Life and works of Alexey Afanasievich Dmitrievsky

(A shortened version of the research article by B.I. Sove, a famous biblical scholar, historian and liturgist of the Russian Abroad, “Russian Gohar and his school”, published in the 4th volume of “Theological Works”, 1968. SS. 39–84) March marked the 150th anniversary of the birth of one of the world's largest Russian church scientists, Alexei Afanasyevich Dmitrievsky. An outstanding liturgist and Byzantine scholar of the 19th-20th centuries, he became the founder of Russian Orthodox historical liturgics and trained a whole galaxy of liturgical scholars in the theological academies of the Russian Orthodox Church. For his tireless, dedicated work and large-scale research, which A.A. Dmitrievsky conducted throughout his life in many countries of the Orthodox East, he received the name “Russian Gohar”, in honor of the greatest Western Christian scientist-monk of the 17th century, Jacob Gohar, who laid the foundation for the scientific study of the liturgical wealth of Orthodoxy. A great worker of Russian liturgical science was Professor Alexei Afanasyevich Dmitrievsky (March 11, 1856–August 10, 1929). He took an active part in its creation, and with inspiration and dedication throughout his life he worked on its problems. For his work in collecting and publishing the Greek liturgical texts Typikon and Euchologia, he earned the title of “Russian Gohar.” He created the Kiev school of Russian liturgists (Prilutsky, Palmov, Neselovsky, Dyakovsky, Lisitsyn, Kekelidze, Skaballanovich, Barvinok, Bishop Gabriel (Chepur). 1 Dmitrievsky, rejoicing at the rapid growth of liturgical science in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, did not cease to point out to the liturgists, among whom were students of his school, the enormous tasks standing before them, and to responsibility before the Orthodox world. He called on Russian liturgists to hard work. Dmitrievsky was a native of the Astrakhan province, which explains his occasional interest in the church history of this region. 2. After graduating from the Astrakhan Theological Seminary, in 1878 he entered the Kazan Theological Academy in the church-practical department. Here, as a student, he was inspired by the interest in ancient Russian church monuments that aroused the Solovetsky collection of manuscripts received by the academy. Dmitrievsky is inspired by the freshness and interest of the content of Prof. N. F. Krasnoseltseva. He writes him a candidate’s essay based on handwritten primary sources - “Divine services in the Russian Church in the 16th century,” taking advantage of Krasnoseltsev’s goodwill and help. He recalls how his teacher spent “a lot of time talking with him in the intervals between lectures and at home in the evenings, willingly providing him with sources and aids, and often from his own library generously and generously giving into his hands unpublished materials drawn from manuscripts, and various kinds of notes he himself collected.” Krasnoseltsev’s “cordial, truly fatherly relationship” with Dmitrievsky continued until Krasnoseltsev’s death (September 11, 1898). According to Krasnoseltsev’s instructions, Dmitrievsky first used the liturgical manuscripts of the Solovetsky collection at his native academy for his candidate’s essay, and then in the summer of 1881 he went to Moscow for 4 months to study the rich handwritten material of the local libraries. Dmitrievsky remembers with gratitude how cordially he was received by the professor of the Kazan Theological Academy Alexey Stepanovich Pavlov. 3 Having learned about Dmitrievsky’s “poverty of finances,” he gave him his apartment, which was empty in the summer, and his rich library at his full disposal. Pavlov helped the young student overcome the difficulties of studying Greek paleography. Dmitrievsky could not forget long conversations with Pavlov, in which “entire evenings passed, and often they dragged on until dawn, when the candles had already been extinguished...” Dmitrievsky's candidate's essay attracted the attention of the Academy Council and was awarded the Metropolitan Prize. Joseph at 165 rubles. 4 Having entered his fourth year, Dmitrievsky began revising his essay into a master's thesis. It is quite natural that he should have been interested in the candidate’s work, close to the subject of his studies, by Nikolai Fedorovich Odintsov 5, written by prof. N.V. Pokrovsky, “The order of public worship in ancient Russia and the 16th century. Church historical research." St. Petersburg, 1881, 300 pp. 6 Inspired by the immortal “Description of Slavic Manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library” by Gorsky and Nevostruev, especially by its third volume, Odintsov was, strictly speaking, a pioneer in the field of the history of Russian worship. This circumstance and the limited material he used explain the shortcomings of his work - the first attempt at a historical explanation of the peculiarities of Russian worship. These shortcomings were pointed out in Dmitrievsky’s valuable review “Divine services in the Russian Church in the first five centuries. 7 After completing the academic course with a candidate of theology degree in 1882, 8 Dmitrievsky was appointed teacher of Homiletics and Liturgics at the Samara Theological Seminary 9, but the rector of the academy, Rev. Alexander Vladimirsky, executing the resolution of the Council 10, informed the director of the office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod that “It would be highly desirable for the Council to keep this gifted and hardworking young man at the Academy in view of the benefits that he can eventually bring to domestic and theological science,” and asked permission to leave Dmitrievsky with the rank of privat-docent at the Department of Liturgics 11. The petition was granted on 12, and Dmitrievsky, having fulfilled the requirements of the Charter for trial lectures and a dissertation pro venia legendi, was allowed on November 13 to give lectures on the History of worship in the Russian Church at the Department of Liturgics, which was occupied by prof. Krasnoseltsev. 13 In the 1882–1883 ​​academic year, he read to first- and second-year students the History of Russian liturgy from the 9th century to the time of Metropolitans Cyprian and Photius, inclusive, and introduced fourth-year students to the history of liturgical books. 14 Without waiting for his official position to be formalized, in the fall of 1882 Dmitrievsky presented his master’s thesis “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. Historical and archaeological research with applications.” Kazan, 1884. 16 Dmitrievsky’s supervisor, Krasnoseltsev, in his review 17 recognized the dissertation as “a very solid contribution to the science of archeology in general and the archeology of Orthodox worship, in particular, both in terms of news and the abundance of processed material, and in the nature of the processing... quite scientific,” noting the rare diligence of the author, who gave a study of the features of Russian worship from beginning to end XVI century, according to manuscripts of the XVI century. The defense of the dissertation, which took place on December 11-18, 1883, crowned Dmitrievsky with a master's degree in theology. 19 The history of Russian liturgical science should include a significant speech by the disputant before the defense - “Methods of determining the time of writing manuscripts without specific dates in general and liturgical manuscripts in particular.” 20 Here Dmitrievsky convincingly substantiates the historical method of dating liturgical manuscripts. Introducing the audience to the process of his work on his dissertation, he tells how he gradually became acquainted with handwritten tradition, first Russian, represented by the Solovetsky collection of Almae Matris, and then the Orthodox East, South Slavic and Greek, for which he had to go to Moscow while working on his candidate’s essay in the summer of 1881 to study the liturgical monuments of the Synodal Library, the Rumyantsev Museum, the Typographical Library, the former. Volokolamsk Monastery, Moscow Theological Academy, Trinity-Sergius Lavra. In the summer of 1882, a new trip to Moscow and St. Petersburg took place. The young enthusiast used up to 200 Slavic-Russian, 30 South Slavic and 70 Greek manuscripts for his dissertation, having previously studied Greek paleography. In the course of the work, it became clear that in order to explain many features of Russian worship and resolve many liturgical problems, it became necessary to turn to Greek and South Slavic primary sources. In the appendix to his work, Dmitrievsky published 10 books on Greek manuscripts from Russian libraries. Let us note the most significant theses of the dissertation, since they determined the future path of Dmitrievsky’s scientific activity. 1) Divine services in the Russian Church in the 16th century are in direct genetic connection with the divine services of the previous time (thesis 1), 2) differing from it a) “complete approval ... of the Jerusalem Rule” (thesis 2a) with the addition of Russian services (thesis 3) and “the appearance of the so-called monastic everyday life or local Russian rules” (thesis 2a), created under the direct influence of the dominant Jerusalem Charter, from which they differ in the greater solemnity and ceremonial nature of church services, a large number of stichera... mostly Russian national hymnals (thesis 4), b) the complete development of liturgical rites and sequences, which exhausted the entire Greek euchology and compiled two liturgical books in our Church - the Service Book and the Trebnik (thesis 26), c) the emergence of new rites (thesis 2c). “The rites of the sacraments and weekly services of the 16th century are distinguished by the remarkable abundance of lists of different editions... and the extremely developed ritual ritual side of these rites” (thesis 5). However, all the features found in them, “with very few exceptions, find their full basis in the liturgical practice of the Christian East” and, therefore, are not Russian. “The liturgical monuments of the Greek and South Slavic Churches are the true and real reason for this diversity” (thesis 6). 