[Rec. on:] E. Golubinsky. The history of the canonization of saints in the Russian Church

The venerable author of this extensive work, Honored Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy E. E. Golubinsky, was called, as he says in the preface to this edition, several years ago by random circumstances to write a study on the topic indicated in the title, and he wrote it, moreover, for a period of time, being constrained and limited in the study of the subject by this very period. Therefore, having published his work (in the June-September books of the Theological Bulletin for 1894), the author did not want to part with the subject that interested him and, immediately after publishing the study in the first edition, he resumed his studies with the aim of further studying it. This explains the appearance of a new, if possible corrected and expanded, edition of “The History of the Canonization of Russian Saints.” Without a doubt, the author had the right to say, without risking the reproach of conceit, that the desirability and usefulness of work such as the one he presents to the public cannot be doubted, even if the work was far from perfect. It is no less true that, as stated in the final afterword to this book, it is precisely that the publication, which he calls “as far as possible corrected and supplemented” should be understood not in the sense of the author actually completing his work, but in his secondary processing to the possible degree of perfection, but only in the sense: “feci quod potui”.... The state of knowledge in the area that Professor Golubinsky made the subject of his special research is still unsatisfactory to such an extent, as we will see, and the difficulties that the venerable historian of the canonization of Russian saints encountered are so great, often even insurmountable, that about “possibly perfect” history, or about history “brought to the possible perfection,” it’s too early to say. But this difficulty, of course, did not relieve the author from the obligation to present the results of his research in a more orderly manner than he did. Sometimes it seems that the author’s work was rushed this time too. For example, it has an "introduction" that contains references to the literature; but the author’s character of the introductory articles preceding “the history of the canonization of saints in the Russian Church” is “the concept of canonization and the word: canonization”, then “the canonization of saints in the Greek Church, ancient and later”, and the answer to objections to the word: “canonization”, as Latin and, for this very reason, supposedly unacceptable when applied to Russian saints, is placed, in the form of one of the appendices, at the very end of the book. Other similar examples will be listed below. From what has been said it is already clear that Professor Golubinsky’s book differs in the introductory part, the very history of the canonization of Russian saints and appendices. The introductory part begins with what the author himself called an “introduction.” Here the literature studied by the author is indicated, both general and local, that is, treating the saints of individual localities (Arkhangelsk, Vladimir, Volyn, etc.). From this literary review it is impossible to judge the real diligence and real bibliographic knowledge of the venerable professor, since the review included only new biographies of saints and new scientific studies about them, and more or less ancient lives of saints, including handwritten legends and records about the Saints, for example chronicles, as well as certain official acts related to them, in general primary sources, are indicated in the appropriate places in the study itself. The concept of canonization and the answer to objections to the use of this term should obviously be considered as one whole, although they are placed at opposite poles of Mr. Golubinsky’s book. The author quite reasonably defends the convenience and expediency of this term as a technical one, despite its Latin origin, and points out a number of words introduced into the Russian language from Latin and firmly rooted in our usage of words, even in the spiritual department, such as regulations, chief prosecutor of the synod, vicar, consistory 1, seminary, rector, etc. A number of such words, of course, could be very long, and those who are armed against well-known terms as Latin terms could perhaps go so far as to expel the terms “emperor” and “august” as having Latin origin. From the objections, as well as from the answer to them, one can see that we still have possible disputes about things about which it is useless to argue. However, Professor Golubinsky considers it necessary to support his arguments with an additional indication that Metropolitan Philaret himself, who at first disapproved of the word “canonization” as a Latin expression, “which refers to Western rites alien to the Orthodox Church (such as, for example, in the rite of Western canonization “advocate of the saint” and “advocate of the devil”), subsequently not only allowed others to use this word, but also I used it myself. Our author, obviously, is so knowledgeable on the issue of Latin canonization that he does not share the judgment expressed by Metropolitan Philaret about the saint’s advocate and the devil’s advocate in the rite of Western canonization (in note 3 on p. 532) and decisively does not share the opinion that in Rome a saint can be known only to one pope, who can canonize as a saint whomever he wants, solely at his own discretion and arbitrariness, whereas in Rus' miracles come first are created among the people, and then the church authorities establish a holiday for the saint. In fact, Professor Golubinsky says, there is essentially no difference between our Orthodox canonization and Latin canonization, and the difference is not essentially that for Catholics the process of inquiring about miracles and verifying them is longer and more complex than ours, and that the announcement of canonization is performed with a special, very magnificent ceremony, which we do not have (pp. 530-531). Indeed, from the outside, there is a considerable difference, and not only in terms of length, complexity and pomp, but also a difference in the legal forms of the judicial process. In our country, the procedure preceding canonization, in general accordance with the spirit of our established church legal proceedings, is in the nature of a “search” or “investigation.” Among the Latins, again in accordance with the spirit of the Western canonical process, canonization took on adversarial forms, which, however, give no reason to characterize them as a struggle between “the lawyer, the saint” and the “devil’s advocate,” or to assert that the pope can make saints whomever he wants, at his own discretion. The initiative comes not from the pope and not from any official authorities at all, but from individuals intending to act as a judicial party and induce the church authorities to canonization, even demand it (hence the name - postulatores). These postulatores choose an attorney (procurator) to conduct the process before the bishop and to transmit the acts of legal proceedings, as soon as it is completed, to the papal throne. The other party in the process is the promoter or fiscal, who is ex officio obliged to refute the arguments of the procurator. The point is about the existence of a basis for canonization, and such a basis is not only miracles, as Professor Golubinsky says, but also the so-called heroic virtues, which, going beyond the limits of the natural forces of human nature, mark the highest degree of perfection, so that persons adorned with these virtues rise high above other righteous people. The heroic virtues refer in particular to the so-called theological virtues (faith, hope and love) and the four cardinal or fundamental virtues (prudence, justice, courage and moderation). Only in the canonization process of martyrs is evidence directed not at establishing heroic virtues, but at the very fact of martyrdom. In relation to martyrs, there is also another feature: it is possible to canonize minors who were killed out of hatred of the Christian faith or during the persecution of Christians, while, as a general rule, canonization is allowed only in relation to people who at the time of death had the ability to consciously distinguish between good and evil and consciously lead a virtuous life. The above proceedings before the bishop are only a preliminary stage of the process. The acts of production, together with the conclusion of the bishop, are forwarded to Rome for seals and entered into the congregation of rites (congregation rituum). The postulators again elect a procurator and enter with a request for the sealed acts of preliminary proceedings to be unsealed, as well as for the appointment of a cardinal rapporteur (cardinalis relator), however, not earlier than 10 years after the transmission of the acts. But since canonization, despite a private initiative, is considered a public matter of the church, respected, authoritative persons, especially and sovereigns must add their requests for the same. It should also be noted that canonization in the proper sense, i.e., canonization, is preceded by beatification, i.e., canonization; therefore, petitions and requests can initially relate only to beatification. After the pope issues a decree on the printing of acts and on the appointment of a cardinal rapporteur, the latter reports the contents of the acts at a meeting of the congregation, the promoter expresses his opinion and the question is raised about the admissibility of the case in the congregation, after which the pope gives the congregation a formal assignment to conduct the case. This congregational process in turn is divided into several processes or is composed of several stages. Both the procurator and the promoter act in the process. Moreover, the congregation is not limited to information received from one local bishop, but collects information from all the places where the deceased lived, died, or performed miracles, or where in general any data can be found about the life, the glory of holiness, the virtues and miracles of the deceased. In the actual canonization process, the initiative again comes from the procurator of postulators, who enters the congregation of rites with a presentation; the congregation turns to local bishops to obtain factual information and, after checking the correctness of local proceedings, makes a known decision. But the pope, even having approved the decision of the congregation, before proceeding with the solemn rites of announcing canonization, first draws up a secret consistory, in which, informing the cardinals of his decision, he asks for their advice, then draws up a public consistory, in which the consistorial lawyer makes a report on the proposed canonization, and finally draws up a third, semi-public consistory in which the bishops present in Rome are invited to submit their opinions. (For all this, and in much more detail, see Hinschius, System des katholischen Kirchenrechts, B. IV, § 211. Compare also Hergenröther, Lehrbuch des kathol. Kirchenrechts, 1888, S. 490–492). From what has been said, one can see whether the pope canonizes at his personal discretion whomever he decides to canonize. G. Golubinsky is essentially right, of course, when he calls such reasoning “complete nonsense” (p. 531), although perhaps this expression suffers from excessive harshness. As for the procedural forms of canonization, despite all their unusualness for our legal consciousness, they almost more satisfactorily achieved and are achieving the result of the process, namely the establishment of the correct basis for canonization, than the ancient Russian “search”. At least in the Latin West, one does not see that strange and sometimes downright seductive fluctuation, examples of which are replete with Mr. Golubinsky’s book: elevation to sainthood and then demotion from sainthood, establishment of celebration and then cessation of celebration. It may also seem strange to us that, according to the author of the book, in the Latin Church “two miracles are required for beatification and two more miracles or four miracles in total for canonization” (p. 282 in the note). But, firstly, this is not entirely accurate. In the decretal of Benedict XIV in 1741 witnesses of miracles are distinguished - eyewitnesses (testes de visu) and witnesses by ear (testes de auditu): if miracles are confirmed by eyewitnesses, then, indeed, two miracles are enough for beatification and four miracles for canonization, but with hearing witnesses, four miracles are required for beatification, and for canonization two more miracles (Hinschius, p. 252, note 6). Secondly, here we are obviously dealing with a well-known characteristic feature of Roman law - the desire to establish precise regulations that eliminate the possibility of arbitrariness. Something similar should have existed with us. According to Mr. Golubinsky, several miracles took place at the tomb of Patriarch Job of Moscow, but “the matter of his canonization did not take place, because the miracles, due to their small number (four miracles are recorded) or their quality, were considered insufficient to canonize Job as a saint” (p. 268 in the note). G. Golubinsky even assumes (an assumption, however, a dubious one) that “our ancient practice established some rule regarding the number of miracles after which it was permissible to initiate a petition for the canonization of an ascetic” (p. 282). It is remarkable that Mr. Golubinsky contains such expressions that, perhaps, you will not suddenly find among Catholics. Speaking about the Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk, that a celebration was established for him three times, twice local and the third time a general one, and citing evidence in favor of the assumption that already for the second time it was intended to establish a general celebration for him (at the council of 1589), the author explains that the council, “after considering the rights of Joseph to this last celebration, found it probable that Joseph by that time, as a miracle worker, had not