| Материал из Православной Энциклопедии под редакцией Патриарха Московского и всея Руси Кирилла МААДИКАРИБ ЯФУР [Мадикариб Юфир/Яафур (?); сабейский ; сир. , ] (1-я четв. VI в.), 1-й из правителей южноарав. гос-ва Химьяр , о котором достоверно известно, что он исповедовал христианство. Наиболее поздняя надпись его предшественника на химьяритском престоле Марсадъилана Януфа датирована мартом 509 г., однако, судя по косвенным данным, почерпнутым в основном из памятников сирийской агиографии, начало правления М. Я. относится к лету 518 - маю 519 г., когда аксумский царь Калеб (см. Елезвой ) отправил из Адулиса , главного порта своего государства, в Юж. Аравию войска под командованием Хайана, чтобы возвести М. Я. на престол. Когда М. Я. оказался в затруднительном финансовом положении, христиане Награна оказали ему денежную помощь как своему единоверцу: так, одна богатая награнка ссудила ему 12 тыс. денариев, а затем простила этот долг. М. Я. нуждался в средствах в т. ч. и для организации походов во Внутреннюю Аравию. Согласно наскальной надписи Ry 510, оставленной им в Вади-Масиль в Неджде, в июне 521 г. он прибыл туда во главе крупного войска, в состав которого входили как южно- ( киндиты и мазхиджиты), так и североарав. племена (саалабиты и мудариты), и сумел восстановить контроль Химьяра над этой областью, попавшей в сферу влияния лахмидского царя аль- Мунзира III . Вероятно, к этому же походу относится обнаруженная в районе Вади-Таслис, у сев. рубежей Йемена , надпись Ja 2484 (наиболее обоснованная датировка - авг. 521). Военные действия в Аравии против зависевшего от Сасанидов царства Лахмидов не отвечали интересам значительной части химьяритской элиты, исповедовавшей иудаизм или сочувственно относившейся к этой религии, а во внешней политике настроенной антивизантийски и проирански. Принято считать, что кончина М. Я. в июне-июле 522 г. открыла путь к верховной власти в Химьяре иудею-узурпатору Йосефу Асару Ясару . Ист.: позднесабейские надписи: Ryckmans G. Inscriptions sudarabes: 10ème série//Le Muséon. 1953. Vol. 66. P. 307–310. Pl. VI (Ry 510); Jamme A. Miscellanées d’ancient arabe. Wash., 1972. Vol. 3. P. 85–86 (Ja 2484); сир. агиография: The Book of the Himyarites: Fragments of a Hitherto Unknown Syriac Work/Ed. A. Moberg. Lund etc., 1924. P. 43. Col. 2 [сир. текст], CXXXIII [англ. пер. и коммент.] (рус. пер.: История Африки: Хрестоматия. С. 213); La lettera di Simeone vescovo di BêthArâm sopra i martiri omeriti/Publ., trad. I. Guidi//MRAL. Ser. 3. 1881. Vol. 7. P. 482, 488 [итал. пер.], 509, 516 [сир. текст]; Shahîd I. The Martyrs of Najrân: New Documents. Brux., 1971. P. XXVII [сир. текст], 60 [англ. пер.]. (SH; 49). |
| 5. The Russian Metropolia It was the Revolution of 1917 and the Communist control of the Church following it that forced the Russian Diocese in America to proclaim a temporary independence from the Moscow Patriarchate at the Detroit Sobor of 1924. In doing so, the Russian Church here was applying the historic decisions of the Great Russian Sobor held in Moscow in 1917-18, whose basic tendency was to return from the centralised and bureaucratic Church administration, established by Peter the Great, to the original Orthodox “sobornost” — the active participation of the whole Church — bishops, clergy and laity — in the totality of the Church’s life. Literally following the decisions of the Moscow Sobor, the American Russian Diocese elected its Primate, Metropolitan Platon (+1934), one of the senior Bishops of the Church of Russia who, having served in America before World War I, knew the needs of the Church here and could assure the continuity of her life. The Church, weakened by the Revolution, gathered around Metropolitan Platon and began its new growth. Under his successors, Metropolitans Theophilus (+1950) and Leonty (elected in 1950), new dioceses were created so that today the former Diocese had developed into a great Metropolitan