21 In other words, “the divine service in the Russian Church in the 16th century is a mirror of the divine service of the Orthodox East, to which one must turn to resolve liturgical problems, having first made known the rich liturgical handwritten tradition scattered throughout the inaccessible monastic libraries of the East.” Dmitrievsky headed his way to them, having discovered the limitations of South Slavic and Greek manuscript material in Russian book depositories. After two years of teaching at his native academy, Dmitrievsky received an independent department of Liturgics and Church Archeology at the Kyiv Theological Academy, with which his further twenty-three-year professorial activity (1884–1907) was connected, which brought valuable fruit to Russian liturgical science. He was elected associate professor on December 16, 1883. 22 Ep. Plato recalls “how hotly discussed... the question of replacing the department... of Liturgics with Church Archeology. Its applicant was Mr. Bulashev, known to the Council as a very capable and talented man, a graduate of our academy. However, the advantage in voting was given to a young, just beginning scientist, the son of the Kazan Academy.” 23 Bulashev received 5 "favorites" and 5 “unelected,” and Dmitrievsky – 8 “elected.” and 2 “unelected.” The latter was confirmed as an assistant professor on March 1, 1884; in the spring he participated in examination committees, and in the fall of 1884 he became a professor. begins reading lectures on Church archeology and Liturgics 24, which, according to the new Charter that came into force in the autumn of the same year, 1884, became compulsory subjects for all students. In 1884/85, Dmitrievsky read to third- and fourth-year students the History of Christian architecture, iconography and liturgical vestments. IV year students listened, in addition to general information on Liturgics, the History of Hymnography and the Course on the Historical Development of Liturgical Services. 25 In 1885/86, Dmitrievsky’s Liturgics course included readings “about the Typikon, its composition and significance among other liturgical books, with a review and description of the well-known Church Rules” 26, probably under the influence of the just published doctoral dissertation of I. D. Mansvetov, “The Church Rule (Typik), its formation and fate in the Greek and Russian Churches” (M., 1885), to which Dmitrievsky responds with a bibliographic note in the “Theological Bibliographic Sheet” under the “Guide for Rural Shepherds.” The historical problems of Typikon continue to interest Dmitrievsky and outline his future research path. The program of Dmitrievsky’s lectures was repeated in 1886/87, but the Liturgics course included a section “On the Service Book and Trebnik, the Lenten and Colored Triodion” 27 . It is necessary to note the hard work of Dmitrievsky. In addition to giving lectures, preparation for which required a lot of work, he is engaged in the description of church objects, books and manuscripts that came from Nizhyn on his own initiative to the church-archaeological museum at the academy. 28 A whole series of articles by Dmitrievsky 29 appeared in the “Guide for Rural Shepherds”, devoted mainly to issues of modern liturgical practice, which were not reflected in any way in the Typikon, which froze after the tragic correction of liturgical books in the middle of the 17th century. This conservatism of the modern Slavic-Russian Charter is one of its significant shortcomings, since “it is in conflict with current practice and gives rise to confusion among our clergy and contradictions in the orders of the diocesan authorities” 30. Death in 1885 of the great traveler in the East, Bishop. Porfiry (Uspensky) and prof. I. D. Mansvetova, with whom Dmitrievsky was personally acquainted, inspired him “from his “forget-me-nots” with his inexperienced weak hands to weave a wreath on these dear graves” and read on January 13, 1886 at the Church Archaeological Society at the KDA the report “The Funeral of the Right Reverend Porfiry Uspensky and Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy I. D. Mansvetov (A brief outline of their scientific and literary activities).” 31 “In this report, liturgists are interested in those pages that are devoted to a detailed analysis of the works of the talented Moscow liturgist who died untimely. The purpose of the report naturally excluded their criticism. But this criticism can be found in Dmitrievsky’s detailed review of Mansvetov’s dissertation “Church Charter (Typic),” written on behalf of the Educational Committee of the Holy Synod, which was awarded the Metropolitan Prize by the Synod. Macaria. 32 The reviewer, by the way, criticizes the modern Typikon, which diverges from liturgical practice. As for Mansvetov’s doctoral dissertation, Dmitrievsky comes to the conclusion that it “does not provide a systematically consistent history of our Church Charter, but describes only books and manuscripts from libraries known to the author, bearing the name “Charter,” and this description is not always carried out in historical sequence. In short, this is a conscientiously compiled bibliography of the Church Rules.” 33 Mansvetov had very limited material at his disposal, especially Greek. This paucity of primary sources, from which all Russian liturgists suffered, was acutely felt by Dmitrievsky during the development of his master’s thesis and led him to realize the need to collect and publish for public use that rich handwritten liturgical heritage that is kept hidden in the inaccessible monastic book depositories of the Orthodox East. Dmitrievsky was faced with the task of a scientific journey to these libraries. However, the implementation of this plan was delayed by his receiving an independent department and moving to Kyiv. But here are his studies in 1884–1886. showed him even more clearly the need for a trip to the East. In the summer of 1886, taking advantage of the longer summer holidays due to the renovation of academic buildings, he, simultaneously with three professors of the Kyiv Academy, went to Vostok 34 and spent several months on Mount Athos in order to study liturgical manuscripts located in the libraries of the monasteries there. 35 Of course, these short-term studies could not satisfy the young scientist, revealing to him only a certain part of the enormous manuscript wealth that was not yet in the use of the Luturgists. He requests, through the council of the academy from the Holy Synod, a foreign business trip for academic purposes to Athos, Sinai, Jerusalem, Athens, Thessaloniki, Patmos, Rome, Naples, Venice and the South Slavic lands to study the primary sources of Orthodox worship, i.e., liturgical manuscripts and early printed books, for one year, until September 1, 1888, with vacation to him in addition to the maintenance of 900 rubles. 36 Dmitrievsky set off on his first “great” trip to the East from Kyiv on July 2, 1887. It is described by him in the report “Travel to the East and its scientific results.” 37 In Odessa, while waiting for ships, Dmitrievsky became acquainted with the manuscripts of the Novorossiysk University, in particular, with the collection of South Slavic manuscripts of Prof. M. M. Grigorovich. During a two-week stay in Constantinople, Dmitrievsky's attention was drawn to the liturgical manuscripts of the library of the Jerusalem metochion in Phanar. From Constantinople, Dmitrievsky travels to Athos, where from July 23 to October 6 he works intensely (up to 13 hours a day) in the monastic book depositories rich in liturgical materials, starting with the library of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery. Here he, together with his brethren, experienced the horror of the fire on August 7, 1887, which devastated the monastery and, of course, adversely affected Dmitrievsky’s studies in this hospitable monastery. 38 A visit to other Svyatogorsk monasteries enriched the young scientist with liturgical material. On Mount Athos, he described 13 euchologies, 38 typikons and more than 100 other liturgical manuscripts. Of these, the 10 most important were rewritten by him “almost verbatim, even observing their paleographic features.” From Athos Dmitrievsky travels to the Holy Land. On the way, he gets acquainted with the manuscripts of the Khalkin school. In Jerusalem, he studies the manuscripts of the patriarchal library, the collection of Archimandrite Antonin (Kapustin), and the library of the Cross Monastery, where he found a copy of the early 19th century. “The Charter of the Services of Holy and Paschal Weeks in Jerusalem” (from the 1122 manuscript of the Lavra Library of St. Savva the Sanctified), extremely important for the history of Jerusalem worship. At the end of February 1888, Dmitrievsky traveled further to Egypt. While traveling by boat from Jaffa to Port Said, he encounters a terrible storm, the train from Cairo to Suez crashes, the further journey to Raifa “by caique” proceeds rather slowly, but finally, on Monday of the first week of Lent, Dmitrievsky reaches his goal - the Sinai Monastery. Here he works in the famous monastery library until 8–10 a.m. per day and describes over 500 icons of the main church of the monastery and numerous paraklis. “The Sinai Library,” Dmitrievsky points out in his report, “provided such a number of liturgical manuscripts that I have never seen in other eastern libraries, and I’m unlikely to ever see them again. Suffice it to say that the Sinai Library contains up to 55 copies of handwritten euchologies, dating from the 8th-9th centuries. right up to the 17th century” 39. Dmitrievsky lived in Sinai until June 30, enjoying the attention and cordiality of the monastery brethren 40. On the way back, he familiarized himself with the few liturgical manuscripts of the library of the Patriarchate of Alexandria in Cairo and the Museum of Christian Antiquity. The next, longer stop occurred in Athens. However, the approaching end of the business trip and the academy’s refusal to extend it 41 forced Dmitrievsky to leave the capital of Hellas without finishing work on the liturgical manuscripts in the Athenian book depositories. There was no time left for a trip to Italy and the South Slavic lands. Naturally, Dmitrievsky had a desire for new trips. During his first journey, he read and described 410 Greek and 60 South Slavic manuscripts and 42 excerpts from Greek manuscripts. 