Частные вопросы

I. About making the sign of the cross and blessing 1 1) For the sign of the cross The custom of depicting the sign of the cross on oneself dates back to ancient times among Christians. Already Tertullian in his time, that is, during the last quarter of the 2nd - the first quarter of the 3rd century, speaks of it as a universal and immemorially ancient custom 2, and Basil the Great directly and positively classifies it among the apostolic traditions 3. The custom has its own history not only in relation to the folding of the fingers, but also to the part of the body on which to depict the cross, and to the method of depicting the cross. Currently, we depict a cross on the upper part of our body in such a way that its ends lie on the forehead (forehead), lower chest or upper abdomen and on the shoulders, in other words, it embraces the area of ​​​​the indicated parts of the body. The most modern way of depicting a cross is that with a folded hand we touch the forehead, lower chest or upper abdomen 4 and the shoulders, i.e., on the body itself we actually designate only the end points of the cross, and draw its lines (longitudinal and transverse) with our hand in the air. For a very long time, both things were not the same as they are now. As for the part of the body, the cross was depicted only on the forehead. As for the method of depiction, it was literally drawn on the body, namely, it was depicted in such a way that a hand was drawn on the forehead or along the forehead, first a longitudinal line, then a transverse one 5 . Let us turn to the history of finger formation. Cyril, of course, speaks of the ring constitution that was dominant in this church under him; and therefore, from the only evidence that belongs to him about many fingers, the conclusion is that for some time this many fingers, by which most likely one should mean five fingers or all fingers, was dominant in the East in the entire private church. The latest currently known evidence of single fingers belongs to Andrew of Crete, who died in the first quarter of the 8th century. A century after him, St. Theodore the Studite we find an indication that during this century, instead of one finger, a certain number of fingers appeared. In one of his epigrams or poetic inscriptions to the cross, he says from the cross itself: “Whoever depicts me (on himself) and somehow with only one finger, immediately puts to flight a hostile demon” 10. If under Theodore the Studite there was some kind of image of the cross with one finger, then it is clear that the image was not just any image, but a real and earnest, accepted one, the image was known to be made with several fingers. At the same time, however, Theodore the Studite makes it clear in his words that with the advent of multiple fingers, single fingers did not completely go out of use in his time. From the end of the 9th century, evidence begins from which we positively learn that there was several fingers, which appeared at one time or another before Theodore the Studite, namely, we learn that it was two fingers. Evidence of double fingers, belonging to Peter of Damascus and dating back to the half of the 12th century, has long been known. Rev. Filaret pointed out the testimony of the Nestorian Metropolitan Elijah Geveri, dating back to the end of the 9th century. G. Kapterev recently pointed out the testimony of the famous Jacobite writer of the second half of the 13th century, Gregory Abulfaraj or Bar-Hebraeus, dating back to the first half of the 11th century, i.e., speaking about this first half of the 11th century. All of the above evidence could be understood in such a way that they speak of the dominance of two-fingered in one East - in Syria, and that regarding the West - Constantinople with its patriarchy, they do not deprive us of the right to assume something else 11. But there is also evidence that no longer leaves any doubt that two fingers were used in Constantinople, or, in other words, that it was ubiquitous and common among the Greeks. In 1170, the Emperor of Constantinople, Manuel Komnenos, undertook ecclesiastical relations with the Armenians in the hope of reconciling them with Orthodoxy 12. The emperor sent one of the Constantinople scholars, named Theorian, to the Armenians for theological interviews. This Feorian described his two interviews with the Armenians, and in the description of one of the interviews we find evidence from him that in his time two fingers were used in Constantinople. In the description of the 2nd interview, he says that at the end of the speeches, one Syrian priest 13 stood up and said to him: “Why do you depict a cross with two fingers? Are not the fingers separated (from each other), as if they are special from one another, therefore, in your opinion, the two natures of Christ are also divided from each other? Next, Theorian conveys his answer to the priest and in his answer confirms that the Greeks of Constantinople, of whom he was a representative, were indeed baptized with two fingers, only, as if by joking, wanting to get rid of the question, which he himself notes, he tells the priest that among the Greeks two fingers do not mean two natures in Christ, but something completely different 14 . The motivation for adopting two fingers instead of one finger should be considered to be the desire to visually express the confession of two natures in Jesus Christ, in contrast to the Monophysites, for whom one finger became a symbol of their teaching about the one nature of Jesus Christ 15 . It is not impossible that the double finger that was adopted, that is, consisting of the index and large middle fingers, was borrowed from iconography or was a reproduction of the double finger with which the Savior and the saints were depicted on icons. But this very iconographic two-finger, which we find on icons from the very first time of their appearance and incomparably earlier than the two-finger began to be used to depict the sign of the cross, did not at all mean this last two-finger, as we will deliberately say below. So, over the course of the century from the beginning of the 8th to the beginning of the 9th century, the original one-fingered sign of the cross was replaced by the Greeks with two fingers. But double-fingering was not a form of signification for the meaning of the cross, with which the Greeks would then remain forever. Over the course of the century that embraced the last quarter of the 12th and the first three quarters of the 13th century, instead of two fingers, three fingers came into use, and only this latter became their final finger formation. The second interview of Theorian with the Armenians, in the description of which one reads evidence of dominance or the use of two fingers during his time in Constantinople, took place in 1172; but in the well-known so-called Debate of Panagiota with Azimite, which was written after 1274 and before 1282, we find evidence that at this time it was not two-fingered, but three-fingered that was dominant in Constantinople or was no longer in use there 16 . What was the reason for the replacement of two fingers with three fingers among the Greeks, regarding this we have neither instructions nor hints. But it is necessary to think that the reason was the expanded symbolism of the fingers. Replacing the original one-finger with two fingers, the Greeks wanted to express with two fingers the Orthodox teaching about two natures in Jesus Christ, contrary to the Monophysites, who began to combine their heretical teaching about one nature in Jesus Christ with one finger; however, no significance was attached to the other three fingers. Over time, the remaining three fingers were given symbolic meaning, namely, the meaning of the three faces of St. Trinity 17. When this last happened, they could find that three fingers in a two-fingered formation did not express St. in a satisfactory manner. Trinity, and therefore replaced two-fingered with three-fingered. Trinity, and therefore, instead of two fingers, three fingers could be adopted, in which the indicated disadvantage is completely eliminated. The goal could be achieved in two ways: either by adopting three-fingered instead of two-fingered fingers, or by correcting the two-fingered finger itself, namely, by placing three fingers in it the way they are located in our later two-fingered fingers and as they are located in the current two-fingered fingers of the Old Believers (i.e., so that the finger rests its gun on the guns of the small middle finger and little finger). This