scholarly journals To the history of the Russian vagrancy XVII–XIX centuries

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 285-292
Author(s):  
Aleksei Shliakov

In the following article analysis of vagabondism in Russia is being made, based on sources from literature, journalism and the Holy Father. The particular qualities of the Church, temporal powers, and common society members’ attitudes towards vagabondism are being viewed. The periods of the romanticizing of vagabondism in the history of Russia are being described as well as periods when vagabondism was subjected to social exclusion. A gradual transition of the perception of vagabondism from the field of Christian traditional humility and mercy to a social field which inflicts responsibility for one’s behavior on the subject of vagabondism is explored. Methods and manners of charity for vagabonds and the poor are being viewed as well as the imperative measures and sanctions of the struggle against mendicity and vagabondism in various historical periods. The classifications of vagabonds, offered by Russian thinkers, are being researched since they allow us to distinguish between the needy and those who use the image of a vagabond for their own profit and who speculate on Christian feelings. Generally, the authors come to a conclusion that unlike Western Europe, where vagabondism was banned and where vagabonds were punished severely, the attitude towards vagabonds in pre-revolutionary Russia was based on the orthodox values and included humanity and mercifulness.

1983 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 59-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Holdsworth

The track to be explored in this paper was laid down when I realised how relatively unexamined the actual working out of Christian ideas about war within the medieval period is. Recent years have seen appear a notable book about the development of ideas on the Just War, and a great deal of work on the role of the military aristocracy and on its ideals, but upon the coming together of Christianity and actual events there seemed to me very little, at least in the period which interests me most. The one series of events which has attracted attention within what one can call loosely the twelfth century is, of course, the Crusades, but I decided to put them rather at the edge of my focus since they raised special questions, and to invite a scholar who has devoted much time to their elucidation to give a paper upon a crusading theme later in the conference. Yet when one turns for guidance for the history of western Europe there is only one book which stands out, La Guerre au Moyen Age by Philippe Contamine which appeared in the Nouvelle Clio series as recently as 1980, and it, as one would expect from its author’s earlier achievement, is strongest when it deals with the period of the Hundred Years War. Nonetheless it is a remarkable achievement, and one to which I am deeply indebted. But given the fact that the subject is still so unmapped, only two approaches seemed feasible to me, one where I would try to look at a series of specific wars and see what the Church did about them, or one where I would look at a source or group of sources, and see what it, or they, had to say about war and the Church.


Author(s):  
Ildar Garipzanov

The concluding chapter highlights how the cultural history of graphic signs of authority in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages encapsulated the profound transformation of political culture in the Mediterranean and Europe from approximately the fourth to ninth centuries. It also reflects on the transcendent sources of authority in these historical periods, and the role of graphic signs in highlighting this connection. Finally, it warns that, despite the apparent dominant role of the sign of the cross and cruciform graphic devices in providing access to transcendent protection and support in ninth-century Western Europe, some people could still employ alternative graphic signs deriving from older occult traditions in their recourse to transcendent powers.


2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daphna Hacker

Abstract This article suggests enacting an accession tax instead of the estate duty – which was repealed in Israel in 1981. This suggestion evolves from historical and normative explorations of the tension between perceptions of familial intergenerational property rights and justifications for the “death tax,” as termed by its opponents, i.e., estate and inheritance tax. First, the Article explores this tension as expressed in the history of the Israeli Estate Duty Law. This chronological survey reveals a move from the State’s taken-for-granted interest in revenue justifying the Law’s enactment in 1949; moving on to the “needy widow” and “poor orphan” in whose name the tax was attacked during the years 1959–1964, continuing to the abolition of the tax in 1981 in the name of efficiency and the right of the testator to transfer his wealth to his family, and finally cumulating with the targeting of tycoon dynasties that characterizes the recent calls for reintroducing the tax. Next, based on the rich literature on the subject, the Article maps the arguments for and against intergenerational wealth transfer taxation, placing the Israeli case in larger philosophical, political, and pragmatic contexts. Lastly, it associates the ideas of accession tax and “social inheritance” with inspirational sources for rethinking a realistic wealth transfer taxation to bridge the gap between notions of intergenerational familial rights and intergenerational social justice.