42 Including 114 euchologies, of which he described 77, 72 typikons with the name of St. Lavra. Savvas of the Sanctified, 5 South Slavic Rules, 15 Orologies, 19 Gospels, 8 Apostles, 20 Triodeos, 11 Profitologies, 5 Psalms, 6 stichirarion, 3 Octoechos, 9 Menaions, 11 liturgical books and 4 separate services. 43 Prof. Dmitrievsky had Russian predecessors in traveling through eastern book depositories. But the most famous of them are Bishop. Porfiry (Uspensky) and Archimandrite. Antonin (Kapustin), who earned themselves a worthy reputation for collecting manuscripts, their descriptions and finds interesting for science, did not have a specific plan in their studies. Their activities were random, which could not but affect the results of their work. They were gatherers rather than explorers. Dmitrievsky, setting out on his trip to the East, set certain tasks, which he tried to accomplish as much as possible, although randomly interesting finds forced him to deviate from the main topic and “throw himself away.” The main theme of his studies was posed by the previous works of Russian liturgists (Mansvetov, Krasnoseltsev) and Dmitrievsky himself: the history of the Typikon and Euchology, in the Russian Church represented mainly by the Service Book and the Trebnik, and the history of public and private worship. To develop this story, material was needed - a handwritten heritage, mainly Greek. Dmitrievsky, regarding the history of the Church Charter, set the following task: 1) “to describe and study as fully and thoroughly as possible those Greek manuscripts that in one way or another relate to the Church Charter and which clarify for us the historical past and current composition of this book, with primary attention to those manuscripts that relate to its history in the most ancient times of the Christian Church, when our Church Charter was just being developed into a code of rules regulating the structure of Orthodox worship, and when the records of the Charters or Typicons in the current sense of the word did not yet exist; 2) check with personal inspection all those manuscripts and data for the history of the Church Charter that were published and brought to the light of God from the book depositories of the East and West by former travelers and scientists, in order to be able to completely independently and without prejudice judge both the monuments themselves and their scientific value for the history of this liturgical book” 44, for example, about the scientific value of Gohar’s “Euchology”, about seven copies. Studio Charter in Western Libraries. Dmitrievsky sought to fill in the gaps in Mansvetov’s dissertation, for whom “materials for the history of the Greek Rite in its ancient times remained unknown - during the transition period from brief notes to the formation of its complete written expositions” 45. In addition to the history of the Typikon, with its complex problems, Dmitrievsky was interested in the history of the ranks of another most important liturgical book - the Greek Euchologia, extremely important for the history of the Slavic-Russian Service Book and Trebnik. Dmitrievsky wisely refrained from studying other handwritten liturgical books—Triodeus, Menaion—since the huge number of manuscripts (for example, Menaion), of which dozens could be found in every library, made their study difficult, requiring a lot of time. Their description and study, the problems of church hymnography required another liturgist. This was a matter of the future. 46 Indeed, 18 years later a professorial fellow from St. Petersburg took up these manuscripts. Theological Academy Ivan Aleksandrovich Karabinov, who repeated the route of Dmitrievsky’s first journey. It is interesting that in his “Travel Report” presented to the Academy Council, Dmitrievsky also points to the problem of liturgical theology, although he himself did not deal with it. He notes the value of the manuscripts he studied and copied for Dogmatic Theology. “We think this is an enormous advantage of this primary source, which others do not have, being an expression of the consciousness of a certain specific person, and not the whole Church, like our ranks and successions, and it deserves, in our, perhaps extreme, opinion, the special and serious attention of Orthodox theologians.” 47 During his trip to the East, Dmitrievsky came up with a plan to publish the material he collected in 4 volumes: 1) Greek Euchologium - texts of Greek ranks and successions from the 8th to the 16th centuries. and individual ranks of the 17th century, who would be “a huge help in the beginning of the development of our science... All the data we have collected... are distinguished by undeniable interest and novelty, but not all have the same scientific importance.” 48 This edition was supposed to be scientifically more advanced and complete than the Euchologium of Goara. 2) South Slavic Euchologium. 4) Description of other liturgical books. However, this plan for publishing the collected materials was soon changed and took the following form: 1) Greek Typikon in two parts. The handwritten material collected by Dmitrievsky was examined by a special commission appointed by the Academy Council, consisting of prof. P. Lashkareva, N. Petrova, etc. I. Korolkova. 49 After discussing her report, the Council, recognizing the scientific value of the materials, petitioned the Synod “to allocate the amount required for publication” 50. When the Council’s petition was satisfied by the Synod and an allocation of 3,500 rubles was made for the publication, the Council elected a commission to edit the “Description” consisting of prof. I. I. Malyshevsky and P. A. Lashkarev. 51 After the death of the first, Archpriest was elected in his place. I. Korolkov. 52 The publication of the “Description” proceeded very slowly. Its first volume was published only in 1895. Describing and studying mainly liturgical manuscripts, Dmitrievsky, during studies in eastern book depositories, also paid attention to printed editions of Greek liturgical books, rightly pointing out that the changes are of great interest to liturgists. He identified significant omissions in Emile Legrand's major bibliography. 53 For example, in the library of the Panteleimon Monastery alone, Dmitrievsky found 26 Venetian editions of the Menaions of the 16th century, not indicated by Legrand. 54 This acquaintance with Greek liturgical books brought him significant benefit in his research, for example, on the history of book correction in Russia in the 17th century. Dmitrievsky's activities during his business trip abroad were not limited to libraries. He was also interested in the problems of Church archeology, which he taught at the academy. For example, he visits ancient temples in Constantinople, Athens and Palestine, studies the mosaics of the Kahrie-Jamisi mosque and the archeology of Jerusalem, and describes the Sinai collection of icons. Two chapters of his “Report” are devoted to these studies and some questions of the history of iconography: 4. Monuments of Christian antiquities in the East. 5. The Cretan-Sinaitic school of icon painting, its origin and characteristic features of the style of writing. 55 But, of course, Dmitrievsky’s main interest was drawn to the handwritten treasures of the Orthodox East. And observations of his church life created Dmitrievsky’s popular description of the church orders and worship of the modern Orthodox East. In 1891, the first issue of “Modern Worship in the Orthodox East” was published (Kyiv, 153 pp.). Dmitrievsky’s work was limited to this first issue, except for his descriptions of the great holidays in Palestine published in the 20th century. “Modern worship” provoked sharp criticism from the “anonymous reviewer” 56, the rector of the embassy church in Constantinople, Archimandrite Arseny (Izotov). 57 He, a typical “Grecophobe,” was outraged by Dmitrievsky’s book, causing fears that “the reader begins to think that Eastern practices, customs and rituals are being set as a model for our Russian Church, which, by them, as if by scale, evaluates its customs and rituals.” 58 He was outraged by the “learned men” who “present the modern church practice of the Greeks as exemplary and instructive for us.” 59 While criticizing Dmitrievsky rather palely and introducing his own amendments 60, he reveals that he is “positively unfamiliar with neither the history of Christian Orthodox worship in general, nor the history of worship in the Russian Church, in particular, and he has hardly even heard of church archeology” (Dmitrievsky). 