Artículos de revistas sobre el tema "Saint-Pierre de Rome (Almonry)"

Une bonne partie de la correspondance de saint Cyprien concerne Rome, soit qu'elle s'adresse a son eveque, soit qu'elle en parle. D'autre part, Fecclesiologie de saint Cyprien accorde a Pierre, en qui elle voit l'origine de Funicite du pouvoir episcopal, une anteriorite chronologique sur le college apostolique qui jouit du meme pouvoir mais ie reęoit apres. Il faut bien preciser qu'en tout etat de cause, Cyprien ne reconnait pas a Romę un „primat" au sens actuel du terme. Tout eveque est fonde sur Pierre et possede le meme pouvoir que celui de Rome. Il ne concede a aucun eveque un „superepiscopat". Il n'y a pas „d'eveque des eveques" (Ep. 66, 3). Le Primatus de Pierre n'est pas, pour Cyprien, une primaute de commandement; il est pourtant un droit d'anciennete qu'il ne nie pas. L'glise de Rome est principalis, parce que le Christ a fait de Pierre Forigine de Funite et le signe de cette origine. La comparison les deux versions du chapitre IV De unitate porte a quelques conclusions: 1. Les deux textes ont fundamentalement le meme sens, mais il parait manifeste qu'elles s'adressent a deux auditoires differents. 2. Pierre et tous les apótres sont egaux dans l’épiscopat. 3. Pierre est, par son droit d'ainesse, l'origine de la monarchie episcopale en chaque eglise. 4. Le pouvoir que reęoit chacun des apótres a une structure determinee: il est monarchique (car chacun succede en son lieu a Pierre), et il est collegial (car tous ensemble heritent d'un pouvoir indivis). L'unite de l'Eglise repose sur la communion dans la charite de tous les eveque regroupes autour de l’égilse principale, non sur les liens juridiques, hormis le principe de ['episcopat monarchique.

En demandant de role d'eveque de Rome dans l'antiquite il serait bien se referer a l'ceuvre d'auteur qui lui meme exeręait cette mission et, en plus, il nous a lessait un temoignage suffisamment fort. Saint Gregoire le Grand (540-604) accomplit tres bien cette tache. Il forme un solide point culminante d'epoque patristique, en meme temps il est un intermediaire specifique entre l'antiquite chretienne et Moyen Age. L'autorité d'eveque de Rome, selon notre auteur résulte de commandement de meme Christ et de le role de saint Pierre, le premier éveque de la „Ville Eternelle”. Cette autorite, géneralement pas conteste, il a ete percu de differentes manieres, selon la region geografique, les traditions particulieres, finallement aussi selon la fonction et meme le caractere des personnages, avec les quelles saint Gregoire a tenu des relations.

Entre les années 1630 et la Révolution, près de trois cents images de la Vierge jugées exceptionnelles furent couronnées par le chapitre de Saint-Pierre de Rome à l’issue d’une procédure qui n’est pas sans rappeler celle qui régissait les procès de canonisation. Si le phénomène peut être vu comme une tentative de prise de contrôle, par Rome, de l’univers des images cultuelles il ne s’y réduit pas et l’examen de la répartition géographique des Madones couronnées révèle les enjeux et les logiques qui gouvernaient cette entreprise de distinction.

The ‘Gregorian Reform’ or ‘Gregorian Revolution’ is a model of top–down ecclesiastical change that assumes that local bishops suddenly became, to some extent, agents of Rome. One striking illustration of this is the portrayal of the ‘new Gregorian bishop’, based largely on Berardus of Marsica (d. 1130), presented by Pierre Toubert in his classic Structures du Latium médiéval (1973), and now reprised by Jacques Dalarun (2003). This article, employing an unedited collection of miracles, re-examines Toubert's treatment of Berardus and reveals a reforming saint who belongs less to Rome and more to his idiosyncratic cathedral of Santa Sabina.