District with nine dioceses. It has theological schools, a system of religious education, etc. It is governed, according to the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church, by a Synod (Council) of Bishops, led by the Primate, and by a regular triennial Sobor with the participation of clergy and laity. It maintains close relations with all other Orthodox Churches in America and abroad. Unfortunately, the genuine canonicity of the Metropolia, its organic continuity with the whole growth of Orthodoxy in America, its faithfulness to the very spirit of the Moscow decisions of 1917-18, are not understood and accepted by all. Two other Russian ecclesiastical groups maintain a separate existence, breaking the much needed unity of the Church. One takes its stand on a purely formal “canonicity.” This is the Exarchate of the Moscow Patriarchate, organized in 1933 after the arrival of Archbishop Benjamin from Europe. Its claims are unacceptable to the Metropolia which wants to be in communion with the Orthodox people of Russia, but which cannot depend on a Church administration totally controlled by the Communist regime. The other is the Russian Church in Exile grouping mainly the political emigrants and deeply conditioned in its life by their political ideologies. |
| A. Moberg. Lund etc., 1924. P. 3–61 [сир. текст], CI–CLXX [англ. пер. и коммент.] (рус. пер. отрывков: История Африки в древних и средневековых источниках: Хрестоматия/Под ред. О. К. Дрейера; сост.: С. Я. Берзина, Л. Е. Куббель. М., 19902. С. 211–212); Historia dos martyres de Nagran: Versão ethiopica/Publ. F. M. Esteves Pereira. Lisboa, 1899 (рус. пер. отрывков: Там же. С. 223–226); Le martyre de Saint Aréthas et de ses compagnons (BHG 166)/Éd. crit., étude, annot. M. Detoraki; trad. J. Beaucamp. P., 2007. (Le massacre de Najrân; 1); Tradizioni orientali del «Martirio di Areta»: La prima recensione araba e la versione etiopica/Ed. crit. e trad. a cura di A. Bausi e A. Gori; present. di P. Marrassini. Firenze, 2006. (Quaderni di Semitistica; 27); мусульм. историография: Wahb ibn Munabbih. Kitb at-tdjn f mulk Himyar: Riwyat ‘Abd al-Malik b. Hišm. Sana‘’, P. 312–313; Našwn ibn Sa‘d al-Himyar. Mulk Himyar wa-aqyl al-Yaman. Al-Qhira, P. 147–149, 164; idem. Die auf Südarabien bezüglichen Angaben Našwân’s im Šams al-‘ulûm gesammelt/Hrsg. ‘Azuîmuddîn Ahmad. Leyden; L., 1916. S. 106–107; al-Hamdn, al-Hasan ibn Ahmad. Kitb al-Ikll. Al-Qhira, 1966. Pt. 2/Ed. Muhammad b. ‘Al al-Akwa‘ al-Hiwl. P. 59–64; Bayrt; ana‘’, Pt. 8/Ed. Nabêh Amên Faris. P. 127, 137, 226; at-Tabari. Annales/Ed. M. J. de Goeje. Lugd. Batav., 1890. Ser. 1. Vol. 2. P. 918–919, 926–929; Ibn-Wdhih qui dicitur al-Ja‘qub. Historiae/Ed. M. Th. Houstma. Lugd. Batav., 1883. Pars 1. P. 225–226; Das Leben Muhammed’s nach Muhammed Ibn Ishk bearbeitet von Abd el-Malik Ibn Hischam/Hrsg. F. Wüstenfeld. Gött., 1858. Bd. 1. S. 19–24; Maçoudi. Les prairies d’or/Éd., trad. C. Barbier de Meynard, A. Pavet de Courteille. P., 1861. T. 1. P. 129–131; 1864. T. 3. P. 156–157, 175. Лит.: Ryckmans J. La persécution des chrétiens himyarites au sixième siècle. Istanbul, 1956; idem. Le christianisme en Arabie du Sud préislamique//Atti del Convegno internazionale sul tema: L " Oriente cristiano nella storia della civiltà (Roma 31 marzo - 3 aprile 1963; Firenze 4 aprile 1963). |