61 Dmitrievsky's foreign business trip was only the beginning of his almost annual travels during the holidays in order to replenish and check liturgical materials. So, for example, in the summer of 1889 he again worked in Jerusalem and in the Svyatogorsk monasteries. 62 In the summer of 1891, he visited Athos for the fourth time, Thessaloniki, Athens, Smyrna, Patmos, where he unexpectedly gathered while reading the book of I. Sakkelion in the Panteleimon Monastery 63, and Italy. In 1893, he studied in Constantinople and Athens, on Mount Athos and traveled around Italy, visiting Naples, Pompeii, Rome (Barberine Library), Grotta Ferrata, Florence, Turin, Milan, Venice. The journey ends in Vienna. In 1894 he worked in Moscow libraries. In 1896, again Constantinople, Athens, Rome, then Paris and, unexpectedly, Dresden, where he found a new copy of the Charter of the Great Church. 64 In 1897, Dmitrievsky travels to Trebizond. In 1898, he once again visited the main book depositories of the East, with the exception of Sinai and Patmos, checking the proof sheets of the Euchologia with the originals. In the same year he visited the Holy Mountain for the sixth time. In 1903, the seventh visit to Athos took place together with L. D. Nikolsky, who had just graduated from the academy. 65 In 1910, Dmitrievsky once again visited the Svyatogorsk monasteries, serving as secretary of the Orthodox Palestine Society. While traveling and working in libraries, the tireless traveler had to encounter many difficulties and experience the inconvenience of the peculiar order in eastern book depositories. 66 In particular, it is necessary to point out the difficult study conditions in the libraries of some Svyatogorsk monasteries. Bishops wrote quite a bit about them. Porfiry Uspensky, archimandrite. Antonin, prof. N.V. Pokrovsky, I.S. Palmov 67 and others. And Dmitrievsky experienced quite a few “distresses,” especially on his first trips, caused by the unkind attitude of the Greeks towards the Russians. 68 “In the summer of 1886,” that is, on our first trip to Athos, at the Iveron Monastery, he wrote, “we met with such an unfriendly reception that in a whole week they opened a library for us only once, and not without scolding, at our address personally. The following year, in Hilandar... we and our companion..., who was ill from the debilitating Athonite fever, had, thanks to the inattention of the brethren, to sit without bread for almost two days and eat stale crackers.” 69 “Before that, a few days before, in the same Iveron Monastery,” he wrote, “the privat associate professor of St. Petersburg University in the Department of Modern Greek, Mr. Regel, was severely insulted, whom the monks did not allow to study in the library even at a time when some American professor was freely working there.” 70 In the Lavra of St. Afanasy Dmitrievsky could not get permission from the monastic epitropes, despite all attempts, supported by letters of recommendation from the Patriarch of Constantinople and other influential persons, to even just look at the ancient codes of Diatuposis of the founder of the Lavra. He had to publish this monument in the “Description” (vol. I) based on the later manuscript of the Iversky Monastery of the 16th century. Meanwhile, the German pastor Meyer managed, through one hieromonk of the Lavra, to obtain a copy of these codes and print them several months before the appearance of Dmitrievsky’s work. 71 These “distresses” and difficulties that Russian scientists had to endure on Athos were the result of the “Russian-Greek Panteleimon trial” in 1874–1875, 72 which ended in the victory of Russian monks who defended their rights on the basis of documents. On Mount Athos they began to fear that the Russians would take away other monasteries. “There has been a persecution of all kinds of witnesses to the historical past of the monasteries: books and archival documents are put away in damp basements for their natural destruction, paintings are scraped off, inscriptions are copied, material monuments are taken to the sacristy and made inaccessible to outside observers, especially those of Russian origin. Every inquisitive Russian traveler and scientist who is interested in the monuments of deep antiquity and visits the Athonite monasteries, as rich museums or their repositories, in the eyes of the owners with the specified past is a spy, perhaps even an agent sent from the government, who can print and release the obtained information to the public, convey it to the authorities, and in the end, remove it from the monastery. With what reluctance the Athonite monks open the doors of their libraries, archival repositories and skeuophilacia and what incredible efforts it takes Russian scientists to penetrate them - I don’t need to say here” 73, Dmitrievsky testifies with sorrow from his experience in the early 90s. This low accessibility of Athos book depositories for Russian scientists prompts Dmitrievsky, after visiting the Holy Mountain five times, “to welcome the already mature idea of ​​our Academy of Sciences to equip Athos... a scientific expedition...” “Only the collective joint work of scientifically trained people, an entire scientific expedition, equipped with all the means and recommendations, can count on the fact that the cherished doors of the Korean Prostate and the skeuophilacium of the main Athos monasteries will open before it.” 74 Naturally, Dmitrievsky always remembers with deep gratitude those Afonites who provided him with attention and help during his studies on the Holy Mountain, for example, the librarian of the Panteleimon Monastery, Fr. Matthew. 75 In 1895, Dmitrievsky’s main “monumental” liturgical work, “Description of Liturgical Manuscripts Stored in the Libraries of the Orthodox East,” was published. T. I. Tupika (Greek), Part I. Monuments of patriarchal statutes and monastery typikons.” 76 Of the first, i.e., patriarchal statutes, the book contains almost all of them. Volume I “Descriptions” was submitted by the author as a doctoral dissertation to his native Kazan Academy. Reviewers – Assoc. V. Narbekov and Archimandrite. Anthony - recognized the great scientific value of this publication and ranked it “of enormous importance” for Liturgics, along with the multi-volume work of Metropolitan. Macarius on Russian Church History (Archim. Anthony). 77 Dmitrievsky was awarded the degree of Doctor of Church History in 1896. 78 At the end of 1896, the Council of the Kyiv Theological Academy elected Dmitrievsky, on the proposal of professors I. Malyshevsky, V. Pevnitsky and S. Solsky, immediately as an ordinary professor, bypassing the extraordinariness (from November 29). 79 In the following years, Dmitrievsky published 4 more volumes of his “Descriptions”. The enormous material collected by Dmitrievsky in the book depositories of the East and West, but not completely published, did not satisfy him, rather causing even some disappointment, “in view of the amazing poverty of handwritten data from ancient times in these book depositories, which are very necessary for characterizing worship in the period before the 10th-11th centuries. The restless thought of the researcher does not want to stop in front of the sad reality and is inspired by the hope of finding the necessary data for the history of worship in this short and hitherto little illuminated period of the state of the Orthodox Church in the handwritten data of other nationalities - Syrians, Armenians, Georgians, Copts, some of whom for a long time were in living spiritual communion with their Mother - the Greek Church and, having experienced its influence, preserved much of its ritual, and others still live with her one undivided life, differing only in language.” 80 Having indicated this correct method for studying ancient worship, Dmitrievsky himself, however, did not use it. His acquaintance with the handwritten liturgical tradition of the non-Greek East, with the exception, of course, of the Slavic, was limited and, strictly speaking, even impossible, due to ignorance of Eastern languages. He could not collect these materials and develop them, like prof. V.V. Bolotov, philologically extremely powerful in his eorthological works. True, Dmitrievsky pointed out the problem and armed his students with the scientific method. I mean Rev. K. Kekelidze, who began his work with the description of Georgian liturgical manuscripts in domestic book depositories and found the Georgian version of the Jerusalem Typikon in the 7th-8th century, which filled the void of several centuries between the “Peregrinatio ad loca sancta” of Eteria (probably the end of the 4th century) and the Jerusalem “Succession of Holy and Easter Weeks” (probably the 10th century). Dmitrievsky responded to this precious discovery of his student with the article “The Ancient Holy Sepulcher Jerusalem Charter and the service of the Nativity of Christ in Bethlehem contained therein.” 