One of the prominent themes that
emerged in Russian theological thought in the 19th and 20th
centuries was the concept of Sophia, or Divine Wisdom. Personified as a woman and loosely associated
with the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity as well as with the Theotokos and
the Church, speculation on the nature of Sophia was often controversial, and
some of the theologians incurred ecclesiastical condemnation due to the
perceived similarity of sophianic thought to ancient Gnosticism, Protestant
theosophy, and German transcendental idealism.
The purpose of this paper shall be to explain the main concepts and
terms of Russian sophiology in such a manner as to show that it is at heart
genuinely Orthodox despite unfortunate and confused phrasing on the part of the
authors in question. I shall do this by
arguing that Sophia, under the aspect conceived especially by the two
theologians Fr. Sergei Bulgakov and Holy New-Martyr Fr. Pavel Florensky, is not
actually a “fourth hypostasis” or a feminization of one of the Three
Hypostases, but rather a manner of viewing the uncreated energies of God, as
described and enshrined in Orthodox dogma by St. Gregory Palamas. I shall use Palamas’ terminology to relate
Sophia to the Most Holy Trinity, and conclude by showing how the writings of the often influential but neglected 16th-century
Lutheran spiritual writer Jacob Boehme relate Sophia to the Western, Roman
Catholic teaching on divine grace. My
secondary purpose in explaining the relation between Sophia and the Trinity
will be to separate sophiology from the sort of Gnostic speculations that
unfortunately tainted the work of Vladimir Soloviev, and also from the feminist
heresies in the latter half of the 20th century that identified
Sophia with either God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit.
As it is the subject of an entire
category of books in the Old Testament, there is no need to pose the question
as to whether Sophia exists, but only
as to what manner of being Sophia
has. There are two extremes which this
paper will attempt to steer a middle ground between. One would speak of divine wisdom as simply an
abstraction, much as one would speak of human wisdom as a description of the
quality of someone’s mind and not a hypostatic reality in its own right. This ought to be rejected for the following
liturgical, Scriptural, and mystical reasons.
First, Scripture personifies Wisdom throughout all of the wisdom books,
speaking of her in language too strong for a mere abstraction. “For Wisdom is more active than all active
things: and reacheth everywhere by reason of her purity. For she is a vapour of the power of God, and
a certain pure emanation of the glory of the almighty God; and therefore no
defiled thing cometh into her. For she
is the brightness of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of God’s majesty,
and the image of his goodness. And being
but one, she can do all things: and remaining in herself the same, she reneweth
all things, and through nations conveyeth herself to holy souls, she maketh the
friends of God and prophets. For God
loveth none but him that dwelleth with wisdom.”[1]
Secondly, there is a liturgical
tradition of naming temples in honor of Sophia, most notably Hagia Sophia in
Constantinople, and consequently several iconographic templates for writing
icons to her. It is strictly forbidden
within Orthodoxy to write icons depicting abstractions (leading some
iconographers to reject the icons of Sophia as heretical)[2] or
to dedicate temples to them. Therefore
Sophia must be in some sense hypostatic.
Thirdly, this paper assumes the real
rather than abstract existence of Sophia because it would like to fully account
for Vladimir Soloviev’s visions of Sophia.[3] Soloviev is almost universally positively
regarded as a theologian in both Catholic and Orthodox circles, and given his
ardent defense of the Papacy with which he professed communion and his lifelong
attempt to bring the Russian Orthodox Church into union with Rome, it is at
least easier to believe that his visions were of God rather than of the
devil. His first vision of Sophia as a
resplendent lady occurred during Liturgy at the age of nine; a second occurred
in the British Library while he was reading somewhat dubious Protestant
sophianic texts by Jacob Boehme and John Pordage. Sophia then instructed him to go seek her in
the Egyptian desert, and he immediately left for a remote part of Egypt where
he had a third vision of her. Shortly after these visions, he earnestly
embraced an ultramontane view of the Papacy, publicly received communion from a
Catholic priest, and spent the rest of his life defending Christian unity. It would not seem that a mere abstraction
could be such an effective agent of grace.