latter was not done, as one should think, because now the indicated arrangement of the fingers, as we said, is not natural (forced) and difficult - that with this arrangement it is very inconvenient (not deft) to place the sign of the cross on oneself. As for three-fingeredness, the idea of ​​adopting it, after with a change in the view of fingers (with the attribution of symbolic meaning to three fingers) two-fingeredness turned out to be unsatisfactory, should have appeared, so to speak, by itself. Fold your fingers together in the ancient manner (i.e. Just as in Greece, three-fingeredness was not introduced instead of two-fingered fingers through formal legislation, or direct orders from the church authorities, but entered through custom; so among us it had to be installed in the place of two fingers not in the first way, but in the second way. But against something that is not directly sanctioned by church authority, but comes into use through custom, until it acquires the authority of obligatory nature through universal recognition and until it becomes an inviolable tradition due to longevity, objections and protests are possible. These objections and protests were raised against triplicity in Greece, when it was introduced there or took the place of bidigitation. Later, in the 12th century, the Greeks began to accept the two-fingered sign used in the sign of the cross as the two-fingered one with which Jesus Christ was depicted on icons and which He Himself allegedly used 20 . But the imaginary example of Jesus Christ Himself was too obligatory for the people who now looked at the matter in this way among the Greeks to not want or try to raise their voices in its defense. In fact, it was that if the Savior was depicted on icons with a double-fingered sign, then this sign was not a sign for blessing, but had a different meaning (as discussed below), and if he was depicted with a sign for blessing, then the sign was not double-fingered, but only so similar to it as to be mistaken for it (which is also below). But among us, not having the proper knowledge of the matter, the two-finger fold on the icons of the Savior was mistaken for the sign of the finger for blessing, and the sign of the finger for blessing, only those similar in appearance to the double-finger, were mistaken for this latter. And thus, the imaginary testimony of the icons of the Savior in favor of two-fingered fingers gave the curse the meaning of the plaintiff’s voice in order to gain two-fingered ardent defenders. But the people who became defenders of double-fingered did not stop at what they actually accepted as truth. Human history is full of examples of how those who want to protect and defend what they accept as the truth have no difficulty resorting to lies. This was the case in our case. To curse those who are not baptized with two fingers, a new testimony was composed in favor of two fingers through a well-known alteration of the legend about Meletius of Antioch 22. People who had learned from the Greeks the generally accepted three-fingered pattern, wrote on their own instructions about the addition of three fingers (the so-called Theodorite word), but the defenders of two-fingered fingers, taking advantage of the imperfect definiteness of the instructions, hastened to turn it to their advantage 23 . In addition to these three evidence in favor of double-fingered, there was a fourth - Peter of Damascus, about which our ancestors, of course, did not know that it was only archaeological evidence, which spoke of a past time. Thus, we have as many as four pieces of evidence in favor of two fingers, and at their head is a terrible curse on those who are baptized without two fingers, but in favor of three fingers, based on the alteration of Theodorit’s word, there was not a single piece of evidence. Naturally, with the mouths of more than three witnesses in favor of two fingers and with a complete absence of witnesses in favor of three fingers, the dispute between the two fingers was resolved in favor of the first. According to our old views on church customs, which we deliberately spoke about above, the solution to the dispute about two fingers had for our ancestors the meaning that two fingers is the only true and only Orthodox one, and that three fingers is a heretical novelty. Seeing this pseudo-heretical novelty prevailing among the Greeks, our ancestors decided that the later Greeks borrowed it from the Latins 24 . When we finally formed the above-mentioned opinion about two-fingered and three-fingered people and when it was adopted by the representatives of the church authorities themselves, we cannot say 25 . So, the three-fingered arrangement that was finally adopted by the Greeks did not come into general use among us and was ultimately formally rejected. But to present the matter in such a way that until Nikon’s time it remained completely or almost completely unknown to us would be completely unfounded. On the contrary, there can be no doubt that, having spread among us to a more or less significant extent immediately after its establishment among the Greeks, it constantly remained with us in the same significant degree of prevalence right up to Patra. Joseph, and the formal prohibitions against him by Metropolitan did not at all lead to his disappearance from us. Daniel and the Stoglavy Cathedral. The curse on those who do not cross themselves with two fingers, borrowed from the Greeks, is unusually often found in our manuscripts, being repeated in them both appropriately and inappropriately. Of course, real enemies are subjected to his thunder, and not imaginary ones (for otherwise it would mean beating the air with a curse in vain); and if it is repeated unusually often, then it is clear that the number of enemies was not so insignificant that it was not worth paying attention to them. The legend of Meletius of Antioch has been altered in our country so that it serves as evidence in favor of two-fingered fingers, of course, with some real purpose; but this goal, obviously, is the fight against triplets 27. If we had instructions written about the use of three fingers in the sign of the cross, which is the so-called Theodorite word, then, of course, we also had people who contained this finger formation. Rev. Macarius found in one Kirillo-Belozersky collection of the 15th century an article: “How one should baptize (i.e., be baptized) by hand,” written in defense of two fingers 28 . This article directly and clearly speaks of the existence of people among us who adhered to three-fingeredness and defended it; and if the author of the article says that these were only “nets,” i.e. Now above we have presented the history or fate of triplicate in northern, Moscow Rus'. Three-fingers spread more or less significantly here, but for special local reasons, it not only did not come into general use here, but was also formally rejected. In southwestern or Kievan Rus, special Muscovite reasons did not take place at all: here they did not at all form an opinion about the later Greeks, as if they had deviated from the purity of Orthodoxy of the ancient Greeks, but, on the contrary, they constantly looked at them as invariably preserving this purity of Orthodoxy. Apparently, we should expect that here we will find triplicate entering into the same general use as among the Greeks themselves. Meanwhile, in fact, we find that in all local teaching books, starting from the end of the 16th century and until the half of the 17th century, it is not the Greek three-fingered system that is prescribed for use, but the Moscow two-fingered system 34. What does this mean and how to understand it? It was this word that made the Kyiv scientists think that triplicate appeared among the Greeks no earlier than the middle of the 16th century, and it was this that prompted them to take the side of double-fingered. Maxim was a Greek by birth, and if he talks about two-fingered, then the clear conclusion from this, apparently, was that three-fingered appeared among the Greeks after him. This erroneous conclusion was made by Kiev scientists, who thus became supporters of two-fingered fingers as a result of a simple misunderstanding. In Kyiv teaching books from the end of the 16th century, instructions on folding fingers for the sign of the cross appeared, and all instructions before Peter Mogila prescribed two fingers. But as for how it was in Kievan Rus before and after the advent of the instructions in reality, that is, how it was here with the three-fingered formation