| Yurovsky died in the Kremlin hospital, which was completely off limits to all but the most senior government officials. The cause of death was perforation of the duodenal ulcer. According to eyewitnesses, he died in great pain. Some of the czar killers remained friends for the rest of their lives and would often invite each other for dinner. Yurovsky, Goloshchekin and Medvedev (who were also part of the shooting squad) sometimes chatted about their shared crime over a cup of tea. They especially liked to argue over who fired the first shot that night. On one occasion, Yurovsky arrived at the party in a triumphant mood. He had just received a book published in the West, which said in no uncertain terms that he was the one who had killed Nicholas II. He was extremely delighted. Mikhail Aleksandrovich Medvedev-Kudrin (1891–1964) also held senior jobs after the Bolshevik Revolution. He served for a time as assistant to the head of the First Directorate of the NKVD. In the 1930s, he toured provincial universities and colleges, regaling students with his account of the czar-killing. In the late 1950s, he was awarded a personal pension of 4,500 rubles, which was a vast sum of money at the time. During his meetings with law students at Moscow State University, he fondly reminisced about 1918, when he and his fellow Bolsheviks had to save ammo and use bayonetes to finish the enemies of the working class. Medvedev eventually achieved the military rank of colonel. Before his death, he wrote detailed memoirs about the murder of the Russian royal family. The manuscript, entitled “Hostile Winds,” was addressed to then Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev—but it was never published. In those memoirs, Medvedev disputes the leading role of Yurovsky in the killing of the royal family, insisting that credit for the murder should have gone to himself. Medvedev was buried with military honors at the Novodevichye Cemetery in Moscow—the most prestigious graveyard in the country. In his will, Medvedev left the Browning pistol with which Nicholas II was shot to Nikita Khrushchev. |
| Interestingly, however, all four synchronisms are in perfect harmony with the dates arrived at from the other lines of evidences that have been discussed. These synchronisms to the Egyptian chronology, therefore, add yet another line of evidence to thêothers, which point consistently to 587 B.C.E. as the definitive date for the destruction of Jerusalem. Summary and conclusion Seven lines of evidence have been presented above against any possible dating of the destruction of Jerusalem to the year 607 B.C.E., all of which lines of evidence agree in dating that event twenty years later. At least four of these lines of evidence are clearly independent of each other. Consider first the three which give evidence of interdependence: (1) Early historians, the NeoBabylonian chronicles, and the Uruk kinglist We first saw that in the third century B.C.E., Babylonian priest Berossus wrote a history of Babylonia, quoted from by later historians, both in the B.C.E. and early C.E. periods. The validity of the dates presented by Berossus in his history is evidenced by their accurate reflection of historical material now available on ancient cuneiform tablets unearthed in Babylon, particularly the NeoBabylonian Chronicles (a series of historical vignettes setting out certain episodes relating to the Babylonian empire, notably records of kingly succesion and of military campaigns waged), and also the Babylonian kinglists (particularly the one known as the Uruk kinglist) which list the Babylonian rulers by name along with the years of their reign. Likewise with the source known as the Royal Canon, a list of Babylonian rulers, which, though only fully extant in manuscripts of Ptolemy’s Handy Tables dated to the eighth century C.E. and in later manuscripts, seems clearly to have been the common source relied upon by astronomer Claudius Ptolemy (70161 C.E.) and by earlier scholars, such as Hipparchus of the second century B.C.E., when these dealt with and dated events of the NeoBabylonian period. Though the Royal Canon evidently drew upon sources common to those employed by Berossus – that is, the ancient Neo Babylonian chronicles and kinglists – the order and forms of the names of kings found in it differ from his presentation sufficiently to indicate that it is a record developed mdependendy of his writings. |
