| Примечания 1. Мочевина — гладкое болотце без кочек. 2. Нападение полицейского на Николая II, бывшего в то время наследником российского престола. 3. В примечании 4 к статье Евгения Штейнера «Николай Японский» (Evgeny Steiner «Nikolai of Japan», «MONUMENTA NIPPONICA. Studies in Japanese Culture», Sophia Univ., Volume 50, Number 4. Winter 1995) написано, что «основную подготовку текста настоящего издания выполнил профессор Рёхей Ясуи, Университет Васэда». Однако это не соответствует действительности. 4. On August 21, 1863 (O. S), Nikolai wrote from Hakodate to the chief procurator of the Holy Synod A. P. Akhmatov: «Upon arriving here in 1861,1 found a church already built and consecrated, with the name ’Resurrection of Christ’. Its architect and churchwarden was Iosif Goshkevich, the Consul at Hakodate. He gave that name to the church to commemorate the fact that Christianity, which had formerly existed in Japan but had been eradicated, had appeared again in this country». This letter indicates that Goshkevich expected the ’resurrection’ of Christianity in Japan. 5. Archbishop Innokentii of Kamchatka was engaged in missionary work on islands in the vast area of Russian Alaska. In 1868, when he was 70 years old, Innokentii succeeded Filaret as Metropolitan of Moscow. After Innokentii passed away in 1879, Nikolai was presented the mitre left by the deceased Innokentii. (See his diary for June 1, 1880.). 6. Previously, the accepted date of Nikolai’s arrival at Hakodate was June 2 (O. S.), 1861, but the correct date seems to be July 2 (O. S.). See the article printed in The Hakodate Nitiniti Shinbun (The Hakodate Daily News) for July 6, 1911, «Nikolai’s View of Hakodate, — the japan of 50 years ago», in which Nikolai said that he «arrived at Hakodate in the beginning of July» in 1861. 7. See Rev. John Bartholomew’s English translations from Russian; A History of the Japanese Orthodox Church by A. Bakulevski, and Archbishop Nicholas of Japan; Reminiscences and Characteristics by Dmitriy. Pozdneev. |
| 13 Anathema 11 of Constantinople II: Tanner (1990), 119. 14 Sherwood (1952), 3; see his full analysis of Amb. 7 in Sherwood (1955a), 72–222. 15 On Messalianism and the Macarian Homilies, see Stewart (1991). 16 See the footnote, ad loc. Other allusions to the Macarian Homilies can be found by consulting the index fontium in the editions of Maximus’ works in Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca. See the Bibliography. 17 See, e.g., Amb. 20 (1236D-1241D) and Myst. 5 (672D-684A). 18 See, e.g., Amb. 19:1236C, Myst. prologue: 660B. 19 On Maximus’ understanding of religious experience, see Miquel (1966). 20 See des Places (1966), 9–10, citing Marrou (1943). 21 The quotation is from Century on Spiritual Knowledge 5 (des Places 1966 , 86) and concerns the meaning of thelesis: Opusc. 26:277C; Dialogue with Pyrrhus [Opusc. 28], 28:301 C. 22 See des Places (1966), 66–7, and also his article in Heinzer and Schonborn (1982), 29–35. 23 See Louth (1981), 125–31. 24 On Cappadocian thought see Otis (1958), and also, more recently but hardly as succinctly, Pelikan (1993). On the influence of the Cappadocians on Maximus, see G.C.Berthold in Heinzer and Schonborn, (1982), 51–9. 25 For a brief attempt to tackle this question see Louth (1993a). 26 See below, chapter 5 of the Introduction, and Amb. 41. 27 For more detail on Denys the Areopagite, see Louth (1989) and Rorem (1993). 28 See Suchla (1990), 1–91. 29 See Siddals (1983) and (1987). 30 See Louth (1986). 31 Translation from Luibheid (1987), 153f. 32 See the important paper: Gould (1989). 33 There has been considerable scholarly dispute about Maximus’ debt to the Areopagite; for further detail, see Louth (1993b). 34 See Amb. 71, below, and Andia (forthcoming). 3 MAXIMUS’ SPIRITUAL THEOLOGY 1 LP l. 97–106 (CCSG 23, pp. 32f.). 2 Psa. 44.3, quoted by Maximus in CT I.97 and Amb. 10.17:1128A, in reference to the transfigured Christ. 3 Bousset (1923), 304, cited by Sherwood (1955b), 235, n. 356. 4 For an introduction to Evagrius, see Louth (1981), 100–13; and for more on his influence among the Greek and the Syrians, see Guillaumont (1962). For Maximus’ attempt to correct Evagrian metaphysics, see below, chapter 5 of the Introduction. |