| 18 Juin 1924 Le patriarche Tikhon répondant à la lettre du patriarche Grégoire VII, réfute point par point ces conseils malvenus : « Nous n’avons pas peu été étonné et troublé de ce que... le chef de l’Église constantinopolitaine, sans nous préalablement consulté, comme représentant légal et chef de toute l’Église orthodoxe russe, intervienne dans la vie interne et dans les affaires de l’Église russe autocéphale. Les saints Conciles (cf 2 e et 3 e canons du II Concile œcuménique, etc) n’ont jamais reconnu autre chose que la primauté d’honneur de l’évêque de Constantinople, ne lui accordant ni primauté d’autorité, ni aucune primauté en général... C’est pourquoi, toute commission, quelle qu’elle soit, envoyée sans que j’en ai eu connaissance, comme unique premier hiérarque légitime et orthodoxe de l’Église orthodoxe russe, et sans mon accord, est illégale, ne sera pas reçue par le peuple orthodoxe russe ; elle n’apportera pas l’apaisement, mais un trouble encore plus grand et un schisme plus profond dans l’Église orthodoxe russe déjà fortement éprouvée... Le peuple n’est pas avec les schismatiques, il est avec son patriarche légitime et orthodoxe. Il est permis de s’interroger sur les mesures proposées par Votre Sainteté pour apaiser l’Église, à savoir ma destitution de la direction de l’Église et la suppression, même temporaire, du patriarcat en Russie. Ceci n’apaisera pas la Sainte Église, mais provoquera de nouveaux troubles, apportant de nouvelles afflictions à nos fidèles archipasteurs et pasteurs déjà si éprouvés. » Après cette lettre, le patriarche Grégoire VII rompt de fait toute relation avec Sa Sainteté le patriarche Tikhon, et ne correspond plus qu’avec le Synode des rénovateurs. Au nom du prolétariat constantinopolitain 21 Juillet 1924 L’archimandrite Basile (Dimopoulo), représentant du patriarche de Constantinople en URSS, s’adresse au nom du patriarche Grégoire VII et « de tout le prolétariat constantinopolitain » au chef du Secrétariat aux affaires des cultes du Présidium du Comité exécutif central de l’URSS, P. Smidovitch : « Ayant vaincu ses ennemis, surmonté tous les obstacles, ayant pris des forces, la Russie soviétique peut maintenant répondre aux appels du prolétariat du Proche-Orient, bien disposé envers elle, le disposant ainsi encore mieux. Il vous appartient, camarade Smidovitch, de rendre le nom de la Russie soviétique encore plus populaire en Orient qu’il ne l’était naguère, et je vous en prie instamment : rendez au Patriarcat de Constantinople ce grand service, en tant que gouvernement puissant et fort d’une grande puissance, d’autant plus que le patriarche œcuménique, reconnu en Orient comme le chef de tous les orthodoxes, a clairement démontré par ses actes sa bienveillance envers le pouvoir soviétique qu’il a reconnu. » L’éminence grise de Constantinople |
| Le Synodikon de l’Orthodoxie – Gouillard J. Le Synodikon de l’Orthodoxië Édition et commentaire. R, 1967 (Travaux et Mémoires, 2). Антология – Антология восточно-христианской богословской мысли: Ортодоксия и гетеродоксия/сост. Г. И. Беневич, Л. В. Бурлака. В 2 т. М.; СПб., 2009. ДВС – Деяния Вселенских соборов: [репринтное издание]. Т. 1–4. СПб., 1996. Добротолюбие – Добротолюбие в русском переводе [свт. Феофана Затворника ], дополненное. T. 1. М., 1895; Т. 5. М., 1900. Писания мужей апостольских – Писания мужей апостольских/изд. подг. А. Г. Дунаевым. М., 2003; репринт: М., 2008. ППЦ – Правила Православной Церкви с толкованиями Никодима, епископа Далматинско-Истрийского. T. 1. СПб., 1911. Т. 2. СПб., 1912; репринт: Т. 1–2. Свято-Троицкая Сергиева Лавра, 1996. РИБ – Русская историческая библиотека, издаваемая Археографической комиссией. Т. 6: Памятники древнерусского канонического права. Ч. 1: (Памятники XI-XV в.). СПб., 1880. ΓΠΣ – " Αγου Г ρηγορου του Παλαμ συγγρμματα κδιδνται πιμελεα Παναγιτου το Χρστου. Τ. 1–5. Θεσσαλονκη, 1962–1992 (T. 1 –1962; Τ. 2 – 1966; Τ. 3 – 1970; Τ. 4 – 1988; Τ. 5 – 1992). ΣΚ – Ρλλης Γ. Α., Ποτλς Μ . Σνταγμα των θεων και ιερν καννων των τε γιων και πανευφμων αποστλων, κα των ιερν οικουμενικν κα τοπικν συνδων, κα τν κατ μρος γιων πατρων. 6 τ. A θναι, 1852–1859. 2. Серийные, периодические и продолжающиеся издания АВ – Analecta Bollandiana. Brussels, 1882-. ASCL – Archivio storico per la Calabria e la Lucania. 1931-. BF – Byzantinische Forschungen. Amsterdam, 1966-. BS – Byzantine Studies/Études byzantines. Shepherdstown; [etc.], 1974-. Byzantion – Byzantion: Revue internationale des Études byzantines. Bruxelles; [etc.], 1924-. BZ – Byzantinische Zeitschrift. Leipzig; München; Stuttgart, 1892-. CA – Cahiers archéologiques. R, 1945-. CCSG – Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca. Turnhout, 1978-. CCSL – Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina. Turnhout, 1954-. CFHB – Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinaë [Book Series]. B.; Washington, DC; [etc.], 1967-. |