| An affirmative answer to this question is supported by, among other things, the following facts: The property of the imperial family was nationalized by a special Decree of the Sovnarkom from 13 July 1918, “On the nationalization of the belongings of the overthrown emperor and the members of his family” (published in “Proceedings of the VTsIK and Moscow Soviet of Workers and Red-Army Deputies” 19 July 1918). Subject to nationalization were “all the belongings and property belonging to the Russian emperor who was overthrown by the Revolution, Nicholas Alexandrovich Romanov, the former empresses Alexandra, and Maria Feodorovna Romanov [the dowager empress], and all the members of the former Russian imperial house, no matter what this might include and no matter where it might be located.” (The passing of this decree three days before the execution of the imperial family indirectly corroborates the view that the decision about the execution was made by the central Soviet authorities.) Moreover, the personal belongings of the members of the imperial family were not specified, which makes nationalization here equal to confiscation. Therefore it is possible to look at the property-seizing, arrest, exile from place to place, and execution of the royal family as a single, united act of repression. Is there cause to be apprehensive about restitution? Is it useful or harmful? In considering compensation (including the return of confiscated property) to the heirs of repressed persons who were caused material harm, it is of particular importance to take into account how long ago confiscation occurred, and also to take into account the rights of the third parties now possessing the property or belongings. Thus it is appropriate here not to carry out restitution in full measure, but to substitute it with symbolic compensation. The possibility of such compensation was provided for in the law about rehabilitation which was passed in October 1991. Furthermore, even symbolic (and it could be, indeed, only symbolic) compensation of confiscated property to the relatives of the royal family would have significant legal and political effects, plus an international resonance. |
| В католическом исчислении – третьей. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, published by command of Pope Pius the Fifth. Translated into English by Rev. J. Donovan, Professor, &c., Royal College, Maynooth. Dublin, 1829. P. 383. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, published by command of Pope Pius the Fifth. Translated into English by Rev. J. Donovan, Professor, &c., Royal College, Maynooth. Dublin, 1829. См. раздел IV катехизиса и декретов Тридентского собора. Документ доступен в интернет-проекте «Google Книги». Английский вариант ; латинский вариант: . Dies Domini, III, 47. К настоящему времени последний всекатолический собор, а потому в относительном смысле более авторитетный для католиков. Документы II Ватиканского собора. Москва: Паолине, 1998. С. 37. Документы II Ватиканского собора. С. 37. Катехизис Католической Церкви, 2180. URL: Dies Domini, III, 47 Фома Аквинский. Сумма теологии. Часть II-I. Вопросы 90-114. - К.: Ника-Центр, 2010. С. 236. Фома Аквинский. Сумма теологии. С. 126. The Catechism of the Council of Trent. P. 374. The Catechism of the Council of Trent. P. 374. The Catechism of the Council of Trent. P. 379. Отметим, что в Предании Церкви невозможно найти подтверждения этому высказыванию. Катехизис Католической Церкви. Компендиум. – М.: Культурный центр «Духовная библиотека», 2007. С. 146. Фома Аквинский. Сумма теологии. С. 133 См.: Деяния Вселенских Соборов, изданные в русском переводе при Казанской духовной академии. Том шестой. Издание третье. Казань, 1908. С. 288. Попов А. Историко-литературный обзор древнерусских полемических сочинений против латинян. XI-XV вв. М., 1875. С. 9. Наиболее ранний пример относится к св. Григорию Паламе (XIV в.), см. его «Десятисловие христианского законоположения», где сказано: «Один день недели, – который называется Господним, потому что посвящается Господу, воскресшему в оный из мёртвых, и тем общее всех воскресение предуказавшему и в нём предуверившему, – этот день святи (Исх.20:10–11), и никакого житейского дела в оный не делай (…). Имея таким образом Бога местом прибежища, ты не преступишь заповеди, огня страстей не возжёшь, и бремени греха на себя не возьмёшь; и тако освятишь день субботный, субботствуя неделанием зла» (Св. Григорий Палама. Десятисловие христианского законоположения//Добротолюбие: В 5 т. – Т. 5. – 4-е изд. – М.: Изд-во Сретенского монастыря, 2010. С. 275). Св. Григорий, как и ранние святые отцы, говорит о духовном субботстве, однако привязывает исполнение заповеди о субботе к воскресному дню. |