81 He noted with great satisfaction the confirmation by this monument of the idea expressed by him in “The Ancient Patriarchal Typikons” about the existence of the Holy Sepulcher Patriarchal Typikon and its influence on the practice of not only Constantinople, but also other Churches, completely regardless of whether the found archpriest had. K. Kekelidze Canonar practical application in Georgia. Dmitrievsky understood perfectly well that the material he had collected and its development by himself and his students was clearly insufficient. Russian liturgists still have a huge task ahead of them “to bring to light all the available liturgical written property.” In “Description” Dmitrievsky published texts or their descriptions that are located in “the most important libraries of the Orthodox East. There will then be an urgent need for a scientific description of the liturgical manuscripts of the small libraries of Greece, Macedonia, the islands of the Archipelago and the Mediterranean Sea. And who knows that in these libraries very scientifically valuable liturgical manuscripts or important euchological fragments will not be found... Then there will be the same urgent need to study liturgical manuscripts in Western libraries: Rome and its environs, Naples, Florence, Venice, Milan, Turin, Paris, Madrid, London, Edinburgh, Berlin, Munich, Dresden and other Western cultural centers”, where a large number of oriental manuscripts are located. For example, in the Barberine Library, moved to the Vatican, there are up to 50 Greek euchologies. “Manuscript collections of the Yugoslav lands and our domestic ones, with the exception, perhaps, of the Moscow Synodal Library and the Solovetsky in the Kazan spirit. academies also remain not only unstudied, but even completely undescribed or described very briefly. Consequently, until this initial rough work is completed, thinking about critical comparison and establishment of the Euchological text is not only premature, but also frivolous. This preliminary, rough, but very necessary work will, of course, require many more decades ahead and the effort of many dedicated workers, of which liturgical science is still far from rich,” wrote Dmitrievsky in 1909. 82 The tireless Dmitrievsky found time to give public reports and lectures, responding to contemporary pressing topics, 83 especially those related to Liturgics dear to him. In these popular lectures, Dmitrievsky's enormous scientific wealth is visible. While working on the problems of historical liturgics, Dmitrievsky did not forget its practical application. For example, the inspired archbishop. Sergius (Lanin) 84, he collects his articles, published under the title “Sequences of ordinations and consecrations with explanations” in the “Guide for rural shepherds”, and publishes the book “Protege. A guide for priests and church ministers and those elected to the bishopric, during their consecrations, initiations and awards with signs of spiritual distinction, with detailed explanations of all rituals and prayers,” Kyiv, 1904 85, awarded the Makaryev Prize in response to prof. V. Pevnitsky. 86 This book by Dmitrievsky significantly surpasses this kind of manual with a wealth of historical, liturgical and practical information useful for proteges, starting with the readers, a detailed (about half of the book) description of episcopal consecration and its history, an explanation of rituals and prayers, mainly “and the basis of the liturgical works of Blessed. Simeon of Thessalonica. Dmitrievsky explains in detail the origin and symbolism of church vestments. Dmitrievsky's academic activity was also fruitful. He, a professor of Liturgics and Church Archeology, had, of course, to lecture on the latter subject, but naturally, taking into account all his scientific activities and interests, the professor’s main attention and inspiration was related to Liturgics. In his teaching he followed the historical method. To illustrate his views on the nature of lectures on Liturgics at a higher theological school, we present his comments on the printed program that existed in 1896. “It is necessary,” he wrote, “to pay more serious attention to the history of liturgical books used in modern liturgical practice. These are not only the main sources of this science, but also regulators of modern worship. A comprehensive study of the historical fate of our church liturgical books, therefore, is urgently necessary for the students of our academies... In my opinion, it is best to separate the history of these books into a special part, which I called “applied liturgics,” and give this department the broadest setting. The headings I have outlined... represent... a complete and correct criticism of the historical fate of at least the most important liturgical books, such as the Typikon, Missal, Archieraticon, Trebnik, etc., on the basis of new scientific data, some of which have already been published, and some of which will appear in the very short future.” 87 Before resigning in 1907, Dmitrievsky, looking back at the 23-year path he had taken as a professor at the academy, wrote: “Ardently loving from the days of his youth ... Orthodox Liturgics and with all passion and ardent enthusiasm devoted to the comprehensive study of this church-practical discipline, the most important, in my opinion, in the circle of academic theological sciences, I, with God’s help and persistent perseverance, during the indicated period of his professorial activity, I can say this without hesitation and boldly, put the teaching of this science in its rightful place of honor at the Kyiv Academy, arouse interest in it in my young listeners - students of the academy, and with my published works contribute to the serious scientific development of Liturgics both here in Russia and in the West.” Indeed, as already indicated, Dmitrievsky’s discovery of many liturgical monuments extremely important for the history of Orthodox worship and their introduction into scientific circulation fertilized and revived liturgical science not only in Russia, but also provided Western liturgists with valuable material. Dmitrievsky’s “Description” has become a reference book not only for Russian liturgists. 88 But more than that, Dmitrievsky created his own liturgical school. He nurtured two professors - his successors in the department of Liturgics and Church Archeology - Archpriest. V. D. Prilutsky (graduated in 1907) and N. N. Palmov (graduated in 1897). In addition to them, Dmitrievsky brought to the master's degree four more of his students - prominent Russian liturgists - A. Z. Neselovsky (graduated in 1890), Archpriest. M. A. Lisitsyn (graduated in 1897), E. P. Dyakovsky (graduated in 1899), Georgian Archpriest K. S. Kekelidze (graduated in 1904). 89 Among Dmitrievsky’s liturgist students are the talented professor of the Kyiv Theological Academy M. N. Skaballanovich 90, who argued with his teacher on some issues of historical liturgics (graduated in 1896), V. Barvinok (graduated in 1905) and Bishop Gabriel of Akkerman (Chepur) (graduated in 1896). 91 In the fall of 1906, Dmitrievsky left for St. Petersburg to participate in the work of the “Highly established Special Presence at the Holy Synod to develop issues to be considered at the Local Council” - the so-called Pre-Conciliar Presence. The minutes of the meetings of its general meeting and departments (I - on the Council and the transformation of the central church administration and V - on issues of theological school) 92 preserved the views and statements of Dmitrievsky, who, to clarify some issues of canon law and church practice, used liturgical materials well known to him - Byzantine and Old Russian. 93 He took a rather conservative position, speaking out, for example, in favor of electing diocesan bishops as bishops alone. If they want the approval of their elections by the regional metropolitan, and not the emperor, then they will have to renounce the sakkos, the great omophorion, the miter (crown) and mantle with sources and other external liturgical distinctions that they received from the Byzantine emperor and to which they, as spiritual shepherds of the Orthodox Church, do not have a legal right. 94 While in St. Petersburg, Dmitrievsky took an active part in the Orthodox Palestine Society, serving as its secretary (from November 20, 1906 to the end of January 1907). In the spring of 1907, Dmitrievsky again went to St. Petersburg and continued his studies at the Society (from April 1907 to September 10, 1907), which prepared his departure from the academy and from spiritual and educational service in general. In the fall of 1907, Dmitrievsky celebrated his 23rd anniversary of service at the academy. For this, he receives the title of Honored Ordinary Professor 95, but soon (November 27, 1907) submits a request for his resignation, motivating this with the desire to move to the position of secretary of the Orthodox Palestine Society offered to him and bring his rich knowledge, accumulated during his travels in the East, “to the benefit of the Orthodox Church for the sake of the Russian people, who from the beginning of Christianity to the present day have experienced irresistible desire for pilgrimage to St. places of the Orthodox East." 96 It is possible that this step of Dmitrievsky, very regrettable for Russian liturgical science, was influenced by his unpeaceful relations with some professors, the struggle of trends in the professorial environment, but the main motive was still another hobby of Dmitrievsky, who, from his first trip to the East, took to heart the needs of the Russian pilgrimage to the Holy Land and the historical activities of the Orthodox Palestine Society in Syria and Palestine. A number of articles by Dmitrievsky are devoted to these topics. 97 He dedicated a special book to the 25th anniversary of the Society. 98 After joining the service of the Society, Dmitrievsky writes articles in the “Communications of the Society” on issues of interest to this venerable Society, and, mainly, obituaries about its leaders and benefactors. 