|
|
| akathists |
| portrayals |
| pkg-yasenevo.narod.ru |
 |
 |
 |
 |
It is characteristic that the kontakion of the Triumph of Orthodoxy refers not to one of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, but to the Mother of God. Here the unity of the doctrine of Christ and the doctrine of His Mother is expressed. The embodiment of the second Person of the Holy Trinity is the main tenet of Christianity. But the confession of this truth is possible only at the condition of the confession of the Virgin Mary as the being, that is, the true Theotokos, the Mother of God. Therefore, just as the denial of the human image of God logically leads to a denial of the very meaning of the Mother of God, and at the same time to a denial of the very meaning of salvation, and vice versa: the existence of veneration of the icon of Christ is determined by the meaning of the Mother of God, Whose consent (be it unto Me according to thy word) was a necessary condition for incarnation, which is the reason that God has become visible and described. According to the interpretation of the Holy Fathers, the image of the God-Man is based precisely on the ability to portray His Mother. "Since Christ comes from the indescribable Father," reverend Theodore Studite says, "He, being indescribable, cannot have an artificial image. In the very fact, to what equal image could the Deity be likened, Whose image in the God-inspired Scripture is completely forbidden? But since Christ was born from the describable Mother, naturally, He has an image corresponding to the maternal image. And if He did not have (an artificial image), He would not have been born of the described Mother; so He would have had only one birth — obviously from the Father. But this is the overthrow of His economy." This ability to portray God-Man in the flesh, perceived by Him from Mother, is opposed by the fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of the complete disability to portray God the Father, incomprehensible and invisible. The Fathers of the Council repeat the capital argument of St. Pope Gregory II from his letter to Emperor Leo Isaur: "Why do not we describe the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? Because we did not see Him [...]. And if we saw and knew Him as well as His Son, we would try to describe and picturesquely portray Him (the Father) either. This determines the fate of the entire Renaissance, both in painting and in sculpture and architecture. It created the art of human genius, but not religious inspiration. Its beauty is not holiness, but the ambiguous, demonic principle that covers the void, and its smile plays on the lips of Leonardic heroes [...]. This beauty of the Renaissance cannot be said to be able to “save the world”, because it itself needs to be saved. In the image of the Madonna, a truly masculine feeling, masculine love and lust is elusively felt [...]. And this familiarity with the Divine, this mystical worldliness, prepared that general secularization, the triumph of the pagan worldview, a sacrifice, and together the leaders of which the agents of Renaissance became. Beauty, ambiguous and seductive, with a pink cloud obscures the spiritual world here, art becomes the magic of beauty [...]. And thoughts rushed, interrupting one another and arguing. After all, this is also evidence of the spiritual state of the Western world, more authentic and convincing than all the folios of theology. How could this pagan human deity appear, go unnoticed, in the holy place? [...] The spiritual illness of the descendants and heirs of the “poor knight” is hidden in the works of the Renaissance, with its pagan Christianity, in these images, painted by the will of popes for temples, as icons, but, however, not allowing to have a religious attitude to them, and this is the more so the more artistically perfect they are. After all, what I felt with such acuteness in Sistine, this same thing is valid for the entire religious painting of the Renaissance. All of it is humanization, the secularization of the Divine: aesthetics as mysticism, mystic eroticism as religion, naturalism as a means of iconography." Since the knowledge of God in Roman Catholicism is carried out by analogy with the created world, this analogy runs like a red thread through all the religious art of the West, becoming its language, its norm. Thus, part of the Christian world is gradually returning to those elements in art, to its sensuality and illusory nature, with which early Christianity struggled so hard and for a long time. Recall that for the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the image of perishable flesh, not involved in the transformation, is already paganism. Initially, as V. Lossky claims, "the sacrament of the Church is inscribed in two perfect personalities: the Divine Person of Jesus Christ and the human person of the Mother of God." Hence, all the Divine economy, briefly expressed