The second extreme I would like to
avoid in this paper is to make Sophia a separate hypostasis in her own
right. Since I am interested in the
orthodox Christian doctrine of Sophia, I will not be concerned with Gnosticism,
and due to the length constraints of this paper I will not critique Soloviev’s
ambitious and dubious attempt to adopt the entire system and terminology of
Valentinian Gnosticism while showing that properly understood it is nothing
other than Trinitarian orthodoxy.
Likewise, because the Orthodox doctrine of God is that though God
transcends the biological categories of male and female, He relates to us as a
male, and it is heretical to refer to any of the three hypostases of the
Trinity as female (as Sophia, or as Mother, or as Divine Feminine) despite the
popularity of such an identification by modern feminists as well as by some
more mainstream Roman Catholic pop theologians.[4] Instead, I shall argue that Divine Sophia is
the hypostatic energy of the Most
Holy Trinity following the essence/energy distinction elucidated by St. Gregory
Palamas and enshrined as dogma by the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 1351.[5] The basic structure of my argument shall
follow the reasoning of Fr. Sergei Bulgakov in his book Holy Wisdom.
Despite his ecclesiastical
condemnation, Bulgakov was self-consciously attempting to express Orthodox
doctrine on the subject.[6] Like Soloviev, he was familiar with the
earlier theological ventures into sophiology made by Protestants like Jacob
Boehme and John Pordage, and which had been introduced by the Freemasons into
Russia at the end of the 18th century. However, he argued that his own teaching did
not derive from Boehme but from Tradition,[7]
and gently criticized Soloviev for mixing Gnostic elements in with his
Orthodoxy.
Starting with Proverbs 8:22-31,
Bulgakov notes that Sophia is in some way hypostatic,[8]
but contra Arius not identical to the
Logos because the passage has Wisdom say “The Lord created me.”[9] Instead of identifying her with the Logos,
Bulgakov related her to the Shekinah, the Glory of God. According to Bulgakov, Wisdom and Glory are
distinct aspects of the Godhead, but distinguished only by the way in which
they are revealed. Wisdom refers to the
content of the revelation of the Godhead; Glory/Shekinah to the manifestation
of the revelation of the Godhead.
“Wisdom is the matter of Glory, Glory the form of Wisdom,” as he says.[10] “Nevertheless,” Bulgakov states, “these two
distinct aspects can in no way be separated from each other or replaced by one
another, as two principles within the Godhead.
This would contradict the truth of monotheism, for the one personal God
possesses but one Godhead, which is expressed at once in Wisdom and Glory.”[11] Though Bulgakov’s terminology is at times
unclear, it seems that Godhead is the divine ousia; “God possesses the Godhead, or he is the Godhead”.[12]
It would seem that Bulgakov is
inaccurate to identify Sophia as the divine Ousia,
however,[13]
though he acknowledges in a footnote that a more precise and less simplistic
phrasing would be to acknowledge an “equivalence in difference” between Sophia
and ousia analogous to that of the ousia and energeiai of St. Gregory Palamas.[14] Even more precisely, Bulgakov identifies
Sophia with the divinity of God, and in the medieval disputes over the
hypostatic origin versus eternal manifestation of the divinity of the Holy
Spirit through the Son, divinity became regarded in the East as the energy of
God.[15] As Bulgakov explains, “The glory of God in
these instances is obviously intended to represent a divine principle. Though it differs from God’s personal being, yet it is inseparably
bound up with it: it is not God, but Divinity.”[16] From the Western point of view, the divinity
of God is His natura or “essence”
since it is what makes God what He is.
