view, there is a clear
demarcation between human beings and the animal world. Humans alone, it is
said, are created in God’s image, and they alone possess immortality, in
contrast to “the beasts that perish” (Ps. 48 [49]:12, 20). In modern Greek the
horse is called alogon, “lacking logos or reason.” Animals, so it
is maintained, cannot form abstract concepts, and so they are unable to
construct logical arguments; they lack personal freedom and the faculty of
moral choice, for they cannot discern between good and evil but act solely from
instinct.
Yet are we in fact
justified in making such an emphatic division between ourselves and other
animals? (I say “other” because we humans are also animals; we have the same
origin as those whom we call “beasts.”) Many of the characteristics that we
tend to regard as distinctively human are also to be found, to a varying
extent, in other animals as well. This certainly was the view of early
Christian writers. “The instinct (physis) that exists in hunting dogs
and war horses,” observes Origen (c. 185 – c. 254), “comes near, if I may say
so, to reason itself.” [13] We may think of the behavior of a monkey,
confronted by a cage with a complicated latch and with a banana inside. Seeking
to open the cage, twisting the latch first in one direction and then in
another, the monkey is evidently engaged in something closely similar to the
process of thinking that a human being would employ in a similar situation.
Animals as well as humans try to solve problems.
Origen has in view
domesticated animals, but Theophilus of Antioch (late second century) goes
further, noting how the instinct in all animals, free-living as well as
domesticated, leads them to mate and to care for their offspring: this
indicates that they possess “understanding.” [14] Other patristic authors point
out that animals share with humans not only a certain degree of reason and
understanding but also memory and a wide range of emotions and affections. They
display feelings of joy and grief, asserts St. Basil of Caesarea (c. 330–79),
and they recognize those whom they have met previously. [15] St. John Climacus
(c. 570 – c. 649) adds that they express love for each other, for “they often
bewail the loss of their companions.” [16] Indeed, some animals are faithfully
monogamous, in a way that all too many humans conspicuously are not.
It is often argued
that animals lack the power to articulate speech. Yet as we can see from
dolphins, they have other subtle ways of communicating with one another. Ants
and bees are capable of social cooperation on an elaborate scale. Animals may
not use tools, but they do not simply exist within the world; they actively
adapt the environment to their own needs. Birds build nests; beavers construct
dams.
Nor is this all. If
we are to accept the testimony of scripture, it would seem that animals can
sometimes display visionary awareness, perceiving things to which we humans are
blind. In the story of Balaam’s ass (Num. 22:21–33), the donkey sees the angel
of the Lord blocking the pathway with a drawn sword, whereas Balaam himself is
unaware of the angel’s presence. As investigators of the paranormal have often
discovered, animals react to unseen “presences” in places reputed to be
haunted. May it not be claimed that animals possess, at least in a rudimentary
form, psychic insight and a capacity for spiritual intuition?
Instead of making a
sharp separation between animals and human beings, would it not be wiser to
keep in view the kinship that links us together? Nemesius of Emesa (late fourth
century) was surely correct to insist upon the unity of all living things. Sharing
as they do the same life force, plants, animals, and humankind belong to the
single integrated structure of creation. [17] We and the animals are
interdependent, “members one of another” (Eph. 4:25). The world is variegated
yet everywhere interconnected. As my history master at school used to say, “It
all ties up, you see; it all ties up.”
Can we in fact be
sure that animals do not enjoy immortality? At any rate there is good reason to
believe that animals will exist in the future age, after the Second Coming of
Christ and the general resurrection of the dead. As Isaiah affirms, “the wolf shall
dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf
and the young lion together, and a little child shall lead them” (Isa. 11:6).
When Martin Luther, distressed by the death of his companion dog, was asked
whether there would be animals in heaven, he replied, “There will be little
dogs with golden hair, shining like precious stones.” [18]
It is not clear,
however, whether these animals in the age to come will be the same animals
as we have known in this present life. Yet that is at least a possibility; we
do not have good grounds for asserting that it could not conceivably be so. Let
us leave the question open. Friendship and mutual love contain within
themselves an element of eternity. For us to say to another human person, with
all our heart, “I love you,” is to say by implication, “You will never die.” If
this is true of our love for our fellow humans, may it not be true of our love
for animals? Although we are not to love animals in the same way we love our
fellow humans, those of us who have experienced the deeply therapeutic effect
of a companion animal will certainly recognize that our reciprocal relationship
contains within itself intimations of immortality.