| Interestingly, it cannot be claimed that this diary was redated by later copyists, because the name of the king, his regnal year, and month names are broken away. Yet these data may justifiably be supplied because of a historical remark at the end of the diary. For “the 27th” of the month (the month name is broken away) the diary states that at the site of “Hiritu in the province of Sippar the troops of Babylonia and of Assyria foufght with each] other, and the troops of Babylonia withdrew and were heavily defeated.” 285 Fortunately, it is possible to place the time of this battle since it is also mentioned in a wellknown Babylonian chronicle. The chronicle is the socalled Akitu Chronicle, B.M. 86379, which covers a part of Shamashshumukin’s reign, especially his last five years (the sixteenth to the twentieth). The battle at Hiritu is dated in his sixteenth year as follows: The sixteenth year of Shamashshumaukin: . . . On the twentyseventh day of Adar [the 12th month] the armies of Assyria and Akkad [Babylonia] did battle in Hirit. The army of Akkad retreated from the battlefield and a major defeat was inflicted upon them. 286 The astronomical events described in the diary fix the battle at Hiritu on Adam 27 to 651 B.C.E. 287 The Akitu Chronicle shows that this battle at this place on this day was fought in the sixteenth year of Shamashshumukin. Thus Shamashshumukin’s sixteenth year was 652/51 B.C.E. His entire reign of twenty years, then, may be dated to 667/66 648/47 B.C.E. Now this is the way historians have dated Shamashshumukin’s reign for a long time, and that is why Professor Sachs concluded his letter by saying: “I should perhaps add that the absolute chronology of the regnal years of Shamashshumaukin was never in doubt, and it is only confirmed again by the astronomical diary.” Shamashshumukin’s reign has been known, for example, through the Royal Canon which gives him twenty years and his successor Kandalanu twentytwo years. Thereafter Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar’s father, succeeded to the throne. 288 These figures are in good agreement with the ancient cuneiform sources. Business documents, as well as the Akitu Chronicle, show that Shamashshumukin ruled for twenty years. Business documents, supported by the Uruk King Eist, also show that from the first year of Kandalanu to the first year of Nabopolassar was a period of twentytwo years. Thus the chronology of that era, supplied by these sources, is as follows: |
| Shamashshumukin 20 years 667648 B.C.E. Kandalanu 22 years 647626 B.C.E. Nabopolassar 21 years 625605 B.C.E Nebuchadnezzar 43 years 604562 B.C.E. The diary B.M. 32312, although establishing a date prior to the NeoBabylonian period (which began with Nabopolassar), again coincides with and helps corroborate the chronology of that era. This diary, then, adds yet another witness to the increasing amount of evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date. A change of Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth year from 587 to 607 B.C.E. would also change Shamashshumukin’s sixteenth year from 652 to 672 B.C.E. But the diary B.M. 32312 rules out such a change. And, as already pointed out, no one can claim that later copyists inserted “the 16th year of Shamashshumukin” in this diary, because the text is damaged at this point and that datum is broken away! It is the unique historical information in the text, information repeated in the Akitu Chronicle, that fixes the diary to Shamashshumukin’s sixteenth year. This diary, therefore, may be regarded as an independent witness which upholds the authenticity of the dates given in VAT 4956 and other diaries. 289 B. The saturn tablet (BM. 76738 + BM. 76813) One of the most important astronomical texts from the seventh century B.C.E. is the Saturn tablet from the reign of the Babylonian king Kandalanu (647626 B.C.E.), predecessor of Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar’s father. This text consists of two broken pieces, B.M. 76738 and B.M. 76813. 290 The text was first described by C. B. F. Walker in 1983 in the Bulletin of the Society for Mesopotamian Studies? 291 A transcription and a translation with a full discussion of the text by Mr. C.B.F. Walker has recently been published. 292 As explained earlier (section A1 above), the planet Saturn has a revolution of c. 29.5 years. Due to the revolution of the earth round the sun, Saturn disappears behind the sun for a few weeks and reappears again at regular intervals of 378 days. The Saturn tablet gives the dates (regnal year, month, and day in the Babylonian calendar) and the positions of the planet Saturn at its first and last appearances for a period of fourteen successive years, specifically, the first fourteen years of Kandalanu (647634 B.C.E.). The name of the king, given only in the first line, is partially damaged, but may be restored as Kandalanu. The name of the planet is nowhere mentioned in the text, but the observations fit Saturn and no other planet. |