become famous enough to be considered among saints everywhere” (p. 116). Likewise, it is said that the bishops appeared at the council of 1547 “with evidence of the rights to canonization, as miracle workers, of a certain number of saints” (p. 106), and that at the council of 1549 the metropolitan made sure of the famous saints “of their right to canonization as miracle workers only after a search carried out after the council of 1547.” (p. 96 in notes). What “rights” could we be talking about here, and especially what “rights” of saints to canonization can an Orthodox theologian talk about at the present time? About rights in relation to God, or about rights in relation to living people who make up the militant church? It must be assumed that neither God can be in an obligatory relationship with the deceased, even the saints themselves, nor these latter can be in a legal relationship that could serve as a source of their rights in relation to people living on earth. The word “rights” is completely inappropriate here: the religious duty of venerating the saints has no correlative in anyone’s rights and its source is not a legal relationship, but a feeling of dependence on God as the Supreme Being who glorifies the saints, and in the need for prayerful intercession before Him of the saints who have pleased Him. Regarding the arguments of Prof. Golubinsky, aimed at clarifying the concept of canonization, one more remark needs to be made. On page 11, the note states that in the Latin Church there are two categories of saints: blessed, obligatorily revered only locally in some country or region (beatificatio), and saints in the proper sense, canonized from the regional ones and obligatorily revered everywhere, throughout the church. This is not accurate. Only relatively rarely, and even as an exception, is the veneration of the blessed one prescribed; as a general rule, it is only permitted in a certain local district. And it happens, although again rarely, and only as an exception, that veneration is allowed in the whole church. The difference between canonization and beatification, according to the correct explanation of Ginschius (IV, 250), is rather that canonization contains the final determination of canonization, based on the presence of all the assumptions, including the spread of the glory of holiness in wide circles of believers, while beatification contains an assumption of holiness, justified only enough to allow the veneration of the righteous in the local circle - for this reason canonization is preceded, as a general rule, by beatification. A clear understanding of this difference would, as we will see below, not be useless for the author in that part of his work where he has to talk about the different classes or categories of the deceased revered by us and about who has the right to canonization or canonizing power. For now, let us note that the author left us in the dark as to how we should understand our use of the term “blessed” as applied to some departed righteous people (such as, for example, the ancient teachers of the church Augustine and Theodoret), sometimes even with the additional clarification that they are not called saints, but only blessed. An introductory article on the canonization of saints in the Greek Church treats the subject, distinguishing between the ancient Greek Church and the later one. The author’s conclusions on the question of how and by whom canonization was carried out will be discussed below. Here we will outline the conclusions regarding who was canonized and on what basis. These conclusions are mostly in the nature of assumptions, not through the fault of the author, but because, as he says, “we have almost no positive information about the canonization of saints in the ancient Greek church” (p. 13). The following categories of saints in the ancient Greek Church are distinguished: 1) those for whom very belonging to a certain class served as evidence of holiness (Old Testament patriarchs and prophets and New Testament apostles, not to mention those standing outside the classes - the Mother of God and more in those born of women, John the Baptist); 2) people who performed such a feat, which, according to the belief of the church, alone and in itself, brought the crown of holiness to the person who performed it - these are martyrs (but not confessors in general, since the latter, surviving after the feat they performed, could then fall into grave sins); 3) ascetics - ascetics, regarding whom it is necessary to think that the church recognized them as saints not because they belonged to a certain class, but because personally one or another of them was considered worthy of this recognition; 4) hierarchs or saints who initially, in all likelihood, were canonized or canonized in the same way as martyrs, i.e. that is, because they themselves were saints, and later equally with ascetics, or through the application to them of the same requirement that was applied to the latter from ancient times; 5) kings and queens who were canonized either for their services to the church, or for their personal virtuous life. Regarding the ascetics, in particular, the author makes the assumption, hardly substantiated, that the basis for considering one or another of them as saints was the gift of miracles, and not a virtuous life and not the glory of holiness in itself. The assumption is supported by the indication that “reading the lives of the ancient ascetics, canonized by the church as saints, we hardly find anyone among them who did not possess the gift of miracles during their lifetime” (p. 16), as well as a reference to later times. Not all lives are as ancient as those ascetics whose exploits are described in their lives, and from the view that became dominant in later times, it is rarely possible to draw a conclusion about ancient times. In the later Greek Church there are two classes of saints: martyrs and ascetics. The former are canonized for martyrdom itself, the latter on the basis of the gift of miracles. And from the testimony of the second half of the 17th century (Nat., Jerusalem. Nektarios †1680), the author concludes that for canonization it was required (although, in the opinion of Mr. Golubinsky, not always, but only for the most part) not only glorification from God with the gift of miracles, but also the incorruption of the body, or a sign from the bones, consisting of their special fragrance, which requirement Nektarios explains by the fact that people have become less conscientious, they began to fake miracles and invent the virtuous lives of the dead, as a result of which, in addition to miracles, other signs were required (p. 28). The presence of relics for canonization in ancient times was in any case not required - this can be concluded from the fact that the custom of digging up the bodies of dead saints from the ground appeared only relatively late (pp. 32–34). The later significance of the relics in the canonization of saints prompted the author to provide a historical explanation of the very concept of relics; He returns to this issue in one of the appendices to his book (Appendix XX). A number of historical evidence proves that the relics of the Greek saints were either whole bodies or bones, and that the relics of many saints have not survived, and “if the relics of almost all Greek saints are now known, then it must be borne in mind that, according to evidence beyond doubt, the forgery of relics flourished among the Greeks until not very long ago” (p. 34 in note 2). There could not be entire relics because the ancient Greeks had a peculiarity in their veneration of relics: they tried as much as possible to acquire pieces of different relics for their churches and for themselves personally. There are amazing examples in history that residents of surrounding villages gathered to visit a dying ascetic in order to be able to plunder his body as soon as he gave up the ghost (p. 37 in note). Let's move on to what constitutes, in the proper sense, the content of the book by Prof. Golubinsky, – to the history of the canonization of Russian saints. Consideration of this content again gives the reader the impression of hasty work, which, being undoubtedly very valuable work, would benefit even more if it were offered to the reader in a more orderly form. Let's not even talk about the author's unique style, long known from his other scientific works - a style that suffers to a large extent from pleonasms and longitudes. The author somehow avoids the usual, especially for such extensive books as the book under review by Prof. Golubinsky, dividing into chapters, marking the different sections of his research with Roman numerals, and the rather extensive section (“Lists of the venerated deceased”), preceding the “appendices” and occupying over 60 pages, is devoid of even such a mark. One can further disagree with the author regarding the need to set out general rules on the order of canonization twice: in a relatively brief form, as prelude to the presentation of individual canonizations, and in detail, as “a general overview of the canonization of saints in the Russian Church” (under VI). Although the foregoing presentation of general rules takes up little space (only three pages), it would still be better to talk about the same thing not twice, but once, especially since the extensive presentation does not quite correspond to the order of the summary. Not counting the last, which is not marked with any department number, the study is composed of six departments: I) Canonization of saints in the Russian Church from the beginning of Christianity in Russia to the Makariev Councils of 1547 and 1549; II) Makarievsky Councils of 1547 and 1549; III) The space of time from the cathedral of 1549 to the establishment of St. synod; IV) Time from the establishment of St. Synod to the present day; V) Russian saints in the calendar of printed liturgical books and in printed calendar, separately published; VI) General overview of the canonization of saints in the Russian Church. In each of the first four sections, the author lists individual canonizations of saints, and provides historical information, if not about each individual canonization, then about many of them, which served as the basis for generalization at the beginning and end of the study. Therefore, postponing the consideration of this historical information until the consideration and assessment of the sixth department, we will limit ourselves for now to a brief overview of the numerical data of each period. The historical ground, not only for the ancients, but even for more recent times, is so unstable that the researcher, due to lack of precise foundations, must or is forced to base his judgments on probabilities. The first section gives a list of 67 saints. Of these, according to the author’s research, only five or seven were formally established and, from the very beginning or a short time after the establishment of local celebrations, church-wide or widespread, throughout the entire Russian Church, celebration; all other saints have a local celebration. The five saints who, undoubtedly, were established the first time or soon after the establishment of the local celebration are Boris and Gleb, Theodosius of Pechersk, Metropolitan Peter and Alexei. About two saints prof. Golubinsky speaks rather contradictorily: about Sergius of Radonezh and Kirill Belozersky. On page 90 it is said that "the formal ancient establishment of a general church celebration by him can be assumed", and on page 294 it is said that the last two saints, "in all likelihood, without deliberate canonization, but themselves became general saints." But in the near time, to the Makarievsky councils, even before these councils, 15 more saints from local saints became all-Russian saints: c. book Olga, V. book Vladimir, Prince. Mikhail of Chernigov and his boyar Theodore, Prince. Yaroslavl Theodore, David and Constantine, Leonty, Isaiah and Ignatius of Rostov, Anthony of Pechersk, Nikita of Pereyaslavl, Varlaam of Novgorod, Dmitry of Prilutsky and Abraham of Rostov. Some other names were also included in the Domakaryev lists of saints; but regarding at least four of them (Moscow Metropolitans Cyprian and Photius, Maximus the Holy Fool of Moscow and Euphrosyne Princess of Suzdal), the author proves that their names were entered arbitrarily by scribes. The first two were established with a local celebration in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral only in the later synodal times, the third at the council of 1547, the last in the 70s of the 16th century. The second section describes the activities of two councils held under the Moscow Metropolitan Macarius in 1547 and 1549. In two stages, 39 saints were canonized at these councils, and for the most part not again (but from local saints). The author explains these canonizations by the fact that, according to the consciousness of the time, the new position of the church in the third Rome demanded that it be decorated with all its spiritual beauty and preserved at the height of its standing by the prayers of the entire host of its miracle workers (p. 93). Canonizations were preceded by research or inquiry into the miracles of saints, and the council of 1549 (however, more than likely, according to Mr. Golubinsky, also the council of 1547) was also engaged in research into the lives and canons of those saints whom it canonized, as far as the lives and canons of these saints were written before it. In total, therefore, the 22 saints canonized before the councils were joined by 39, canonized at the councils of 1547 and 1549. Regarding some of the names included in the list of 67 of the previous period, the author has established that their celebration has ceased (which are: book. Mstislav Vladimirovich, son of Vladimir Monomakh, Mstislav the Brave, etc.). In the third period, from the cathedral of 1549 to the establishment of St. synod, the author distinguishes two classes of saints - those whose chronology of canonization is known to us in an exact or approximate manner, and those whose chronology of canonization is unknown to us neither precisely nor approximately. Therefore, two lists of saints are