Even if animals are
not ensouled, they are undoubtedly sentient. They are responsive and
vulnerable. As Andrew Linzey rightly says,
animals
are not machines or commodities but beings with their own God-given life (nephesh),
individuality and personality… Animals are more like gifts than something
owned, giving us more than we expect and thus obliging us to return their
gifts. Far from decrying these relationships as “sentimental,” “unbalanced,” or
“obsessive” (as frequently happens today), churches could point us to their
underlying theological significance – as living examples of divine grace. [19]
“Cruelty is
atheism,” said Humphrey Primatt in the eighteenth century. “Cruelty is the
worst of heresies.” [20] Indeed, not only should we refrain from cruelty to
animals, but in a positive way we should seek to do them good, enhancing their
pleasure and their unselfconscious happiness. In the words of Starets Zosima in
Dostoevsky’s masterwork The Brothers Karamazov: “Love the animals: God
has given them the rudiments of thought and an untroubled joy. Do not trouble
it, do not torment them, do not go against God’s purpose. Man, do not exalt
yourself above the animals; they are sinless, and you, you with all your grandeur,
defile the earth through your appearance upon it, and leave traces of your
defilement behind you – alas, this is true of almost every one of us!” [21]
Unfortunately, it
has to be said that although there can be found within Orthodoxy a rich
theology of the animal creation, there exists a sad gap between theory and
practice. It cannot be claimed that in traditional Orthodox countries such as
Greece, Cyprus, or Romania, animals are better treated than in the non-Orthodox
West; indeed, the contrary is regrettably true. We Orthodox need to kneel down
before the animals and ask their forgiveness for the evils that we inflict upon
them. I have concentrated here on the positive elements in the Orthodox
teaching about animals, but we should not ignore the many ways in which we fall
short of our pastoral responsibility toward the living creatures, domesticated
and free-living, whom God has given us to be our companions.
Dominion
or Domination?
“Are not two
sparrows sold for a penny?” says Jesus. “Yet not one of them will fall to the
ground without your Father’s will” (Matt. 10:29). “Not one of them,” he says:
God’s care for his creation, his love for all the things that he has made, is
not merely an abstract and generalized love. He cares for each particular
creature, for every individual sparrow. But Jesus then goes on to say, “You are
of more value than many sparrows” (Matt. 10:31). Every living thing has its
unique value in God’s sight, but at the same time we dwell in a hierarchical
universe, and some living things have a greater value than others.
The significance of
this hierarchy is expressed in a more specific way in God’s creative utterance
in the opening chapter of Genesis: “Then God said, ‘Let us make the human being
in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of
the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the
earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth’” (Gen. 1:26).
Humans, then, are entrusted by the Creator with authority over the animals. Yet
this God-given “dominion” does not signify an arbitrary and tyrannical
domination. We must not overlook the explicit reason that is given for this
dominion: it is because we are fashioned in the image and likeness of God. That
is to say, in the exercise of our dominion over the animals, we are to show the
same gentleness and loving compassion that God himself shows toward the whole
of his creation. Our dominion is to be God-reflective and Christlike.
How far does this
dominion extend? Certainly, it includes the right to use domesticated animals
for our service: to employ horses and oxen for plowing, to keep cows for their
milk, to breed sheep for their wool. Yet there are definite limits to what we can
legitimately do. We should not adopt a narrowly instrumentalist attitude toward
animals. We are to respect their characteristic “lifestyles,” allowing them to
be themselves. This is scarcely what happens with battery hens! We are not to
inflict upon them excessive burdens that cause them exhaustion and suffering.
We are to ensure that they are kept warm, clean, and healthy and are properly
fed. Only so will our dominion be according to the image of divine compassion.
Does our dominion
over the animals entitle us to kill and eat them? In the Orthodox Church, as in
other Christian communities, there are many who on serious grounds of
conscience refrain from eating animals. But the Orthodox Church as such is not
in principle vegetarian. The normal teaching is that animals may indeed be
killed and used for food, so long as this killing is done humanely and not
wantonly. It is true that in traditional Orthodox monasteries, meat is not
eaten in the refectory; fish, however, is allowed. It is also true that during
Lent and certain other seasons of the year, all Orthodox Christians, whether
monastic or in the “world,” are required to abstain from animal products. But
this is not because the eating of animal products is in itself sinful, but
because such fasting has disciplinary value, assisting us in our prayer and our
spiritual growth. In the Gospels it is stated that Christ ate fish: “They gave
him a piece of broiled fish, and he ate before them” (Luke 24:41–42). Since he
observed the Passover, presumably he also ate meat.
