Talk:Velikoe v malom i antikhrist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Table of Contents[edit]

The table of contents has been translated by User:Alex Bakharev - who has also made a table of it. I reproduce it here. Yours truly,--Ludvikus 06:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Preface V-VIII
Preface to the second edition IX-X
I. How the Orthodox person [AB - Nilus??] was converted to the Orthodox Christian Faith 1-31
II. One of the modern miracles of the Father Sergius [AB-Sergius of Radonezh??] 33-41
III. Journey to the Sarov Hermitage (Pustyn') and Serafimo-Dnievsky Convent 43-99
IV. Acolyte to the Mother of God and Seraphim [AB - most probably Seraphim of Sarov ] (Simbirsk Judge of Peace Nikolay Alexandrovich Motovilov) 101-166
V. The Saint Spirit obviously settled on Saint Seraphim of Sarov in His talks with Simbirsk land Owner and Judge Nikolay Alexandrovich Motovilov 167-207
VI. Father Seraphim and the Process of a murderer (Memoirs of a Lutheran) 209-221
VII. Commandment from the life of a starets from Optina Pustyn father Amvrosy 223-231
VIII. Father Egor Cherkessky 233-269
IX. One of the mysteries of Godly Home-building 271-289
X. Heavenly convents 281-293
XI. What is awaiting Russia (from prophesies of Saint Seraphim) 295-304
XII. Antichrist as a close political possibility 305-417


{{cleanup|Table of Contents - only|Apparently, [[User:Alex Bakharev]], who has kindly translated the Table of Contents from the Russian, is not a naitive speaker of English. So I'm asking for help in ADJUSTING the translation into cleaner English.}} Yours truly,--Ludvikus 21:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Yours truly,--Ludvikus 23:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Part 12: протоколы засѣданій сіонскихъ мудрецовъ[edit]

Can you give me the WORD-FOR-WORD translation of the above?

Yours truly,--Ludvikus 06:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I know 3 of the 4 words:

  • протоколы = Protocols
    • Yes or even minutes as meeting minutes
  • засѣданій = ?????
    • Meetings, conferenses
  • сіонскихъ = Zionist
    • or at least Zion
  • мудрецовъ = Elders/Sages/Wise Men
    • Yes
Ludvik: --Ludvikus 06:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Alex Bakharev 08:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! So now I know for sure that it was Nilus who gave us these meanings! --Ludvikus 13:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Pasted/Posted from User:Alex Bakharev's User page by:--Ludvikus 13:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ludvikus asked me to place the double bracket's around the Russian title
of Nelus's Part/Chapter 12: протоколы засѣданій сіонскихъ мудрецовъ-- 14:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Serge Nilus's Orthodox Religious Context of the Protocols of Zion[edit]

I hope someone (a Wikipedia) will help me develop the article at least around the Table of Contents so as to give the reader a better understanding of the Russian context in which the infamous Chapter XII was placed by Serge Nilus--Ludvikus 00:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename proposal[edit]

First, a part of the title ("как близкая политическая возможность") is missing. Second, since this is Englsih WP and the title is not notable, I think this article should be renamed into something like Great in Small. Antichrist As a Close Political Possibility. Of course the current title would stay as a redirect. I imagine that the current title looks quite gibberish to non-Russian speakers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No! Absolutely not. We should keep the transliterated title. It occurs in the libraries on their library cards. Nevertheless, I speek fluently a related Slovik language - Polish. That helps me translate (as opposed to transliterate) the Russian. The nearest English language translation, in my opinion is the following: The Great within the Small and Antichrist. BUT THE WHOLE 419 PAGE BOOK HAS NEVER BEEN TRANSLATED IN TOTAL! So why should you translate the title now? --Ludvikus 07:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

XII. Antichrist as an Imminent Political Possibility 305-417[edit]

This is for User:Humus sapiens. He is not fully aware here of the existence of at least THREE (3) titles here: (1) the main title of the book, (2) the Part XII (or Chapter 12) of the last section of the book (which I have translated above), which constitutes preliminary material to the actual Protocols, and finally (3) the actual protocols begin on page 325 (not 305), where they are given a four-word title (in Russian, of course, and in the old othography). Three of the four are easy - the fourth is difficult. Here they are translated word-for-word:


Yours truly, --Ludvikus 07:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


The 2nd word is given above & below in its original cyrilic alphbet (--Ludvikus 08:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC))


  • It's confusing, because we have here two different orthographies, I think. This second word differs from that of the British Library/Museum cataloguer, who gave us this: засѣданій.
  • But this is translated as "meeting" or "conference," which is also confusing because Protocols already means "meeting" according to ALEX above. --Ludvikus 08:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I correct myself above - I just realized, Alex tells us that Protocols means MINUITES of meetings!!!
--Ludvikus 08:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


This article needs to be rewriten following WP:MOS because at this point its barely intelligible. The whole of the actual article is actually in the introduction, there's way too many pictures, and there's too much foreign language content with minimal translation. From what I can gather, this book is somehow the ancestor of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but that's not explained clearly here. I really don't know anything about this book, but would like to learn more if it can be cleaned up. --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 02:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that some attempt to re-work this article has been made, but the truth is I still can't get past that tortured first paragraph without re-reading and re-re-reading it. The huge graphics along both sides of the article are distracting, they need to be put into thumbnail size and staggered down through the article- they also shouldn't be interfering with the introduction's placement. When I get the spare time, I'll come and make necessary fixes. --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 16:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point by not readingb the links. This is not a scholarly book. This is a book of Hatred. It is the main source from which these Protocols come. It's presence here is what counts. The picture is important - because that's what it is about. It is a reference - it is extremely important to keep it all. If you want to know more - you should read all the links - its the links that explain all.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 04:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that fact already and I already did follow the links. What I'm saying is that the article in its current form is very poorly written with incomplete sentences, run-on sentences, wandering topic lines, multiple redundancies, irrelevant information, and distractingly large & ill placed graphics. Instead of just complaining about it, I have translated the Russlish into English and cleaned up the article (and lifted some material from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion article). I've posted a draft version in My Sandbox and I'd welcome your commentary! --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 17:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My proposed version of this page that I mentioned and linked to above has been posted for two weeks now without any negative comments, so I'm going ahead and updating the article using it.--Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 17:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael Hagemeister on the Second vs. the Third edition(s)[edit]

There has been a question as to whether this text is the 2nd or 3rd edition of the work - irrespective of the presence of The Protocols. The world's authority on its author, Michael Hagemeister, maintains that until the 1960's it was believed that the 1905 edition was actually the third edition of Velikoe v malom. For example, some believed that there was a 1901 edition which was the first edition. The current scholarly view is that the 1st edition was published in 1903, and that there never was an edition published in 1901 - to the disappointment of millenarian, I might add. --Ludvikus 00:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Seraphim of Sarov[edit]

That's the orthodox saint associated with the convent/monastery about which our Nilus writes. --Ludvikus 19:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Article title--English?[edit]

Should not the title of this page, per the naming convention WP:ENGLISH, be The Great within the Small and Antichrist ? Whosasking 22:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No. First of all, it's not a name (of a person) but a title (of a book).
But also consider the rule from the page which you cite & which I excerpt here:
   "If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language.
   Latin-alphabet languages, like Spanish or French, should need no transliteration,
   but names from languages which do not use a Latin alphabet, like Chinese and Russian, do."

Accordingly, since there is no commonly used English name for this title, we stick to the accepted transliteration of the name in the original language - and that is precisely what we have done herein.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you for spelling it out.Whosasking 01:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
It might have been otherwise, had someone undertaken the task of actually translating Nilus's complete book into English. Then I would hope someone would have exercised some poetic license and done some justice to the Russian (language I mean, if not the man) and rendered the title perhaps like this : The Miniscule within the Great and Antichrist .... There is a problen in translating this, into good English. I think that The Great within the Small falls flat. But it would require perhaps the likes of the brother of Philip Graves to do it right. It maybe an expression that that's an idiomatic in Russian, but is just plain nonsense to us English speakers. So it's good that Wikipedians do not have to do this! --Ludvikus 02:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


An editor has claimed that it's not a plagiarism. Apparently he's unaware of Philip Grave's disconery in 1921 that it's the taking of Maurice Joly's Dialogue in Hell ... --Ludvikus 06:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)