God’s essence is His existence, or His essence is to exist, and therefore
divinity cannot exist apart from God and God cannot exist except through His
divinity. The Eastern theological
viewpoint does not disagree with this because of the subtle difference in
meaning between ousia and natura; expressing this truth in Eastern
terms, Bulgakov says that Sophia is eternally
hypostasized in and through the hypostases of the Trinity. Sophia is the life of God – “the life of an
hypostatic spirit, though not itself hypostatic.”[17]
Bulgakov is careful to say that
Sophia is “not itself hypostatic” in order to avoid the error that the phrasing
of his martyred colleague Fr. Pavel Florensky sometimes leaned towards in
making God a quarternitas, for
example when Florensky calls God a “fourth hypostatic element”.[18] Bulgakov notes the similarity of this
phrasing to the medieval heresy of Gilbert de la Porree, for whom the Godhead
was a fourth term of the Trinity, and who was condemned by the Council of
Rheims in 1147. Bulgakov quotes the
aforesaid council as having “very justly proclaimed that Divinitas sit Deus et Deus Divinitas.”[19]
Because of God’s simplicity – He is
a Trinity, not a set of three gods – there is but one divinity and consequently
one Sophia. Because of the
inseparability of energy and essence, it is impossible for multiple essences to
have the same energy or for one essence to have multiple energies. As St. John Damascene taught us, God’s energy
is simple, and likewise Fr. Bulgakov teaches that the Holy Trinity “possesses
one Wisdom, not three; one Glory, not three.”[20]
Sophiology becomes more tricky when
we approach the question of the relation of Sophia to the created world. God created the world by His energies
(“energy” by definition refers to the ontological being of an action within the
doer), and His presence in the world and indeed the very being of the world are through His energies;[21]
Bulgakov will say that it is by Sophia that the world is created,[22]
and he says that what he means by this is that God’s Wisdom is the “reason” why
God created the world, insofar as God could be said to have a reason.
Furthermore, since Wisdom is the
content or “matter” of the revelation of God, and God reveals Himself first and
foremost through creating creatures that partake a likeness to the Creator and
are capable of receiving a revelation of God, the first and foremost “matter” of
God’s revelation is nothing other than the entire created universe itself. Bulgakov and other Russian theologians vary
on whether Sophia is created or uncreated, and whether Sophia is one or two. In The
Wisdom of God, Bulgakov speaks of two Sophias, one created and the other
uncreated;[23]
the two Sophias were perfectly united in the person of Christ, making our
theosis possible.[24] However, he also noted that this would seem
to introduce “a sort of duplication of the divine Sophia”,[25]
violating the absolute incommensurability between Creator and creature. Orthodox thought does not recognize an
“analogy of being”, an idea largely misunderstood as implying a common ground
or set of qualities between God and the world.
Instead, Orthodoxy insists that the created world participates in Being
through the uncreated energies of God, making God the sole ground of being
between both (an idea that should hopefully sound familiar to Thomist
ears). God therefore is the being of
created things, and the “creaturely Sophia” (Bulgakov does not say “created”)
is truly divine, just as sanctifying grace is divine (and, according to
Orthodox dogma, therefore uncreated).
Consequently, Bulgakov notes that “it is nearer the truth to speak of
unity, even identity, as between the divine and the creaturely Sophia; for
there is nothing doubled in God. At the
same time, however, and without equivocation, we can speak of the two different
forms of Sophia in God and in the creature.”[26] Bulgakov distinguishes them both on the
grounds of one’s simplicity and perfection and the other’s temporality, and on
the grounds of one’s divinity and the other’s participatedness.
In order to do full justice to
the unity of Sophia and avoid the clumsiness of having an asymmetric duality
between Sophias, most other Russian theologians will speak of a single
Sophia. They disagree, however, as to
whether this Sophia is created or uncreated, or somewhere inbetween. Sensitive to the ecclesiastical condemnation
(in the Synodikon of Holy Orthodoxy) of the idea of eternal Platonic forms
which would compromise the createdness of matter and the freedom with which God
created the world, Fr. Vasilii Zenkovskii insisted that Sophia had to be purely
created, a view strongly supported by Scriptural passages in which God is
spoken of as having created Sophia (such as Proverbs 8:22).[27] Father Zenkovskii was supported in his view
by a number of prominent theologians whose Orthodoxy was irreproachable,
including Fr. Georges Florovsky, Vladimir Lossky, and his less well-known
father Nikolai Lossky. Yet just as the
disciples of Barlaam the Calabrian ended up concluding that “created grace” as
a creature is incapable of bridging the ontological gap and uniting us to God,
Father Zenkovskii was unable to explain how a created thing could truly be the
Wisdom of God as described in Wisdom 7, and his attempt to do so was wrought
with contradictions. For example, one has
to wonder exactly what he means when he speaks of the “genuine, although not
beginningless, eternity of the sophianic foundation of the world”.[28]
An equally reputable Orthodox
theologian, Prince Evgeny Trubetskoi, went the opposite direction and treated
Sophia as purely divine without any creaturely element. Trubetskoi argued that as a power of God,
Wisdom had to be “a quality inalienable from Him”.[29] This description fails to explain how there
could be any communion between God and creation, how the created world could
manifest the wisdom of God as the unanimous Christian tradition has always
said, how one could personally live a life of wisdom, or how the world could
reveal the wisdom of God.
