Акишин С.Ю., диак. А.В. Щепёткин. Лекционные курсы по литургике приват-доцента А.А. Дмитриевского в Казанской духовной академии

Review of the contents of the Russian National Library of Russia. F. 253. D. 196, 197, 135, 152, 154 Lecture courses from the Kazan period of A.A.’s life. Dmitrievsky are concentrated in several archival files of the scientist’s fund among lectures dating back to the later, Kyiv period: files 135, 152, 154, 196 and 197, stored in f. 253 Department of Manuscripts of the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg. When systematized in the 30s. XX century V. N. Beneshevich of the Alexey Afanasyevich Foundation lectures were mixed and dispersed across different archival units. Therefore, when determining whether a particular fragment belonged to certain lecture courses, we were guided, firstly, by the curriculum, secondly, by the dating of the paper, thirdly by signs in the lectures themselves and references to scientific literature. A.A. Dmitrievsky lectured at the Kazan Academy from November 1882 to February 1884, so we will be interested in paper created at that time or slightly earlier. In the first, 1882/1883 academic year of teaching, A.A. Dmitrievsky taught the first and second year students of the church practical department the history of worship in the Russian Church, and the fourth year students the history of liturgical books 217. according to the KazDA report for the next, 1883/1884 academic year, Alexey Afanasyevich read the history of worship in the Russian Church again to the first and second years, which seems unlikely: most likely in the second year he continued lecturing to the students of the second and third years, thereby teaching the entire volume of material within a year and a half, or he finished reading the course to the second year students, and began reading again to the first year students. Let us consider the contents of archival files 196, 197, 135, 152 and 154 in order of their importance to us. The names of the fragments of the lecture course were given by us. 1) OR RNB. F. 253. D. 196. “The science of Orthodox worship.” Lectures on liturgics, given at the Kyiv Theological Academy. Autographs and recordings from listeners. 1880–1883 l. 1–2 vol. – Program of readings on liturgics; l. 3–4 – Fragment of the initial lecture on the history of liturgical books; l. 5–8 vol. – Lecture on methods of processing liturgics (d. 196). The postmarked paper dates from 1886–1901. 218; l. 9–10 rev. – Lecture on liturgical books (without ending); l. 11–26 rev. – Lecture on worship in the Russian Church, marked in the text “tetr[ad] 3a)”, “3b)”, “3c)” (for the end of the lecture see d. 135, l. 48–67 vol.); l. 27–103 – Lectures on liturgics by N.F. Krasnoseltsev, written in different handwritings and dated to the 1880–1881 academic year 219. Many of these lectures are dated; l. 104–170 – A rough fragment of the candidate’s work by A.A. Dmitrievsky “Divine services in the Russian Church in the 16th century.” 220. The postmarked paper dates from 1876 221 ; l. 171–188, 239–249 – Lecture on the history of worship in the Russian Church. The postmarked paper dates from 1870 or 1878. 222 ; l. 189–218 – Lecture on the history of worship in the Russian Church. The postmarked paper dates from 1870 or 1878 223 ; l. 219–224 vol. – Lecture on general liturgics (without end) (for the beginning of the lecture, see d. 197, l. 1–6, continuation in d. 197, l. 36–54 vol.). The postmarked paper dates from 1895–1902. 224; l. 225–230 – Lecture on general liturgics. The postmarked paper dates from 1895–1902. 225; l. 231–238 – draft article about the stichera “we see the true light” 226. The postmarked paper dates from 1871 227 ; l. 250–257 – lecture on the history of worship in the Russian Church. The postmarked paper dates from 1870 and 1878. 228 ; l. 258–281 – “1 trial lecture, given on October 30 of one’s own choice: On the modern Slavic-Russian Typical in its relation to the modern Greek and Bulgarian typicals,” marked at the beginning: “Tetr[ad] 3.” The postmarked paper dates from 1871 229 ; l. 282–297 – Lecture on the history of worship in the Russian Church, marked at the beginning: “notebook 4.” The postmarked paper dates from 1876 230 ; l. 298–357 - a lecture on the history of worship in the Russian Church, which has in the text notes: “Tetr[ad] 5”, “Tetr[ad] 6” (it contains a note: “March 17, 1883”) and “Tetr[ad] 7”, and at the end marked: “graduated on April 7, 1883.” The paper with stamps dates back to: l. 298–320 rpm – 1876 231; l. 321–345 vol. – 1873 and 1871 232 ; l. 346–357 – 1876 233 ; l. 358–373 vol. – Trial lecture on the rite of churching 234; l. 374–389 – “2nd trial lecture, given on November 3”, marked: “Notebook 2”. The postmarked paper dates from 1871 235 ; l. 390–425 rpm – Lecture on the history of worship in the Russian Church, marked at the beginning: “Note[ad] 1” (without ending). The postmarked paper dates from 1871 236 ; l. 426–446 – Lecture on the history of worship in the Russian Church (without beginning), marked: “Note[ad] 2.” The postmarked paper dates back to 1871. 