[Rec. on:] Gromoglasov I.M. Definitions of marriage in Kormchay and their significance when studying the question of the form of Christian marriage

This bibliographic note, which first appeared in the Serbian language (in the periodical: “Archive for Pravne and Drushtvene Science, organ of the Pravne Faculty of the University of Beograd”, book VII, pp. 3, pp. 265–267), belongs to the pen of the most authoritative Orthodox canonist, a student of the Russian theological school and an honorary member of the Moscow Academy, Doctor of Church right, His Eminence Nicodemus (Milash), Bishop of Dalmatia. The author of the note enjoys well-deserved fame in the scientific world, thanks to his numerous and valuable scientific works in the field of church history and especially canon law. Of these, in addition to the two-volume edition: “Rules of the Orthodox Church with Tumachenima,” it is enough to mention “Orthodox Church Law,” which represents the only hitherto attempt at a comparative presentation of the law of local Orthodox churches, and the monograph: “Ordination of kao smetnya marriage,” known to readers of the “Theological Bulletin” (see Vol. I of this magazine for 1907, p. 371–385 and 429–459). We believe that for this alone it will not be uninteresting to get acquainted with the review of the highly authoritative Serbian Hierarch about the work of the Russian scientist, which, moreover, appeared in full on the pages of “B. B." before publication as a separate book. Transl. Vol. 1. Sergiev Posad, 1908 // Theological Bulletin 1909. T. 3. No. 10. P. 355–359 (2nd page). On the first page of this book is the saying of Augustine of Hippo that the question of marriage is obscurissimus et implicatissimus. This was said fifteen centuries ago; but the same thing may well be repeated today. Until now, in science (we say: in science) it has not yet been sufficiently clarified what constitutes the essence of marriage: is it a contract in the sense of civil law, or is it a New Testament mystery; and if, further, as the Orthodox Church teaches, marriage is a mystery, then it is not yet clear in science whether the “form” of this mystery is the priestly prayer after the newlyweds’ declaration of their voluntary marriage, as the Orthodox catechism teaches, or whether this “form” is the very declaration of the newlyweds, as stated in the Helmsman. The extent to which the question of marriage is unclear and far from a stable solution today is proven - not to mention the disputes regarding obligatory civil marriage - the attempt to eliminate not only monogamy, but also marriage itself by reviving the old Greek heterism and allowing everyone, whether a man or a woman, to satisfy their bodily needs as they please. French socialism even elevated this to a system. Charles Fourier, its most authoritative representative, in his Tableau du nouvel ordre domestique, referring to the long and wide study of marriage in the present civilized society, says that this marriage “ne présente pas une seule garantie, pas une seule chance de bonheur que les époux ne puissent trouver que dans le cas de une pleine liberté”; and this pleine liberté consists in the fact that a man can unite with any number of women, just as a woman can unite with any number of men. This is necessary, the author says, both for a critical assessment of existing Orthodox law, and in the interests of practice, so that one can see how necessary it is to rely on the same principles in the future; This is necessary for Russia from a practical point of view precisely at the present transitional moment of marriage legislation, when freedom of religious conscience has been declared. And for this, the first and main thing is to establish the concept of Christian marriage as a union that is created by a priestly blessing, without which the cohabitation of a man and a woman, even if completely natural according to the principles of civil law, cannot be such according to the judgment of the church. In our Helmsman there are two definitions of marriage: one in chapter 48, taken from Roman law, and another in chapter 50, which is taken from the Breviary of Peter the Mogila. Bearing in mind the source of this second definition, it is easy to understand why the author did not take it as the subject of his work, but settled on the first definition, borrowed from Roman law, which in the Helmsman is expressed in the following words: “Marriage is a combination of husband and wife, and an event in all life, the communication of divine and human truth,” or in the Latin original: “Nuptiae sunt conjunctio maris et feminae, et consortium omnis vitae, divini et humani juris communicatio.” Regarding this definition of marriage, which was included in the Helmsman, the author says: “Thus, we are dealing with a marriage-defining formula that is equally applicable to both Christian and non-Christian marriage, which would seem to completely eliminate the