Big activity passed Popes, with the least Francis Bergoglio, is a question about receptiontheir lives and action, especially in times of modern medium broadcasting. Sometimes presentedcontent could be treated as sensation, and their receptiveness deprived of profound historical andtheological meaning. This article depends of beginnings of the Church, when it started to organizeitself, with well known historically-theological arguments. Peter confessed Jesus as the Christ andgot special place among Apostles. His role matures in young Church community, which is escapingfrom Jewish religion.Peter tramps the way from Jerusalem thru Antioch to Rome, confirming his appointing to thefirst among Apostles and to being Rock in the Church. Nascent Rome Church keeps this specialPeter’s succession. Clement, bishop of Rome, shows his prerogatives as a successor of Peter. Later,bishop of Cartagena, Cyprian, confirms special role both Peter and each bishop of Rome amongother bishops. He also was finding appropriate role for each of them. Church institution, basedon Peter and Apostles persists and shows truth of the beginnings and faithfulness to them innowadays papacy.Methodological elements Presented in the introduction let for the lecture of Gospel and patristictexts without positivistic prejudices presented in old literature of the subject.

En 1848, du lointain Kamouraska arrive au tout neuf noviciat des Clercs de Saint-Viateur de L’Industrie (Joliette), un jeune homme de 26 ans : cours classique, expérience d’enseignement, profonde piété, talents pour les sciences et l’architecture. La communauté lui permet de développer ses dons. À L’Industrie, à Chambly, à Rigaud, à Victoria. 1868, Mgr Bourget l’envoie lever les plans de Saint-Pierre de Rome qu’il veut reproduire en petit à Montréal. C’est la maquette de Joseph Michaud qui fera décider la construction de la cathédrale de Montréal. Sa notoriété gagnera toute la province : églises, couvents, maisons privées, laboratoires, musée, collections, etc. Qui donc est ce clerc du bas-relief du monument de Mgr Bourget devant la cathédrale de Montréal, déployant des plans devant l’évêque en présence de quelques personnages dont l’un (Victor Bourgeau) a les bras croisés? Qui donc est ce jeune homme de 26 ans qui, en 1848, descend du « steamboat » de Lanoraie et arrive, peut-être à pied - car il en est capable - à L’Industrie (premier nom de Joliette), où le reçoit une communauté religieuse qui vient à peine de s’installer en terre canadienne? Qui donc est ce jeune homme « extrêmement timide » toute sa vie, qui nous arrive, mystérieusement dirait-on, de l’une des aînées de nos paroisses canadiennes-françaises, Kamouraska? C’est Joseph Michaud.

L'obélisque d'Arles est mentionné pour la première fois en 1389, au sud de la ville, au-delà des murs, sur l'emplacement du cirque romain dont il ornait la spina. Il fut redécouvert en 1565 et était alors scindé en deux grands fragments de 4,60 m pour la partie supérieure et de 10,80 m pour la base, et une pointe, signalée au XVIe s. dans le couvent des religieuses de Saint-Césaire, qui n'a malheureusement jamais été retrouvée. Depuis son érection entre les 20 et 26 mars 1676 devant l'Hôtel de Ville pour la plus grande gloire de Louis XIV (fig. 1), il fut l'objet d'un vif débat quant à l'origine de la roche le composant. L'attribution à une carrière varoise et plus particulièrement de l'Esterel qui fut longtemps retenue, est désormais à écarter. On dispose actuellement d'indications quant à une possible provenance orientale, bien que non égyptienne. Cette nouvelle identification permet de reprendre le dossier de l'obélisque et de proposer une date pour son installation.Pour L. Lazzarini, la pierre serait une quartzo-monzonite provenant d'une carrière située près d'Alexandrie de Troade (Turquie) qui n'a commencé à exporter qu'à partir du IIe s. et qui connut son apogée durant l'Antiquité tardive. On peut donc supposer que la mise en place de cet obélisque au milieu du cirque remonte vraisemblablement à cette dernière période et l'obélisque arlésien serait alors l'un des rares monolithes d'origine orientale, sinon le seul, installé pendant l'Antiquité en Occident en dehors de tous ceux destinés à décorer Rome.

