1,720,960 research outputs found
ІГОР ЛИЛЬО, "Греки на території Руського воєводства у XV–XVIII ст. Монографія" ["Ihor Lylo, Greeks in the Territory of the Ruthenian Voivodeship in the 15th–18th Centuries. Monograph"] ЛНУ імені Івана Франка, Львів 2019, pp. 384.
Full text link9final_publishedAT_PUBLICATIONNie dotycz
Między Kijowem a Konstantynopolem Relacje Kościoła ukraińskiego z Patriarchatem Ekumenicznym (X–XXI w.)
Full text linkRelations between the Ukrainian Church and Constantinople were difficult. This goes back as far as 988, when the Christianisation of the Rus created a strong alliance between Kiev and the Byzantine Empire. There were times when Constantinople had no influence over the Kiev Metropolis. During the Mongolian invasion in 1240, the Ukranian region was broken up and Kiev lost its power. The headquarters of the Kiev Metropolis were first moved to Wlodzimierz nad Klazma in 1299 and then to Moscow in1325. In 1458 the Metropolis of Kiev was divided into two; Kiev and Moscow, but Kiev still remained under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Since that time, the orthodox hierarchs of Moscow no longer adhered to the title Bishop of Kiev and the whole of Rus and in 1588 the Patriarchate of Moscow was founded. In 1596 when the Union of Brest was formed, the orthodox church of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was not liquidated. Instead it was formally revived in 1620 and in 1632 it was officially recognized by king Wladyslaw Waza. In 1686 the Metropolis of Kiev which until that time was under the Patriarchate of Constantinople was handed over to the jurisdiction of Moscow. It was tsarist diplomats that bribed the Ottoman Sultan of the time to force the Patriarchate to issue a decree giving Moscow jurisdiction over the Metropolis of Kiev. In the beginning of the 19th century, Kiev lost its Metropolitan status and became a regular diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church. Only in the beginning of the 20thcentury, during the time of the Ukrainian revolution were efforts made to create an independent Church of Ukraine. In 1919 the autocephaly was announced, but the Patriarchate of Constantinople did not recognize it. . The structure of this Church was soon to be liquidated and it was restored again after the second world war at the time when Hitler occupied the Ukraine. In 1992, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, when Ukraine gained its independence, the Metropolitan of Kiev requested that the Orthodox Church of Ukraine becomes autocephalous but his request was rejected by the Patriarchate of Moscow. Until 2018 the Patriarchate of Kiev and the autocephalous Church remained unrecognized and thus considered schismatic. In 2018 the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople looked into the matter and on 5thJanuary 2019, the Orthodox Church of Ukraine received it’s tomos of autocephaly from Constantinople. The Patriarchate of Moscow opposed the decision of Constantinople and as a result refused to perform a common Eucharist with the new Church of Ukraine and with the Patriarchate of Constantinople.Relations between the Ukrainian Church and Constantinople were difficult. This goes back as far as 988, when the Christianisation of the Rus created a strong alliance between Kiev and the Byzantine Empire. There were times when Constantinople had no influence over the Kiev Metropolis. During the Mongolian invasion in 1240, the Ukranian region was broken up and Kiev lost its power. The headquarters of the Kiev Metropolis were first moved to Wlodzimierz nad Klazma in 1299 and then to Moscow in1325. In 1458 the Metropolis of Kiev was divided into