| American history has been marked by intolerance, which clearly has its origin in Puritanism. All must swim with the tide; otherwise you are ‘un-American’. All have heard of the Salem witch-trials. All have heard of slavery, racism, civil war and blind Puritan phariseeism. But what happens to Puritanism in a post-Puritan and atheist society? The intolerant reflex does not disappear – it becomes the witch-hunt of those who consider, for example, that homosexual marriage or abortion are sins, that LGBT is an illness, or indeed, that any sin is sin and vice is vice. It becomes the witch-hunt of those who consider that drugs are just a new form of slavery and destroy the freedom of the individual. The New America says: Anything goes – if it ‘feels good’ and is ‘fun’, then ‘let it all hang out’. In other words, Puritanism has, by reaction to the restrictive rigidity and frigidity of the past, been turned upside down; now all is permitted, except the denial that all should be permitted. Intolerance abounds in New America against whatever is deemed to be against the peculiar fashion of political correctness, a set of moral prejudices which is quite striking in its utter inanity and illogic. Anti-Christian political correctness is the new Puritanism, the new intolerance. The conformism and intolerance of a rapidly developing post-Protestant and militantly atheist society are frightening. The first temptation for Orthodoxy in such a society is then the temptation to conform, to cease being itself for fear of being different, to demote itself. For decades now, we have seen how many Orthodox here, ‘for fear of the Jews’, have wanted to give up their identity and become clean-cut ‘All-Americans’. Thus, the first things to be jettisoned (if they still exist) are monasticism and the Orthodox calendar – in favour of the Catholic/Protestant/secularist calendar. But that is only the start. Thus, they say, make the priests shave their beards, cut their hair short and put on clerical collars; let there be pews and organs and robed choirs in the churches; let candles no longer be used and icons be taken out; let the churches resemble Methodist and Baptist tabernacles; let fasting be abolished and confession be reduced to a yearly comfort-talk by a psychologist (‘you must not feel guilty about anything you may have done wrong; it is not your fault’); let communion be compulsory; let churches be made into social clubs as with the Episcopalians, Presbyterians and all the others, where (paid) entertainment, ‘show-time’, is provided, business can be conducted and the main thing is how many ‘activities’ you have. Repentance, prayer, liturgical life and asceticism as the reasons for the existence the Church are forgotten. Conformity to civil society, and not to the Law of God, is the norm. |
| The Monastery had its own large hospital and pharmacy. The doctors were sisters of the monastery. They also received and treated local peasants. They had their own dental office. The sisters also performed the dentistry. There were four dentists. They not only treated teeth, but also prepared prosthesis. The orchard-keepers lived in the orchard. The orchard was located in the northeast corner of the Monastery, and in the southeast corner was the dairy, where the milkmaids lived. There was a special water pump there. The main water pump was located at the beginning of the Canal. Everyone took water from there, and some sisters worked maintaining the pipes. There were also sisters assigned to the water pump. In the milling quarters, the sisters milled in the winter and stored the grain and straw. In the summertime they worked in the fields. The Monastery land stretched out on the southern side as far as the village of Ruzanovo. The gardeners lived in the gardening quarters. Unlike the specialists and cliros sisters, the laboring sisters did not live at the place of their labor. The steward [blagochinnaya] and her assistant oversaw this sort of labor. She assigned work to sisters in the monastery, and in summer sent sisters from all obediences to cut hay, water cucumbers, gather wheat, dig potatoes, collect mushrooms in the woods, and in general to do all the work inside and outside the monastery. Mainly the young ones did all the hard labor. Before the war [World War I] in 1914, hired peasant men cut hay, but after the war the sisters did it themselves. Hired laborers lived in the horse stables. Various workshops were located there—harness making, metal work, carpentry, and tinsmith. The monastery horses were kept in the stables. The coachmen and stable-hands lived there. Behind the monastery was the monastery brick factory. There were two shops in the Monastery: one for icons and another for groceries and manufactured items. The sisters could obtain anything they needed without leaving the monastery enclosure. There was a separate shop building, where the shopkeeper-sisters lived. |