| Idem. Leontius of Byzantium: A Critical Edition of his Works, with Prolegomena (Diss.). Oxford, 1978. Idem. The Christology of Leontius of Byzantium: Personalism or Dialectics//Papers from the Ninth Conference on Patristic Studies. Oxford, 1983//Patristic Monograph Series, The Philadelphia Patristic Foundation (машинопись). Idem. «A Richer Union»: Leontius of Byzantium and the Relationship of Human and Divine in Christ//Studia Patristica, 24 (1993). P. 239–265. Devreesse R. Le florilege de Ьёопсе de Byzance 11 Revue des Sciences Religieuses, 10(1930). P. 545–576. Idem. Essai sur Theodore de Mopsueste 11 Studi e Testi, 141. Vaticano, 1948. Diekamp Fr. Die origenistischen Streitigkeiten im sechsten Jahrhundert und das funfte allgemeine Concil. Munster, 1899. Idem. Analecta Patristica: Texte und Abhandlungen zur griechischen Patristik 11 Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 117. Roma, 1938. Draguet R. Julien d’Halicarnasse et sa controverse avec Severe d’Antioche sur l’incorruptibilite du corps du Christ, Louvain, 1924. Duchesn L. L glise au V е siecle, Paris, 1925. Ehrhard A. Review of Friedrich Loofs, Leontius von Byzanz, etc.//Literarischer Handweiser, XXVII (1888). S. 504–508. Idem. Zur Katalogiserung der kleineren Bestande griechischer Handschriften in Italien 11 Centralblatt fur Bibliothekswesen, 10 (1893). S. 189–218. Elert W. Der Ausgang der altkirchlichen Christologie. Eine Untersuchung iiber Theodor von Pharan und seine Zeit als Einftihrung in die alte Dogmengeschichte. Berlin, 1957. Ermoni V. De Leontio Byzantino et de ejus doctrina christologica, Paris, 1895. Evans D. B. Leontius of Byzantium. An origenist Christology (Diss.). Cambridge; Mass. 1966. Резюме см. в Harvard Theological Review, 59 (1966). P. 444; публикация: Washington, 1970 (см. также: Revue distoire Ecctesiastique, 66 (1971). P. 977–985). Idem. Leontius of Byzantium. An origenistic Christology, Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 13, 1970 (см. также: Мизёоп 84 (1971). P. 553–560 и Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 66(1973). P. 95–99). |
| In addition, according to the director of the office, the return of all the Romanovs may even harm Russia. — Around the world, there are thousands or even tens of thousands of descendants who are not members of the Imperial house. This is a wide circle, and it is unclear whether Russia will benefit from them. There are those who long ago broke away from the Imperial house, they don't speak Russian, and profess another religion. The status of the House of Romanov is based on the dynastic law. Family law, established by Emperor Paul in 1797, always indicates a person with rights and duties of the head of the house, those who are members, who has what titles, etc. Note that now there are two main branches of the Romanov family — Kirillovichs and Nikolaevichs. The first call themselves " The Imperial house in exile " , headed by Maria Vladimirovna, the second is the association of descendants of the house of Romanov, headed by Prince Nicholas Romanovich. According to the professor of the School of Historical Sciences of the Higher School of Economics, Oleg Budnitskiy, the legitimate heirs to the throne are the Kirillovichs. — After the murder of the Royal family, the legitimate heir, according to the law of succession, became Duke Kirill Vladimirovich, who at the time lived in Germany. He proclaimed himself " Emperor in exile " in 1924. But he was not popular at the house of the Romanovs, although genealogically he