Beasts
and Saints
In the lives of
Eastern Christian saints – as among the saints of the West, especially in the
Celtic tradition – there are numerous stories, often well authenticated, of
close fellowship between animals and holy men and women. Such accounts are not
to be dismissed as sentimental fairy tales, for they have a definite
theological significance. The mutual understanding between animals and humans
recalls the situation before the Fall, when the two lived at peace in paradise,
and it points forward to the transfiguration of the cosmos at the end-time. In
the words of St. Isaac the Syrian (seventh century), “the humble person
approaches the wild animals, and the moment they catch sight of him their
ferocity is tamed. They come up and cling to him as to their master, wagging
their tails and licking his hands and feet. For they smell on him the same
smell that came from Adam before the transgression.” [22]
This is not to say
that mutual understanding between holy men and free-living animals has always
been complete! There is, for example, a story in the Sayings of the Desert
Fathers about an unsociable lion: “There was a certain old man, a solitary,
who lived near the river Jordan; and going into a cave because of the heat, he
found there a lion. The lion began to gnash his teeth and to roar. The old man
said to him, ‘What is annoying you? There is plenty of room here for both of
us. And if you don’t like it, get up and go away.’ But the lion, not taking it
well, left and went outside.” [23]
Many of the
twentieth-century stories about humans and animals come from the Holy Mountain
of Athos, the chief center of Orthodox monasticism. I recall one such story,
told to me many years ago. As the monks in a small hermitage prayed in the
early morning, they were much disturbed by the croaking of frogs in the cistern
outside their chapel. The spiritual father of the community went out and
addressed them: “Frogs! We’ve just finished the Midnight Office and are about
to start matins. Would you mind keeping quiet until we’ve finished!” To this
the frogs replied, “We’ve just finished matins and are about to begin the First
Hour. Would you mind keeping quiet until we’ve finished!”
Compassion for
animals is vividly expressed in the writings of a recent Athonite saint, the
Russian monk Silouan (1866–1938). “The Lord,” he says, “bestows such rich grace
on his chosen ones that they embrace the whole earth, the whole world within
their love . . . One day I saw a dead snake on my path which had been chopped
into pieces, and each piece writhed convulsively, and I was filled with pity
for every living creature, every suffering thing in creation, and I wept
bitterly before God.” [24]
Such is in truth
the compassionate love that we are called to express toward animals. All too
often, they are innocent sufferers, and we should view this undeserved
suffering with compunction and sympathy. What harm have they done to us that we
should inflict pain and distress upon them? As living beings, sensitive and
easily hurt, they are to be viewed as a “thou,” not an “it,” to use Martin
Buber’s terminology: not as objects to be exploited and manipulated but as
subjects capable of joy and sorrow, of happiness and affliction. They are to be
approached with gentleness and tenderness and, more than that, with respect and
reverence, for they are precious in God’s sight. As William Blake affirmed,
“every thing that lives is holy.” [25]
Notes
1. See Philip Sherrard, The Sacred in Life and Art (Ipswich:
Golgonooza, 1990), 71–74.
2. Relatively little has been written on the theology
of animals from an Orthodox viewpoint. Extensive material on saints and animals
in both ancient and modern times can be found in two books by Joanne
Stefanatos: Animals and Man: A State of Blessedness (Minneapolis, MN:
Light and Life, 1992) and Animals Sanctified: A Spiritual Journey (Minneapolis,
MN: Light and Life, 2001). On the non-Orthodox side, compare the classic
anthology by Helen Waddell, Beasts and Saints (London: Constable, 1934).
There is not much from Eastern Christian sources in the two collections (in
other respects, rich and representative) edited by Andrew Linzey, Animal
Rites: Liturgies of Animal Care (London: SCM, 1999) and, with Paul Barry
Clarke, Animal Rights: A Historical Anthology (New York: Columbia
University Press, 2004).
3. A Monk of the Eastern Church [Lev Gillet], Serve
the Lord with Gladness: Basic Reflections on the Eucharist and the Priesthood (Crestwood,
NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990), 16.
4. The Great Book of Needs (South Canaan, PA:
St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 1999), vol. 4, 382–83 (translation adapted).
5. N. P. Papadopoulos, ed., Evchologion to Mega (Athens:
Saliveros, n.d.), 511.
6. “Exorcism of the Holy Martyr Tryphon,” in The
Great Book of Needs, vol. 3, 53 (translation adapted).