| To complicate matters further, this news is often disclosed after the couple has been dating for some time and the relationship has become serious. Parents often hear about the relationship after it has become serious because their child does not recognize the relationship as problematic but may intuit that his or her parents might not share the same attitude. So, the relationship is often, but not always, kept from parents until the Orthodox person has already decided to marry. When the news is finally disclosed and the parents begin expressing reservations, they must walk a fine line. On the one hand, they don’t want to alienate their son or daughter, while on the other hand they may be harboring a number of concerns that may include: (1) their son or daughter’s future well-being, (2) their future grandchildren’s religious and spiritual well-being, (3) the general well-being and stability of the family. Add to these concerns the Church’s disapproval of Orthodox/non-Christian unions together with the negative reactions some parents may get from their local faith community, and circumstances can sometimes become rather complicated and potentially explosive. These circumstances sometimes lead to cut-offs and long-standing, unresolved ill feelings that fester and compromise family life for years. In negotiating their way through these many challenges, many parents describe numerous frustrating conversations with their son or daughter, which sometimes lead to either temporary or permanent cut-offs. They also repeatedly state that, in their heart of hearts they hope the relationship will end before marriage. In a large percentage of cases, these relationships do end before marriage, but not because these couples cannot reconcile their religious differences. More often than not, these couples break up because of personality differences, money differences, friends, in-laws, and communication styles. To summarize, parents with a strong connection to their religious and/or ethnic backgrounds walk a very tenuous, stressful path, while prayerfully trying to work through feelings of helplessness, shame, fear, anger, and resentment, feelings which often come to the surface, creating heated and potentially damaging exchanges with their child. While most Greek Orthodox parents manage to gather themselves enough to put on a happy face at their children’s weddings, a part of them remains sad and empty. |
| The holy fool “mocked the world” and acted in such a way that would constantly cause him to be humiliated. These linguistic, cultural, and theological differences eventually came to a head in the Council of Ephesus I (431). After Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, was deposed, seen as a progressive silencing ofthe ancient Syrian church language in Christology, the Syrians were progressively cut off from the rest of the Byzantine world. Later, attempts at reunification were tried, but with little success. In time the Syrian Christians splintered into two main groups, now often pejoratively referred to as “Nestorian” and “Monophysite.” The increased alienation of Syria made them particularly vulnerable to foreign attack. The isolated Syrians were finally completely cut off with the advent of Islam. Since the 7th century, Syrian Christians have existed as a persecuted church. Despite their tenuous status, there continued a rich literary and spiritual tradition within the Christian Orient. St. Isaac of Nineveh represents one of the few Syrian voices that influenced the entire Christian world. The last flowering of Syrian spirituality is represented in the comedic and penetrating works of Barhebreus, bishop of Baghdad. He also epitomizes one of the most fruitful exchanges between the Islamic faith and Orthodox Christianity. Today, the Syrian Christians are divided into a number of different churches. The Oriental Orthodox accept the first three ecumenical councils but reject the Council of Chalcedon. They are sometimes referred to as Monophysite or Jacobite Syrians. The Assyrian Church of the East represents the Oriental Christians of Syrian origin who affirm the paradigmatic standing of Nicea (325) and accept the dogmatic construct of the first two ecumenical councils, but reject the Council of Ephesus I, and advocate Christian positions dependent on the traditional saints of their church: Theodore Mopsuestia, Diodore of Tarsus, and Nesto- rius ofConstantinople. The Assyrian Church of the East has also been referred to in earlier literature as the “Syrian Church,” the “Persian Church,” and the “Assyrian Orthodox Church.” These are not to be confused with the “Oriental Orthodox” or the Chalcedonian/Byzantine Syrian Orthodox Christians. |