| Anyone who claims to have figured God out has fallen into grave and dangerous delusion. “Never assume a rational universe!” was one of Father Alexander’s memorable warnings. If our focus in North America is to be pastoral and contextual, we need to know what our context–21st century Western Civilization–is. Then we need to know thoroughly our Faith Tradition. And finally our “mission” is to apply the Orthodox Vision, to articulate it and celebrate it in a way that communicates the Eternal Truths of our Faith, to these people at this time and this place. Once we accept the pastoral imperative of our mission in this context, certain adjustments become reasonable and even necessary. For example, if we accept the pastoral and contextual criteria, how should we best celebrate the Divine Liturgy? Should the Royal Doors (as in modern Russian practice) remain shut? Should the mystical prayers that render the Anaphora intelligible be read silently? Should we insist on worshipping in unintelligible languages? Should we refrain from any lengthy or meaningful preaching? Should we discourage the Faithful from participating in the Holy Mysteries except perhaps a few times a year? Or should we rather allow the Royal Doors to remain open through all or most of the celebration? Should we read or chant the prayers aloud so that all may prayerfully participate? Should we use the language of the community in which we live? Should we explain our faith in thoughtful, well-articulated and challenging sermons? Should we encourage the Faithful to join in the celebration, singing, praying and participating in the Eucharistic banquet? Father Alexander encouraged the latter, not because he was trying to stir up trouble, not because he enjoyed being an “innovator” or because he was a “modernist,” but because he was essentially a pastor concerned for the salvation of the people of this continent, this society. He was a contextualist, which means he was essentially Traditional, in the best Orthodox sense of the word, and not a fundamentalist, focused on a fixed text (as the ultimate criterion) and an attitude alien to the authentic Orthodox Tradition, alien to the mind of the Fathers. |
| The Zagwee, however, were never able to unify the Ethiopian peoples under their banner. This inability to secure a wider consensus regarding their legitimacy as a royal line, despite the incredible accomplishments of the dynasty, fractured Christian Ethiopia; a fracture that still exists today in the painful animosities between the Tigrean people in Eritrea and the peoples of Ethiopia. In the late 12th and mid-13th centuries the expansion of Muslim trading posts channeling trade from the African interior to the wealthy Arabian Peninsula greatly strengthened the Amhara Ethiopian leaders who initiated this trade route (Kaplan 1984: 21). In time the weakened Zagwee dynasty gave way to the ambitious Amharic King Yekunno Amlak. However, during this period of rapid Islamic expansion, the Ethiopian rulers continued to splinter and struggle with problems of the succession. This inherent weakness later threatened the very continued existence of the Ethiopian “state» It was with Yekunno Amlak’s son, King Amda Seyon, that the fortunes of the Ethiopian state turned. Amda Seyon was a shrewd military genius. He turned the tide of internal Ethiopian divisions by creating a centralized military force. Rather than depending on the countryside for local militia, he decided to unite mercenaries and local conscripts under commanders loyal to the royal court (Kaplan 1984: 22–3). In doing this he undercut the power of the local warlords. After subduing the resistant chieftains in the Aksumite and Tigre regions there was little further challenge to Amda Seyon’s legitimacy as an Amhara usurper. Having crushed his antagonists, he claimed the Solomonic line for himself. It was at this stage (14th century) that the great founding myth in the Kebra Negast became so central to Ethiopian Orthodox consciousness generally. It was first advanced by the rival Tigrean ruler Ya’ebika Egzi’, but was soon shrewdly co-opted by Amda Seyon. Prior to his rule the Ethiopian provinces were subjected to constant Islamic incursions. Aware of their isolated status, they followed a policy of appeasement. Under Amda Seyon the Ethiopians, with a more centralized military force, were now able to pursue a policy of aggressive reconquest, and actually succeeded in forcing certain Islamic regions into becoming vassal states. Additionally, the conquest and control of the lucrative trade route between the Arabian South and the African interior brought immense wealth to the new dynasty, which helped to solidify its political position. |