Florensky tried to describe a
single Sophia which was somewhere either both God and creaturely or somewhere
in-between, as did Bulgakov in his earlier writings. In The
Lamb of God, written a couple years before The Wisdom of God, he says that “a single Sophia is disclosed in
both God and creation”, [30]
and says that this single Sophia exists “between being and supra being without
being one or the other, or is both at the same time”.[31] Seeking to avoid pantheism, he clarifies that
the world itself “is Sophia in its
basis but is not Sophia in its
condition”,[32]
though this expression could be taken in either a conventional Thomist sense
(God is the cause of the being of the world, and the world participates in the
Being of God and is ordered in terms of final causality towards God), or in an
pantheistic adaptation of the Gnostic myth of the “fall of Sophia”, making the
world itself originally uncreated but now fallen.
Bulgakov also speaks of a
typological relationship between created realities and an eternal Sophia, but
this does not seem to avoid the Platonic errors that Fr. Zenkovskii sought to
avoid, and occasionally seems to fall into a quasi-docetism or
quasi-Eutychianism. Since “Sophia is the
heavenly Type of humanity or, in this sense, heavenly manhood itself”,[33]
the createdness of Christ’s human nature can become compromised, at least in his
phrasing. “Christ’s created manhood is
rendered transparent to his eternal manhood.”[34] Father Florovsky’s phrasing is better, when
he describes the “divine idea” of something, associated with “created Sophia”,
as “the truth of a thing, its transcendent entelechy”.[35] As with most of Florovsky, this idea is
heavily grounded in patristic theology, in this case St. Maximos the Confessor.
The phrasing of Holy New-Martyr
Pavel Florensky is bolder, and sometimes more consistent, than that of
Bulgakov, but violates the incommensurability between God and Creation. He describes Sophia as “the Great Root of the
whole creation. That is, Sophia is
all-integral creation and not merely all
creation. Sophia is the Great Root by
which creation goes into the intra-Trinitarian life and through which it
receives Life Eternal from the One Source of Life. Sophia is the original nature of creation,
God’s creative love.”[36]
This would seem to put Sophia on
the created side of the ontological gap – and, indeed, he will later say that
“Sophia is a fourth, creaturely, and
therefore nonconsubstantial Person… She ‘is’ not Love, but only enters into
communion with Love. And she is allowed
to enter into this communion by the ineffable, unfathomable, inconceivable
humility of God.”[37] Yet he also seems to put her on the uncreated
side of the ontological gap, when he says, “Sophia is the Guardian Angel of
creation, the Ideal person of the world.
The shaping reason with regard to creation, Sophia is the shaped content
of God-Reason, His ‘psychic content,’ eternally created by the Father through
the Son and completed in the Holy Spirit:
God thinks by things.”[38] He calls Sophia “creaturely”, and
acknowledges a separate uncreated Wisdom of which the creaturely Sophia is the
“image and shadow”,[39]
but even then says that “realized, imprinted, in the empirical world in time,
Sophia, although she is creaturely, precedes the world. She is a supramundane hypostatic collection
of divine prototypes of that which exists.”[40]
Though it is often taken for
granted in the West that God alone is capable of creating, Florensky describes
God giving Sophia creative power. “She
is the Eternal Bride of the Word of God.
Outside of Him and independently of Him, she does not have being and
falls apart into fragments of ideas about creation. But in Him she receives creative power. One in God, she is multiple in creation and is
perceived in creation in her concrete appearances as the ideal person of man, as his
Guardian Angel, i.e., as the spark of the eternal dignity of the person and
as the image of God in man.”[41]
It would seem that all of these
errors and confusions would be avoided and the difficulties solved, by
returning more closely to the dogma of the divine energies and Bulgakov’s
identification of Sophia as the content of divine revelation. The divine energies are uncreated, and the act of creation is itself uncreated; but
the content of the revelation – the entire universe – is created. Therefore, viewed as energy or act of
revelation, Sophia is uncreated; viewed as the content or “matter” of
revelation, Sophia is created; but there are not two different Sophias, but
only one viewed two different ways. Christian
orthodoxy does not allow for a separate existence to the world apart from the
act of being by which God creates it and by which it participates in being,
although Christianity does not always explicitly emphasize this truth as
strongly as acosmic philosophies and religious systems (such as the Vedanta
within Hinduism) do; this act of being is both uncreated in terms of what it
really is and created in terms of what participates in and is brought into
existence through this act of being.
