Τρίτη, 29 Δεκεμβρίου 2009

The Russian Debate: Royal Family and Sanctity

What about Russian Royal Family? Are they Saints? Or is just a political matter?

We read more about it ...


The Holy Royal Martyrs in the Light of History
and God’s Providence

Behind all wars, revolution, downfall of kingdoms, – all the political events of external history – we see the hidden working of spiritual laws and, in the final analysis, God’s Providence concerning the fates of peoples and nations. Any other explanation of the reasons for the revolutions of 1905 and 1917 would be incomprehensible and inaccurate. One thing is certain: the Russian society’s apostasy from God and the Church brought down God’s wrath upon Russia. As in the many cases of ancient Israel’s apostasy from God, about which we read in the Bible, Russia’s malady could not be cured by ordinary measures. For the sake of instruction and correction God would hand the Jews over into the hands of infidels; the very same fate befell Russia in the beginning of the 20th century.

Through Tsar Nicholas II – an irreproachably pure and wonderful person – God’s will was made manifest in the world. His fate, in essence, was deeply tragic. He was born on the day of St. Job the Much-suffering and was keenly aware that his life was similar to Job’s martyric path.

His knowledge of his fate was truly prophetic. “I have more than a presentiment, – he used to say, – that I am doomed to terrible trials, and that I will not be rewarded for them in this world.” Beginning with Russia’s defeat in the Russo-Japanese war, which was followed by the revolution of 1905-1907, which diminished the Tsar's power and freed the forces of anarchy and outright evil, the foundations of Russian sovereignty tottered more and more. “I am unsuccessful in all my undertakings, – the Tsar bitterly concluded, – I have no luck. However, man’s will is so powerless anyway.” He realized that he was not subjectively to blame for Russia’s misfortunes; the good of the motherland meant more to him than anything else, and he did everything he could for this good. Tsar Nicholas’s conscience was clear before God, but his moral suffering, nevertheless, reached extraordinary proportions. Thus once, – this was during the first Russian revolution, – from the depths of his inner anguish the Tsar uttered prophetic words which indicated with absolute accuracy the role he was invisibly assigned to play in Russia’s fate by God Himself. “Perhaps a sacrifice is needed for the salvation of Russia, – said the Sovereign. – I shall be that sacrifice. May God’s will be done.” In saying this the Tsar was like the martyrs of ancient times, who freely and without coercion gave themselves up to suffering for Christ. Nicholas II was murdered in July of 1918 not simply as a helpless and defenseless person: the extraordinary courage of his behavior as he descended into the cellar of the Ipatyev house with his sick son in his arms, and even earlier, when he and the Empress refused to emigrate or flee the country, – all this speaks of the fact that their souls were ready for sacrificial and Christ-like suffering, which fulfilled the prophetic words spoken by him 10 years before.

Holy martyr Tsar Nicholas II

When Austro-Hungary declared war on Serbia, Russia came to the aid of this small Slavic nation. This event still lives in the historic memory of the Serbs; and if among European nations there is still anyone who loves Russia and Russians – it is the Serbs. However, their greatest love was for Tsar Nicholas II, who had sanctioned Russia’s participation in the war. It was the Serbs who began venerating the Russian Tsar as a saint, placing him on a par with their great Saint Savva of Serbia. And it was among the Russians in Serbia that the issue of canonizing the Royal Family was brought up for the first time in 1938.

The beginning of the war brought success to the Russians at the front, and the country was gripped by patriotic fervor. The rear provided immense aid to the front; the Empress and the Princesses took an active part in it. After learning the art of nursing, they daily spent many hours in the hospitals. The Empress and her daughters Olga and Tatyana tended the wounded and sat with the dying, providing great comfort to the sufferers. The Empress and Tatyana also worked as surgical nurses; it is not hard to imagine their courage, patience and truly Christian love: assisting the doctors in numerous amputations of injured limbs required, besides training, great moral strength. The Winter Palace was also turned into a huge hospital. This enterprise also included the preparation of undergarments, warm clothes, and other items needed by the soldiers at the front; the entire work was organized by the Empress. She also sent to the front a multitude of Gospels, icons, and crosses, which were handed out to the soldiers. One can imagine the joy of a soldier who had received such a blessing from the Empress!

The holy Princesses Olga and Tatyana

Soon, however, our armies’ offensive stopped, while our losses began to increase. Discontent arose in the top circles of society – both in the capital and at military headquarters. The revolutionaries made use of the lack of success at the front, in order to disseminate their propaganda at the front and in the rear. The Germans quickly moved toward the heart of Russia; in these conditions, wishing to raise the spirit of the troops, the Tsar took upon himself the supreme command and moved to General Headquarters, deployed at Mogilev. Prince Alexis went with him to the front.

However, making use of the Tsar’s absence from the capital, oppositional aristocracy increased its activity. The court discussed the advisability of a coup d’etat, placing Grand Duke Nicholas (the Tsar’s uncle) on the throne. The opposing faction asserted that the Tsar and the Empress stood in the way of Russia’s victory in the war; Grand Duke Nicholas sent the Tsar a telegram, entreating him to abdicate the throne. Similar telegrams were also sent by the majority of the commanding officers at the front. And when a revolution occurred in February 1917, the Tsar's entourage took the side of the provisional government. The Tsar was assured that only his abdication from the throne could save Russia. And in the face of such betrayal the Tsar sacrificed himself, heeding these voices. After a fervent prayer during the night in front of an icon, he abdicated the throne; this took place on March 2nd. “There is no sacrifice that I would not make for the true good and salvation of Russia. For this reason I am ready to abdicate the throne” – such is the telegram he sent to the chairman of the Duma.

However, after the abdication everything turned out contrary to what the opposition was expecting: the people began to fall prey to their basest passions and moral decay set in; with unbridled speed Russia rushed towards destruction. The Tsar’s sacrifice was accepted by God, but not in the way that the architects of the abdication had in mind: there was no immediate outward benefit from it. The Tsar had been that mystic principle which had restrained the forces of evil; now nothing prevented anti-Christian elements from entering into the world.

A new era began for the Sovereign and his family: their worldly life ended and their saints’ life began, together with their Christian exploits. The Tsar and his entourage were kept under guard at Tsarskoye Selo. The prisoners pinned their hopes only on God’s will, and the Lord helped them retain their inner peace until the very end. The Tsar and his family were subjected to humiliation and mockery from the guards and the other “new” people who now surrounded them. On July 31st the martyrs’ path to Golgotha began: they were taken from their palace and sent on to Siberia.

Holy martyr Empress Alexandra

On August 6th the Royal Family arrived in Tobolsk on the ship “Rus’.” “My heart bleeds inexpressibly for the dear homeland,” – these words of the Empress in a private letter describe the inner state of the entire family. But its members were cheerful: they were fortified by their faith, the Church, and God’s grace. They faithfully participated in church services; the Empress and the children sang in the choir. Through their suffering the Royal Martyrs’ spirit grew stronger. “God’s way is a daily cross,” – the Empress wrote these words of St. Isaac the Syrian in her notebook. “Christians must undergo sorrows and external and internal warfare, in order to conquer these blows through patience. Such is the path of Christianity,” – another of her excerpts (from St. Mark the Great) reveals to us the inner state of the sufferers.

On the eve of Pascha of 1918 the Royal Family was parted. A commissar arrived from the Bolsheviks in Moscow and announced to the Tsar that he would be taken away. The Empress decided to accompany her husband despite great inner agony, since she was thus being forced to part from the sick Prince Alexis. Princess Maria went together with her parents…This parting was a torment for the entire family.