Author(s):  
Ewa Wipszycka

The Canons of Athanasius, a homiletic work written at the beginning of the fifth century in one of the cities of the Egyptian chora, provide us with many important and detailed pieces of information about the Church hierarchy. Information gleaned from this text can be found in studies devoted to the history of Christianity of the fourth and fifth centuries, but rarely are they the subject of reflection as an autonomous subject. To date, no one has endeavoured to determine how the author of the Canons sought to establish the parameters of his work: why he included certain things in this work, and why left other aspects out despite them being within the boundaries of the subject which he had wished to write upon. This article looks to explore two thematic areas: firstly, what we learn about the hierarchical Church from the Canons, and secondly, what we know about the hierarchical Church from period sources other than the Canons. This article presents new arguments which exclude the authorship of Athanasius and date the creation of the Canons to the first three decades of the fifth century.


2021 ◽  
pp. 90-108
Author(s):  
Владимир Сергеевич Коробов

В статье рассматривается история толкования отрывка из Евангелия от Иоанна: « Отец Мой более Меня » (Ин. 14, 28). Тема, которой посвящена статья, является частью исследования богословской проблематики Константинопольских Соборов 1166 и 1170 гг. Церковная деятельность византийского императора Мануила I Комнина была противоречивой и не исключала вмешательства латинских богословов. Цель настоящей статьи - показать святоотеческое понимание спорного места для правильной интерпретации решений Константинопольских Соборов 1166 и 1170 гг. и их оценки с православной позиции. Структура статьи имеет традиционную рубрикацию, соотносительную историческим периодам: доникейский, арианские споры IV в., христологические споры V-VII вв., поздневизантийская традиция. Для богословского анализа Ин. 14, 28 мы обращаемся к диахронно-синхронному методу, который заключается в изучении толкований стиха на разных исторических этапах. Метод опирается на анализ фрагментов, полученных при поиске в базе данных греческих текстов (TLG). Наиболее употребительными толкованиями стиха «Отец Мой более Меня» (Ин. 14, 28) являлись триадологическое и христологическое. Первое означало, что Отец больше Сына, как Виновник Его бытия. Второе объяснялось в контексте Домостроительства и включало две стороны, дополняющие друг друга: Спаситель имеет в виду Свою человеческую природу и в то же время подразумевает добровольное уничижение и умаление Своего божества (кеносис). The article examines the history of interpretation of the passage from the Gospel of John: «My Father is greater than Me» (John 14, 28). The topic of the article is part of a study of the theological problems of the Councils of Constantinople in 1166 and 1170. The Church activities of the Byzantine emperor Manuel I Comnenus were contradictory and did not exclude the intervention of latin theologians. The purpose of this article is to show the patristic understanding of the controversial place for the correct interpretation of the decisions of the Councils of Constantinople in 1166 and 1170. and their assessments from an Orthodox perspective. The structure of the article has a traditional rubrication, correlating to historical periods: ante-Nicene, Arian disputes of the 4th century, Christological disputes of the 5-7 centuries, late Byzantine tradition. For theological analysis, Jn. 14, 28 we turn to the diachronous-synchronous method, which consists in studying the interpretations of the verse at different historical stages. The method is based on the analysis of fragments obtained by searching the database of Greek texts (The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae®). The most common interpretations of the verse «My Father is greater than Me» (John 14, 28) were triadological and Christological. The first meant that the Father is greater than the Son, as the Author of His existence. The second was explained in the context of the Economy and included two sides complementary to each other: The Savior means His human nature and at the same time implies the voluntary humiliation and belittling of His deity (kenosis).


