The famous missionary and theologian Deacon Andrey Kuraev was convicted on 23 August 24, 2022 in the Nikulin District Court in Moscow on a denunciation filed “by the citizen Sergey Chichin” for his anti-war publications.
All requests of his lawyer were rejected and Deacon Andrey Kuraev was sentenced to pay a fine of 30,000 rubles for “discrediting the Russian army”. A second such trial against him threatens him with a real prison sentence.
“I don’t know what the court considered a crime in my article. The reasoned part of the judgment was not read. There are also no specific words or quotes in the case file. Various lawyers are telling me in chorus that it’s time to evacuate: a second trial is already threatening me with a real prison sentence. I’ll be honest: I don’t want to leave. I will try to go on the path of correction. I have already said what I think about what should not be thought and talked about. And I paid the court for my words.
To make it difficult for future whistleblowers to do their noble work, I have deleted my diary for the period from February 23rd to August 1st.’
In the denunciation against deacon Andrey Kuraev, the citizen of Chichin says: “I am asking for an investigation into the fact of dissemination of unverified information by the citizen of the Russian Federation Andrey Vyacheslavovich Kuraev. Being a leader of public opinion (for a certain part of the population) through his blog, A. V. Kuraev regularly conducts open anti-Russian propaganda. In a post dated April 18, 2022 at 12:46 p.m., he wrote: “about the Rubtsov boys sending stolen appliances home.” The author then links to the Medusa site, without mentioning that it is on the “foreign agent” list, and urges it to be read via VPN (quote): “for the biographies of these guys, read the Medusa investigation”. Mr. Kuraev’s version comes out that the Russian military in Ukraine is actively engaged in looting household appliances from the local population and sending them to Russia.”
The repressive wave in the Russian state is becoming stronger and more unscrupulous, resembling the Soviet repressions in the 1930s (which Deacon Andrey Kuraev himself predicted at the beginning of the war – here).
As then, as now, whistleblowing is strongly encouraged in society, and almost all cases of “discrediting the Russian army” begin with a whistleblower – from parishioners (as in the case of a priest John Burdin), colleagues, readers.
Not long ago, the editor-in-chief of the free Orthodox encyclopedia “Drevo” was also convicted of denunciation and forced to take down his anti-war publications, as well as to stop the news column in his project.
The Lord taught in the synagogue of Capernaum, and everyone marveled at His teaching: for He taught them as having authority, and not as scribes (Matthew 7:29). This power is not an imperative tone, but the power of influence on souls and hearts. His Word went inside and subdued the human conscience, indicating that everything is exactly as He said. Such is always the word imbued with Divine power, the word from the Spirit. This was the case with the holy apostles, and after them with all influential teachers, who spoke not from learning, but from the way the Spirit gave them to proclaim. This is a gift of God, acquired by labors not only over the study of the truth, but more over the heart’s vital assimilation of it. Where this happens, the word penetrates with persuasiveness, because it passes from heart to heart; hence the power of the word over souls. Scribes who speak and write from learning are not given such power, because they speak from the head and pour their reasoning into the head. There is no life in the head, but only its tip. Life is in the heart, and only what comes from the heart can influence entire epochs of life. St. Bishop Theophan the Recluse (107, 271-272), (115, 455).
Proud and arrogant Jews, wishing to interrupt the conversation with the disciples, approached Him with the question: “By what authority do You do this?” (Matthew 21:23). Since the Jews could not humiliate His miracles, they blame Him for His action with the merchants in the temple. They asked the Evangelist John a similar question, although not in the same words, but with the same meaning: “By what sign will You prove to us that You have the authority to do this?” (John 2:18). And Christ answered them: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). And here He brings them into extreme difficulty. This shows that the incident described by John was at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, when He had just begun to work miracles, and that described by Matthew was at the end of His ministry. The meaning of the question of the Jews was this: have you received a teaching chair, have you been ordained a priest, that you exercise such authority? Although Christ did nothing that would show pride, but only established good order in the temple, yet, not having anything to say against Jesus, the Jews reproach Him for this. However, because of the miracles, they did not dare to reproach Him at the very time when He drove the merchants out of the temple, but they reproached Him only after they saw Him. What is Christ? He does not directly answer their question, showing by the fact that they could know about His authority if they wanted to, but He Himself asks them: “Was the baptism of John from heaven, or from men?” (Luke 20:4). But how is that relevant, you ask? Directly. If they had said, “from heaven,” He would have answered them, “Why did you not believe him?” (Luke 20:5). Because if they had believed John, they would not have asked about it, since John said about Him: With Him “I am not worthy to untie the strap of my shoes” (Luke 3:16). And again: “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). And also: “He who comes from above is also above all” (John 3:31). And again: “His shovel is in His hand, and He will clean His threshing floor” (Matthew 3:12). And if the Jews had believed John, it would not have been difficult for them to understand by what authority Christ does this. Since the Jews slyly answered Him: “We do not know” (Lk. 20:7), Christ did not say to them: “Neither do I know.” But what? “And I will not tell you by what authority I do these things” (Luke 20:8). If they really didn’t know, it would be necessary to teach them. But since they acted wickedly, and Christ rightly answered them nothing. Why didn’t the Jews say that the baptism of John was from the people? They were afraid of the people, it is said. Do you see the corrupted heart? God is neglected everywhere, but everything is done for people. For even John was feared for the people, respecting the holy man, not for his own sake, but for the people. For the people, they did not want to believe in Jesus Christ either. That’s where the source of all evil for them! Saint John Chrysostom (116, 371-372).
Power is a big cross
Any power for a Christian is not peace and honor, but a great cross, burdened with great and many labors, worries and constant patience, which no one wishes. For everyone must first make himself worthy of honor and expect God’s calling, by which the election of higher authorities is accomplished (104, 326-327).
Reason and a good conscience are necessary for a Christian leader. Without reason, the leader will, like a blind man, err; without a good conscience, he will ruin, and not build up society. Honor changes human disposition, but rarely for the better. Many would be saints if they were not honored. Think about it, Christian, and do not take on a burden greater than your strength. Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk <104, 1200).
Perhaps someone will say that the Apostle Paul did not blaspheme those who wished to be bishops, for he says: if anyone desires the bishopric, he desires a good deed (1 Tim. 3:1); therefore, the desire for episcopacy is not a shameful desire.
He who speaks thus, let him heed the last words of the apostle: “He desires a good deed.” “Deeds” wants, and not power, labor, not honor, worries, not saturation. The apostle praises the desire, for the rank of hierarch was established by the Lord on earth not for peace and pleasure, but so that the saint always bears the greatest labors, caring for the salvation of all … revered by all, but in order to unhypocritically and always be the image of Christ’s humility, to be a champion of the truth, without hesitation, regardless of persons, to always be ready to lay down one’s life for Christ and Christ’s Church. The apostle did not blaspheme those who desired episcopacy precisely because in those apostolic times martyrdom followed episcopacy. And few of the apostles and bishops died a natural death. But many died as martyrs. For the impious tormentors sought first of all the bishops and Christian teachers as leaders. And therefore, if anyone desired episcopacy, he also desired martyrdom, he desired dishonor, spitting, mutilation and wounds, and not proud exaltation and honors; therefore, in those days, he who desired episcopacy desired a good deed. Now, however, the one who seeks the episcopal rank must be afraid that, having taken upon himself the care of the salvation of others, he may not destroy his soul. Saint Demetrius of Rostov (103, 786-787).
Lust for power
Lust for power is a great evil in man and the beginning of all evil… We know that the lawless Herod was not afraid to kill so many thousands of innocent babies, just not to lose his royal power. Oh, great evil – lust for power! Man wants to control others, but he cannot control himself. Flee from this evil so as not to destroy yourself and others. We must first learn to control ourselves, and then take power over others (104, 327).
When you feel anger in your heart against the subordinate, beware of punishing in anger and in word and deed, but wait until the anger is tamed. Since in anger you will not be able to punish like a Christian, but you will do a lot of obscene and indecent things, Christian, which, although you will regret later, you will no longer return what has been done or said. Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk (104, 1201).
After the death of the hegumen-priest, the brethren of the monastery wished to elect one elder as hegumen, as a great and charitable man. The elder begged them to give it up. “Leave me, fathers, to mourn my sins. I am not at all the kind to take care of the souls of others. This is the work of great fathers like Abba Anthony, Pachomius, St. Theodore and others.” However, not a day passed without the brethren urging him to accept the abbess. The old man continued to refuse. Finally, seeing that the brethren were persistently asking him, he said: “Leave me to pray for three days. And whatever pleases God, I will do it.” It was Friday then, and on Sunday early in the morning the elder died. Spiritual meadow (75, 13).