| Материал из Православной Энциклопедии под редакцией Патриарха Московского и всея Руси Кирилла Содержание ИМПЕРСКАЯ ЦЕРКОВЬ [нем. Reichskirche; англ. Imperial Church System], историографическое понятие, характеризующее особую организацию Церкви в Зап. Европе, основными чертами к-рой являлись включенность Церкви в структуры гос-ва и ее зависимость от власти государя (императора или короля). Согласно сложившейся в исторической науке XIX - нач. XX в. концепции, Церковь поздней античности и средневековья представляла собой придаток гос-ва и использовалась правителями для укрепления собственной власти в державе. Такая И. Ц. рассматривалась как противовес светской феодальной знати, усиление к-рой было опасно для власти правителя ( Waitz. 1876; Hauck. 1896). Распространение этой концепции привело к появлению в 30-х гг. XX в. представлений о «системе имперской Церкви» в Римско-Германской империи , куда при кор. Генрихе III (1039-1056, император с 1046) было включено и папство ( Kehr. 1931, а также Santifaller. 1964; K ö ller. 1968). С 60-х гг. XX в. в историографии прослеживается тенденция к отказу как от этого определения, так и от старой концепции И. Ц. в принципе. Возражения совр. исследователей вызывают тезисы о единстве И. Ц. ( Schieffer. 1989), противопоставлении церковной и светской знати ( Fleckenstein. 1966), полном контроле правителя над избранием епископов ( Zielinski. 1984); под сомнение ставится роль епископов как «имперских агентов» в провинциях ( Leyser. 1981; Reuter. 2006). Вместе с тем И. Ц. продолжает в целом рассматриваться как явление, способствовавшее консолидации гос-ва и обеспечивавшее прочную связь между правителем, его двором и местной знатью. Широко встречающиеся в источниках определения «императорский» и «королевский» применительно к церквам и мон-рям (лат. ecclesia imperialis, ecclesia regalis, ecclesia regis; нем. Kaiserkirche; англ. royal peculiar, royal chapel; франц. église royale и т. д.; аналогично в отношении мон-рей) употреблялись для обозначения особого статуса храма или мон-ря. Храм или мон-рь получали подобный статус, если были основаны монархом, часто посещаемы им (с чем могли быть связаны архитектурные особенности храма), если в церкви или в мон-ре были погребены представители королевской (имп.) династии, если король или члены его семьи делали храму или мон-рю значительные дарения и вклады на помин души, а также если клир или монастырская братия были связаны с государем или королевской династией (напр., среди представителей клира или монахов находились члены королевской семьи) и т. д. Определения «императорский» и «королевский» употреблялись применительно к церквам и мон-рям, к-рым монархи даровали определенные привилегии и вслед. этого могли оказывать влияние при замещении должностей. Главы таких церквей и мон-рей зачастую были связаны с монархом вассально-ленными отношениями, среди них были частные церкви и аббатства королей (императоров) (см. ст. Частной церкви право ). |
| 5191 Plato Theaet. 191D; Alexander 14 in Plutarch S.K., Mor. 180D; Fort. Alex. 1.11, Mor. 333A. The seals leave an imprint in soft wax (Plutarch Educ. 5, Mor. 3F). 5192 Apuleius Metam. 10.10; cf. Lyall, Slaves, 148–52. Seals could indicate approval on a legal document, which is what Brown, John, 1:158, sees here; cf. 21:24–25. 5193 E.g., Esth 8LXX; cf. the letter in Chariton 4.5.8. The keeper of the royal signet-ring played an important role in royal courts (Tob 1:22). 5194 E.g., over a wide chronological range, P.Eleph. 1.16–18; 2.17–18; P.Lond. 1727.68–72; P.Tebt. 104.34–35; Rev 5:1. Witnesses might be recalled to testify to the validity of their seals (P.Oxy. 494.31–43; 156–165 C.E.). Seals were also used to identify the contents of merchandise (Carmon, Inscriptions, 108–9, 230–33; cf. perhaps Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 1.8). 5195 Aelius Aristides Defense of Oratory 340, §112D (επισφραγζεται). A rhetor could also apply this term to his crowning touches of praise (Menander Rhetor 2.3, 380.2). 5196 Jewish tradition acknowledged that even those in error would ultimately acknowledge the truth of God and Moses (e.g., Koran " s family in b. B.Bat. 74a; Num. Rab. 18:20). 5198 B. Sanh. 64a; p. Sanh. 1:1, §4; Gen. Rab. 8:5; Deut. Rab. 1:10; Bonsirven, Judaism, 150. 5200 For Jesus» χερ, «hand,» of authority, see also 10:28; for the Father " s hand, see 10:29; contrast perhaps 7:30,44; 10:39. 5201 That the Father gives the Spirit to Jesus here is frequently maintained and is probably the majority view, e.g., Lightfoot, Gospel, 133; Carson, John, 213; Bruce, John, 97; Turner, Spirit, 59: Whitacre, John, 99; Smith, John (1999), 107. 5202 Lev. Rab. 15:2, noted also by Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 14; Carson, John, 213; Turner, Spirit, 59; Hofius, «Geist ohne Mass»; and Bürge, Community, 84, who also notes that the specific expression κ μτρου is foreign to Greek literature in genera1. Musonius Rufus 18B, p. 116.12, applies μετρα negatively to excess (unlimited gluttony); cf. T. Ab. 14:9; 17:7A. |