237 From a review of the contents it is clear that the case contains various lectures belonging to both A.A. Dmitrievsky, and, in the recording of the listeners, to his teacher N.F. Krasnoseltsev. lectures by A.A. predominate. Dmitrievsky on the history of worship in the Russian Church. 2) OR RNB. F. 253. D. 197. “The science of Orthodox worship.” Lectures. After 1885 autograph. incomplete text. l. 1–6 vol. - “The Concept of Christian Worship.” The postmarked paper dates from 1876 238 ; l. 7–9 – Lecture on the subject of liturgics (without ending). The postmarked paper dates from 1876 239 ; l. 10–31 rev. – Lecture on the historical development of the rite of the liturgy (without ending) (d. 197, sheets 55–55 vol., 56–56 vol.). The postmarked paper dates from 1912 or earlier 240 ; l. 32–35 – Lecture on Byzantine architecture (without beginning or ending). The postmarked paper dates from 1870 and 1878 241 ; l. 36–54 rev. – Lecture on general liturgics (no end). The postmarked paper dates from 1895–1902. 242; l. 57–59 vol. – Farewell lecture in Kasda. The postmarked paper dates from 1870 and 1878 243 ; From a review of the contents of the case, it is clear that only one fragment, located on l., relates to our material. 57–59 vol.; the writing of the remaining lectures dates back to a later time. 3) OR RNL. F. 253. D. 135. Notes (5) about liturgical books: Lenten and Colored Triodion, Typikon, Breviary, Service Book, etc. l. 1–11 – Lecture on the Lenten and Colored Triodion, marked at the end: “Kazan. February 22. Tuesday. 20 minutes past eleven. 1883." The postmarked paper dates from 1871 244 ; l. 12–16 rev. – Lecture on the typikon. the postmarked paper dates from 1876 245 ; l. 17–25 – Lecture on the breviary. the postmarked paper dates from 1876 246 ; l. 26–46 rev. – Lecture on the service book. the postmarked paper dates from 1876 247 ; l. 48–67 rev. – Lecture on worship in the Russian Church. The postmarked paper dates back to 1876. 248 4) OR RNB. F. 253. D. 152. about the church charter or typology. article. autograph. incomplete text. l. 1–24 rev. - About the Church Charter or Typical. The postmarked paper dates from 1871 249 ; l. 25–27 – Fragment of an unknown lecture. The postmarked paper dates back to 1912 or earlier 250. 5) OR RNB. F. 253. D. 154. Studio charter. Article. Draft autograph. 8 l. l. 1–4 – Studio type; the stamp is not readable; l. 5–8 – The same with minor changes; the stamp is not readable; We were unable to determine the dating of the paper on which these lectures were written, so we are publishing this material in the appendix to the section “History of Liturgical Books.” Lecture course on the history of worship in the Russian Church in the first year of teaching (1882–1883): structure and content When distributing the material in this section, we need to pay special attention to pencil marks like “Tetr[ad] 1”, “Tetr[ad] 2”, etc., since, judging by the handwriting, they were made by A.A. himself. Dmitrievsky and, therefore, can provide us with significant assistance in the correct arrangement of the material. On November 3, 1882, Dmitrievsky gave a second test lecture on the genetic method and the periodization of the history of worship in the Russian Church (d. 196, l. 374–389). It was later labeled as "Tetr[ad] 2". Separately, it should be said about the trial lecture dedicated to the rite of churching (d. 196, l. 358–373 vol.). It has a rough character. Before it begins there is a note: “This lecture was supposed to be given on October 28, but due to circumstances beyond my control, this did not happen. This lecture was intended by me instead of the first trial lecture by my own choice” 251. We publish this lecture as an appendix to the course of lectures given in the 1882/1883 school year. g. “Notebook 1” contains the very first lecture by A.A. Dmitrievsky, in front of which there is a note “I and II courses” and which begins with the words: “It is not without embarrassment and fear that I enter this department...” (d. 196, l. 390–425 vol.). The lecture is preceded by a friendly introduction, in which the scientist wishes his listeners to forever maintain curiosity and the desire for knowledge. He tries to explain the reasons why neither seminarians nor teachers like liturgics. To do this, Alexey Afanasyevich conducts a critical analysis of textbooks on liturgics written by his senior contemporaries - A.P. Chernyaev, Archpriest. D. Smolodovich, priest. F. Khoroshunov and P. Ya. Lebedev - and concludes that the main reason for the reluctance towards liturgics is the unsatisfactory teaching manuals and the lack of preparation of their authors. He believes that the worship of our Church must be presented “in a natural historical way...” 252 Beginning to describe the history of worship in the Russian Church, A.A. Dmitrievsky argues that at first it was entirely dependent on worship in the Greek Church, therefore independence was not observed even in the field of church poetry. After this, the scientist proceeds to a critical examination of the ancient Russian canons, but soon the manuscript of his lecture breaks off. “Notebook 2” is the second test lecture by A.A. Dmitrievsky on the genetic method and periodization of the history of worship in the Russian Church (d. 196, l. 374–389 vol.). At the beginning there is a note “I and II courses.” “Nine centuries have already passed since the light of Christ’s faith illuminated the Russian country and our churches resounded with divine services in their native Slavic language, and we, Russians, still do not know the history of divine services in our Church...” 253 - this is how the lecture begins. A.A. Dmitrievsky says that the issue of worship in our Church is an “interesting and most important” issue. But researchers often do the periodization of the history of worship mechanically and incorrectly, making it dependent on the history of Russia. However, the history of worship in the Russian Church, according to A.A. Dmitrievsky, is a completely independent science, independent of the history of the state. Here Alexey Afanasyevich makes the remark that in general it is more correct to say not “divine services of the Russian Church,” but “divine services in the Russian Church.” Further A.A. Dmitrievsky talks about the genetic method of studying worship, offers his periodization of the history of worship in the Russian Church, highlighting four eras; gives a brief overview of each period. The material in each of these subsections has some overlap with the published work “Divine Services in the Russian Church in the First Five Centuries” (see links in the text of the lecture). Adjacent to this notebook are fragments marked “Notebook 3a”, “3b” and “Notebook 3c”, which begin on the page. 11–26 of case 196, and end with the sheets found in case 135. At the beginning there is a mark “II and I kk.” This is 1883 (that is, obviously, the 1882–1883 ​​academic year), since the work “Divine Services in the Russian Church in the First Five Centuries”, “published last year,” is mentioned. “Tetra [adi] 3a-c” begins as follows: “Having thus defined the subject of our science, its tasks, method and its essential division into eras (and this is the content of tetra [adi] 1–2. - S. A., A. Shch.), we must take a quick look at the very plan of our readings...” 254. A.A. Dmitrievsky turns to Greek liturgical monuments and describes the liturgy of the Eastern Churches and the ancient rites of Baptism, Wedding and other sacraments, and provides a list of ancient Slavic liturgical books. Then, based on this narrative, he draws the main conclusions regarding worship during the first period of the existence of the Russian Church. After this A.A. Dmitrievsky proceeds to characterize the first period in the history of worship in the Russian Church (for periodization, see “Tetra[adi] 2”). Here the material is presented on the basis of the lecture “Slavic-Russian Studio Charter” and the fragment located in front of it. The scientist explains the origin of the “differences” in the liturgical books and the continuous increase in the composition of the liturgical service. Finally, he lists the sources concerning worship in our Church in the time before Metropolitan Cyprian, and describes them, starting with the rules of Metropolitan. John II. “Tetr[ad] 4” (d. 196, l. 282–297, d. 135, l. 62 vol. 67 vol.) is devoted to another body of sources - chronicles, lives and teachings of the first Russian preachers. These sources describe the performance of the main services, sacraments and rites. In the section about naming the baby and the “first tonsure” of the child, there is a coincidence of the material presented with the material of the published work “Divine Services in the Russian Church in the 16th Century.” “Tetr[ad] 5” (d. 196, l. 298–320) examines the remaining pre-Cyprian sources: Kirik’s questions to Niphon, the teaching of Metropolitan. Cyril II and the questions of the Sarai bishop Theognostus at the Council of Constantinople. Analyzing them, A.A. Dmitrievsky notes two main problems: the extreme diversity of liturgical books and the desire to unify liturgical practice, after which he moves on to characterize