This grisaille work was a model for an engraving by Adriaen Lommelin (c. 1616-after 1673). It is dated 1652 and dedicated to the newly appointed bishop of Ypres, the Dominican Ambrosius Capello. The saints represent the qualities a bishop should aspire to: doctrinal wisdom, Marian devotion, courage, rectitude, zeal in pastoral work and in preaching, charity, and intelligence-all under the sign of the cross, Verbum Cruci.Share
My soul is sorrowful even unto death. To quote:Luke writes, “He was in such agony and prayed so fervently that his sweat became like drops of blood.”Share
Christ so agonized over each and every one of us. He pleaded before the Father on our behalf as wave after wave of the horrors we would carry out upon each other besot Him. Nothing other than love must have driven Him to undertake such a journey with courage and conviction.
Love too, is what motivated me as I walked in the desert alone sobbing, and pleading with every ounce of my being for the one I loved. Tormented, I could not be consoled and would have willingly taken on whatever physical pain was necessary to manifest the mental anguish I felt. My very soul ached with such sorrow and confusion. “Why?” I asked, over and over again. It was at that very moment that I felt a clarity and profound union with Christ’s own suffering. I knew for the first time in my life, in a real and personal way, a mere fraction of what Jesus must have felt as He pleaded to His heavenly Father for us. Did He too welcome physical pain, willing to take our salvation to whatever level was necessary to save our very souls? Was there consolation with every piercing sting of the whip that brought Him ever closer to the realization of His ultimate purpose and the reward that awaited us?
Love is what will move the mountains, make straight the paths, and repair the damage of our sin. “Above all, let your love for one another be intense, because love covers a multitude of sins.” Love will compel us to pray for one another, to plead for one another, and to find our way out of the garden into the new light. It finds the lost, lights the darkness and heals the hurts. (Read more.)
...The King led him into a small alcove built into one of the turrets of the tower. It contained a broken-down stove, a table, and three chairs. They sat down. “Now, Monsieur,” said the King, “the great business of my salvation is the only one which ought to occupy my thoughts. It is the only business of real importance! What are all other subjects compared to this?...”
~from TrianonShareby Elena Maria Vidal
There are few historical garments more misrepresented than an 18th c. man's shirt. For European men from the middle ages into the mid-19th c., the shirt was not only an indispensable piece of clothing; it was a democratic one, too. The shirts worn by George III would have been cut exactly the same as the ones worn by his grooms, as well as by Thomas Jefferson, Beau Brummel, Tom Jones, and Mr. Darcy. You know what they looked like: silky, lace-trimmed shirts cut to open like a modern tux shirt, on everyone from those Founding Fathers in the bank commercials to Fabio.Share
Uh, no. Eighteenth century men's shirts didn't button down the front, and they never were made of silk. They pulled over the head with an opening slit to about mid-chest, and were fastened with two or three buttons at the throat. Shirts were geometric jigsaw puzzles, an elaborate series of rectangles cut without curved seams and designed not to waste even a scrap of a length of fabric. The sleeves were luxuriously full, 20" wide or more, pleated into dropped shoulders and wrist cuffs. Additional gussets for ease were placed under the arms, on the shoulders, and at the hem-slits. The collar, upper right, was another rectangle, soft and without interlining, whose final shape was determined by the neckcloth, cravat, or stock tied around it. Ruffles could be sewn into the neck slit and on the cuffs.
These shirts were wide, full, and long, reaching to the middle of the thighs. An average 18th c. shirt could be 60'" around the chest and 40" long. While some gentlemen wore under drawers, for most men a shirt was an all-purpose garment, with the long tales drawn between the legs to form underwear. Shirts were also worn for sleeping. As a result, shirts were frequently changed, and a man was judged by the cleanliness of his linen. (Read entire article)
Like Seäsonal, Edi & The Wolf explores the lighter side of Austrian food, marked by frequent use of dill and caraway, savory-sweet flavors and lashings of pumpkin seed oil. Although the chefs do make Austria's famous schnitzel, much of the menu is vegetarian. "Austrians actually have this very granola way of eating," says Frauneder. "There's a lot of muesli and whole grains." Dishes like panko-crusted asparagus with watercress salad and spring vegetable stew with pickled onions aren't stereotypically Austrian.Share
In October of 1793, when on trial for her life, Marie-Antoinette was accused by the revolutionary tribunal of sexually abusing her eight-year-old son. When the queen failed to answer, she was badgered for a response. She rose to her feet and faced the crowded courtroom, saying: Si je n'ai répondu, c'est que la nature se refuse à répondre à une pareille inculpation faite à une mère. J'en appelles à toutes celles qui peuvent se trouver ici. "If I do not respond, it is because nature refuses to answer such a charge made to a mother. I appeal to all the mothers who are here!" The spectators, especially the women, applauded the queen and hissed at the revolutionaries, who had overplayed their hand. (see Jean Chalon's Chère Marie-Antoinette)I have always accustomed my children to have great confidence in me, and, when they have done wrong, to tell me themselves; and then, when I scold them, this enables me to appear pained and afflicted rather than angry. I have accustomed them to regard 'yes' or 'no' once uttered by me as irrevocable, but I always give them reasons for my decisions, suitable to their ages.... (from The Life of Marie Antoinette by Charles Duke Yonge)According to Nesta Webster, Marie-Antoinette and Louis XVI decided early in the Revolution never to allow themselves to be separated from their two surviving children. However, after the king's death, little Louis-Charles was taken away from his mother in August 1793 and infamously brutalized by his captors. In the fall of the year, the queen was removed from the Temple prison to the Conciergerie, away from her fifteen-year-old daughter Madame Royale, whom she never saw again. When interrogated in prison as to whom she regarded as her enemies, the queen replied: "My enemies are all those who would bring harm to my children."