was the heir. From him stemmed the branch of the Kirillovichs, who are the heirs to the Russian throne, - says the historian. — After the revolution, the Romanovs ended up in different countries — Germany, France, England, Denmark, where today their descendants continue to live. In 1990's the idea about their return was popular. They often come and participate in events, they are welcomed at the high level. The head of the Institute of Political Studies, Sergei Markov said that the return of the Romanovs in no way will affect the mood of citizens. — In most countries the population has no respect for Imperial houses, with the exception of the UK and the Netherlands, - he says. — In Russia, the Romanovs are viewed as either innocent victims because of the execution by the Bolsheviks, or traitors, who in the critical years of the Tsarist monarchy behaved irresponsibly. Many believe that the abdication of Nicholas II led to the civil war. |
| Byzantion – Byzantion. Bruxelles; Paris, 1924–1952. BZ – Byzantinische Zeitschrift. Leipzig, 1892–1943; Munchen, 1944–1991; Leipzig, 1992-. Bd. 1-. CC – Corpus Christianorum/Hrsg. von der Abtei St. Peter in Steenbrugge (Belgien). Tournhout. CCL – Series Latina. 1953-. CCO – Les Canons des Conciles Oecumeniques//Fonti. Ser. I. Fase. 9. T. 1. Pars I. Grottaferrata, 1967. CJ – Codex Justinianus/Ed. P. Krueger. Berlin, 195411 ( CJC. Vol. 2). CJC – Corpus Juris Civilis/Ed. R. Schoell et G. Kroll. Berlin, 1954. 3 vols. COD – Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta. Bologna; Freiburg, 1962. CPG – Les canons des Peres Grecs//Fonti. Ser. I. Fase. 9. T. 2. Grottaferrata, 1963. CSEL – Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Wien, 1866-.Vol. 1-. CSP – Les canons des Synodes particuliers/Fonti. Ser. I. Fasc. 9. T. 1. Pars 2. Grottaferrata, 1962. CT – Codex Theodosianus/Ed. Th. Mommsen, P. Meyer et P. Krueger. Berlin, 1905. DACL – Dictionnaire d " archeologie chretienne et de liturgie/Ed. F. Cabrol et H. Leclercq. Paris, 1924-. DDC – Dictionnaire de droit canonique contenant tous les termes du droit canonique/Publie sous la direction de R. Naz. Paris, 1935–1965. 7 t. DHGE – Dictionnaire d " histoire et de geographie ecclesiastique/Ed. A. Baudrillart etc. Paris, 1912-. T. 1-. DOP – Dumbarton Oaks Papers. Cambridge (Mass.); Washington, 1941-. DTC – Dictionnaire de theologie catholique/Ed. A. Vacant, E. Mangenot, cont. E. Amann. Paris, 1903–1950. 15 t. EO – Echos d " Orient. Paris, 1897–1942. EOMIA – Ecclesiae occidentalis monumenta iuris antiquissima/Ed. C. H. Turner. Oxford, 1899–1939. 2 t. Prisca Gallica Interpretatio Isidori Interpretatio Ingilrami Codex Caeciliani Interpretatio Attici Interpretatio Rufini Interpretatio Gallo-Hispana Interpretatio Dionysii I et II (Fasc. 1. Pars altera.) Fonti – Codicis Iuris Canonici Orientalis Fontes. Pontificia Comissio ad redigendum Codicem Iuris Canonici Orientalis. GCS – Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte. Leipzig, 1897–1941; Berlin und Leipzig, 1953; Berlin, 1954-. |
| 5. From the book of Hieromartyr Vladimir, Metropolitan of Kiev and Galich, Pastoral conversations with children ( quoted from Warriors of Christ. Lives and works of 20 th century ascetics. Calendar. p.41). 6. A period of “red terror” began in the country. This concept is discussed to this day. The “red terror” is understood not only to be mass repressions carried out by the Bolsheviks in Russia’s civil war (the “red terror” of the 1920’s and the “great terror” 30’s must be differentiated), but also government politics, i.e. political terror. The main feature of this terror is violence against the civilian population. 7. This number is brought forth by U.V. Kudrina and well-known historian of the Russian Civil War S.M. Melgunov (See: Mother and Son. Empress Maria Fyodorovna and Tsar Nicholas II . U.V. Kudrina. p. 184; see also: There was none more vile and mean … U.V. Kudrina//Chronos. Russian national philosophy in the writings of its founders: http://www.hrono.ru/statii/2006/kudr_yu.html). 