Abba Orsisios said: “A damp brick laid in the foundation of a house, not far from the river, will not last even one day, but a burnt brick lies like a stone. So also a person who feeds carnal thoughts and is not imbued, like Joseph, with the fire of God’s fear, is crushed by power as soon as he receives it. For there are many temptations for such people if they live in society. And therefore, knowing the poverty of their strength, it is good to flee from the yoke of the authorities. However, those who are firm in the faith are unshakable. If someone would start talking about the most holy Joseph (Gen. 39), he would say that he was an unearthly person. What temptations he was!… But the God of the fathers was always with him and delivered him from every misfortune, and now he is in the Kingdom of Heaven with his fathers. And so let us begin the feat, having known in advance the measure of our strength: for even at the same time we can hardly escape the judgment of God. Memorable legends… (79, 182).
Archimandrite Zinon (Theodore) is the most famous icon painter of the Russian Orthodox Church and his works – murals, icons, miniatures are known throughout the Orthodox world. In 1992, he worked in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, and in 1993, he led the icon painting activities in the St. Danilov Monastery, related to the 1000th anniversary of the conversion of Russia. In 1995, he was awarded a state prize, thus becoming the first Orthodox painter to receive state recognition in Russia. Then he worked in Pskov, in the New Valaam Monastery, in the Sheveton Monastery in Belgium, in Vienna, in Batumi (Georgia) and in many other places. He writes the temple in the Moscow metro station “Semkhoz”, erected on the place where priest Alexander Men was killed.
In 1994, the Pskov Museum of Local Lore handed over the building of the ancient Spaso-Mirozhki Monastery to the Russian Church, with the condition that an icon-painting school be organized here under the leadership of archim. Zinon. Gradually, the small brotherhood rebuilt the monastery and the school began its activities. The fame of archim. Zinon attracts there icon painters not only from Russia, but also from abroad. In 1997, a group of Italian artists worked at the school, including Catholic priests. Archim. Zinon allowed the guests to celebrate a Catholic mass in one of the chapels of the monastery, which had not yet been consecrated, and at the end of the service he received communion from them. A little later, the case gained publicity and archim. Zenon was placed under interdiction (that is, he had no right to serve) by Pskov Metropolitan Eusebius, and two monks from his monastery were excommunicated. The banning of the famous icon painter caused a violent reaction in Russia – many admirers of his work spoke out in his defense. At that time, Father Zinon’s personality was already iconic in Russian society, and his influence on the theology of the icon considerable. The monastery was closed, the brotherhood dispersed, and some of his works in the Pskov temples and monasteries were destroyed. Archim. Zinon retired to a small village, right on the border with Estonia, where he continued to work actively. In February 2002, the Russian Patriarch Alexy II removed from him all disciplinary prohibitions, and above all the prohibition to work as a priest. In 2006, with the permission of the patriarch, he went to Vienna and worked in the diocese of Bishop Hilarion Alfeev, where he wrote the Nikolaev church until September of that year. At the moment archim. Zinon worked on Mount Athos, where, at the invitation of the Simonopetra monastery, he inscribed one of the monastery’s temples.
Besides icon painter, archim. Zinon is also known for his works in the field of the theology of the icon, and among his most famous books is the “Discourses of the Icon Painter”.
To understand the meaning of Orthodox icon veneration, it is good to see how each icon was born. Invaluable helpers in this endeavor are the lives of the saints. Today it is widely believed that the Church creates an icon of someone only after his canonization. In fact, the first official canonization in Byzantium took place only in the 14th century and it was about St. Gregory Palamas. He was declared a saint by Patriarch Philoteus Kokinos a few years after his death, and of course veneration for him was already a fact in Thessaloniki and the region. Which does not mean that the Church did not glorify saints before, nor that it did not inscribe them on icons. Until then, and for many centuries after, the only criterion for someone’s holiness was the unanimous veneration of the clergy and people, who testified with this unanimity to his orthodoxy and his pious life.
General information about the development of icon painting
Every saint has been subjected, at certain periods of his life, to persecution, challenge and denial, not only by secular authorities or open God-fighters (as perhaps we wish, to make it easier for us to find our way), but also by pious people, by ecclesiastical authority, and sometimes even by other saints.
After the death of the saint, whose sanctity was repeatedly demonstrated by miracles during his life and after his death, tropars for him appeared, included in the church service. The beginning of his ecclesiastical glorification are the so-called panagiri from Greek – great holidays dedicated to a deceased saint, which were annual and sometimes lasted a week… The more beloved the saint was, the more his images were on icons and murals.
There have been cases when a patriarch or other representative of the highest authority tried to ban someone’s veneration as a saint and, accordingly, to ban his icons, but they ended in failure. For example, in the 11th century, a senior official of the Patriarch of Constantinople tried to prohibit St. Simeon the New Theologian from organizing annual church celebrations in memory of his spiritual father, St. Simeon the Studite. The reason is that he considered St. Simeon the Studite to be a sinful man and not a saint. He managed to convince the patriarch and other senior church officials of this, and St. Simeon the New Theologian was subjected to persecution. Church holidays in memory of St. Simeon the Studite were banned, his icons and wall paintings were destroyed, and St. Simeon the New Theologian himself was exiled. They left him only the icon painted by himself, as a memory of his teacher, but deleted the word “saint” from it. After years of exile, when the prayerful reverence for St. Simeon the Studite did not decrease, but on the contrary, increased, St. Simeon the New Theologian was rehabilitated, and the church holidays in honor of his spiritual father were restored in Constantinople with even greater splendor than before .
Most icons were created spontaneously by grateful Christians during the saint’s lifetime or shortly thereafter. Here, for example, St. John Chrysostom, in his eulogy for Meletius, bishop of Antioch, delivered five years after his death, says that the believers in Antioch loved their bishop so much that they baptized their children with his name, Meletius. They invoked him in their prayers as an intercessor before God and thus removed every passion and sinful thought. His name was heard everywhere – in the market, in the square, in the field. But the Christians, continued St. John Chrysostom, loved not only his name, but also his holy body. Therefore they painted his image on the walls of their homes, stamped his face on rings, put his image in various places, so that they not only heard his name, but also comforted themselves with his image because of his sleep.
An example of a saint depicted during his lifetime is St. Simeon the Pillar, who lived in the 5th century in Syria. Theodoret of Kirsky, who wrote his Church History 15 years before the saint’s death (459), says that his fame was so great that people flocked to him from all over Christendom. And the artisans in Rome had hung small icons of him in front of the doors of their workshops to guard and protect them.
St. Simeon Novi lived in the 6th century again in Syria. He was known for his great miracles. Several instances of his depiction of icons are described in his biography. A woman named Theotecna separated from her husband and visited the saint to share her problem with him. Through his prayers, the couple got together again and had a child, which they brought to the saint for a blessing. When she returned home, she hung an icon of the saint in the inner rooms of her home. The biographer does not say whether she commissioned it to be painted or bought it ready-made somewhere. This icon was miraculous and through it many possessed and sick people were healed. Another case from the same life is that of a craftsman from Antioch who suffered for many years from demonic worries. Through the prayers of the saint, he was healed and out of gratitude hung his icon in a prominent place in the agora and above the door of his workshop. However, the saint was not loved in the city, because he had recently denounced its inhabitants for idolatry – therefore a commotion arose and many wanted to destroy his icon. Without explaining the details, the biographer says that the crowd dispersed after “a believing woman, a harlot, who at that hour was filled with the Holy Spirit” denounced them in a loud voice for their impiety and idolatry.
Saint Theodore of Syceot, bishop of Anastasiopolis, died in the early 7th century. Monks from his monastery, together with the abbot, decided to secretly paint his image on an icon in order to have it in their monastery as a memory and blessing. For this purpose, they called an artist, who observed and iconographed the saint through an opening. Before he left, the monks showed Saint Theodore his image. He joked if this was the most valuable thing they found to steal, smiled and blessed the icon.
And so behind the creation of each icon there was a personal story, a personal contact with a certain saint, whose sanctity was witnessed by the love and trust of the people… A woman receives help from a saint and because it is unlikely that she will ever be able to go to him again , orders his image to be painted to take to his home. Somehow, naturally, the prayer contact continued in the home and the believer did not even think that he was praying to the image, and not to the saint, the living memory of which he keeps in his memory… Naturally, everything can be profaned. This also happens with icons – in the later centuries, on the eve of the iconoclastic crisis, many believers began to look at them as amulets, having their power in themselves. The sense of a personal prayerful relationship in love with the depicted person is lost and replaced by a sense of awe at the supernatural powers of the icon as an object. The love between two persons – the person praying and the saint – is replaced by a consumer attitude towards the icon, from which the believer seeks some benefit that he could not naturally receive. This attitude gave birth to various non-Orthodox practices in spirit and, along with other political and cultural reasons, gave rise to the outbreak of iconoclasm disputes.