7. But at a later point in this same exorcism, it is
said that if these creatures fail to obey the command to depart to their own
place, “may he [God] kill you with pigs . . . and birds also will be sent by my
prayers to devour you” (The Great Book of Needs, vol. 3, 54).
8. “Prayer of St. Modestos,” in Mikron Evchologion
i Agiasmatarion (Athens: Apostoliki Diakonia, 1984), 297.
9. See Robert Murray, The Cosmic Covenant: Biblical
Themes of Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation (London: Sheed and
Ward, 1992).
10. I follow here the text of the Septuagint, the
Greek translation of the Old Testament used at Orthodox church services.
11. See Kallistos Ware, “The Soul in Greek
Christianity,” in From Soul to Self, ed. M. James C. Crabbe (London:
Routledge, 1999), especially 62–65. For other passages in the Septuagint that
mention the “souls” of animals, see, for example, Gen. 1:21 and 1:24 and
Leviticus 17:14.
12. See Ware, “The Soul in Greek Christianity,” 55–56.
13. On First Principles 3:1:3.
14. To Antolycus 1:6.
15. Hexaemeron 8:1 (PG 29:165AB).
16. The Ladder of Divine Ascent 26 (PG
88:1028A).
17. On the Nature of Man 1 (ed. Morani,
2:13–14; 3:3–25).
18. William Hazlitt, ed., The Table Talk of Martin
Luther (London: H. G. Bohn, 1857), 322.
19. Linzey, Animal Rites, 58.
20. Quoted in Linzey, Animal Rites, 151.
21. Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov,
trans. Richard Pervear and Larissa Volokhonsky (New York: Vintage Classics,
1991), 319 (translation adapted).
22. Homily 82, in A. J. Wensinck, trans., Mystic
Treatises by Isaac of Nineveh (Amsterdam: Koninklijke Akademie van
Wetenschappen, 1923), 386 (translation adapted).
23. Waddell, Beasts and Saints 24 (translation
adapted).
24. Archimandrite Sofrony (Sakharov), Saint Silouan
the Athonite (Tolleshunt Knights, UK: Stavropegic Monastery of St John the
Baptist, 1991), 267, 469. But Silouan also warned against showing excessive
affection toward animals (95–96).
25. William Blake, “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell,”
in Geoffrey Keynes, ed., Poetry and Prose of William Blake (London:
Nonesuch Press, 1948), 193.
References
Archimandrite Sofrony (Sakharov). Saint Silouan the
Athonite. Tolleshunt Knights, UK: Stavropegic Monastery of St John the
Baptist, 1991.
Blake, William. “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.” In Poetry
and Prose of William Blake, edited by Geoffrey Keynes. London: Nonesuch
Press, 1948.
Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov.
Translated by Richard Pervear and Larissa Volokhonsky. New York: Vintage
Classics, 1991.
The Great Book of Needs. South Canaan, PA: St.
Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 1999.
Hazlitt, William, ed. The Table Talk of Martin
Luther. London: H. G. Bohn, 1857.
Linzey, Andrew. Animal Rites: Liturgies of Animal
Care. London: SCM, 1999.
Linzey, Andrew, and Paul Barry Clarke. Animal
Rights: A Historical Anthology. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004.
Mikron Evchologion i Agiasmatarion. Athens: Apostoliki
Diakonia, 1984.
A Monk of the Eastern Church [Lev Gillet]. Serve
the Lord with Gladness: Basic Reflections on the Eucharist and the Priesthood.
Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990.
Murray, Robert. The Cosmic Covenant: Biblical
Themes of Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation. London: Sheed and
Ward, 1992.
Papadopoulos, N. P., ed. Evchologion to Mega.
Athens: Saliveros, n.d.
Sherrard, Philip. The Sacred in Life and Art.
Ipswich: Golgonooza, 1990.
Stefanatos, Joanne. Animals and Man: A State of
Blessedness. Minneapolis, MN: Light and Life, 1992.
Stefanatos, Joanne. Animals Sanctified: A Spiritual
Journey. Minneapolis, MN: Light and Life, 2001.
Waddell, Helen. Beasts and Saints. London:
Constable, 1934.
Ware, Kallistos. “The Soul in Greek Christianity.” In From
Soul to Self, edited by M. James C. Crabbe. London: Routledge, 1999.
Wensinck, A. J., trans. Mystic Treatises by Isaac
of Nineveh. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, 1923.
Source: The Routledge Handbook of Religion and
Animal Ethics, edited by Andrew Linzey and Clair Linzey, Routledge, London,
2019, pp. 127-135.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.