among the people or among the people, we have evidence that assures that everyone was baptized here with three fingers, and which gives us at least the right to assume that three-fingers was dominant or predominant here 36. How to look at this very word of Maxim, which had such an important meaning in relation to Kievan Rus, and at the same time became such authoritative evidence in favor of two fingers in Muscovite Russia 37? If Maxim had written his word with the deliberate purpose of saying that one should be baptized with two fingers (with which deliberate purpose he wrote the word about the doubleness of the alleluia song), or even if he had written the word not with this deliberate purpose, but expressed himself in this way in relation to the form or image of the folding of the finger: then, of course, it would have been undoubtedly and not subject to any dispute that he was in a personal way, but something completely for incomprehensible to us, he preferred the Moscow finger composition to the then accepted and commonly used Greek one. But in Maxim’s word this “should” is not at all present. The word was written by him in response to someone’s request to reveal the power of the image of the cross or the custom of signing with a cross, and, without saying prescriptively that the fingers for the sign of the cross should be folded in such and such a way, he says narratively that such and such a folding of the fingers for the sign of the cross, namely two-fingered, means such and such 38 . Maxim's narrative, rather than prescriptive, speech can be understood in two ways; or that he really preferred two-toed to three-toed, or that he just did not reject the first, as our Russian custom. Of the two possible explanations for Maximova’s speech, the second, and not the first, must undoubtedly be recognized as the true explanation. Regarding the subject to change custom, which is the method of folding the fingers for the sign of the cross, the matter did not consist in any archaeological evidence (assuming that such evidence could be indicated to Maximus in favor of two fingers), but in the relative authority of the churches, which differed among themselves regarding the custom; but, of course, no one will find it possible or probable to assume that the authority of the Russian Church was recognized by Maxim as superior to the authority of the Greek Church. As for the fact that not on his own impulse, but having been called to talk about the then dominant sign in Russia, Maxim speaks of the latter as a sign that he recognizes: then in fact there is nothing strange or incomprehensible in this. Two-fingeredness is absolutely as Orthodox as three-fingeredness, and in this case our difference with the Greeks concerned a custom that belongs to the number of indifferent customs 39 . At first, it seems, the blessing was taught by laying the blessing of his hand or his hands on the head of the person being blessed, and if there were many being blessed, by raising his hands over them (as Jesus Christ blessed the children and how, ascending into heaven, He blessed the apostles - Matt. XIX, 13. 15, Luke XXIV, 50), without marking the sign of the cross on the head or above the heads 41. But no later than the end of the 4th - beginning of the 5th century, it became customary to teach a blessing through the mark of the blessing on the head of the person being blessed or over the heads of those being blessed 42. From time to the beginning of the 7th century, we have evidence that not to bless the people, but to protect themselves from danger, bishops drew a cross over objects or on objects that threatened danger, with the same one finger with which everyone drew a cross on themselves 43 . It is likely that when blessing the people, the bishops initially drew a cross with the same finger. But then, no later than the beginning of the 7th century, preventing the appearance of two fingers for the sign of the cross by approximately two centuries, a certain certain several fingers appeared among the bishops to bless the people. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, who died between 634-644 44, speaks about this several fingers. The testimony of Sophronius, expressed in a special way, is not entirely clear, namely, when speaking about the addition of fingers: a finger with a small middle 45, he does not speak very clearly about the method of their addition. The testimony of Sophronievo, which is not entirely clear in this last respect, is fully explained for us by the later testimony of John Skylitzes about the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Kerularius. Skylitzes says that when the patriarch died (in 1058), the fingers of his right hand, folded crosswise, as is usually done to bless when proclaiming peace to the people, remained in this position, without changing with the death of the body 46. A cruciform or cross-shaped finger is obviously a type of finger in which certain fingers were folded in such a way that a cross was made up (formed) from them. Therefore, Patr. Sophrony speaks of a cross-shaped finger with a small middle finger. And therefore, the cross-shaped finger formation for blessing, which appeared around or no later than the beginning of the 7th century, was such a finger formation in which three fingers: the index, large middle and little finger extended, and two fingers: the finger and the small middle finger rested crosswise on one another, as is now the case in a nominal blessing. The cross-shaped finger formation was transformed into a nominal one in such a way that of the two outstretched fingers - the index finger and the large middle one - the second was slightly bent. One might think that initially this change was made not with the thought of turning the finger formation into a name-form, but with the thought of turning it into a double-cross or double-cross, and that only then was a name-word recognized in the two crosses with a bent little finger, the meaning of which was learned by him. When, after half of the 11th century, after Patr. Mikhail Kerularius, the cruciform sign has been transformed or turned into a nominal one, regarding this, so far we only know that the transformation took place no later than the first half of the 15th century. In 1458, one Athonite painter, Hieromonk Dionysius of Furna Agrafskaya, wrote a manual for church painting entitled ἐκκλησιαστικὴν ζωγραφίαν (Instruction for painters in relation to church painting) 47. That the cross-shaped folding of fingers for blessing, which appeared among the Greeks no later than the first half of the 7th century, passed from them to us, the Russians, this cannot be subject to any doubt and is self-evident. Almost all of our metropolitans of the pre-Mongol period were Greeks and, of course, used the same folding of fingers for blessing that was used in Greece. In turn, our bishops, Russian by birth, could only use the sign form that was used by the metropolitans, because their adoption of some special sign form would be something completely unthinkable. In general, it is absolutely clear that if at the moment we accepted Christianity from the Greeks, the latter used a cross-shaped fold of fingers for blessing, then only this finger shape, and not any other, could have passed down to us from them. Whether the name ring came to us from the Greeks, we cannot say positively, not knowing when it appeared among them. But if we assume that it appeared to them not before the very year from which it becomes known to us (meaning the year 1458), but even only half a century before it, at the end of the 14th - beginning of the 15th century, then it will be necessary to think that it passed to us. From 1408 to 1431, for 23 years, the Greek Photius, the last of the Greeks, was our metropolitan - and 23 years was too much time for the commission brought by the metropolitan to be learned from him by all our bishops 51 . Since the time of St. Jonah, the example of modern Greeks, has lost its authority in the eyes of our ancestors; meanwhile, on the one hand, on the basis of the “word” of the unknown Theodoret, we formed the opinion that the same sign of the cross should be used for both blessing and the sign of the cross, and on the other hand, not three-fingered, but two-fingered was recognized as the correct and proper sign of the sign of the cross: and the matter regarding the folding of the finger for blessing had the end that two-fingered was recognized among us and accepted as such sign of the cross, identical to the sign of the cross. We noted above that the folded hands on icons, by their origin and original meaning, are not blessing or prayer hands, for which the index and large middle fingers are folded crosswise (as is now the case in the nomenclature), and the finger and the last two fingers are joined together, tightly or loosely. Orthodox Christians take this finger formation as close to the nominal one, schismatics - as two-finger; in fact, in all likelihood one should see in him an ancient cross-shaped finger. they began to be accepted at a later time, but something else. Let's finish our article with speeches about this. According to their origin and original meaning, folded hands on icons constitute a symbol or conventional sign, adopted by icon painters, that the persons depicted on icons with such hands (the Savior or some saint) speak (evangelize, preach), i.e., they should be represented by us as speaking (evangelizing, preaching). 