| Sylla afterwards avenged this cruel victory; but we need not say with what loss of life, and with what ruin to the republic. For of this vengeance, which was more destructive than if the crimes which it punished had been committed with impunity, Lucan says: The cure was excessive, and too closely resembled the disease. The guilty perished, but when none but the guilty survived: and then private hatred and anger, unbridled by law, were allowed free indulgence. In that war between Marius and Sylla, besides those who fell in the field of battle, the city, too, was filled with corpses in its streets, squares, markets, theatres, and temples; so that it is not easy to reckon whether the victors slew more before or after victory, that they might be, or because they were, victors. As soon as Marius triumphed, and returned from exile, besides the butcheries everywhere perpetrated, the head of the consul Octavius was exposed on the rostrum; Cæsar and Fimbria were assassinated in their own houses; the two Crassi, father and son, were murdered in one another " s sight; Bebius and Numitorius were disembowelled by being dragged with hooks; Catulus escaped the hands of his enemies by drinking poison; Merula, the flamen of Jupiter, cut his veins and made a libation of his own blood to his god. Moreover, every one whose salutation Marius did not answer by giving his hand, was at once cut down before his face. Chapter 28.– Of the Victory of Sylla, the Avenger of the Cruelties of Marius. Then followed the victory of Sylla, the so-called avenger of the cruelties of Marius. But not only was his victory purchased with great bloodshed; but when hostilities were finished, hostility survived, and the subsequent peace was bloody as the war. To the former and still recent massacres of the elder Marius, the younger Marius and Carbo, who belonged to the same party, added greater atrocities. For when Sylla approached, and they despaired not only of victory, but of life itself, they made a promiscuous massacre of friends and foes. |
| Materials used by Faberge included metals – silver, gold, copper, nickel, palladium – that were combined in varying proportions to produce different colors. Another technique used by eighteenth century French goldsmiths and again Faberge involve a simple tinting of the completed work using stones and enamel. Another technique used by Faberge included guilloche, a surface treatment that could make waves and striations in the design and could be done by machine or by hand. Faberge used natural stones often found in abundance in the area. These included jasper, bowenite, rhodonite, rock crystal, agate, aventurine quartz, lapis lazuli, and jade (nephrite mostly although he would sometimes use jadeite). Precious stones including sapphires, rubies and emeralds were used only for decoration, and when used they were en cabochon (round cut). Diamonds were typically rose-cut. Semi-precious stones including moonstones, garnets, olivines, and Mecca stones were used more often en cabochon. Fifty six Imperial eggs were made, forty-four of which have been located today and another two that are known to have been photographed. Another twelve Easter eggs were commissioned by Alexander Ferdinandovich Kelch, a Siberean gold mine owner. However, the Imperial Easter egg collection commissioned by the last of the Russian Czars is the most celebrated. Explanation of Markings Markings of the eggs included the stamp of the supervising goldsmith. Before 1903, that would be Michael Perchin ( MP note: the “P” is the Russian “P”, which looks like two vertical lines joined together at the top, like the letter pi. ) for the Faberge eggs. After 1903, it would be Henrik Wigstrom ( HW ). Also there would be Russian assay marks. These would show the purity of the precious metal. Metal purity was measured in zolotniks. About 4 zolotniks equals one karat, so 14 karat gold=56 zolotniks and 18 karat gold=72 zolotinks. Sterling silver (.925 fine) would be 91 zolotniks. There would also be a stamp of the city or region of origin. For St. Petersburg, the symbol was crossed anchors and for Moscow, St. George and the Dragon. In 1896, Czar Nicholas II ‘s reign saw a shift from localized marks to a national provenance mark, a woman wearing a kokoshnik. |