The royal couple was detained by the Bolsheviks in Yekaterinburg. In early May the other members of the family came here, together with several loyal servants. The martyrs had two and a half months to live. They were tormented with increasing subtlety, but even among the brutal guards there were those who bowed down before their Christian meekness and humility.

During the night of July 17th the greatest crime was committed: innocent, holy people, together with God’s anointed, were heinously murdered. Three days before this villainy a church service was served for the Royal Family. When the prayer “Grant repose with the saints…” was sung, the martyrs unexpectedly got down on their knees. As though sensing their imminent end, they sang a funereal hymn for themselves… That fatal night the guards came for them, saying that they were being taken out of the city. Instead, they were taken down to the cellar; several chairs were standing there, and the Tsar sat in the middle, holding the Tsarevich in his arms. Together with the Royal Family were Doctor Botkin and their loyal servants. They waited for a sign of departure, but instead a commissar entered the cellar accompanied by soldiers.

The Holy Royal Martyrs

The commissar – his name was Yurovskiy – announced the forthcoming execution. The Empress only had time to make the sign of the cross; she was killed instantly, at the same time as the Emperor. Prince Alexis and Princess Anastasia suffered longer than the rest; the first bullets did not bring them death, and so the soldiers killed them off with bayonets. The doctor and the three servants died also, sharing the fate of the Royal Family out of love for them. This sacrilegious murder was not simply a private crime of the political revolution: it was a universal sin. The burden of the sin of regicide still continues to lie upon Russia.

Tsar Nicholas II and his family were the carriers of the ideals of Holy Russia, of the ideals of Orthodoxy. In contrast to many people of that era – Christians in name only – they treated Orthodoxy with all seriousness. They were God’s elect and, therefore, people not of this world; they were alien to the society of those times. As true Christians, they were persecuted in this world; their sorrowful path was crowned by martyrdom. Now, together with all the other Russian saints, they stand before Christ in prayer for Russia.
Source: The Transfiguration of our Lord Russian Orthodox Church

Life of the Holy New Martyr Grand Duchess Elizabeth
                    By Metropolitan Anastassy

Not every generation is destined to meet along its path such a blessed gift from heaven as was the Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna for her time, for she was a rare combination of exalted Christian spirit, moral nobility, enlightened mind, gentle heart, and refined taste. She possessed an extremely delicate and multifaceted spiritual composition and her outward appearance reflected the beauty and greatness of her spirit. Upon her brow lay the seal of an inborn, elevated dignity which set her apart from those around her. Under the cover of modesty, she often strove, though in vain, to conceal herself from the gaze of others, but one could not mistake her for another. Wherever she appeared, one would always ask: "Who is she who looketh forth as the morning, clear as the sun" (Song of Solomon 6:10)? Wherever she would go she emanated the pure fragrance of the lily. Perhaps it was for this reason that she loved the color white—it was the reflection of her heart. All of her spiritual qualities were strictly balanced, one against another, never giving an impression of one-sidedness. Femininity was joined in her to a courageous character; her goodness never led to weakness and blind, unconditional trust of people. Even in her finest heartfelt inspirations she exhibited that gift of discernment which has always been so highly esteemed by Christian ascetics. These characteristics were perhaps in part due to her upbringing, which she received under the guidance of her maternal grandmother, Victoria, Queen of England and Empress of India. An unmistakable English stamp was placed on all her tastes and habits and English was closer to her than her native German.

The grand duchess herself acknowledged that a great influence on the formation of the inner, purely spiritual side of her character was the example of a paternal ancestor, Elizabeth Turingen of Hungary, who through her daughter Sophia was one of the founders of the House of Hesse. A contemporary of the Crusades, this remarkable woman reflected the spirit of her age. Deep piety was united in her together with self-sacrificing love for her neighbor, but her spouse considered her great beneficence squanderous and at times persecuted her for it. Her early widowhood compelled her to lead a life of wandering and need. Later she was again able to help the poor and suffering and completely dedicate herself to works of charity. The great reverence which this royal struggler enjoyed even during her lifetime moved the Roman Catholic Church in the thirteenth century to number her among its saints. The impressionable soul of the grand duchess was captivated in childhood by the happy memory of her honored ancestor and made a deep impression on her.

Her rich natural gifts were refined by an extensive and wide education which not only satisfied her mental and esthetic needs but also enriched her with knowledge of a purely practical nature, essential for every woman with household duties. "Together with Her Majesty (i.e., Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, her younger sister) we were instructed during our childhood in everything,'' she once said in answer to how she became acquainted with all the details of housekeeping.

Chosen as the future wife of the Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, the grand duchess arrived in Russia during the period when the country, under the firm rule of Alexander III, attained the blossoming of its might in a purely national spirit. With her moral sensitivity and inborn love for knowledge, the young grand duchess began an intense study of the national characteristics of the Russian people and especially of their faith which places a deep mark on both their national character and upon all of their culture. Soon Orthodoxy won her over by its beauty and inner richness which she often would contrast with the spiritual poverty of Protestantism. ("And they are so self-satisfied about everything!" she said about Protestants.)

Of her experiences in the Roman Catholic world, the grand duchess sometimes recalled a trip to Rome which she had taken together with the late grand duke soon after the jubilee of Pope Leo the XIII. The latter knew well the unshakable firmness of Sergei Alexandrovich's Orthodox convictions and regarded him highly, having first made his acquaintance when the grand duke, still a child, was visiting Rome. This long-standing acquaintance allowed them to converse informally. Between them there even arose an argument about how many popes were named Sergius. Neither of these exalted disputants wanted to give way to the other and the pope had to withdraw into his library to check. He returned a bit upset.
"Forgive me," said Leo XIII, smiling, "although they say the pope is infallible, this time he fell into error."

The grand duchess, of her own volition decided to unite herself to the Orthodox Church. When she made the announcement to her spouse, according to the account of one of the servants, tears involuntarily poured from his eyes. The Emperor Alexander III himself was deeply touched by her decision. Her husband blessed her after Holy Chrismation with a precious icon of the Savior, "Not Made by Hands" (a copy of the miraculous icon in the Chapel of the Savior), which she treasured greatly throughout the remaining course of her life. Having been joined to the Faith in this manner, and thereby to all that makes up the soul of a Russian, the grand duchess could now with every right say to her spouse in the words of the Moabite Ruth, "Your people have become my people, and your God my God" (Ruth 1:16).

The grand duke's extended tenure of office as Governor-General of Moscow, the true heart of Russia, where he and his wife were in living contact with the ancient, holy shrines and the immemorial Russian national way of life, must have bound the grand duchess even more to her new homeland.

Even during these years she dedicated much time to philanthropic activities, though this was considered one of the main obligations of her high position and therefore did not earn for her much public merit. As part of her social obligations the grand duchess was forced to participate in social life which was already beginning to oppress her because of its frivolity. The terrible death of the grand duke Sergei Alexandrovich, who was torn apart by a bomb in the holy Kremlin itself (near the Nicholas Palace where the grand duke had moved after he left his position as Governor-General), began a decisive moral change in the soul of his spouse which caused her to forsake her former life once and for all. The greatness of spirit with which she endured her trial evoked for her the deserved admiration of everyone. She even found in herself the moral strength to visit Kaliev, the murderer of her husband, in the hope of softening and healing his heart by meekness and complete forgiveness. These Christian feelings she also expressed, through the person of the slaughtered grand duke, by having the following touching words of the Gospel inscribed upon the memorial cross, erected according to the plans of Vasnetsov, at the site of his death, ''Father, forgive them for they know not what they do..."