the activities of Metropolitan. Cyprian in this area. From here begins active quotation of the monograph by I. D. Mansvetov, “published last year” (from which it becomes clear that the lecture was given in 1883). “Tet[ad] 6” (d. 196, l. 321–345 vol.) describes the liturgical activity of Metropolitan. Cyprian, for the most part conveying the contents of the monograph by I. D. Mansvetov. There is a note: “March 17, 1883.” “Tet[ad] 7” (d. 196, l. 346–357) describes the liturgical activity of Cyprian’s successor, Metropolitan. Photius, and then a brief repetition of the course content is made. It begins with the words: “With this I finish my course of readings on the history of worship in the Russian Church, in the full hope that I will have the pleasure of finishing it next year” 255. What follows is a summary overview of the course, in which we can immediately see indications of the content of sections “tetr[adi] 1”, “tetr[adi] 2”, “tetr[adi] 3a-c”, “tetr[adi] 4”, “tetr[adi] 5-6” and “tetr[adi] 7”. Finally, A.A. Dmitrievsky mentions the reforms of Patriarch Nikon, but immediately makes a reservation: “...future readings will show this, and we consider it inconvenient to get ahead of ourselves” 256. After the text of this notebook at the bottom there is a postscript: “graduated on April 7, 1883.” Thus, the result of our analysis confirmed the data of the “Report on the state of KazDA for the 1882–1883 ​​academic year,” according to which in this academic year “Private Associate Professor A. Dmitrievsky taught 1st and 2nd year students: the history of Russian worship from the 9th century. up to and including the time of Metropolitans Cyprian and Photius" 257. The division into notebooks made by the lecturer helped us to reconstruct the structure of the curriculum for this year. In addition, the curriculum of the 1882/1883 school year significantly helped the correct distribution of lecture material. g., compiled by A.A. Dmitrievsky. Lecture course on the history of worship in the Russian Church in the second year of teaching (1883–1884) As far as we can tell, this year's material consists of three sections and one final lecture: 1. About the Stoglavy Cathedral (d. 196, l. 171–188 vol., 239–249 vol.). This section begins as follows: “I cannot help but express to you, gentlemen, the most heartfelt joy that I experience, now beginning the second year of readings with you on the history of worship in the Russian Church. Last year, God helped us bring this story to approximately the end of the 15th century...” 258. The section is devoted to the significance of the Stoglavy Council in the history of Russian worship, analysis of its resolutions and consideration of the influence of its decisions on liturgical practice. In the sections on baptism and marriage there are coincidences with the published work “Divine services in the Russian Church in the 16th century.” (see relevant links throughout the section). 2. “On Slavic printing houses after the death of Deacon Iv. Fedorov" (l. 250–257). This lecture introduces us to the history of Slavic printing houses for the period from the death of Ivan Fedorov to the 19th century. 3. “Divine services in the South Russian Church” (d. 196, l. 257 vol., 189–218). This lecture describes religious life in the western Russian lands and the activities of Metropolitan Peter Mogila. 4. Farewell lecture by A.A. Dmitrievsky (d. 197, l. 57–59 vol.) begins as follows: “With this lecture I am finishing a course of readings on the history of worship in the Russian Church at the Kazan Theological Academy. I think, in parting, it would not be amiss to say a few words about my readings, to sum up, so to speak, everything that I have done during the two-year course...” 259. And then A.A. Dmitrievsky, just as in the lecture of April 7, 1883, provides a summary overview of the course: first the lectures of the 1st year of study, and then the 2nd, and one can clearly identify the topics of the lectures “The Hundred-Glavy Cathedral,” “Ivan Fedorov” and “Divine Services in the South Russian Church.” Thus, as a result of our study of various manuscripts from the collection of A.A. Dmitrievsky and the discipline program he compiled, the correct order of arrangement of lecture material was established, as far as possible. Lecture course on the history of liturgical books First of all, this section includes two small fragments of an introductory nature from d. 196, l. 3–4 and 9–10 vol. In them A.A. Dmitrievsky says that, while most researchers assign liturgical books the modest role of “liturgical accessories” 260, he, Dmitrievsky, classifies them as “the most immediate and direct sources of our science” 261. Consequently, as with any source, it is necessary to apply the methods of “rigorous