STANLEY JAKI: Science and Faith in a Realist Perspective by Alessandro Giostra. Rome, Italy: IF Press, 2019. 144 pages. Paperback; $24.24. ISBN: 9788867881857. *The subject of this short introduction--Father Stanley L. Jaki (1924–2009), a giant in the world of science and religion--is more important than this book's contents, a collection of conference papers and articles published between 2015 and 2019. *Readers of this journal should recognize Jaki, a Benedictine priest with doctorates in theology and physics, 1975–1976 Gifford lecturer, 1987 Templeton Prize winner, and professor at Seton Hall University, for his prolific, valuable work in the history of the relations between theology and science. He sharply contrasted Christian and non-Christian/scientific cosmologies and unfortunately, often slipped into polemics and apologetics. The title of Stacy Trasanco's 2014 examination of his work, Science Was Born of Christianity, captures Jaki's key thesis. Science in non-Christian cultures was, in Jaki's (in)famous and frequent characterizations, "stillborn" and a "failure" (e.g., see Giostra, pp. 99, 113). Incidentally, Giostra seems unaware that various Protestant scholars shared Jaki's key thesis and arguments. *The Introduction begins with a quotation from Jaki that so-called conflicts between science and religion "must be seen against objective reality, which alone has the power to unmask illusions." Jaki continued, "There may be clashes between science and religion, or rather between some religionists and some scientists, but no irresolvable fundamental conflict" (p. 15). *This raises two other crucial aspects of Jaki's approach: his realist epistemology and his claim that, properly understood, science and Christian theology cannot be in conflict. Why? Because what Jaki opposed was not science itself--which he saw as specific knowledge of the physical world that was quantifiable and mathematically expressible--but ideologies that were attached to science in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, that is, materialism, naturalism, reductionism, positivism, pantheism, and atheism. *For Jaki, the real problem for Christian approaches to the natural world was the scientism which dismissed theology, especially Catholicism, as superstition, dogmatism, and delusion. Jaki followed the groundbreaking work of Pierre Duhem in arguing that the impetus theory of the fourteenth-century philosopher John Buridan was the first sign of the principle of inertia, the first law of Newtonian physics. One of the foundational shifts in the birth of a new "revolutionary" science in the Christian West was a post-Aristotelian understanding of bodies in motion (both uniform and uniformly accelerating: see chapter three for more details). *The first chapter is a bio- and bibliographical essay by an admiring Antonio Colombo that traces and situates Jaki the historian as a man of both science and faith. Chapter two lays out Jaki's critical realism and theses about the history of science and theology, in contrast to scientisms past and present that claim scientific reason as the sole trustworthy route to legitimate knowledge. The roles played by the doctrine of creation ex nihilo and the Christology of the pre-existent Logos in Jaki's cosmological thinking are also outlined. *Many readers will be most interested in the third chapter which surveys Jaki's writing about the notorious case of Galileo, condemned by the church in 1633 for defending Copernicus. Jaki detected scientific and theological errors in the positions of both Galileo and the church. For instance, Galileo did not provide proof of the motion of the earth around the sun. Nor did the church understand errors in Aristotelian science. Galileo was right, however, in arguing that the Bible's purpose was not to convey scientific knowledge; while the church's rejection of heliocentric cosmology was correct, given the dearth of convincing evidence for it. *Chapter four is of wider interest than its title, "The Errors of Hegelian Idealism," might suggest. Jaki's belief that only Christian theology could give birth to the exact sciences is reviewed, along with his rejection of conflict and concord models of faith and science. His critiques of Hegelian and Marxist views of the world are thoughtfully discussed. *Jaki was unrelentingly hostile to all types of pantheism, and Plato was the most influential purveyor of that erroneous philosophy. Chapter five outlines Jaki's objections to Platonism, as well as to Plotinus's view of the universe as an emanation from an utterly transcendent One, and to Giordano Bruno's neo-Platonic animism and Hermeticism. *Jaki's interpretation of medieval Islamic cosmologists is the subject of the fifth chapter, in which the Qur'an, Averroes, and