Immediately after Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit created the Church, a rapid development of the Christian communities began – the Gospel spread, worship developed, theology was clarified, asceticism was revealed as the main way of Christian existence, the administrative structure of the Church unfolded, etc. All this development finds embodiment and expression in Christian architecture. During the first three centuries – until the edicts of Galerius in Serdica (Sofia, 311) and Constantine the Great in Mediolanum (Milan, 313) – Christians were persecuted by the imperial authorities, and no traces of temple construction have been preserved from this period. It is a generally accepted opinion that during these nearly three hundred years the worship took place in private homes,[1] where house churches (domus ecclesiae) were organized, and from the 2nd century the catacombs were also used for such. However, the reports of various authors from this era, testifying to the construction of Christian temples, which during the persecutions were either destroyed or handed over to the local authorities, who used them according to their needs, should not remain without attention.
One of the earliest testimonies to the construction or rather the remodeling of a private home into a Christian temple is given by St. Clement of Rome († 101), probably the first bishop of today’s Sofia.[2] He tells us about a noble Christian from Antioch, named Theophilus, who “sanctified as a church the huge basilica of his home” (ut domus suae ingentem basilicam ecclesiae nomine consecraret) and handed it over to the local ecclesiastical community. The construction of a Christian temple is also mentioned in the time of imp. Commodus († 192). Imp. Septimius Severus († 211), who is known in history for his religious tolerance, personally defended in court the right of Christians to build their temple on purchased, probably public, land. Tertullian († 230) and St. Gregory of Neocaesaria († 270) testify to Christian temples, and the archaeological excavations of the last century and continuing to this day, revealed in Dura – Europe (an ancient city on the banks of the Euphrates , located on the road connecting Damascus with Mesopotamia, now in Syria) a synagogue and a house church with a baptistery, dating from the second quarter of the 3rd century. The house church has interesting frescoes with scenes from the Old and New Testaments, created in the period 232-256.
A similar Christian temple appeared in the 3rd century and in Rome, created from converted private homes; its remains are located in the area of the modern temple of San Martino di Monti. Similar temples, also dated to the 3rd century, exist in Rome and under the foundations of later churches dedicated to St. Clement and St. Anastasia. The basilica-type temple in Eilat (southern Israel), built around 300 AD, was specially built for the needs of Christians. That in the 3rd century Christian temples already existed as special buildings is also evidenced by St. Gregory of Nyssa and especially the father of church history, Eusebius of Caesarea. About the time before and the first years of Diocletian, he writes that the Christians “in all the cities began to build extensive churches from their foundations” (εὐρείας εἰς πληρου ἀνὰ πάσας τὰς πόλεις ἐκ θεμελίων ἀνίστων ἐκκλησίας).
Apparently, this mass construction of Christian temples began to annoy and frighten, and imp. Diocletian issued a special edict against them. The great Christian apologist Lactantius (d. 325) describes the destruction of a Christian temple at the time of Diocletian (d. 305) and Galerius (d. 311). Probably this happened in 302, when the imp. Diocletian issued an order to completely destroy all Christian temples wherever they were located in the empire. The description probably refers to the destruction of the Nicomedia Cathedral Church, in which 20,000 Christians, martyrs for the faith, were burned alive on the feast of the Nativity of Christ. Even if the number is exaggerated, this account certainly attests to the existence of a temple of great size. The temples which for one reason or another survived were handed over to the pagans.
The real flowering of Christian architecture began in the 4th century, with the edict of Constantine the Great in 313. The long-pent up creative energy of Christianity was unleashed in full force. The vast number of Christians who can now profess their faith freely and publicly need their houses of prayer, where they can thank their God undisturbed. In this first free period for the Church, the most suitable building in which the faithful can gather is the basilica. The advantages over the other types of temples that began to appear in parallel with it or at a slightly later stage, when the initial need for temples to accommodate the huge number of believers was satisfied, are indisputable. First of all, its architecture was not commonly associated with that of pagan temples, something that was of great importance to the early Christian community. The basilica has a simple construction, representing a rectangle and less often a square: four walls, with the possibility, depending on the space they surround, of placing several rows of columns to divide the temple into several “naves” (nave)[3 ] in length, a gabled roof with timber construction,[4] which is also quick and easy to implement.
The interior space is maximally simplified, with the possibility of gathering a large number of people – something that is impossible with other types of temples that appeared later with more complex construction, which bet much more on the impact of the believers’ perceptions. The maintenance of the basilica type of temple is also much easier and cheaper compared to temples of more complex construction. Therefore, the most widespread type of temple in the early Christian period turns out to be the basilica, and, as we have already said, parallel to it, temples with a more complex structure appeared, the construction of which was conditioned by various reasons.[5] Such can be the significance of the place and the event with which it is connected – from the life of Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the apostles and prophets, the lobular place of a martyr, etc.
In addition to these advantages, we must note that the basilica fully meets the requirements for a Christian temple in the Apostolic Decrees (composed ca. 380, but reflecting postulates, many of which can be traced back to the time of the apostles). According to these requirements, the temple building must be rectangular and oblong, and remind the shape of Noah’s ark, i.e. a ship.
From a royal house to a temple of the “common work” of ἐκκλησία
The basilica (from Greek: βασίλειον, βασιλική – royal house; Latin basilica – royal palace, palace) is not a discovery of Christian architectural thought. It was borrowed and adapted to the needs of the Church from the Hellenistic and Roman periods.[6] As a dwelling, it appeared in the late Neolithic era, which corresponds to the earliest period of the history of Hellas. The collision of the Achaeans (the ancestors of the Greeks) who invaded the territory of present-day Greece with the inhabitants and culture of the island of Crete (approx. 1500 BC) led to a strong influence of the Minoan civilization on all spheres of the Achaeans’ life. including in the field of architecture. Thanks to this influence, the Achaeans learned to build, like the Cretans, royal palaces. The basis of the special type of architecture of the basilica is the so-called megaron – large hall (μέγα – large and ρον – hall). The megaron was a rectangular room, which was divided internally, by means of columns or massive pillars, as a rule, into three parts. It had no windows and the light entered it through the doors.
The works of the great ancient Greek poet Homer contain a detailed description of the house of Basileus, the most numerous being in the Odyssey. Homer informs us that the life of the ruler was very ordinary. According to Homer, the famous ancient Greek hero Odysseus personally participated in the construction and especially in the furnishing of the royal house. The main emphasis in this construction is given to the strengthening and protection against external enemies of the building:
Sigur, Eumeea, this is the wonderful home of Odysseus.
It is easily recognized even among many buildings.
Hall o hall rests, the toothed wall skillfully protects the courtyard,
the double-winged gate is securely locked.
No one would even think of breaking it with violence.
[7]
In the Odyssey, Homer also gives a description of some details of the royal house, such as the presence of columns, thresholds, etc. The house of Basileus was divided into three parts: the prodrome (προδρομος), the megaron (μέγαρον) and the domos (δόμος).
The prodrome, lit. “in front of the house” was an inner courtyard around which guest rooms were located. Here were also rooms for a bath, a mill, warehouses, etc. In the middle of the courtyard was an altar to the ancient Greek god Zeus.
The megaron was an elongated rectangular hall with an entrance located at the end of the building. This is the main or “men’s” hall with two rows of wooden columns that divided the interior space into three parts and also served to support the high ceiling. In the center of the hall was a hearth around which the men gathered for feasts and entertainment. From here it was possible to enter the third part of the home – the female part. According to Homer, Penelope spent most of her time here.
With time and the complication of state administration, the basilica became a public one from a private home. The first archons-vasilevsi rule independently. With the development of the policy and the increase in the volume of administrative cases, they began to need assistants. Thus, in Athens, for example, the college of nine archons appeared, ruling the city for a year. Subsequently, they became members of the council of elders – Areopagites (from Ἄρειος Πάγος – literally hill of Ares). This complication of the administrative apparatus of the polis transformed the basilica from a private home into a building used exclusively as the workplace of the archons.
With the changes in the state administration and with the complicated “bureaucracy”, changes also occur in construction. Depending on the number of columns used, temple construction is divided into several types:
– pardon – presence of four columns in front of the main entrance;
– amphiprostyle – presence of columns supporting a portico in front of the main entrance and on the opposite side of the temple;
– peripter – the temple premises are surrounded by columns on all four sides.
During the time of Pericles, the building of the “Basilica Stoa” was built in Athens. This term, stoa, indicates the presence of columns as a mandatory element of the building. The purpose of the “Basilica Stoa” in Athens was to be a place for judicial sessions – a city court. Until it was built, the archons conducted court cases in the square (ἀγορά), which is why the new building acquired the rectangular shape resembling the agora. To be able to perform his duties, the archon needs a special official place, which appears in the “basilica stoa”, and which is a semicircular niche called an apse.[8] Similar buildings appeared elsewhere in Hellas, in Sparta, in Piraeus, etc. The column system itself also underwent development. They begin to be made of marble, and depending on the shape and ornamentation (mostly on the capital[9] of the column, but also depending on whether the body of the column has a base or not) we distinguish: Doric, Ionic and Corinthian style columns.