8. See: Red Terror during the Civil War: In materials of the special investigation commission of the Bolshevik atrocities. Edited by U. Felshtinsky. Published by: Terra-book Club, 2004. Cheka/GPU: Documents and Materials . Felshtinsky. U.G. Publishing house of humanity literature, 1995. Red and White Terror in Russia, 1918-1922 . Litvin, L.A. Kazan, 1995. Black Book of Communism (2nd edition) S. Courtois, N.Werth, G-L. Panne, A. Paczkowski, etc. Published by: “Three centuries of history” in 2001. The Red Terror in eastern Russia in 1918-1922 . S.S. Balmasov. Published by: “Posev” in 2006. (See also: Red Terror in Russia. 1918-1922 . S.P. Melgunov. Berlin, 1924 (current edition – Moscow, 1990). 9. Methods of torture used in the Cheka could compete with the torture of Christians by heathens in the first centuries of Christianity. Head of the Kharkov KGB S. Saenko would smash his victim’s head with heavy weights, while the Cheka basements contained remains of many human bodies with skinned arms, limbs chopped off, crucified on the floor with star and strip-shaped gashes on their foreheads and shoulders. In Odessa, Ukraine, “hostages” were thrown alive into huge boilers and roasted in ship ovens, in Sevastopol – drowned, in the Urals and Siberia – crucified on crosses, in Omsk – stomach’s of pregnant women were slashed open, in Poltava – impaled … With the coming of the White Army and volunteer forces, the city inhabitants would rush to the known addresses of Cheka jails, hoping to find relatives, yet hundreds of bodies hastily buried in yards or barns, and cellars flooded with blood were discovered. In many cases, victim identification was impossible. The “lucky ones” were just shot… |
| 40 Pat King, in Logos Journal, Sept.-Oct., 1971, p. 50. This “international charismatic journal” should not be confused with Fr.E. Stephanou’s Logos. 41 Most books will be cited in this article only by author and page number; full bibliographical information is supplied at the end of the article. 42 Bishop Theophan the Recluse, What Is the Spiritual Life, Jordanville, Ν.Υ., 1962, ππ 247–8 (in Russian). Fr. Eusebius Stephanou ( Logos, Jan., 1972, p.13) attempts to justify the present-day ‘reception of the Holy Spirit’ outside the Church by citing the account of the household of Cornelius the Centurion (Acts 10), which received the Holy Spirit before baptism. But the difference in the two cases is crucial: the reception of the Holy Spirit by Cornelius and his household was the sign that they should be joined to the Church by Baptism, whereas contemporary Pentecostals by their experience are only confirmed in their delusion that there is no one saving Church of Christ. 45 See Kurt Koch, Occult Bondage and Deliverance, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1970, pp. 168–170. 46 Kurt Koch, Between Christ and Satan, Kregel Publications, 1962, p. 124. This book and Dr. Koch’s Occult Bondage offer a remarkable confirmation, based on 20th-century experience, of virtually every manifestation of mediumism, magic, sorcery, etc., that is found in the Holy Scriptures and the Orthodox Lives of Saints – the source of all of which, of course, is the devil. On only a few points will the Orthodox reader have to correct his interpretations. 47 Simon A. Blackmore, S.J., Spiritism Facts and Frauds, Benziger Bros., New York, 1924: chapter IV, “Mediums,” pp. 89–105 passim. 49 Ronald A. Knox, Enthusiasm, A Chapter in the History of Religion, Oxford (Galaxy Book), 1961, pp. 550–551. 51 Conference XV:2, in Owen Chadwick, Western Asceticism, Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1958, p. 258. 53 See I.H. Lewis, Ecstatic Religion, An Anthropological Study of Spirit Possession and Shamanism, Penguin Books, Baltimore, 1971, pp. 45,88, 156, etc., and illustration 9. |
|
|