by the patristic formula "God became a Man so that a man can become a god," is originally expressed in the Tradition of the Church in two icons: the Person of Jesus Christ (His Vernicle Image) and the person of the Mother of God (Her icons painted by the Evangelist Luke) — new Adam and new Eve. And if we take as a starting point the Tradition of the Church itself, it turns out that these two images underlie both the dogma of icon veneration and the whole churchly image-making. If the icon of Christ — the basis of Christian image-making — conveys the features of God Who has become Man, then in the icon of the Mother of God we have the image of the first human who fulfilled the goal of embodiment that is the deification of human. The Orthodox Church affirms the blood relationship of the Mother of God with fallen humanity, bearing the consequences of original sin; it does not distinguish Her from the descendants of Adam. But at the same time, Her exclusive dignity of the Mother of God, Her personal perfection, the highest degree of holiness achieved by Her explain exclusive reverence towards Her. Of the whole human race, She was the first to achieve the goal that is set before all people — the complete transformation of all human essence. She is the only one of all created beings who has already crossed the line that separates time from eternity, and is now already in that Kingdom, the coming of which the Church awaits after the Second Coming of Christ. "She Who contained uncontainable God," "truly the Mother of God," so solemnly proclaimed the Fourth Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431). She rules with Christ the destinies of the world. Therefore, Her icons occupy a particularly significant place with us: their place in the church and worship is along with the icons of the Saviour. The icons of the Mother of God differ from the icons of other saints and the icons of Angels, both in the variety of iconographic types, and in their number and the intensity of their veneration. Note that the calendar of the Russian Church, in which the iconography of the Mother of God is very developed, has 260 Her icons, glorified by miracles and liturgically celebrated. In general, Sergius' Menaion has 700 names of Her icons. The Church Tradition attributes the first icons of the Mother of God to the holy Evangelist Luke, who wrote three of them after Pentecost: one of them belonged to the type that we call “Tenderness,” which depicts the mutual caress of the Mother of God and the Infant. This is the image of the Mother, deeply grieving over the forthcoming sufferings of the Son and in silence experiencing their inevitability. Another image refers to the type called "Hodegetria" — the Travel Guide. Both the Mother of God Herself and the Infant are faced here directly to the viewer. This is a strict and majestic image, where the Deity of the Child Christ is especially emphasized. The third icon, apparently, depicted the Virgin without the Infant. The data about it is extremely confusing. Most likely, this icon was like our images of the Mother of God in Deesis, that is, turned to Christ with a prayer. Currently, the Russian Church has about ten icons attributed to the Evangelist Luke; besides, on Athos and in the West there are twenty-one of them, eight of which in Rome. Of course, all these icons are not attributed to the evangelist in the sense that they are painted with his hand; not one of the icons painted by him has reached us. So, from the most ancient images of "Tenderness," we do not yet know a single one before the 10th century (the image in the Tokale Kilisse temple of 963–966). As for "Hodegetria," the most ancient images of this type known to us dating back to the 6th century (the Gospel of Ravula). The authorship of the holy Evangelist Luke here must be understood in the sense that these icons are copies (or rather copies from copies) of the icons that were once painted by the evangelist. Apostolic Tradition should be understood here in the same way as in relation to the Apostolic Rules or the apostolic Liturgy. They go back to the Apostles not because the Apostles themselves wrote them, but because they are apostolic in character and endowed with apostolic authority. The same is true for the icons of the Mother of God, painted by the Evangelist Luke. The legend that the Evangelist Luke first painted the icons of the Mother of God is transmitted to us, among other things, in the texts of the service during the celebration of certain icons of the Mother of God, such as the Vladimir Icon (May 21, June 23 and August 26), which belongs to the type of "Tenderness." At Vespers, in stichera of funeral(?) service of the sixth voice, the following is said: "Before Thine icon was painted by the good newsteller of Gospel secrets, and to Thee, O Queen, brought, in order to assimilate that, and to make it strong to save those who honour Thee, and Thou rejoicedst, for