| During the Russo–Japanese War of 1904–1905, few Orthodox Japanese were tortured by spiritual conflict between their Orthodox faith (introduced by Russian missionaries) and their own patriotism. Although they were Orthodox Christians, they prayed fervently for divine favor to Japan. Nikolai himself, in one speech and two circular letters to his flock, summoned Orthodox Japanese to fulfill their duties as faithful subjects — to pray for the victory of the Japanese Imperial forces. His diaries also tell us that he thought it was natural for Orthodox Japanese to pray for the victory of their fatherland. Nikolai seems to have regarded the Orthodox belief, once implanted in Japan, as Japanese Orthodoxy. Nikolai himself was a truly patriotic Russian. His patriotism was not an abstract idea but an ardent emotion. And so he was terribly depressed when he heard the news that Russian army had suffered defeats in Manchuria and that Japan won the naval battle in the Sea of Japan. He also had a genuine and steadfast love for Japanese Orthodox Church, which had been established and developed by him, and which was like his child. When the Russo–Japanese War broke out, he was forced to devide his love into two — his mother country (Russia) and his ’child’ (the Japanese Church). He understood that it was natural for the Japanese people to openly rejoice over the news of Japanese victory, but he could not help feeling so sincere pity at Russia that he sometimes could not participate in the liturgy. As we have seen, The Diaries of St. Nikolai of Japan are a document of great value both to historians and to the reading public. With these diaries, together with the newsletters Kyokai Hochi and Seikyo Shimpo, we will be able to obtain a complete picture of the Japanese Orthodox Church in the Meiji era. In other words, we cannot relate the truth of the Church history without these diaries. It had been known that Nikolai was writing a diary. Bishop Sergii (Tikhomirov), Nikolai’s successor in the overall control of the Japanese Orthodox Church, wrote in his memoirs on Nikolai («Before and After the Passing Away of Archbishop Nikolai» of 1912), that Nikolai was writing about the state of his disease in his diary. However, it was not expected that his diaries would come down to us. Most of the archives relating to Nikolai had disappeared during the chaos following the Great Earthquake of 1923, and no diary was found at the Cathedral of the Resurrection in Tokyo (Nikolai–do, Nikolai’s Cathedral). No Soviet Japanologists or historians were aware that Nikolai’s diaries had been safely kept at the Central State Historical Archive in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg). |
| In the previous chapter the length of the NeoBabylonian era was firmly established by seven different lines of evidence. All of them were based upon ancient Babylonian cuneiform texts such as chronicles, kinglists, royal inscriptions, and tens of thousands of economic, administrative, and legal documents from the NeoBabylonian period. In this chapter another seven independent evidences have been presented. All of these are based on ancient Babylonian astronomical texts, which provide a whole string of absolute dates from the sixth and seventh centuries B.C.E. These tablets establish – over and over again – the absolute chronology of the NeoBabylonian era: (1) The Astronomical diary VAT 4956 The diary VAT 4956 contains about thirty completely verified observed astronomical positions from Nebuchadnezzar’s thirtyseventh regnal year. Such a combination of astronomical positions is not duplicated again in thousands of years. Consequently, there is only one year which fits this situation: 568/67 B.C.E. If this was Nebuchadnezzar’s thirtyseventh regnal year, as is twice stated on this tablet, then 587/86 B.C.E. must have been his eighteenth year, in which he desolated Jerusalem. (2) The astronomical diary B.M. 32312 B.M. 32312 is the oldest preserved astronomical diary. It records astronomical observations that enable scholars to date this tablet to 652/51 B.C.E. A historical remark in the text, repeated in the Babylonian chronicle B.M. 86379 (the “Akitu Chronicle”) shows this to have been the sixteenth year of Shamashshumukin. The diary, then, fixes his twentyyear reign to 667648 B.C.E., his successor Kandalanu’s twentytwoyear reign to 647626, Nabopolassar’s twentyoneyear reign to 625605, and Nebuchadnezzar’s fortythreeyear reign to 604562 B.C.E. This, again, sets Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth year and the destruction of Jerusalem at 587/86 B.C.E. (3) The Saturn tablet B.M. 76738+76813 The Saturn tablet records a successive series of positions of the planet Saturn at its first and last appearances, dated to the first fourteen years of Kandalanu. |