However, not everyone was capable of understanding the change which had taken place in her. One had to live through such a staggering catastrophe as this, in order to be convinced of the frailty and illusory nature of wealth, glory and the things of this world, and about which for so many centuries we have been warned by the Gospel. For the society of that time, the decision of the grand duchess to dismiss her court in order to leave the world and dedicate herself to serving God and neighbor, seemed as scandal and madness. Despising both the tears of friends, gossip and mockings of the world, she courageously set out on her new path. Having earlier chosen for herself the path of the perfect, i.e. the path of ascetic struggle, she began with wisely measured steps to ascend the ladder of Christian virtues.

The advice of wise instructors was not foreign to her, guiding those starting out on the path of Christian activity to learn from others the way of life so as "not to teach oneself, not to go without a guide along a path which one had never traveled and hence quickly lose one's way; not to travel more or less correctly, nor become exhausted from too swift a run or to fall asleep while resting" (Jerome, A Letter to the Monk Rusticus).

Therefore she strove to understand nothing without the direction of spiritually experienced elders, especially the elders of the Zosima Hermitage under whom she placed herself in total obedience. As her heavenly guides and protectors she chose St. Sergius and St. Alexis of Moscow. She was entrusted to their special protection by her late spouse whose remains she buried at the Chudov Monastery in a magnificent tomb, styled after those in the ancient Roman catacombs. The extended period of mourning for the grand duke, during which she retired into her interior world and was continually in church, was the first real break to separate her from what up until then had been her normal everyday life. The move from the palace to the building she acquired at Ordinka, where she allotted only two very modest rooms for herself, signaled a full break with the past and the beginning of a new period in her life.

From now on her main task became the building of a sisterhood in which inner service to God would be integrated with active service to one's neighbor in the name of Christ. This was a completely new form of organized charitable Church activity, and consequently drew general attention to itself. At its foundation was placed a deep and immutable idea: no one could give to another more than he himself already possessed. We all draw upon God and therefore only in Him can we love our neighbor. Natural love so-called or humanism quickly evaporates, replaced by coldness and disappointment, but one who lives in Christ can rise to the heights of complete self-denial and lay down his life for his friends. The grand duchess not only wanted to impart to charitable activities the spirit of the Gospel but to place them under the protection of the Church. Thus she hoped to attract gradually to the Church, those levels of Russian society, which up until that time had remained largely indifferent to the Faith. Highly significant was the very name the grand duchess bestowed upon the institution she established—the Martha and Mary Convent, which name contains within itself the mission, the life of its holy patrons.
The community was intended to be like the home of Lazarus which the Savior so often visited. The sisters of the convent were called to unite both the high lot of Mary, attending to the eternal word of life, and the service of Martha, to that degree in which they found Christ in the person of His less fortunate brethren. In justifying and explaining her thought, the ever-memorable foundress of the convent said that Christ the Savior could not judge Martha for showing Him hospitality, since the latter was sign of her love for Him. He only cautioned Martha, and in her all women in general, against that excessive fussing and triviality which draw them away from the higher needs of the spirit.

To be not of this world, and at the same time live and act in the world in order to transform it—this was the foundation upon which she desired to establish her convent.

Striving to be an obedient daughter of the Orthodox Church in all things the grand duchess did not desire to make use of the advantages of her position fearing lest even in the smallest way she take liberties and depart from obedience, from the rules or specific statutes established for everyone by the Church Authority. On the contrary, she fulfilled with complete readiness the slightest desire of the latter even if it did not coincide with her personal views. At one time, for example, she seriously thought about reviving the ancient institution of deaconess, in which she was zealously supported by Metroplitan Vladimir of Moscow. Bishop Germogen (at this time of Saratov, later of Tobolsk where he was martyred), because of a misunderstanding, stood up against this idea, accusing the grand duchess without any foundation, of Protestant tendencies (of which he later repented), and counseled her to abandon her cherished dream. Having been misunderstood in the best of her strivings, the grand duchess did not stifle her spirit because of this trying disappointment, but rather put her whole heart into her beloved Martha and Mary Convent. It is not surprising that the convent quickly blossomed and attracted many sisters from the aristocracy as well as the common people. Nearly monastic order reigned within the inner life of the community and both within and without the convent her activities consisted in the care of those who visited the sick who were lodged in the convent, in the material and moral help given to the poor, and in the almshouse for those orphans and abandoned children found in every large city. The grand duchess paid special attention to the unfortunate children who bore within themselves the curse of their fathers' sins, the children born in the turbid slums of Moscow only to wither before they had a chance to blossom. Many of them were taken into the orphanage built for them where they were quickly revived spiritually and physically. For others, constant supervision at their place of residence was established. The spirit of initiative and moral sensitivity which accompanied the grand duchess in all her activities, inspired and impelled her to search out new paths and forms of philanthropic activity, which sometimes reflected the influence of her first, western homeland, and its advanced organizations for social improvement and mutual aid. And so she created a cooperative of messenger boys with a well built dormitory, and apartments for the girls who took part in this activity. Not all of these establishments were directly connected with the convent, but they were all like rays of light from the sun united in the person of their abbess, who embraced them with her care and protection. Having chosen as her mission not only to serve one’s neighbor in general, but also the spiritual re-education of contemporary Russian society, the grand duchess wanted to speak to the latter in a closer, more understandable language about Church art and Orthodox liturgical beauty. All the churches founded by her, especially the main church of the convent, built in the Novgorod-Pskov style by the famous architect Shchusev and painted by Nesterov, were distinguished by their austere style and the artistic unity of the interior and exterior ornamentation. The crypt located under the arches of the convent church also evoked general admiration for its peaceful warmth. The church services in the convent were always outstandingly well performed, thanks to the exceptionally capable spiritual father chosen by the abbess. From time to time she attracted other fine pastoral strength from Moscow and all parts of Russia to serve and preach. Like bees gathering nectar from all flowers, according to the words of Gogol, for her, as a true Christian, there was no ultimate course of study and she remained a conscientious humble student all her life.

All the external decor of the Martha and Mary Convent as well the internal structure, and in general all the material creations of the grand duchess were stamped with elegance and culture. This was not because she conveyed to it some sort of self-satisfying significance, but because this was the spontaneous action of her creative spirit. Having concentrated her activity around the convent, the grand duchess did not sever her ties with those other social organizations and institutions of a charitable or spiritually enlightening nature with which she had been bound by close moral ties ever since her first years in Moscow. Among these, the Palestine Society occupied the first place, so close to her because it called to life the deep Russian Orthodox feeling of her spouse, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, for the Holy Land. Having inherited from him the chairmanship of this society, she imitated him in holy zeal for Sion and in tireless concern over Russian pilgrims heading for the Holy Land. Her cherished dream was to go with them, though she already had earlier visited the holy places together with the late grand duke. The unbroken chain of activity and responsibilities, becoming more complicated with every year, prevented her for a long time from leaving Russia for the Holy City. Alas! No one then foresaw that she would arrive in Jerusalem only after her repose, in order to find there a place for eternal rest.
Her mind was always in harmony with her heart, and in the Palestine work she exhibited not only love and zeal for the Holy Land but a great working knowledge, as if she directly controlled all the institutions of the Society. During the last years before the war she was occupied with plans for the construction of a metochion to St. Nicholas, in Bari, with a church worthy of the Russian name. The project and model of the building, executed by Shchusev in the ancient Russian style, was permanently exhibited in her reception room. Countless papers and callers, the examination of various types of petitions and entreaties which were presented to her from all parts of Russia, as well as other affairs, usually filled her whole day and frequently brought her to the point of total exhaustion. This did not hamper her from spending the night at the bedside of suffering patients or from attending services in the Kremlin and at the greatly loved churches and monasteries in all parts of Moscow. The spirit strengthened the weakened body (her only rest was pilgrimages to various parts of Russia for prayer. However, even here the people took away the possibility of her finding seclusion and quiet. Greatly honoring her royal birth and great piety, the people ecstatically met her everywhere. The trips of the grand duchess to various cities of Russia, against her will turned into triumphant marches).