given: with a known and an unknown chronology of canonization. The first list contains 56 names, among which we find, by the way, Artemy Verkolsky, a peasant boy who, at the age of 13, was killed in the field by thunder (p. 128). The second list contains 90 saints, but the author stipulates that he is not able to compile a correct and complete list. If, he says, there existed a book published by St. synod of monthly books of all Russian saints, both general and local, correct and complete, “we could allow for the error of erroneously indicating this time of canonization, but then we would have the opportunity to avoid omissions, so as not to include other saints in the list, as well as to avoid sinful excesses, so as to include in the list such deceased who in fact are not saints” (p. 137). The turns of phrase are not entirely coherent, but the author’s thought is clear and becomes even clearer when he adds that he has been forced to compile his list of saints “on the basis of private catalogs belonging to bookish people of the 17th century, on the basis of dictionaries, biographies and catalogs of saints belonging to learned people of the present time,” and in old and new catalogues, in dictionaries and in biographies, “canonized or real saints are mixed with non-canonized or fake saints." Canonized or real saint, as defined by Prof. Golubinsky, is the one to whom an annual celebration (service) is established and performed, to whom prayers are offered (prayer services are sung) and to whom prayers are addressed; A saint who has not been canonized or is not real is one who is revered as a saint by the people, but for whom celebrations and prayers are not established and not performed, and whose memory, in the hope and desire of his glorification, is celebrated through commemorated liturgies and memorial services. It should be noted that if canonization or inclusion in the lists of saints took place during the period under consideration, this does not mean that those canonized or included lived during this particular period; According to the time of their life, they belong to different centuries, starting from the 12th. The author notes which of them are no longer celebrated at present, but even here he makes it clear how difficult it is for a researcher to come to firm conclusions even in this regard. For example, about Constantine I, Metropolitan of Kiev, who is mentioned in our chronicles in 1159, it is noted that “at the present time it seems that he is no longer celebrated” (in Chernigov, where a local celebration was established for him). True, the Historical Dictionary of Saints says that his memory is celebrated locally on June 5, but the author concludes that there is no celebration from the fact that Philaret, the Archbishop of Chernigov, says nothing about Metropolitan Constantine, who, precisely as the Archbishop of Chernigov, could not forget about the Chernigov saint (139 in note). In the same way, the author cannot say positively about Kirill of Turov whether he is currently celebrated (140). On the contrary, about Vasilka, the prince of Rostov, captured by the Tatars in the battle of the City and then killed by them, the author positively says that in Rostov he is currently not celebrated (141 in note). About Cyril Velsk or Vazhesky it is reported that this was the tiun of one of the Novgorod governors (before the conquest of Novgorod by Moscow), who, in order to save himself from the wrath of his master, who wanted to kill him, threw himself into the Vaga River and drowned in it, and after being extracted from the water was buried at the present cemetery church of the city of Velsk. Once upon a time, before the half of the 16th century, a celebration was established for him or was established by itself, but after, about half of the last century (obviously the 18th century), the relics burned along with the church in a fire, and after Velsky Posad was turned into the city of Velsk in 1780, the celebration, as it seems from the consciousness of its illegality, i.e. arbitrariness, was stopped by the Velsky clergy (150). A similar incident took place with the celebration of Procopius of Ustyansky, “completely unknown in his personality, or in his rank and condition - the deceased, who, through a sleepy vision, reported only his name,” and whose relics were discovered sometime before the beginning of the second half of the 17th century in the village of Veryuzhsky, Velsk district. Sometime before 1739, a celebration was established for him, and a chapel was built in his honor in the church in the village of Veryuzhskoye. But at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries, the celebration was stopped by the diocesan authorities. The section under consideration ends with some addition to the two above lists - a third short list, in which there are only two names, but these names can be called famous in a certain sense - the names of Princess Anna of Kashin and Euphrosynus of Pskov. The first, during the reign of Patriarch Joachim, was excluded from the calendar with the abolition of the established celebration of her memory - so that we are here, in the words of Prof. Golubinsky, we have a case of cassation or destruction of canonization. It should be noted that shortly before Joachim, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself and his wife came to Kashin to pray to Princess Anna and was present at the transfer of her relics from the dilapidated wooden Assumption Cathedral to the stone Resurrection Cathedral, pending the construction of a new stone Assumption Cathedral on the site of the wooden one, and he himself instructed Epiphany Slavinetsky to compose a service for the princess, and Tsar Theodore Alekseevich ordered to consecrate the newly built cathedral with a chapel in honor of the Reverend Princess Anna. Euphrosynus of Pskov, under the same Joachim, from the category of general church saints canonized by the council in 1549, was relegated to the category of local saints. From the consideration of the case of Princess Anna, the conclusion that Prof. also came to is indeed obtained. Golubinsky that the impetus for such a decisive step on the part of the patriarch was not so much the results of the “search” as considerations of church policy. The fact is that, according to a widespread rumor at that time, the folding of the fingers of Princess Anna’s right hand served as an argument in favor of schismatic two-fingered fingers. Only, it seems, the author expressed himself too strongly when speaking about cassation or the destruction of canonization. In the verdict of the Council of Joachim in 7185 (1677) (I had the opportunity to see a copy of the list of acts of this council in the Moscow archive of the Ministry of Justice), the idea is rather expressed that this decision is not final, but temporary, henceforth “until the great council” and “until a genuine notification, when God will announce and approve in the future.” The “Great Council” was convened, says Prof. Golubinsky (p. 165), Joachim January 1, 1678 But since at this council the arguments of the previous council were only repeated, and no new “genuine notification” had occurred by this time, it would be more correct to think that the issue remained in suspenso. The same church policy explains the relegation of St. Euphrosynus to the category of local saints: his life (of course not written by the monk himself) was compiled in such a way that it served as an argument in favor of the schismatic alleluia. The fourth section surveys the time from the establishment of St. Synod to this day. Here the author again stipulates that although the saints canonized in the present period for the general celebration are known to us, as for local saints, here too, if not excesses, then omissions are possible, since the decrees on local celebrations until recently (before the appearance of the Diocesan Gazette and the organ of the Holy Synod - the Church Gazette) were not published anywhere, and to know them all in full, without any omission, no possibility. The author sets out separately the canonizations of Saints Dmitry of Rostov, Innocent of Irkutsk, Mitrofan of Voronezh, Tikhon of Zadonsk and Theodosius of Chernigov. Next comes the enumeration of saints canonized for local celebration, among whom the Venerable Theodosius of Totem occupies a prominent place, constituting, as it were, a transition from the above-mentioned five saints to local saints, not in the sense that he did not fit into either category, but in the sense that the discovery of his relics was accompanied by doubts and represents a special story (p. 186). The peculiarity of the story is that, despite the hesitations of the local bishop and higher authorities, the local population managed to achieve official recognition of the relics and the establishment of their cult. In addition to Theodosius, 14 names are shown among the local saints, with the author’s special attention being drawn to the Moscow metropolitans Theognostus, Cyprian and Photius, to whom, according to the research of prof. Golubinsky, there was no celebration in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral until the beginning of the 19th century. No matter how close this time is, apparently, to us, the learned researcher is forced to say that the local celebration of the said metropolitans was established “sometime after 1805,” and when exactly, about this “even no assumptions can be made (194) In the same fourth section there is a special discussion about the Kyiv saints. For 227 years (1458–1685), Kievan Rus constituted a special church, separated from Moscow, and had its own saints who were not revered in Muscovite Rus', which revered only the ancient, very few Kievan saints (Boris and Gleb, Anthony and Theodosius of Pechersk, Grand Duke Vladimir and the Grand Duchess Olga). Not earlier than in 1762, St. the synod issued a decree that allowed the Kyiv saints to be included in the general “Moscow” monthly books and their services to be printed in the monthly menaions. By Kyiv saints we mean, firstly, the saints of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra and, secondly, the saints of Kyiv or southwestern Rus'. Speaking about the Kiev-Pechersk saints, the author gives alphabetical lists of saints whose relics rest in both caves - near and far. Among the saints resting in the caves, there are none whose relics are hidden, with the exception of the monks Anthony and Theodosius themselves, of whom the relics of the first were not discovered, and the relics of the second were hidden during the Mongol invasion. On the other hand, at present there are no other bodies and bones in the caves except the bodies and bones of saints. The latter circumstance forces the author to suggest that the Athos custom, which consisted in digging up all the dead monks on Athos three or four years after burial, “among other things with the purpose that the remains of those among them who were pleasing to the Lord God with their lives and counted by Him among the host of His saints, He would reveal with His miraculous signs over them,” came to the Pechersky Monastery. Thus, in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, according to the author’s assumption, at one time or another after burial, the grave of each monk was examined, and if we found only ashes in the grave, then it was buried again, and if we found bones or a whole body, then they were taken out of the grave and placed in some designated place; then “they waited for a more or less long time for the manifestation of the miraculous power of God through the bones or body, and those of the deceased, in relation to whose bones or bodies the expectations were justified, were recognized as saints, and the bones or bodies of others were again consigned to the earth” (pp. 206–207). The author supports his assumption with some considerations, for example. the fact that about 69 post-Mongol saints (out of a total of 118) 2 no biographical information has been preserved in the form of not only lengthy lives, but also any brief notes, and yet in the inscriptions on crayfish and in the catalogs of these saints their rank, feat, and occupation are noted: deacon, schema-monk, recluse, icon painter. How could this become known, the author asks? An explanation, according to him, can only be found in the assumption of the existence of an Athos custom in Kiev, since on Athos they place a stone or tile slab in the coffin of each deceased, on which the name and title of the deceased and the time of his death are written. As for the saints of Kievan or southwestern Rus', their number turns out to be very small - only 11. The author explains the difference in this regard between Moscow and southwestern Russia, without, however, insisting, as he puts it, on the infallibility of his judgment, by the fact that in Moscow Rus' most of the saints were the founders of monasteries, and the monks of these monasteries cared and tried to ensure that their founders - the ascetics, after they were glorified by God with the gift of miracles, were formally canonized, and in southwestern Rus' there was not such an abundance of newly founded monasteries and new founders, and in relation to the ascetics from the ordinary brethren who lived and died in the monasteries that already existed, there were no such concerns for glorification as are observed in Moscow Rus' (222–223). The above-mentioned small number of southwestern Russian saints will be diminished even more if we exclude two non-Russians from it: one of them is a Lithuanian (Elisha Lavrishevsky), the other is the Patriarch of Constantinople (Athanasius Patellarius), who died on the way back from Moscow home in the Dubensky Mgarsky, Poltava province, monastery. About the last prof. Golubinsky, bearing in mind what Greek history, and partly our Russian history, says about him, notes that “he is a saint who did not become such by human judgment”... The fifth section in the book by prof. Golubinsky is somewhat of a logical surprise when compared with the four previous ones. The four sections we examined are devoted to well-known historical eras, separated from one another by chronological boundaries. The fifth section