being merciful, the Co-worker of our salvation, as the mouth and voice were to the icon, as well as when Thou conceivedst God in the womb, Thou sangst a song: from henceforth all generations shall call Me blessed. And looking at that, Thou saidst with authority: with this image there are My grace and strength. And we truly believe that Thou saidst it, O Lady, by this image Thou art with us..." In the Matins, in the first song of the canon, we hear: "Having painted Thine all-honest image, the divine Luke, the inspired describer of the Gospel of Christ, portrayed the Creator of all in Thine hands." If the second of these texts merely indicates the very fact of the painting of the Icon of the Mother of God by St. Luke, the first one, moreover, states that the Mother of God Herself not only approved Her icon, but also gave it Her grace and strength. The Church uses this text in the service of several icons of the Mother of God of different types, but which all go back to the prototypes painted by the Evangelist Luke. By this, the Church emphasizes the succession of grace and power inherent in all copies of these icons as reproducing (with their characteristic symbols) the genuine features of the Mother of God, captured by the Evangelist Luke. As for historical evidences, the oldest of them, which has come down to us, dates back to the 6th century. It is attributed to the Byzantine historian Theodore the Reader, who lived in the first half of the sixth century (+ around 530) and was a reader in the church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. Theodore speaks of sending from Jerusalem to Constantinople in 450 the icon of the Mother of God, painted by the holy Evangelist Luke. The icon was sent by Empress Evdokia, wife of Emperor Theodosius II, to her sister Saint Pulcheria. The icon of the Mother of God, painted by the holy Evangelist Luke, is also mentioned in the famous epistle in defense of the icons to Constantine Kopronymos, which is often attributed to Venerable John of Damascus. In the 8th century, St. Andrew of Crete and St. Herman, Patriarch of Constantinople (715–730) also speak of the icons of Our Lady Hodegetria, attributed to the Evangelist Luke, but located in Rome. Saint Herman adds that this icon was painted during the life of the Mother of God and was sent to Rome to Theophilus, the very "most excellent Theophilus" mentioned in the introduction to the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. Another legend says that the icon painted by the Evangelist and blessed by the Mother of God was sent to the same Theophilus, although not to Rome, but to Antioch. One way or another, in the 6th century, when Christianity became the state religion and there was no longer any need to fear the abuse of shrines, the icon that once belonged to Theophilus and was stored in a private house in Rome, became more and more famous. The icon (or its reproduction) is transferred from the private house to the church, and in 590, Pope St. Gregory the Great (590–604), with a solemn procession with the singing of prayers, transfers the revered icon of the Mother of God, "which is considered to be painted by St. Luke" (quam dicunt a S. Lucas factam), to the St. Peter's Basilica. In addition to the icons painted by the Evangelist Luke, Tradition also speaks of the not made by hand, manifested image of the Mother of God. Its origin is summarized in the service of the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God (July 8 and October 22): "The Apostles of the Word, the great-voiced good newstellers of the Gospel of Christ to the universe, having built the Divine Church in Thine exalted name, Our Lady, and come to Thee, O Lady, praying for Thou comest to its sanctification. And Thou, O Theotokos, hast said: go in peace, and I am with you there. They, walking, find there on the wall of the church a likeness of Thine, O Lady, image..." (sat prayer of the 3rd song of canon). Tradition says that these Apostles were Peter and John, and that the temple was built by them in Lydda. (Celebration of the Lydda icon of the Mother of God is established on March 12). The most ancient historical evidences that have come down to us about the Lydda image itself date back to the 8th and 9th centuries. It is spoken of in a book passage written around 726 and attributed to St. Andrew of Crete, as well as in the council epistle of the three Eastern Patriarchs to the iconoclast emperor Theophilus, written in 839, and in the creation of George the Monk, relating to 886–887. Nothing is known about the fate of this image, except that it still existed in the 11th century. In the 8th century, Saint Herman, the future patriarch of Constantinople, passing through Lydda, ordered a copy of this icon, which he later sent to Rome during iconoclasm. After the victory over iconoclasm, this image returned to Constantinople. Since that time, the Lydda Image of the Mother of God is also called