scientific criticism” 262 to liturgical books in order to separate the wheat from the chaff, which we will indeed observe in further lectures. A.A. program Dmitrievsky from this special course has not survived; N. F. Krasnoseltsev briefly mentions the sections taught to young scientists in his liturgical program: “And by Privatdocent Dmitrievsky: a historical review of liturgical books: Typikon, Service Book, Trebnik, Lenten Triodion, Tsvetnaya Triodion and Octoechos” 263. However, lectures have reached us not on all the books indicated in the program, but only on the following: 1. Introductory lecture (d. 196, l. 3–4, 9–10). In the lecture by A.A. Dmitrievsky talks about liturgical books as a source of the science of liturgics, and substantiates the idea of ​​why it is necessary to study liturgical books. 2. On the Church Charter or Typical (d. 152, l. 1–24 vol.; d. 196, l. 426–446 vol., 258–281). In this section, from which, apparently, the course of lectures began, the Studite and Jerusalem Typicons are examined in great detail from both their content and history. Mention is made here of the work “Divine Service in the Russian Church in the First Five Centuries,” published in February–March 1882. But, on the other hand, there is no mention of I. D. Mansvetov’s monograph “Metropolitan Cyprian in his Liturgical Activity,” which was also published in 1882. Based on this, we can assume that this lecture was written in 1882, in the interval between the publication of the work “Divine Service in Russian Church in the first five centuries" and the moment when A.A. Dmitrievsky familiarized himself with the monograph by I. D. Mansvetov. At the beginning of this lecture A.A. Dmitrievsky compares the Studite and Jerusalem liturgical regulations, names their similarities and differences. The section ends with the words: “Those interested will find more specific differences between the Studite Rite and the Jerusalem Rite in my article “Divine Services in the Russian Church in the First Five Centuries.” In general, one must fully agree with the words of F. Toscani that the service according to the Studite Rite was shorter than that of Jerusalem, less solemn than at present, with a significant predominance of reading rather than singing” 264 . In the section “Slavic-Russian Studio Charter” A.A. Dmitrievsky says that the Studite Charter originally came to us in fragments, and explains two conflicting testimonies about how St. Theodosius of Pechersk received the Studite Charter for his monastery. The scientist describes 5 copies of the Slavic translation of the Studite charter and then says: “From this review of the contents of the charter it is clear that the Studite charter as amended by Patr. Alexia is more a charter of monastic life than a church-liturgical charter” 265. From the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery it spread to other monasteries, and from there it moved to urban and rural parishes. At the end of the lecture A.A. Dmitrievsky talks about changes in the composition of the Studio Charter by the time the Jerusalem Charter appeared in Rus'. In the section “Slavic-Russian Jerusalem Charter” A.A. Dmitrievsky writes that the appearance of the Jerusalem type within Russia should be dated no earlier than the half of the 14th century. He analyzes the reasons for the peaceful and conflict-free replacement of the Studite Charter with the Jerusalem Charter, which from the end of the 14th century. and especially from the beginning of the 15th century he became the main regulator of worship in the Russian Church. In the presentation of the reasons and nature of the transition to the Jerusalem Rule, there is a coincidence of the material presented with the material of the published work “Divine services in the Russian Church in the first five centuries” (for the corresponding links, see the text of the lecture). Further A.A. Dmitrievsky talks about the development of worship in the 16th century and ends the lecture with these figurative words: “The type that came off the printing press in 1682 was the last. From that time on, further development of the type became impossible once and for all; it is enclosed in its impenetrable 444 sheets, from which no one has yet dared to remove it” 266. Apparently, in the same section A.A. Dmitrievsky included his test lecture “On the modern Slavic-Russian Typica in its relation to modern Greek and Bulgarian typics” (d. 196, l. 258–281). A. A. Dmitrievsky describes the perplexities and questions that arise when using the Typikon in a modern edition and wants “our Typikon to be an indicator of the contemporary movement in the worship of our Church. Otherwise, those who look at this book will only stumble and will be far from salvation.” 267. 