| The High General Prosecutor and the subsequent decisions declining rehabilitation per the official written request of Grand Duchess Leonida Georgievna, cited a lack of documental evidence of an official sentencing or decree by the Soviet authorities on the executions. But, as is known, in Soviet Russia “revolutionary law” was instituted, by which the soviets [councils] held all the forms of power: legislative, executive, and judiciary. It is understandable that in the heat of revolution and civil war, many documents disappeared which contained evidence about this case; but even the remaining ones are sufficient as grounds for rehabilitation. Here are several of the surviving documents: Telegram of G.E. Zinoviev to the chairman of the sovnarkom V.I. Lenin and Y. M. Sverdlov regarding the receipt of a communiquй from Ekaterinburg about the fate of the royal family: 16 July 1918 From Ekaterinburg they pass on the following by direct telegraph: “Inform Moscow that the verdict agreed upon with Philippov В , due to war-time circumstances, does not permit postponement; we cannot wait. If your opinion is the opposite, immediately, without delay, inform us.” It is known that the Bolshevist leaders had prepared a verdict against the former Emperor. Furthermore, from this telegram (this is a part of the telegram, which in whole did not survive) it is evident that regarding the matter of execution, the leaders in Moscow passed the decision on to the communists in the Urals [who were openly in favor of execution]—to act in accordance with circumstances as they arose. This was a very tense time for the Soviet power. On 6 July began a revolt of the leftist Social Revolutionaries. The German ambassador was executed; relations with Germany were extremely tense. The Russian empress and the royal children, according to German law, retained their German citizenship. The murder of the relatives of the German Kaiser might call forth an responding action by Germany—which at that time was very powerful. On the other hand, the opinion of the Moscow leaders was not in opposition to the known revolutionary zeal of the Ural communists, who were hungering for execution. Thus, as could be expected, the Ural soviet freely took upon itself the final decision about the shooting. Nevertheless, the report to Moscow after the shooting shows that the Ural leaders were afraid that Moscow would not approve their willfulness; thus they didn’t have the courage to inform Moscow immediately that not only the Emperor but also the whole family was executed. They were so apprehensive that they confused the dates: the execution was carried out on the night of the 17 th , not the 16 th of July. |
| On the night of 17–18 July 1918, without trial or official passing of a sentence by the governing authorities of the city of Alapaevsk, the following persons were executed (thrown down a mine shaft near Alapaevsk [and live grenades thrown in after them]):[the royal monastic] Elizabeth Feodorovna Romanova, Igor Constantinovich Romanov, Constantine Constantinovich Romanov, Ivan Constantinovich Romanov, Sergei Mikhailovich Romanov, Vladimir Pavlovich Palei, [Ryassaphore Nun] Barbara Yakovleva and Feodor Mikhailovich Remez. There was not established by inquiry any criminal or civil law-breaking by the above-listed people which could serve as grounds for exile or execution. On 30 January 1919 in the Ss. Peter and Paul Fortress in Petrograd (Saint Petersburg), by the decision of the Petrograd Emergency Commission [Cheka] , like hostages were shot: Grand Duke Pavel Alexandrovich Romanov, Nicholas Mikhailovich Romanov, Georgi Mikhailovich Romanov, and Dmitri Constantinovich Romanov. No accusations of unlawful activity by the above-named persons were brought forth. In the late 1920’s in the Yaroslav Oblast [Region], E.S. Kobylinski, the former head of the guard of the royal family during their exile in Tobolsk, and L. Sednev, who in childhood was a cook’s helper in the Ipatiev House, were executed for “counter-revolutionary activity”. I request that you consider this petition and take measures for the restoration of historical justice and the lawful, legal succession of the Russian government by rehabilitating the following persons: A) Innocent, murdered Russian citizens 8 : 1. Nicholas Alexandrovich Romanov—Emperor 2. Alexandra Feodorovna Romanova—Empress 3. Alexei Nicholaevich Romanov—tsarevich [crown prince], 4. Olga Nicholaevna Romanov—Grand Duchess 5. Tatiana Nicholaevna Romanova—Grand Duchess 6. Maria Nicholaevna Romanova—Grand Duchess 7. Anastasia Nicholaevna Romanova—Grand Duchess 8. Georgi Mikhailovich Romanov--Grand Duke 9. Dmitri Constantinovich Romanov—Grand Duke 10. Elizabeth Feodorovna Romanova—Grand Duchess |