the Roman. The images of the Holy Virgin in the catacombs are almost as numerous as the images of the Saviour. But while Christ is often symbolically portrayed, the Mother of God is always portrayed directly and immediately. The most ancient Her image that has come down to us dates back to the 2nd century. She is portrayed in the scene of the Magi's worship, in the Annunciation (Priscilla's catacomb) and in the Nativity of Christ (catacomb of St. Sebastian, 4th century). She is also often portrayed alone, in the form of Oranta, that is, with hands raised in prayer. Such an image emphasizes Her role of the Representative before God for the Church and for the world, and in this form she is depicted on the numerous bottoms of liturgical vessels found in the catacombs. Sometimes the Apostles Peter and Paul are portrayed next to Her, sometimes Her mother, St. Anna. Her role is emphasized in the scene of the Magi's worship, portrayed very often in the first centuries of Christianity. It was a separate holiday, as it is until now in Western denominations. In the Orthodox Church, it is included in the feast of the Nativity of Christ. In the Roman catacombs, at least 12 images of the worship of the Magi, dating back to 2–4 centuries, are still open. Our Lady always sits, holding the Infant on Her knees and taking worship together with Him, which especially emphasizes Her dignity of the Mother of God. This plot was the answer to a very urgent question of that time: the question of the place of the Gentiles, that is, non-Jews, in the Church. Now for us this is not a problem; but in the first centuries, when the pagans began to enter the Church with Israel, for the salvation of which Christ came to earth, this question was acute. We know this from the Acts of the Apostles (see 11, 1–4 and 6, 1); the whole Council was dedicated to it — the Apostolic One (see Acts chap. 15). Images reflect this question often and variably. The Magi, who came to worship Christ born on earth, were the "firstfruits of the Gentiles," the firstfruits of the Church from the Gentiles. Therefore, Christians of the first centuries emphasized with such images the place in the Church of Christians from the Gentiles and the legality of their ministry along with Christians from the people of Israel. Still in the 6th century, in the mosaics of the Ravenna Church of St. Vitalius, we see the image of the worship of the Magi, embroidered on the cloak of Empress Theodora just in the image of her and Emperor Justinian's offering of gifts to the Church. They seem to repeat the ministry of the kings of the East, bringing gifts to Christ on behalf of the people they lead. Along with the images, direct and symbolic, of the Saviour and the Mother of God, we also see in the catacombs images of the Apostles, prophets, martyrs, as well as images of Angels, in a word, the whole variety of Christian iconography. Here should be mentioned an example characteristic of the art of the first centuries, which will help us to understand the further disclosure of Christian art. This is the already remembered oldest image of the Mother of God with the Infant.  But in this art of catacombs we find not only the basic principle of churchly art, but the general features of its outer appearance. As an assistant to the Second Adam, the Most Holy Virgin Mary gave Her consent on behalf of all creatures to salvation, prepared by God for the world in Christ. In the same quality, Her prayer intercession for the human race is explained: as we see in the example of the miracle in Cana of Galilee (see Jn. 2), with Her prayer intercession She contributes to the uptaking by the human race of the Kingdom of God, access to which became possible only through the cross feat of the Son of God embodied from Her. Like the first woman, Eve, the Most Holy Virgin Mary also became the Mother of all living (see Gen. 3, 20). Crucified on the Cross of Calvary, Her Divine Son adopted to Her in the person of His beloved disciple (see Jn. 19, 27) all the new mankind redeemed by Him, which She, through Her intercession, introduces into eternal life, which was endowed to it in Christ. This completes the analogy in the ways of God between the first Eve and the Most Holy Virgin Mary, the Mother of the God-man Christ. The title of New Eve, assimilated to Her by churchly writers, although it is not used in Scripture, however, has obvious biblical grounds for itself. Therefore, regarding the mariological truths, which received their full revelation in the New Testament, we can repeat the same words of the Evangelists: these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled (Jn. 19, 36), that is, the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, in its God-inspired words about the Mother of the Messiah.  