Concealing her struggles, she always appeared before people with a bright, smiling face. Only when she was alone or with a few close people, her face and especially her eyes reflected hidden sorrow—the mark of a great soul languishing in this world. Having detached herself from almost all earthly things, she even more brightly radiated an inner light, especially by her love and tenderness. No one could do an act of kindness more delicately—to each according to his need or spiritual temperament. She was not only capable of weeping with the sorrowful but of rejoicing with those who rejoice, which is usually the more difficult. Though not a nun in the strict sense, better than any nun she observed the great law of St. Nilus of Sinai: "Blessed is the monk who honors every man as (a) god after God." Find the best in every man and, "Have mercy on the fallen," was the continual striving of her heart. A meek spirit did not prevent her from blazing with holy wrath before injustice. Even more strictly she judged herself if she made some mistake, however involuntarily. Allow me to present a fact which witnesses to this facet of her character, as well as how her sincerity won out against an inborn reserve and the demands of social etiquette. Once during the time I was vicar bishop of Moscow she offered me the chairmanship of a purely secular organization, not having any activities connected with the Church. I was involuntarily embarrassed, not knowing how to answer her. Understanding my position, she immediately said decisively, "Forgive me, I made a foolish suggestion," and thus led me out of a difficult situation.

The high position of the grand duchess along with her openness attracted many and various organizations and individual petitioners to her for her help, protection, or authoritative influence in the higher echelons of both local Moscovite and the central authority. She carefully replied to all petitions except for those which bore political overtones. The latter she decisively rejected, considering dealings with politics to be incompatible with her new calling.

She paid special attention to all institutions of Church, charitable or artistic and scientific character. She also zealously worked to preserve the more important daily customs and traditions which made life so rich in old, beloved Moscow. The anniversary holiday of 1912 gave her an unexpected chance to exhibit her zeal in this direction.
Here are the circumstances of this activity, hitherto known only to a few people, including even those who had direct connection with this work. During the elaboration of the program for the celebration of the hundredth anniversary of the War for the Homeland, there arose in the special committee organized in Moscow a heated debate over how to celebrate the Thirtieth of August, the final day of the anniversary festival in Moscow, where the emperor, according to ceremony was supposed to arrive from Borodino. The representative of the ministry of the court offered to place at the center of the festival day a visit by the emperor to the Zemsky Kustarny Museum, which had absolutely nothing to do with the historical recollection of 1812.

Others supported my proposed offer that this memorial for Russia, St. Alexander Nevsky's Day, be noted with a festive service of thanksgiving on Red Square. The ceremonial officialdom refused to put aside its plan, protecting itself with the impenetrable iron plating of "imperial order," a being whose existence no one, of course, could verify. As for me, a representative of the clerical department, and those who were of like mind, all we could do was submit to the inescapable. At my meeting with the grand duchess I told her all about the conflict that had come to pass. Having heard out my tale in much distress she said, "I will try to write about it to the emperor. It's true," she added with a reserved smile, 'for us women, all is permitted."

Within a week, she informed me that the emperor had changed the program according to our desires.

When the Thirtieth of August arrived it presented a magnificent picture of a genuinely national, Church and patriotic festivity which will never be forgotten by the participants. For this fete Moscow was indebted to the intercessions of the grand duchess who exhibited in the present circumstance not only her devotion to the Church but a deeply historical, purely Russian devotion.

At the beginning of the war she gave herself over with complete self-sacrifice to the service of the sick and wounded soldiers whom she visited not only in the hospitals and sanitoriums of Moscow but also at the front. Like the empress, she was not spared the slander which accused them of excessive sympathy for wounded Germans, and the grand duchess bore this unwarranted, bitter offense with her usual magnanimity.

When the revolutionary storm broke out she met it with amazing self-control and calm. It seemed that she stood on a high, unshakable cliff, and from there fearlessly looked out at the waves storming around her and raised her spiritual vision to eternity.

She did not harbor even a shadow of ill feelings against the madness of the agitated masses. "The people are children, innocent of what is transpiring," she remarked quietly. "They are led into deception by the enemies of Russia." Nor was she depressed by the great suffering and humiliation that befell the royal family who were so close to her: "This will serve for their moral purification and bring them nearer to God," she noted once with radiant gentleness. She suffered deeply for the royal family only when the thorns of grievous slander were woven around them especially during the war. In order not to give impetus to new evil gossip, the grand duchess tried to avoid conversations on the subject. If it so happened that because of idle people's tasteless curiosity the subject was broached in her presence, she immediately killed it by her expressive silence. Only once after returning from Tsarskoe Selo, she forgot herself and remarked, "That terrible man (i.e., Rasputin) wants to separate me from them but, thank God, he will not succeed."

The charm of her whole temperament was so great that it automatically attracted even the revolutionaries when they first arrived to examine the Martha and Mary Convent. One of them, apparently a student, even praised the life of the sisters, saying that no luxuries were noticeable, and that cleanliness and good order were the rule, which was in no way blameworthy. Seeing his sincerity, the grand duchess struck up a conversation with him about the outstanding qualities of socialist and Christian ideals. "Who knows," remarked her unknown conversationalist as if influenced by her arguments, "perhaps we are headed for the same goal, only by different paths," and with these words left the convent.

"Obviously we are still unworthy of a martyr's crown," the abbess replied to the sisters' congratulating her for such a successful end to the first encounter with the Bolsheviks. But that crown was not far from her. During the course of the last months of 1917 and the beginning of 1918, the Soviet power to everyone's amazement granted the Martha and Mary Convent and its abbess complete freedom to live as they wished and even supported them by supplying essentials. This made the blow even heavier and unexpected for them when on Pascha the grand duchess was suddenly arrested and transported to Ekaterinburg. His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon attempted with the help of Church organizations to take a part in her liberation, but was unsuccessful. Her exile was at first accompanied by some comforts. She was quartered in a convent where all the sisters were sincerely involved. A special comfort for her was that she was not hampered from attending services. Her position became more difficult after her transfer to Alapaevsk where she was imprisoned in one of the city schools together with her ever-faithful companion, Sister Barbara, and several grand dukes who shared her fate.

Nevertheless she did not lose her abiding firmness of spirit and occasionally would send words of encouragement and comfort to the sisters of her convent who were deeply grieving over her. And so it continued until the fateful night of 5/18 July. On this night together with the other royal captives striving with her and her valiant fellow-struggler Barbara in Alapaevsk, she was suddenly taken in an automobile outside the city and apparently buried alive with them in one of the local mine shafts. The results of later excavation there has shown that she strived until the last moment to serve the grand dukes who were severely injured by the fall. Some local peasants who carried out the sentence on these people whom they did not know, reported that for a long time there was heard a mysterious singing from below the earth.

This was the great-passion-bearer, singing funeral hymns to herself and the others until the silver chain was loosed and the golden bowl was broken (cf. Eccles. 12:6) and until the songs of heaven began to resound for her. Thus the longed-for martyr's crown was placed on her head and she was united to the hosts of those of whom John, the seer of mysteries, speaks: "after this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;...And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (Rev. 7:9, 14). Like a wondrous vision she passed over the earth, leaving behind radiant traces. Together with all the other sufferers for the Russian land, she appeared simultaneously as a redeemer for Russia and as a foundation for that Russia of the future which is being raised up on the bones of the new martyrs. Such images have a timeless significance; their memory is eternal on earth and in heaven. Not in vain did the voice of the people declare her a saint during her lifetime. (It is noteworthy that soon after the birth of the grand duchess, her mother, the Princess Alice, a woman with a great and meek spirit, wrote to Queen Victoria about the name given to her daughter. "We liked Elizabeth since St. Elizabeth is an ancestress of the Hessian, as well as of the Saxon House." The late grand duchess had kept this name after being united to the Orthodox Church and chose for her heavenly protectress, St. Elizabeth—5 September.)

