The Third Portuguese India Armada was assembled in 1501 upon the order of King Manuel I of Portugal and placed under the command of João da Nova. It was small compared to other armadas of the same type and was formed for commercial purposes. Nonetheless, it engaged in the first significant Portuguese naval battle in the Indian Ocean. The Third Armada discovered the uninhabited islands of Ascension and Saint Helena in the South Atlantic Ocean. Some speculate that it was the first Portuguese armada to reach Ceylon (now Sri Lanka).

Fleet

Little is known about the Third Armada of 1501 as opposed to other early Portuguese India armadas. Chroniclers' accounts are scant on details and differ significantly at several points. Very few contemporary documents offer substantive information, such as reconciliations of differing accounts or missing details.

The Third Armada was primarily a commercial run to India. It is confirmed to have been composed of four ships: two owned by the crown and two privately owned. There may have been a fifth supply ship.

This list of captains is given in João de Barros's Décadas,  Damião de Góis's Chronica, Fernão Lopes de Castanheda's História, Diogo do Couto's list, Manuel de Faria e Sousa's Asia  and Quintella's Annaes. Fernão Pacheco replaces Barbosa in several lists: Gaspar Correia's Lendas and the Relação das Naus. The Livro de Lisuarte de Abreu replaces Novais and Barbosa with Rui de Abreu and Duarte Pacheco, respectively.

The modest armada carried 350–400 men, only 80 of which were armed. Its admiral was João da Nova, a Galician-born minor noble. He was Alcalde Pequeno (municipal magistrate) of Lisbon, and his principal recommendation to the admiralship was probably his connection to the powerful Portuguese nobleman Tristão da Cunha.

The owners of the two private ships, D. Álvaro of Braganza and Bartolomeo Marchionni, a Florentine, had jointly outfitted the Anunciada, one of the ships of the Second India Armada of Pedro Álvares Cabral that was still at sea at the time. It was a considerable gamble for them to outfit the new ships before knowing the results of the previous enterprise. The Anunciada safely returned to Lisbon later in 1501 with a large cargo of spices.

One of the passengers on the fleet was Paio Rodrigues, employed by D. Álvaro of Braganza to remain in India as a factor for the private consortium. Another was Álvaro de Braga, a crown factor who was heading for the African port of Sofala.

Mission

The objective of the Third Armada was wholly commercial. Its mission was to go to India, load up with spices, and return home. The journey was expected to be uneventful.

The journey's destination was Calicut (known as Calecute in some sources, now Kozhikode), the principal spice hub in the state of Kerala and the dominant city-state on the Malabar coast of India. The Third Armada expected – or hoped – that the well-equipped Second India Armada of Pedro Álvares Cabral, which had departed in the previous year (1500), had succeeded in its ambassadorial mission to secure a treaty with Calicut and set up a factory (feitoria, a trading hub) there. The armada was unaware that Cabral's Second Armada had not only failed in its mission, but it also began hostilities between Portugal and Calicut. João da Nova's Third Armada was sailing into a war that it did not expect and for which it was not equipped.

The Third Armada also seems to have had a planned intermediary destination at Sofala, where Cabral had been instructed to set up a factory. According to Correia, the crown ship of Francisco de Novais was designated to trade for gold in Sofala and leave the factor Álvaro de Braga, the clerk Diogo Barbosa (same name as captain) and an additional twenty-two men. Cabral's Second Armada had also already failed that mission: there was no Portuguese factory in Sofala.

The armada could not have delayed its departure until the arrival of the news of the Second Armada. The seasonal monsoon wind patterns of the Indian Ocean forced India-bound expeditions to leave Lisbon by April at the latest in order to find favorable southeasterly summer winds from Africa to India. Those same wind patterns determined that returning fleets could only arrive in Europe in the summer, June at the earliest. Although the difference between one fleet's departure and another fleet's arrival was only a few months, outbound fleets could not delay their departure until the previous year's fleet returned; if they did, an entire year would be lost. Therefore, both the crown and the private consortiums were willing to equip and launch the Third Armada in March 1501 before they received any news of the outcome of the Second Armada. The first ship of the Second Armada to arrive only did so in late June.

Nova's Third Armada would learn of the Second Armada's voyage along its own voyage from notes and letters left by Cabral's ships at African staging posts. Even if the Third Armada learned about the misfortune of the Second Armada, the aforementioned conditions meant that it could not go home to acquire reinforcements or otherwise change the circumstances of its journey. Lightly armed, it would have to press on, sneak into India stealthily, avoid Calicut, load spices at friendly ports, and leave, all as quickly as possible.

Outward voyage

The armada left in the spring of 1501. Sources vary as to whether it left on March 5 or April 10; Duarte Leite's analysis claims that the earlier date is more likely.

According to chroniclers, the first major events happened in May. Correia states that the Third Armada followed the instructions given by Gaspar de Lemos or André Gonçalves (the captain of a ship that returned from Brazil the previous year). It went southwest and made a brief watering stop at Cape St. Augustine in northeast Brazil, before heading towards southern Africa. All other chroniclers do not mention the Brazilian stop. Barros and Góis mention the discovery of Ascension Island in the same month, an event that Correia himself does not record. Proceeding in the South Atlantic, Nova sighted Ascension Island, which he named Ilha da Conceição ("Conception Island"). The island is confirmed to have been discovered later by Afonso de Albuquerque, who gave it its modern name (ilha da Ascensção) in 1503.

The fleet crossed the Cape of Good Hope on July 7, 1501 without a known incident. It anchored at Mossel Bay (Aguada de São Brás). There, Nova found a note in a shoe by a watering hole. The note was left about a month earlier by Pêro de Ataíde, one of the captains of the returning Second Armada. Ataíde's note, addressed to all captains bound for India, warned that Calicut had become hostile to the Portuguese, but that Cochin (Cochim, now Kochi) and Cannanore (now Kannur) were still friendly ports where spices could be procured. It also recommended India-bound captains to go to Malindi, where Pedro Álvares Cabral left letters that contained more detailed information.  Centuries later, the South African government declared the milkwood tree where Ataíde hung his shoe a national monument and erected a shoe-shaped postbox below it.

In the middle of July 1501, the Third Armada arrived at Mozambique Island. Disregarding instructions, Nova decided against dispatching Novais's ship to Sofala. Nova probably concluded that he needed to take all of his men due to the threat of a military engagement in India. Soon after, he set sail up the East African coast. At the same time, Nova possibly discovered Juan de Nova Island in the Mozambique Channel and the Farquhar atoll, part of the Seychelles, which were named the "João da Nova islands" until the 19th century.

Around the same time, the armada arrived at the Swahili citadel of Kilwa (Quiloa). A Portuguese degredado (convict exile), António Fernandes, greeted them on the beach or on a rowboat. According to Barros and Góis, he was António Fernandes, who carried letters from Cabral; Correia writes that he was Pêro Esteves, who was carrying no letters. The degredado informed Nova of the state of affairs in Kilwa. Barros suggests that, on this occasion, João da Nova personally met Muhammad Arcone, a Kilwan noble who would later play a critical role in Portuguese–Kilwan affairs. Correia notes that Nova was wary of approaching Kilwa, and refused to go ashore despite repeated invitations; he had the degredado negotiate the provision of some supplies, probably citrus fruit, from the city for his scurvy-sick crews and hurriedly moved on.

Barros suggests that in late July, the Third Armada immediately set sail for India after it left Kilwa. Correia claims that Nova sailed first to Malindi to deliver a letter from King Manuel I of Portugal to the Sultan of Malindi. According to Correia, the sultan received the Portuguese well, supplying them amply with biscuits, rice, butter, chickens, sheep and other foods. He further writes that it was now that Nova received the letters that Cabral had dispatched by a messenger from Mozambique, from which he learned more about the Zamorin (monarch) of Calicut, the Portuguese factory at Cochin and the friendly relations with Cannanore and Quilon. In this version, the Third Armada left Malindi on July 28, 1501, and crossed the Indian Ocean after 18 days.

Nova in India

In August 1501, João da Nova's Third Armada arrived in India at the Santa Maria islands off the Malabar coast. According to Correia, Nova named the islands because of the feast of the Assumption of Mary (August 15).

Narratives about the ensuing events differ. Barros says that Nova immediately began going down the Indian coast to Kerala, but Correia claims that he stopped by the port of Batecala (now Bhatkal), which was the principal trade port of the Vijayanagara Empire, and lingered there, engaging in trade with merchants in the harbors, and chasing pirates in Onor (now Honnavar). Both narratives agree that the Third Armada eventually began going down the Indian coast to Kerala, attempting to capture two merchant ships, allegedly from Calicut, near Mount d'Eli (now Ezhimala Hill) along the way.

The two-month delay between the Third Armada's reputed arrival in India (August) and its first recorded activities in India (November) has been subject to speculation. Correia suggests that the Third Armada simply lingered in the area between Batecala and Mount d'Eli to trade and perhaps engage in piracy before it headed south to Cannanore. Others hypothesize that during this interlude, Nova launched exploratory ventures far to the south below Cape Comorin to locate the fabled island of Taprobana (Ceylon), the world's main source of cinnamon.

The Third Armada arrived in Cannanore in November. They were well received by the Kolathiri Raja of Cannanore, who immediately urged João da Nova to load his ships with spices from the city's markets. Nova rejected the offer because he first had to collect the supplies already acquired by the Portuguese factory in Cochin. Before leaving, Nova left a few agents with instructions to purchase spices, principally ginger and cinnamon, in Cannanore to be loaded later.

Some sources note that Nova established the Portuguese factory in Cannanore at this point. However, the factor whom he left behind was Paio Rodrigues, a private agent of D. Álvaro of Braganza and the Marchionni consortium, not an employee of the Casa da India, the crown trading house. The Casa itself, a proxy of the Portuguese Crown, would only install a factor in Cannanore with the Fourth Armada.