| 375. Л. 88; 444. Л. 66; 785-а. Л. 22 об.; ГЦММК. Ф. 283. 540, партия дисканта, л. 45) или «малая киевская» (ГЦММК. Ф. 283. 993/9. Л. 6), «киевскаго напълу» (РГБ ОР. Ф. 37. 383. Л. 23), можно встретить и «Достойно есть» («киевская» - ГИМ. Син. певч. 444. Л. 79; «киевской» - ГЦММК. Ф. 283. 540. Л. 70). По мнению И. В. Герасимовой, ремарка «киевская» у херувимской в сборнике РНБ. Сол. 1194/1338, 1320, 1351, 1354 относится к болгарскому напеву ( Герасимова. 2013. С. 143), поскольку эта ремарка «в русской певческой традиции вбирала в себя широкий круг привезенных в страну локальных белорусско-украинских и инонациональных напевов» (Там же. С. 150). Редкий образец использования К. р. в Трезвонах - «Стихиры Казанской Богородице киевского согласия» (ГИМ. Син. певч. 790-а. Л. 71 об.). Арх.: МГК им. П. И. Чайковского. ОРИР Науч. б-ки им. С. И. Танеева: X-40995: Войденов В. П. «Блажен муж». [М., 2-я пол. XIX в.]. Ркп.; X-41130: Кастальский А. Д. [Подобная стихира] на 6 сентября Рождеству Пресв. Богородицы: На хвалитех, глас 1 «О дивнаго чудесе»// Он же. Подобны. М., 1910. Отт. с рукописного экз. Изд.: Одноголосие: Ирмологион, сиречь песнослов. Львов, 1709; Обиход церк. нотного пения разных распевов: [киев. нотация]. М., 1772. ч.]; Переизд. с изм.: Обиход нотного пения употребительных церк. распевов. М., 1909. Ч. 1: Всенощное бдение. 1–6, 8–11, 13–15, 17–19, 21, 24, 25, 29; Ч. 2: Божественная литургия. 1, 4, 6–8, 9–13, 15–17, 20, 22, 24, 25, 28; «Да молчит»: (Из Львовского Ирмолога 1701 г.)//Церковные песнопения для хорового исполнения/Ред.: В. Г. Петрушевский. К., 1907. Вып. 1. С. 7; Круг церк. песнопений обычного напева Моск. епархии: [киев. нотация]. М., 1915. Ч. 4: Божественная литургия. 1, 3, 5–7, 10–23, 26–36, 37–44, 45, 47, 49–53, 55–57, 59–60, 64, 69–71, 74, 79, 83; Успенский Н. Д. Образцы древнерус. певч. искусства: Муз. мат_л с ист._теорет. коммент. и ил. Л., 19712; Тончева Е. Манастирът Голям Скит-школа на «болгарский роспев»: Скитски «болгарски» Ирмолози от XVII–XVIII в. |
| Л. был редактором первых 6 выпусков «Исторической хрестоматии церковного пения», издававшейся книжно-муз. магазином П. К. Селиверстова в С.-Петербурге (1902-1904). В эти выпуски вошли неск. десятков концертов и других духовно-муз. произведений А. Л. Веделя , Дж. Сарти , С. А. Дегтярёва , М. С. Березовского , иером. Виктора (Высоцкого) , Ф. М. Максименко, В. М. Орлова и архим. Иосифа (бóльшая их часть была напечатана впервые). В духовно-муз. творчестве - сочинениях и переложениях древних распевов - Л. стремился к реализации своих теоретических идей, но его произведения не всегда обладали внутренней стилистической цельностью: в них сочетались черты первых образцов рус. многоголосия, итал. концертного стиля рубежа XVIII и XIX вв. и нем. хоральной музыки, а также особенности языка немецкой позднеромантической гармонии. Наиболее интересны следующие музыкальные сочинения Л.: Херувимская демественная, Пение при архиерейском служении, «Хвалите имя Господне» 14), «Христос воскресе» абиссинского напева 16), Задостойник Пасхи 11), «Покаяния отверзи ми двери» 13). Произведения Л. исполнялись в С.-Петербурге митрополичьим хором под упр. И. Я. Тёрнова , любительским хором В. В. Певцовой и др., в Москве иногда звучали в концертах Синодального хора . В 1917 г. Л. стал членом либерального Всероссийского союза демократического духовенства и мирян . На Поместном Соборе Российской Православной Церкви 1917-1918 гг. Е. М. Витошинский , возглавлявший подотдел по церковному пению отдела о богослужении, проповедничестве и храме, предложил пригласить Л. в числе музыкантов для участия в работе этого подотдела, что, по-видимому, не было осуществлено из-за нехватки средств. изд. автора: совр. изд.: Муз. соч.: изд. автора: Духовно-муз. произв.: Для смеш. хора. СПб., 1902–1913. 1–54; Иоанн Дамаскин. Гимн Воскресению (слова А. К. Толстого): Для муж. хора: Op. 14. СПб., 1903; Молитва («Научи меня, Боже, любить», слова К. Р.): Для смеш. хора: Op. 14. 2. СПб., 1904; Две песни из Апокалипсиса: Для голоса с фп.: Op. 18. СПб., б. г.; изд-во П. И. Юргенсона: Духовно-муз. соч. М., Ор. 6: Для однородного 4-голосного хора. 1: «Слава, и ныне: Единородный Сыне», 2: «Милость мира», 3: «Отче наш», 4: «В память вечную»; Ор. 17: Для смеш. хора. 1: «От юности моея»: Болг. расп., 2: «Достойно есть»: Путевого расп., 3: «Взбранной Воеводе»: Киев. расп.; совр. изд.: Пение при архиерейском служении: Демественное: Патриаршее. М., 1996; «Покаяния отверзи ми двери»//«Покаяния отверзи ми двери». «На реках Вавилонских»: Для смеш. хора/Сост. Г. Н. Лапаев. М., 2000. С. 23–26; Многолетствование (Ор. 22)//Архиерейское богослужение: Избр. песнопения/Сост. Г. Н. Лапаев. М., 2003. С. 79–80; «Дева днесь»: Греч. расп., «Чертог Твой», 2: Киев. расп., «Вечери Твоея тайныя» (соч. 4), «Ангел вопияше» 2 (соч. 11), «Хвалите имя Господне» (соч. 15)//У святого Престола: Литургическая музыка правосл. священнослужителей/Сост.: Г. А. Смирнов. М., 2012. С. 131–138. |