As Wisdom is the efficacious
revelation of God, it is fitting that Wisdom has been most closely identified
with that which has most strongly revealed God and united creation to Him –
Christ, the Theotokos, the Church, and grace.
It is understandable that the Son should have been referred to as
“Wisdom” as well as “Logos” because Christ reveals God in a unique way, and
also that Sophia should have been thought to have been somehow between created
and uncreated reality given the depth of her manifestation in Mary, whom (in
one of his embarrassingly less theologically precise moments) St. Gregory
Palamas referred to as “standing at the border between created and uncreated
nature.”[42]
As Wisdom is the revelation of
God through the divinizing energies, its most intimate manifestation in the
lives of believers is through the Church and the life of grace. Indeed, following the terminology of
Soloviev, Bulgakov describes sophiology as nothing but the “full dogmatic
elucidation” of the doctrine of Godmanhood (Bogochelovechestvo).[43] The revelation of Godmanhood is the Church,[44]
both in her heavenly, preexistent aspect and her earthly aspect.[45] In this final aspect of Sophia I shall depart
from my treatment of the Russian theologians and turn to the father of modern
sophiology, always lurking behind the texts of those who came after him, but
always veiled under a cloud of suspicion.
The unorthodox Lutheran cobbler and theosopher Jacob Boehme wrote a
spiritual masterwork entitled The Life in
Christ which avoided the unorthodox doctrinal speculations of his more
theoretical books. The height of the
spiritual life for Boehme, which permeated his entire book, was the marriage of
the soul with Sophia, a marriage which (in blatant violation of Lutheran
teaching) truly unites the soul to Christ.[46] This union of which Boehme wrote is nothing
other than the life of grace in the soul, transforming through complete union
with the divinizing energies of God.
“When Christ the cornerstone moves in the corrupted image of man in his
deep conversation and repentance, the Virgin Sophia appears in the movement of
Christ’s spirit in the corrupted image in Her Virginal clothing before the soul,”[47]
and as Queen of Heaven the Virgin Sophia cannot unite with the Old Adam without
transforming it in Christ.[48] As
a Lutheran, Boehme could speak the soteriological language of Western
Christianity, and yet his doctrine of Sophia was read by and influential on the
Russian sophiologists. Orthodox doctrine
associates grace with the uncreated divine energies (though the two concepts
are not quite identical), and thus the spiritual doctrine of Boehme is the
final testament and argument presented here for the identification of Sophia as
the revelatory and deifying energies of God.
Reference
List
Boehme,
Jacob. The Way to Christ, translated by Peter Erb. New York:
Paulist Press, 1978.
Bulgakov,
Sergei. The Wisdom of God, translated by Patrick Thompson. New York:
Paisley Press, 1937.
Challoner,
Richard. The Holy Bible: Douay-Rheims
Version. Rockford, IL: TAN Books and Publishers, 2000.
Florensky,
Pavel. The Pillar and Ground of the Truth, translated by Boris Jakim. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997.
Palamas,
Gregory. Saint Gregory Palamas: The
Homilies, translated by Christopher Veniamin. South Canaan, PA: Mount Thabor Publishing, 2009.
Sergeev,
Mikhail. Sophiology in Russian Orthodoxy.
Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press,
2006.
Soloviev,
Vladimir. Divine Sophia: The Wisdom
Writings of Vladimir Solovyov, translated by Judith Deutsch Kornblatt. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press, 2009.
[1] Wisdom 7:24-28. The Holy Bible, Douay Rheims Version, revised
by Bishop Richard Challoner. Rockford,
Ill: TAN Books and Publishers, 2000.
[2] I owe this knowledge to a
personal conversation with a Romanian Catholic iconographer who holds this view
of the icon of Sophia.
[3] Soloviev, Three Encounters, in Kornblatt, Divine
Sophia: The Wisdom Writings of Vladimir
Solovyov, 263-272.