two; Kiev and Moscow, but Kiev still remained under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Since that time, the orthodox hierarchs of Moscow no longer adhered to the title Bishop of Kiev and the whole of Rus and in 1588 the Patriarchate of Moscow was founded. In 1596 when the Union of Brest was formed, the orthodox church of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was not liquidated. Instead it was formally revived in 1620 and in 1632 it was officially recognized by king Wladyslaw Waza. In 1686 the Metropolis of Kiev which until that time was under the Patriarchate of Constantinople was handed over to the jurisdiction of Moscow. It was tsarist diplomats that bribed the Ottoman Sultan of the time to force the Patriarchate to issue a decree giving Moscow jurisdiction over the Metropolis of Kiev. In the beginning of the 19th century, Kiev lost its Metropolitan status and became a regular diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church. Only in the beginning of the 20thcentury, during the time of the Ukrainian revolution were efforts made to create an independent Church of Ukraine. In 1919 the autocephaly was announced, but the Patriarchate of Constantinople did not recognize it. . The structure of this Church was soon to be liquidated and it was restored again after the second world war at the time when Hitler occupied the Ukraine. In 1992, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, when Ukraine gained its independence, the Metropolitan of Kiev requested that the Orthodox Church of Ukraine becomes autocephalous but his request was rejected by the Patriarchate of Moscow. Until 2018 the Patriarchate of Kiev and the autocephalous Church remained unrecognized and thus considered schismatic. In 2018 the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople looked into the matter and on 5thJanuary 2019, the Orthodox Church of Ukraine received it’s tomos of autocephaly from Constantinople. The Patriarchate of Moscow opposed the decision of Constantinople and as a result refused to perform a common Eucharist with the new Church of Ukraine and with the Patriarchate of Constantinople
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Seeking a Path to Autocephaly for the Church in Ukraine. Relations with the Ecumenical Patriarchate (XX–XXI Century)
No full textThe article presents the history of the process of the Ukrainian Church’s efforts to obtain autocephaly. It discusses the difficult and complicated relations of the Ukrainian Church with the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the role that this Patriarchate played in the process of granting autocephaly. It outlines the complicated history of a Church divided due to the different visions of the various Ukrainian Orthodox communities established in the 20th century. All this contributed to the establishment of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (Ukr. Православна Церква України). It must be emphasised that this process has not been completed yet. The article also describes the role played by the Ukrainian authorities in the process of establishing the autocephalous Church. The process of the constitution of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine as the Church of Ukraine and its stance towards the Russo-Ukrainian war is also shown
Droga bułgarskiego Kościoła do autokefalii (IX–XX w.)