| Neugebauer’s statement, then, refers to the situation that has prevailed during the past 400 years. But he further explains that, more recently, securely established chronological data of ancient observations have been obtained from the “great wealth of observational records assembled in Babylonia during the last three or four centuries B.C.” These data have enabled scholars to check the Canon and confirm its reliability. (Neugebauer, pp. 1072,1073) Some years earlier, in a review of A. J. Sachs (ed.), Cate Babylonian Astronomical and Related Texts (LBAT) (1955), Neugebauer emphasized the importance of the Babylonian astronomical texts for the Mesopotamian chronology. Of their value for establishing the chronology of the Seleucid era, for example, he explained: “Since planetary and lunar data of such variety and abundance define the date of a text with absolute accuracy–lunar positions with respect to fixed stars do not even allow 24 hours of uncertainty which is otherwise involved in lunar dates–we have here records of Seleucid history which are far more reliable than any other historical source material at our disposal.” (Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, Vol. 52, Berlin, 1957, p. 133) A similar confirmation of the Ptolemaic chronology has been established for earlier periods. The editor of the abovementioned work, Professor Abraham J. Sachs, who was a leading authority on the astronomical texts and also a close friend and colleague of Neugebauer, explains how the cuneiform sources have provided an independent confirmation of Ptolemy’s kinglist back to its very beginning, thus establishing the absolute chronology of the Babylonian, Persian, and Seleucid eras. In the statement quoted below, Sachs speaks of Ptolemy’s kinglist as “Theon’s royal list” because it has traditionally been held that the mathematician Theon (4th century GE) included the kinglist in his revision of Ptolemy’s Handy Tablets. This view has recently been questioned, so “Theon’s royal list” could be as much a misnomer as is “Ptolemy’s Canon.” (Cf. Dr. Leo Depuydt in the journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 47, 1995, p. 104) Apart from this detail, Sachs makes the following comparison between the kinglist and the cuneiform sources: |
| 830) moved his court to Klarjeti. Ashot was to be supported by the Byzantines and was given the high title of Kouropalates. The proximity of the royal court contributed greatly to the monastic revival in this region. Most of the existing monasteries were built during the reign of the son of Ashot, Bagrat (826–78). Shatberdi, Opiza, Daba, Bana, Parekhi, Doliskana, Jmerki, Berta, Tskarostavi, Baretelta, Mere, and Khandtza itself all became centers of spiritual revival at the time when Tbilisi, the capital of Iberia, lay under Arab siege. Today, a number of these churches lie within the territory of modern Turkey. Known as the “Georgian Sinai,” they comprised an organizational matrix supervised by Gregory of Khandzta. From the 830s onwards he was named archimandrite of the twelve deserts. As his Vita poetically describes it: “By the rivers of his wisdom all the deserts of Klarjeti were irrigated.” In the monasteries under his supervision Gregory introduced a Typikon based on those of St. Sabas in Palestine and the Studion at Constantinople. It was because of Gregory’s efforts that after the 9th century the holy chrism was prepared in Georgia instead of importing it from Antioch (a sign of mature autocephaly of the Christians there). It was from their base in Tao-Klarjeti that the Georgian royal family of Bagrationis made strides towards the unification of the different Georgian lands. The nobility in Tao-Klarjeti fully supported the Georgian community on Mount Athos and funded the establishment