99 From this time until the revolution, Dmitrievsky, although he continued to work on liturgical problems, still his main attention was absorbed by the enormous tasks facing the Palestinian Society. True, he makes attempts to return back to academic service, but, unfortunately for Russian liturgical science, he is unsuccessful. So, three years after his resignation, he wants to return to the Kyiv Theological Academy and agrees to run for the department of Greek language. He is elected unanimously by the Council on June 14, 1911 and approved by the Synod 100, but after a month and a half, this department at the Kyiv Academy is closed in accordance with the “Changes in the current Charter of theological academies, most highly approved on the 29th day of July 1911.” In a statement addressed to the rector of the academy, Dmitrievsky writes that he “could petition for the provision of the department of Liturgics or Church Archeology,” since the “Changes” separated these subjects, “but due to the changed very serious circumstances of a family and professional nature, the Council does not consider it timely to trouble the Council with new petitions.” 101 In the autumn of 1911, Dmitrievsky came up with the idea of ​​the Department of Church Archeology in connection with the History of Christian Art in St. Petersburg. spirit. academy. This would give him the opportunity to combine his professorship with his duties as secretary of the Palestine Society. However, he was voted out by the Academy Council, receiving 8 electoral and 10 non-elective shares, after a debate in which Professor of Liturgics I. A. Karabinov and Rev. spoke out against his candidacy. M. I. Orlov. The arguments against the famous liturgist were “shortcomings in his reports at Archaeological Congresses” (Karabinov), and the short period of service remaining for Dmitrievsky. They pointed out that the training of a professor of archeology could be carried out by the great authority in this field at the Academy, Prof. N.V. Pokrovsky (archpriest M.I. Orlov). 102 Karabinov differed with Dmitrievsky in his views on some basic problems, for example, on the origin of the Charter of the Great Church of Constantinople, on the Studite Charter. However, despite these failures to return to academic service, Dmitrievsky was elected an honorary member of all four theological academies for his major works and publications of liturgical texts. He was first elected after his retirement by the Kiev Academy in 1907, 103 followed by the Kazan Academy in 1912, 104 the St. Petersburg Academy 105 and the Moscow Academy in 1914. 106 Even earlier, in 1903 (December 29), prof. Dmitrievsky was elected a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences in the Department of Russian Language and Literature and began to carry out scientific assignments of the Academy. Probably in connection with this election, he published a critical analysis of the dissertation of Prof. K. D. Popova “Blessed Diadochos, Bishop of Photiki, and his creations” in the article “The experience of publishing Greek church writers of ancient times in Russian pathological literature.” 107 Other learned societies turn to Dmitrievsky, as the most authoritative Russian liturgist, for feedback and instructions. For example, in 1907, the Society of Russian History and Antiquities (at Moscow University), of which he had been a full member since March 13, 1904, asked him to give feedback on the essay by the director of the Moscow Archaeological Institute A. I. Uspensky “The rite of the Sacrament of Anointing according to the Russian and Slavic Trebniks” and to take over the supervision of its printing in the “Readings of the Society.” 108 On behalf of the Holy Synod, Dmitrievoky participates in the Synodal Commission for correcting the Slavic text of liturgical books. 109 In 1914, he was invited as a supernumerary member of the School Council 110, and he was entrusted with 111 reviewing the work of the director of the Moscow Synodal School A.D. Kastalsky on the presentation of the psalmody in musical chant, under the title “Samples of chanted reading of prayers, troparia, etc.” In 1912, Dmitrievsky responded to the publication of prof. V. N. Beneshevich “Description of the Greek manuscripts of the Sinai Monastery, compiled by Porfiry Uspensky,” St. Petersburg, 1911 112. This precious book depository was well known to him. He continues to participate in Archaeological congresses. At the XV Congress in Novgorod in 1911, he reads the report “Novgorod Miter Caps.” 113 The sketch “Bishop's Miter” is also devoted to the same church-archaeological theme. 114 Among Dmitrievsky's numerous works on Palestine studies, of particular interest to the liturgist is the lively, publicly accessible description of festive services and church customs in the East, mainly in the Holy Land. It is, as it were, a continuation of Dmitrievsky’s work, begun in 1891, “Modern worship in the Orthodox East” (issue 1). We have very limited information about Dmitrievsky's scientific activities after the revolution. In 1918, the Orthodox Palestine Society ceased its activities. Alexey Afanasyevich found himself unemployed. The devastation and famine that came in Petrograd forced him to leave this city and go to Astrakhan to visit his relatives. In Astrakhan in 1918, the State University named after. A.V. Lunacharsky. Alexey Afanasyevich received the department of Greek language there, and the following year, 1919, the University Council elected him to the position of vice-rector, which he held until May 1922 (GPB, fund 253, cardboard 1). Teaching Greek at the Astrakhan University gave Alexei Afanasyevich the income he needed to survive, since the payment of a state pension to him, which, according to the definition of the Educational Committee at the Holy Synod, has been issued since 1907 in the amount of 2,400 rubles. per year, in January 1918, due to the separation of church and state, was discontinued. His scientific interest was now turned to the antiquity of his native land. Alexey Afanasyevich lived the dream of creating a regional Archaeological Museum and, for this purpose, carried out a lot of work on the study of church archaeological values ​​(icons, utensils, etc.) located in the churches of the Astrakhan diocese. He tried to instill love and interest in his native antiquities in his students at the university, where he gave reports on relevant topics. One of these reports in 25 expanded sheets of manuscript, on the topic “Wonderful manuscript of the library of Astrakhan State University,” is stored in the personal archive of prof. Dmitrievsky. In essence, this “Wonderful Manuscript” belonged to the 18th century and was a “Chronicle in Brief of the Creation of the World...” - a work that did not have anything particularly original among the many similar chronographies of the 18th century, but Alexei Afanasyevich attracted the attention of listeners to it with his messages about the identity of the compiler (scribe) of this manuscript, its owner (customer) and its subsequent fate (GPB, fund 253, cardboard with the inscription “Lectures on Liturgics”). On May 13, 1922, Astrakhan University was closed (Curriculum vitae, GPB, fund 253, cardboard 1), and Alexey Afanasyevich returned to Petrograd. His old friends in scientific activities in the field of Byzantine studies, academician F.I. Uspensky, prof. I.I. Sokolov and others invited him to participate in the work of the Russian-Byzantine Commission at the Academy of Sciences. Alexey Afanasyevich was also elected as a full member of the Slavic Commission of the Academy of Sciences (1923). Probably after the revolution he wrote the bibliographic work “The Library of the Apostolic See and Catalogs of Its Manuscripts.” 115 Then he returned to academic activities. Another part of Dmitrievsky's manuscripts is in the Manuscript Department of the State. Public library named after. Saltykov-Shchedrin. In the fall of 1923, Alexei Afanasyevich was invited to give lectures on Liturgics at the Theological Courses of the central city district in Petrograd - the only Orthodox secondary theological educational institution that functioned after the Orthodox Theological Institute (established on December 4, 1919) ceased to exist in the spring of the same year. In mid-1925, this secondary theological educational institution was reorganized into Higher Theological Courses. 116 The courses existed until September 1928. All this time, for 5 years, Alexey Afanasyevich lectured on Liturgics. Candidate's essays during the Leningrad period of scientific and pedagogical activity of A. A. Dmitrievsky were written to him by: 1) N. Uspensky, who graduated from the Petrograd Theological Institute in 1923 - on the topic “The origin of the rite of Agripnia, or all-night vigil, and its components” and 2) who graduated from the Higher Theological Courses in 1926. student of the Petrotrad Theological Institute A. Bazunov - on the topic “The Rite of the Epiphany Blessing of Water (Great Hagiasma).” In addition, Alexey Afanasyevich reviewed two master's theses: prot. V. Rybakova “St. Joseph the Songwriter and his song-writing activity” and so on. A. Golosova “Church life in Rus' in the half of the 15th century and its depiction in the notes of Pavel Aleppeky.” For the first of these dissertations, A. A. Dmitrievsky was the first opponent at the master's colloquium. Some of the lectures given to students of the Higher Theological Courses were recorded and, under the editorship of A. A. Dmitrievsky, published in typescript. These are: 1) All-Night Vigil, 2) Matins, 3) Services of the daily circle of worship (hours, compline and midnight office), 4) Services of Good Friday and Holy Saturday, 5) Baptism, 6) Confirmation, 7) Betrothal and wedding, 8) Repentance. On December 30, 1927, the Higher Theological Courses celebrated the forty-fifth anniversary of the scientific activity of A. A. Dmitrievsky (including the time of teaching at the Kazakh Theological Academy - from 1882). On this day in the evening, in the assembly hall of the courses, in the presence of the entire