1); for our part, we can point to the manuscript of the works of Dioscorides, located in the Vienna Imperial Library, the drawings of which were printed by Nessel in the Description of the library's manuscripts 53. There are known examples of raised and folded hands in works and sculptures 54 . That in Christian iconography folded hands were originally used with the same meaning as they were used in pre-Christian iconography, we have both verbal evidence and evidence from monuments. Paul the Silentiary in his description of Justinian's St. Sophia says about the image of the Savior on one of the altar curtains that He appears (depicted) extending the fingers of his right hand, as if broadcasting (as a sign that he is broadcasting) an ever-present verb 55. In the Vienna Imperial Library there is a fragment of the Pentateuch of Moses written in the 4th - 5th centuries, decorated with miniatures, of which 24 have survived and all of which were reproduced by Nessel 56 . Folded hands on icons and sacred images in general began to be looked at as blessing hands no earlier than the 11th century. From the 12th century we know evidence that assigns the latter meaning to folded hands—we mean the postscript to the article “On Friars and Other Latins,” which we cited above. But in the famous Menology imp. Basil the Bulgarian Slayer, dating back to the end of the 10th - beginning of the 11th century, these hands are still clearly used with their original meaning as a symbol or conventional sign of persons speaking (preaching, evangelizing) 60. As for when they began to look at folded hands as prayer hands, and when they began to depict praying people with folded hands: then, in all likelihood, this happened no earlier than the half of the 15th century. At least until this half of the 15th century, they prayed by raising their hands 61, and the position of the cross on oneself was only an additional action that preceded or ended the raising of hands 62: and it must be assumed that before that time those praying were depicted with raised hands 63. We saw above that the validity of the curse on those who were not baptized with two fingers was verified by the icons of the Savior, to which the curse refers, and that on the icons they found either a real two-finger, which was not a sign of blessing, or a sign of blessing, which, not being a double-finger, could be mistaken for this latter. The folded finger for blessing, which was not a two-fingered sign, but could be mistaken for it, was a cruciform folded finger. With some vagueness of the image, when bending together with the small front finger and the little finger, how could the fingers be folded for a cross-shaped blessing and in reality, because the cross was preserved, it could easily be mistaken for a two-finger (and if now the indicated finger formation was written so that the hand was turned with its face inward, and with its back turned outward - which is quite common and almost the largest part: then it should have seemed two-fingered, because from behind the first two fingers were visible, outstretched and the last two bent, but the finger was not visible); on the other hand, with the preconceived idea that the finger formation should be two-finger, and the clearly written cross-shaped finger, due to its proximity to the two-finger one, could be mistaken for the latter. The double-fingered sign, which our ancestors must have seen quite often on icons, was not a sign for blessing, which sign was never used for blessing in reality, but one of the symbolic signs that served to designate the faces of speakers and, being borrowed as such, by Christian painters from pre-Christian painters, appears on icons and sculptural images from the very first time of those others. Since among the symbolic foldings of the finger it occupied the first place, being the most frequently used, it should have been very often found on icons painted before the meaning of blessing hands was learned by folded hands. But even after this last happened, it could be written on icons for a more or less long time, for many icon painters could look at it as an adopted tradition and mechanically reproduce it from old icons. By its origin, this two-fingered is actually a special kind of three-fingered, identical in appearance with the three-fingered one that is used by the Latins for blessing and in which the finger, index and large middle fingers are separately extended, and the last two fingers are bent (close to this or the same oratorical finger formation that Apuleius speaks of). But this three-fingeredness was very often depicted in such a way that the finger, index and thumb of the middle finger were not extended separately, but compressed, and precisely compressed in a double way: either so that the index and big middle fingers were squeezed together (implied - extended), and the finger was pressed against them, reaching with its top the second joint from the bottom of the index (in Quintilian No. 5) or so, that the index and large middle fingers were squeezed together, and the finger was extended separately from them, lying on the fold of the small middle finger. In both cases, two fingers emerged (in fact, at the same time, both two fingers and a special type of three fingers) 64 Among the Jews, the song of alleluia was a song of joy and triumph, which is why it was sung mainly on the holiday of Passover (psalms 113–118, which have in their inscription: alleluia, were sung on the holiday of Passover; they accept that the Savior, after celebrating the Old Testament Passover and the New Testament Last Supper before his suffering, went with his disciples to the Mount of Olives, “singing” - Matt. XXVI, 30, Mark XIV, 26, namely the song of Alleluia). In the Western or Roman Christian Church, the song Alleluia retained its Jewish meaning as a song of joy and triumph; why did it become a custom there not to proclaim it during Lent and at funeral liturgies with other funeral services (but to proclaim it intensely on Easter day and during Pentecost) 66 . How was it with this duality of the method of proclamation of the song - is it so that triplicity and doubling began to be used at the same time, or that before (first) one of them, and then the other, and if we assume the second case, then which is relatively older or more original: we cannot answer these questions due to the lack of positive data. The oldest evidence known to us about the method of proclaiming a song, dating back to the end of the 5th - half of the 9th century, speaks of triplicity 68, and this seems to give us some right to consider it older than doubling. On the other hand, it is not at all impossible that we are dealing here with a simple accident, i.e. that regarding the doubling of the Alleluia song there are as many ancient testimonies as about triplicities, but they only remain unknown to us. Be that as it may, starting from the first half of the 11th century, we have a number of evidence that the Greeks, along with the triplicity of the alleluia song, also used doubling, in other words, that they used both forms of exclamation simultaneously and jointly - both tripling and doubling. The first evidence of the use by the Greeks of the special alleluia together and simultaneously with the treguba is found in the so-called Studite Charter of the Patriarch of Constantinople Alexei, who occupied the see from 1025 to 1043 and whose charter, having been transferred from Greece to Russia through the efforts of the Venerable. Theodosius of Pechersk, became our Russian Studio Charter 69. Patriarch Alexei is followed by Nikon the Montenegrin, who lived in