bears the following heading: “Russian saints in the calendar of printed liturgical books, mainly charters (in the chapter containing the sequence of church psalmody according to the monthly book) and service books, as well as in printed calendars, separately published, and related questions about the celebration of saints and their division into general and local.” The important historical interest of this section, in terms of its content, is beyond doubt. Apparently, the history of the list of universally revered saints could be very simple: saints canonized by church authorities were to be included in such a list. In fact, the story turned out to be complex, since the establishment of the list was entrusted to typographers and reference workers, who, on the one hand, lacked accurate information about which class of saints, general or local, these or those saints were canonized, and on the other hand, and most importantly, they gave too much room to personal discretion and arbitrariness. This arbitrariness in compiling a list of universally revered saints prevailed until Patriarch Joachim published a revised charter in 1682. Without exhausting the variety of all liturgical books in which the calendars are printed, from the service book of 1602 to the charter of 1682, the author considers it sufficient for his purposes to give two lists of saints, compiled according to two groups of calendars that preceded the charter of 1682 with a note next to the name of each saint, in which calendars, groups he is, and in which he is not. The first group consists of the calendar: the first printed service book of 1602, the first printed charter of 1610, two charters of 1633, the charter of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral compiled around the same time, the charter of 1641 and individual calendars with the chronicle of 1646 and 1648. The second group consists of the calendar of service books: the first corrected Nikon 1655, the second and third Nikon 1656 and 1658. and finally corrected by the council in 1667, printed in the same year and reprinted the following year in 1668. Having compared the calendar of the first group one with the other, the author finds: 1) Some saints, canonized for the general celebration, are not included in all the calendars (10 names are counted). 2) Even in the Assumption Cathedral itself, as can be seen from the calendar in the charter of this cathedral, celebrations were not held for all Russian saints, undoubtedly canonized for the general celebration (there is no Joseph of Volokolamsk, Macarius of Kalyazin, Cornelius of Komel and Grand Prince Olga) 3) One saint, canonized for the general celebration, is not included in any of the calendar calendars. (Korniliy Komelsky). 4) On the contrary, there are those who have died who were not canonized for either general or local celebrations, but are recorded in some calendars (Metropolitans Theognostus, Cyprian, Photius and Philip I) (pp. 236–238). Consideration of the calendar of the second group led the author to the following results: 1) Of the saints canonized for the general celebration, not all calendars contain the names of 14 saints. 2) Of the saints of the same category, there are no 5 names in any calendar. 3) Of the saints canonized at the council of 1549, not all calendars contain 5 names. 4) Of the same saints, 9 names are not found in any of the calendars. 5) Of the saints canonized for local celebrations, not all lists contain 6 names (p. 242). In 1682, Patriarch Joachim published the corrected church charter, the preparation of which for printing was carried out, under his direct supervision, by a special commission, and which, before printing, was reviewed and approved by the council of Russian bishops. The study of this charter led prof. Golubinsky to no less interesting results. In the charter of 1682, 63 saints were included as generally revered Russian saints. This number included 22 canonized for the general celebration before the council of 1547, 21 (14 general and 7 local) canonized at the council of 1547, 9 saints canonized at the council of 1549, and 11 saints canonized after this council. Thus it turns out that of the 39 saints canonized by both of these councils (see section II above), 9 were excluded. When the charter was reissued in 1695, the editors included in it two saints of the council of 1547, omitted in the charter of 1682, two saints of the council of 1549, and one saint canonized after the council of 1549; on the contrary, one saint was excluded and then two more new saints were added to the list. Of many, if not all, of these fluctuations the author states that he is unable to give a satisfactory explanation (pp. 253–254). There are extra saints in the current charter, compared with the edition of 1695, but the author again can only state the impossibility or difficulty of explanation (255). In the handwritten synodikon of the week of Orthodoxy, which probably belonged to the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, despite the fact that, as a book according to which the rite of Orthodoxy was performed, it could not but be subject to the control of the higher authority, which itself performed the rite according to it, there is also a considerable amount of arbitrariness (p. 258 et seq.). Following the order of presentation by Prof. Golubinsky, we should now move on to the VI section of his book, which gives a general overview of the canonization of saints in the Russian Church. We, however, do not do this and will postpone consideration of the general review until the end of the review, but will deal with that department that is not marked by any number by the author, but essentially should precede the general review. It refers to the revered dead, who are not taken away in the proper sense, but to whom a certain veneration is given, constituting, so to speak, the “lowest degree” of the cult of saints, as Prof. Golubinsky - and quite correctly - on page 42 of his study. This consideration, as well as the difficulty or even impossibility of drawing precise boundaries between the class of saints in the proper sense and the class venerated by the dead - a difficulty explained by the unsatisfactoryness of our historical knowledge and the unsatisfactoriness of the very data on which precise conclusions could be based - might have prompted the author himself to place this section in direct connection with the V section considered. It should be noted that a corresponding class of venerated dead also exists in the Catholic Church, and, apparently, the matter is simpler and clearer there than with us. In addition to the saints and blessed, the veneration of uncanonized and unbeatified deceased who died in the glory of holiness, or who, according to the conviction of the people, performed miracles, is allowed, until there was a clear prohibition on the veneration of famous persons by the church authorities. But the cult of such deceased can only be private, not public. Therefore, the celebration by the clergy of any festivities in honor of them and the celebration of the day of their memory is prohibited, and it is equally prohibited to bring their images or statues into public or private church oratories, to place candles at their coffins and to hang lamps. An individual can call such a deceased a saint, ask for his prayerful intercession, hang and place in his private room images and statues without a halo and other signs of recognized holiness, perform fasts and flagellations in his honor. In this case, it makes no difference whether other people see and hear it, because a cult that is not hidden by an individual does not mean that it is authorized by church authority, and authorization is precisely what is essential for public cult (Hinschius, IV, 262–263). It goes without saying that bishops ensure that the permitted limits are not exceeded and take appropriate measures against violators. Here, according to the research of Prof. Golubinsky, at the tomb of such a deceased, they sang memorial services for him, and sometimes, due to abuse, even prayers for the same deceased. It turns out, however, that such “abuse” was also allowed by Patriarch Joseph of Moscow himself, who allowed the singing of not only funeral services, but also prayer services at the tomb of Solomonida, in the schema of Sophia, who led his divorced wife. book Vasily Ivanovich (p. 278 in notes). The successful completion of the task set by the researcher was again hampered by the absence of any official catalog published or authorized by St. synod. Our calendars, says prof. Golubinsky (p. 566), - Godfather, Modern, Universal Russian and others - trying to give the most complete lists of Russian saints, they included in their monthly calendars, as real or canonized saints, quite a few fake ones, and yet others refer to these calendars as authority, especially since the calendars are approved by spiritual censorship. But this is not enough. The author has to distinguish between the truly revered dead and those who are not actually revered, but who are included in the old and new catalogs by their compilers. Therefore, he gives two lists according to the difference between these two classes, and the reader is warned that it is not possible to distinguish the deceased of the first class from the deceased of the second, just as it is not possible to distinguish all canonized saints from all venerated dead. The author's indications of the difference in this regard between the first and second editions of his work are interesting. Thus, in the first edition, Dmitry Tsilibinsky is included among the saints, as a doubtful saint; now, based on the book of the priest Veryuzhsky, Mr. Golubinsky places him on the list of revered deceased (p. 322). Dorofey Yuga in the first edition was placed among the saints; now the author (without indicating the reasons) considers it much more likely to include him in the list of revered dead (ibid.). Grand Duchess Evdokia, monastic Euphrosyne, wife of the leader. book Dmitry Donskoy, in the first edition she was ranked among the saints; Now the author learned from a brochure published in 1857 that the memory of the princess is celebrated with memorial services, and that therefore she is not a canonized saint (323). The author learned the same thing regarding Euphrosyne, Prince, who was placed by him in the first edition among the saints in the monasticism of Eupraxia. Pskov, from the “Description of St. John the Baptist Monastery of Pskov”, printed without indicating the place and year of printing, but signed by the Dorpat censor on August 18, 1821 (ibid.). The same amendment was made regarding Ignatius Lomovsky based on an article in No. 50 of the Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette for 1902 (p. 325). The author transfers Innokenty Okhlebinin from one category to another, because the book of the priest Veryuzhsky does not mention him, and Irinarch the recluse of Rostov is simply based on probability (p. 326). Jeremiah, in schema-monster John, Bishop of Nizhny Novgorod, was included in the list of revered deceased on the basis of the obituary in No. 39 “Church. Led." for 1898, which states that “the memory of the deceased is sacredly revered in Nizhny Novgorod” (327). John Chepolosov, the seven-year-old son of a Uglich townsman, in 1663. killed and hacked to pieces by one of his father's workers out of enmity towards the latter, in the first edition he was placed among the saints; now, on the basis of the “Guide to the Churches of the City of Uglich,” he is counted among the revered dead (328). Along with Princess Juliania of Vyazemsk, who suffered death for chastity in 1406 from the Smolensk prince Yuri Svyatoslavich, the author should have included in the list of revered deceased this prince Yuri Svyatoslavich himself, who after his crime fled to the steppe, found refuge here in a deserted monastery and died there in 1407, - to introduce on the basis of one article published in the May book of the “Historical Bulletin” for 1895, which states that the memory of the prince is highly revered by the people, and many memorial services are served at his tomb (343). And much more of the same kind. In total, there are over 250 people on the list of revered deceased. From the above examples one can see, firstly, what enormous efforts it cost the author to find various brochures, newspaper and magazine articles and obituaries, and secondly, to what extent the new ground that he conquered for himself and on which he built his amendments in the second edition of his work is fragile. Approximately the same number of names (about 250) is contained in another list given by the author - in the list of “deceased people who are not actually revered, but whose names are included in the catalogs of saints.” Here the reader often encounters unexpected names. These are, for example: Anastas of Korsun, a famous Greek who helped St. Vladimir to take possession of Korsun, brought by the sovereign to Kyiv and received from him to take charge of the Tithe Church along with the tithe given to it, in 1018 he surrendered to the Polish king Boleslav and fled with him from Kyiv to Poland, but in an extract from the calendar of 1657 he was placed among the saints as “venerable, in Rus' lived a life pleasing to God” - Moscow Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich, regarding whom. Some handwritten calendars even record that, at the time of his repose, “the church was filled with many fragrances,” - Elijah, Archimandrite of Solovetsky, the opponent of Patriarch Nikon in correcting the books, and Patriarch Nikon himself, - the self-proclaimed Metropolitan Pimen, who caused seductive turmoil in the Russian church under the Grand Duke Dmitry Donskoy, - even Tsar Ivan the Terrible himself (pp. 346–347, 349, 356, 358, 363:365). From the book by Prof. Golubinsky, a clear conclusion emerges that the spiritual regulations of Peter the Great were right in prescribing strict supervision over arbitrarily composed akathists and other services and prayers, over the stories of saints or lives, over obscene or harmful ceremonies, over the relics of saints, “where any doubtful ones appear.” Indeed, much was “gotten