Читаем The Historians' History of the World 08 полностью

The Council of Nicæa admits the perfect unanimity of the Council of Constantinople. These 348 bishops concurred in pronouncing their anathema against all who should represent the incarnate Word by material form or colours, who should not restrict themselves to the pure spiritual conception of the Christ, as he is seated, superior in brightness to the sun, on the right hand of the Father; against all who should confound the two natures of Christ in one human image, or who should separate the manhood from the Godhead in the second person of the indivisible Trinity; against all who should not implore the intercession of the Virgin in pure faith, as above all visible and invisible things; against all who should set up the deaf and lifeless images of saints, and who do not rather paint the living likenesses of their virtues in their own hearts. All images, whether statues or paintings, were to be forcibly removed from the churches; everyone who henceforth should set up an image, if a bishop or priest, was to be degraded; if a layman, excommunicated. They proceed to curse by name the principal asserters of image-worship. “Anathema against the double-minded Germanus, the worshipper of wood! Anathema against George (of Cyprus), the falsifier of the traditions of the fathers! Anathema against Mansar (they called by this unchristian-sounding name the famous John of Damascus), the Saracen in heart, the traitor to the empire—Mansar the teacher of impiety, the false interpreter of Holy Scripture!”

Thus was image-worship proscribed by a council, in numbers at least of weight, in the severest and most comprehensive terms. The work of demolition was committed to the imperial officers; only with strict injunctions, not perhaps always obeyed, to respect the vessels, the priestly vestments, and other furniture of the churches, and the cross, the naked cross without any image. The crucifix was of a later period.


THE WAR ON MONASTERIES

[766-775 A.D.]

But if the emperor had overawed, or bought, or compelled the seemingly willing assent of so large a body of the eastern clergy, the formidable monks were still in obstinate implacable opposition to his will. It was now fanaticism encountering fanaticism. Everywhere the monks preached resistance to the imperial decree, and enough has been seen of their turbulent and intractable conduct to make us conclude that their language at least would keep no bounds. Stephen, the great martyr of this controversy, had lived as a hermit in a cave near Sinope for thirty years.

The emperor sent the patriarch to persuade him to subscribe the decrees of the Council of Constantinople. The patriarch’s eloquence was vain. The emperor either allowed or compelled the aged monk to retire to the wild rock of Proconnesus, where, to consummate his sanctity, he took his stand upon a pillar. His followers assembled in crowds about him, and built their cells around the pillar of the saint. But the zeal of Stephen would not be confined within that narrow sphere. He returned to the city, and in bold defiance of the imperial orders denounced the iconoclasts. He was seized, cast into prison, and there treated with unusual harshness. But even there the zeal of his followers found access. Constantine exclaimed, in a paroxysm of careless anger, “Am I or this monk the emperor of the world?” The word of the emperor was enough for some of his obsequious courtiers; they rushed, broke open the prison, dragged out the old man along the streets with every wanton cruelty, and cast his body at last into the common grave of the public malefactors.

The emperor took now a sterner and more desperate resolution. He determined to root out monkery itself. The monks were driven from their cloisters, which were given up to profane and secular uses. Consecrated virgins were forced to marry; monks were compelled, each holding the hand of a woman, doubtless not of the purest character, to walk round the Hippodrome among the jeers and insults of the populace. Throughout the whole empire they were exposed to the lawless persecutions of the imperial officers. Their zeal or their obstinacy was chastised by scourgings, imprisonments, mutilations, and even death. The monasteries were plundered, and by no scrupulous or reverent hands; churches are said to have been despoiled of all their sacred treasures, the holy books burned, feasts and revels profaned the most hallowed sanctuaries.

Перейти на страницу:

Похожие книги

100 великих литературных героев
100 великих литературных героев

Славный Гильгамеш и волшебница Медея, благородный Айвенго и двуликий Дориан Грей, легкомысленная Манон Леско и честолюбивый Жюльен Сорель, герой-защитник Тарас Бульба и «неопределенный» Чичиков, мудрый Сантьяго и славный солдат Василий Теркин… Литературные герои являются в наш мир, чтобы навечно поселиться в нем, творить и активно влиять на наши умы. Автор книги В.Н. Ерёмин рассуждает об основных идеях, которые принес в наш мир тот или иной литературный герой, как развивался его образ в общественном сознании и что он представляет собой в наши дни. Автор имеет свой, оригинальный взгляд на обсуждаемую тему, часто противоположный мнению, принятому в традиционном литературоведении.

Виктор Николаевич Еремин

История / Литературоведение / Энциклопедии / Образование и наука / Словари и Энциклопедии
1937. Как врут о «сталинских репрессиях». Всё было не так!
1937. Как врут о «сталинских репрессиях». Всё было не так!

40 миллионов погибших. Нет, 80! Нет, 100! Нет, 150 миллионов! Следуя завету Гитлера: «чем чудовищнее соврешь, тем скорее тебе поверят», «либералы» завышают реальные цифры сталинских репрессий даже не в десятки, а в сотни раз. Опровергая эту ложь, книга ведущего историка-сталиниста доказывает: ВСЕ БЫЛО НЕ ТАК! На самом деле к «высшей мере социальной защиты» при Сталине были приговорены 815 тысяч человек, а репрессированы по политическим статьям – не более 3 миллионов.Да и так ли уж невинны эти «жертвы 1937 года»? Можно ли считать «невинно осужденными» террористов и заговорщиков, готовивших насильственное свержение существующего строя (что вполне подпадает под нынешнюю статью об «экстремизме»)? Разве невинны были украинские и прибалтийские нацисты, кавказские разбойники и предатели Родины? А палачи Ягоды и Ежова, кровавая «ленинская гвардия» и «выродки Арбата», развалившие страну после смерти Сталина, – разве они не заслуживали «высшей меры»? Разоблачая самые лживые и клеветнические мифы, отвечая на главный вопрос советской истории: за что сажали и расстреливали при Сталине? – эта книга неопровержимо доказывает: ЗАДЕЛО!

Игорь Васильевич Пыхалов

История / Образование и наука