Avicenna are examined and found wanting. Monotheism by itself could not lead to science. Incorrect theology blinded those without an understanding of the world as God's creation or of Christ as Word and Savior from seeing scientific truth. This chapter is curious in several respects. On page 98, Giostra equates Christ as the only begotten Son with Jesus as the only "emanation from the Father." Emanationism is a Gnostic, Manichaean, and neo-Platonic concept; it is not, to my knowledge, part of orthodox Catholic Trinitarian discourse. On pages 101–2, the presence of astrology in the Qur'an disqualifies it as an ancestor of modern science. But astrology then was not yet divorced from astronomy. Astrological/astronomical imagery and terminology were integral to ancient cosmologies and apocalypses, including Jewish, Christian, and Muslim ones. Lastly, pages 104–5 feature quotations in untranslated Latin. *Chapter seven is a review of the 2016 edition of Jaki's Science and Creation; this is one more example of content repeated elsewhere in the book. "Benedict XVI and the limits of scientific learning" is the eighth and final chapter. The former pope is presented as a Jaki-like thinker in his views of science and faith. Strangely, Benedict does not cite Jaki; this absense weakens Giostra's case somewhat. *Jaki--whose faith was shaped by the eminent French theologian and historian of medieval thought, Etienne Gilson--was a diehard Roman Catholic, wary of Protestant thought, defender of priestly celibacy and of the ineligibility of women for ordination. On the other hand, his study of both Duhem and Gilson probably sensitized Jaki to ideological claims made by scientists. *As a historian of science, Jaki was meticulous and comprehensive in his research with primary documents. His interpretations of historical texts were as confident and swaggering as his critiques of scientists and scientism were withering. Among Jaki's more interesting and helpful contributions to scholarship are his translations and annotations of such important primary texts as Johann Heinrich Lambert's Cosmological Letters (1976), Immanuel Kant's Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens (1981), and Bruno's The Ash Wednesday Supper (1984). *Personally, I have found much of value in Jaki's The Relevance of Physics (1966); Brain, Mind and Computers (1969); The Paradox of Olbers' Paradox (1969); The Milky Way (1972); Planets and Planetarians (1978); The Road of Science and the Ways to God (1978); Cosmos and Creator (1980); Genesis 1 through the Ages (1998); The Savior of Science (2000); Giordano Bruno: A Martyr of Science? (2000); Galileo Lessons (2001); Questions on Science and Religion (2004); The Mirage of Conflict between Science and Religion (2009); and the second enlarged edition of his 1974 book, Science and Creation: From Eternal Cycles to an Oscillating Universe (2016). *Jaki also published studies of figures whose life and work most impressed him personally. These include three books (1984, 1988, 1991) on the Catholic physicist and historian of cosmology, Pierre Duhem, author of the ten-volume Système du Monde, and studies of English converts to Catholicism, John Henry, Cardinal Newman (2001, 2004, 2007) and G. K. Chesterton (1986, new ed., 2001). *Among Jaki's books not mentioned by Giostra but of interest to readers of this journal are The Origin of Science and the Science of its Origin (1979), Angels, Apes, and Men (1988), and Miracles and Physics (2004). For a complete Jaki bibliography, see http://www.sljaki.com/. *No translator is identified in the book under review; my guess is that Giostra, an Italian, was writing in English. Although generally clear and correct, the book contains enough small errors and infelicities to suggest that the services of a professional translator were not used. Not counting blank, title, and contents pages, this book has but 128 pages, including lots of block quotations. *For those unfamiliar with Jaki's work and not too interested in detailed studies in the history and philosophy of science and religion, this introduction is a decent start--and perhaps an end point as well. I strongly encourage curious readers to consult Jaki's own books, including his intellectual autobiography A Mind's Matter (2002). For other scholarly English-language perspectives on his work, see Paul Haffner, Creation and Scientific Creativity: A Study in the Thought of S. L. Jaki (2nd ed., 2009); Science and Orthodoxy [special issue of the Saint Austin Review on Jaki], vol. 14, no. 3 (2014); and Paul Carr and Paul Arveson, eds., Stanley Jaki Foundation International Congress 2015 (2020). *Reviewed by Paul Fayter, a retired pastor and historian of Victorian science and theology, who lives in Hamilton, Ontario.