Full text linkThe Bulgarian prince Boris was baptized in 864. In 918, the synod of Bulgarian bishops elevated the Bulgarian archbishopric to the patriarchate. In 927 Constantinople recognized the patriarchate. In 1020 the Bulgarian Patriarchate was abolished. The Church regained autocephaly in 1187. After the conquest of the Bulgarian lands by the Ottomans, the Church ceased autocephaly again. The struggle for the autocephaly of the Bulgarian Church became a very important postulate of the Bulgarian national movement in the 19th century. In 1872 the Bulgarian exarchate unilaterally favored autocephaly. Only in February 22, 1945, the Patriarch of Constantinople confirmed the autocephaly of the Bulgarian Church. In 1953 the Bulgarian Patriarch was elected.Bułgarski książę Borys został ochrzczony w 864 r. W 918 r. synod bułgarskich biskupów podniósł bułgarskie arcybiskupstwo do patriarchatu. W 927 r. Konstantynopol uznał ten patriarchat. W 1020 r. bułgarski patriarchat zlikwidowano. Kościół odzyskał autokefalię w 1187 r. Po podboju ziem bułgarskich przez Osmanów Kościół znów utracił autokefalię. Walka o autokefalię Kościoła bułgarskiego stała się w XIX w. bardzo ważnym postulatem bułgarskiego ruchu narodowego. W 1872 r. bułgarski egzarchat jednostronnie ogłosił autokefalię. Dopiero 22 lutego 1945 r. patriarcha Konstantynopola zatwierdził autokefalię Kościoła bułgarskiego. W 1953 r. wybrano patriarchę buł[email protected]ł Artes Liberales, Uniwersytet WarszawskiArnaudov, M. (1942). Nepoznatiyat Neofit Bozveli. Sofia. [Арнаудов, М. (1942). Непознатият Неофит Бозвели. София].Burleigh, M. (2011). Święta racja. "Świeckie religie" XX wieku. Warszawa.Dąbek-Wirgowa, T. (1980). Historia literatury bułgarskiej. Zarys. WrocławDimevski, S. (1989). Istorja na makedonskata pravoslavna tsrkva. Skopje. [Димевски, С. (1989). Исторjа на македонската православна црква. Скопje].Dimitrov, I.Z. (2007). Bulgarian Christianity. W: K. Parry (red.), The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity (s. 47-93). Victoria.Dimov, Ya. (2004). Kiril – „patriarh balgarski“. Sofia. [Димов, Я. (2004). Кирил – „патриарх български“. София].Gjuzelew, W. (1986). Bułgarskie średniowiecze. W: I. Dymitrow (red.), Bułgaria. Zarys dziejów (s. 54-57). Warszawa.Duychev, I. (red.). (1961). Gratski izvori za balgarskata istoria, sast. (t. 8). Sofia. [Дуйчев, И. (съст.). (1961). Гръцки извори за българската история. (т. 8). София].Dymitrow, I. (red.). (1986). Bułgaria. Zarys dziejów. Warszawa.Hannick, Ch. (1999). Nowe chrześcijaństwo w świecie bizantyńskim: Rusini, Bułgarzy, Serbowie. W: J. Kłoczkowski (red. wyd. pol.), Historia chrześcijaństwa. Biskupi, mnisi i cesarze 610-1054 (t. 4, s. 731-755). Warszawa.Hristov, Hr. (1972). Paisiy Hilendarski. Sofia.Ivanova, K. (1987). Balgarskata literatura i knizhnina prez XIII v. Sofia. [Иванова, K. (1987). Българската литература и книжнина през XIII в.София].Karavelov, L. (1967). Sabrani sachinenia. (t. 7). Sofia. [Каравелов, Л.(1967). Събрани съчинения (т. 7). София].Kiselkov, V. (1963). Sofroniy Vrachanski. Zhivot i tvorchestvo. Sofia. [Киселков, В. (1963). Софроний Врачански. Живот и творчество. София].Knowles, M.D. i Obolensky, D. (1988). Historia Kościoła 600–1500. (t. 2). (R. Turzyński, Tłum.). Warszawa.Korzh, I.A. (2001). Arseniy II. W: Pravoslavnaya Entsiklopediya (t. 3, s. 423-424). Moskva. [Корж И.А. (2001). Арсений II. W: Православная энциклопедия (т. 3, s. 423-424). Москва].Kosik, V.I., Temelski, Khr.i Turilov, A.A. (2002). Bolgarskaya Pravoslavnaya Tserkov'. W: Pravoslavnaya Entsiklopediya (t. 5, s. 615-643). Moskva. [Косик, В.И., Темелски, Хр. и Турилов, А.А. (2002). Болгарская Православная Церковь. W: Православная энциклопедия. (т. 5, s. 615-643). Москва].Krasiński, J. (2012). Kościoły i obrządki wschodnie. Sanktuaria – Skarby kultury. Sandomierz.Kumanov, M. i Isova, K. (2006). Istoricheska Entsiklopedia Bulgaria. Sofia. [Куманов, М. и Исова, К. (2006). Историческа Енциклопедия България. София].Kumor, B. (1973). Historia Kościoła. (t. 2). Lublin.Kumor, B. (1984). Historia Kościoła. (t. 5). Lublin.Lang, D.M. (1983). Bułgarzy. Warszawa.Lewicki, T., Swoboda, W. Krum. W: Słownik Starożytności Słowiańskich (t. 2, s. 527-528).