| St. Demetrius the New, Protector of Bucharest, whose holy relics lie in the Patriarchal Cathedral in Bucharest was celebrated on October 27. On this occasion, the Divine Liturgy was celebrated at the outdoor altar next to the Patriarchal Cathedral by His Beatitude Daniel, Patriarch of Romania, together with His Eminence Pavlos, Metropolitan of Drama. Also concelebrating were the following hierarchs, members of the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church: • His Eminence Teofan, Metropolitan of Moldova and Bucovina; • His Eminence Laureniu, Metropolitan of Transylvania; • His Eminence Andrei, Metropolitan of Cluj, Maramure and Slaj; • His Eminence Irineu, Metropolitan of Oltenia; • His Eminence Ioan, Metropolitan of Banat; • His Eminence Iosif, Romanian Orthodox Metropolitan of Western and Southern Europe; • His Eminence Hon Metropolitan Nifon, Archbishop of Târgovite and patriarchal exarch; • His Eminence Teodosie, Archbishop of Tomis; • His Eminence Irineu, Archbishop of Alba Iulia; • His Eminence Vasranufie, Archbishop of Râmnic; • His Eminence Ioachim, Archbishop of Roman and Bacu; • His Eminence Calinic, Archbishop of Arge and Muscel; • His Eminence Ciprian, Archbishop of Buzu and Vrancea; • His Eminence Casian, Archbishop of Lower Danube; • His Eminence Timotei, Archbishop of Arad; • His Grace Corneliu, Bishop of Hui; • His Grace Lucian, Bishop of Caransebe; • His Grace Sofronie, Bishop of Oradea; • His Grace Nicodim, Bishop of Severin and Strehaia; • His Grace Vinceniu, Bishop of Slobozia and Clrai; • His Grace Andrei, Bishop of Covasna and Harghita; • His Grace Ambrozie, Bishop of Giurgiu; • His Grace Visarion, Bishop of Tulcea; • His Grace Petroniu, Bishop of Slaj; • His Grace Siluan, Romanian Orthodox Bishop of Hungary; • His Grace Siluan, Romanian Orthodox Bishop of Italy; • His Grace Timotei, Romanian Orthodox Bishop of Spain and Portugal; • His Grace Macarie, Romanian Orthodox Bishop of Northern Europe; • His Grace Mihail, Romanian Orthodox Bishop of Australia and New Zealand; |
| Augustine’s career took him from Carthage, to Rome, and eventually Milan, where he occupied the position of Rhetoric Professor, won for him by Manichean patrons. In Milan he became increasingly disillusioned with the Manicheans, and a series of crises shook his security; beginning with increasing asthmatic troubles (fatal for an ancient orator) and his agreement with his mother’s plan to dismiss his partner of fifteen years’ standing (the mother of his son Adeodatus) so that he could make a rich marriage to advance his career. His heartless agreement to her dismissal was soon followed by heartbreak at her loss, and his rapid employment of a sexual surrogate caused him to regard his philosophical aspirations with a depressed skepticism; but his increasing contact with one of the leading rhetorical and philosophical circles in the city (the group of theologians associated with the priest Simplicianus and Bishop Ambrose) opened up new vistas for him. He was greatly impressed by Ambrose, and began to consider the possibility of a similar career as ascetic philosopher. He describes his psychosexual and spiritual struggle in a famous autobiography (the Confessions) which he wrote many years later, and here he depicts the turning point of his life as occurring dramatically in a quiet Milanese garden when he abandoned his destiny to Christ and subsequently petitioned for admission to the church. For a while he stayed with Christian friends who formed a scholarly college around him. Soon, however, he returned to Rome, where Monnica died, and then he made his way back to Africa, in 388, where he intended to live with his companions (more cheaply) at Thagaste. One day in 391, while making a visit to the seaport of Hippo Regius, he was seized by local Christians and forcibly ordained priest by Bishop Valerius, so that he could help the old bishop in the church administration. He and his companions accepted the forced initiation into church administration, and by 395 Augustine was consecrated as Valerius’ episcopal assistant and, soon afterwards, his successor. Local bishops in Africa regarded his promotion as canonically dubious, and even his baptism as somewhat irregular – for the news of his early life (both his sexual liaisons and his membership of the heretical Manichees) was common gossip in a church much troubled by the rigorist dissidents the Donatists. To defend himself Augustine composed treatises against the Manichees after his priestly ordination, and after his consecration as bishop wrote the Confessions, an exercise in how self-scrutiny can be a salvific reading of the story of God’s providence in creation and in a human life. It was a brilliant answer to his episcopal colleagues who had criticized him for slipping through the rigorous baptismal “scrutinies” of the African church. |