Recent conservation and restoration work on the icon of the Virgin and Child which stood on the altar in the Church of St. Nicholas at Prijeko in Dubrovnik has enabled a new interpretation of this paining. The icon, painted on a panel made of poplar wood, features a centrally-placed Virgin holding the Child in her arms painted on a gold background between the two smaller figures of St. Peter and St. John the Baptist. The figures are painted in the manner of the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Dubrovnik style, and represent a later intervention which significantly changed the original appearance and composition of the older icon by adding the two saints and touching up the Virgin’s clothes with Renaissance ornaments, all of which was performed by the well-known Dubrovnik painter Nikola Božidarević. It can be assumed that the icon originally featured a standing or seated Virgin and Child. The Virgin is depicted with her head slightly lowered and pointing to the Christ Child whom she is holding on her right side. The chubby boy is not seated on his mother’s lap but is reclining on his right side and leaningforward while his face is turned towards the spectator. He is dressed in a red sleeveless tunic with a simple neck-line which is embroidered with gold thread. The Child is leaning himself on the Virgin’s right hand which is holding him. He is firmly grasping her thumb with one hand and her index finger with the other in a very intimate nursing gesture while she, true to the Hodegitria scheme, is pointing at him with her left hand, which is raised to the level of her breasts. Such an almost-realistic depiction of Christ as a small child with tiny eyes, mouth and nose, drastically departs from the model which portrays him with the mature face of an adult, as was customary in icon painting. The Virgin is wearing a luxurious gold cloak which was repainted with large Renaissance-style flowers. Her head is covered with a traditional maphorion which forms a wide ring around it and is encircled by a nimbus which was bored into thegold background. Her skin tone is pink and lit diffusely, and was painted with almost no green shadows, which is typical of Byzantine painting. The Virgin’s face is striking and markedly oval. It is characterized by a silhouetted, long, thin nose which is connected to the eyebrows. The ridge of the nose is emphasized with a double edge and gently lit whilethe almond-shaped eyes with dark circles are set below the inky arches of the eyebrows. The Virgin’s cheeks are smooth and rosy while her lips are red. The plasticity of her round chin is emphasized by a crease below the lower lip and its shadow. The Virgin’s eyes, nose and mouth are outlined with a thick red line. Her hands are light pink in colour and haveelongated fingers and pronounced, round muscles on the wrists. The fingers are separated and the nails are outlined with precision. The deep, resounding hues of the colour red and the gilding, together with the pale pink skin tone of her face, create an impression of monumentality. The type of the reclining Christ Child has been identified in Byzantine iconography as the Anapeson. Its theological background lies in the emphasis of Christ’s dual nature: although the Christ Child is asleep, the Christ as God is always keeping watch over humans. The image was inspired by a phrase from Genesis 49: 9 about a sleeping lion to whom Christ is compared: the lion sleeps with his eyes open. The Anapeson is drowsy and awake at the same time, and therefore his eyes are not completely shut. Such a paradox is a theological anticipation of his “sleep” in the tomb and represents an allegory of his death and Resurrection. The position, gesture and clothes of the Anapeson in Byzantine art are not always the same. Most frequently, the ChristChild is not depicted lying in his mother’s arms but on an oval bed or pillow, resting his head on his hand, while the Virgin is kneeling by his side. Therefore, the Anapeson from Dubrovnik is unique thanks to the conspicuously humanized relationship between the figures which is particularly evident in Christ’s explicitly intimate gesture of grasping the fingers of his mother’s hand: his right hand is literally “inserting” itself in the space between the Virgin’s thumb and index finger. At the same time, the baring of his arms provided the painter with an opportunity to depict the pale tones of a child’s tender skin. The problem of the iconography of the Anapeson in the medieval painting at Dubrovnik is further complicated by a painting which was greatly venerated in Župa Dubrovačka as Santa Maria del Breno. It has not been preserved but an illustration of it was published in Gumppenberg’sfamous Atlas Marianus which shows the Virgin seated on a high-backed throne and holding the sleeping and reclining Child. The position of this Anapeson Christ does not correspond fully to the icon from the Church of St. Nicholas because the Child is lying on its back and his naked body is covered with the swaddling fabric. The icon of the Virgin and Child from Prijeko claims a special place in the corpus of Romanesque icons on the Adriatic through its monumentality and intimate character. The details of the striking and lively Virgin’s face, dominated by the pronounced and gently curved Cimabuesque nose joined to the shallow arches of her eyebrows, link her with the Benedictine Virgin at Zadar. Furthermore, based on the manner of painting characterized by the use of intense red for the