While he was in Cannanore, João da Nova received an embassy from the Zamorin of Calicut. Accompanying the embassy was Gonçalo Peixoto, a Portuguese survivor of the previous year's massacre who had remained in Calicut for the past year. In a letter to Nova, the Zamorin expressed sadness at the Calicut Massacre of December 1500, blaming it on hatred between Muslims and Christians that he never understood. He claimed that he, as a Hindu prince, only had a desire for friendship and peace with Portugal. The Zamorin also reported that the ringleaders of the riot had been rounded up and punished, and invited Nova to Calicut to collect the wares left behind in the Portuguese factory and receive compensation. Proposing to dispatch two ambassadors with Nova's fleet back to Lisbon, he expressed a desire to make a final treaty with King Manuel I of Portugal. The Kolathiri Raja of Cannanore recommended Nova to accept the offer. Gonçalo Peixoto warned Nova to reject the offer, claiming that the Zamorin was luring him into a trap and at the time preparing a war fleet in Calicut. Nova did not reply to the Zamorin's entreaty. Peixoto joined Nova's fleet.

Correia asserts that Peixoto did not come; Nova agreed to the offer from the Zamorin's emissary to Cannanore and sailed to Calicut. The Third Armada anchored by the harbor there, waiting for the promised wares to be shipped from shore, when an unnamed Christian came aboard and warns him about the Zamorin's intentions. Before Nova left, he captured three merchant ships, including one owned by the Zamorin himself, at the mouth of Calicut harbor. He seized their cargoes and burned the vessels in plain view of the city. Valuable loot from the ships included silver Indian nautical instruments, and navigational charts.

Arriving in Cochin, João da Nova encountered a factor left by Cabral, Gonçalo Gil Barbosa, who reports trading difficulties in the local markets. Indian spice merchants required payment in silver, but Cabral had left the factor only with Portuguese goods, mainly cloth. He was expected to use the trading revenue from the sale of the Portuguese goods to buy spices. However, the Portuguese wares had little value in Indian markets, so Barbosa still had his unsold stock and was unable to obtain silver to buy spices. The factor suspected that Arab merchant guilds had engineered a boycott of Portuguese goods in India. He also reported that the Trimumpara Raja of Cochin, despite his alliance and protection of the factory, was furious at the Portuguese because Cabral's Second Armada had departed too suddenly, not taking two noble Cochinese noble hostages with it.

Sources ascribe the lack of silver cash as the pressing problem that Nova did not anticipate. He did not bring much because he expected to raise cash through selling Portuguese goods.

Nova immediately set sail back to Cannanore to see if the agents whom he left there had raised cash, but they faced the same problem. The Kolathiri Raja of Cannanore finally intervened, placing himself as security for the sale of spices to the Portuguese on credit and allowing the Portuguese to obtain spices.

Discovery of Ceylon

In 1898, excavations underneath the Breakwater Office in Colombo, Sri Lanka, revealed a boulder with a Portuguese inscription, a coat of arms, and the clearly denoted date 1501. That was four years before Lourenço de Almeida's arrival on the island, the formal date (1505) of the Portuguese discovery of Ceylon.

Much speculation has surrounded the inscription. The earliest theory was that the boulder was an uncompleted gravestone for a Portuguese captain born in 1501 (death date missing). However, the arms and style of the inscription appeared to be of a padrão, the typical marker of a Portuguese claim.  Some argue that the date is simply a mistake or that the "1" in 1501 is a poorly carved digit. Another theory is that what appears to be a number is actually an acronym, ISOI (Iesus Salvator Orientalium Indicorum – "Jesus the Savior of the East Indies"). Nonetheless, some historians, notably Bouchon in 1980, have argued that the inscription was made by a captain of the Third Armada of 1501. The sources that describe the journey of the armada do not record that it stumbled upon Ceylon, but the journey of the armada was poorly recorded as a whole.

Bouchon (1980) speculates that the discovery happened during an exploratory venture launched from Anjediva Island or the Santa Maria islands. Another theory that he suggests (p. 257) is that the journey to Ceylon was sometime in late November or early December 1501. Under this scenario, Nova did not immediately return to Cannanore after he realized the cash problem, but rather he or one of his captains either stumbled upon Ceylon or was guided there by a local, hoping for better success there.

None of these theories are confirmed or suggested in any written accounts.

First Battle of Cannanore

In mid-December 1501, the Third Armada was preparing to leave India, loaded with spices from Cannanore and other goods from piratical attacks. News arrived, however, that a battle fleet led by the Zamorin was approaching.

Sometime in December, Nova's fleet was cornered by the Zamorin's fleet as he was about to leave Cannanore. The Zamorin's fleet comprised nearly 40 large ships, and 180 small ships called paraus and zambuks. He commanded an estimated 7,000 men.

The Raja of Cannanore urged Nova to stay under his protection and avoid conflict. Nova rejected the Raja's offer, attempting to break out with a favorable breeze. The Third Armada fired its cannons to breach the Zamorin's line. Once a breach was opened, four Portuguese ships charged into the breach in a column formation, their side cannons blasting.
The pounding from the cannons and the height of Nova's ships prevented the Calicut forces from boarding the Portuguese ships with grappling hooks. The less seaworthy fleet of the Zamorin, pursuing the escaping Portuguese, began to splinter due to intense cannon fire. The increased distance between the slowed-down Calicut fleet and the Third Armada caused the former to stop aiming to board the Portuguese ships, causing the battle to become a ranged artillery duel. The Calicut fleet retreated after it realized that its cannons' range and reloading speed could not match those of the Third Armada. Nova gave a brief chase, finally breaking up the engagement on January 2, 1502.

After two days of fighting, the Third Armada had sunk five large ships and about a dozen oar-driven boats. It inflicted great damage on the remaining vessels of the Zamorin while it was not damaged much itself.

Although João da Nova was not prepared for a fight, the two-day naval battle off Cannanore is regarded by some as the first significant Portuguese naval engagement in the Indian Ocean. It was not the first clash between Portuguese and Indian ships – Vasco da Gama's First Armada and Cabral's Second Armada also fought with various Indian fleets. Earlier encounters were fought against mostly poorly armed merchant ships, pirates and isolated squads; a single well-armed caravel could win a battle against these targets with ease. In the First Battle of Cannanore, the Zamorin of Calicut had attacked directly, deploying the best fleet he could against a small group of  Portuguese merchant carracks, which were significantly less heavily armed than the ships of Gama and Cabral.

According to the Portuguese Navy's official website, the battle is also historically notable for being one of the earliest recorded deliberate uses of a naval column, later called line of battle, and for being resolved by cannon fire alone. The tactics used in the battle became increasingly prevalent as naval technology and strategy evolved, causing the battle to have been called the first modern naval battle.

Return voyage

In early 1502, the Third Armada captured another Calicut merchant ship near Mount d'Eli, which it sacked, burned and sunk. It began the return voyage soon afterwards. The armada made two watering stops in East Africa: first at Malindi, where Nova deposited letters that would be received later that year by Thomé Lopes, and second at Mozambique Island.

After turning around the Cape of Good Hope, Nova sailed into the South Atlantic and discovered the uninhabited island of Saint Helena while he was returning home. It is believed that the island was named after St. Helen. By tradition the date is the feast day of the saint on May 21. Jan Huyghen van Linschoten in a 2015 paper says that the date is a mistakenly quoted Protestant feast day for a discovery made two decades before the Reformation, instead suggesting May 3 as the more likely date, the feast day of the True Cross. According to legend, Nova anchored on the western side of the island and built a timber chapel at the location of the future Jamestown, Saint Helena. The island became a routine staging post on future Portuguese expeditions to India, but its existence and location was a Portuguese secret for the next eighty years until English captain Thomas Cavendish stumbled upon it in 1588.

Nova's Third Armada arrived in Lisbon on September 11, 1502. According to the letters by Italian merchants in Lisbon, the Third Armada brought back 900 cantari (quintals) of black pepper, 550 of cinnamon, 30 of ginger, 25 of lac, and other assorted goods. The amount of cinnamon has been cited as evidence of the theory that the armada visited Ceylon, but cinnamon was not rare in other Indian markets. Some of the cinnamon may have come from the cargoes of seized vessels.

Aftermath

The expedition of the Third Armada was not considered a resounding success. Although there was no significant loss of ships or men, the armada came back with fewer spices than what was anticipated; letters insinuate that the cargo holds were partially empty. Nova also failed to trade for gold in Africa. The report of the cash constraint in India and the armada's reliance on piracy to fill its holds disheartened Portuguese merchants, who had previously thought that they could make easy profits on both legs of the India run. In contrast, the discovery of Ascension Island and Saint Helena was well received. The armada arrived too late to supply information from the journey to Gama's heavily armed 4th India Armada, which had already left Lisbon.

Revision of island discoveries

By long tradition Saint Helena was sighted on 21 May 1502 by the four ships of the 3rd Portuguese Armada commanded by João da Nova during the return voyage to Lisbon, and that he named it Santa Helena after Saint Helena of Constantinople. This tradition has been reviewed by a 2022 paper which concluded the Portuguese chronicles published at least 50 years later, are the sole primary source to the discovery. Although contradictory in describing other events, these chronicles almost unanimously claim João da Nova found Saint Helena sometime in 1502, although none quote the precise date.

However, there are several reasons for doubting da Nova made this discovery. First, given that da Nova either returned on 11 September or 13 September 1502 it is usually assumed the Cantino planisphere completed by the following November includes his discovery of Ascension Island (shown as an archipelago with one of six islands marked as "ilha achada e chamada Ascenssam"), yet this map fails to show Saint Helena. Second, when a section of the Fourth Armada under the command of Estêvão da Gama sighted and landed at Saint Helena the following year on 30 July 1503 its scrivener Thomé Lopes regarded it as an unknown island yet named Ascension as one of five reference points to the new island's location. On 12 July 1502, nearly three weeks before reaching Saint Helena, Lopes described how Estêvão da Gama's ships met up with a section of the Fifth Armada led by Afonso de Albuquerque off the Cape of Good Hope. The latter left Lisbon about six months after João da Nova's return so Albuquerque and his captains should all have known whether João da Nova had indeed found Saint Helena. An anonymous Flemish traveler on one of da Gama's ships reporting that bread and victuals were running short by the time they reached the Cape, so from da Gama's perspective there was a pressing need that he be told water and meat could be found at Saint Helena. The fact that nothing seems to have been said about the island, da Gama's scrivener Lopes regarding the island as unknown, again implies da Nova found Ascension but not Saint Helena. The 2022 paper also reviews cartographic evidence that Saint Helena and Ascension were known to the Spanish in 1500, before either João da Nova or Estêvão da Gama sailed for India. The suggestion that João da Nova discovered Tristan da Cunha naming it Saint Helena is discounted.