the second half of the same 11th century, in whom, along with the injunction to triple the Alleluia song, we find an injunction to double it in the first word of his Taktikon 70. Then, in Metropolitan Cyprian, in his Followed Psalter 71, which has survived to this day, we find the intensification of alleluia as the only way to proclaim a song 72. Since we positively know that the doubling of the alleluia was a Greek custom that existed together with the triplicity, then the assumption that Cyprian brought the Serbian novelty to us is, of course, unfounded. But from a comparison of Cyprian, in whose psalter we find a double alleluia, with his successor Photius, who in his letter to Pskov commands to triple the alleluia, another conclusion follows, namely, that in the time of our two metropolitans, double song was the prevailing custom on Athos, of which Cyprian was a monk, and triple song was the prevailing custom in the rest of Greece, or at least that part this rest of Greece, to which Photius belonged by origin, i.e. the Peloponnese. At a short distance from Cyprian († 1406) we find an instruction to double the alleluia song in some cases by Simeon of Thessalonica († 1429) 73 . However, even by the time of Nikon’s correction of the books, as we learn from Arseny Sukhanov’s Proscinitary, the three-pronged alleluia became just the dominant and predominant among the Greeks and was recognized by the church authorities as having to be used only, but in fact it was not yet exclusively used: Arseny more than once notes in the Proscinitary that under the rule of the Greeks, the trinating alleluia (and when the voice of the church authorities has one thing for him, as the Patriarch of Alexandria expressed to him in response to his question) others still continue to double it 76. Thus, the history of the method of proclamation of the alleluia song among the Greeks was that in an unknown ancient time, until the end of the century, they established either simultaneously, or one after the other, two methods of proclamation - triangulation and aggravation (assuming the latter case regarding time, triangulation should be recognized by the elders) - that these two methods existed together for a very long time, no less than until the beginning of the 17th century (one having been used by some, by others by others, and by others, perhaps, one or the other is indifferent) and that during the first half of the 17th century it became decisively dominant among them, and then became the only one 77, the triplicity of the song 78. For us, the Russians, the method of proclaiming the alleluia song should have the same history as the Greeks, that is, that during the same time with them (a very long time) we used or accepted both methods of proclaiming the song - triangulation and aggravation, and then, after them, we remained using the first one. But we developed a special view of church customs, which did not allow that any custom could exist in two forms, and according to which the existence of any custom in two forms meant that one form of it was correct and Orthodox, and the other was incorrect and heretical. As a result of this, we had a question: which of the two ways of proclaiming the song of alleluia is correct and Orthodox and which is incorrect and heretical. If it happened that the question was decided in favor of trinity, then we (by chance) would remain in agreement with the Greeks regarding the song of alleluia; but it happened that it was decided in favor of duality, and we separated from them regarding the song. We will make additions and amendments to the history of how the question of the method of proclaiming the song of alleluia was resolved in favor of doubling. The issue was first raised in Pskov during the reign of Metropolitan Photius. Regarding how disagreement in the proclamation of the alleluia song appeared in Pskov, which gave rise to the question or forced the Pskovites to raise this latter, with a very high probability one should think that before Photiev’s predecessor Cyprian, the Pskovites all uniformly trembled the alleluia song, but what about the breviary they received from Cyprian, and probably the charter or the following psalter, which The Metropolitan took the trouble to send it to them when he learned that they did not have the right church rule 79, and the double song went to them. Be that as it may, Photius, in a message to Pskov dated August 19, 1419, answered the Pskovites to the question they addressed to him about the proclamation of the alleluia song, that it should be triplicated or said three times three times (the triple alleluia should be pronounced three times with Glory to Thee, God) 80. One cannot help but regret that Photius, wanting to give an answer to the Pskovites that would reassure and satisfy them, through this inadvertently seemed to sanction and recognize our Russian incorrect view of the subject. If Photius, instead of definitely prescribing to the Pskovites one of two equally correct and Orthodox ways of proclaiming a song, had left it to them to make a choice, directly saying that both methods are equally correct and Orthodox: then the disputes about alleluia could have been eliminated among us and we would have later learned the uniformity of the trinity from the Greeks (although, of course, we would not have learned it before the Greeks, i.e., although such an accident would not have occurred, so that among us, before the Greeks, that same uniformity regarding the proclamation of songs was established, which was then established among them). However, it is more than likely that our own view of church customs would triumph over the authority of Metropolitan. Photius and that despite his clear statement that both ways of proclaiming the song of alleluia are equally correct and Orthodox, in the end the teaching that would prevail among us is that only one way of proclaiming is correct and Orthodox, and that the other way is incorrect and heretical. One unknown Pskovite, who was one of the zealous admirers of the strict monastic life of Athanasius, wrote him several letters in which he strongly urged him to renounce doubleness, as a heresy, recently allegedly borrowed by the Greeks from the Latins, and diligently, with the help of carefully collected evidence, proved to him that the only correct and Orthodox way of proclaiming a song is triplicity. When Athanasius, citing the example of Athos, the Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople and all the ecumenical patriarchs 84, remained adamant, the Pskovites proclaimed him a heretic. Afanasy addressed a complaint against the Pskovites to Archbishop Euthymius of Novgorod (2nd, Vyazhitsky, who occupied the see from 1434 to 1458) 85 . But the answer of the archbishop, who still held the proper view of the subject and recognized as equally correct and Orthodox both one and the other way of proclaiming the song, did not protect him from his detractors 86 . Then Archbishop Athanasius addressed a complaint to Metropolitan Jonah 87. The Metropolitan, without resolving the dispute on the merits, wrote only an admonition to the Pskovites so that “there would be no disagreements among them in the churches of God and in the Orthodox Christian faith” 88. Not having time to overcome Afanasiev’s stubbornness, the Pskovites ended the matter by writing a decree or, as it were, a sentence, in which it is commanded to triple the Alleluia song in honor of the three persons of the Holy Trinity, as written in the Theologian, i.e., in the Apocalypse of John the Theologian, and which says that whoever doubles the song separates the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son and sings so to sin yourself and to condemnation 89. By itself, without any positive indications, life should be taken for fiction. During Euphrosinova’s youth, says the author of the life, there were disputes in Pskov about the Alleluia song; These disputes aroused in Euphrosyne a desire to find out the truth about our song, that is, whether to triple or double it, and to find out the truth he went to Constantinople to the Ecumenical Patriarch 92. But Euphrosynus’s youth falls precisely during the reign of Metropolitan. Photius 93. Why on earth would he go to Constantinople to see the patriarch, when in Moscow the patriarch’s representative was a Greek like himself, and when, without going to Constantinople, he (Euphrosynus) could get the answer he wanted from the metropolitan? Why on earth would he go to Constantinople to the patriarch, when the Pskovites addressed