As though in reward for her earthly struggles and special love for the Holy Land, her martyred remains, which according to eyewitnesses were found in the mine shaft completely untouched by corruption, were destined to rest at the same place where the Savior suffered and rose from the dead. Exhumed on the orders of Admiral Kolchak, together with the bodies of other members of the royal house killed at the same time (the Grand Duke Sergei Michailovich, the Princes John, Igor, and Konstantine Konstantinovich, and the son of the Grand Duke Paul Alexandrovich, Prince Paley), their remains and the bodies of the grand duchess and Sister Barbara were taken first to Irkutsk and then to Peking where they remained for a long time m the cemetery church of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission. From there, through the concern of her sister, Princess Victoria, the Marchioness of Milford-Haven, to whom she was closely bound during life, her coffin and Sister Barbara's were transferred from Shanghai and sent to Palestine.

On the 15th of January, 1920, the bodies of both sufferers were triumphantly met in Jerusalem by the English authorities, the Greek and Russian clergy, as well as crowds of the large Russian colony and local inhabitants. Their burial took place the next day and was served by the head of the Church of Jerusalem, the Blessed Patriarch Damianos, together with a host of clergy.

As if destined for the purpose, the crypt below the lower vault of the Russian church of St. Mary Magdalene was adapted as a sepulchre for the grand duchess. This church, built in memory of the Empress Maria Alexandrovna by her august children, was not strange to the deceased, for together with the Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich she had been present at its consecration in 1888. Located on a picturesque slope of the Mount of Olives, it is the best-styled and most graceful of all the churches one finds in Palestine, attracting one's gaze even from a distance by its colorful and purely Russian lines. The martyr herself could not have chosen a better resting place even if, having foreseen that she would have to repose for a time outside her convent, she had earlier prepared a grave for herself.

Here, everything reflects her spirit: the golden domes of the church, sparkling in the sun amidst green olive trees and cypresses; the artistic interior furnishings, stamped with the inspiration of Vereshchagin, and the very character of the holy images, pierced through by the rays of Christ s Resurrection. Even closer and dearer to her heart is the fragrance of the holy places, which breathes upon her sepulchre from all sides. Below, beneath the tomb stretches out a unique view of the Holy City with the great cupola of the Life-Giving Tomb rising on high; at the foot of her tomb, the Garden of Gethsemane where in agony the Divine Sufferer prayed until drops of blood appeared. Further on, Gethsemane itself, the place of the Mother of God's burial and to the left one can discern half-concealed by the folds of mountains, Bethany, that true Convent of Martha and Mary, the sister of Lazarus, whom the Lord called forth from the grave; and above, the Church of St. Mary Magdalene joyously crowns Mt. Olivet, whence the risen Savior rose gloriously to heaven in order to crown from there all those who amid temptations remained faithful to Him until death (see Rev. 111:5, 21).


5/l8 July, 1925

Originally appeared in Orthodox Life, vol. 31, no. 5 (Sept.-Oct., 1981), pp. 3-14. To read more about the life of this saint, consult Grand Duchess Elizabeth of Russia: New Martyr of the Communist Yoke by Lubov Millar. Includes over 40 photographs and an extensive bibliography. However, the book is not without its problems. Following is a short book review by Bishop Auxentios that appeared in Orthodox Tradition, Vol. IX, No. 1, p. 25: "This book is not written in the pious manner of the traditional hagiography of the Orthodox Church. One is astounded at the constant descriptions of the physical beauty of the martyred Grand Duchess Elizabeth, commentaries on her jewelry collection, and some effete preoccupations with la royaut. As well, the author shows little knowledge of many Orthodox institutions, including the female diaconate and monasticism. Nonetheless, the book provides beautiful glimpses into the life of a convert woman who, having grown much in her Faith at a time when Russian Orthodoxy was not at its healthiest, gave her life for Christ and the Church. Such glimpses make this handsome book a treasury."

Source: Orthodox Christian Information Center

The 43rd Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies Byzantium Behind the Scenes: Power and Subversion University of Birmingham 27-29 March 2010

The 43rd Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies

Byzantium Behind the Scenes: Power and Subversion

University of Birmingham

27-29 March 2010

The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity, of the University of Birmingham is pleased to be welcoming back the Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies under the auspices of The Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies.
The 43rd Spring Symposium explores the multiple ways in which Byzantine artists, rhetoricians, philosophers, theologians, satirists and political actors subverted and manipulated established rules and traditions. Through interdisciplinary dialogue the symposium aims to either qualify or challenge common held perceptions of Byzantium and the Byzantines. The symposium will consist of eighteen main papers as well as more numerous communications which are wide open to any theme in Byzantine studies. The call for communications expires on 7 February 2010.
Prospective participants and guests are kindly invited to register from now until the opening of the symposium on Saturday, March 27, 2010. You can also register online.

Symposiarch: Dimiter Angelov
Symposium Assistants: Eve Davies, Michael Saxby
Director of the Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman & Modern Greek Studies
Rhoads Murphey


The 43rd Byzantine Spring Symposium addresses a theme of special significance for the field of Byzantine studies. Byzantium has traditionally been deemed a civilisation which deferred to authority and set special store by orthodoxy, canon and proper order. Since 1982 when the distinguished Russian Byzantinist Alexander Kazhdan wrote that 'the history of Byzantine intellectual opposition has yet to be written', scholars have increasingly highlighted cases of opposition to and subversion of 'correct practice' and 'correct belief' in Byzantium. The innovative scholarly effort has produced important results, although has been somewhat disjointed and has been hampered by the lack of dialogue across the disciplines of Byzantine studies. The Byzantine Spring Symposium in 2010 addresses this situation by drawing together historians, art historians, scholars of literature and religion, and philosophers who will discuss shared and discipline-specific approaches to the theme of subversion.
The main papers of the symposium are organised in the form of five sessions devoted to:
1) History
2) Art history
3) Religious and popular belief
4) Philosophy and intellectual life
5) Literature
The dialectical relationship between authority and subversion, and the distinction between dissidence and subversion, are among the theoretical questions to be addressed. The conference comes at a timely junction of the development of Byzantine studies, as interest in subversion and generally in nonconformist attitudes has been rising steadily in various disciplines in the humanities and the social sciences.



Session I: The politics of subversion
  • Dimitris Kyritses (Crete)
    Decision-making, consensus-building and autocracy held in check: the imperial council in Byzantium
  • Kostis Smyrlis (New York)
    The Byzantine state and the subversive power of fiscally privileged groups (13th-14th c.)
  • Michael Angold (Edinburgh)
    The art of subversion at the late Palaiologan court
  • Cécile Morrisson (Dumbarton Oaks) and Vasso Penna (University of Peloponnese)
    Usurpers and rebels in Byzantium: image and message through coins

Session II: The art of subversion
  • Leslie Brubaker (Birmingham)
    Seeing is believing, but words tell many lies: image, text and subversion in Byzantium
  • Bissera Pentcheva (Stanford)
    Subverting the Byzantine world: Sinai, crusader art, and the rise of optical visuality
  •  Liz James (Sussex)
    The world turned upside down': art and subversion in Byzantium
Session III: Subversion in religious and popular belief
  • Neil McLynn (Oxford)
    Playing to lose? The politics of heresy in Theodosian Constantinople
  • Paul Magdalino (St Andrews)
    Generic subversion? The political message of apocalyptic prophecy and urban myth
  • Dirk Krausmüller (Cardiff)
    Hiding in plain sight: heterodox readings of Byzantine theological texts
  • Béatrice Caseau (Paris)
    The limits of religion: derision and disrespect