idea of ​​a specially Christian form of its establishment corresponding to the understanding of the essence of the marital union expressed here. A cautious researcher cannot, however, fail to recognize the need to refrain from making decisive judgments in this sense until it is proven that the Christian reception of the ready-made formula has not introduced into it new ideological content that necessitates the Christianization of the marriage ritual. A careful study of this reception is, therefore, a necessary condition for the correctness of the final conclusion regarding the manner in which Christian marriage should be established, corresponding to its definition in Roman law. With this, our author clearly indicated the task of his work, and the entire work is devoted to the fulfillment of this task, dividing, according to three main thoughts, into three chapters, namely: in Chapter I, the first part of the definition is analyzed - “conjunctio maris et feminae” (union of a man and a woman), which indicates the nature of the marital relationship and determines the natural or physical basis of marriage; Chapter II analyzes the second part - “consortium omnis vitae” (communication of all life) or, in other words, the ethical moment of marriage, which consists in the complete and indivisible community of all life relations between husband and wife; in the third and last chapter, the third part of the definition of marriage is analyzed: “divini et humani juris communicatio” (participation in divine and human law), i.e. the religious-legal moment of marriage, which consists in the communication of everything that concerns religion and law. We read in Czyzman (Das Eherecht der orient. Kirche) an extensive analysis (pp. 94–124) of this definition of marriage. This analysis by Chizhman, although good in itself, still cannot be equal to the analysis of our author, so comprehensive, so complete and exhaustive that we do not know whether anyone else could add anything or supplement it with something. Here, every aspect of the above-mentioned Roman definition of marriage has been carefully taken into account from all sides and everything necessary has been most conscientiously studied to justify the reception of this definition into Orthodox church law and to show its compliance with all the conditions of church marriage, so that, as far as we are able to judge this, the author can freely declare that he has said the last word in science on this issue. We will not enter into an assessment of everything that this book contains, since we would have no choice but to write out individual passages from it, noticing the same thing each time - that it is said beautifully and the question is settled. We encourage those interested in marriage law to read this book as carefully as we have read it, and we assure them that they will not regret the time invested in it. Some passages in this book deserve special attention. After a scientific analysis of the first point in the definition of marriage, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, whom mutual love binds to each other for life, the author rightly ends his analysis with an excerpt from one of the works of the Antiochian Patriarch Theodore Balsamon on kinship, which says that “spouses as a result of marriage can be considered as if they were one person (ἕνα σχεδὸν ὁμόψυχον ἄνθρωπον), only appearing in two individuals” (p. 86). Everything said in this book about the indissolubility of marriage, as the main teaching of the Orthodox Church, which was not fully developed in pre-Christian Roman legislation, is very important and correct; in the same way, the conditions under which divorce is allowed in the Orthodox Church (pp. 104–148). The author’s remark about the Isaurian Eclogue and about divorce law in it, which was noted by Byzantine legislation of subsequent times, is quite appropriate (p. 147), although, perhaps, it would be necessary to explain why that Eclogue is found in the printed (but not in the Old Serbian) Kormcha, and, moreover, immediately after Prochiron, from which the definition of marriage in question is taken. – It is worthy of attention and we fully accept the author’s reasoning in the third chapter of the book that allowing mixed marriages does not contradict divine law, as some “strict purists” claim, and that such marriages have always been allowed, as the Orthodox Church still allows out of necessity (pp. 167–183). If to all of the above we add that the author is excellently familiar with the sources of Roman law, as well as with all the sources of church law, and that he has extensively studied the literature of both laws, as evidenced by the numerous learned notes under the text and the list of manuals on pp. 197–210, then we will still say only a little of what could be said about this remarkable work of Mr. Gromoglasov. Transl. Archimandrite Michael, Abbot of the Serbian Compound in Moscow