the metropolitan with precisely this question and received a direct answer from him? In general, it would be completely incredible and completely untenable to assume that during the reign of Metropolitan. Be that as it may, the fact of fiction and falsification of the life of Evfrosinov should be recognized as a positive fact. The unknown defender of the alleluia song had at hand letters from an unknown Pskovite to the monk Athanasius and, in general, all the documents related to the latter’s dispute with the Pskovites about the alleluia song. The letters convey the assurances of Athanasius that he was instructed to double the song of alleluia from the Patriarch of Constantinople Joseph, in general from the ecumenical patriarchs and on Athos 94. These assurances are not at all called false in Pskov’s letters; they only eliminate Athanasius’s reference to the Greeks by saying that they should not listen to the latter, since recently they allegedly turned away from the truth and became infected with heresies. But the defender of the double alleluia had enough learning to see the inconsistency of this elimination: from the Council of Florence, at which the Greeks could and, according to the author of the letters, actually became infected with heresies, Patr. Joseph did not return (as the letters themselves say). Consequently, it was clear that Athanasius saw Joseph and was supposedly taught from him to double the song of alleluia even before the Council of Florence, otherwise - even in good times, during the inviolability of his Orthodoxy. Thus, the defender of the double song could have sincerely believed that Athanasius was taught by the patriarchs. Joseph to double the song of alleluia, with the recognition, it is implied, of tripling the song as an incorrect and unorthodox custom, or a sincere belief that the Greeks are Orthodox to the point of being damaged the Florentine cathedral doubled the hymn of Alleluia, and therefore, he could have formed a sincere conviction that the hymn should be doubled. With this sincere conviction, our defender of the double song decided to fabricate the life of the first. Euphrosynus and the daring composition of the apparitions of Euphrosynus and the Mother of God to himself (internally justifying himself, of course, by the fact that he decides to lie in order to bring triumph to a just cause). Of course, they did not have any memory of the monk Athanasius, who at one time was proclaimed a heretic by the Pskovites, so to refer to him in defense of a purely alleluia would mean to refer to a person who had no authority in the eyes of the Pskovites and whose name was an empty word for them. But Rev. Euphrosynus was a famous ascetic who founded a strictly communal monastery and educated disciples who founded several similar monasteries; in a word, he was almost the same for the Pskov region as Venerable. Sergius of Radonezh for the Moscow region. There could not have been a more authoritative reference than to him for the Pskovites. And so, wanting to give the special alleluia a triumph over the trebuba by means of the greatest authority that could only be invoked before the Pskovites, our defender of the special alleluia, putting Euphrosynus in the place of Athanasius, wrote about him that he went to Constantinople to find out the truth about the alleluia, that he was taught by Patriarch Joseph to double it, that he had heated debates about it with by the Pskovites and as if, without having time to teach the latter the truth, he was proclaimed a heretic by them in their blindness. This composition or this composition of the life of Euphrosinov is clearly revealed from its comparison with the letters of an unknown Pskovite to the monk Afanasy, on the basis of which, with other documents, it was composed. In general terms, the history of Prey. Euphrosyne is completely the same with the story of the monk Athanasius, as the latter is indicated in letters to Athanasius from an unknown Pskovite. Euphrosynus went to the East and there he learned to double the song of alleluia; upon returning from the East, he founded his monastery, in which he introduced double song; The Pskovites rebelled against him for this and, not having time to force him to abandon the double song, they proclaimed him a heretic: the same is true for Athanasius. Two completely identical stories take place at the same time: Euphrosynus argued with the Pskovites during the reign of Novgorod Archbishop Euthymius Vyazhitsky, who occupied the see from 1434 to 1458; Athanasius argued with them (as can be seen from the letters of a Pskovite unknown to him) several years after the Council of Florence, which took place in 1438–39, and very shortly after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, which happened in 1453. This complete simultaneity of two completely identical stories does not indicate that in two stories one should see one story, divided into two in such a way that one person to whom it actually happened, is it transferred to another person as a fiction? But we have a particular feature common to both stories that finally convinces us of this. According to his life, at the head of the Pskovites who rebelled against Euphrosynus for a special alleluia. There was a disgrace named Job, who ruled all spiritual and civil affairs in Pskov and was nicknamed by the Pskovites the pillar, whom Euphrosynus nicknamed the bloodworm pillar and whom the author of his life himself, for abdicating the priesthood for the sake of a second marriage, calls Judas the traitor. From the letters of an unknown Pskovite to Afanasy, we know that it was Job who was at the head of the Pskovites who rebelled against the latter, and that he, Afanasy, called him Bloodworm and Judas 95 . Apparently, there is a significant particular difference between the history of Euphrosynus and the history of Athanasius: Euphrosynus, according to his life, was only in Constantinople and refers only to Patr. Joseph, and Afanasy, according to letters to him from an unknown Pskovite, also referred to Athos. But why the author of the life is silent about Athos in relation to Euphrosynus is completely understandable: in his monastic charter, Euphrosynus makes it clear on one occasion that he has not been to Athos 96. So, there can be no doubt that the life of Euphrosynus is nothing more than a fiction, which appeared in such a way that the story of the monk Athanasius was transferred to him. We said that the author of the life used not only letters from an unknown Pskov resident to Afanasy, but also other documents. In the appendix to the life there is placed, under the name of Euphrosyne, a letter to the Pskov clergy (“our lords and the priest of the gathering of the Holy Trinity and others, the entire priestly rank,” l. 112–117 vol.), in which the author strongly scolds Job, calling him the pillar of the moth Ievk, the mark of Christ and the second Judas (in the RKp. l. 116 rough misspelling: “noted by Christ and echoes”), and in which he proves at length that he considers it his duty to listen not to them - the Pskovites, but to the cathedral church. Since Euphrosynus had no need to write to the Pskov clergy and his life does not say that he wrote; since from the letters of an unknown Pskovite to Athanasius we know that this one wrote defamatory messages to the Pskov clergy, cursing in them mainly Job 97 and since in the message assimilated by Euphrosynus, there is literally what, according to the Pskovite, Athanasius wrote 98: then we have no doubt that the message belongs not to Euphrosynus, but to this latter. Unfortunately, the epistle is read in an unfinished form (it is interrupted in mid-phrase), the reason for which incompleteness, in all likelihood, is that later in the epistle something was said that would not at all go to Euphrosynus, for example, that Athanasius further referred to Athos 99. We said above that the author of the life had at hand the letter of Athanasius to Euthymius and the answer of Euthymius to Athanasius and only reworks the second of them (assimilating the first to Euphrosyne). Here are the reasons for our assumption. The people of Pskov are represented in their lives as rebelling against Euphrosynus for a special alleluia, when he had already built a monastery and when there was already an abbot in the monastery. But the author of the life himself says that the first abbot was appointed to the monastery by Archbishop John, l. 51 vol., which is obviously a typo instead of: Jonah, and Jonah was the successor of Euthymius. This contradiction