wrong” in all this, to use the words of the same regulations, due to the lack of timely and appropriate supervision, and, no doubt, to great harm for the church. In addition, from both lists prof. Golubinsky makes the impression that if the author had been lucky enough to come across some other information that may be contained in various brochures, articles, guidebooks, etc., both lists could have been lengthened even more. For example, in the “Historical Materials for Compiling Church Chronicles of the Moscow Diocese” published by the Kholmogorov brothers, no. IX, Moscow, 1896, it is reported that in Volokolamsk a posad was established in 1695. church over the tomb of the mother of the Monk Joseph, schema-nun Mary. It must be assumed that she could be assigned to one or another list. Let us now return to Section VI, which contains “a general overview of the canonization of saints in the Russian Church.” The author begins by explaining the general concept of saints, since he says that many lack the correct concept of canonized or real saints. The church-wide or local nature of the celebration, as well as the known or unknown time of the celebration, are not essential for this concept. On the contrary, the establishment of a celebration is of significant importance, so that this very sign distinguishes the real saints from the revered dead, who can be recognized and venerated as saints by the people... The saint for whom a general celebration is established is a greater saint, and the one for whom a local celebration is established is a lesser saint, just as there are greater and lesser saints and among the saints of the general church; but both are equally holy and equally prayerful before God. As for the known or unknown time of the establishment of the celebration, if fame were considered an essential feature, it would be necessary not to recognize some general church saints on the grounds that the time of the establishment of the celebration is unknown to them. The author takes a “dogmatic-legal or canonical” point of view, as he puts it: every saint formally recognized as such by the church is a real saint. It is possible that between the celebrations of local saints, the time of which is unknown, there are incorrect ones, but until the church discovers the irregularities and stops them with its power, they remain what they are, for no one’s private court can take place here, and every private court must follow the court of the church (pp. 261–263). The last reasoning must be recognized as correct, but as for the reasoning about greater and lesser saints, doubts are possible about it. First of all, of course, we must remember that this comparative assessment is a matter of the ecclesiastical court, i.e. human, which can never be as perfect as the judgment of God, for only God alone knows perfectly all His saints and the place occupied by each of them in His kingdom. Otherwise, one would have to reach the strange idea that the increase or decrease in the rank occupied by a saint in relation to God, his transfer from the class of local saints to the class of general church saints, or vice versa, or even his exclusion from the list of saints, would depend on the church. Even Catholic canonists distinguish papal canonizations from papal infallible judgments in rebus fidei et morum (Laemmer, Institutionen des kathol. Kirchenrechts, 1892, S. l57). But even from a human point of view, it would hardly be correct to talk about a local saint as a small saint, and about a church-wide saint as a great saint, because a local saint may later have a church-wide celebration, and therefore, according to Prof. Golubinsky, he will become great from small things, i.e. will acquire a quality that the future small one does not have. The thought of Catholic church law in this regard is perhaps more correct. The line separating the saints from the blessed there is sharper than with us: the display of the relics of the blessed in churches, the construction of churches in their honor, the establishment of holidays in their honor is not allowed as a general rule, but by virtue of a special papal indult. And yet, the beatification does not contain the judgment that beatus is a minor saint, but expresses only the idea that the glory of his holiness has spread and been certified only for a certain, more or less close circle of people, which is not excluded, but further dissemination and certification of this glory in wider and wider circles of believers is assumed, while the deceased righteous himself remains with his unchanged quality, neither becoming greater nor less - that is why every canonization and preceded, as a general rule, by beatification. Then, in the Catholic Church, beati are equally local saints, no matter whether their cult is extended to the entire episcopal diocese, or limited to a closer circle, for example, a monastery. Prof. Golubinsky, on the contrary, distinguishes between local celebration in the broadest sense of the word and local celebration in the narrowest sense of the word, depending on whether the celebration of a local saint is established in the whole diocese, or only in a separate monastery, or for a separate parish church (p. 41). And this is hardly necessary, because the veneration of a local saint in the closest sense, according to the classification and terminology of Prof. Golubinsky (for example, the service of prayers), is hardly ever limited to one monastery or one parish church. The author, in order to be consistent, should also have distinguished between the locals, as little saints, the small in the broadest sense and the small in the narrowest sense of the word. This, however, he does not say. After this, so to speak, introduction to the general review, the author makes an attempt to establish the general rules that guided our church in the matter of canonization of saints, the orders that she observed in this case, and folk customs regarding the veneration of saints (p. 264). The most important questions that are interpreted here by the author are the following: 1) what served as the basis for canonization? 2) what preceded canonization? 3) in particular, what formal procedure preceded it, and what was the actual celebration of canonization? 4) when were the lives and services of the canonized saints compiled? 5) who had the right to canonize saints? 6) to all this is added a general discussion about the relics of saints. It must be admitted that the general constructions of the venerable author are not distinguished by the solidity that characterizes his historical research. The reader encounters here unlikely probabilities, risky positions or statements, and erroneous judgments. One of the most important shortcomings of a general review is the author’s tendency to draw conclusions from the latest to the most ancient times. This tendency raises doubts about the first of the general questions now outlined - the question of the foundations of canonization. If in the Greek Church, according to the author, “there were several whole classes of ascetics, for whose canonization there were other grounds, besides or in addition to the glorification of miracles,” then in our country, on the contrary, “the glorification of the gift of miracles constituted the only common basis for the canonization of ascetics of all classes, or for all ascetics in general” (pp. 40–41). The author convincingly proves that in the 16th and 17th centuries. Indeed, this was the view of our church authorities (266–267). But this same view of Prof. Golubinsky transfers it to the entire previous time and resorts to various arguments that cannot be considered sufficient. Here is the author's argument. Our first saints were the passion-bearers Boris and Gleb. But the passion-bearers who suffered violent death at the hands of Svyatopolk were not two, but three - the third was Svyatoslav. Miracles soon began to happen at the graves of Boris and Gleb; but Svyatoslav’s grave, where miracles could have been performed, was absent, for, having been killed during his flight to Hungary somewhere in the Carpathian Mountains, he was buried at the site of his murder, and therefore, although he was a passion-bearer exactly the same as Boris and Gleb, he was not, like them, a miracle worker from God, and he was not canonized with them as saints. Another argument: Grand Duke Vladimir was not canonized for quite a long time because the Lord did not want to glorify him as a miracle worker. Third argument: the Monk Anthony of Pechersk was canonized later than his disciple Theodosius, and this fact can only be explained by the “assumption” that the Lord was pleased to glorify Theodosius with the gift of miracles and was not pleased at the same time to glorify Anthony with the same gift. Fourth argument: in Rostov in 1164, for the same reason, digging ditches for the foundation of a new church, the relics of bishops Leontius and Isaiah were found, and while the first of them was canonized in 1190, the second received this honor only after a long time - the explanation for this fact can again only be the “assumption” that by 1190 only one of the first of them became famous for the gift of miracles. These four examples, dating back to the pre-Mongol period, according to Mr. Golubinsky, “clearly prove that during this period the only common basis for considering deceased ascetics of piety as saints was our glorification of ascetics with the gift of miracles” (pp. 265–266). Meanwhile, a little lower, the author is forced to say that Grand Duke Vladimir was canonized not as a miracle worker, but as the baptist of Rus', entitled to the title of Equal-to-the-Apostles, and that in the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral local celebrations were established for quite a few Novgorod bishops, of whose relics there is no news of miracles working (268). Regarding Saints Anthony and Theodosius of Pechersk, Leonty and Isaiah of Rostov, the author, as we have seen, only “suggests”. But we can also assume something else, namely, that when comparing two righteous people, people close to them in time gave preference to one of them over the other, and only later the correct (more objective, as we would put it today) view was established. Regarding the three princes who suffered violent death at the hands of Svyatopolk, we cannot only assume, but also take it for certain that people close to them in time were able to know, understand and distinguish the character, lifestyle and circumstances of the death of Boris and Gleb on the one hand and Svyatoslav on the other hand. The tension of Prof.'s argument. Golubinsky is even more strongly felt in his reasoning about what motives guided the Grand Dukes Vladimir and Yaroslav - the first when transferring the relics of his grandmother Grand Duchess Olga to the Tithe Church, the second when transferring the relics of their brothers Boris and Gleb from Vyshgorod to Kyiv, to the newly built church. The author sees here the influence of the Athonite monastic custom of digging up dead monks in the hope of glorifying them with miracles (this custom was mentioned above). It would seem that both facts could be explained in a more natural way - by the desire to place the remains of the dear and revered deceased in a more revered place, especially since at the time of the transfer of the relics neither Grand Duchess Olga nor princes Boris and Gleb were yet canonized. It is also not superfluous to note the following circumstance: the reasoning of the venerable professor just given is on pp. 47–48, and below on pp. 208 points to the undoubted fact that the relics of St. Theodosius of Pechersk were found not three or four years later (as would be the case according to Athonite custom), but 17 years after his death, and that in the history of the discovery of his relics there is no hint of the existence of a general custom of digging up the remains of dead monks. “But since,” the author argues, “it seems necessary to us to assume the existence of a custom, then ... we consider it necessary to accept that the custom appeared in the monastery (i.e., in Pechersk) after the death and after the discovery of the relics of St. Theodosius.” Whether or not a reference to Athonite custom is needed to explain what was happening in the Pechersk Monastery is an obscure question; but it is clear that it was not easy for the Grand Dukes Vladimir and Yaroslav to take advantage of the Athonite custom, which remained unknown even in the Pechersk Monastery during the life of the Venerable Theodosius, who lived later than them. In the venerable author's reasoning on the question of what preceded canonization, there is much that is valuable and interesting, since here he has to touch upon the everyday side of the cult of uncanonized saints. Veneration of the memory of the deceased righteous often began not from the moment of official canonization, but from the day of death. This veneration was expressed not only in the offering of prayers (in the form of serving memorial services, funeral liturgies, inscribing the name of the deceased in the memorial synodik), but also in the form of arranging well-known material monuments and honoring these monuments, such as tombstones, which had the appearance of shrines with relics and were sometimes covered with full-length images of ascetics, as well as half-length images or icons that were even placed in the churches. The author wants to think that such icons were not icons in the proper sense, but were simply portraits (274–278 and cf. 193). But since he himself says that the service of memorial services for the dead did not exclude the service of prayers for him, and “portrait icons” were mixed with icons in the proper sense, it is almost more likely to think that those for whom such images were painted and placed in churches, especially if they were painted with a halo, looked at them not as portraits, but as icons in the proper sense. – Let us also note that there is hardly any need for the assumption that Prof. considers necessary. Golubinsky (pp. 90–91) that the Makarievsky Council of 1547 certainly had to be preceded by a decree on the canonization of 15 saints, who at this council were already considered as