On June 12, 1918, Grand Duke Mikhail Aleksandrovich (henceforth Michael) and his secretary Brian Johnson, a Brit, were randomly executed in the outskirts of the far away city of Perm in the Ural Mountains. A year ago, Russia "rehabilitated" both, along with other Romanov-related victims of Soviet repression. The decision followed a similar act about Tsar Nicholas II and his family on October 1, 2008.Share
However, the Russian media at large failed to single Michael out from among the other Romanovs. Didn´t Tsar Nicholas abdicate in favor of Michael, his younger brother? If so, shouldn´t he be treated as Michael II, the last of the Romanov tsars?
Yes, he should. So thinks Donald Crawford, the co-author of a 1997 book Michael and Natasha: The Life and Love of Michael II, the Last of the Romanov Tsars. Crawford is a lawyer and the publisher of "Parliamentary Briefs" in London. He is fully aware of deviations from the law in both Nicholas´s abdication and Michael´s deferring his assumption of power contingent upon the decision of the popularly elected Constituent Assembly. However, Crawford insists that those deviations were necessary in order to save the spirit of the law and Russia herself. He is right in calling Michael "the last of the Romanov tsars." Not for the sake of anybody´s vanity, of which Michael had none. But for the sake of extraordinary legacy that Michael bequeathed to Russia. That legacy is worthy of any tsar.
Left-liberal and Soviet propaganda for years maligned and dismissed the only act Michael signed on March 16, 1917 in response to his brother´s declaring him the Emperor of Russia. They called it a yet another abdication following the one by Nicholas. In fact, it was far from it. In his Manifesto Michael declared his readiness to assume the supreme power contingent upon the decision of the Constituent Assembly on the best form of government for Russia. He stipulated the Constituent Assembly to be elected through universal, direct, equal, and secret ballot. He thus introduced to Russia the most democratic electoral law anywhere at the time, including the US. He finally empowered the Provisional Government to run the country until the Constituent Assembly was elected.
The immediate effect of Michael´s conciliatory compromise decision was that the February revolution was stopped in its track. Russia was enabled to resume her war obligations as part of the Entente alliance. The victory was clearly in sight, especially, after the United States joined the alliance next month. However, the Provisional Government proved ineffective. The Bolsheviks continued to undermine war efforts with the slogan "Turn the imperialist war into a civil war" and the promise of land to soldiers who were mostly peasants. Trying to win a popularity contest with the Bolsheviks, the left-liberal Provisional Government of Aleksandr Kerensky declared Russia republic on September 1, in direct violation of Michael´s Manifesto. Finally, the Provisional Government was overthrown in a Bolshevik coup d´etat on November 7, 1917. (Read entire article.)
Dad wasn't always a Rand zealot. He was raised in a Catholic family and went to church every week. After he and my mother got married in 1982, they shopped around for a church. He was looking for something to live by, but he couldn't find it in traditional organized religion.(Via The Marriage Debate) Share
Then he discovered objectivism. I don't know exactly why he sparked to Rand. He claimed the philosophy appealed to him because it's based solely on logic. It also conveniently quenched his lawyer's thirst to always be right. It's not uncommon for people to seek out belief systems, whether political or spiritual, that make them feel good about how they already live their lives. Ultimately, I suspect Dad was drawn to objectivism because, unlike so many altruistic faiths, it made him feel good about being selfish.
Thérèse...in jeweled coronet and a cloud of white plumes, either offended by her frigid manner, or elicited tears by those who saw in her person the chaste austerity of Saint Radegonde and other holy Frankish queens of old.
~from Madame RoyaleShareby Elena Maria Vidal