The development of trade and especially the expansion of Rome lead to interaction of the Roman Empire with other cultures of the peoples it conquered or with which it had trade relations. According to the famous Roman historian Titus Livius, author of Ab Urbe Condita (“From the Foundation of the City” – a history of the foundation and development of Rome), the influence of other cultures, especially Greek on Roman, began with censorship[10] of Marcus Porcius Cato the Elder (234-149 BC). Cato was a man who had gained enormous experience and impressions from the time when he led the Roman army in Spain, Greece, Carthage. He used this experience to decorate Rome. New construction begins on the Roman Forum with large and beautiful buildings borrowing architectural elements from different cultures. By his order in 184 BC. the first basilica was built in Rome, the construction of which met with serious resistance from the local municipality, since its construction was carried out with public funds, and a number of pavilions and shops were destroyed to clear the ground. It received the name “Basilica of Portia”. After its construction, the basilica in Rome combined judicial, political and commercial functions. Five years after it, a second basilica appeared, named in honor of its builders Fulvius Nobilior and Aemilius Lepidus. Not long after, a third basilica appeared in Rome – Sempronius. It suffered a number of destructions and fires, but was always rebuilt, with its last restoration dated to 377 AD.
A new stage in the construction of basilicas and in general the flowering of architecture in Rome occurred with the reign of Octavian Augustus. According to Suetonius, the face of the imperial capital did not match its grandeur.[11] Rome continued to suffer from floods and fires. To minimize these dangers, Augustus began a massive construction project. Again, in the words of Suetonius, “he took the city in brick and left it in marble”. The author of the famous work on the theory of architecture (De architectura libri decem – “Ten books on architecture”) Marcus Vitruvius Pollio also wrote about the construction of Augustus.[12] In Chapter 1 of Book 5 he gives specific instructions as to where and how the basilica is to be built. Vitruvius draws attention to another important fact, namely that the Romans did not blindly copy the architectural forms from Greece and other countries, but put into them a new, creative content and execution, according to the needs and traditions of Rome.
During the time of imp. Trajan, in AD 112. the grandest Roman forum was built, nearly twice the size of Caesar’s. The central place there is occupied by the Basilica of Ulpia, which is one of the largest to this day, measuring 120 m. long and 60 m. wide. The roof is lined with copper or bronze. There are two apses, and the interior space was divided by four rows of columns.
According to the Russian researcher Voloshinov, from the end of the 2nd century AD. by 476 (the end of the imperial period) between 22 and 29 basilicas were built as public buildings in Rome.[13] Subsequently, some of them were converted into Christian temples.[14] As the most notable in terms of architecture, decoration and size among them, we can point to the basilica of Maxentius and Constantine the Great – the famous Basilica di Massenzio, Basilica Nova.[15]
In addition to the enormous basilicas, built with funds from the state treasury, a number of private ones were also built – in different parts of the empire, which also amaze with their size and architectural appearance. Of the private ones, it is worth mentioning the great basilica in Antioch, belonging to the noble man Theophilus, the basilica in the palace of Alexander Severus, the Sicilian basilica, the Alexandrian basilica, Graziana, Theodosia, etc.[16] This indicates that in the last period of the history of Ancient Rome, the basilica as an architectural type, after passing from the East to Rome, left its borders and spread throughout the vast territory of the empire.
Thus, as a summary of the development of the basilica in Ancient Greece and Rome, we can say that the original “dwelling of the basileus” was transformed into the “basilica of the stoa” and from a private home into a building with public functions. Transferred from Greece to Rome, as a public building, it received its completion.
The New Language of the Christian Basilica
The Edict of Milan of 313 placed Christianity on an equal footing with other cults. It quickly managed to displace them and become a leading, basic confession. We have already said that the most practical, convenient, functional and relatively quick to build is the temple with a basilica plan. Last but not least, the basilica is relatively religiously neutral, i.e. pagan churches of the basilica type are few.[17] In it, of course, Christians bring new elements, understanding, functionality and meaning, conditioned by the needs of worship and Christian symbolism.[18] Every part of it and the building itself acquire a new semiotics. Moreover, in light of the debates that continue today as to the continuity between the basilica of the pagan period and the Christian basilica, or whether the Christian basilica is an entirely new architectural type, perhaps the only indisputable fact is that Christianity borrowed the name of the Roman civil edifice basilica to denote of his worship building.[19] The basilica became the name of the Christian temple, while the temple (templum) became the term with which Christians denoted pagan cult buildings, with the only exception being that the Jerusalem temple was also called that.[20] The word basilica appears in the earliest Christian texts in Latin, such as the 1st-century Lists of the Roman Popes, where Christian buildings of worship are called basilica or ἐκκλησία.[21]
Oriented along its longitudinal axis, the basilica with its elongated shape fully meets the Christian requirement and idea of the temple as a ship of salvation – the path from the entrance to the altar apse is perceived precisely as a path to salvation, as a passage from the earthly to the heavenly, from the created to the uncreated. The external form of the basilica reminds and personifies the mountain. And some of the most important biblical events are connected with the mountain: Moses receives the commandments at Sinai; Noah’s Ark rests on a mountain; The life of Christ is connected with the Mount of Olives; Christ is transfigured on Tabor; he was crucified on the mountain (hill) Golgotha, etc. In Christianity, the mountain acquires a symbolic meaning as a place of divine revelation and deliverance, of faith, of sacrifice and of salvation.
The interior of the basilica is also undergoing changes and receiving a new semantic load. On the eastern side of the basilica appears the apse, whose architectural semicircular shape with the altar located in it symbolizes the cave in which Christ was born and the cave (rock tomb) in which he was buried. The beginning of the new life, of the new Adam, Who with His death defeated death.
With the beginning of permitted Christianity, the great temple building began – in Rome, Constantinople, the Holy Land, etc., associated with Constantine the Great and his mother, Empress Helena. Among the earliest examples of such construction is San Giovanni in Laterno in Rome – a five-nave, single-apsed, highly elongated basilica built in 313-318. Another church from this period is the first dedicated to St. Peter the Apostle in Rome – also five-nave basilica, in the middle of which is the tomb of the apostle: the compositional center of the temple. It was built in the period 320-330.
Often the dimensions of the Christian basilica rival and even surpass those of the pagan. The orientation of the early Christian basilica is often arbitrary, some of the mandatory elements of today are not always present. In many of the earliest examples the apse is oriented not to the east but to the west. Such are the churches of St. Ap. Peter’s, San Giovanni in Laterno, Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, as well as that of the Holy Sepulchre. The Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem (ca. 330) has an octagonal building attached instead of an apse. The basilica in Aquileia has no apse at all.
During these first years of mass construction of Christian temples, the model imposed by the imperial family was imposed, which was the guarantor and founder of many of the most famous and significant religious buildings even today. With its simplicity, functionality and relatively quick and easy construction, the basilica became a major early Christian architectural type. The main elements of its internal division from this period are: a nave or nave, at the end of which the altar part or presbytery is formed, located on a specially raised part called solei.[22] These include the appearance of the atrium,[23] the narthex and the exonarthex[24] to the opposite part of the apse.
In conclusion, we can give the following definition: a basilica is a Christian temple with a rectangular shape, the nave of which is divided longitudinally by columns into three, five or more parts (naves), with the central one being higher. This central (middle) nave is the widest. It is raised at a height above the roofs of the side aisles, and from the windows located there, the whole temple is illuminated. The entrance is on the opposite side of the altar apse. In front of the basilica there is a closed space – a courtyard, an exonarthex. Over time, many parts of the basilica underwent development, new elements were added, corresponding to the liturgical development of the service. Transepts appeared, [25] allowing better organization of the interior space. Over time, the architectural plan of the basilica was constantly refined and complicated. Twelve main compositions or the plan of the basilica appear. Among them we can point out the cruciform one, the one with an external atrium, the one with an additional narthex, etc. The basilica was the main architectural type in temple construction in the 4th-6th century. After the collapse of the empire in the West (476), the construction of large, exquisitely shaped basilicas ceased. In the East, from the middle of the 6th century, the basilica was also gradually displaced by the domed temples. Regardless of the emergence of other types of Christian churches, however, basilica churches continue to be built to this day.
Notes:
[1] The first Christian temple, on which all the others step like a cornerstone, is the Mount of Zion, where the Lord Jesus Christ himself performed the sacrament of the Eucharist together with the apostles.