of the Georgian monastery of Iviron (Greek for “Of the Iberians”). The 10th-century text of the Life of St. Gregory of Khandzta was rediscovered only in 1911 and remarkably amplified the history of the Church of Georgia in the 9th century. GEORGIANS OUTSIDE OF GEORGIA Christian Georgians are known to have been present in Palestine from the 5th century. The oldest inscription in Georgian is actually found in mosaics at Jerusalem (433). The will of St. Sabas (ca. 532), founder of the Lavra in Palestine, states: “The Iberians and the Syrians cannot celebrate the liturgy in their own languages but should only read the Hours, the Typika, the Epistle and the Gospel in those tongues.” Between the 8th and 10th centuries Iberian monks were actively involved in the life of St. |
| Now that these bishops and their followers have expelled themselves from the Church Abroad and created their own church organizations, the Church Abroad has regained freedom of opinion and an opportunity to return to the path blessed by Holy Patriarch Tikhon and the Founding First Hierarchs and Archpastors of blessed memory. The new obstacles to normal relations that have been brought forward within our Church Abroad, such as the absence of repentance, failure to glorify the Royal New Martyrs, Sergianism, and participation in the ecumenical movement, have today ceased to be insurmountable. Back in 1993 His Holiness, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, Alexey II and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church proclaimed, before God and the Russian people, repentance for the sin of regicide. Their Epistle on the 75th anniversary of the murder of Emperor Nicholas II and his family states: «With augmented prayer and great pain in our hearts we commemorate this sad Anniversary… The sin of regicide, which took place amid the indifference of the citizens of Russia, has not been repented of by our people. Being a transgression of both the law of God and civil law, this sin weighs extremely heavily upon the souls of our people, upon its moral conscience. And today, on behalf of the whole Church, on behalf of her children, both reposed and living, we proclaim repentance before God and the people for this sin. Forgive us, O Lord! We call to repentance all of our people, all of our children, regardless of their political views and opinions about history, regardless of their attitude toward the idea of Monarchy and the personality of the last Russian Tsar. Repentance of the sin committed by our forefathers should become for us a banner of unity. May today’s sad date unite us in prayer with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, with whom we so sincerely desire restoration of spiritual unity in faithfulness to the Spirit of Christ... .» The call was, unfortunately, ignored. The Royal New Martyrs were glorified, and Sergianism and ecumenism rejected, by the Jubilee Sobor of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in the year 2000. |
| Carl Olof Jonsson 7. AS RELATED in the Introduction, the original manuscript of this work was first presented to the Watch Tower Society in 1977. During the subsequent correspondence with the headquarters of that organization, additional lines of evidence were presented which were later included in the published edition of the work in 1983. In possession of all this information, it might be expected that the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses at the Brooklyn headquarters would have been prepared to reevaluate their Gentile times calculation in accord with their stated interest in biblical truth and historical facts. On the contrary, they chose to retain and defend the 607 B.C.E. date and the interpretations founded upon it. 443 A. The watch tower society’s appendix to “let your kingdom come” The new defense of the 607 B.C.E. date appeared in a book published in 1981 entitled “Let Your Kingdom Come”. In chapter 14 (pages 127140) of the book another discussion of the Gentile times calculation is presented, which does not differ materially from previous discussions of the subject in the Watch Tower publications. But in a separate “Appendix to Chapter 14” at the end of the book, some of the lines of evidence weighing against the 607 B.C.E. date are now briefly discussed – and rejected. 