| The fourth patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church was Justin Moisescu, who carried out his responsibilities from June 19, 1977 until his death on July 31, 1986. It was through his special care that the church attained a notable level of development in the administrative, theological, and cultural fields, as well as in foreign ecclesiastic relations. On November 16, 1986 the leadership of the Romanian patriarchate was entrusted to His Beatitude Teoctist Arapasu. He was elected for this ministry, having served for four decades as a high prelate at the head of some of the most important dioceses of the Romanian Orthodox Church: in Bucharest as an assistant bishop to the patriarch; at Arad as diocesan bishop; at Craiova as a metropolitan; at the Jassy seat as metropolitan. He was also locum tenens for the metropolitan of Sibiu during the vacancy there. On September 30, 2007 the sixth patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church was enthroned: His Beatitude Patriarch Daniel (metropolitan of Moldavia and Bucovina from 1990 to 2007). Under his leadership the new bylaws for the organization and functioning of the Romanian Orthodox Church were finalized. He created a new media system for the church, laid the cornerstone of the new patriarchal cathedral in Bucharest while consolidating the structures of the current one, established over a dozen social, cultural, charitable, and educational programs, created new dioceses in the country, and canonized several new Romanian saints. As of September 1, 2008 the Romanian patriarchate was made up of six metropolitan sees in the country and three metropolitan sees abroad (there are about 12 million Romanians living outside Romania), with forty-one eparchies: the Metropolitan See of Muntenia and Dobrogea at Bucharest, the Metropolitan See of Moldavia and Bucovina at Jassy, the Metropolitan See of Transylvania at Sibiu, the Metropolitan See of Cluj, Alba, Crisana and Maramures at Cluj, the Metropolitan See of Oltenia at Craiova, the Metropolitan See of Banat at Timisoara, the Metropolitan See of Bessarabia at Chisinau (Republic of Moldova), the Metropolitan See for Germany, Central and North Europe at Nurnberg, Germany, and the Metropolitan See for Western Europe at Paris. There is also the Romanian Orthodox archdiocese in the Americas based at Chicago. Other dioceses are in Hungary, at Gyula, in Serbia and Montenegro (Dacia Felix) at Varset, and the Romanian Orthodox diocese for Australia and New Zealand at Melbourne. |
| The Diaries of St. Nikolai of Japan provide materials of inestimable value for the study of Church history. In these diaries, we find many interesting and valuable facts (especially about the main center of the Orthodox mission in Japan) which have remained hitherto unknown. With these diaries, the field of study will move forward with rapid strides and will rest upon much firmer and objective bases. The Diaries contain the private diaries kept by Nikolai, founder and head of the Japanese Orthodox Church. They are the first and most reliable source for historical knowledge of the Church. There were many hidden facts in its history which were kept secret between Nikolai and the persons concerned, and which we could not possibly be aware of without seeing his diaries. From that source we may learn, for example, how Nikolai was supported financially by the Holy Synod and Missionary Society, and how he felt about the living conditions of Russian prisoners of war in Japan, as well as how he rated the efficiency of his Russian colleagues and Japanese catechists. Nikolai sometimes made extensive tours, visiting local churches throughout Japan. He kept up his diary during these tours, giving a full account not only of parish congregations but also of life in rural communities. We can know from his travel diary, for example, how eagerly Japanese Orthodox farmers of the early Meiji years were practicing new styles of Western singing, and under what conditions young women were laboring in provincial towns. Few foreigners knew Japanese provincial life of the time so well at first hand as did Nikolai. His travel diaries are, as it were, the field notebooks of a sociologist gathering materials on the rural life of Japan. The Diaries of St. Nikolai possess, in addition to historical values, an autobiographical aspect. In Japan Nikolai had no trusted adviser with whom he could talk freely. His diary was thus an indispensable companion to which he had been making a full confession for many years. |
|
|