of the author to himself can only be explained in such a way that he speaks about the appointment of an abbot on the basis of the latter’s installation letter, in which the name of Archbishop Jonah appeared, and in the letters he retained the name of the archbishop that appeared in them, i.e., he did not transfer the name of Euthymius to the name of Jonah 100. But for our defender of the alleluia, the main thing was not to compose the life of St. Euphrosynus, but to invent the appearance of the Mother of God for himself, for which the life of Euphrosynus was only a visible reason and pretext. The special alleluia contains the great mystery of the resurrection of Christ; this secret remained hidden for the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets, and equally remained hidden for the entire New Testament host of holy men, so that not a single ecumenical council could or dared to reveal it; Saint Euphrosynus himself, who from his youth devoted himself to the revelation of the mystery, died in ignorance of it, since in Constantinople he was only commanded to double the alleluia, but could not say anything about its meaning: and now, finally, through the prayers of St. Euphrosyne, the Mother of God appeared to the writer of the life to announce to the Church of God from time immemorial the hidden secret of the special alleluia. Such a great and, so to speak, universal instrument in relation to the great mystery of the profound alleluia was destined to serve the humble Pskovite, who hid his name! And if this modest Pskovite had not decided to write the life of Euphrosynus, then the great mystery of the special alleluia could still remain a secret for the church 101... The question of where the writer got his teaching that the special alleluia contains the mystery of the resurrection of Christ can be answered with two assumptions - or that it was suggested to him by the stichera of the service of St. George, in which, after the proclamation of the alleluia itself (three times), instead of: Glory to Thee, God, it is added: “Glory to Thee, Christ the giver of life,” - “Glory to Thee, the Beneficiary Christ,” “Glory to the risen Christ” 102, or that he took it (the teaching) from the Latins, who actually proclaim the song of alleluia in honor of the risen Christ. Perhaps the first assumption is more likely, but the second is not at all incredible: due to the border of the Pskov region with Latin land, the author could be familiar with the teachings of the Latins, and he himself directly hints at this familiarity 103. The life of Venerable Alleluia, written by an unknown zealot. Euphrosyne did not achieve the immediate goal for which it was intended - it did not bring about the triumph of a special alleluia over the Treguba in Pskov and the Pskov region 104; but it achieved another, much more important, goal, for which it was not designed: on the basis of it 105 the Council of the Hundred Heads sentenced: throughout the Russian land, the extreme alleluia should be sung, and the third one should be left as the Latin heresy (chapter 42). Metropolitan Macarius is subjected to strong and cruel reproaches for his definition of a special alleluia, made on the basis of such a bad source as the life of Euphrosyne. But we are of the decisive opinion that a significant and large part of the blame should be removed from Metropolitan. Macarius and entrusted to the Rev. Maxim the Greek. We think with full confidence that Macarius made his definition of a special alleluia not so much on the basis of the life of Euphrosinov, but on the basis of the word of Maximov to those who dare to say alleluia through church traditions 106, and that if he, referring to the life, does not refer to the word, it is because Maxim the Greek and all the Greeks of that time did not have any authority in the eyes of the Russians of that time. The dependence of the definition of the Stoglavy Cathedral on Maximov’s word is completely clear. The Council in its definition claims that alleluia means in Russian: glory to Thee, O God: but this is exactly what Maxim says in his word. The Council asserts that the three-pronged alleluia is a Latin heresy; but this is exactly what Maxim says in the same word. Until Met. In Russia we had or still had Macarius, as was the case then among the Greeks, in the simultaneous use of triangular and severe alleluia 107 . Metropolitan Macarius, who generally cared about establishing uniformity in our worship and, in relation to the song of alleluia, already stood on the Russian point of view of considering any one way of proclaiming it correct and Orthodox, “in a word” Maximov was mistakenly convinced that at that time the Greeks had a generally uniform use of the extreme alleluia, and that the extreme alleluia, which we had together with the extreme alleluia, is Latin heresy: and he made his definition, intending to bring the Russian Church into harmony with the Greek Church and thinking about the latter that it was like that in ancient times, “in its good times” (for if, as Maxim assured, the three-part alleluia is a Latin custom, then about the Greek church one could only think that the extreme alleluia was always used in it). What to think about the very word of Maxim to those who dare to say alleluia through church traditions? Maxim was an ardent champion of truth, like the ancient prophets, to whom, not without reason, he equated himself. But the sun is not without spots, and our word must be taken as nothing more than a small spot on Maxim’s generally very bright memory. An ardent champion of the truth, this time he was deliberately unfaithful to it. In his speech, he speaks of the special alleluia as if in his time it was in common uniform use among the Greeks; but this is not true: perhaps in his time the three-bit alleluia had not yet become decisively dominant, as it did a century later, but there is no doubt that it was among them at least in the same use as the extreme alleluia 108. He states in the word that “whatever we have: glory to Thee, O God, that is, the Jews have: hallelujah”; but that he knew the real meaning of the word alleluia, we have positive proof of this 109. He asserts in his speech that the tripping of alleluia is a custom of the Roman Church; but that, having lived so much time in Italy, he did not know how the song of alleluia is proclaimed in the Roman church, and that it cannot be said at all about the Roman church that its custom is to triple the song, this is impossible to assume 110. He asserts in the word that the doubleness of the alleluia song in the psalms was learned from the angels of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, and there can be no doubt that he distorts the legends about the teaching of Ignatius the God-Bearer by the angels to antiphonal or two-choir singing of psalms not out of ignorance, but intentionally (or deliberately gives preference to apocryphal legends over reliable legends). But how could it happen that Maxim wrote a word that so darkened his memory? Regarding this, it is necessary, or at least, with all probability, to think the following. In Moscow during Maximovo's time, the special alleluia, if not in general use, was at least in use in the higher, court sphere 111; some very dignitary champion of the special alleluia invited Maxim to serve him with his pen, and he, hoping to achieve through the dignitary what he was looking for in relation to himself (leave to his homeland or, at least, freedom from imprisonment and church excommunication) and had the weakness to agree 112 ... The general provisions of our polemic with the Old Believers regarding the proclamation of the Alleluia song are as follows. Both the triple and the severe alleluia are of equally ancient origin and in both one and the other there is nothing unorthodox (the first in honor of the Holy Trinity, the second in honor of the two natures of Jesus Christ); For a very long time, both methods of proclaiming a song were used by the Greeks together indifferently, but then, when they established uniformity and unity in relation to the method of proclaiming a song, triplicity became such a uniform and unified method among them. We Russians must and ourselves recognized ourselves as obligated to be in agreement with the Greeks regarding worship; Consequently, we also had to introduce, as Nikon did, triplicate in place of what was accepted (on the untenable grounds indicated above) to the uniform use of doubling. In articles that are intended to be devoted to particular issues that constitute