[2] Karavalchev, V. “St. Clement, Pope of Rome – first bishop of Serdica” – In: Christianity and Culture, 10 (67), 2011, pp. 116-127.
[3] A nave (from French nef; Latin navis – ship) is a room bounded on one or both of its long sides by a row of columns or pillars, separating it from the neighboring rooms. An early Christian temple may have 3 or 5 naves (usually an odd number), with the central nave usually wider and higher.
[4] We should note that in the early, pagan period, the basilica had a mostly flat roof.
[5] Janson, W. Janson’s History of Art: The Western tradition, Upper Saddle River 82011, p. 246-247.
[6] Tomlinson, R. From Mycenae to Constantinople: The Evolution of the Ancient City, London 1992. There are various theories today about the origin of the basilica in antiquity, which became the prototype of the Christian basilica. There are theories that its homeland is not Ancient Greece, but Egypt, Mesopotamia, Ethiopia, etc. Many see the prototype of the Christian basilica in the Jerusalem Temple – a statement that even today can neither be categorically confirmed nor rejected. More on this in: Swift, E. Roman sources of Christian Architecture, New York 1951; Ciampini, J. Vetera monumenta, 1, Roma 1690, p. 22.
[7] Homer, Odyssey, Song 17:265, trans. G. Batakliev – here.
[8] The apse – in some editions it is also found as apsida, from the Greek word ἀψίδα representing a vault, arc, semicircle, Latin absis. In architecture, this is expressed in the form of a convexity of a building with a semicircular, oval or rectangular shape, with a half-dome covered by a conch or a lowered half-vault. Ancient Roman basilicas, baths and temples were built with apses for the first time. An Orthodox church usually has one or several, always an odd number of apses. In the eastern part of the temple is the altar apse – on the opposite side of the main entrance of the Christian temple – and it houses the altar, the holy throne.
[9] Capital – the upper extended part of the column.
[10] Censor – according to Plutarch was the highest honorary position attainable in the state – in this case, Rome.
[11] Suetonius, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars (De vita XII caesarum). Translated into Bulgarian: Guy Suetonius Tranquille, The Twelve Caesars, Sofia: “Riva” 2016.
[12] Vitruvius, The ten books on architecture, trans. M. Morgan, Cambridge 1914.
[13] Voloshinov, A. Mathematics and art, M. 1992, p. 90.
[14] The conversion of pagan temples and public buildings into Christian ones in the first years after the edict of 313 is an interesting phenomenon, which, although not so frequent, was dictated by the great need for places of worship in the first years of the free practice of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Imp. Theodosius II the Younger (401-450), for example, issued a law to purify all pagan temples by placing the sign of the cross, i.e. a sign that they were being converted into Christian temples. Beda the Venerable says that St. Gregory the Great ordered the monk Augustine not to destroy the well-built shrines of the Saxons, but to rebuild them into places of true worship. At imp. Phocas, the pagan sanctuary in Rome called the Pantheon, “temple of all the gods”, was converted into the temple of All Saints. A large number of studies have been published on the matter, including: Pagoulatos, G. “Destruction and conversion of ancient temples to Christian churches during fourth, fifth and sixth centuries” – In: Θεολογία, τ. ΞΕ‘, τευχ. 1, σ. 152-169; Bayliss, R. “From temple to Church: Converting paganism to Christianity in Late Antiquity” – Minerva, September-October, 2005, p. 16-18; From Temple To Church: Destruction And Renewal Of Local Cultic Topography In Late Antiquity (Religions In The Graeco-Roman World), ed. J. Hahn, S. Emmel, U. Gotter, Leiden–Boston, 2008; The Archeology of Late Antique ‘Paganism’, ed. L. Lavan, M. Mulryan, Leiden–Boston 2011.
[15] Giavarini, C. The Basilica of Maxentius: The Monument, its Materials, Construction, and Stability, Roma 2005.
[16] See, for example: Pokrovskii, N.V. Ocherki pamjatkov khristianskogo iskusstva, St. Petersburg. 2000, p. 335.
[17] An opposing opinion was expressed in the 15th century by Leon Battista Alberti, the first researcher who defined the basilica as a separate type of building. He is the author of the work: De re aedificatoria libri decem – “Ten books about construction”. According to him, in the pagan period the basilica had a religious purpose and was one of the centers of the pagan cult. This opinion is not supported by modern researchers. About Alberti see more in: Zubov, V. Architectural theory Alberti, St. Petersburg. 2001.
[18] Worthy of attention is the study of one of the first and most prominent connoisseurs and researchers of the basilica, Adolf Zestermann (Zestermann, A. Die antiken und die christlichen Basiliken, nach ihrer Entstehung, Ausbildung und Beziehung zu einander dargestellt, Leipzig 1847), who , comparing the Roman and Christian basilicas, comes to the conclusion that the Christian has no connection with the Roman and is something completely original. This notion is also supported by other researchers.
[19] And here is another theory: that “basilica” became a designation for the Christian temple, coming not from its Greek and Latin equivalent, but from the Hebrew hekhal, meaning home, palace, abode of the king, and together with that, temple, abode of the deity. However, this theory uses as its source a text from the Middle Ages – “Etymology” of Isidore of Seville from the 7th century, which is why it does not stand up to criticism. See: Wilkinson, J. From Synagogue to Church. The Traditional Design. Its Beginning, Its Definition, Its End. London – New York 2002, p. 6.
[20] See: Mohrmann, C. Études sur le latin des chrétiens, 1 Roma, 1961, p. 62.
[21] Regesta pontificum romanorum ab condita Ecclesia ad annum post Christus natus, ed. P. Jaffé, 1, Lipsiae 1881.
[22] The sole is a raised place from the floor of the naos, located in front of the iconostasis in the Orthodox church. In a later period, there were the thrones of the kings and prefects. In the West, the soleum is called the senatorium, because that is where the senators sit. Today, in some temples, the chancel is surrounded by a railing and contains the singers and the bishop’s throne. The central part of the solea is the pulpit, and the side ones are the kliros. Even today, there is a dispute as to whether the sole begins from the altar partition – the iconostasis, or from the altar itself. The second opinion is more common, with the main argument being that the altar is at the same height as the saltire.
[23] Atrium – a colonnaded courtyard in a Hellenistic or Roman house. In the early Christian temple, this was a courtyard in the western part of the temple complex.
[24] Narthex – also known as the vestibule of the temple – the entrance to the Orthodox temple, vestibule; one of the three main parts of the temple today: narthex, naos (central part) and altar. Some smaller public prayers and sacraments are usually performed there: betrothal, ninth hour, liturgy, cleansing prayers… In ancient times, there was usually a baptistery here as well. The announced and the penitents stand in the porch. The vestibule can be a closed room or an open gallery – a portico, located only to the west or both to the north and to the south. In the presence of a closed and open porch, the second is called external – exonarthex.
[25] Transept (transeptum) – an additional nave, a nave located perpendicular to the central nave of the temple.
Photo: 19th century reconstruction of the 2nd century AD Basilica Ulpia, part of the Trajan’s Forum, Rome / Public Domain
People often misinterpret their own perceptions of people and situations as objective fact, rather than solely their own interpretation.
UCLA psychologist Matthew Lieberman explains why people might see things differently.
Why are we so certain that the way we view people, circumstances, and politics is correct and that the way others see them is erroneous?
According to a recent study by the University of California, Los Angeles psychology professor Matthew Lieberman, the answer resides in a part of the brain he calls the “gestalt cortex,” which helps humans make sense of ambiguous or incomplete information — and dismiss alternative interpretations.
The study, which was based on an analysis of over 400 prior studies, was published in the journal Psychological Review.
People often mistake their own perceptions of other individuals and events for an objective fact as opposed to only being their own interpretation. People who experience this “naive realism” phenomenon think they should have the final word on the world around them.
“We tend to have irrational confidence in our own experiences of the world, and to see others as misinformed, lazy, unreasonable or biased when they fail to see the world the way we do,” Lieberman said. “The evidence from neural data is clear that the gestalt cortex is central to how we construct our version of reality.”
The gestalt cortex is located behind the ear, between the parts of the brain responsible for processing vision, sound and touch. Credit: Matthew Lieberman/UCLA Psychology
He believes that the most overlooked cause of conflict and mistrust between people and organizations is naive realism.
“When others see the world differently than we do, it can serve as an existential threat to our own contact with reality and often leads to anger and suspicion about the others,” Lieberman said. “If we know how a person is seeing the world, their subsequent reactions are much more predictable.”
While the question of how people make sense of the world has been an enduring topic in social psychology, the underlying brain mechanisms have never been fully explained, Lieberman said.
Mental acts that are coherent, effortless, and based on our experiences tend to occur in the gestalt cortex. For example, a person might see someone else smiling and without giving it any apparent thought, perceive that the other person is happy. Because those inferences are immediate and effortless, they typically feel more like “seeing reality” — even though happiness is an internal psychological state — than they do like “thinking,” Lieberman said.