3. About the Service Book (d. 135, l. 26–47 vol.). Here the contents of the Missal are described, the history of the rite of the Liturgy is briefly outlined (again based on the monograph by I. D. Mansvetov “Metropolitan Cyprian in his liturgical activity”), the arrangement of the prayers of the lamp and unnecessary insertions into the rites of the Liturgies of John Chrysostom and Basil the Great are criticized; a few words from A.A. Dmitrievsky devotes himself to the question of the authorship of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts and, in conclusion, briefly speaks about the bishop's Service Book. It is very interesting that a considerable part of this material, as we can see, formed the basis of the chapter on liturgical books in the 1st volume of the “Handbook of the Clergyman.” This is curious, since in the bibliographic appendix of this section of the “Handbook for a Clergyman” 268 the works of A.A. are indicated. Dmitrievsky, dedicated to the Trebnik 269 and the Service Book 270, but there are no references to our manuscript, although, as evidenced by the word-by-word comparison of the printed text and the handwritten text, there are literal matches. 4. About the Trebnik (d. 135, l. 17–25 vol.). The composition of the large, small and additional breviaries is described here and the history of this liturgical book is described. 5. About the Lenten and Colored Triodion (d. 135, l. 1–11). In this lecture A.A. Dmitrievsky examines the structure of the triodes, the authorship of the chants and, in conclusion, criticizes the content of the synaxarions. This lecture is important because it (the only one in this section) contains a note at the end about the place and time of writing: “Kazan. February 22. Tuesday. 20 minutes past eleven. 1883" 271. Thus, the data we examined confirm the words of the “Report on the state of KazDA for the 1882–1883 ​​academic year,” according to which “the history of liturgical books was read to 4th-year students.” Although in terms of dating we can only say for sure that the lecture on Triodi was completed by A.A. Dmitrievsky on February 22, 1883, however, it can be assumed with a high degree of probability that all of the listed lectures were given by the professor during the 1882–1883 ​​academic year. It is possible that in the 1883–1884 academic year, Alexey Afanasyevich, until he left for Kiev, also taught the history of liturgical books to fourth-year students using finished materials. Sources of lecture courses by A.A. Dmitrievsky When preparing for classes and when writing lectures A.A. Dmitrievsky actively used contemporary and earlier textbooks and research. Here are examples. In “tetra[adi] 1” he provides detailed reviews of four textbooks on liturgics: A. P. Chernyaev 272, prot. D. Smolodovich 273, priest. F. Khoroshunova 274 and P. Ya. Lebedeva 275 . Further A.A. Dmitrievsky provides a detailed bibliography on this topic, containing a list of ten more textbooks. He also mentions the work of Bishop. Philaret of Chernigov “Historical review of hymns and chants of the Greek Church” 276 and a textbook on liturgics by the German scientist J. B. Luft 277. Judging by the pencil inscription before the beginning of the next fragment (“Khoroshunov. with a student. Notebook[ad] 2”), it is quite possible that Dmitrievsky used the priest’s textbook. Feodora Khoroshunov. Also mentioned in this fragment are “Readings in General History” (1867), “History of the Russian Church” by prof. E. E. Golubinsky 278, “Sling” ep. Nizhny Novgorod and Alatyr Pitirim 279. It is also important that here are excerpts from the books of Archimandrite. Sergius (Spassky) “Complete months of the East” 280 and n. F. Odintsova “The order of public and private worship in Ancient Russia until the 16th century” 281, but in this case they act as an object for controversy: A.A. Dmitrievsky cites their periodization of the history of worship, after which he points out the advantages of his periodization. In the next passage (“Tetr[ad] 2”) the list of literature used is supplemented, in addition to these books, by “History” 282 mit. Macarius (Bulgakov) and another small monograph by Filaret (Gumilevsky), Archbishop. Chernigovsky, dedicated to divine services in the Russian Church 283. In “Tetr[ad] 3” there are links to the textbook of the prot. K. Nikolsky “Manual for the study of the rules of worship of the Orthodox Church” (St. Petersburg, 1865), as well as many periodicals (“Guide for rural pastors”, “Moscow Diocesan Gazette”, “Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette” and many others). “Tet[ad] 3a-c” mentions the “New Tablet” 284 archbishop. Veniamin (Rumovsky-Krasnopevkov), article “The Rise of Slavic Writing” by P.I. Safarika. In some places, material from