indisputably universally revered: universal reverence could be established and clarified by the time of the cathedral without any decree, as the author himself allows for Sergius of Radonezh and Cyril Belozersky. Speaking about the procedure preceding canonization, the author distinguishes the following stages: recording miracles, reporting them to the church authorities, with or without the addition of a direct petition for canonization, inquiry of the church authorities about the truth of the miracles, and finally canonization itself. The venerable professor even enters into battle with “some” opponents, not named by him, who claim that the execution of a search or inquiry into miracles became more and more complicated over time and finally turned into “a long, complex and sometimes petty investigation, bearing all the traces of clerical formalities.” All this, the author declares, is “one of the most complete nonsense belonging to some.” In fact, in his opinion, no complications occurred in our search, and it remained the same with us from ancient to modern times; if positive evidence were required to confirm the words: “a petty investigation, bearing all the traces of clerical formalities,” then “people who see sleep” would truly find themselves in a deplorable situation (284–285 in note). The language is too bold and decisive! Perhaps those who see the current investigation as a petty clerical formality are really seeing dreams, not reality; but the author is also wrong in making the mistake already noted above, that is, in allowing himself decisive conclusions from the latest to the most ancient times. To say that the search preceding canonization always remained the same for us means making the same mistake that a Russian historian would make if he began to assert that the “search” of the times of Sudebnikov and Stoglav already existed in the times of Russian Pravda. Just as in the West the canonization procedure developed on a common procedural basis with the features of adversarial proceedings, so in our country the procedure developed on a common judicial basis, taking on the character of a search, in other words, investigative. But this investigative nature could not have been assimilated by her until the investigative principle penetrated into Russian legal proceedings in general, which involved not so much complication as the establishment of a certain order. The comments that will be made below regarding the author’s reasoning about canonizing power will partly serve to clarify the fallacy of the position under consideration. Here we also point out that the facts cited by the author himself do not prove anything similar to what he said. We do not see any recording of miracles, nor a report to the authorities, nor the appointment of an investigative commission, but we see that as soon as any miracle that had taken place was announced, they immediately began to ring the bells and began a church celebration, and if, as was the case in one case, the prince and the metropolitan turned out to be “possessed by unbelief,” then again, without any search, they ordered that there should be no ringing (see on p. 280–281 in approx.). Therefore, not everyone will agree with the author when he, claiming, as we saw above, that the search has always remained the same with us, still considers it “seemingly necessary” to divide the history of the canonization of our saints into two unequal halves in relation to the rigor of inquiry into miracles: from the beginning of Christianity to the council of 1667 and from this council to the present time (285). In the 16th and first half of the 17th century there could have been actual weakening of the search, there could have been an actual lack of supervision in general, as a result of which the council of 1667 was forced to recall the need for more strict research and observation. But if we divide the history of canonization into periods from the point of view of this rigor, then it would be more accurate to divide it into periods other than those indicated by Prof. Golubinsky, and for others: 1) a time, approximately before the 15th century, when no formal search was carried out and, 2) a later time, when a search became a necessary condition preceding canonization. If it were necessary to divide this later time into sub-periods, then the boundary could be served rather by the spiritual regulations of Peter the Great with its strict instructions directed against all false stories of saints, fictitious miracles and counterfeit relics, than by the council of 1667. The preliminary procedure was supposed to lead to the canonization itself. Regarding the ancient Greek church, the researcher states that we have almost absolutely no historical information about the canonization of saints in the ancient Greek church. Not only has not a single authentic act on the production of canonizations reached us, if such acts occurred (a reservation, as we will see, is not superfluous), but not a single third-party record is known that directly speaks of the same thing (p. 22). By what rite the celebration of the canonization of saints was carried out in the ancient Greek church, if only there was a certain rite of canonization (we note this reservation), we do not know at all (23). Nevertheless, it turns out quite unexpectedly that the author knows (although he does not indicate the source of his information) what the canonization itself consisted of: “the canonization itself in relation to each newly recognized saint consisted in the fact that an annual celebration of his memory was appointed on the day of his death (or on another day of special significance for him), for which purpose his name was entered in the calendar or calendar of the diocese, and that his name was added to the names of others saints of the diocese for daily proclamation at the liturgy after the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist, for which purpose it was included in the so-called church diptych.” The correctness of this position will be better judged when considering the question of canonizing power. Regarding the rite of canonization of saints in ancient Rus', the author is only able to express his assumptions. “What the rite itself consisted of, how the very celebration of canonization was performed, we have no positive information regarding this at all, because not a single private canonization is mentioned at all, by what rite it was performed. In all likelihood, one must think that the very representative of the church authority who performed sainthood or canonization - whether it was a diocesan bishop or a metropolitan and patriarch - did not perform a rite or celebration similar to that performed by the Pope, and that the whole matter on his part was limited to a definition and decree (as is the case at the present time), and that the celebration took place only at the location of the coffin with the bodily remains of the canonized saint Regarding this last celebration, it should be thought, as nothing else can be thought, that it consisted of a possibly brightly furnished festive service to the new saint, and ... a deliberate convocation of the entire surrounding clergy with the entire surrounding population and more or less generous alms to the poor should be assumed... it is likely to think that the diocesan bishop himself came to celebrate the celebration or sent his special representatives” (pp. 276–287). If not all, then a significant part of these assumptions again stands in connection with the question of canonizing power and again indicates the author’s tendency to make risky generalizations. The recognition of any ascetic of piety as a saint required that a service be compiled for him and that his life be written. The service was needed so that the saint could be celebrated, and the life was supposed to serve as a justifying document in favor of the fact that the canonized saint is a true saint. But let us note that, according to the research of the venerable author, it was very often, if not most of the time, that both the service and the life turned out to be compiled before the canonization (289). And this also has a connection with the question of canonizing power, to which we now finally come. Regarding the Greek Church, the author argues that initially the right of canonization belonged to the bishops with their “colleges of clergy”, and, in view of the 34th Apostolic Canon and the 9th Canon of the Council of Antioch, which prescribe that the bishop should not do anything important without the judgment of the Metropolitan and the Provincial Council, he assumes that canonization, as an important matter, could not do without this consideration, and on the other hand, he is forced to note a characteristic phenomenon that sometimes in In the matter of canonization, the laity forcibly influenced the will of the bishops, sometimes even erecting churches in honor of the ascetics during their lifetime (p. 22). In later times, the right of canonization for local celebrations in the Greek metropolises belonged and belongs to the metropolitans, but who owned and belongs the right of canonization for local celebrations in bishops - whether to local bishops, or to the same metropolitans, is probably unknown, most likely to local bishops, “for here in Russia, both in principle and in practice, the right of bishops to perform, with the permission of the Holy One, is recognized. Synod of Canonization for local celebration in dioceses." The Patriarch of Constantinople with the council of bishops attached to him (p. 29) canonizes it for the general celebration throughout the Greek Church (p. 29), and, as one must assume, not only in the Greek Church of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but in all Greek churches. About other patriarchs prof. Golubinsky finds it difficult to say whether they also canonize for general celebration in all Greek churches, or only in their patriarchates, due to the lack of examples of canonizations performed by them. Nothing is really known about such canonizations; however, one can hardly doubt that it does not even occur to other patriarchs to claim canonization with binding force for the Patriarchate of Constantinople without the determination of the Patriarch of Constantinople and his synod. But Athos, according to the author, “seems to be an exception, canonizing its ascetics on its mountain for local celebration by its own authority” (p. 30). – Regarding the Russian Church, the author says that the right of local canonization belonged to the diocesan bishop, both in the narrowest (for example, in one monastery), and in the broadest sense of the word (within the diocese), under the condition, as one must think, if not in general cases, then at least in the second case, permission from the “head of the Russian church, the metropolitan-patriarch,” while the right of general or church-wide canonization belonged to this to the very head of the Russian Church, i.e., the Metropolitan Patriarch (p. 41). This is stated in the preliminary “general rules” that precede the history of the canonization of Russian saints, and in the “general review” of the VI department we find the following. The right to canonize common saints belonged to the head of the Russian Church, the Metropolitan Patriarch; the right to canonize local saints belonged to the diocesan bishops, but in reality it was that sometimes they were canonized by the diocesan bishops, sometimes by the same head of the Russian church, the Metropolitan Patriarch. While the head of the Russian church was the metropolitan, he was dependent on the Patriarch of Constantinople (was it really until the very establishment of the patriarchate in Moscow?), but the metropolitans had the right to canonize saints in the districts of their metropolises, and therefore the Russian had the same right. As for the right of diocesan bishops to canonize local saints, the author again, in view of 34 Apostolic and 9 Antiochian canons, assumes that episcopal canonizations could not be carried out without the request of the metropolitan patriarchs and contrary to their consent, and regarding the time from the middle of the 16th century. does not only assume, but affirms positively. Since the study being analyzed is the history of the canonization of saints not only until the 18th century, but until very recently, the reader immediately has the question of why in the “general review” the time that followed the destruction of the patriarchate remained as if forgotten? It is obvious that at this time canonization could not be performed by “the head of the Russian church, the metropolitan patriarch.” This means that the author either forgot about the synodal time, or found it difficult to say about it. More likely the latter than the former. The author, apparently, is not one of those theologians who reject any visible headship in the church, being content with the invisible headship of Jesus Christ, and clearly recognizes the existence both in Constantinople and here until the end of the 17th century. head of the church. Nevertheless, the author can therefore be in solidarity with Mr. Zaozersky, who, despite the objection made to him by me 12 years ago (Course of Church Law, II, Yaroslavl, 1890 in additions) and repeated in the textbooks of the 1898 edition, p. 266 and ed. 1902 p. 280, continues to reject (see “Theological Bulletin”, 1902, November), - thus remaining with the same “unshakable” conviction - all authority and eo ipso all power and all government in the church, as something contrary to the Gospel, which supposedly commands Christians, all in general and each individual, not to rule, not to command, not to prescribe, but to obey and serve. Unfortunately, in the press there is no “course” or “system” of church law by Mr. Zaozersky, in which it would be possible to trace the consistent implementation of this ingenious idea and assign an explanation, in particular, on the question of whether the existence of a canonizing power, that is, prescriptive, obliging, or commanding the veneration of a canonized saint in the forms established by the church, does not contradict the Gospel. It would seem more correct to assume that