“We believe we have merely witnessed things as they are, which makes it more difficult to appreciate, or even consider, other perspectives,” he said. “The mind accentuates its best answer and discards the rival solutions. The mind may initially process the world like a democracy where every alternative interpretation gets a vote, but it quickly ends up like an authoritarian regime where one interpretation rules with an iron fist and dissent is crushed. In selecting one interpretation, the gestalt cortex literally inhibits others.”
Previous research by Lieberman has shown that when people disagree face to face — for example on a political issue — activity in their gestalt cortices is less similar than it is for people who agree with one another. (That conclusion was supported by a 2018 study in the journal
The gestalt cortex is located behind the ear, and it is situated between the parts of the brain responsible for processing vision, sound and touch; those parts are connected by a structure called the temporoparietal junction, which is part of the gestalt cortex. In the new study, Lieberman proposes that the temporoparietal junction is central to conscious experience and that it helps organize and integrate psychological features of situations that people see so they can make sense of them effortlessly.
The gestalt cortex isn’t the only area of the brain that enables people to quickly process and interpret what they see, he said, but it is an especially important one.
Using neurosurgical recordings to understand the “social brain”
In a separate study, published in April in the journal Nature Communications, Lieberman and colleagues addressed how, given our complex social worlds, we are able to socialize with relative ease.
Using the first mass-scale neurosurgical recordings of the “social brain,” Lieberman, UCLA psychology graduate student Kevin Tan and colleagues at Stanford University showed that humans have a specialized neural pathway for social thinking.
Lieberman, author of the bestselling book “Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect,” said humans are social by nature and have an exceptional capacity for assessing the mental states of others. That ability requires the brain to process a large number of inferences from a vast array of idiosyncratic cues. So why does that process often feel so effortless compared to simple tasks like basic arithmetic?
Clear answers have been elusive for those who study social neuroscience. One culprit could be scientists’ reliance on functional magnetic resonance imaging, which is effective at scanning where brain activity occurs, but less effective at capturing the timing of that activity.
Researchers employed a technique called electrocorticography to record brain activity at millisecond and millimeter scales using thousands of neurosurgical electrodes. They found that a neurocognitive pathway that extends from the back to the front of the brain is especially active in areas closer to the front when people think about the mental states of others.
Their findings suggest that the temporoparietal junction may create a fast, effortless understanding of other people’s mental states, and that another region, the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, may be more involved in thinking things through more slowly and carefully.
References: “Seeing minds, matter, and meaning: The CEEing model of pre-reflective subjective construal” by Matthew D. Lieberman, July 2022, Psychological Review. DOI: 10.1037/rev0000362
“Similar neural responses predict friendship” by Carolyn Parkinson, Adam M. Kleinbaum and Thalia Wheatley, 30 January 2018, Nature Communications. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02722-7
“Electrocorticographic evidence of a common neurocognitive sequence for mentalizing about the self and others” by Kevin M. Tan, Amy L. Daitch, Pedro Pinheiro-Chagas, Kieran C. R. Fox, Josef Parvizi and Matthew D. Lieberman, 8 April 2022, Nature Communications. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-29510-2
It didn’t involve any killer clowns, haunted hotels, or avenging, telekinetic high schoolers, but this summer, author Stephen King began telling a new scary story: the precarious state of the US book industry in 2022.
The author, who has written numerous horror bestsellers since the 1970s like The Shining and Carrie, testfied this month on behalf of the Biden administration in the Department of Justice’s effort to stop the proposed $2.2bn merger of Penguin Random House, America’s largest publisher, and Simon & Schuster, another of the “Big Five” companies that dominate the US book industry.
In November of last year, the federal government sued to stop the deal, arguing the tie-up would give the companies “unprecedented control” over who gets their voices heard in American cultural life, a development that “would result in substantial harm to authors”.
Over the course of three weeks of arguments this August, the trial dug down into the opaque world of big-money author advances and industry consolidation, exposing deep disagreements about how the deal would impact the book business, and by consequence, what the future of America’s literary culture looked like for writers and readers alike. The unprecedented case has been dubbed the publishing trial of the century.
For his part, Mr King, one of the most successful and well-paid writers of his generation, was willing to testify against his own regular publisher, Scribner, part of Simon & Schuster, to argue against more consolidation in the book industry.
“My name is Stephen King. I’m a freelance writer,” he began cheekily, before railing against market conditions that have pushed many writers “below the poverty line”.
“I came because I think that consolidation is bad for competition,” he testified. “It becomes tougher and tougher for writers to find money to live on.”
“It’s a tough world out there now. That’s why I came,” he added. “There comes a point where, if you are fortunate, you can stop following your bank account and start following your heart.”
The clash with Mr King is one of many twists in the trial, which wrapped closing arguments on Friday (19 August).
Though the case hinges on technical issues like the dynamics of author contracts, the definition of monopoly power, and the merits of various supply chain arrangements, everyone in the book world is watching for when a decision comes down this fall.
Readers might want to pay attention, too. The case not only impacts how people consume books, and at what price. Like any good story, this one also has plenty of drama and gossip to go around.
“This is a huge deal,” Michael Cader, founder of the Publishers Lunch newsletter, told The Independent. “The trial was probably attended by a few dozen people, but was riveting to the entire industry. Both the potential consequences of the deal itself as well as simply the theatre of having peers and people in your industry on the stand discussing business details in granular fashion for three weeks was pretty compelling for a lot of people.”
The main argument in the case revolved around the big whales of the publishing industry, books where authors earned more than $250,000 on their advances for titles expected to top bestseller lists.
The DOJ claimed that a potential Penguin Random House – Simon & Schuster juggernaut would control half the market of such blockbuster books in the US.
“They are the only firms with the capital, reputations, editorial capacity, marketing, publicity, sales, and distribution resources to regularly acquire anticipated top-selling books,” DOJ lawyers said in a court filing.
The merger hopefuls, meanwhile, told the court in Washington, DC, that readers and writers had nothing to fear if the government allowed the Big Five to become the Big Four.
“It’s a good deal for all involved, including authors,” Stephen Fishbein, an attorney for Simon & Schuster, said in his closing statement.
Top leaders at Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster said the book market was far more expansive and competitive than the slice the government was choosing to focus on, which covers about 1,200 books a year, or two per cent of the US commercial market, the companies argued in a pretrial brief.
Overall, in 2021, about half of the books sold in the US came from publishers outside the Big Five, Penguin Random House CEO Markus Dohle testified. The company also noted it had actually lost market share since the 2013 merger between Penguin and Random House.
More than that, the companies argued the process of acquiring books was a mix of expertise and gambling, where even publishing giants can’t guarantee a big-money purchase will translate to big sales and massive cultural reach, or predict when an upstart author’s book will become a breakout hit.
“These are not widgets we’re producing,” Madeline McIntosh, chief executive of Penguin Random House, said in testimony. “The evaluation is a highly subjective process.”
Claiming to predict a book’s bestselling future was like “taking credit for the weather,” added Simon & Schuster CEO Jonathan Karp.
This unpredictable process would remain de-centralised even after the merger, the companies went on, because Simon & Schuster and Penguin Random House editors would still be allowed to bid against each other for future titles.
Even to a fantasy author, however, this premise struck Stephen King as a bit out-there.
“You might as well say you are going to have a husband and wife bidding against each other for a house,” the writer testified. “It’s a little bit ridiculous.”
Amy Thomas, owner of Pegasus Books, which has stores in Solano, Berkeley, and Oakland, California, said the consolidation might also cancel out who gets published in the first place, leading to a potential diminishment in which new and important voices get heard.
The most important books aren’t necessarily ones that start out as instant profit-makers, but mergers often invite searches for quick places to cut costs. What’s more, she said, salespeople representing the massive combined catalogues of a merged Simon & Schuster and Penguin Random House might not have the time to champion all of their titles the way a smaller publishing house would.
“Things will get dropped. Lines will get dropped. There’s just too much,” she told The Independent. “There’s a lot of books. Not all of them work. And a lot of them are worth it anyway.”
Bigger companies may also have less incentive or ability to offer booksellers good terms, given the gargantuan scale of the proposed company’s operations.
Beyond the more technical questions about how a Simon & Schuster – Penguin Random House deal would affect author payouts and bookstores, there was also the slightly dishier matter of which authors got paid the big bucks and why.
On this question, the trial became a kind of literary Page Six, with mentions of Big Five publisher Hachette’s list of “the ones that got away”, and reported seven-figure paychecks for figures like actor Jamie Foxx and New Yorker magazine writer Jiayang Fan.
The publisher of Simon & Schuster imprint Gallery even testified that they paid “millions” for a book by comedian Amy Schumer, even though sales estimates suggested the book might not merit such a whopping payout.