Session IV: Subversion in philosophy and intellectual life
  • Börje Bydén (Stockholm)
    'No prince of perfection': Byzantine anti-Aristotelianism from Philoponus to Plethon
  • Katerina Ierodiakonu (Athens)
    Really, why was John Italos anathematised?
  • Maria Mavroudi (Berkeley)
    George Gemistos Plethon in the Islamic world


Session V: The literature of subversion
  • Margaret Mullett (Dumbarton Oaks)
    How to criticise the laudandus
  • Dimitris Krallis (Simon Fraser University)
    Harmless satire, stinging critique: a new reading the Timarion
  • Przemysław Marciniak (University of Silesia)
    Of mice and people: Katomyomachia and Dramation as satirical texts

Margaret Alexiou (Harvard)
Of broth, brawls and balls: power, pain and poverty in Ptochoprodromos

Source and more: http://www.iaa.bham.ac.uk/news/conferences/index.shtml

ARTICLE The Pilgrimage Routes During the Byzantine Period in Transjordan

 A very interesting article about the sources we can use in order to find the ancient pilgrims roads


The Pilgrimage Routes
During the Byzantine Period
in Transjordan

by Eugenio Alliata


The importance of the eastern side of Jordan in the Madaba mosaic map is apparent from the abundance of physical space dedicated to it and from the general composition of the map....

...we must start to regard the Madaba map in a more "eastern" way.
This must be kept in mind also when we speak of the aspect of pilgrimage, which is only one of the many important aspects concerning this masterpiece of art. Herbert Donner has written about the sense and purpose of the map: "One of the inferior purposes of the mosaic was the intention to offer information for Christian pilgrims, to show them how they were to go from one holy place to another.

to read the full article go here


Σάββατο, 26 Δεκεμβρίου 2009

22nd International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Sofia 22-27 August 2011


Organized by the
Bulgarian Association of Byzantinists and Medievists, a collective
member of the Association Internationale des Études Byzantines
Patron: President of the Republic of Bulgaria Georgi Parvanov


During the Congress there will be held:
  • 7 Plenary sessions; plenary papers have been allotted 30 minutes each.
  • Round Tables (communications have been allotted 15 minutes each). Round tables will have from 8 to 10 participants. Round-table chairs are urged to allow 20-30 minutes discussion at the end of each session.
  • Sessions of free communications (communications have been allotted 15 minutes each). Communications are grouped in thematic sessions of 8 to 10 papers. Session chairs are urged to allow 20 to 30 minutes for discussion at the end of each session.
  • Posters will be on display throughout the Congress, with their presenters being available for discussion at the times indicated.
  • Publication: The plenary papers will be published in one volume whereas the abstracts of the Round table and the Panel communications (of up to 1000 characters each) will be published in two volumes, if the finances allow it. In any event, all the abstracts will be uploaded on the web-site of the Congress.
  • Audio-visual materials: All rooms are equipped with a computer and a media-projector. Speakers who plan on using audio-visual materials are urged to come to their allotted room 20 minutes prior to the start of the session, to set up and check their CDs, memory sticks, etc.


Upon registration, Congress participants will receive a badge, bag and folder bearing the Congress logo and a copy of the proceedings.
Information, assistance, and the Congress packs can be found at the Registration Desk in the Central Foyer of the Sofia University Rectorate.



Première séance plénière (lundi, 22 août 2011) :
Introduction : Entre deux congrès Sofia : 1934-2011. Les congrès internationaux des études byzantines face à la conjoncture historique : Vassilka Tăpkova-Zaïmova, Maria Nystazopoulou-Pélékidou
L’idée et la mémoire de Byzance – réception sans frontières
  1. Byzantium as Seen by Itself – Images and Mechanisms at Work : Johannes Koder.
  2. Byzantium Viewed by the Others : Maria Mavroudi
  3. La réception de la littérature et de l’art byzantins dans le monde slave : Axinia Džurova, Vassia Velinova
  4. Nostalgia and Post-Byzantine “Use” of Byzantium : How and Why we Remember Byzantium ?: Silvia Ronchey
Deuxième séance plénière (lundi, 22 août 2011).
Les phénomènes du Mont Athos et du Mont Sinaï
  1.  Mount Athos and Political Thought in the Slavonic World  : Bojana Krsmanović
  2. The Writing Centre Mount Sinai Viewed from the Slavonic Tradition : Heinz Miklas
  3. The Mount Athos Archival and Library Evidence :Andreas Müller, Kiril Pavlikjanov
Troisième séance plénière (mardi, 23 août 2011)
Les villes et l’aménagement de l’espace
  1. Constantinople in Serbian Medieval Sources : Radivoj Radić
  2. Les villes et les Croisées : Antonio Carile
  3. A New Archaeological Study of Hagia Sophia : Ken Dark, Jan Kostenec
  4. Monumentality versus Economic Vitality: Was a Balance Struck in the Late Antique City : Marlia Mundell Mango
  5. The Byzantine Town: Producers and Consumers : Archibald Dunn
  6. La topographie sacrale et profane de la ville : Claudia Rapp, Arne Effenberger
Quatrième séance plénière (mercredi, 24 août 2011)
Libertés et restrictions à Byzance
  1. L’égalité comme principe de la justice sociale : I. P. Medvedev
  2. The Idea of Liberty in Byzantium : Dimiter G. Angelov
  3. State, Belief and Individual: a Byzantine Paradox : John Haldon
  4. Dikai kai Dikaiosyne  : Eleftheria Papagianni
  5. Reisen und Verkehrswege in Byzanz : Ewald Kislinger
  6. The Autocephalous Byzantine Church Province of Bulgaria/Ohrid : Günter Prinzing
Cinquième séance plénière (jeudi, 25 août 2011)
Mare Nostrum/ Mare Majus
  1. Main Changes in the Black Sea Trade and Navigation, 12th-15th Centuries : Serguej P. Karpov
  2. Venezia, Genova e il mar Nero-rivalità e commercio: Laura Balletto, Sandra Origone, Michel Balard
  3. Du Danube à l’Euphrate : frontières, navigation, commerce : Nevra Nečipoğlu (?)
  4. Da Bisanzio a Venezia, da Venezia a Bisanzio: circulazione di uomini, beni ed idee: Chryssa Maltézou
  5. Ports, Trading Posts and Shipping in the Blach Sea Area : Dimitar Dimitrov
  6. Le commerce au pourtour de la mer Noire : David Jacoby
Sixième séance plénière (vendredi, 26 août 2011)
Le sacré : la théologie et l’art à Byzance
  1. L’Enfer et le Royaume céleste dans leurs dimensions théologiques : Vassa Kontouma-Conticello
  2. La représentation de l’espace et du temps dans la peinture byzantine : Tania Velmans
  3. L’univers « visible » et « caché » des manuscrits : Guglielmo Cavallo
  4. The Limits of Conservatism in the Figurative Arts: Anthony Cutler
  5. Monumental Painting as a Historical Source. The Evidence of Church Inscriptions, Donor Portraits and Iconography (Projects and Perspectives) : Sophia Kalopissi-Verti
Septième séance plénière (samedi, 27 août 2011)
L’avenir des études byzantines
  1. The Perspectives of Byzantine Studies in the Face of the New Conditions of Scientific Work and Research:  Taxiarchos Kolias
  2. Information Approach to Studying on the Byzantine Law: The lexes and texts: Yury Vin
Eight exhibitions, a concert, a book fair, a Congress-souvenir shop, and a Congress post office have been arranged. All events listed in the Program are open to all registered participants on production of their badge.


