Suchergebnisse

Δεν παρατίθεται περίληψη στα ελληνικά. ; The aim of the current study is an attempt to address the problem which emerged in the Hellenic Society during the years of the inter war as well as the first post civil war period, due to the change of the calendar. The introduction, from the Hellenic Church, of the new (Gregorian) calendar in 1924 created a strong reaction among the believers wich resulted to the creation of a new movement, named Greek Religions Community of Genuine Orthodox Christians (C.O.Ch.). This conservative minority, having had a great influence, insisted in the reinstatement of the old calendar and caused important conflict in the Hellenic society. The issue is examined from a political viewpoint, since the G.O.Ch. functioned as a pressure group towards the governments, demanding the free exercise of their religious duties. The governments appeared rather uncourageous in facing the problem, as they relied on G.O.Ch's vote. However, there had been systematic chasing persecutions against their clergymen, with them arrested or sent to the exile, facts which aggravated the problem. In this article, we also attempt to analyse the ideological stigma of the G.O.Ch. movement as their moved against all innovations of West-European origin and they declared their dedication to the traditional customs. Another aspect of the issue, concerns the so-called Macedonian issue and since the Church as well as many politicians considered the G.O.Ch. as being Serving the Yugoslav propaganda between the Slavonic-speaking minority of Macedonia, given that the Serbian Church maintained the old calendar. The C.O.Ch. Church attempted to defend itself against those accusations claiming that the change of the calendar served the political plans on the northern neighbours.

Kostas Sarris, Chrysanthos Notar as and the publication of "Dodekavivlos" by Dositheos of Jerusalem: a case of false publication date (1715 / c.1722)The article focuses on «Dodekavivlos» by Dositheos the patriarch of Jerusalem (1641-1707). His historiographic work was published after his decease by the Greek publishing house of Anthime in Bucharest. The book was edited by his nephew and successor to the patriarchical throne of Jerusalem Chrysanthos Notaras and the publisher and future bishop of Wallachia Mitrofanis Grigoras. The study concentrates on the false date of publication noted under the title of "Dodekavivlos", that is to say, October 1715, whereas, in reality, the book was published between 1721 and 1723. In the first part of the article, the process followed during the edition and the publication of the book is depicted. Moreover, the outset of the aforementioned procedure as well as the publication date of «Dodekavivlos» is determined. In this context, some aspects of history of the publishing house Anthime are clarified whilst the publishing work and the technical impediments confronted by a Greek publishing house in the Rumanian Principalities in the turning point of the 18th century are delineated. The second part of the article attempts to formulate a cohesive and comprehensive interpretation of the false publication date. Both the polemic character of the content of «Dodekavivlos», which due to the rivalry over the religious establishments of the Holy Land, was of political nature, and Chrysanthos Notaras' correspondence along with the historical background of the publication can conduce to some conjectures over Chrysanthos' decision not to record the real date but an earlier one as well as the choice of the particular date of the title. According to the interpretation brought forward, Nicolaos Mavrokordatos' potential political ventures played a significant role. Also, telltale, though of less importance, is the fact that the name of the publisher and bishop of Wallachia Anthimos Iviritis is not recorded under the false date of the title of «Dodekavivlos». ; Kostas Sarris, Chrysanthos Notar as and the publication of "Dodekavivlos" by Dositheos of Jerusalem: a case of false publication date (1715 / c.1722)The article focuses on «Dodekavivlos» by Dositheos the patriarch of Jerusalem (1641-1707). His historiographic work was published after his decease by the Greek publishing house of Anthime in Bucharest. The book was edited by his nephew and successor to the patriarchical throne of Jerusalem Chrysanthos Notaras and the publisher and future bishop of Wallachia Mitrofanis Grigoras. The study concentrates on the false date of publication noted under the title of "Dodekavivlos", that is to say, October 1715, whereas, in reality, the book was published between 1721 and 1723. In the first part of the article, the process followed during the edition and the publication of the book is depicted. Moreover, the outset of the aforementioned procedure as well as the publication date of «Dodekavivlos» is determined. In this context, some aspects of history of the publishing house Anthime are clarified whilst the publishing work and the technical impediments confronted by a Greek publishing house in the Rumanian Principalities in the turning point of the 18th century are delineated. The second part of the article attempts to formulate a cohesive and comprehensive interpretation of the false publication date. Both the polemic character of the content of «Dodekavivlos», which due to the rivalry over the religious establishments of the Holy Land, was of political nature, and Chrysanthos Notaras' correspondence along with the historical background of the publication can conduce to some conjectures over Chrysanthos' decision not to record the real date but an earlier one as well as the choice of the particular date of the title. According to the interpretation brought forward, Nicolaos Mavrokordatos' potential political ventures played a significant role. Also, telltale, though of less importance, is the fact that the name of the publisher and bishop of Wallachia Anthimos Iviritis is not recorded under the false date of the title of «Dodekavivlos».