Гимнографические свидетельства «обмена святыми» между Египтом и Сирией в первом тысячелетии нашей эры
This article discusses a process that could be defined as ‘exchange of saints’ between Egypt and Syria in the second half of the first millennium. Coptic synaxaria and liturgical books contain commemorations not only of the local martyrs who were born and suffered in Egypt, but also a great number of commemorations of foreign saints who later became appropriated by the Coptic Church, such as a group of the so-called Antiochene saints whose relics were claimed to belong to Egypt either because these saints were martyred in Egypt or because the relics had been transferred to Egypt at some point. The presence of these saints in early hymnographic collections preserved in two manuscripts of the ninth century (M574 and M575 of the Pierpont Morgan Library) provides ample evidence of the continuing and lasting interest of the Egyptian Christians in Antiochene saints. Such enthusiasm could probably be explained by the work of Severus of Antioch (465-538) who did a great deal to promote the exchange of saints between the two communities. The article also examines the seeming absence of reciprocity on the Syrian side and reviews the evidence provided by the early material, such as the hymns attributed to Severus of Antioch, which came down to us in Syriac translation revised by James of Edessa in the seventh century. One of these texts, a hymn dedicated to the Egyptian martyrs, is of particular interest in regard to the ‘exchange of saints’ and shows that the process was in fact reciprocal.
An introduction to the current Byzantine hagiographical studies and projects
In recent years Byzantine hagiography has attracted renewed interest of the international community of Byzantine scholars and not only thanks to studies dedicated to this subject and critical editions of individual texts, but also because hagiography has been the main focus of numerous major research projects: databases, new repertories, a new version of the Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca and some very useful handbooks dedicated to this literary genre during the Byzantine Empire. These researches have analysed Byzantine hagiography in relation to the hagiographic writings composed in neighbouring areas, the West, the Syriac and Arabic Middle East, the Southern Slavs, etc. but also the relations between the hagiographical texts and other literary genres.
This volume introduces the current developments of hagiographical studies and on-going projects on the subject, and investigates a variety of texts and authors from the Patristic period to the end of Byzantium.
Antonio Rigo is Professor of Byzantine Philology and Christianity at Ca' Foscari - University of Venice. His research focuses on religious life in Byzantium, with special emphasis on ascetical and mystical literature, heresiology, and theology during the Paleologan period.
In the article author considers the role of Egypt in establishing the League of Arab States. Analyzed the most probable realization of projects of Arab unity of the first half of XX century. Particular attention is paid to the figure of the Egyptian Prime Minister Nahhas Pasha. His role and contribution in carrying out bilateral talks with representatives of the six Arab states, as well as his presidency at the Preparatory Committee took place in Cairo in the summer of 1944.
An article devoted to political development in Egypt after the Revolution 25 January 2011. Authors concludes that country take a course on Islamisation of political system.
The paper explores the outcomes of Russian Federation G20 Presidency in 2013. The analysis is based on the model of balancing external conditions and national priorities for developing an agenda in informal institutions (supply-demand model). This analytical paradigm allows to reveal to what extent the Presidency has managed to ensure: 1) a high level of response to the key global governance challenges in the agenda and summit decisions; 2) a balance between national and other members’ interests in the Presidency priorities; 3) utilizing the institution’s capabilities; 4) conformity of the role chosen by the Presidency (organizer, mediator, political leader, national representative) to the combination of external and internal conditions.
Russia took over the responsibility for coordinating the G20 work from Mexico, accepting the rotating presidency of this premier forum for economic cooperation on December 1, 2012. The G20 met the fifth year of its work under conditions of a two speed recovery which by March 2013 transformed into a three speed recovery. Unsteady and sluggish growth, persisting imbalances and downside global economy risks demanded that this forum of the world largest economies concentrate the efforts on developing a set of measures aimed at boosting sustainable, inclusive and balanced growth and jobs creation around the world. These priorities constituted the core of the Russian G20 presidency concept, aimed at ensuring sustainable global growth and rebuilding of trust between the world economy different agents in accordance with the G20 mission and capability.
Consolidating efforts on its core economic and financial priorities, the G20 also launched collaboration to overcome such risks as increasing income disparities, chronic underinvestment into development of safe, secure and modern infrastructure, unforeseen consequences of regulation.
The analysis findings reveal that the Russian presidency managed to ensure a good balance of national interests and the partners’ prioritiesin the G20 agenda; utilizing the G20 capabilities to respond to the key global governance challenges. The choice of the presidency role depended on the nature of the issues and was defined by a combination of internal and external conditions. Thus, the acuteness of the problem for all summit participants determined demand for leadership in including into the economic forum agenda the debate on a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Syria. On employment and social policies the Russian presidency combining the roles of an organizer and a political leader helped upgrade the G20 dialogue to a new quality level.
A major success factor in deliberation and adoption of the comprehensive action plan on base erosion and profit shifting was the OECD capability to take responsibility for the plan development. With the OECD leadership, solid experts’ foundation, and a high level of relevance of the problem for all members, the presidency supported the process as the organizer.
On the topic of stimulating long-term investment, a priority for Russia as well as most of the G20 partners, the presidency managed to consolidate the efforts of several international institutions over a short period. On this priority, as well as on the financial regulation reform, the presidency acted as a representative of the national interests and an organizer. In developing the new development strategy the choice in favor of a combination of a mediator and an organizer proved most productive. As a result the G20 agreed a new cooperation for development outlook.
The presidency active collaboration with the international organizations and engagement with social partners was instrumental in harnessing their experts’ potential and enhancing the G20 transparency, legitimacy and effectiveness. The G20 institutions consolidation continued through development of new coordination mechanisms and strengthening accountability.
Under the Russian presidency the G20 reaffirmed its value as the premier economic cooperation forum. Emphasizing restoring strong and inclusive growth and employment while ensuring fiscal sustainability, the leaders for the first time in the history of the G20 stressed that the well-being of individual people should be at the center of the growth agenda. This consequential outcome of the five years collaboration might be a start of a new G20 agenda where inclusiveness is one of the pillars of growth.
The article is devoted to a previously unknown translator, Vassily Grinkov (the middle of the XVIII century). His translation, made from German in 1745, of Lodovico Guicciardini’s compilation, is not widely known, but the circumstances of its appearance and the reconstruction of the environment in which it appears are extremely important to understand the mechanisms of European culture reception in Russia.