Here it is necessary to recall the main provisions that make up the Orthodox view of Divine Revelation. Revelation is not, as it is often thought in Western theology, a kind of purely intellectual knowledge communicated by God to man. Revelation is accomplished through religious experience, that is, through the direct graceful entry of the human spirit into religious reality. As for the charisma of divine inspiration inherent in the authors of the Holy Scriptures, contrary to the assertions of the deceased Lagrange, this gift does not seem at all as distinct from God's revelation, an independent gift, supposedly not informing the sacred authors of any new knowledge, but only allowing them to correctly convey religious knowledge in the book that can be received in purely human ways. On the contrary, the gift that the authors of the Holy books received should be presented as one of the varieties of the revelation of God into the world. It simultaneously presented to the sacred author both insight into the revealing religious truth, and a vision of words, images, expressions that could most adequately express this truth in human language. But we insist on understanding God-given inspiration as a kind of revelation of God precisely because it is due to this that the conciliar character of Revelation is emphasized and clarified. The latter is addressed to the entire human race. Prophets, Apostles, and other authors of the Holy books are mediators between God and all mankind. Their religious experience should be the property of all generations. Under the guidance of the Spirit of God, the religious experience of a mediator is constantly being clarified and deepened, due to which Revelation constantly continues in the Church, realizing in its single charismatic consciousness. Namely to this living religious experience of the whole Church in its totality the instructions of the Holy Spirit are addressed, which make up the broadest meaning inherent in some Old Testament texts. That is why this meaning has in the letter itself only a starting point; it receives its revelation not in the letter, but in Tradition. It is enough for us to point out now that the Holy Spirit really was pleased to enclose some certain pre-designations for the New Testament mysteries, in particular the mystery about the Mother of God, in certain Old Testament texts. The same Holy Spirit guided the Holy Tradition in clarifying and revealing the broadest meaning. Therefore, those interpretations of the Sacred texts that we find in ancient versions of the Scriptures of the Old Testament can be important indicators of the presence of the latter. These ancient versions, and especially the translation of seventy, are the monuments and testimonies of Tradition, and one can only regret that this fact is not sufficiently taken into account by that part of Western exegesis, which tends to defend the broadest meaning. Revealed to the end only in Holy Tradition, the broadest meaning of the Old Testament does not coincide with either the literal-historical meaning, nor the literal-prophetic, or even with the typological meaning and, as our study shows, can perfectly coexist with them.  I stand before Thee and pray, A poor sinner, with darkness covered, Shield Thou with heavenly grace. If I'm overtaken by trials, Sorrows, losses, and enemies, In life's hour difficult, moment of suffering, Help me, I am Thee praying! Joy spiritual, thirst for salvation Put indissolubly in my heart. To Kingdom of Heaven, world of consolation Show Thou me a straight path. She came with the Greek princess Anna, the daughter of the Byzantine emperor, married to the Grand Duke Vsevolod Yaroslavich, and began to be called “Smolenskaya” among us. A century later, with Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky, already in another of Her icons, the Vladimir one, She came from Kyiv to the north. After the Time of Troubles, Feodorovskaya-Kostromskaya blessed us with the kingdom of the youth Michael, and on the eve of the unprecedented upheavals of the revolution, She took the Russian land under the protection of Her Sovereign Icon. Russia could be called the Mother of God country. The love and reverent attitude of the Russian people towards the icon of the One Who is more honourable than the Cherubim and more glorious than the Seraphim, and the mercy of the Queen of Heaven Herself towards our Fatherland has made it possible that more than 468 names of Her holy icons have been revealed in Russia. But no matter how many icons we have and no matter how different their names are, coming mainly from the names of the places where they were revealed, our consciousness has not diminished one iota that these different images are images of the same one Mother of God. However, the question may still arise: have we not, over the twenty centuries of the existence of Christ's Church on earth, moved too far away from the historical truth? Aren't there many historical errors mixed into our iconography — the imaginary, taken for reality? Well, the question is quite legitimate. To the question of the Apostle