[4] Such as Scott Hahn in his book First Comes Love.
[5]The “Palamite council” of
Constantinople/Blachernae is authoritative in the East by the inclusion of
their canons in the Synodikon of Holy Orthodoxy sung on the first Sunday of
Great Lent and by the introduction of the feast of St. Gregory Palamas on the
following Sunday as a continuation of the Feast of Holy Orthodoxy. Despite older Roman Catholic polemics against
St. Gregory, he holds the same liturgical place and position of authority as a
Pillar of Orthodoxy in Orthodox churches in communion with Rome as with
Orthodox churches still separated from Rome.
[6] His doctrine was condemned by
both the Moscow Patriarchate and by concordats of Russian Orthodox in exile who
rejected the Moscow Patriarchate’s subservience to Communism. The Moscow Patriarchate came out first with a
decree in 1935 which declared “Bulgakov’s doctrine of the being of God has
nothing in common with the Church tradition and does not belong to the Orthodox
Christian Church” and demanded “his written repudiation of his sophianic
interpretation of the dogmas of faith and of his other mistakes in the teaching
of faith as well as a written promise of unchanging fidelity to the teaching of
the Orthodox Church.” Quoted in Mikhail
Sergeev, Sophiology in Russian Orthodoxy,
124-125. This decree was followed
immediately by a condemnation of Bulgakov by the Arhiereiskii Sobor of the
Church in Exile, which used the term heresy.
[7] Sergei Bulgakov, The Wisdom of God, 20.
[8] The Wisdom of God, 47.
[9] The Wisdom of God, 49.
[10] The Wisdom of God, 80.
[11] The Wisdom of God, 54.
[12] The Wisdom of God, 59.
[13] The Wisdom of God, 56.
[14] The Wisdom of God, 55, footnote.
[15] See for example Steven Todd
Kaster’s unpublished paper “The Palamite Doctrine of God”.
[16] The Wisdom of God, 52.
[17] The Wisdom of God, 57.
[18] Quoted by Sergeev, Sophiology in Russian Orthodoxy, 94,
from the Russian edition of Florensky’s The
Pillar and Ground of the Truth, 323.
My translation uses “personal” rather than “hypostasic”.
[19] The Wisdom of God, 59, footnote.
[20] The Wisdom of God, 60.
[21] Homily, Theophany 2011. Priest Ihar Labacevich, St. John the Baptist
Byzantine Catholic Church, Minneapolis.
[22] The Wisdom of God, 109.
[23] The Wisdom of God, 17.
[24] The Wisdom of God, 141.
[25] The Wisdom of God, 114.
[26] The Wisdom of God, 115.
[27] Sergeev, Sophiology in Russian Orthodoxy, 114.
[28] Zenkovskii, “Preodolenie
platonizma i problema sofiinosti mira”, Put’,
no. 24 (1930):3-40, p. 35, quoted in Sergeev, 115
[29] Smysl zhizni, Moscow:
Respublika, 1994, p. 100, quoted in Sergeev, 136
[30] The Lamb of God, 148, quoted in Sergeev, Sophiology in Russian Orthodoxy, p. 110.
[31] Philosophy of Economy, p. 188, quoted in Sergeev, 102.
[32] Philosophy of Economy, p. 195, quoted in Sergeev, 103.
[33] The Wisdom of God, 150.
[34] The Wisdom of God, 142.
[35] Creation and Redemption:
Collected Works, Volume III, p. 62, quoted in Sergeev, 122.
[36] Florensky, The Pillar and Ground of the Truth, 237.
[37] The Pillar and Ground of the Truth, 252.
[38] The Pillar and Ground of the Truth, 237.
[39] The Pillar and Ground of the Truth, 251.
[40] The Pillar and Ground of the Truth, 251-252.
[41] The Pillar and Ground of the Truth, 239.
[42] St. Gregory Palamas, Homily
XXXVII, in Veniamin, The Homilies of St.
Gregory Palamas, 296.
[43] The Wisdom of God, 34.
[44] The Wisdom of God, 36.
[45] The Pillar and Ground of the Truth, 253.
[46] Jacob Boehme, The Way to Christ, 58.
[47] The Way to Christ, 60.
[48] The Way to Christ, 155.
No comments:
Post a Comment