444 is seriously lacking in objectivity and proves to be nothing more dian a weak attempt to conceal facts. In the area of historical research an event is generally regarded as a “historical fact” if it is testified to by at least two independent witnesses. We recognize this rule from tile Bible: “At the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established.” (Matthew 18:16 the first edition of the present work seven historical “witnesses” against the 607 B.C.E. date were presented, at least four of which clearly qualify as independent witnesses. Most of the records giving this sevenfold testimony are found on documents preserved from the NeoBabylonian era itself. These include royal inscriptions, business documents and the Apis stelae from the contemporary Egyptian Saite dynasty. Only the astronomical diaries, Berossus’ NeoBabylonian chronology and the king list of the Royal Canon (”Ptolemy’s Canon”) are found on later documents, but those records, too, were seen to be copied from earlier ones that – directly or indirectly – went back to the NeoBabylonian era. |
| A 5th-century Greek inscription of the Nubian King Silko describes his campaigns into Lower Nubia against the Blemmyes, another tribe regarded by the wider world (especially the Roman Empire) as “brigands.” After sacking a series of former Roman forts used by the Blemmyes, King Silko incorporated them into his kingdom and claimed the title of “King of the Nobades and of all the Ethiopians.” This campaign ensured the continued existence of the Nubian Kingdom for centuries to come. It would endure as a Christian reality until the 15th century. Because the Nubian Kingdom controlled the trade route between Roman Egypt and the sub-Saharan world in Late Antiquity, it also became a very important piece of the global puzzle within the later Byzantine and Islamic political strategies. Empress Theodora, Justinian’s wife, recognized the importance of the trade route and sent a series of Christian missions to the Nubian Kingdom. The success of these missions, as described by John of Ephesus, converted the Nubians to the non- Chalcedonian cause. As in Ethiopia, the Nubians were ecclesiastically related to the jurisdiction of the Coptic Egyptian authorities in the North, and the patriarch of Alexandria appointed their bishops. The vitality of this Christian tradition is evinced by their beautiful frescoes and ornate churches. Even with the decline of Christian civilization in the North, and with only the Nile as a tentative route of connection, the Christian Nubians persevered for centuries. Their increasing isolation from the rest of the Christian world made them more vulnerable to Islamic incursions in the 12th and 13th centuries. When the royal court at Dongola finally converted to Islam, the isolated condition of the Nubians, their ecclesial dependence on Egypt, and the manner in which the church had always been so heavily sustained by the power of the royal court created the climate for a rapid dissolution. In a relatively short time the Christian Nubian Kingdom faded away into nothing more than a memory, and a few alluring fragments of art history from the site at Faras (Vantini 1970). |
| 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: . К настоящему времени последний всекатолический собор, а потому в относительном смысле более авторитетный для католиков. 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. 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. |
| рукописей - т. н. Катах (Боевой), или Псалтирь св. Колумбы, к-рая датируется нач. VII в. (по преданию, создана св. Колумбой) (Royal Irish Academy. 12 R 33). Ряд иллюминированных рукописей предположительно был выполнен на Линдисфарне и в др. обителях «общины Колумбы» в Нортумбрии, напр. фрагменты Евангелия сер. VII в. (Cathedral Library, Durham. A. II. 10; C. III. 13; C. III. 20) и Линдисфарнское Евангелие (ок. 698; Lond. Brit. Lib. Cotton. Nero D. IV). К этому же кругу скрипториев относится Евангелие из Дурроу (2-я пол. VII в.; Trinity College. Dublin. A. 4. 