Thomas about the reality of His wounds, the Lord answered with the words: "Come and see." To the question about the correctness of icon-painting traditions, the Lord was pleased to preserve for people for twenty centuries an answer almost the same tangible as the answer to the Apostle Thomas, that is, again "come and see." There was a world famous sculptor, artist, mathematician, architect, inventor — a rare talent of the first magnitude — Leonardo da Vinci. There was Father Pavel Florensky — a writer, mathematician, theologian, physicist, philosopher, who was called the Russian Leonardo da Vinci. In the book of Father Pavel Florensky "The Pillar and Ground of Truth" we read: "According to the tradition preserved by the Church historian Nicephorus Callistus, the Mother of God was of average height or, as others say, slightly more than average; with golden hair; eyes fast, with pupils the color of olives; eyebrows were arched and moderately black; oblong nose; the face was not round and not sharp, but somewhat oblong; the hands and fingers were long." Let us give another excerpt from the book of Father P. Florensky: "The powerful and indelible impression that the Virgin Mary made on eyewitnesses is depicted in vivid words in a wonderful monument known as 'Letters of St. Dionysius the Areopagite to the Apostle Paul.' This is what is written in this letter, which tells about the Areopagite's visit to the Mother of God: 'I confess before God, O glorious teacher and guide, that it seemed incredible to me that there could be a Being so richly filled with Divine power and wondrous grace, other than the Most High God Himself. But I saw not only with my spiritual, but also with my physical eyes, something that no human mind can comprehend. Yes! Yes! I saw with my own eyes the God-like and above all heavenly Spirits, the Most Holy Mother of our Christ Jesus.'" Do we still need to prove, after this stunning evidence, after this almost physical touch of the first decades of the Christian era, that the Orthodox icon-painting tradition has not deviated from the right path over twenty centuries? That God, the True God, Who "has lived with men," is depiсtable, what is done by iconography; that the honour given to an icon relates to its prototype, as the holy fathers taught. And what does one who worships an icon worship what is depicted on it? We do not need anything! Nothing more is needed after we have "put our fingers in" and received communion from Saints Ignatius the God-Bearer and Dionysius the Areopagite into the spirit-bearing testimony of the Truth! Let us only add that the icon completely becomes an icon, that is, an object of religious veneration only through consecration. "By consecration is drawn an impassable boundary between a religious painting, as if it were not high in its religious content and artistic achievements, and an icon, no matter how modest it may be in this respect." “This icon is sanctified by the grace of the Most Holy Spirit, by the sprinkling of this sacred water, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Breviary). This is what makes an icon an icon! The line between a miraculous and a non-miraculous icon is not unconditional or fundamental, but only factual. The prayer from the Breviary for the consecration of the icon of the Mother of God says: "And give it the power and strength of miraculous action." Thanks to this, we can say that every icon is potentially, through the grace present in it, miraculous. Manifesting miracles, becoming miraculous, the icon from the place of the hidden presence of Divine power becomes the place of its appearance. This, so to speak, self-revelation is what distinguishes a miraculous icon from a non-miraculous one. In Her miraculous icons, the Mother of God reveals Her closeness to our world, with which She lives the same life and grieves with its sorrows — "in the Dormition Thou didst not forsake the world, O Theotokos." Let us now turn to a direct examination of some of our miraculous icons of the Mother of God and see that the quoted words from the troparion to the Dormition about Her not abandoning the world find innumerable confirmations in our national history. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 and the most Holy Mother of God | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 | ||
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |  |  |  | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 the Holy Mountain Athos | |
 |
 |
 in the Nikolsky Monastery in Staraya Ladoga | ||
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 the perished |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 "All-Merciful Protectress" |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 in the Raif Monastery | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 | ||
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 | |
 |
 |
 | ||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|