  1. The Bulgarian-Byzantine Cultural Dialogue in the National Museum of History: 16 Vitoshko Lale St., Boyana.
  2. Greek Manuscripts in Bulgaria and in the Balkans in the National Art Gallery: 1 Battenberg Sq., Sofia.
  3. The Spirit of Byzantium: Slavonic Manuscripts in Bulgaria and in the Balkans in the Central Foyer of the National Library “Sts. Cyril and Methodius”: 88 Vassil Levski Blvd.
  4. The Balkan Icon World (with anthivola from the Makris-Margaritis Collection and the Manuscript collection of “Ivan Dujčev” Center for Slavonic and Byzantine Studies) in the Crypt of St. Alexander Nevski Cathedral (Department of Old Bulgarian Art at the National Art Gallery).
  5. Everyday Life Scenes from Medieval Bulgaria in the National Institute of Archaeology and Museum at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences: 2 Saborna St., Sofia.
  6. Past and Present: the Message of Byzantium in the Union of the Bulgarian Artists Bldg.: 6 Shipka St., Sofia. Official opening: 7.00 pm, 26 August (Friday).
  7. Coins-and-Seals Exhibition in the National Institute of Archaeology and Museum at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences: 2 Saborna St., Sofia.
  8. Photo Exhibit „Balkan Civilizations” in the Central Foyer of Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, 15 Tsar Osvoboditel Blvd.


The program includes Byzantine and Slavonic orthodox music and Bulgarian folklore pieces.


  1. National Museum of History: 16 Vitoshko Lale St., Boyana.
  2. National Art Gallery: 1 Battenberg Sq., Sofia.
  3. Crypt of St. Alexander Nevski Cathedral.
  4. National Institute of Archaeology and Museum at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences: 2 Saborna St., Sofia.
  5. Church History Museum.
  6. Union of the Bulgarian Artists Bldg.: 6 Shipka St., Sofia.
  7. Foreign Art National Gallery
  8. Boyana Church National Museum.
  9. The St.-George Rotunda.
  10. Basilica of St. Sophia.


Publishers and book-sellers will be exhibiting in the foyers of Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski” from Monday through Saturday, 23 – 27 August.


Seeing, Hearing, Reading and Believing. Authorities in the Middle Ages

International Conference

Helsinki, Finland
20th to 23rd of September 2010


Organised by
Glossa, the Society for Medieval Studies in Finland

in collaboration with
Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies (HCAS)
University of Helsinki
Written Culture in Medieval Finland project
Finnish Literature Society
The conference is funded by
Thure Galléns Stiftelse
Federation of Finnish Learned Societies
Niilo Helander Foundation

Seeing, Hearing, Reading and Believing. Authorities in the Middle Ages will be arranged in Helsinki 20-23 September 2010. This international conference seeks to offer a multidisciplinary forum for researchers and academics, enhance interdiscpilinary discussion, promote scholarly networking, and set up an innovative platform for scholars who engage with questions of power and authority.
The conference is aimed at established researchers, doctoral students and those working on their master's thesis in medieval history or art history, archaeology, theology, philosophy or literature. Conference sessions will be open to the public. The conference will be held in English.
The conference is organised by Glossa, the Society for Medieval Studies in Finland, the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies (HCAS) and the Written Culture in Medieval Finland Project at the University of Helsinki.
Selected conference papers will be published as a refereed theme issue in Mirator, an electronic open access jourrnal on medieval studies.

Call for Papers

The Latin word auctoritas means not only authority and influence, but more generally opinion, encouragement, decree or example. The concept thus resonates deeply in the study of social structures, communication or religious culture, for instance. Who had auctoritas, and how? How was influence built and maintained, how was it lost? How was authority contested? What about model and precedent?
Glossa - the society for medieval studies in Finland is arranging with the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Sudies the multidisciplinary conference SEEING, HEARING, READING AND BELIEVING. AUTHORITIES IN THE MIDDLE AGES in Helsinki, 20-23 September 2010. The organisers seek proposals for papers on the topic of authorities in the Middle Ages. Themes include (but are not limited to) authority/-ies in politics, military history, trade and communication, intellectual history, art and literature as well as religious conformism, adaptation and dissidence. We invite explorations of exercise of authority in different spheres of life, as well as of medieval meditations on the nature of authority, or of the authority of texts and traditions. The conference welcomes researchers across all scholarly fields and disciplines.
Confirmed keynote speakers include Professor David Abulafia (University of Cambridge), Professor Sverre Bagge (University of Bergen) and Professor Albrecht Classen (University of Arizona).
We welcome working papers from established researchers, doctoral students and those working on their Master's thesis. Please send proposals for individual papers of twenty minutes or for whole sessions of three papers with contact details and a 200 word abstract to Tuija Ainonen, at tuija.ainonen@helsinki.fi by 15 December 2009.

source: http://www.glossa.fi/authorities/index.html

Representing the Sexuality of Women in Medieval Europe and Byzantium

CALL FOR PAPERS: for the International Medieval Congress, Leeds, July 12-15, 2010

Session: Representing the Sexuality of Women in Medieval Europe and Byzantium

Session Chairs: Sherry Lindquist, Knox College; and Mati Meyer, The Open University of Israel, Raanana
Images of sexuality are profoundly contested in many societies, and the issues involved have particularly significant real-world consequences for women in patriarchal cultures. It is therefore urgent that we have recourse to relevant historical perspectives that are grounded on a wide-ranging array of nuanced studies. In spite of the evocative scholarly debate that is emerging, we still have only a minimal understanding of this long-neglected but vital subject. Michael Camille, Madeline Caviness and others have addressed some of the ideological meanings inherent in images that appear to display sexual content in western art. Richard Trexler, Robert Mills, Martha Easton and others find historical and theoretical methods of addressing sexual themes in devotional and theological motifs, while Jeffrey Hamburger and Caroline Walker Bynum warn against imposing modern assumptions about sexuality in what they consider to be predominantly religious contexts. Recovering the range of possible medieval views is made more difficult by the disproportionate amount of male, clerical voices whose written work survives, and which often express negative and misogynist views of women by focusing on Eve’s imperfect or Mary’s singular nature. Such views may (or may not) be countered in more vernacular, secular works. It appears that Jewish and Byzantine attitudes towards sexuality differed significantly from the ones expressed by western ecclesiastical writers. Although Sarit Shalev Eyni and Diane Wolfthal, among others, are beginning to explore these topics, there is even less modern scholarship on how the visual operated to reflect, construct or subvert normative attitudes about women’s sexuality in medieval Europe outside of Latin Christianity.

This session seeks papers that offer a comparative, synthetic and interdisciplinary approach to the intersection of sex and images in the Middle Ages, especially as it pertains to the lived experience of medieval women. It invites papers about the built spaces of sexual encounters, the gestural vocabulary of sexual practices, and the visual and written depictions of these activities. We particularly encourage proposals that suggest new methodological approaches or that aim to re-evaluate long-standing approaches and arguments. Themes of special interest include: displays of sexuality in Western and Eastern medieval art; possible cross-cultural affinities or diversities in sexual imagery; the relationship of interior/exterior to sexual representations; allegorical and phantasmagorical places for sexual encounters; and the way that normative, alternative or changing social perceptions towards sexuality are negotiated in the visual realm.

Please send electronic proposal and CV to Sherrylindquist@hotmail.com and msmati@mscc.huji.ac.il.