Mr. Zaozersky still has not had time to think through what he is saying. So, Professor Golubinsky, speaking about the canonization of saints by the head of the church for a general or local celebration, cannot have anything in common with Mr. Zaozersky, who rejects all supremacy. Hardly even prof. Golubinsky may be a like-minded person of another Russian canonist, Mr. Berdnikov. This one wrote a lengthy book entitled: “The Fundamental Principles of Church Law of the Orthodox Church,” Kazan, 1902 - so lengthy that one literature reviewer for 1902, having read its title and being amazed at its volume, mistook it for a textbook of church law. This is not the place to talk about the polemical beauties of this work, such as, for example, conscientiousness, etc., but its positive “principles” or “fundamental principles” can be formulated as follows: church legislation and, in general, lower and higher government in the church belong to the spiritual hierarchy, “there is no other supreme authority in the church” - this principle has always operated in the Eastern Church, so that, with the fall of the Byzantine Empire, “there was no gap in the organization of church government Greek-Eastern Church,” and, therefore, the fact of the replacement of the Byzantine emperor by the Turkish Sultan was and remains a fact of indifference to the organization of the Eastern Church (see especially pp. 126–127 and 130). With the last words hardly even Prof. Golubinsky will agree, since even our poorly educated and underdeveloped ancestors discovered more historical flair and historical sense than the modern Kazan “canonist,” feeling that with the fall of the empire, a “gap” had formed, and trying to fill this gap with the theory of a third Rome with a single Christian king in the universe. But on the question of the supreme power in the church, the venerable author of the book under discussion stands, as one must think, on the basis of the same “legal consciousness” as the author of “Fundamental Principles,” and, from the point of view of this legal consciousness, found it difficult to express a definite judgment about those canonizations that were and are being carried out after the abolition of the patriarchate: St. Apparently, the author did not dare to call the synod the head of the church, although canonizations are being carried out and thereby imply not a headless state of the church; The author again did not dare to call the monarch the head of the church, because he did not see the possibility of a transition from the “metropolitan-patriarch” to the emperor. Let's see how accurately the author presented the actual history of canonization, from the point of view of the canonizing power, and how well did the facts he himself discovered and established fit the generalization he made? History says that the veneration of saints and their remains was not a consequence of any instructions or decrees of church authority, but was an expression of an irresistible attraction or inner need of Christian believers. The bishops could only share this feeling of the believing people, and not prescribe or establish the cult of any saint. This explains the facts of forced influence of the laity on bishops noted by Mr. Golubinsky, as well as his established absence of any historical information about the act of canonization or the rite of canonization. Therefore, any assumptions, and even more so provisions about the right of bishops to canonize and appoint a day of celebration with the consent of the metropolitan and the provincial council in accordance with the 34th apostle. and 9 ant. the rules are nothing more than a priori reasoning that has no historical basis. Rather, information has been preserved that the councils had to take restraining and restrictive measures in relation to the veneration of saints. We find a remarkable decree in this regard in the series of North African canons (pr. 17 Carthage collection, 401, according to Slavic, book of rules 94th pr. Carthage collection). Local bishops are entrusted with the responsibility to take measures to destroy the altars that were placed in the fields and along the roads (per agros et per vias; in Greek translation cost: ἀνὰ τοὺς ἀγροὐς χαὶ τοὺς ἀμπελῶνας; hence the Slavic translation: “in the fields and vertograds”), supposedly in memory of the martyrs, but with which no body or remains of the martyrs are found. In the event that “popular unrest” does not allow this to happen, the bishops are instructed to at least admonish the people so that they do not gather in such places, and so that right-minded people should not be attached to such places by any superstition, and for the future to adhere to the rule that the memory of martyrs can be celebrated only in such places where the body or any remains are located, or where, according to legend, there was a residence, or an estate, or a place of suffering deceased. Consequently, the construction of altars in places to which the deceased had no relationship, “according to the dreams and vain revelations of some people,” should be completely prohibited. It could be that the bishop took measures against the veneration of any deceased whom he did not recognize as worthy of veneration, but in this regard he did not establish, introduce, or canonize, but limited and prohibited. Rare and meager evidence of the canonization of saints by bishops during the first millennium of the Christian era is given by Ginsius (IV, 242, note 2), but they all refer to the West. As for the East, a remarkable historical fact should be noted: not only do we not have historical evidence of the exercise of the right of canonization by bishops, but we do not see that any council, ecumenical or local, canonized any saint, or included in the verification of the reasons why any dead person was called a saint. For example, in Egypt, undoubtedly, the memory of Theophilus of Alexandria was highly revered, as one of the pillars of Orthodoxy, along with Athanasius and Cyril, which is already evident from the acts of the Third Ecumenical Council. In the acts of the V Ecumenical Council, Theophilus is called not only “saint” or “of blessed memory,” but directly a saint, along with Gregory of Nyssa (Mansi, Consilior. collectio, IX, 251). How the cult of the saint arose and what position the Patriarch of Constantinople could occupy in relation to the emergence of such a cult is clearly demonstrated by the circumstances from the life of Simeon the new theologian in the first half of the 11th century, not touched upon by Professor Golubinsky (see Holl, Enthusiasmus und Bussgewalt beim griechischen Mönchtum, 1898, pp. 15 et seq. and my review of this works in "Byzantine Time Book", vol. VI). What we know about the legislative regulation of the veneration of saints, and what the venerable author himself knows, again remarkably cannot serve in the slightest degree to substantiate the “consciousness of justice” that was mentioned above. The minology or monthly book was published by Emperor Basil I. Another minology with short lives of saints revered throughout the entire Greek Church was published by Emperor Basil II. In the period of time between these emperors, a wonderful 88 short story by Leo the Wise was published, which established a generally obligatory celebration of seven famous saints: Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and Epiphanius of Cyprus (see Golubinsky, pp. 14, 20 and 21). For the characterization of Eastern legal consciousness, the curious short story of Manuel Komnenos is also of no small importance, by which, obviously, the entire circle of church holidays was generalized and sanctioned for the future. Here it is determined on which days there should be no court hearings (except for those cases when the emperor himself would have ordered court hearings on these days), and different holidays are distinguished on which judges, after performing a divine service, can conduct court. The major holidays include: in September - the days of the Nativity of the Mother of God, the Exaltation and John the Theologian, in October - 6, 9 and 10, the days of the apostles Thomas, James Alphaeus and Luke the Evangelist, in November - the 13th commemoration of Chrysostom, the 14th Apostle Philip, the 16th Evangelist Matthew, the 21st Introduction and the 30th Apostle Andrew, in December - the 9th Conception of the Mother of God and from January 20 to 6, in January - the 18th the memory of Fathers Athanasius and Cyril and the 25th Gregory the Theologian, in February - the 2nd Presentation and the 3rd the memory of Simeon the Receiver of God, in March - the 25th Annunciation and then Easter days from the resurrection of Lazarus to 8th day after Easter, in April - the 25th Evangelist Mark and the 30th Apostle James Zebedee, in May - the 8th John the Theologian, the 10th Simon the Zealot, the 21st Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine and Helen, the 26th Apostle Jude Alpheus, in June - the 11th Apostle Bartholomew, On the 19th of the Apostles Judah, nicknamed Thaddeus, Levi and James, on the 24th the Nativity of the Baptist, on the 29th of the Supreme Apostles Peter and Paul and on the 30th the commemoration of the 12 apostles, in July - on the 25th the Dormition of St. Anna of the Mother of God, in August - the 6th Transfiguration, the 9th Apostle Matthew, the 15th Dormition of the Mother of God, the 20th Commemoration of the Apostle Thaddeus, the 24th Apostle Bartholomew, the 29th Beheading of the Forerunner. The same class of holidays includes the half of Pentecost and Pentecost, Ascension and all Sundays. Lesser holidays include: in September - the 6th miracle of the Archangel Michael in Khony, in October - the 28th the memory of Jacob, the brother of God, and the 26th martyr Dmitry the Myrrh-streaming, in November - the 1st unmercenary Cosmas and Damian, the 8th Council of Ethereal Powers and the 28th Teacher. Stephen the New, in December - the 4th martyr Barbara and the 6th wonderworker Nicholas the Myrrh-streamer, in January - the 10th Gregory of Nyssa, the 16th veneration of the chains of the coryphaeus of the apostles Peter, on the 19th the transfer of the relics of Gregory the Theologian and the 27th the transfer of the relics of John Chrysostom, in February - the 7th the memory of Theodore Stratilates and 17th Theodore of Tyrone, in March - 9th Forty Martyrs, in April 23rd Great Martyr George, in May 2nd Athanasius the Great, in June - 8th Theodore Stratelates, 9th Cyril of Alexandria and 27th Venerable Sampson, in July - 1st Wonderworkers-Unmercenaries, 2nd State of the Honest the robe of the Mother of God, the 8th great martyr Procopius, the 11th great martyr Euphemia, the 20th prophet Elijah, the 27th martyr Panteleimon and the 31st position of the honorable belt of the immaculate Mother of God (Zacharia e, Jus graeco-romanum, R. III, coll. IV, nov. 67). – One could, apparently, think, as the above-mentioned Kazan canonist probably thinks, that here the “civil” legislator does not establish holidays for the entire empire, but gives instructions for civil courts, and that a similar legislative act could come from the Turkish Sultan. But it is precisely the “civil” point of view that is completely absent: the novella clearly states that the birthdays and accession to the throne of the emperor, in repeal of I. 7 § penult. Cod. de feriis, are included in everyday life. Let us now turn to the facts from Russian history, content with those given in the book of Professor Golubinsky himself, noting those judgments in which his own “legal consciousness” is expressed. The venerable professor reads, for example, the chronicle news that the Pechersk abbot made a request to enter the name of Theodosius in the synodikon (in the list of saints commemorated at festive litias) not to the metropolitan, but to the Grand Duke Svyatopolk, and that the Grand Duke ordered the metropolitan to enter it and the bishops in all bishoprics to enter it, which they did with joy. The author obviously does not like this fact, and he argues as follows. “If we were to assume,” he says, “that the chronicler accurately conveys the matter, then it would be necessary to say that the abbot of Pechersk assimilated to the Grand Duke a right that did not belong to the latter, and that the Grand Duke appropriated to himself the right of a metropolitan and allowed himself illegal coercion in relation to him. But we think that there should be an inaccuracy in the chronicler’s reporting of the matter - that the abbot sought petition from the Grand Duke before the Metropolitan, and that the Grand Duke, for his part, fulfilled precisely this request of the abbot” (53). You can, perhaps, think whatever you want, but you need to have some basis for your thoughts, and in any case it is impossible to talk about “illegal coercion” here, in view of the categorical statement of the chronicler that all the bishops “with joy” carried out the command of the Grand Duke. This means that everyone was prepared for the canonization of Theodosius, and the prince was only an exponent of the general conviction and desire, and acted quite correctly if he did not make a “petition” to the metropolitan, but directly “commanded”. This is not like, for example, the law of Emperor Nicephorus Phocas about counting as martyrs all those who are killed in a war with the enemy. Such a law could really surprise with its surprise and arbitrariness, and if the emperor had decided to insist on the promulgation and implementation of such a command (which he did not do, having encountered resistance), then it could be said that he allowed himself coercion, and not only in relation to the patriarch or the bishops, but to the entire believing people. Professor Golubinsky’s “legal awareness” is expressed on another point. The Makarievsky Council of 1547 took place on February 26th on “collective” Sunday, that is, on the week of Orthodoxy. The Tsar was not present at the council because he was not in Moscow at that time. “Probably,” says the author, he did not want to be present because he would not add a zemstvo element to the matter, in the strictest sense of the church, which is the canonization of saints” (p. 89). Again, there must be some basis