Ławreszuk, M. (2009). Prawosławie wobec tendencji nacjonalistycznych i etnofiletystycznych. Warszawa.Makarova, I.F. i Zhila, L.I . (1999). Konfessii iformirovanie bolgarskoy natsii. W: Rol’ religii v formirovanii natsiy (s. 207-209). Moskva. [Макарова, И.Ф. и Жила, Л.И. (1999). Конфессии и формирование болгарской нации. W: Роль религии в формировании наций (s. 207-209). Москва.]Mińko, A. (2009). Kościół Prawosławny. W: H. Tranda i M. Patalon (red.), W drodze za Chrystusem. Kościoły chrześcijańskie mówią o sobie (s. 199-229). Kraków.Ostrogorski, G. (2012). Dzieje Bizancjum. Warszawa.Panaitescu, P.P. (2002). Mihai Viteazul. București.Panayotov, P. (2005). Balgarsko Srednovekovie. Politicheska, ikonomicheska i kulturna istoria na balgarskoto hanstvo (VІІ–ІX v.), knyazhestvo (ІX–X v.) i tsarstvo (X–XІV v.). Izvori,fakti, mnenia. Beliko Tarnovo. [Панайотов, П. (2005). Българско Средновековие. Политическа, икономическа и културна история на българското ханство (VІІ–ІХ в.), княжество (ІХ–Х в.) и царство (Х–ХІV в.). Извори, факти, мнения, Beлико Търново].Pantschovski, I. (1971). Patriarch Kyrill. Berlin.Papadopoulos, S. (1984). Le métropolite de Veliko Tǎrnovo Denis Rallis Paléologue et ses efforts pour la libération des Grecs et des Bulgares asservis. W: Kulturnii literaturni otnoshenia mezhdu balgari i gartsi ot sredata na XV sredata na XIX vek (s. 47-50). Sofia. [Културни и литературни отношения между българи и гърци от средата на XV до средата на XIX век (s. 47-50). Сoфия].Patriarh Kiril, (1956). Ekzarh Antim (1816–1888). Sofia. [Патриарх Кирил, (1956). Екзарх Антим (1816—1888). София].Radivoev, M. (1912). Vreme i zhivot na Tarnovskia Mitropolitilariona (Makariopolski). Sofia. [Радивоев, М. (1912). Време и живот на Търновския митрополит Илариона (Макариополски). София].Ramet, P. (1984). Religion and Nationalism in Soviet and East European Politics, Durham.Runciman, S. (1930). A history of the First Bulgarian Empire. London.Shivachev, S. (2001). Sbornik v chest na Kiril patriarh balgarski po sluchay 100 godini ot rozhdenieto i 30 godini ot negovata smart. Plovdiv.Snegarov, I. (1952). Vzaimootnosheniya Bolgarskoy i Russkoy Pravoslavnykh Tserkvey do i posle provozglasheniya skhizmy (1872 god). W: Godishnik Nadukhovnata Akademiya (27), t. 2, s. 201-228. [Снегаров, И. (1952). Взаимоотношения Болгарской и Русской Православных Церквей до и после провозглашения схизмы (1872 год). W: Годишник на Духовната Академия. (27), т. 2, s. 201-228].Stoyanov, M. (1962). Prepisi na Paisievata “Istoria slavyanobolgarskaya”. W: Paisiy Hilendarski i negovata epoha (s. 557-596). Sofia. [Стоянов, М. (1962). Преписи на Паисиевата “История славяноболгарская”. W: Паисий Хилендарски и неговата епоха (s. 557-596). Сoфия].Swoboda, W. (1961). Organizacja Kościoła (Bułgaria). W: Słownik Starożytności Słowiańskich (t. 3, s. 494-500). Wrocław .Taranidis, I.C. (1988). The Slavonic manuscripts discovert in 1975 at St. Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai. Tessaloniki.Teplov, V. (1889). Greko-bolgarskiytserkovnyy vopros po neizdannym istochnikam. Sankt-Peterburg. [Теплов, В. (1889). Греко-болгарский церковный вопрос по неизданным источникам, Санкт-Петербург].Wasilewski T. (1972). Bizancjum i Słowianie w IX wieku. Studia z dziejów politycznych i kulturalnych. Warszawa.Wasilewski, T. (1988). Historia Bułgarii. Wrocław.Zernov N. (1967). Wschodnie chrześcijaństwo. (J.S. Łoś, Tłum.). Warszawa.25414
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
- …