| Материалом для дополнений служила летопись. В отличие от ЖВ, текст заканчивается описанием погребения св. князя. За житием в рукописи следует «Похвала» св. Владимиру (см. раздел 8). Заглавие: «Успение благов рнаго и великаго князя и равноапостольнаго Владимира, нареченнаго в святомь крещении Василия, крестившаго всю Росийскую землю». Начало: «Сей бысть князь Владимиръ, сынъ Св тославль, от племени варяжска...». Конец: «И потомъ разыдошася въ домы своя, славяще Господа Бога». Житие из Степенной книги 450 и его источники подробно рассмотрены А. В. Усачевым. Текст был создан в 1560-е гг. вместе со всеми прочими статьями памятника. А. В. Сиренов полагает, что изначально митрополит Макарий задумал создание только житий свв. Ольги и Владимира, из которых впоследствии вырос текст Степенной книги. 451 В отличие от остальных памятников, это произведение является житием в полном смысле этого слова – оно рассказывает о св. Владимире от самого рождения до смерти. Основными источниками жития, как и прочих статей Степенной книги, были Никоновская и Воскресенская летописи. Кроме того, были использованы «Слово о законе и благодати» Илариона, «Память и похвала Владимиру» Иакова Мниха, ПрЖ и «Поучение на память... св. Владимира» (см. раздел 8), житие св. Климента, папы римского, из Великих Миней Четьих митрополита Макария и житие св. Леонтия Ростовского поздней редакции. 452 Однако А. С. Усачев ошибается, когда возводит к ПрЖ указание на осаду Корсуня в течение шести месяцев. Его нет ни в одной из редакций ПрЖ, оно появляется только в ЖВ. Сноска на издание Н. И. Серебрянского относится к РасЖВ-2 (см. выше). 453 Южнорусское житие (Украинское) было так названо А.И. Соболевским. 454 Текст был издан им по списку РГБ, ОР, ф. 37 (Большак.), 23 с разночтениями по РНБ ОР, Сол. 1063/1172. Впоследствии были указаны еще списки: ЦНБ Украины, ОР, собр. Киево-Соф. 278/129, 279/130; 455 собр. Киево-Печерск. 370/155, разночтения из которого изданы С. А. Бугославским. Фундаментальное исследование памятника было предпринято В. |
| …письмо И.В. Киреевского к отцу Макарию… посвященное… награждению старца вторым крестом… – В письме от 9 июля 1854 г. И.В. Киреевский поздравлял о. Макария с получением не второго, а первого наперсного креста от Святейшего Синода, что было вто время редкой наградой для иеромонаха (См.: ОР РГБ. Ф. 214. 361. Л. 208–209; опубл.: Письма И. В. Киреевского оптинскому старцу Макарию//Символ. 1987. 17. С. 150). «По неизреченной благости Божией вступили в новый год благодушно». – ОР РГБ. Ф. 214. 360. Л. 64. Николай (Соколов; 11851) – епископ Калужский с 1834 г.; ранее епископ Дмитровский, викарий Московской епархии (1831–1834). C. 277….Герцен… писал в своем дневнике: «Был на днях у Елагиной, матери если не Гракхов, то Киреевских». – Ср.: «Ее называли матерью Гракхов» (Воспоминания М.В. Беэр. ОР РГБ. Ф. 99. Карт. 15. 51. Л. 22 об.). Попова Елизавета Ивановна (f 1876), дочь московского поэта, издателя и книгопродавца Ивана Васильевича Попова; была дружна с семьями Елагиных, Киреевских, Аксаковых, Хомяковых. В воспоминаниях Марии Васильевны Елагиной… о ней говорится, что она была очень богомольная… – О М.В. Беэр (урожд. Елагиной) и ее воспоминаниях см.: Фудель С. И. Славянофильство и Церковь //Наст. изд. С. 195. С. 278. Макарий (Глухарев; 1792–1847) – архимандрит, миссионер на Алтае (1830–1843), настоятель Волховского монастыря Орловской губ. (1843–1847); переводчик Ветхого Завета с еврейского на русский язык (опубл. посмертно, 1860– 1867). Единственная работа, напечатанная полностью при жизни С.И. Фуделя . Первая публикация под псевдонимом: Уд ел о в Ф. И. Об о. Павле Флоренском. Париж: YMCA-Press, 1972. Второе, посмертное издание выпущено тем же издательством в 1988 г. с указанием настоящего имени автора. Текст парижского издания перепеч. в кн.: П.А. Флоренский: Pro et contra. Личность и творчество Павла Флоренского в оценке русских мыслителей и исследователей/Сост., вступ. ст., примеч. и библиогр. К.Г. Исупова. СПб.: РХГИ, 1996 (2-е изд., испр. и доп. – 2001). Заглавие работы объясняют следующие слова из книги «У стен Церкви» (Наст, изд. Т. 1. С. 142): |
|
|