5 (57)). Как выдающийся памятник ирл. искусства известна роскошно оформленная «Книга из Келлса» (ок. 800?; Ibid. A. 1 (58)), вероятно созданная на о-ве Иона или в Кенаннасе. Предположительно эта рукопись почиталась в средние века как «Великое Евангелие Колума Килле». Возникший под влиянием И. «гиберно-саксонский» декоративный стиль господствовал в Нортумбрии даже после завершения ирландской миссии (рукописи «Даремского Кассиодора» (ок. 730; Cathedral Library, Durham. B. II. 30) и «Санкт-Петербургского Беды» (ок. 740; РНБ. Lat. Q. v. I. 18)) и оказал влияние на каролингскую миниатюру («франко-саксонский стиль»). Возможно, с конгрегацией И. связано происхождение резных «высоких крестов» (англ. high crosses; наиболее ранние (нач. IX в.) образцы находятся в Келлсе (Южный крест), в Килдалтоне (о-в Айла, Внутренние Гебриды) и на о-ве Айона (фрагменты Креста св. Иоанна, Крест св. Мартина) - Stevenson R. B. K. The Chronology and Relationships of Some Irish and Scottish Crosses//J. of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland. Dublin, 1956. Vol. 86. N 1. P. 85-89; Werner M. On the Origin of the Form of the Irish High Cross//Gesta. N. Y., 1990. Vol. 29. P. 98-110). Однако др. исследователи предлагают датировать кресты на о-ве Айона и в Келлсе более поздним временем ( Richardson H. Visual Arts and Society//A New History of Ireland. 2005. Vol. 1. P. 708). Из памятников ювелирного искусства, связанных с И., известен реликварий из Монимаска (VIII в.; Национальный музей Шотландии, Эдинбург), к-рый отождествляется исследователями с почитавшимся в средневек. |
| В нач. XIV в. на о-ве Инис-Келтра существовала приходская церковь. После Реформации церковные здания были заброшены. В источниках XVII в. сообщается, что руины были местом паломничества, иногда здесь скрывалось от преследований католич. духовенство. В нач. XVIII в. местные жители предприняли попытку восстановить некоторые храмы ( Macalister. 1916/1917. P. 109-111). На месте раннесредневек. церковного поселения сохранилась ц. св. К., возможно построенная на рубеже X и XI вв. по указанию Бриана Бору. В XII в. церковь была перестроена, к основному объему добавлены алтарная часть с аркой и портал, украшенные резьбой в гиберно-романском стиле. Рядом с церковью находится круглая башня (высота 22 м), сооружение к-рой, вероятно, не было завершено. Т. н. церковь раненых мужей (Teampull na bfear ngonta) была построена на рубеже XII и XIII вв.; в нач. XVIII в. то, что сохранилось от здания, использовалось как усыпальница рода О " Грейди. Небольшое прямоугольное сооружение, известное как «исповедальня» или «келья отшельника», возможно, служило гробницей. За пределами центрального комплекса расположены небольшая ц. св. Михаила и ц. св. Бригиты (сер. XII в.?) с резным гиберно-романским порталом (реконструирован в 1879), а также однонефная приходская ц. Девы Марии (нач. XIII в.?). На острове сохранились св. источник, фрагменты средневек. каменных крестов, резные надгробия ( Halpin A., Newman C. Ireland: An Oxford Archaeological Guide to Sites from Earliest Times to AD 1600. Oxf.; N. Y., 2006. P. 391-393). В надписи на одном из крестов сообщается, что он был воздвигнут по указанию «верховного старца Ирландии, т. е. Катасаха» († 1111) ( Okasha, Forsyth. 2001. P. 50-55). Лит.: O " Hanlon J. Lives of the Irish Saints. Dublin, Vol. 3. P. 941-945; Westropp T. J. The Churches of County Clare, and the Origin of the Ecclesiastical Divisions in That County//Proc. of the Royal Irish Academy. Sect. C. Dublin, 1900/1902. Vol. 22. P. 100-180; Stokes W. The Battle of Carn Conaill//Zschr. für celtische Philologie. Halle, 1901. Bd. 3. S. 203-219; Esposito M. On the So-Called Psalter of St. Caimin//Proc. of the Royal Irish Academy. Sect. C. 1914/1916. Vol. 32. P. 78-88; Macalister R. A. S. The History and Antiquities of Inis Cealtra//Ibid. 1916/1917. Vol. 33. P. 93-174; Plummer C. A Tentative Catalogue of Irish Hagiography// Idem. Miscellanea Hagiographica Hibernica. Brux., 1925. N 15, 90. (SH; 15); Kenney J. F. The Sources for the Early History of Ireland: An Introd. and Guide. N. Y., 1929. Vol. 1. P. 384-386; Fern á ndez Alonso J. Caimin, abate di Inis Celtra//BiblSS. Vol. 3. Col. 644; De Paor L. The History of the Monastic Site of Inis Cealtra, Co. Clare//North Munster Antiquarian J. 1996. Vol. 37. P. 21-32; Okasha E., Forsyth K. Early Christian Inscriptions of Munster: A Corpus of the Inscribed Stones. Cork, 2001. P. 47-104. |
|
|