If João da Nova indeed found Saint Helena, a separate 2015 paper has reviewed another tradition that he did so on 21 May 1502.  This date appears to have first been suggested by Jan Huyghen van Linschoten  in a book published in Holland in 1596. This described how his ships left Saint Helena on 21 May 1589, this being both the feast of Saint Helena and Whitsunday. At first sight, this statement seems to be a contradiction - the Roman Catholic Church certainly celebrated Whitsunday that day but their feast-day of Saint Helena was on 18 August. Linschoten's statement did not fit in with the Eastern Orthodox Church either - this faith certainly marked Saint Helena on 21 May but in 1589 celebrated Whitsun a week later, on 28 May. The paper suggested the solution to this apparent paradox was the fact that by the time his book was published in 1596 Linschoten had converted to the Protestant Dutch Reformed Church. This faith celebrated Whitsunday on the same day as Catholics while Saint Helena was marked on 21 May, the same day as the Orthodox Church. Quite apart from the fact that the discoverers were Catholics, Linschoten failed to realise the impossibility that the island was named after a Protestant feast-day, it being found more than a decade before the Reformation and start of Protestantism. An alternative discovery date of 3 May on the Catholic feast-day celebrating the finding of the True Cross by Saint Helena in Jerusalem, as quoted by Odoardo Duarte Lopes in 1591 and by Sir Thomas Herbert in 1638, is suggested as historically more credible than the Protestant date of 21 May. The paper observes that if da Nova made the discovery on 3 May 1502, he may have been inhibited from naming the island Ilha de Vera Cruz (Island of the True Cross) because Pedro Álvares Cabral had already assigned that same name to the Brazilian coastline, which he thought to be a large island, on 3 May 1500. News of Cabral's discovery reached Lisbon directly from South America before da Nova's fleet set off on the voyage to India in 1501. If da Nova knew the True Cross name had already been assigned, the most obvious and plausible alternative name for him to give the island was "Santa Helena".

The long tradition that João da Nova built a chapel from one of his wrecked carracks has been shown to be based on a misreading of the records.

References and notes

Sources
Chronicles

 João de Barros (1552) Décadas da Ásia: Dos feitos, que os Portuguezes fizeram no descubrimento, e conquista, dos mares, e terras do Oriente., 1777–78 ed. Da Ásia de João de Barros e Diogo do Couto, Lisbon: Régia Officina Typografica. Vol. 1 (Dec I, Lib.1–5),
 Diogo do Couto "De todas as Armadas que os Reys de Portugal mandáram à Índia, até que El-Rey D. Filippe succedeo nestes Reynos", de 1497 a 1581", in J. de Barros and D. de Couto, Décadas da Ásia Dec. X, Pt.1, Bk.1, c.16
 Fernão Lopes de Castanheda (1551–1560) História do descobrimento & conquista da Índia pelos portugueses (1833 edition, Lisbon: Typ. Rollandiana v.1
 Gaspar Correia (c. 1550s) Lendas da Índia, first pub. 1858-64, Lisbon: Academia Real de Sciencias Vol 1.
 Damião de Góis (1566–67) Chrónica do Felicíssimo Rei D. Manuel, da Gloriosa Memoria, Ha qual por mandado do Serenissimo Principe, ho Infante Dom Henrique seu Filho, ho Cardeal de Portugal, do Titulo dos Santos Quatro Coroados, Damiam de Goes collegio & compoz de novo. (As reprinted in 1749, Lisbon: M. Manescal da Costa) Online
 Relação das Náos e Armadas da India com os Sucessos dellas que se puderam Saber, para Noticia e Instrucção dos Curiozos, e Amantes da Historia da India (Codex Add. 20902 of the British Library), [D. António de Ataíde, orig. editor.] Transcribed and reprinted in 1985, by M.H. Maldonado, Biblioteca Geral da Universidade de Coimbra. Online

 Secondary

 Birch, W. de G. (1877) "Introduction" to translation of Afonso de Albuquerque (1557) The Commentaries of the great Afonso Dalboquerque, second viceroy of India, 4 volumes, London: Hakluyt Society
 Dames, M.L. (1918) "Introduction" in An Account Of The Countries Bordering On The Indian Ocean And Their Inhabitants, Vol. 1 (Engl. transl. of Livro de Duarte de Barbosa),  2005 reprint, New Delhi: Asian Education Services.
 Bouchon, G. (1980) "A propos de l'inscription de Colombo (1501): quelques observations sur le premier voyage de João da Nova dans l'Océan Indien", Revista da Universidade de Coimbra, Vol. 28, p. 233-70.  Offprint.
 Danvers, Frederic Charles (1894) The Portuguese in India, being a history of the rise and decline of their eastern empire.  Vol. 1 (1498–1571) London: Allen.
Diffie, B. W., and G. D. Winius (1977) Foundations of the Portuguese empire, 1415–1580, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press
 Leite, Duarte (1960) História dos Descobrimentos, Vol. II Lisbon: Edições Cosmos
 Mathew, K.S. (1997) "Indian Naval Encounters with the Portuguese: Strengths and weaknesses", in K.K.N. Kurup, editor, India's Naval Traditions, New Delhi: Northern Book Centre.
 Monteiro, Saturnino (1989) Batalhas e combates da Marinha Portuguesa: 1139–1521 Lisbon: Livraria Sá da Costa
 Quintella, Ignaco da Costa (1839) Annaes da Marinha Portugueza, v.1. Lisbon: Academia Real das Sciencias.
 Radulet, Carmen M. (1985) "Girolamo Sergini e a Importância Económica do Oriente", Revista da Universidade de Coimbra, Vol. 32, p. 67–77. Offprint.
 Report (1899) "Antiquarian Discovery Relating to the Portuguese in Ceylon", Journal of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 16,  p. 15–29 Online
 Roukema, E. (1963) "Brazil in the Cantino Map", Imago Mundi, Vol. 17, p. 7–26
 Subrahmanyam, S. (1997) The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
 Smallman, D.K. (2003) Quincentenary: A Story of St Helena,1502–2002. Pezance, UK: Patten.

Portuguese India Armadas
Maritime history of Portugal
Portuguese in Kerala
1501 in Portugal
1501 in India
16th century in Portuguese India
1501 in the Portuguese Empire
1501 in Portuguese India

3rd Portuguese India Armada (Nova, 1501)


The Cayman Islands Civil Service College (CICSC) is a school of higher education in the Cayman Islands. It was established in the Fall of 2007 to further New Public Management reforms as well as the learning and development needs of the Cayman Islands Civil Service and to carry out research within the Caribbean region.

The CICSC currently offers a Certificate in Public Administration, Associate Degree in Public Administration through the auspices of the University College of the Cayman Islands.  The CICSC has formulated e-learning capacities for continuing education, specialty training, and support of competency-based human resource initiatives.

Founding
The CICSC was founded in 2007 as one element of the continuing reform programme implemented over the last several years in the Cayman Islands Civil Service.  The practical model of the Cayman reform program was New Zealand.

The college also has a regional focus meant to assist and partner with other governments in their efforts to implement pragmatic implementation of good governance reforms.

To date (March 2012), the CICSC has directly served nearly 1,000 Cayman Islands Civil Servants, offering classes in over 150 sections and 50 different areas.

In October 2009, the Associate in Public Administration degree offered through the University College of the Cayman Islands was formalized. The first graduating class was celebrated in December 2011.

In March 2012, the CICSC introduced a Certificate in Public Administration Degree in partnership with the University College of the Cayman Islands.

Colleges in the Cayman Islands
Educational institutions established in 2007
Civil service colleges
2007 establishments in the Cayman Islands

Cayman Islands Civil Service College


Lepiota babruka is a gilled mushroom of the genus Lepiota in the order Agaricales. Known only from Kerala State, India, it was described as new to science in 2009.

Taxonomy
The species was described by T.K.A. Kumar and P. Manimohan in 2009, in the journal Mycotaxon. The type collection was made in 2004, in the Kannur District of Kerala State in India. The specific epithet babrulka is derived from the Sanskrit word for "brownish".

Description
The fruit bodies of Lepiota babruka have caps  up to  wide, which are initially broadly convex before flattening out in age, usually developing a shallow umbo. The cap color is brown, and it is covered with small, darker brown, pyramid-shaped scales. The cap margin, initially curved inward before straightening out in maturity, becomes cracked in age. The gills are free from attachment to the stem. At first, they are white, but later develop yellowish tones. They are crowded together, and have 3–4 tiers of lamellulae (short gills that do not extend completely from the cap margin to the stem). The edges of the gills are the same colors as the gill face, and are fringed if viewed with a hand lens. The cylindrical, hollow, stem measure  long and 2 mm thick, and roughly the same width throughout. Its color is initially brown before darkening, and the surface is fibrillose (made of thin, threadlike fibers). A whitish, membranous ring is present on the upper portion of the stem in young fruit bodies, but it does not last for long. The flesh is thin (less than 2 thick), yellowish-white, and lacks any distinctive odor.

The spores have a roughly elliptical shape, and dimensions of 4.5–7 by 3–4 µm. They are thick-walled, smooth, hyaline (translucent), and contain refractive oil droplets. The basidia (spore-bearing cells) are club-shaped, four-spored with sterigmata up to 3 µm long, and measure 10–17 by 6–8 µm. The cheilocystidia (cystidia on the gill edge) are plentiful, thin-walled, and measure 13–34 by 10–20 µm; there are no pleurocystidia (cystidia on the gill face).

Habitat and distribution
The fruit bodies of Lepiota babruka grow singly on the ground among decaying leaf litter. It is known only from the type locality.