The case also described how the collective $65m advance Barack and Michelle Obama got for their books neared a $75m threshold where Penguin Random House editors would’ve needed permission from their corporate parent, Germany’s Bertelsmann, to move ahead.
But the focus on these marquee names was more than just publishing industry gossip. The trial shined a spotlight on just how much a tiny proportion of hit books prop up the rest of the publishing industry.
Penguin Random House executives said that just over a third of their books turn a profit, with just four per cent of books in that category accounting for 60 per cent of the earnings. In 2021, according to data from BookScan, fewer than one per cent of the 3.2 million titles it tracked sold over 5,000 copies.
Given this state of affairs, the big publishers argued their merger would create corporate efficiencies, allowing them to pass these savings on so more authors got a bigger piece of the pie.
However, Judge Florence Y Pan seemed to strike down this line of thinking, refusing to admit Penguin Random House’s evidence to support this claim, arguing it wasn’t independently verified.
“The judge thoroughly and completely rejected the defence’s argument for accepting that evidence,” Mr Cader, of Publishers Lunch, said.
So did Stephen King.
“There were literally hundreds of imprints and some of them were run by people who had extremely idiosyncratic tastes,” he said. “Those businesses, one by one, were either subsumed by other publishers or they went out of business.”
His own publishing history tells the story of an industry increasingly controlled by a few companies. Carrie was published by Doubleday, which eventually merged with Knopf, which is now part of Penguin Random House. Viking Press, which put out other King titles, was a part of Penguin, which became Penguin Random House in 2013.
David Enyeart, the manager of St Paul, Minnesota’s independent Next Chapter Booksellers, says the industry’s long march towards consolidation makes it harder for new voices to emerge and reach readers in stores because smaller publishers simply can’t compete.
“They’re able to make more independent decisions about who they’re going to publish, but they aren’t as able to spread the word as powerfully as a deep-pocketed company. That really affects what consumers are able to read,” he said. “That’s a real impact that everybody sees.”
Others say the story is a bit more complicated than corporate consolidation stomping out all variation and diversity in the business. It’s the best of times and the worst of times in the book industry. It just depends on your perspective, according to Mike Shatzkin, CEO of publishing consultancy The Idea Logical Company.
”The book business as measured in titles has been exploding for 20 years,” he told The Independent. “The book business as measured in dollars has been growing for 20 years.”
He estimates that about 40 times more titles are available than the half a million or so books in print in 1990. It’s just that publishers and bookstores now face competition from self-publishers using services like Amazon’s Kindle Direct, as well as upstarts who, thanks to the internet, now have cheaper access to the same printing and storage supply chains that used to only be affordable to major publishing houses.
Someone looking to sell books doesn’t even need much physical infrastructure at all. They can accept payment for a book, then pass along the printing and shipping order to distributors like Ingram, without ever touching a book themselves.
Even a pandemic couldn’t tank sales, according to Penguin Random House’s Mr Dohle. Print book sales grew by more than 20 per cent between 2012 and 2019—then another 20 per cent between 2019 and 2021.
To make a profit in a world where, Mr Shatzkin estimates, about 80 per cent of books are sold online, in an essentially limitless variety, with nearly instantaneous printing and shipping, big publishers can only survive, he argues, by consolidating and monetising reliable books already in print from their back catalogues. These books don’t need publishers to shell out lots of money scoring a promising new author and promoting their work.
“The world that we’re in, which we have been in for 20 years, is that the state of the business that belongs to commercial publishers is shrinking, and the ability of publishers to establish a new book as profitable is shrinking, drastically,” he said. “What has grown is the ability to monetise deep backlists that might have never been monetizable in the old days.”
Looming in the background of the merger trial is Amazon, which controls, by some counts, an estimated two-thirds of the market for new and used books in the US, and Ingram, the distributor, a company which controls the majority of independent book distribution between publishers and readers.
By law, mergers present the opportunity for the government to weigh in on whether a proposed company risks becoming anti-competitive, but Amazon has been able to use its numerous different business lines to fund a roaring books business built on titles offered at low prices.
“This particular suit is like chasing something that has escaped a long time ago,” Paul Yamazaki, the book buyer at San Francisco institution City Lights Bookstore, told The Independent, sitting on a sunny porch covered in stacks of books. “If the Justice Department was going to really look at this, and look on behalf of the readers and writers, then they should look at Amazon.”
Barring exceptions like the breakup of Standard Oil and the Bell System companies, the government rarely elects to break up monopolies outside of mergers.
Even with advances in self-publishing, e-commerce, and a flourishing of indie bookstores in recent years, many owned by an increasingly diverse group of industry newcomers and people of colour, the e-commercification of publishing has made it hard for small presses to have their books reach readers in stores, Mr Yamazaki said.
“So many of the presses—City Lights, New Direction, Copper Canyon, Coffeehouse—all started out as these kind of homegrown projects with somebody that had a wonderful idea and just only had sweat equity and a typewriter,” he said. “We need the whole ecology to prosper.”
In the present ecology, however, according to Next Chapter’s David Enyeart, the big fish seem to be getting bigger, with few benefits to everyone else down the food chain over the long term. He couldn’t think of a single positive about the merger.
“What we’ll see in the long run is less diversity in offerings, less reason for them to offer better discounts and to generally make room for independent bookstores and the sort of books that we want to promote. That’s really sort of the issue. It’s a long-term sort of thing. It won’t change anything day-to-day,” he said.
Recommended
“It’s the sort of thing where we’ll wake up in several years, and there’s only two publishers left, and they’re squeezing us hard.”
This article was amended on 23 August 2022. It previously stated that the ex-publisher of Simon & Schuster imprint Gallery Books testified during the merger trial. However, the testimony came from Gallery’s current publisher, Jennifer Bergstrom.
Recent weeks have seen an escalation in shelling in and around Europe’s largest nuclear facility.
The Council meeting was requested by Russia, whose forces have occupied the plant since March, or shortly after the start of the war, while Ukrainian personnel continue to carry out their on-site operations.
Ms. DiCarlo reiterated the UN’s ongoing grave concern over the dangerous situation, recalling the Secretary-General’s appeals for common sense, reason and restraint, as well as dialogue.
“At this moment, it is imperative that we receive the expressed commitment of the parties to stop any military activities around the plant and to enable its continued safe and secure operations. To paraphrase the Secretary-General’s blunt warning, any potential damage to Zaporizhzhia is suicidal,” she said.
All military personnel and equipment must be withdrawn from the plant, and there should be no further deployment of forces or equipment to the site.
“The facility must not be used as part of any military operation, and an agreement on a safe perimeter of demilitarization to ensure the safety of the area should be reached,” she said.
The UN has again called for the parties to provide the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with immediate, secure, and unfettered access to the nuclear plant.
Preparations for IAEA mission
IAEA chief Rafael Mariano Grossi on Tuesday renewed his request to send a mission to carry out essential safety, security and safeguard activities at the site.
Ms. DiCarlo reported that preparations are proceeding, and the agency is in active consultation with all sides so the mission can be dispatched as soon as possible.
“We welcome Ukraine and Russia’s recent statements indicating support for the IAEA’s aim to send a mission to the plant, which would be IAEA’s first to that site since the start of the war,” she said.
The UN has also assessed that it has the logistics and security capacity in Ukraine to support any IAEA mission from Kyiv, provided Ukraine and Russia agree.
“We must be clear that any potential damage to the plant, or any other nuclear facilities in Ukraine, leading to a possible nuclear incident would have catastrophic consequences, not only for the immediate vicinity, but for the region and beyond,” said Ms. DiCarlo.
“Similarly, any damage leading to the plant being cut from the Ukrainian power grid would have catastrophic humanitarian implications, particularly with winter approaching. As the Secretary-General has made clear, the electricity produced at the Zaporizhzhia plant belongs to Ukraine.”
Russia: ‘Healthy’ atmosphere at plant
In his deliberation, Russian Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya listed incidents of alleged Ukrainian shelling at the plant this month, accusing the country of “nuclear blackmail”.
“The fact that the Kyiv regime continues with attacks on this station is a direct consequence of criminal acquiescence on the part of its western patrons,” he said, speaking through an interpreter.
Furthermore, any potential disaster at the nuclear plant has so far been avoided “only because there’s smooth joint work between the workers of the station, fire squads, emergency people and the Russian military who are helping them every way they can,” he added. “And this shows that there is a healthy working atmosphere at the station, and no one is oppressing anyone there.”
Support for IAEA mission
Regarding the IAEA, Mr. Nebenzya said Russia has supported efforts towards a mission to the plant “from day one” and had already agreed for a mission to take place in June.
“We expect that the IAEA trip mission will take place in the very near future and the agency experts will confirm the real situation at the station,” he said.