shadows in the nose and eye area, together with the characteristic shape of the elongated, narrow eyes, this Virgin and Child should be brought into connection with the painter who is known as the Master of the Benedictine Virgin. The so-called Benedictine Virgin is an icon, now at the Benedictine Convent at Zadar, which depicts the Virgin seated on a throne with a red, ceremonial, imperial cushion, in a solemn scheme of the Kyriotissa, the heavenly queen holding the Christ Child on her lap. The throne is wooden and has a round back topped with wooden finials which can also be seen in the Byzantine Kahn Virgin and the Mellon Madonna, as well as in later Veneto-Cretan painting. The throne is set under a shallow ciborium arch which is rendered in relief and supportedby twisted colonettes and so the painting itself is sunk into the surface of the panel. A very similar scheme with a triumphal arch can be seen on Byzantine ivory diptychs with shallow ciborium arches and twisted colonettes. In its composition, the icon from Prijeko is a combination ofthe Kyr i ot i ss a and the Hodegitria, because the Virgin as the heavenly queen does not hold the Christ Child frontally before her but on her right-hand side while pointing at him as the road to salvation. He is seated on his mother’s arm and is supporting himself by pressing his crossed legsagainst her thigh which symbolizes his future Passion. He is wearing a formal classical costume with a red cloak over his shoulder. He is depicted in half profile which opens up the frontal view of the red clavus on his navy blue chiton.He is blessing with the two fingers of his right hand and at the same time reaching for the unusual flower rendered in pastiglia which the Virgin is raising in her left hand and offering to him. At the same time, she is holding the lower part of Christ’s body tightly with her right hand.Various scholars have dated the icon of the Benedictine Virgin to the early fourteenth century. While Gothic features are particularly evident in the costumes of the donors, the elements such as the modelling of the throne and the presence of the ceremonial cushion belong to the Byzantine style of the thirteenth century. The back of the icon of the Benedictine Virgin features the figure of St. Peter set within a border consisting of a lively and colourful vegetal scroll which could be understood as either Romanesque or Byzantine. However, St. Peter’s identifying titulus is written in Latin while that of the Virgin is in Greek. The figure of St. Peter was painted according to the Byzantine tradition: his striking and severe face is rendered linearly in a rigid composition, which is complemented by his classical contrapposto against a green-gray parapet wall, while the background is of dark green-blue colour. Equally Byzantine is themanner of depicting the drapery with flat, shallow folds filled with white lines at the bottom of the garment while, at the same time, the curved undulating hem of the cloak which falls down St. Peter’s right side is Gothic. The overall appearance of St. Peter is perhaps even more Byzantine than that of the Virgin. Such elements, together with the typically Byzantine costumes, speak clearly of a skilful artist who uses hybrid visual language consisting of Byzantine painting and elements of the Romanesque and Gothic. Of particular interest are the wide nimbuses surrounding the heads of the Virgin and Child (St. Peter has a flat one) which are rendered in relief and filled with a neat sequence of shallow blind archesexecuted in the pastiglia technique which, according to M. Frinta, originated in Cyprus. The Venetian and Byzantine elements of the Benedictine Virgin have already been pointed out in the scholarship. Apart from importing art works and artists such as painters and mosaic makers directly from Byzantium into Venice, what was the extent and nature of the Byzantineinfluence on Venetian artistic achievements in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries? We know that the art of Venice and the West alike were affected by the Fourth Crusade and the sack of Constantinople in 1204, and by the newly founded Latin Empire which lasted until 1261.The Venetians played a particularly significant political and administrative role in this Empire and the contemporary hybrid artistic style of the eastern Mediterranean, called Crusader Art and marked by the strong involvement of the Knights Templar, must have been disseminated through the established routes. In addition to Cyprus, Apulia and Sicily which served as stops for the artists and art works en route to Venice and Tuscany, another station must have been Dalmatia where eastern and western influences intermingled and complemented each other.However, it is interesting that the icon of the Benedictine Virgin, apart from negligible variations, imitates almost completely the iconographic scheme of the Madonna di Ripalta at Cerignola on the Italian side of the Adriatic, which has been dated to the early thirteenth century and whose provenance has been sought in the area between southern Italy (Campania) and Cyprus. Far more Byzantine is another Apulian icon, that of a fourteenth-century enthroned Virgin from the basilica of St. Nicholas at Bari with which the Benedictine Virgin from Zadar shares certain features such as the composition and posture of the figures, the depictionof donors and Christ’s costume. A similar scheme, which indicates a common source, can be seen on a series of icons of the enthroned