Source: http://www.bsana.net/opportunities/conferences/leeds.html

The Sacred Places of Medieval Monasticism

Call for Papers: 45th International Congress on Medieval Studies
Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, May 13–16, 2010

The Sacred Places of Medieval Monasticism
Organizers: Kristine Kess, University of Chicago; Cristina Stancioiu, UCLA

Monasticism played an important role in the Middle Ages, interacting with and shaping social and political structures, as well as peoples’ religious life.  This panel focuses on the sacred places of medieval monasticism.  Individual holy men and communities often located themselves in opposition to the urban population, withdrawing to the desert or mountainous terrain.  For example, the “holy mountain” is a persistent notion accompanying both eremitic and cenobitic practices in Byzantium, from Sinai and the Wondrous Mountain of Symeon Stylites the Younger, first settled in the 4th and 5th centuries, to the foundation of Meteora in the 14th century.  In the West, along with removal to wilderness places, islands and anchorholds likewise provide important sites for asceticism.  Our goal is to bring together papers from a variety of disciplines, in order to question the construction and representation of specific landscapes in relation to monastic life in both Byzantium and the Medieval West.  These can include interior as well as exterior spaces.
Potential topics include, but are not limited to: the archaeology of specific sites; textual/rhetorical construction of place; artistic patronage and representation of monasteries and their surrounding landscapes; depictions of monastic life; solitary vs. communal spaces; pilgrimage art; saint’s lives; the construction of place in monastic rules, foundation documents and typika; spiritualized landscapes and/or devotional practices.
Please send 300-word abstract and completed Participant Information Form (available online) to:
Cristina Stancioiu
1739 East 1st St., #8
Long Beach, CA 90802
Submissions may be sent electronically or in paper format.  Applications must be postmarked no later than September 15, 2009.

Source: http://www.bsana.net/opportunities/conferences/chicago_u.html

“Time, Temporality, History”, Plymouth State University

2010 Call For Papers

Plymouth State University

31st Annual Medieval and Renaissance Forum

Friday and Saturday 16-17 April 2010

 Call for Papers and Sessions
“Time, Temporality, History”

We invite abstracts in medieval and Early Modern studies that consider questions of periodization, historicity, and temporality. Papers may consider:
  • how people conceived of, constructed, interacted with, measured, or produced “time” in medieval and Early Modern cultures
  • how we currently construct or deconstruct history
  • how studying temporality illuminates other subjects.

Papers need not be confined to the theme, but may cover many aspects of medieval and Renaissance life, literature, languages, art, philosophy, theology, history and music. Student sessions welcome.

Carolyn Dinshaw

This year’s keynote speaker is Dr. Carolyn Dinshaw, Professor of English/Social and Cultural Analysis at New York University. Dr. Dinshaw, the author of  , researches and publishes widely on medieval literature and culture, feminist studies, lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender studies, history of sexuality, theories of history and historiography, and mysticism. Her most recent work focuses on theories and experiences of temporality.
Students, faculty, and independent scholars are welcome.
For more information visit www.plymouth.edu/medieval

Please submit abstracts and full contact information (email and post mail addresses) to Dr. Karolyn Kinane at PSUForum@gmail.com

Or via US mail:
Dr. Karolyn Kinane, Director
Medieval and Renaissance Forum
Dept. of English MSC 40
17 High Street
Plymouth State University
Plymouth, NH 03264

Abstract deadline: 15 January 2010
Presenters and early registration: 15 March 2010

Please send any further inquiries to:
Dr. Karolyn Kinane PSUForum@gmail.com

Source: http://www.plymouth.edu/medieval/2010/call_for_papers.html


16-18 April 2010
University of New England
The Australian Association for Byzantine Studies calls for papers for its XVIth Biennial Conference. The conference is being held in honour of Professor John Melville-Jones and the theme will be 'Gender and Class in Byzantine Society'.
Plenary speakers:
Dr Tom Brown, Reader, School of History, Classics and Archaeology, The University of Edinburgh
Professor John Melville-Jones, Classics and Ancient History, University of Western Australia
Dr Shaun Tougher, Senior Lecturer in Ancient History, Cardiff University (to be confirmed)
Gender and class were key social indicators in Byzantine society, as in many others. However, masculine and feminine roles were not always clearly defined, while eunuchs made up a 'third gender'. Social status was also in a state of flux, as much linked to patronage networks as to wealth, as the Empire came under a series of external and internal pressures. This fluidity applied in ecclesiastical as much as in secular spheres. We welcome papers on all aspects of the theme of gender and/or class from the 4th to the 15th centuries, from the Greek East to the westernmost reaches of the Byzantine Empire.
Contributors are invited to interpret the theme broadly and we welcome submissions from all fields. Both scholars with academic affiliation and working independently, as well as postgraduate students, are encouraged to apply.
Registration is now open: download and post the registration form or register online.
The Conference will be held 16-18 April 2010 at the University of New England in Armidale, New South Wales, Australia.
Please submit abstracts of up to 500 words for 30-minute papers (including 10 minutes of questions) by 1 April to:
Associate Professor Lynda Garland
School of Humanities
University of New England
New South Wales 2351
tel +61 2 6773 3236
fax +61 2 6773 3520

Dr Tom Brown, Reader, School of History, Classics and Archaeology, The University of Edinburgh
The View from the Provinces: Gender and Society in Byzantine Italy from Justinian to Robert Guiscard
After working as a Research Fellow at Dumbarton Oaks and Birmingham, Tom Brown taught medieval studies at the Australian National University in Canberra for two and a half years. Since 1980 he has taught medieval history at the University of Edinburgh, where he is now Reader. He was the founding editor of the journal Early Medieval Europe. Among his many publications he is perhaps best known for the book Gentlemen and Officers: Imperial Administration and Aristocratic Power in Byzantine Italy 554-800 (London, 1984). His most recent publications include 'The Role of Arianism in Ostrogothic Italy: The Evidence from Ravenna' in The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period to the Sixth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective (Boydell Press, 2007), 'Byzantine Italy, 680-876' in J. Shepard (ed.), The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire  (Cambridge, 2008 and 'Lombard Religious Policy in the Late Sixth and Seventh Centuries: The Roman Dimension' in Giorgio Ausenda, Paolo Delogu and Chris Wickham (eds), The Langobards (Boydell, 2009).

Professor John Melville-Jones, Classics and Ancient History, University of Western Australia
The Deplorable Life and Disgusting Death of Andronicus I Comnenus
Professor John Melville-Jones (FRNS, FAHA) is the Winthrop Professor in Classics and Ancient History at the University of Western Australia. Over the course of a distinguished career spanning five decades, he has made a major contribution to Byzantine Studies in Australia. His research specialisations are in the areas of Greek numismatics and the history of the later Byzantine empire, particularly its relations with Venice. He was President of the Australian Association for Byzantine Studies from 2000 until 2005.
For his outstanding work in these areas he has received two Greek awards: the Aristotle Award (1999) and the Onassis Foundation Senior Visiting Scholar (2002). In 2009 he worked in the State Archives in Venice as a guest of the Gladys Krieble Delmas Foundation, collecting material which documents the relationship between Venice and Constantinople in the 15th century.
A patron of the Perth Numismatic Society, he has published a variety of material relating to ancient Greek and Latin texts which provide information about coinage and its use in the ancient world. He will soon publish the second of two volumes of collected sources documenting the Venetian occupation of Thessalonica in 1423-1430. Some of his most recent publications are:
J.R. Melville-Jones and D. Gilliland Wright, The Greek Corespondence of Bartolomeo Minio, Dispacci from Nauplion (1479-1483) (Padova: Unipress, 2008)

J.R. Melville-Jones, Testimonia Numaria Volume II (London: Spink, 2007)
J.R. Melville-Jones, 'Venetian History and Patrician Chroniclers' in Chronicling History: Chroniclers and Historians in Medieval and Renaissance Italy, (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007).

Dr Shaun Tougher, Senior Lecturer in Ancient History, Cardiff University (to be confirmed)

source: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~byzaus/conferences/16th2010/