The Ambassador concluded his remarks by addressing the car bombing in Moscow on Saturday which killed Darya Dugina, a political commentator and the daughter of a close ally of President Vladimir Putin.
Russian authorities are investigating the incident, he said, “and preliminary conclusions are that this monstrous crime was organized by the Ukrainian special services.”
He urged the Council and the UN leadership, in his words, “to condemn yet another crime by the Kyiv regime.”
Ukraine refutes shelling claims
Ukrainian Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsy dismissed Russia’s claims that his country is shelling its own nuclear facility.
“Nobody who is at least conscious can imagine that Ukraine would target a nuclear power plant at tremendous risk of nuclear catastrophe and on its own territory,” he said.
Mr. Kyslytsy informed the Council that Ukraine’s Foreign Minister has responded to the IAEA regarding the mission.
The proposal for the itinerary is in compliance with national legislation “and in general might be accepted”, he said. However, further arrangements have to be made based on security conditions, communication of detailed route plans, and other logistical aspects.
Permanent IAEA presence
“We continue to believe that the mission’s effectiveness can be bolstered by incorporating military and political components backed by UN expertise,” he said.
“Considering the scale of the current challenges and threats, we also urged the IAEA to consider a permanent presence of its experts at the ZNPP until the competent Ukrainian authorities regain full control over this nuclear facility.”
The Ambassador underlined the importance of the mission taking place at the request of Ukraine.
“The occupiers have trained some of the hostages in what they should say and what they shouldn’t show to the IAEA. That is why it is really important to conduct the mission in a way that would allow the international community to see the real situation and not a Russian theatrical show.”
The UN Human Rights Office (OHCHR) expressed concern on Tuesday after photos and videos released on social media appeared to show metal cages being built in the philharmonic hall in the devastated Ukrainian city of Mariupol, apparently to house prisoners of war (POWs) during an upcoming “show trial”.
OHCHR spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani said the trials by the Russian-backed authorities could begin in the occupied city, possibly within days – and warned that such a process could amount to a war crime.
“We are very concerned about the manner in which this is being done. There are pictures in the media of cages being built in Mariupol’s philharmonic hall, really massive cages and apparently, the idea is to restrain the prisoners”, Ms. Shamdasani told a briefing in Geneva. “This is not acceptable, this is humiliating,” she said.
Ms. Shamdasani pointed out how “under international law, individuals entitled to prisoner of war status have combatant immunity and cannot be prosecuted for having participated in hostilities, or for lawful acts of war committed in the course of the armed conflict, even if such acts would otherwise constitute an offence under domestic law.”
The spokesperson added that OHCHR was concerned that prisoners of war have generally been held without access to independent monitors, exposing them to the risk of being tortured to extract a confession.
“There have also been worrying public statements by Russian officials and members of affiliated armed groups labelling Ukrainian prisoners of war as ‘war criminals, ‘Nazis’, and ‘terrorists’, thereby undermining the presumption of innocence.”
‘Unprecedented’ attacks on healthcare
The World Health Organization (WHO) warned that it has seen “an unprecedented number of attacks on healthcare” since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which began nearly six months ago.
“As of 23rd of August, over 460 attacks on health care have been verified by WHO, leading to almost 100 deaths and over 100 injuries,” Dr. Jarno Habicht, WHO Representative and Head of the WHO Country Office said.
Dr. Habicht stressed that while the attacks not only violate international law, “they are also a barrier for many who need to care.”
“It is not only the supplies and others we need to support – we need to ensure also that the services are available,” he added.
Over 350 children killed
According to the UN Children’s Fund, (UNICEF), the official death toll for children during the conflict is 356 children, but that is “a low estimate”, according to UNICEF spokesperson in Geneva, James Elder.
He said the expectation was that it would be “many more based on the thoroughness of how verification is done”.
On Monday, UNICEF reported that nearly 1,000 children had been killed or injured in Ukraine – an average of five a day – but stressed that the real number is likely higher.
Reiterating the urgent need for peace, UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell pointed out that “once again, as in all wars, the reckless decisions of adults are putting children at extreme risk. There are no armed operations of this kind that do not result in children being harmed.”
Lifesaving grain bound for Horn of Africa
According to the World Food Programme (WFP) the first vessel transporting Ukrainian wheat grain bound for the Horn of Africa is now due to berth in Djibouti on 30 August.
The MV Brave Commander departed from the Black Sea port of Yuzhny on 16 August, as part of the Black Sea Grain Initiative signed by Ukraine, Russia, Türkiye and the UN in July. But Michael Dunford, WFP Regional Director for East Africa, warned that while this was “a very positive development,” it was “not the answer”.
“That one ship, 23,000 metric tons of wheat, is the equivalent of feeding 1.5 million people for just one month. And yet we currently estimate that there could be upwards of 22 million people requiring assistance,” he said.
Gregory Grieve, who heads the religious studies department at University of North Carolina, Greensboro, holds that the authenticity of digital Buddhist meditation is not the determining factor as to whether it is a valid practice of the religion.
In a recent article published on The Conversation website, he wrote “authenticity is not determined by its strict adherence to older forms. Rather, an authentic practice furthers a happiness founded on deeper meanings, whereas an inauthentic practice may only provide fleeting pleasure or temporary relief.”
Some believe “online Buddhism differs from earlier forms – if not in message then at least in the way it is transmitted.”
Others “dismiss digital Buddhism as mere popular consumerism that takes historically rich and complex traditions and selectively repackages them for monetary gain.”
Most scholars who find fault with the practice see it as a form of “Western popular culture’s appropriation of Asian traditions,” citing University of the West professor of religious studies Jane Iwamura and her book “Virtual Orientalism,” in which she says the practice obscures the voices of actual Buddhists of Asian descent.
But Grieve disagrees.
“In the end, these all may be legitimate concerns,” he writes. “Nevertheless, these scholars do not address many Western Buddhists’ deep desire for an intense spiritual experience. In my research, many Western Buddhists have often described their religious practice as a ‘search for authenticity.’”
“Current popular culture centers on hedonic happiness, which values an outgoing, social, joyous view of life. As a result, much of the Buddhist-inspired media currently found on meditation apps peddle moments of personal bliss, calm and relaxation.”
Grieve refers to the concept of “eudaimonia,” which means “the condition of “good spirit,” which is commonly translated as ‘human flourishing.’” And he points out that according to Aristotle, “eudaimonia is the highest end, and all subordinate goals – health, wealth and other such resources – are sought because they promote living well. Aristotle insists that there are virtuous pleasures besides those of the senses and that the best pleasures are experienced by virtuous people who find happiness in deeper meanings.”
And even in Buddhist texts such as the Samaññaphala Sutta, “one can find eudaimonic descriptions of Buddhist practice.”
Moreover, Grieve indicates, “Buddhism has been modified and translated into new cultures wherever it has spread. Also, no doubt, online Western Buddhism shows that it has been translated to fit into our consumer society.”
In the final analysis, however, Grieve states, “If digital Buddhist practice approaches the good life as eudaimonic – as leading to human flourishing based on the pursuit of a deeper meaning – it can be judged to be authentic. An inauthentic practice is one that just furthers hedonism by merely peddling bliss and relaxation.”
Iran, 24 August 2022 – With an estimated 2.8 million people suffering from a drug use problem, Iran also has one of the world’s highest prevalence of opiate use among its population. Women are among the affected – one household survey estimated that the lifetime prevalence of drug use among women aged 15-64 years was 1.5%.
Women in Iran who use drugs often face social stigma. Frequently equipped with fewer resources – like a job, independent income, or an educational background – women are often also responsible for dependent children or family members, making their struggles with substance use even more difficult. Cultural norms, meanwhile, make many women fearful of even acknowledging their problems.
Targeted and dedicated resources for women struggling with substance abuse are therefore crucial, which is why the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has supported the Kerman Women’s Empowerment Center. The Center provides treatment to women substance users, as well as job creation and social reintegration services, and to date have helped over 260 women to recover from drug addiction.
UNODC delivered bakery and confectionary items to the Center, who plans on using the equipment to create an ongoing, apprentice-like workshop teaching women how to bake. The aim is to provide recovered women drug users with a skill that can help them to obtain a job and income.
The venture is related to a similar initiative by UNODC Iran, whereby sewing machines will also be delivered to both the Kerman Center and Noor-e Sepid-e Hedayat, a civil society organization in Tehran. By teaching recovering women drug users to sew, just as with baking, UNODC Iran hopes to assist the organizations to help women find new livelihoods.
Further information
UNODC delivered these bakery/confectionary equipment items thanks to the generous funding received from the Kingdom of Norway, in collaboration with the Iranian Drug Control Headquarters (DCHQ). To learn more about UNODC Iran’s work, click here.