Virgin from Tuscany. The icon of the Virgin and Child from Prijeko is very important for local Romanesque painting of the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century because it expands the oeuvre of the Master of the Benedictine Virgin. Anicon which is now at Toronto, in the University of Toronto Art Centre Malcove Collection, has also been attributed to this master. This small two-sided icon which might have been a diptych panel, as can be judged from its typology, depicts the Virgin with the Anapeson in the upper register while below is the scene from the martyrdom of St. Lawrence. The Virgin is flanked by the figures of saints: to the left is the figure of St. Francis while the saint on the right-hand side has been lost due to damage sustained to the icon. The busts of SS Peter and Paul are at the top.The physiognomies of the Virgin and Child correspond to those of the Benedictine Virgin and the Prijeko icon. The Anapeson, unlike the one at Dubrovnik, is wrapped in a rich, red cloak decorated with lumeggiature, which covers his entire body except the left fist and shin. On the basis of the upper register of this icon, it can be concluded that the Master of the Benedictine Virgin is equally adept at applying the repertoire and style of Byzantine and Western painting alike; the lower register of the icon with its descriptive depiction of the martyrdom of St.Lawrence is completely Byzantine in that it portrays the Roman emperor attending the saint’s torture as a crowned Byzantine ruler. Such unquestionable stylistic ambivalence – the presence of the elements from both Byzantine and Italian painting – can also be seen on the icons of theBenedictine and Prijeko Virgin and they point to a painter who works in a “combined style.” Perhaps he should be sought among the artists who are mentioned as pictores greci in Dubrovnik, Kotor and Zadar. The links between Dalmatian icons and Apulia and Tuscany have already been noted, but the analysis of these paintings should also contain the hitherto ignored segment of Sicilian and eastern Mediterranean Byzantinism, including Cyprus as the centre of Crusader Art. The question of the provenance of the Master of the Benedictine Virgin remains open although the icon of the Virgin and Child from Prijeko points to the possibility that he may have been active in Dalmatia.However, stylistic expressions of the two icons from Zadar and Dubrovnik, together with the one which is today at Toronto, clearly demonstrate the coalescing of cults and forms which arrived to the Adriatic shores fromfurther afield, well beyond the Adriatic, and which were influenced by the significant, hitherto unrecognized, role of the eastern Mediterranean.

Résumé Cet article porte sur le patrimoine immobilier du chapitre de la basilique Saint-Pierre de Rome, étudié pour les XIVe-XVesiècles à partir des registres des censuali conservés à la Bibliothèque Apostolique Vaticane. Cette série documentaire permet de montrer comment un des plus puissants propriétaires ecclésiastiques de Rome gère les quelque 300 logements qu’il détient dans une ville qui connaît, au cours du XVesiècle, une très forte croissance démographique et économique. Les résultats de cette analyse mettent en lumière la pluralité des modalités de gestion de ce patrimoine immobilier hérité : si une petite fraction de cet ensemble de logements forme un « marché hors le marché », administré selon des logiques clientélaires ou charitables, le chapitre de Saint-Pierre se comporte pour le reste comme n’importe quel acteur privé du marché immobilier romain, visant à optimiser la rentabilité de son patrimoine, comme en témoignent l’inflation des loyers et les investissements spéculatifs qu’il pratique. Cette étude éclaire aussi les mécanismes de la formation des prix, en l’occurrence des loyers, qui apparaissent comme l’expression de l’interaction entre propriétaire et locataire et comme le fruit d’une négociation.

Résumé Le Père Adolfo Nicolás, nouveau Supérieur Général de la Compagnie de Jésus, s’adresse de manière plus personnelle aux jésuites de par le monde et aux amis de la famille ignatienne. Dans la grande tradition d’Ignace de Loyola et de François Xavier, il les invite à passer les frontières, à se confronter à la réalité du monde dans ses nouvelles dimensions, à apprendre à changer en partant à la rencontre de personnes et de cultures différentes. Pour la revue Etvdes, pour ceux qui la rédigent comme pour ceux qui la lisent, l’élection d’un nouveau Supérieur général de la Compagnie de Jésus est un événement marquant. Le Père Adolfo Nicolás a été élu à Rome le 19 janvier 2008, en remplacement du Père Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, qui avait donné sa démission après vingt-cinq ans de généralat. Vingt-neuvième successeur de saint Ignace, le nouveau Père général des jésuites est né en Espagne en 1936, et a passé la majeure partie de sa vie au Japon et aux Philippines. Nous reproduisons ci-dessous des extraits d’une interview donnée par le Père Adolfo Nicolás à Tom Rochford, Pierre Bélanger et Dani Villanueva, le 10 février 2008 à Rome. P. de C. - P. Adolfo Nicolás : Avant d’avoir une entrevue quelconque avec la presse, je voudrais parler de manière plus personnelle à tous les jésuites de par le monde, ainsi qu’aux amis et amies de la grande famille ignatienne. En m’adressant à vous, je m’imagine la Compagnie universelle et tous ceux qui travaillent avec nous. Puisse cette conversation me permettre d’être un peu plus proche de tous.