for this probability, but there are absolutely no reasons. The author himself, in a note to the above passage, reports that on February 13, 1547, the tsar married Anastasia Romanovna and on February 17 went on foot on a pilgrimage to the Trinity, from where he returned to Moscow on March 5. Consequently, the absence of the tsar at the council of 1547 was a purely accidental circumstance, and the historian has all the less right to see in this fact the conscious removal of the “zemsky element” from purely church affairs, since the entire subsequent course of action of the tsar both at the council of 1549, and at the hundred-headed council, etc. etc., and all the documents that express the “legal consciousness” of that time have the clearest and most definite meaning possible. The tsar “desired” to seek and collect the wealth that remained neglected (the totality of Russian miracle workers, who had not yet received a proper celebration), “begged” the saints of his kingdom to carry out the necessary research, asked for the “advice” and “blessing” of the saints, and brought the planned task to the end. But with prayer, with requests for advice and help, the tsar turned not only to Metropolitan Macarius with the other saints, but also to the princes, bolyars, soldiers and all Orthodox Christianity - the saint’s blessing, as is known, he asked not for the canonization of saints only, but also for the publication of the code of law (see 3 and 4 chapters of the hundred chapter and in the book of Professor Golubinsky, p. 95 – 97 and 105 – 106). To say about the Macarius councils that they canonized saints without a king would be no more valid than if someone began to prove that the hundred-domed council legislated in addition to the king and independently of him. About the same Grozny in the book of Mr. Golubinsky is reported that in 1556 he canceled the incorrect celebrations for Vladimir, the son of Yaroslav the Wise, his mother Anna and Prince Mstislav the Brave and ordered them to sing requiems, in other words, the canonization of them, even local ones, was declared insufficiently justified or incorrect (pp. 73–74). One must think that here, too, a certain “legal consciousness” of the time was expressed. Further, in one Volokolamsk collection, the venerable author found the following news: “By the command of the faithful and Christ-loving sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Fyodor Ivanovich of All Rus' and the blessing of his father, Most Holy Job, the first Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', the troparion and kontakion and stichera were corrected for our reverend father Abbot Joseph of Volotsk the Wonderworker and the eve and at the liturgy the entire service under Abbot Jasaph in the summer of June 7099 on the 1st day, and the troparion and kontakion, stichera and eve and at the liturgy the entire service to St. Joseph at the ecumenical council (!) witnessed the sovereign autocrat and Grand Duke Fyodor Ivanovich of All Rus' and His Holiness Job, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', and all synclitis; and with the advice of the entire council, the king and patriarch ordered the singing and celebration of our reverend father Joseph everywhere... on the same day, the sovereign king and Grand Duke Theodore Ivanovich ordered the troparion and kontakion to be printed in all menaions in the stichera and the entire service,” and so on. (pp. 116–117 and cf. also p. 303 in note). From the end of the 17th century. we also have a document (see Golubinsky in the Appendices, on pp. 428–429) characterizing the “legal consciousness” of the time. The archimandrite and brethren of the Solovetsky monastery besought Archbishop Athanasius of Kholmogory to bless them to commemorate with the divine service of the Monk Herman, a collaborator and associate of the founders of the Solovetsky monastery Zosima and Savvaty. In response to this petition, the archbishop in 1691 pointed out to the archimandrite and the brethren “the desert dweller Elder St. Herman, for his many years of fasting labors, to have and venerate as a saint of God, both without the will of the great sovereigns and the most holy patriarch and without testimony, as the holy Eastern Catholic Church has to celebrate and create hymns with all-night singing, as you celebrate the memory of saints according to the charter, to him - Elder Herman - we did not point out, not as if we were disparaging his reverence, but preserving the integrity of the holy church of dogmas, as from ancient times in our holy Orthodox faith it was the custom of the holy saints of God to first offer reliable testimonies about their lives and miracles, according to the testimony, with the blessing of the common Orthodox monarchs and the archpastoral, services and canons are compiled for them and This is how celebrations are organized, but without the testimony and blessing of the sovereign and most holy patriarch, this cannot take place and can be firmly established.” Consequently, even the hierarch of the times of the patriarchate, when the parallelism of authorities, royal and patriarchal, was reproduced, was far from the idea of ​​​​considering the participation of the monarch in the matter of canonization as an extraneous participation of “civil” power. There is nothing to say about the canonizations of the 18th century. and later times, starting with the canonization of Demetrius of Rostov, which not only took place due to the Highest approved report of St. synod, but also passed its initial stages at the personal command of the empress, while the local Rostov Metropolitan Arseny Matseevich, according to the remark of prof. Golubinsky, “regarded the glory of St. Demetrius with incomprehensible and unacceptable disdain” (p. 170 in note 3). The highest approved report of St. Synod and to this day remains the form in which the act of canonization is clothed, as a church law, along with other church laws. The question arises, what basis did the researcher have, summarizing in a “general review” the conclusions arising from his research, to say that the canonization of saints in the Russian Church belonged to its head, the Metropolitan Patriarch? The author's own view of the course of history is another matter, an objective conclusion from the facts of history is another matter; the former cannot be put in place of the latter. As for the author’s own view - this view, no doubt, is not alone, but the view of many - it is rooted not in the traditional Eastern Russian, but in the view of the monarch, imported from the West, as a “secular” or “civil” power, opposite to the “ecclesiastical” power. Medieval Western hierocratic literature dethroned the monarch as a power from this world (pot. saecularis), from any spiritual quality. Luther wanted to restore the monarch's spiritual and religious character, but he failed to do this, thanks to the powerful flow of ideas of natural law. From the point of view of the latter, the monarch is only and exclusively the head of the state, as a secular society, in which religion itself is only one of the branches of government. All Western European journalistic literature was created on this basis; It remains on it to this day, with perhaps the difference that earlier they spoke of the monarch as the “head of state,” and later they began to call the monarch an “organ” of the state, as a purely secular communication. It goes without saying that Catholic church literature, which defends the independence of the church hierarchy as a “spiritual” power from any “civil” power, understanding the latter as a monarch, serves only as a support for the said journalistic view, which is in sharp contradiction with the entire course of history, both Byzantine and Russian, although superficial Western teaching has long been observed in both. If we now turn to the question of the canonization of saints in particular, then at first glance it may indeed seem strange to be canonized by virtue of imperial law. But imperial law is not an act of imperial arbitrariness. The law presupposes a widespread and mature popular faith; the emperor is only an exponent of the people's faith, and the report of St. Synod serves as indisputable proof that the act of canonization is with the blessing of the saints. “By the command of the king with the blessing of the saints” - the form, as we have seen, is not new: it already existed in the 16th century. We have also seen that in the Catholic world, monarchs can be exponents of the people's faith, turning to the pope with a petition to canonize a righteous person. The Russian Emperor has no one to turn to with such a petition. Neither the later history from the 18th century, nor the history of the 16th century tells us anything about arbitrariness and disorder in the matter of canonization of saints. On the contrary, from the book of prof. Golubinsky makes the impression that in the era of the Makariev Councils this matter was much clearer and more correct than in the era of the patriarchate, and if compiling long lists of deceased righteous people of various categories was very difficult for the venerable researcher, then the difficulties arose mainly during the period of the patriarchate. Let’s not even talk about Patriarch Joachim, whom Prof. himself. Golubinsky calls him “very brave” and “quick” to make decisions (pp. 166 and 168). Indeed, the “courage” of Patriarch Joachim can be compared to a certain extent with the courage of Patriarch Nikon. In the acts relating to civil massacres in ancient Russia, published by Fedotov-Chekhovsky, there are two curious documents: two legal documents on the same case. The royal court decided, on the basis of the code, to allow the relatives of the testator to buy out the family village bequeathed to the Epiphany Monastery, and in this sense a legal charter was issued, and the patriarchal court, on the basis of the helmsman’s book, decided the case in favor of the other side and issued another legal charter (Vol. II, No. 122). One more note regarding canonization as a legislative act. In the West, despite the fact that bishops, according to canon law, are assigned “legislative power,” already from the 12th century. not only canonization, but also beatification belongs exclusively to the pope. The attribution of legislative power to a bishop within the boundaries of his diocese is decisively inconsistent with the spirit of Russian public law. Therefore, if a bishop introduces a local celebration in a diocese or in a monastery in honor of some deceased righteous person, this does not mean that he “canonizes for a local celebration,” that is, he issues a law binding on the diocese, but it means that he allows such celebration, in view of the widespread belief in a certain circle of people in the holiness of the deceased, with verification of the foundations of this belief. Allowing the celebration is a conclusion not from the legislative, but from the administrative power. It was noted above that even the Pope, whose legislative power no one doubts, does not, as a general rule, prescribe the veneration of local saints (beati), but allows it. The times when there was no higher authority over the bishop, and even the times when provincial councils headed by the metropolitan legislated without knowing the highest authority over them, have long passed in both the West and the East. The “General Review” ends with speeches about the relics of saints. The author takes up arms here against people “who have the zeal of God beyond understanding,” who claim that the relics of saints are always and certainly completely incorruptible, that is, completely intact, not in the least destroyed or damaged bodies, and puts forward a very solid argument against this view, continuing this in one of the appendices to his study. The applications are divided into two parts: the first contains Greek applications, the second contains Russian applications. For the most part, these are documents - charters, decrees, acts related to the canonization of saints, to the admission, or to the cessation of celebrations. But among the Greek ones there are also such valuable appendices as a list of bishops-patriarchs of Constantinople from Mitrofan († 325) to Eustathius († 1025) with a note which of them canonized saints, and among the Russians, a list of Russian saints who were celebrated in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral between 1622 and 1743, according to the four statutory records of this cathedral, indicating the differences in the records. In general, the historical and literary material on which the hardworking author gifted with critical thought worked can be called enormous. But one cannot help but wish that in the next edition, if one were undertaken, the treatment of the material would have a more orderly appearance, and that the author would pay attention to the weaknesses of his “general review.” However, one cannot agree with the author when he (p. 530 in the note) says that “the name of our consistories, of course, is the name of the papal consistories borrowed from the Latin language, but the name is adopted by us to a public place that has nothing in common with those public meetings that the popes call consistories.” That the name “consistory” is borrowed from the Latin language is certain; but the papal consistory was too far from us - much closer was the episcopal officialate, also called a consistory, and even closer was the Lutheran consistory, which existed in all Lutheran countries long before the time when our diocesan seat received the official name of consistory. It is not clear where the total of 118 came from. In the lower cave, according to prof. Golubinsky, repose the relics of 60 saints, known by name, then 12 brothers unknown by name - the first stone makers and the first icon painters of the great Pechersk church, and another 30 myrrh-streaming heads of unknown saints. In the distant cave, according to Professor Golubinsky, there are the relics of 45 saints, known by name, in addition 31 myrrh-streaming heads and one shin of unknown saints and part of the relics of Palestinians, namely one of the babies killed by Herod for Christ in Bethlehem (pp. 202–206).