| Having discussed also the celebration of the 400th anniversary of the Romanov Dynasty, the archpastors decreed: 1. To decree to the abbots and abbesses and rectors of the monasteries and parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia to commemorate the Royal Passion-Bearers during the dismissal of Liturgies in the following manner: “The Holy Righteous Passion-Bearers Tsar-Martyr Nicholas, Tsarina Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexei, Tsarevnas Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia; Holy Martyrs Grand Duchess Elizabeth and Nun Barbara and those martyred with them,” to commence on January 1/14 until the end of 2013. 2. And before the veneration of the cross during the first Sunday of Great Lent, to sing Eternal Memory to the Righteous Tsars and Tsarinas of the Romanov Dynasty and to “all members of the family of the All Russian Royal House,” in accordance with the Rite of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. 3. The general celebration of the 400th anniversary of the Romanov Dynasty will be held at Holy Trinity Cathedral in Toronto, Canada, on September 5-8, 2013, to coincide with a Russian Orthodox conference and a session of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. At the proposal of Bishop Peter, the Synod decided: “To instruct the clergymen of all monasteries and churches of the Russian Church Abroad, on the Sunday before the Nativity of Christ, to prayerfully mark the 200th anniversary of the victory over Napoleon, commemorating Righteous Tsar Alexander Pavlovich and all the Orthodox leaders and warriors who laid down their lives for the Faith, the Tsar and Fatherland.” Discussing the practice of divine services in the Russian Church Abroad, the members of the Synod of Bishops noted the importance of preserving traditions inherited from the holy fathers, founders of the part of the Russian Orthodox Church located abroad, and carefully examining persons preparing for ordination into the clerical ranks and those wishing to be received into the bosom of the Russian Church Abroad. |
| “I am the son of Belšumiškun, king of Babylon.” The second volume of Langdon’s work on the NeoBabylonian royal inscriptions, however, which included the inscriptions from the reign of Neriglissar, was never published in English. The manuscript was translated into German by Rudolf Zehnphund and published under the title Die neubabylonischen Königinschriften (Leipzig 1912). The inscription that is supposed to give Belšumiškun the title “king of Babylon” is Ested as “Neriglissar Nr. 1”. The original Akkadian text as transliterated by Langdon reads in Col. I , line 14 (pp. 210, 211): “mâr I ilu bêlšumiškun šar bâbili ki anaku” This is verbatim translated into German as, “der Sohn des Belšumiškun, des Konigs von Babylon, bin Ich,” A literal translation of this into English would be “the son of Belšumiškun, the king of Babylon, am I,” rather than “I am the son of Belšumiškun, king of Babylon.” This is probably also what was written in Langdon’s English manuscript. In W. H. Lane’s book Babylonian Problems (London, 1923), which has an introduction by Professor S. Langdon, a number of the translations of the NeoBabylonian inscriptions is published in Appendix 2 (pp. 177195). They are said to be taken from the work, “Building Inscriptions of the NeoBabylonian Empire, by STEPHEN LANGDON, translated by E. M. LAMOND.” The last of these royal inscriptions is “Neriglissar I” (pp. 194, 195). Line 14 of the text says (p. 194): “der Son of Belšumiškun, King of Babylon, am I.” It is obvious that this statement may be understood in two ways. Either the phrase “King of Babylon” refers back to Belsumiskun as king or it refers to Neriglissar himself. As no contract tablets have been found that are dated to Belšumiškun as king of Babylon, the statement is most likely a reference to Neriglissar. Do we know anything about Belšumiškun, more than that he was the father of Neriglissar? It is known that Neriglissar, before he became king, was a wellknown businessman, and in several business tablets he is referred to as “Neriglissar, the son of Belšumiškun.” In none of these tablets is Belšumiškun stated to be, or to have been, king of Babylon. |
|
|