corporation, students and invited guests, the rector of the courses served a thanksgiving prayer service, followed by greetings to the hero of the day. Numerous congratulatory telegrams were read, including from old colleagues and students of A. A. Dmitrievsky at the Kyiv Theological Academy (GPB, fund 253, cardboard 1). Alexey Afanasyevich himself, due to his deep modesty, did not want to be honored. He did not recognize the forty-fifth anniversary as an anniversary date at all; in addition, he believed that for the anniversary, which he recognized as the fiftieth anniversary, he must introduce new capital work into science. He considered this work to be a critical study of the Euchologion of Gohar, on which he worked intensively in recent years. (Part of this work has been preserved in the rough notes - GPB, fund N 253, cardboard 2B.) To avoid honoring, Alexey Afanasyevich was ready to leave Leningrad for this time, taking advantage of such a favorable circumstance as the Christmas holidays. But to undertake such a trip, money was needed, and the hero of the day did not have it. He had to submit to the wishes of the administration, professors and students and only asked that the entire celebration be limited to general prayer. In the last days of August 1928, the Higher Theological Courses, the educational and scientific activities of which prof. Dmitrievsky paid great attention, ceased to exist. Alexey Afanasyevich devoted himself entirely to work on a critical study of the Euchologion of Gohar. Unfortunately, his death that followed on August 10, 1929 interrupted this work. Alexey Afanasyevich Dmitrievsky was buried in the fraternal cemetery of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. Prof. A. A. Dmitrievsky never called his school “Kyiv”, but Russian. - N. U. (Here and below are notes made to this work by a student of A. A. Dmitrievsky, professor of Liturgics and Byzantology at the Leningrad Theological Academy, Dr. N. D. Uspensky of Church History. Prof. M. Skaballanovich was not a student of A. A. Dmitrievsky, - see about this p. 59 of this work. - Ed. For example, his first printed work is “On the state of sectarianism in the Astrakhan region during the reign of Alexander the Blessed according to documents from the archives of the Consistory.” “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette”, 1878, No. 22. Unforgettable memory of Prof. A. S. Pavlova, Proceedings of the KDA, 1899, I, p. 59–78. Protocols of the Kazan Theological Academy (hereinafter referred to as the Protocols of KazDA) 1883 16, p. 298–299, 334. N. F. Odintsov, candidate of theology, St. Petersburg. spirit. acad. XXXIV course (graduated in 1877), spiritual writer, was the district inspector of the Vilna judicial district. He owns the work “Uniate worship in the 17th and 18th centuries. from the manuscripts of the Vilna Public Library", Vilna, 1886, 137 pp., which the author of this work could not see. First appeared in the form of articles in "Soulful Reading", 1877, I-II; 1878, I, and “The succession of the sacraments in the Russian Church in the 16th century according to the manuscripts of the Novgorod-Sophia and Synodal libraries” in “Strannik”, 1880, No. 3, p. 354–371; N 4, p. 551–573; NN 9–10, p. 34–67. “Orthodox interlocutor” (hereinafter PS), 1882, I, p. 138–196, 252–296; P" s. 346–373; III, p. 149–167, 372–394; 1883, II, p. 345–374; III, pp. 198–230, 470–485 Protocols of KazDA, 1882, p. 102. Report on the state of KazDA for the 1882–1883 school year. year, s. 31. Protocols of KazDA, 1882, p. 211. Protocols of KazDA, 1882, p. 334–338. In the Curriculum vitae, written in A. A. Dmitrievsky’s own hand, December 13, 1883 is indicated. Archive of A. A. Dmitrievsky (State Public Library, fund 253, cardboard 1). – N.U. Protocols of KazDA, 1882, p. 338; 1883, p. 347–348, 349. A. Dmitrievsky. Methods for determining the time of writing manuscripts. Speech before defending a master's thesis. PS, 1884, vol. I, p. 90–91. Extract from the journals of the Kyiv Council. spirit. acad. (hereinafter referred to as Extract...) for 1883–1884, p. 87, 174–176, 216–217. (In the Curriculum viitae of A. Dmitrievsky, the day of election is indicated as March 13, 1884 (GPb., fund 253, card. 1st). – N, U. Georgy Onisimovich Bulashev, Master of Theology KDA, grad. 1883, teacher of the Kiev-Podolsk spirit. taught, (later Kyiv. spiritual. sem.), author of a useful addition on the Kyiv manuscripts to the work of the archbishop. Vladimirsky Sergius “Complete Months of the East” - “Months of the Saints in the Handwritten Liturgical Books of the Church and Archaeological Museum.” TKDA, 1882, VI, adj. 1–32; VII, o. 32–92; IX, p. 216–217. About Bulashev – PBE, II, p. 1182–1183. Archbishop Sergius. “Complete Months of the East”, 12, p. XVIII-XIX. Extract for 1906 07, p. 51. Report on the state of the Kyiv spirit. acad. for 1884 85, TKDA, 1885 N 12 p. 699–700. Report on the state of the KDA for 1885 86, p. 19. Report on the state of the CDA for 1886/87, p. 28, 30. Greek Nizhyn churches and their capital contribution to the church-archaeological museum at the Kyiv Spirit. acad. “Orthodox Review”, 1885, N 12, p. 370–400. Description of manuscripts and books received by the Church and Archaeological Museum at the Kyiv Spirituality. acad. from the Greek Nizhyn St. Michael the Archangel Church. TKDA, 1885, adj. to III, IV, V, VI, VII-XII. 11p. At the VIII Archaeological Congress in Moscow in 1890, Dmitrievsky read the reports “The Greek Nezhin Brotherhood and its Charter” and “Archive of the Greek Nezhin Brotherhood” (Proceedings of the VIII Archaeological Congress in Moscow in 1890, vol. Ill, M., 1897, p. 114. Sessions of the VIII Archaeological Congress, M" 1890, p. 171, 178–179). In 1885: The rite of hiding newlyweds (N 2). Reading the Gospels on the sixth and first three days of Holy Week (N 8). Carrying out the Shroud at Vespers on Great Friday (No. 9). The entrance of the clergy into the middle of the church before the Shroud to sing the Immaculate on Holy Saturday at Matins (No. 10). Carrying out the Shroud and Gospel at Matins on Holy Saturday and walking with them around the church (No. 10). The beginning of Matins on the first day of Easter and the procession around the church before this beginning (No. 11). The time of the liturgy on the first day of Easter (N 13). Reading the Gospel on the first day of Easter in different languages ​​and rituals accompanying this reading (N 13). Vespers on the first day of Easter on the eve of the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (N 13). The removal of the Shroud from the Throne on the day of Holy Pascha and the rituals performed at the same time in Little Russia (N 20). September 5. Another service of St. prophet Zechariah and St. right Elizabeth (N 44). Feast in honor of the Intercession of the Most Holy Theotokos and magnification for it (N 46). Who's to blame? (NN 49, 50). In 1886: What should be sung instead of the stichera “We see the true light” on Saturday before Trinity Day? (N 10). Evening prayers of the lamp (NN 33 and 36). Morning (lamp) prayers (N 42). In 1887: Arbitrary identification of the priest's stole with the bishop's omophorion (N 29). Typikon of the Great Church or modern Typikon of Greek parish churches (N 6). Dmitrievsky.."Christian Reading" (hereinafter - KhCh), 1888, NN 9–10, p. 561. TKDA, 1886, N 3, p. 331–391. KhCh, 1888, NN 9–10, p. 480–576. This review is dated January 24, 1888. A. A. Olesnitsky, K. D. Popov, F., Ya. Pokrovsky. Report on the state of the CDA for 1886/87, p. 38. Extract for 1887/88, p. 57–60, 254–255. TKDA, 1889, N 5, p. 103–134; N 6, p. 247–284; N 7, p. 422–444; N 11, p. 333–357, 410-^439; N 12, p. 523–544; 1890, N 1, p. 170–192. Applications: I. Libraries of manuscripts in Sinai and Athos under the pen of paleographer professors V. Harthausen and S. Lambros. II. Cinematic Rules Rev. Savva of the Sanctified, which he handed over to his successor, Abbot Melitus, before his death. “A journey through the East and its scientific results” was published separately (Kiev, 1890, p. 193†IV). A. A. Dmitrievsky. Russians on Athos. “The Wanderer”, 1894, N 10, p. 314–318. "Journey through the East", p. 26. Dmitrievsky recalls his stay in Sinai in 1888 and his meetings with the future Patriarch of Alexandria Photius in the article “Newly elected Patriarch of Alexandria Photius (Peroglu). According to personal memories." TKDA, 1900, N 5, p. 113–159, especially 129–145. "Journey", p. 24, 27. For more information about the trip, see TKDA, Ii889, N 5, p. 104–134; in a separate publication - p. 1–32, as well as “From a pilgrim’s diary (a series of essays from a trip to the East)”, “Kiev Word”, 1888, December and 1889, January-February and “Russian (Ambetevskaya) school in Cairo”, “Parochial school”, 1889, November. Greek services: St. James - Rev. Anthony of the Pechersk and the Intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, as well as the originals of the services of Mikhail Sirig - To All the Kiev-Pechersk Saints and the Position of the Savior's Robe (July 10). “Description of liturgical manuscripts”, Kyiv, 1895, vol. I, preface, p. II-III.. "Journey", p. 65. TKDA, 1885, N 5, p. 280. "Journey", p. 41. TKDA, 1889, N 5, p. 256. Extract for 1889 90, p. 59–60. Ibid., 1888 89, p. 184–185; 1889 90, p. 332. Ibid., 1890 91, p. 98. Ibid., 1896 97, p. 93. Bibliographie hellenique ou discription raisonn des ouvrag. publ. en grec par de grcc aux XV et XVI siecl. Paris, 1885. "Journey", Fr. 69, approx. "Journey", p. 69–116. Bibliographic note on the book “Modern worship in the Orthodox East.” KhCh, 1891, VII-VIM, p. 142. A. Dmitrievsky. “Perplexity about perplexity” (Response to an anonymous reviewer of the book “Modern Worship”), TKDA, 