See also
 List of Lepiota species

References

External links

babruka
Fungi of India
Fungi described in 2009

Lepiota babruka


The Doorway to Hell is a 1930 American pre-Code crime film directed by Archie Mayo and starring Lew Ayres and James Cagney in his second film role. The film was based on the story A Handful of Clouds, written by Rowland Brown. The film's title was typical of the sensationalistic titles of many Pre-Code films. It was marketed with the tagline "The picture Gangland defied Hollywood to make!"

Plot

Louie Lamarr, the "Napoleon of the Underworld" according to the Chicago newspapers, is a young gang leader who is so successful and ruthless that he becomes the underworld boss of the entire city. He organizes all the gangs in a classic protection racket: They pay him a cut, and he enforces territorial boundaries, makes good on losses, and when someone breaks the rules he punishes them with deadly force. The result is peace on the city streets and huge profits all around. Just about everyone is satisfied except for Rocco who wants the kingpin slot for himself, and Pat O'Grady an honest police chief who has known Louie since he was an orphaned street kid. Louie has a young brother, Jackie who goes to a fine military boarding school in a different city. Jackie remembers being destitute and hungry. He is proud of his successful brother but knows nothing of Louie's business.

Louie meets Doris and immediately falls in love. However, Doris is a gold-digger who is secretly in love with Louie's best friend, Mileaway. Louie wants to get out of the rackets while the getting is good. With just one surprise last meeting to say good bye to his associates—and warn them not to try to find out where he is going Louie and Doris marry and head to Florida, stopping on the way to visit Jackie. They have dinner with the school, sitting at the head of the table with the Major. Louie observes that one of those boys might be as great as Napoleon, and that he has great hopes for Jackie. The Major replies that they are more interested in making them good citizens. When Louie says that war is a grand racket, a big business, the Major says that it is big, but it is "cruel and profitless," which gives Louie pause.

Meanwhile, without the force of Louie's dark charisma, and money, behind it, the organization is falling to pieces. Mileaway explains to some of the gangsters that he has besieged Louie with letters and telegrams but he refuses to return: He doesn't want Doris or his kid brother mixed up in the rackets. Mileaway does not realize what he has done by revealing Jackie's existence. A violent gang war erupts.

In Florida, Louie goes off to play golf—dropping to the ground when a truck's tire blows out and then laughing at himself. Mileaway phones, and Doris tells him Louie has become "an awful dud." He spends five hours a day writing his memoirs. Louie returns to retrieve a forgotten club, and Doris hands the phone to him. He ends by losing his temper with Mileaway and when Doris tells him his friend is right he asks her if she is "one of them." Has she got so much hoodlum in her that it won't come out?

In order to force Louie to come back, some of the gangsters try to kidnap Jackie outside an ice cream parlor by telling him that his brother sent them. Jackie is too smart to get in the car. He runs away down the street and is accidentally hit by a truck. The three young cadets who were with Jackie identify the men in the car for O'Grady. In Florida, Louie proudly finishes his book; he expects a call from a publisher. The last line is "So this concludes the life of a gangster and begins the life of a man. Finis." A telegram arrives from Mileaway telling Louie to come at once because Jackie has been hurt. The phone rings; the man from the publishing company wants to read the book. Stone-faced, Louie says to Doris "Tell him it's not done yet."

In the next scene, Louie goes to a famous plastic surgeon, shows him a snapshot of Jackie and asks if he can fix his brother's face. The doctor replies that he would have to see the patient. Louie tells him he is at Morse Brothers Undertaking Parlor. Jackie is buried—apparently on the school grounds—with military honors. His best friend stands by Louie. Swearing revenge on the two men who killed his brother—Gimpy and Midget, so-called because of his big pot belly— Louie returns to the city. His plans are threatened by Rocco and by O'Grady, who is building a case against the murderers. Louie and Mileaway kill Gimpy and dump his body in front of O'Grady's stakeout.

O'Grady comes to warn Louie not to leave town, and they share a drink. Louie admits that money doesn't always mean happiness, but on the other hand, he never would have met Doris in the first place if he hadn't been rich, and she is the happiest girl in the world. O'Grady says nothing as he catches a glimpse in a mirror of Mileaway and Doris holding hands.

Louie sends Mileaway and Doris off for the evening so he can deal with the Midget himself. "Where do you want to go?" she asks. "I could think of a thousand places if you weren't married to Louie." She takes off her ring and tucks it into Mileaway's hand. "Now where do you want to go?" He turns his head toward her, leans down for a kiss and—fade out.

Louie waits for Midget in a dry-cleaners, shades drawn. Midget, who thinks he is getting a payoff, tells his two bodyguards to wait on the street. He goes inside and at a signal from a man watching, a half-dozen drivers jump into their trucks and warm up their engines, revving the motors so they backfire repeatedly. The bodyguards flee. Louie washes his hands at a filthy sink. Three trucks pull away.

At 3 am, Mileaway and Doris come to the apartment to find O'Grady, who has been waiting there for two hours to arrest Mileaway for killing the Midget. Louie is already in jail. The cops give Mileaway the third degree but he doesn't flinch until O'Grady mentions "the house in Charleston Street" (where he and Doris were together). Mileaway signs the confession O'Grady has ready. For killing the Midget in self-defense, he will get 5 years and then be able to enjoy his money. On the way to his cell, he stops at Louie's cell and tells Louie he will be free soon. Grady tells Mileaway that Louie is being held for Gimpy's murder. His confession has not helped his friend. Louie thanks Mileaway for the try and says to O'Grady, What a friend! O'Grady remains silent.

Louie reads an ad in the personals column alerting him to a breakout. He pretends to be sick, knocks out the guard escorting him to the hospital and escapes. He hides out in a dingy room decorated with pictures of his hero, Napoleon — one is titled Napoleon in Exile. He hears a newsboy in the street and calls him up to the apartment. The paper is full of the gang war. He asks the kid to get him some groceries, and when he returns the innocent youth tells him that he met a friend of his, O'Grady, who also knows Louie. Louie sends the boy on his way and soon O'Grady comes to the door. He is unarmed. He has bad news for Louie: His prison break was engineered by his enemies. Two mobs are outside waiting to blast him. He was safe in jail. O'Grady won't arrest him now because they don't have enough evidence to convict him. But he is a menace to society, and must be dealt with. Louie is sure that Mileaway will take care of Doris when he gets out. O'Grady does not disillusion him about them. He leaves, telling Louie he 'll see him in 30 or 40 years. A waiter arrives from a restaurant around the corner with a last supper from the boys: a steak dinner, complete with a cigar, already lit. Laughing, Louie tosses his gun on the bed, on top of the newspaper, adjusts his tie and fedora in the mirror and puts the cigar in his mouth at a jaunty angle. He pauses for a moment in the open doorway, looking at a picture of Napoleon, then closes the door.

Cast
 Lew Ayres as Louie Ricarno
 Charles Judels as Florist (scenes deleted)
 Dorothy Mathews as Doris
 Leon Janney as Jackie
 Robert Elliott as O'Grady
 James Cagney as Mileaway
 Kenneth Thomson as Capt. of Academy
 Jerry Mandy as Gangster
 Noel Madison as Rocco
 Eddie Kane as Dr. Morton
 Tom Wilson as Gangster
 Dwight Frye as Gangster

Reception
The New York Times called the film "plausible and cruel". Their review continues, "Lewis Ayres, although perhaps too much the clean-cut young college boy to have a hand in such business, plays excellently..."

A recent review by Allmovie that was reprinted in The New York Times noted that the picture was "an innovative film and featured a lot of elements that would become standards in the gangster genre including tommy guns carried in violin cases, terrible shoot-outs, and lots of rum-running rivalry."

The film received an Academy Award nomination for Best Writing, Screenplay.

Preservation status
A print is preserved in the Library of Congress collection.

References

Notes
 Doherty, Thomas Patrick. Pre-Code Hollywood: Sex, Immorality, and Insurrection in American Cinema 1930-1934. New York: Columbia University Press 1999.

External links

1930 films
1930 crime drama films
American black-and-white films
American crime drama films
Films directed by Archie Mayo
Films produced by Darryl F. Zanuck
Films set in Chicago
American gangster films
Warner Bros. films
1930s English-language films
1930s American films

The Doorway to Hell


(Latin for 'by scripture alone') is a Christian theological doctrine held by most Protestant Christian denominations, in particular the Lutheran and Reformed traditions, that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. The Catholic Church considers it heterodox and generally the Orthodox churches consider it to be contrary to the  of the Church.

While the scriptures' meaning is mediated through many kinds of subordinate authority—such as the ordinary teaching offices of a church, the ecumenical creeds, councils of the Catholic Church, or even personal special revelation— in contrast rejects any infallible authority other than the Bible. In this view, all non-scriptural authority is derived from the authority of the scriptures or is independent of the scriptures, and is, therefore, subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible.

 is a formal principle of many Protestant Christian denominations, and one of the five solae. It was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by many of the Reformers, who taught that authentication of Scripture is governed by the discernible excellence of the text, as well as the personal witness of the Holy Spirit to the heart of each man. Some evangelical and Baptist denominations state the doctrine of  more strongly: Scripture is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.

By contrast, the Protestant traditions of Anglicanism,  Methodism and Pentecostalism uphold the doctrine of , with scripture being illumined by tradition and reason. The Methodists thought reason should be delineated from experience, though the latter was classically filed under the former and guided by reason, nonetheless this was added, thus changing the "Anglican Stool" to the four sides of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. The Eastern Orthodox Church holds that to "accept the books of the canon is also to accept the ongoing Spirit-led authority of the church's tradition, which recognizes, interprets, worships, and corrects itself by the witness of Holy Scripture". The Catholic Church officially regards tradition and scripture as equal, forming a single deposit, and considers the magisterium as the living organ which interprets said deposit. The Roman magisterium thus serves Tradition and Scripture as "one common source [...] with two distinct modes of transmission", while some Protestant authors call it "a dual source of revelation".

Many Protestants  want to distinguish the view that scripture is the only rule of faith with the exclusion of other sources (nuda scriptura), from the view taught by Luther and Calvin that the scripture alone is infallible, without excluding church tradition in its entirety, viewing them as subordinate and ministerial.

History

In the 14th century, Marsilius of Padua believed that the only authority for a Christian is the scriptures, instead of the pope. The same point was made by John Wycliffe who foreshadowed the  doctrine in the 14th century.