N. F. Odintsov’s book is used, although Alexey Afanasyevich criticized it in previous lectures and in his article “Divine services in the Russian Church in the first five centuries.” N. Odintsov’s book is also quoted in “notebook 4”; the works of historians are also mentioned there: N.M. Karamzina, V. N. Tatishcheva, In “tetr[adi] 5” – “tetr[adi] 7” the monograph by I.D. is actively used. Mansvetov “Metropolitan Cyprian in his liturgical activity” (1882). Almost most of the lectures are based specifically on the material of this book, which Alexey Afanasyevich himself admits at the end (although in some cases he polemicizes with I.D. Mansvetov). In the lectures of the second year of study, in addition to the already mentioned works, the research of S.T. is mentioned. Golubev “About Peter Mogila and his associates” 285, as well as periodicals (for example, “Journal of the Ministry of Public Education”). In addition, Alexey Afanasyevich uses without references, sometimes in quite a large volume, the historical works of the archbishop. Philaret (Gumilevsky), archimandrite. Leonida (Kavelin), G.P. Smirnova-Platonova, P.A. Bessonova, M.Ya. Moroshkina, E.M. Kryzhanovsky, N.I. Subbotina, etc. The vast majority of quotations from these works have been quoted and appropriate references have been given. The lectures on liturgical books, as far as we can judge, are largely original, although the section on the Service Book also uses the research of I.D. Mansvetova and others. Konstantin Nikolsky. Thus, we can say that the source and research base of Alexei Afanasyevich’s lectures was very extensive, and he never tired of adding to it. As the study that is cited most often by him, we can name the monograph by I.D. Mansvetov about Metropolitan Cyprian of Kiev - there are many extensive verbatim quotes from this book, although sometimes A.A. Dmitrievsky expresses disagreement with Mansvetov and specifically notes this. Other studies, such as the book by N.F. Odintsov, are cited less frequently and are often the object of harsh criticism. Nevertheless, it must be said that in its main part the lecture course by A.A. Dmitrievsky is, it seems, original, and the basis for it is the scientist’s independent study of ancient liturgical sources. Unfortunately, A.A. Dmitrievsky did not always correctly refer to borrowed texts and very rarely put quotation marks; this is explained by the fact that he did not intend to publish his lectures and therefore did not always quote quotations. To the best of our ability, we tried to identify these quotations, put quotation marks and refer to the appropriate places of borrowing, however, not all cases of incorrect citation were indicated. When expanding abbreviations or adding additional words and phrases, square brackets – [ ] are used for clarity of understanding of the text. Brackets drawn in pencil and clearly serving a different function than regular ones are represented by curly braces - { }. The text of the lectures is given in modern spelling and punctuation; appropriate substitutions (for example, “official” - “official”, “at vespers” - “at vespers”, “at matins” - “at matins”) are made by default. In some cases, the text was subject to stylistic or spelling corrections, although systematically repeated errors or the author’s spelling of words by A.A. Dmitrievsky (“Josaph” - “Joasaph”, “Kozma”, “Kozma” or “Kosma” - “Kosma”, “patr. Alexey” - “patr. Alexy”, “receiver” - “successor”) are corrected by default. In the designation of centuries, Arabic numerals are replaced by Roman ones. All text underlining is rendered in italics; in some cases, underlining is replaced by quotation marks (where this is more logical). The publication contains the most necessary notes from the publishers and A.A. himself. Dmitrievsky. Notes belonging to A.A. Dmitrievsky, are given in the form: – A.A.D. All other notes, including those in the text in parentheses (sic!), belong to the publishers. The main text indicates the matches of the material we found, which are designated: – when quoting verbatim or almost verbatim – use quotation marks “ ”; – when quoting freely – in angle brackets. Quotes retain the original spelling. KazDA report for the 1882–1883 ​​academic year. Kazan, 1883. p. 31. In an oval frame: DITYATKOVSKY / No. [double-headed eagle] 4 / PARTNERSHIP – Klepikov S.A. Filigree and stamps on paper of Russian and foreign production of the 17th–20th centuries. M., 1959. p. 103, no. 60. The course of lectures was published by us in: Krasnoseltsev N.F. Lectures on liturgics given to students of the Kazan Theological Academy in the 1880/1881 academic year / intro. art., publ. and approx. S. Yu. Akishina, deacon. A. V. Shchepetkina // Bulletin of the Ekaterinburg Theological Seminary. 