Author(s):  
Christopher W. Morris

It is often said that the subject matter of political philosophy is the nature and justification of the state. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel thinks that political science is “nothing other than an attempt to comprehend and portray the state as an inherently rational entity.” John Rawls famously understands “the primary subject of justice [to be] the basic structure of society,” restricting his attentions to a society “conceived for the time being as a closed system isolated from other societies,” and assuming that “the boundaries of these schemes are given by the notion of a self-contained national community.” Contemporary political philosophers often follow suit, disagreeing about what states should do, and simply assuming that they are the proper agents of justice or reform. The history of philosophy and the development of political concepts seem to be central to understanding the state. The influence of Roman law and republican government, and the rediscovery of Aristotle in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, are obvious important influences. The modern state emerged first in Western Europe in early modern times.


Author(s):  
Anthony Grafton

This chapter examines the centrality of early modern ecclesiastical history, written by Catholics as well as Protestants, in the refinement of research techniques and practices anticipatory of modern scholarship. To Christians of all varieties, getting the Church's early history right mattered. Eusebius's fourth-century history of the Church opened a royal road into the subject, but he made mistakes, and it was important to be able to ferret them out. Saint Augustine was recognized as a sure-footed guide to the truth about the Church's original and bedrock beliefs, but some of the Saint's writings were spurious, and it was important to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. To distinguish true belief from false, teams of religious scholars gathered documents; the documents in turn were subjected to skeptical scrutiny and philological critique; and sources were compared and cited. The practices of humanistic scholarship, it turns out, came from within the Catholic Church itself as it examined its own past.


2020 ◽  
pp. 240-258
Author(s):  
Mary E. Sommar

This is the story of how the church sought to establish norms for slave ownership on the part of ecclesiastical institutions and personnel and for others’ behavior toward such slaves. Chronicles, letters, and other documents from each of the various historical periods, along with an analysis of the various policies and statutes, provide insight into the situations of these unfree ecclesiastical dependents. Although this book is a serious scholarly monograph about the history of church law, it has been written in such a way that no specialist knowledge is required of the reader, whether a scholar in another field or a general reader interested in church history or the history of slavery. Historical background is provided, and there is a short Latin lexicon. This chapter summarizes the conclusions drawn in earlier chapters and provides a brief overview of the question of ecclesiastical servitude up to the twentieth century.


2020 ◽  
pp. 154-189
Author(s):  
Mary E. Sommar

This is the story of how the church sought to establish norms for slave ownership on the part of ecclesiastical institutions and personnel and for others’ behavior toward such slaves. Chronicles, letters, and other documents from each of the various historical periods, along with an analysis of the various policies and statutes, provide insight into the situations of these unfree ecclesiastical dependents. Although this book is a serious scholarly monograph about the history of church law, it has been written in such a way that no specialist knowledge is required of the reader, whether a scholar in another field or a general reader interested in church history or the history of slavery. Historical background is provided, and there is a short Latin lexicon. This chapter discusses slavery in the Carolingian Empire (c. 750–900) and includes an overview of slavery in the British Isles in the first Christian millennium.


1976 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 434-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas F. X. Noble
Keyword(s):  

The ecciesiological problem posed by the authority of the pope in the Roman church is almost as old as the church itself. Likewise, the bases for the exercise of authority by the pope have long been a matter of dispute not only among churchmen but also among scholars. However, it can be stated with certainty that during the most critical years in papal history, the period from the mid-eleventh to the late fourteenth centuries, the papacy gained, and then lost, a considerable measure of leadership in western Europe. Most of the gains came as the popes affirmed what they interpreted to be their spiritual prerogatives—mention may be made, for example, of the priestly power to judge a penitent even if that penitent were a German emperor or a king of England—in a world which called its states regni Christianissimi and imperii Christianorum and assigned to its rulers similarly religious appellations.1 The losses resulted from an increasing secularization of the affairs of state and from a loss of the urgency once attendant upon the appeals and protestations of the papacy.2


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document