Johann Ruchrat von Wesel, Wessel Gansfort and Johannes von Goch also foreshadowed the Protestant view of : they viewed the scripture as being the only infallible authority and denied the authority of the pope or the church as infallible. Peter Abelard believed that human reason was a means of understanding the scriptures, instead of submitting to everything the Catholic Church defines.

Some elements of sola-scriptura are also foreshadowed by William of Ockham and Girolamo Savonarola.

Overview

 is one of the five , considered by some Protestant groups to be the theological pillars of the Reformation. The key implication of the principle is that interpretations and applications of the scriptures don't have the same authority as the scriptures themselves; hence, the authority of the church is viewed as subject to correction by the scriptures, even by an individual member of the church.

Martin Luther, 16th-century monk and figurehead of the Protestant Reformation, stated that "a simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it". The intention of the Reformation was thus to correct what he asserted to be the errors of the Catholic Church, by appealing to the uniqueness of the Bible's textual authority. Catholic doctrine is based on sacred tradition, as well as scripture.  rejected the assertion that infallible authority was given to the magisterium to interpret both Scripture and tradition.

, however, does not ignore Christian history, tradition, or the church when seeking to understand the Bible. Rather, it sees the church as the Bible's interpreter, the  (embodied in the ecumenical creeds) as the interpretive context, and scripture as the only final authority in matters of faith and practice. As Luther said, "The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so."

Characteristics in Lutheranism

Lutheranism teaches that the books of the Old and New Testaments are the only divinely inspired books and the only source of divinely revealed knowledge. Scripture alone is the formal principle of the faith in Lutheranism, the final authority for all matters of faith and morals because of its inspiration, authority, clarity, efficacy, and sufficiency.

Inspiration
Lutheranism teaches that the Bible does not merely contain the Word of God, but every word of it is, because of verbal inspiration, the word of God. Most Lutheran traditions acknowledge that understanding scriptures is complex given that the Bible contains a collection of manuscripts and manuscript fragments that were written and collected over thousands of years. For example, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America teaches that "Lutheran Christians believe that the story of God's steadfast love and mercy in Jesus is the heart and center of what the Scriptures have to say."

As Lutherans confess in the Nicene Creed, the Holy Spirit "spoke through the prophets". The Apology of the Augsburg Confession identifies "Holy Scripture" with the Word of God and calls the Holy Spirit the author of the Bible. Because of this, Lutherans confess in the Formula of Concord, "we receive and embrace with our whole heart the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the pure, clear fountain of Israel". The apocryphal books were not written by the prophets, by inspiration; they contain errors, were never included in the Palestinian Canon that Jesus used, and therefore are not a part of scripture. The prophetic and apostolic Scriptures are said by the Lutheran church to be authentic as written by the prophets and apostles, and that a correct translation of their writings is God's Word because it has the same meaning as the original Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek. A mistranslation is not God's word, and no human authority can invest it with divine authority.

Divine authority
Scripture, regarded as the word of God, carries the full authority of God in Lutheranism: every single statement of the Bible calls for instant, unqualified and unrestricted acceptance. Every doctrine of the Bible is the teaching of God and therefore requires full agreement. Every promise of the Bible calls for unshakable trust in its fulfillment; every command of the Bible is the directive of God himself and therefore demands willing observance.

What is said here of "every statement of the Bible" does not represent the faith of all Lutherans: a 2001 survey showed that 72 percent of members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America do not accept that everything in the Bible is literal, but that it may contain scientific or historical errors or describe events symbolically.

Clarity

Lutheranism teaches that the Bible presents all doctrines and commands of the Christian faith clearly; that God's word is freely accessible to every reader or hearer of ordinary intelligence, without requiring any special education. It also teaches that readers must understand the language God's word is presented in, and not be so preoccupied by contrary thoughts so as to prevent understanding. It teaches that, consequently, no one needs to wait for any clergy, and pope, scholar, or ecumenical council to explain the real meaning of any part of the Bible.

Efficacy
Lutheranism teaches that scripture is united with the power of the Holy Spirit and with it, not only demands but also creates the acceptance of its teaching. This teaching produces faith and obedience. Scripture is not a dead letter, but rather, the power of the Holy Spirit is inherent in it. Scripture does not compel a mere intellectual assent to its doctrine, resting on logical argumentation, but rather it creates the living agreement of faith. The Smalcald Articles affirm, "in those things which concern the spoken, outward Word, we must firmly hold that God grants His Spirit or grace to no one, except through or with the preceding outward Word".

Sufficiency
Lutheranism teaches that the Bible contains everything that one needs to know in order to obtain salvation and to live a Christian life. There are no deficiencies in scripture that need to be filled with by tradition, pronouncements of the Pope, new revelations, or present-day development of doctrine.

Characteristics in the Reformed faith
The Westminster Confession of Faith spoke of the use of "the ordinary means" (such as turning to pastors and teachers) for reaching an understanding of what is contained in scripture and is necessary to know:
Chapter 1, Section VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

Prima scriptura

 may be contrasted with , which holds that, besides canonical scripture, there are other guides for what a believer should believe, and how he or she should live. Examples of this include the general revelation in creation, traditions, charismatic gifts, mystical insight, angelic visitations, conscience, common sense, the views of experts, the spirit of the times or something else.  suggests that ways of knowing or understanding God and his will, that do not originate from canonized scripture, are in a second place, perhaps helpful in interpreting that scripture, but testable by the canon and correctable by it, if they seem to contradict the scriptures.

Two Christian denominations that uphold the position of  are Anglicanism and Methodism. In the Anglican tradition, scripture, tradition, and reason form the "Anglican triad" or "three-legged stool", formulated by the Anglican theologian Richard Hooker. With respect to the Methodist tradition, A Dictionary for United Methodists states:

Sola scriptura rejects any original infallible authority, other than the Bible. In this view, all secondary authority is derived from the authority of the scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, biblical commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach.

Scripture and sacred tradition
The Roman Catholic Church, against whom the Protestants directed these arguments, did not see Scripture and the Sacred Tradition of the faith as different sources of authority, but that Scripture was handed down as part of Sacred Tradition (see 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Timothy 2:2).

The Catholic Church holds that the Gospel was transmitted by the apostles by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit; as well as by those apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing. "This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it." "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God."

The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit.  (The Catholic Church distinguishes Sacred Tradition from lesser ecclesiastical traditions—local customs that may be retained, modified or even abandoned.) As explained by Athanasius of Alexandria, "Let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the very beginning, which the Logos gave (edoken), the Apostles preached (ekeryxan), and the Fathers preserved (ephylaxan). Upon this the Church is founded (tethemeliotai)"(St. Athanasius, "First Letter to Serapion", 28)

The doctrines which constitute Sacred Tradition are also perceived by the Church as cohesive in nature. The proper interpretation of the Scriptures was seen as part of the faith of the Church and seen indeed as the manner in which biblical authority was upheld (see Book of Acts 15:28–29). The meaning of Scripture was seen as proven from the faith universally held in the churches (see Phil. 2:1, Acts 4:32), and the correctness of that universal faith was seen as proven from the Scriptures and apostolic Sacred Tradition (see 2 Thes. 2:15, 2 Thes. 3:6, 1 Corinthians 11:2). The Biblical canon itself was thus viewed by the Church as part of the Church's tradition, as defined by its leadership and acknowledged by its laity. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

The Catholic Dei verbum and the papal encyclicals Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII and Divino afflante Spiritu by Pope Pius XII set out Catholic teaching on tradition versus individual interpretation.

The Catholic Church teaches that Christ entrusted the preaching of the Gospel to the apostles, who handed it on orally and in writing, and according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time. "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches." For the Eastern Orthodox too, "the Holy Bible forms a part of Holy Tradition, but does not lie outside of it. One would be in error to suppose that Scripture and Tradition are two separate and distinct sources of Christian Faith, as some do, since there is, in reality, only one source; and the Holy Bible exists and found its formulation within Tradition".

Catholics apply to apostolic tradition many of the qualities that evangelicals and other Protestants apply to scripture alone. For example, the 1978 Evangelical declaration Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, states: "We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us. We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind."

Since the Catholic Church professes that apostolic tradition and scripture are both the word of God, Catholics can affirm that many of these propositions apply equally well to tradition: It is the work of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be reduced to human insight or heightened consciousness.

This ties in with the question of what constitutes apostolic tradition. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that this tradition is given "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received – whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit".

There remains some confusion on the matter among both Catholics and non-Catholics. This confusion can be seen in those who interpret Catholic researcher James Keenan to claim that the doctrines given by apostolic tradition have changed. Keenan reviewed the history of moral theology, and in particular a change in the approach of moral theologians, specifically in the twentieth century. Keenan noted that Mark D. Jordan said that medieval texts he had reviewed appeared to be inconsistent. This refers to medieval traditions and not to apostolic tradition or doctrine. Keenan, however, says that John T. Noonan Jr. demonstrated that, "despite claims to the contrary, manualists were co-operators in the necessary historical development of the moral tradition". According to Noonan, "history cannot leave a principle or a teaching untouched; every application to a situation affects our understanding of the principle itself."

Critiques
Following the Protestant churches' separation from the Roman Catholic Church, the relatively new idea of  came under serious critique by the Catholic and Orthodox Christians. In his 2001 The Shape of Sola Scriptura,  the Reformed Christian writer Keith A. Mathison mentions several recent examples of such critics. In response, Mathison distinguishes what he considers to be the true doctrine of  from the "subjective and individualistic version" of the doctrine that most Protestants have adopted.

The American Roman Catholic author and television presenter Patrick Madrid wrote that  is self-referentially incoherent, as the Bible itself does not teach , and therefore the belief that the scriptures are the only source of Christian belief is self-contradicting given that it cannot be supported without extra-scriptural doctrine.

In the 2008 book Catholicism and Science, the authors Peter M. J. Hess and Paul Allen wrote that  is "inherently divisive", citing the Marburg Colloquy where Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli debated the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist on scriptural grounds but were unable to reach agreement on Sacramental Union. Hess and Allen argue that, when scripture is seen as the only source of infallible teaching, its interpretation is subject to fallible interpretation, and without an infallible interpreter, a certainty of Christian belief is not possible.