1891, IX, p. 124–151. Reply to "Perplexity about perplexity." TL4, 1892, VII-VIII, p. 213. Without theological education, later bishop. Sukhumsky, who died in retirement on April 16, 1909, was the author of the note “On the Peculiarities of Hierarchical Service in the East.” See Savva, Archbishop. Tverskoy and Kashinsky.."Chronicle of my life", vol. VIII, Serg. Posad, 1909, pp. 757–760. KhCh, 1891, VII-VIII, p. 142. Savva, Archbishop Tverskoy and Kashinsky. "Chronicle of my life", vol. IX, Serg. Posad, 1911, p. 195. For example, comments about the troparion of the 3rd hour before the recitation of the Holy Gifts, about the “oblivion” of the Feast of the Intercession in the Greek Church, about marriage crowns, about the blessing of water at Mid-Century. Report on the state of the KDA for 1888 89, p. 34. Report on the state of the KDA for 1890 91, p. 46–47. TKDA, 1892, N 10, p. 330. Report for 1891 92, p. 529. Report on the state of the KDA for 1895-96, TKDA, 1896, N 12, p. 425. About Dmitrievsky’s impressions of Bari and Rome (from the point of view mainly of the needs of Russian pilgrims) - “Orthodox Russian pilgrimage to the West”, TKDA, 1897, N 1, pp. 99–132; N 2, pp. 211–237. “Messages of Orthodox. Palest. Society", 1903 (X), p. 566–572. About his deception and the attitude of the Athos Protat and the Vatopedi Monastery towards him, see his “Report on scientific studies from the time of his stay in Constantinople and travel to Athos, Thessaloniki, Athens and Fr. Patmos (from September 1883 to May 15, 1884)” in “Minutes of meetings of the Council of St. Petersburg. spirit. Academy for 1885-86" (p. 177, 276), p. 205–207. He diplomatically keeps silent about this in the official report - “Journey”. A. A Dmitrievsky. "Patmos Sketches. From a trip to the island of Patmos in the summer of 1891." Kyiv, 1894, p. 63. TKDA, 1892, N 10, p. 388.4–98 A. A. Dmitrievsky. "Patmos Sketches", p. 63, approx. N. F. Krasnoseltsev. Byzantine Temporary Book, vol. IV (1897), dep. 2, p. 596. A. A. Dmitrievsky. Russians on Athos. St. Petersburg, 1893 (“The Wanderer,” 1892, IX, pp. 75–96; X, pp. 295–316). "Patmos Sketches", p. 62. TKDA, 1892, N 10, p. 387. In a detailed review of the book Ph. Meueger (who managed to obtain from the Lavra those documents that were denied to Dmitrievsky) “Die Haupturkunden fur die Geschichte des Athoskloster”, Leipzig, 1894, in “Byzantine Temporary”, III (1896) (pp. 341–362), p. 361. Russian nugget on Mount Athos. To the unforgettable memory of Schemamonk Matthew, librarian of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery. “Messages of Orthodox. Palest. Society,” XXIII (1912), p. 122–142. Compare Kh. M. Loparev. Schemamonk Matthew. “Byzantine Temporary” (hereinafter referred to as BB), XX; IV, p. 355–358. A. A. Dmitrievsky. Russians on Athos. "The Wanderer", 1892. Kyiv, 1895, CXLVII † 912†XXV pp., in the amount of 400 copies. Review by Prof. N. Krasnoseltseva - VV, IV (1897), p. 587–615. “The publication should constitute an entire era in the history of Orthodox liturgical science.” The reviews are quite superficial and general. – Protocols of KazDA for 1896, p. 263–300. According to the Charter of theological academies, only master's theses were “presented” by the authors. The doctor's degree was awarded on the "nomination" of the academy's professors. A. Dmitrievsky published the first volume of “Description”, and his Alma Mater in the person of V. Narbekov and Archimandrite. Antonia nominated him for a doctorate. The Academy Council awarded him this degree in 1895 (Curriculum vitae... GPb, fund 253, card. 1st). - N.U. Extract for 1896 97, p. 70–71, 95. Extract for 1903 04, p. 309–310. SIPPO, 1913 (XXIV), p. 34–48. Review of the essay by Prof.-Prot. M. I. Orlova “Liturgy of St. Basil the Great. The first critical edition", St. Petersburg, 1909, in the "Collection of reports on prizes and awards awarded by Acad. Sciences", IV, St. Petersburg, 1912, p. 198–200. So, for example, in the “Church Bulletin”, 1912, p. 1910–1920 “The deceased Metropolitan of St. Petersburg is in Bose. Anthony and his Slavophile views." Archbishop Yaroslavsky, d. 5. VIII. 1904. Obituary in the Church Gazette, 1904, No. 23, p. 1253. Extract for 1905 06, p. 64–78, 79–80. Extract for 1896 97, p. 113–114. 5–98 Extract for 1906 07, p. 541. Currently, the “Description” of A. Dmitrievsky has been republished in Germany using a phototypic method. – N.U. Subsequently, academician of the Georgian Academy of Sciences - N.U. Prof. M. Skaballanovich did not write either a master’s thesis or even a candidate’s thesis with A. A. Dmitrievsky and, thus, was not his student. Moreover, Dmitrievsky did not agree and did not approve of Prof.’s method of work. Skaballanovich, considering him devoid of historicity. When, due to my inexperience, I allowed myself to refer to the “Explanatory Typikon” by Prof. Skaballanovich, then Alexey Afanasyevich wrote in his review on this matter that prof. Skaballanovich is an unreliable guide for a beginning liturgist.” (N. Uspensky) Journals and minutes of meetings of the Pre-Conciliar Presence, vol. I-IV, St. Petersburg, 1907. For example, in the same place, vol. III, p. 19–21, 48–49, 61, 64, 66–67, 70–71, 110–112, 132, 140–141, 184–185, 187–188 (protest against the characterization of the religious ceremony of the Byzantine court as a “blasphemous alteration” of worship), 195–196, 217–219 (about the order of installation of a church judge), 219–220, 316–317. Ibid., vol. III, p. 110–112. Extract for 1907 08, p. 142–143, 223. There, p. 192–193, 223–224. For example, Orthodox Russian pilgrimage in the West (Bari), TKDA, 1897, I, p. 99–132; II, p. 211–237. Modern Russian pilgrimage to the Holy Land, ibid., 1903, VI, p. 274–319. Russian Athonite Kelliot monks and their begging letters for alms sent throughout Russia, ibid., 1906, X, p. 67–107; XI, p. 298–360. Russian educational, charitable and hospitable institutions in Palestine and Syria, ibid., 1907, V, p. 89–120. Two days in prayer for the Tsar and the entire Russian people in Holy Rus' and the Orthodox East, ibid., 1907, XII, p. 507–553. Icon and book shop at the “Russian buildings” in Jerusalem, SIPPO, XVIII (1907), p. 279–299. Sovereign defenders and patrons of the Holy Land and august pilgrims (report on March 21, 1907 in the Peterhof Palace), ibid., p. 422–430. Extract from the historical note Pravoslav. Palest. Society for the first 25 years of its existence, ibid., p. 42. XXV, The Orthodox Palestine Society and its activities over the past quarter of a century (1882–1907). Historical note. Vol. 1. Russian institutions in the Holy Land before 1889, St. Petersburg, 1907, (332 pp.). For example, Count N.P. Ignatiev, as a church and political figure in the Orthodox East (t 20. VI. 1908), SIPPO, XX (1909), p. 84–101, 378–398, 522–563. In memory of a member of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem, Fr. Abbot Parthenius, killed on the Mount of Olives, in the same place, XX (1909), p. 228–308. In memory of the Archbishop of Mount Sinai and Raifa Porfirios Pavlidis (obituary), ibid., XXI (1910), p. 155–161. In memory of B.P. Mansurov, ibid., XXI (1910), p. 446–457. Freedom of conscience in Orthodox Syria under the new Young Turkish regime (Az-Zabedan incident according to personal impressions and memories), ibid., XXI (1910), p. 581–593. To the unforgettable memory of Archbishop Nikanor (Kamensky) of Kazan, ibid., XXII (1911), p. 126–139. In memory... of Grand Duchess Alexandra Iosifovna, in the same place, p. 617–627. In memory... Metropolitan Anthony of St. Petersburg, ibid., XXIII (1912), p. 547–554. Compare: In Bose, the deceased Metropolitan of St. Petersburg Anthony and his relations on church affairs with the Orthodox East. PS, 1914, IV, p. 598–606; V, 020–931; In Bose, the deceased Metropolitan of St. Petersburg Anthony and his Slavophile views, “Church Gazette”, 1912, No. 47, p. 1910–1920 (speech at the St. Petersburg Slavic Charitable Society). In memory of I. S. Ponomarev, in the same place, XXV (1914), p. 225–257, 408–435. In memory of M. A. Petrova, in the same place, XXVI (1915), p. 205–216. His Imp. Highness V. book Konstantin Konstantinovich - pilgrim of the Holy Land, XXVI (1915), p. 408–416. The rural shepherd is an enthusiastic admirer of the Holy Land and a generous donor for its needs. Unforgettable memory of Fr. prot. P. P. Zatvornitsky, XXIV (1913), p. 1, 60–68. The newly elected Archbishop of Mount Sinai and Raifa Porfiry (Logothet) and his arrival in Kyiv, XV (1904), p. 323–332. Extract for 1910 11, p. 726–728; 1911 12, p. 4. Ibid., 1911 12, p. 103–104. Journals of the Council of St. Petersburg. Theological Academy for 1911 12, St. Petersburg, 1913, p. 87–90. Extract for 1906 07, p. 240–241, 263, 283–284. Protocols of KazDA, 1912, p. 238–240. Journals of the Council of St. Petersburg. YES for 1913 14, p. 201, 215–216. Journals of the MDA Council for 1914, p. 593, 711. Minutes of meetings of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities for 1907 (in “Readings of the Society”, 1908, I, pp. 12, 16). “Church Gazette”, 1913, NN 18–19, Approx., p. 798. A short list of persons serving in the department of the Orthodox confession for 1916. Pgr., 1916, p. 81. “Church Bulletin”, 1914, N 21, p. 632–633. Scientific description of the Greek manuscripts of the Sinai monastery. SIPPO, XXIII (1912), p. 205–213. Proceedings of the XV Archaeological Congress in Novgorod in 1911, vol. I, M., 1914, p. 215–229. SIPPO, XXVII (1916), p. 156–168. Manuscript from Fund 214 of the Archive of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Proceedings of the Archive of the USSR Academy of Sciences, vol. 5, L., 1946, p. 127. About these Courses - Met. Grigory (Chukov), “ZhMP”, 1946, N 10, p. 9–11.