2013. No. 2(6). With. 210–278. The fragment was published with changes in the master's thesis: Dmitrievsky A.A. Divine services in the Russian Church in the 16th century. Part I: services of the weekly and annual circle and the order of the sacraments... Kazan, 1884. In a figured frame: No. 5 / SPOSOBINA / and co – Klepikov S.A. Stamps on paper of Russian and foreign production of the 19th–20th centuries. (Addition to the table published in 1959) // Archaeographic Yearbook for 1966. M., 1968. No. 149. p. 132. In a rectangular bent frame: FACTORIES / No. 7 / SHECOLDINA – Klepikov S.A. Filigree and stamps... p. 110. No. 214. In a pentagonal frame, top to top: [noble crown] / GONCHAROVA / (?) – Klepikov S.A. Filigree and stamps... p. 102. No. 51. Published in: Dmitrievsky A.A. About the stichera “seeing the true light” in the rites of the liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great // Guide for rural shepherds. 1886. No. 10. p. 265–278 In an oval frame: MEDIANSK. FABR. / PERVUSHINA / IN / No. VYATKA 5 – Klepikov S.A. Filigree and stamps... p. 106. No. 142. In a pentagonal frame, top to top: [noble crown] / GONCHAROVA / No. 7 – Klepikov S. A. Filigree and stamps... p. 102. No. 51. In an oval frame: KOSINSKAYA FACTORY / RYAZANTSEVS (along the oval) / No. 7 – Klepikov S. A. Stamps on paper of Russian and foreign production of the 19th–20th centuries. With. 131. No. 133; in an oval frame: MEDIANSK. FABR. / PERVUSHINA / in / No. VYATKA 5 – Klepikov S. A. Filigree and stamps... p. 106. No. 142 Paper with the stamp: Kuvshinov Factory No. 5, in the center of the medallion is a lion with its tail bent upward. no similar stamp was found in the reference books. in the work of S. A. Klepikov “Filigree and Stamps...” for No. 110 there is a similar stamp, but for paper of later years: 1893, 1902 and 1908. In an oval frame: MEDIANSK. FABR. / PERVUSHINA / in / No. VYATKA 5 – Klepikov S. A. Filigree and stamps... p. 106. No. 142. In a pentagonal frame, top to top: 6 [double-headed eagle] ½ / PRINCE PASKEVICH – Klepikov S.A. Filigree and stamps... p. 106. No. 141. In a rectangular bent frame: FACTORY / No. 7 / SHECOLDINA – Klepikov S. A. Filigree and stamps... p. 110. No. 214. OR RNB. F. 253. d. 196. l. 358. OR RNB. F. 253. d. 196. l. 413. OR RNB. F. 253. D. 196. L. 11. OR RNB. F. 253. D. 196. L. 353. OR RNB. F. 253. d. 196. l. 356 rev. OR RNB. F. 253. d. 196. l. 171. OR RNB. F. 253. D. 197. L. 57. OR RNB. F. 253. D. 196. L. 10 vol. OR RNB. F. 253. D. 196. L. 3. ON RT. F. 10. Op. 1. D. 7712. L. 117 vol. OR RNB. F. 253. D. 196. L. 430. Right there. d. 196. l. 446 rev. OR RNB. F. 253. D. 196. L. 280 vol. 281. A clergyman's handbook. T. 1. M., 1992. P. 52–53. Dmitrievsky A. A. The book “Trebnik” and its significance in the life of an Orthodox Christian: (Concerning the latest views on this book): Public reading. Kiev, 1902. 44 p. Dmitrievsky A. A. The service book is a mysterious book: (Concerning judgments about it in the latest fiction): Public reading // TKDA. 1903. No. 10. pp. 188–229. OR RNB. F. 253. D. 135. L. 11. Chernyaev A.P. A detailed systematic indication of the composition of liturgics, or the science of worship of the Orthodox Church. Kharkov, 1859. 291 p. Smolodovich D. M., priest. Liturgics, or the science of worship of the Orthodox Eastern Catholic Church. Kiev, 1860.[4], XX, 367 p. Khoroshunov F.D., priest. Orthodox Christian liturgics. Part 1. Stavropol, 1877. Lebedev P. Ya. The science of worship of the Orthodox Church. Parts 1–2. M., 1881. Filaret (Gumilevsky), Archbishop. Chernigovsky. Historical overview of the hymns and hymns of the Greek Church. St. Petersburg, 1860. VIII, 358 p. Luft J. B. Liturgik oder wissenschaftliche Darstellung der katholischen Kultus. Mainz, 1844. 1847. Bd. 1–2. Golubinsky E. E. History of the Russian Church. vol. I. part 2. M., 1881.[6], 792, XV p. Pitirim, ep. Nizhny Novgorod and Alatyr. Spiritual sling. M., 1752. Sergius (Spassky), archimandrite. Complete months of the East. vol. 1–2. M., 1875–1876. Odintsov N.F. The order of public and private worship in ancient Russia until the 16th century: church-historical study. St. Petersburg, 1881.[4], 300 p. Macarius [(Bulgakov)], bishop. Vinnitsky. History of the Russian Church. vol. 1. St. Petersburg, 1857. links to the multi-volume publication “History of the Russian Church” by Metropolitan. Macarius is given according to his lifetime edition. Filaret (Gumilevsky), Archbishop. Chernigovsky. Divine service of the Russian Church of pre-Mongol times. M., 1847.[2], 42 p. Veniamin (Rumovsky-Krasnopevkov), archbishop. New Tablet, or Explanation about the Church, about the Liturgy and about all services and church utensils. M., 1803. Golubev S. T. Kyiv Metropolitan Peter Mohyla and his associates. T. 1. Kyiv, 1883.