The Roman Catholic Encyclopedia of Theology notes that, since the 27 books that make up the New Testament canon of scripture are not based on a scriptural list that authenticates them to be inspired, their legitimacy would be impossible to distinguish with certainty without appealing to another infallible source, such as the magisterium of the Catholic Church, which assembled and authenticated this list at Synod of Rome and the Synod of Carthage, both of which took place in the fourth century. Before this, a compiled and authenticated Bible as it is now known did not yet exist.

The American Roman Catholic writer Dave Armstrong wrote that there are several examples of Jesus and his Apostles accepting oral and extrabiblical tradition in the New Testament:
The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matthew 2:23). This prophecy, which is considered to be "God's Word", was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.
In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses' seat", but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses.
In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul the Apostle refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But, this critic writes, rabbinic tradition does.
"As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Timothy 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (cf. Exodus 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.
In the Epistle of Jude 9, a dispute is mentioned between the Archangel Michael and Satan over Moses' body, which is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, and is drawn from oral Jewish tradition.
In the Epistle of James 5:17, when recounting the prayers of Elijah described in 1 Kings 17, a lack of rain for three years is mentioned, which is absent from the passage in 1 Kings.
Armstrong argues that since Jesus and the Apostles acknowledge authoritative Jewish oral tradition, Christians can therefore not dispute oral tradition's legitimacy and authority. However, according to scripture, Jesus also challenges some man-made Jewish traditions. But Catholics also make a similar distinction today between Sacred Tradition, which is considered inerrant, and lesser ecclesiastical traditions or disciplines, which can be subject to change. In the Catholic view, one can know what belongs to Sacred Tradition and what is an ecclesiastical tradition or discipline by consulting the Magisterium of the Church. The difference between the two, in the Catholic view, is that Sacred Tradition is apostolic and part of the deposit of faith, while ecclesiastical traditions and disciplines are not.

Views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) states: "The official, canonized scriptures of the Church, often called the standard works, are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price." The Church accepts the Bible as the word of God "as far as it is translated correctly,"  and it regards parts of the Apocrypha, some writings of the Protestant Reformers and non-Christian religious leaders, and the non-religious writings of some philosophers – and, notably, the Constitution of the United States of America – to be inspired, though not canonical.

Regarding the Church's view on the belief held by many that the Holy Bible, as presently constituted (in any translation, or even from the extant Hebrew and Greek manuscripts), is inerrant or infallible, etc, or the doctrine of sola scriptura, the Church has said the following: "The Latter-day Saints have a great reverence and love for the Bible. They study it and try to live its teachings. They treasure its witness of the life and mission of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Prophet Joseph Smith studied the Bible all his life, and he taught its precepts. He testified that a person who can 'mark the power of Omnipotence, inscribed upon the heavens, can also see God's own handwriting in the sacred volume: and he who reads it oftenest will like it best, and he who is acquainted with it, will know the hand [of the Lord] wherever he can see it'."

The Church further said on the subject of sola scriptura: "Latter-day Saints believe in an open scriptural canon, which means that there are other books of scripture besides the Bible (such as the Book of Mormon) and that God continues to reveal His word through living prophets. The argument is often made that to be a Christian means to assent to the principle of sola scriptura, or the self-sufficiency of the Bible. But to claim that the Bible is the final word of God—more specifically, the final written word of God—is to claim more for the Bible than it claims for itself. Nowhere does the Bible proclaim that all revelations from God would be gathered into a single volume to be forever closed and that no further scriptural revelation could be received."

See also
 Biblical criticism
 Bibliolatry
 Cessationism versus continuationism
 Christian fundamentalism
 Ex cathedra
 Ibrahim al-Nazzam
 Ijtihad
 Karaite Judaism (an analogous position in Judaism)
 King James Only movement
 Quranism (an analogous position in Islam)

Notes

References

Footnotes

Bibliography

External links
WELS Topical Q&A: Sola Scriptura in the Bible? (a Confessional Lutheran perspective)
WELS Topical Q&A: ? (a Confessional Lutheran perspective)
Articles on  from a Reformed perspective
Bible verses on  from a Catholic perspective
Scripture & Tradition from a Catholic perspective
Proving Inspiration refers to
Scripture and Tradition and "What's Your Authority?" argues against
A written debate on  between Douglas Jones and Gerald Matatics from Antithesis Magazine
A formal written debate on   between Julie Staples and Apolonio Latar
A Catholic assessment of
An Orthodox Christian assessment of
Orthodox Christian Responses to Protestant Apologists on
"Paradosis: The Handing On of Divine Revelation" from a Catholic perspective
"A Disputation on Holy Scripture" by Puritan William Whitaker (1588)
Citations from the Early Church Fathers on
 – The Sufficient and Final Authority of the Scriptures, from the Free Brethren House Churches of Christ, a group in the Anabaptist tradition

Five solae
Latin religious words and phrases
Lutheran theology
Christian theology of the Bible
Heresy in Christianity
Christian terminology

Sola scriptura


The Meridian Highway Bridge is a bridge that formerly carried U.S. Route 81 across the Missouri River between Nebraska and South Dakota. The Meridian Highway Bridge connects Yankton, South Dakota with rural Cedar County, Nebraska. The Meridian Bridge is a double-deck bridge, with the top level having carried traffic into South Dakota from Nebraska, and the lower level having carried traffic into Nebraska from South Dakota. It was closed to all traffic in 2008, but reopened for use only by pedestrians and bicycles in 2011.

History
The bridge crosses the Missouri River, connecting Yankton, South Dakota to the north with Cedar County, Nebraska to the south. Prior to the construction of the bridge, traffic moved between these two points via a ferry service, started in 1870, and a seasonal pontoon bridge, first installed in 1890. The pontoon bridge was disassembled and rebuilt twice a year, once to float on open water, and once to be placed on solid ice. After a 1915 initiative to build a permanent bridge faltered with the U.S. entrance into World War I, a new effort was started by the Yankton Chamber of Commerce 1919. Though fundraising problems caused a temporary halt in 1922, the new bridge, featuring a movable span to allow for river navigation, was completed during the summer of 1924.

The dedication ceremony was held on October 11, 1924, and the bridge opened as a toll bridge. It was the last link of the Meridian Highway, which became U.S. Route 81, to be completed. It was designed for use by trains on the lower level of the bridge and vehicular traffic on the upper level; a lift mechanism allowed river traffic to pass below. However, trains never used the lower level. In 1953, all tolls were lifted and the two levels were converted to one-way traffic: northbound on the top, southbound on the bottom.
In the 1980s, the lift mechanism and counterweights were removed, and the decorative iron railings on the upper level were replaced by Jersey barricades.

The bridge was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1993.

On May 9, 2008, a 10-ton gross weight limit was placed on the bridge after an inspection found corrosion on the gusset plates. It was replaced by the Discovery Bridge upon its opening on October 11, 2008, exactly 84 years after the dedication of the Meridian Highway Bridge.

The bridge was used as location for filming a scene of the 2016 film Until Forever.

Present and future use
With completion of the Discovery Bridge, the Meridian Bridge has been converted into a pedestrian/bike trail. The bridge reopened in November 2011 to non-motorized traffic only. A two-block-long pedestrian plaza has been added.

The bridge spans the Missouri National Recreational River, a unit of the National Park Service created under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

See also

 List of crossings of the Missouri River
 Missouri National Recreational River
 List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Nebraska
 List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in South Dakota
 National Register of Historic Places listings in Cedar County, Nebraska
 National Register of Historic Places listings in Yankton County, South Dakota
 Discovery Bridge (Yankton)
 List of historic bridges in Nebraska
 Gavins Point Dam

References

External links

 Meridian Bridge - Missouri National Recreational River
 Historic Bridges of Nebraska - Meridian Bridge
 Missouri National Recreational River
 City of Yankton, South Dakota

Bridges completed in 1924
Road bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Nebraska
Road bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in South Dakota
Vertical lift bridges in the United States
Buildings and structures in Cedar County, Nebraska
Double-decker bridges
Buildings and structures in Yankton, South Dakota
Pedestrian bridges in the United States
Pedestrian bridges in Nebraska
Former road bridges in the United States
U.S. Route 81
Drawbridges on the National Register of Historic Places
Former toll bridges in Nebraska
Former toll bridges in South Dakota
National Register of Historic Places in Cedar County, Nebraska
National Register of Historic Places in Yankton County, South Dakota
Bridges of the United States Numbered Highway System
Towers in South Dakota
Towers in Nebraska
Steel bridges in the United States
1924 establishments in Nebraska
1924 establishments in South Dakota

Meridian Highway Bridge


The Project for Excellence in Journalism was a tax-exempt research organization in the United States that used empirical methods to evaluate and study the performance of the press.

The organization's director was Tom Rosenstiel, a professor of journalism who has served as a media critic and political correspondent for the Los Angeles Times and Newsweek.

The organization was founded in 1997, and it was formerly affiliated with the Columbia School of Journalism.

In 2006, it separated from Columbia University and joined the Pew Research Center, funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, a private organization.

In January 2014 the Project for Excellence in Journalism was renamed the Pew Research Center's Journalism Project.

News Coverage Index
Every week the Project for Excellence in Journalism produced the News Coverage Index, a report identifying the main subjects covered by the U.S. mainstream media and analyses the percentage of the available space, or news hole, devoted to each major subject. It was used to analyze media coverage of events such as Occupy Wall Street.

References

American journalism organizations
Charities based in Washington, D.C.
Media analysis organizations and websites

Project for Excellence in Journalism


Chuvash nationalism or the Chuvash national movement () is the belief that the Chuvash people constitute a nation, as well as the fight among the Chuvash people for equality. Spontaneous elements of Chuvash nationalism were manifested, starting from the 16th century, in various forms of social performances. Evasion of taxes and duties, local armed actions of local importance, submission of petitions to the authorities, withdrawal to regions weakly controlled by the state, participation in large-scale anti-government protests, persistent resistance to mass Christianization (see O. Tomeev, Razin's Rebellion, Pugachev's Rebellion, Commission of Lieutenant Colonel A. I. Svechin, Shoorcha rebellion) were evidence of the protest potential of the ethnos.

The beginning of unity of the Chuvash people

The reforms of Alexander II and related socio-economic, political and spiritual transformations opened a new era in the history of the peoples of the Volga region. A significant factor in the national mobilization of the Chuvash people was the liberalization of social and political life associated with the expansion of citizens, both in the legal and educational spheres. Nikolay Ilminsky, Nikolai Zolotnitsky, Ivan Yakovlev, Ilya Ulyanov, Simbirsk Chuvash school played an important role in the development of school business and culture among the Chuvash population. Socio-economic shifts and changes in the second half of the 19th century were reflected in the public consciousness. They prepared the ideological basis for the emergence of Chuvash nationalism, the formulation of its slogans, political interests, and demands.

At the turn of the 19th century, the Chuvash people consolidated themselves. Unifying them was the Chuvash language, which has grown to a single literary language, professional culture, and the emergence of national intelligentsia. Language and culture, the commonality of the Chuvash nation, was supported by the compact residence of most people in the common territory. By the end of the 19th century, there was a final formation and stabilization of the configuration of the ethnic territory of the Chuvash (7 adjacent counties of Kazan and Simbirsk Governorates), where 78% of the Chuvash lived—based on ethnoconsolidation processes and the growth of consciousness among the Chuvash in the early 20th century marked the beginnings of an organized Chuvash nationalism movement.

In the first decade of the 20th century, the national movement of the Chuvash people moved from an early phase characterized by the emergence of national educators, Patriotic figures of education and culture, who were engaged in the study of the language, history, and culture of the people, to a second phase, involving the spread of self-consciousness among Chuvash. The third phase of Chuvash nationalism ended with a mass movement with open political slogans and a network of national organizations formed for ethnic emancipation in 1917.

Chuvash nationalism in the 1905 revolution
The peoples of the Volga region national movement was accelerated by the Russian Revolution of 1905, which intertwined socio-political, economic, and national contradictions and conflicts. The ideas of national rise were, first of all carried by the young Chuvash intelligentsia, represented by teachers, priests, and lawyers. Many were pupils of the Simbirsk Chuvash teacher's school but could not be satisfied with the goals and objectives that Ivan Yakovlev set at the time. The vast majority of representatives of the Chuvash intelligentsia shared the ideas of the SR party, which had the strongest influence on the Chuvash population of all revolutionary movements in the Volga region—the ideology and leadership of Chuvash nationalism formed in this environment. The Chuvash social revolutionaries demanded national and cultural autonomy. Publication of the newspaper "Khypar" (January 1906) contributed to the unity of the avant-garde forces of the nation, understanding the ways of the social and cultural revival of the people. The newspaper "Khypar" stood at the origins of national journalism, which testified to a significant shift in Chuvash social thought, the range of which has expanded from educational to socio-political, state-legal views. The newspaper played a role in the state Duma elections. Parliamentarians from Chuvashia (Y.A. Abramov, N. P. Efremov, D. A. Kushnikov, K. V. Lavrsky, I. I. Sokolov, Z. M. Talantsev, A. F. Fedorov), regardless of party affiliation, spoke in their parliamentary activities for the development of education, in defense of national equality.

During the revolution of 1905–07 the movement turned Chuvash peasants, in which the agrarian question was put forward with socio-political and national demands – civil rights and freedoms, equality of languages, schooling in their native language, the election of judges by the local population, the use of the Chuvash language in the proceedings, the formation of local management taking into account the national composition of the population, etc. In 1905–07, new forces in the face of youth and political radicals entered the arena of Chuvash social life, supplementing the concept of national unification based on comprehensive education and culture with an emphasis on the growth of political consciousness, the class struggle for the social liberation of the Chuvash people. Qualitative changes occurred in the Chuvash socio-political thought, which based on enlightenment and liberal ideas, had a General tendency to form a national ideology, and did not go beyond the requirement of cultural and national autonomy. The idea of territorial autonomy was expressed only by some figures of Chuvash culture (I. N. Yurkin, G. A. Korenkov).

After the February Revolution
The development of Chuvash nationalism after the February Revolution of 1917 initially went within the framework of multiethnic territorial bodies of the peoples of the Volga-Kama region, developed a common form of organization-society (then the Union of small nationalities of the Volga region) and congresses of small nationalities of the Volga region. The first national Chuvash associations began to emerge in the spring of 1917: on 27 March, the Ufa Chuvash national society was created under the chairmanship Of G. I. Komissarov; by the summer, a network of Chuvash national organizations was formed, which included not only provincial but also County and rural ones.

The national upsurge was, in its way, transformed in Church life. A number of clergymen became active figures of Chuvash nationalism (P. P. Shlenkin, D. F. Filimonov, T. A. Zemlyanitsky, G. T. Tikhonov, A. S. Ivanov, K. P. Prokopiev, etc.). As the main requirements they put forward: the appointment of Chuvash priests to Chuvash parishes, the introduction of the native language into Church worship, the establishment of the post of Chuvash Bishop.

Revived on 1 May 1917, Khypar became a mouthpiece of Chuvash nationalism, calling for the unity of all Chuvash.

A distinctive feature of the post-February period was the radical democratization of existing and the emergence of new political institutions in the nation. they were inevitably filled with ethnic content. Chuvash people were elected as chairmen of the Civil, Cheboksary, and Yadrin Zemstvo councils for the first time in history. There were alternative forms of mass participation of the Chuvash population in social and political life-councils of deputies, peasant congresses and unions, and soldiers—organizations, etc.

The most clearly national specificity was manifested in the activities of the County peasant congresses, which raised and discussed the issues of national self-determination of peoples and Russia's administrative and territorial structure. Nationally oriented were the associations of Chuvash servicemen (Chuvash military committees and fellow countrymen), in their midst, a new generation of political leaders was emerging (A. D. Krasnov, D. P. Petrov, G. T. Titov, etc.). The diversity of forms of Cuvash nationalism after the February Revolution reflected other public associations, such as teachers ' unions, the Union of Chuvash students, etc. They did not set themselves a program of national and political goals but formed a social space for the development of social and civic initiatives of Chuvash society.

February 1917 sharply stimulated multipartyism, bringing to the fore the liberal and socialist parties, which in their programs, inevitably had to articulate clearly the vision and ways of solving national problems. Political parties, except the black hundreds, operating in the Chuvash region, put forward a demand for autonomy within the Russian state, transformed into a democratic or Federal. The leaders of the socialist revolutionaries, as the program goals of the party in the summer of 1917, put forward the slogans of the democratic Republic with the prospect of transformation into a Federal state with the onset of appropriate socio-political conditions, national-cultural autonomy for the Chuvash, proportional-national representation in elected authorities.

The strategy of the national rise and ideological platform of the Chuvash national movement was adopted at the All-Chuvash National Forum in June 1917 in Simbirsk, which elected the members of the Chuvash National Society.

After the October Revolution
The overthrow of the Russian Republic and the transfer of power into the hands of a coalition of Bolsheviks and Left Socialist-Revolutionaries in October 1917 created a new configuration of political forces in the country. The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic proclaimed in its decrees the de jure right of the peoples of Russia to free self-determination until the formation of an independent state.

Largely under the influence of this circumstance, at the end of 1917, the national leaders of the Tatars and Bashkirs put forward a plan for regional autonomy of the Middle Volga region and the Urals (Volga-Ural state, Ural-Volga state, middle Volga and South Ural state, Volga-Kama state, Volga-Ural Soviet Republic or Tatar-Bashkir Soviet Republic).

In the discussions about its creation, the main requirements of the Chuvash representatives attended the equality and sovereignty of all its Nations and all national-cultural autonomy; the generated state was seen as an inseparable part of Russia, and internal administrative unit as "regiona (regional) Federal Republic of nationalities". The final position in the disputes about the Tatar-Bashkir Soviet Republic was expressed at the all-Chuvash workers 'and peasants' Congress (June 1918), which opposed the inclusion of the Chuvash population.

Between February and March 1918, there was a split in the Chuvash national movement between left- and right-wing groups, ultimately ending in a leftist victory. The leftists included the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the Chuvash Socialist-Nationalist Party, and nonpartisan soldiers, teachers, and students who supported the Bolsheviks. Members of the left bloc seized the property of the newspaper's editorial office, "Khypar" from the Right Socialist-Revolutionaries, and started publishing a new printing body, "Kanash". On 5 March the Chuvash left socialist Committee was formed, and on its initiative, the Commissariat for Chuvash Affairs under the Kazan Provincial Council was opened.

The final disengagement among Chuvash nationalist leaders occurred in the summer of 1918, when a large group of national figures, Chuvash delegates of the Constituent Assembly (G. F. Alunov, S. N. Nikolaev, D. P. Petrov, G. T. Titov, I. V. Vasiliev) moved to the anti-Soviet camp. However, the movement continued its organizational formalization in the form of Soviet-party organizations. In 1918–19 in Kazan, Simbirsk, Samar. and Saratov provinces arose Chuvash sub-departments in the provincial departments of the Executive committees of the Soviets, created the corresponding section at the provincial committees of the RCP(b); the Chuvash sub-divisions (sections) also operated under the political departments of the red Army headquarters and revolutionary military councils. The Central Soviet institution was the Chuvash Department under the People's Commissariat for Nationalities of the RSFSR headed by D. S. Elmen.

Chuvash autonomy
Since the 2nd Polina of 1918, Chuvash nationalist leaders began to lean towards the idea of national-territorial autonomy-the creation of the Chuvash administrative-territorial unit. The project of the formation of the Chuvash labor commune is documented. The idea of organizing a separate national-territorial unit for the Chuvash people was embodied in the creation of the Chuvash Autonomous region with its subsequent transformation into the Chuvash ASSR.

There was a network of national educational institutions in Bashkiria, Tatarstan, Simbirsk, Samara, and other provinces. Chuvash newspapers were produced in Samara and Kazan. For Chuvash residents throughout the Soviet Union, the Chuvash-language Voice of Workers newspaper was published in Moscow. In Bashkiria, Simbirsk province, Tatar ASSR, Saratov province, Kazakhstan, and Siberia were formed Chuvash national administrative-territorial units. In the 1920s, there was a network of Chuvash representations at the Central Party and Soviet bodies and institutions.

The abandonment of the New Economic Policy and Joseph Stalin's rise to power were accompanied by the curtailment of democratic processes in the sphere of national relations: the prevailing trend since the early 1930s has been towards unification. The national began to be interpreted as nationalistic and opposed to the international. The network of Chuvash representations in Moscow was liquidated, and the publication of the Central newspaper in the Chuvash language "Kommunar" was suspended. Under the banner of the fight against "nationalism" was a forgotten experience considering the interests of all ethno-territorial groups of Chuvashes. Official documents disappeared mention of the Chuvash compactly living outside the Republic, curtailing the processes of indigenization and implementation of the Chuvash language policy. In the mid-1960s, the theory of erasing national differences and merging nationalities into one "Soviet people" was proclaimed.

Perestroika
The situation in national relations began to change radically in the years of perestroika. Since the late 1980s, Chuvash nationalism has again risen to prominence. One of its organizational forms was the Coordination Center for Support of Creative Youth (CSCY) at the Chuvash regional Committee of the Komsomol, the decision to establish which was taken in April 1987. The CSCY comprised young writers, artists, actors, scientists, humanitarians, and students. Kctm events caused sharp discussions about the prospects of the poetic word, the tradition of the artistic and poetic avant-garde of the early 20th century, the status of the native language and the future of national cultures, the right of the nation to free political, economic and cultural development.

In the spring of 1988, a group of CHNII YALE and ChSU researchers took the initiative to create the Society of I. ya. Yakovlev, the program and Charter of the society as a people's social and political movement were developed. Among the goals and objectives proclaimed the moral and national revival of the society, the Association of national-cultural aspirations of all Chuvash people regardless of where they live, the sovereignty of the Chuvash Autonomous Republic in the sphere of economy, politics, and culture, the preservation and development of national traditions, giving Chuvash state language, study, and popularization of a heritage of I. Ya. Yakovlev and others. A discussion took place in the Republican mass media, on 30 November 1988 a broad meeting was held to discuss the program goals and objectives of The Yakovlev Society.

The initiative met with opposition from the Chuvash. the regional Committee of the CPSU, and scheduled for April 1989 constituent Congress was banned.

ChSCC – CNC
As an alternative, in December 1989, the founding Congress of the Chuvash Social and Cultural Center (ChSCC) was held, and the Chairman was elected M. N. Yukhma. In February and March, the Council of Ministers of the Chuvash ASSR approved the Charter and platform of the ChSCC. In March 1991, the founding congress of the Chuvash National Revival Party (Chuvash Atalanu Party, CHAP) was held, the program of which was aimed at achieving the economic and political sovereignty of Chuvashia. On 9 October 1992, the founding congress of the Chuvash National Congress (CNC) was held, the leitmotif of which was the implementation of state sovereignty in full. Atner Khoosanguy was elected as chairman of the PNP.

Since the late 1980s, there have been national and cultural associations of Chuvash in various regions of Russia, primarily in the Volga region (the republics of Bashkortostan and Tatarstan, Ulyanovsk and Samara regions), where the largest mass of the Chuvash population lives relatively compactly outside the territory of Chuvashia. Different forms of Chuvash cultural organisations were created in Moscow and St. Petersburg, in the CIS countries (Kazakhstan, Moldova, Ukraine) and the Baltic States (Latvia, Estonia). After the Russian government adopted the Law On National-Cultural Autonomy in 1996, the Chuvash National-Cultural Autonomy (ChNCA) began to form. , 85 Chuvash cultural organisations in Russia, including 25 national-cultural autonomies. In 2001, the Federal National-Cultural Autonomy of the Chuvash people of Russia was approved as an extraterritorial public-state entity.

Most Chuvash cultural organisations are engaged in cultural and educational activities, such as the creation of folklore groups, a celebration of traditional Chuvash holidays, the publication of newspapers, folklore, and history books, initiatives to support Chuvash education (including the study of the Chuvash language and literature), and the organization of Chuvash radio and television programs.

See also

 Chuvash National Congress
 Chuvash National Museum
 List of Chuvashes
 Chuvash Wikipedia
 Chuvash National Broadcasting Company
 Chuvash national radio
 ChuvashTet
 Society for the study of the native land
 The entry of Chuvashia into the Russian state

Literatura
 С.В. Щербаков, "Чувашское национальное движение 1917–1921 годах. Взлёты и падения." /Chuvash national movement of 1917–1921. UPS and downs.

References

Weblinks
 What brought Chuvash and Jews together in 1917? And could the Ulyanovsk become the capital of the Chuvash Republic?
 Sergey Shcherbakov: Formation of autonomy of the Chuvash people in 1917–1921: periodization and new approaches
 Sergey Shcherbakov: The nature of the Chuvash national movement and its participants in 1917
 Sergey Shcherbakov: External factors that influenced the form and methods of the national movement of the Chuvash people in 1917
 Sergey Shcherbakov: The position of the Chuvash national movement at the regional and national level at the beginning of 1918

nationalism
Independence movements
nationalism

Chuvash nationalism


Ecclesfield Priory was a religious house of Benedictine monks, lying in the village of Ecclesfield, north of Sheffield in Yorkshire, England.

History

Early history
Ecclesfield Church and a mill in the village were in the possession of St Wandrille's Abbey in Normandy by 1142, when this was confirmed by a papal bull of Pope Innocent II. These were the abbey's most northerly possessions, and probably their most valuable.

There is no written evidence of any building on the site before 1273, but an 1161 agreement between Richard de Lovetot and the abbey mentions "the monks of Ecclesfield". In 1866, an outer wall of the Priory was uncovered, at the west end of the chapel. The architect supervising the work claimed that this may have been 12th-century work, but there has been no further investigation of this.

Religious use
The Priory was in existence by 1273, when it was mentioned in a papal bull of Pope Clement IV, again confirming some of the abbey's possessions. It acted as a cell of the abbey in Normandy. Many writers have assumed that this demonstrates that the surviving structures were built prior to this date, but David Hey notes that it is possible that a 12th-century structure was in use and was only replaced a few years later.

The names of most priors from the early 14th century are known:

To 1328: Robert de Bosco
1328 – 49: John de Fauvel
1349 – 69: Robert Gullielmi
1369 – 71: William Fulmere
1371 – 72: John Burdet
1372 – 85: Sir Henry de Medbourne

In 1357, the abbey sent two armed messengers to bring Gullielmi back because he had ignored a summons questioning his "evil life and embezzlement of the priory's goods". Fulmere was ejected as he was not ordained, and Burdet was imprisoned in Newgate for threatening Fulmere. Upon his release, Burdet unsuccessfully challenged de Medbourne's appointment in Parliament.

In 1386, the Priory was confiscated from the abbey during the Hundred Years' War and given to the Priory of St Anne in Coventry. This was a Carthusian house, and did not send monks to Ecclesfield Priory, instead appointing vicars and chaplains. This system survived until the Dissolution of the Monasteries.

The Valor Ecclesiasticus of 1535 noted that there was a dwelling house for the vicar, usually presumed to be either the Priory or a neighbouring structure. St Anne's was dissolved in 1539, and in 1542 the right to present vicars and collect tithes in Ecclesfield was purchased by Francis Talbot, 5th Earl of Shrewsbury; it then passed through several hands to the Shirecliffe family. They converted the building into a farmhouse under the name Ecclesfield Hall, inserting a fireplace and mullioned windows. The priory chapel and room below were not altered.

Domestic use

In 1637, John Harrison described "The scite of the mannor, or mansion house called Ecclesfield-hall with all the Out-houses there to belonginge some of them being in decay and some fallen downe. Also the orchard, gardens, yard, the conney-greave and the Intack lyinge next unto Ecclesfeild Churchyard..." An inventory of 1691 listed the Hall's rooms as "hall, little parlour adjoining to the hall, milk house, kitchen, brewhouse, oxen house, dining room, closet, buttery, cellar, Chappel parlour, passage, Chappel Chamber, Greene Chamber, passage, Servants Chamber, boulting house, hay lath, fold, stable and Old Chappell." The Hall was greatly extended in 1736. It is uncertain whether any parts of the old building were demolished at this time.

By the Victorian period, the Mediaeval portion had once again become known as "Ecclesfield Priory". Jonathan Eastwood wrote extensively about the Priory in his History of the Parish of Ecclesfield of 1862, and the surviving building was restored in 1866 by M. E. Hadfield. The Priory and Hall then became separate houses.

Architecture

The surviving building consists of a north–south oriented block, with the chapel connected to its south-east corner. It is constructed of sandstone with Millstone Grit dressings and is built directly on the bedrock. The three-storey chapel block is of thinly coursed rubble, while the crosswing is of squared stone and is coursed.

The main block was substantially altered in the 17th century and again in 1866, with windows dating from both periods. One first-floor room has a barrel vaulted ceiling with relief panels, while the original pointed doorway into the chapel survives. The chapel contains more mediaeval work, including original lancet windows, a piscina and an aumbry.

The entire building is Grade II* listed.

References

Ecclesfield
13th-century church buildings in England
Benedictine monasteries in England
Christianity in Sheffield
Grade II* listed buildings in Sheffield
History of Sheffield
Monasteries in South Yorkshire
13th-century establishments in England
Christian monasteries established in the 13th century
1386 disestablishments
Grade II* listed churches in South Yorkshire
Grade II* listed monasteries

Ecclesfield Priory


The Israel Center for Social and Economic Progress is an independent pro-market public policy thinktank founded in 1983 by Daniel Doron to promote basic structural reform in Israel's economy. Its British Friends include members of the Jewish-British community such as Gerald Ronson and Barry Townsley. The center has also received funding from Sam Zell.

ICSEP was credited by then finance minister Binyamin Netanyahu as having provided "truly invaluable assistance" in helping bring about the country's 2005 capital market reform bill and additional tax reform.

External links
ICSEP official site

Economy of Israel
Think tanks based in Israel