the subject of dispute between us and the Old Believers, we do not intend our task to be a detailed study of issues that have already been done before us, but only additions and amendments to existing research. If we repeat the old somewhat, it will be to satisfy the necessary requirement of clarity and coherence of speech. De corona militis, cap. II, § 20. Canonical Rule 91, which is a passage from the book on the Holy Spirit to Bishop. Amphilochia. The newest Greek scientists are in favor of touching the stomach with the hand, and not the chest, see in Pidalion the note to the 91st rule of Basil the Great (St. Maximus the Greek and Subdeacon Damascus in the 16th century and Christopher Angelus in the 17th century also talk about touching the stomach with the hand). All the ancient fathers up to John, Damascus inclusive (I between 750-780), who, speaking about the sign of the cross, directly name the place of the body on which it rests, call this place the forehead, see the collection of speeches of the fathers on the sign of the cross in the work of Jacob Gretser (Gretserus) De sancta cruce (three volumes, Ratisbonae, 1734), Tom. I, lib. IV, and less complete in Switzer in the Dictionary (Thesaurus ecclesiast.) under the next. σταυρός. Some fathers make deliberate speeches about why the sign of the cross is placed specifically on the forehead, for example. in Cyprian of Carthage in the work De unitate ecclesiae (according to another inscription: De simplicitate praelatorum), in Augustine in the passage of the words of the 27th on the words of the apostle in the letter to the Galatians, ch. 6, in John Chrysostom, in a word or treatise against Jews and pagans, that Christ is God, in John of Damascus and an Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, ch. 84 (Chrysostom makes it known that the cross that was supposed to be drawn on the forehead was sometimes drawn on the entire face, i.e. That the cross was depicted on the forehead by actually drawing it on the forehead or by providing the hand along the forehead with a longitudinal and transverse line, and not by marking its ends with dots or not by touching the forehead with the hand in four places, this, firstly, must be assumed by itself: on the one hand, to depict a small cross on the forehead with dots or by touching the forehead four times with the hand, as we now depict a large cross on the upper part of the body, it would be an unnatural and incongruous thing; on the other hand, in this case, as always happens, people, of course, started with a less artificial one and then moved on to a more artificial one, and the less artificial way of depicting the cross is precisely the first. Secondly, fathers and writers use expressions about the image of the cross that make it clear that it was precisely drawn by drawing longitudinal and transverse lines along the forehead; these expressions are: ἐγχαράττω - I draw, draw, ἐπιγράφω - I will inscribe, I will write, αφραγίζω (the most common) - I imprint, imprint, i.e. I depict the cross so that this image of it is as if real and real imprint; tero - work, i.e. I depict a cross through friction, drawing with my hand but on the forehead (Tertullian: frontem crucis signaculo terimus), inscribo, conscribo - inscribe, write, piugo - painting, presso, imprimo - squeeze out, squeeze out. – When, instead of drawing a small cross on the forehead, it became a custom to place a large cross on the forehead - chest - shoulders, we cannot say. But if writers even from the second half of the 12th century use the expression about the image of the cross: “putting the seal of Christ on the forehead” (see. below the words of Theorian), then in these words one should see a simple, so to speak, archaeological inaccuracy, for from the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th century we have clear evidence of the use of a large cross, we mean the denunciation of the Latin way of putting a cross on oneself in the article Περὶ τῶν Φράγγων καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν Λατίνων, - About the Fryazekhs and other Latins (our Metropolitan George, mentioned under 1072 and 1073, has not yet used the article, and our Metropolitan Nikephoros I, who occupied the see from 1103 to 1123, is already using it, efr of my History of the Russian Church vol. I, half 2, p. 712; article in the Greek original with an ancient Slavic translation by A. Popov in the Historical and Literary Review of Polemical Works against the Latins, p. 58). Rev. Theodore the Studite, in the words quoted below, seems to indicate that already in his time, that is, in the last quarter of the 8th - first quarter of the 9th century, the large cross began to come into use; the same thing seems to be known in the acts of the Council of Constantinople in 879–80, which was held in the church of St. All certificates, with the exception of those belonging to Andrei of Crete, are indicated and given by Rev. Macarius in History, - vol. VIII, p. 101. Andrei of Crete speaks about drawing a cross with a finger in a laudatory speech by the Venerable. Patapius, namely, in the story about the miracle of the saint’s healing of one demon-possessed young man: Patapius healed the demon-possessed man by drawing a cross over him in the air with his finger; when the healed man fell at his feet, he drew the sign of the cross with his finger on his forehead - Patrol. Minya t. 97, col. 1228 (For photographs from ancient monuments of sculpture in which the Savior is represented drawing a cross with one index finger, see Martigny in Dictionnaire des antiquites chretiennes, pp. 64, 97 and 497). That the Latins drew a cross with their finger is evident from the fact that, having retained to this day the ancient small cross with the later large one, they still draw it with their finger (the Latins are baptized not with one cross - the later large one, like we Orthodox, but with two crosses - the later large one and together with the ancient small one; this is done in such a way that, having placed a large cross on themselves, they then draw a small cross on themselves; the first cross is placed With all five fingers, gathered into a weak handful, the second cross is drawn with a finger. This double cross is clearly stated in the article “On the Friars and Other Latins,” when it says that the Latins “bless the country with five fingers. (κατασφραγίζονται) and then cross the face with a finger”). Latin bishops and priests, if they do not bless, but draw a cross on someone or something (on infants being baptized or on everyone present in the church during divine services on certain days of the year, on the walls of churches during their consecration, on altars during each divine service), then they still draw it with their finger. Evidence that drawing a cross with a finger was (if not still is) in use among Nestorian and Coptian, see Morini in De sacris ordinationibus, Pars II, ed. Antverp., 1685, pp. 386, 399, 444 and 446. Rev. Macarius wants to understand from Cyril of Jerusalem our current three-fingeredness on the basis that, according to the contemporary testimony of St. Ephraim the Syrian, the sign of the cross was then performed in the name of the Holy Trinity. But we have evidence that when the cross was drawn, the confession of the Trinity was then expressed through the tripling of the sign of the cross itself, by the Most Reverend. Macarius, words of John Moschus, then see Gretzer Tom. I, lib. IV, pp. 376 col. 1 and 391 col. 1 (vitale signum in sacro numero Trinitatis pressit in frontibus, - words in the life of Anthony the Great, belonging to Athanasius the Great) and in Ducange in the Glossarium, Graecitatis under the words. σφραγίζυιν (John Moschus has another testimony about the triple outline of the cross, besides that given by the Most Rev. Macarius - Luke chapter 3). Τυπῶν μί τις καὶ μόνον ἔμπου (read: εἴ που) δακτύλῳ, εὐθὺς τὸν ἐχθραίνοντα δαίμονα στρέφει, – in Patrol. Minya t. 99, col. 1796, paragraph 57. The testimony of Abulfaraj that in 1029 the Patriarch of Constantinople demanded that the Jacobites be baptized not with one finger, but with two fingers, could be understood in such a way that the patriarch demanded that the Jacobites be baptized, as the Orthodox are baptized in the region of their residence in Syria (and there would remain the possibility of the assumption that in Constantinople they were baptized differently). See about these relations in the 5th part of Add. to tvorr. St. Fathers article: “The relationship of the Armenian Church with the Eastern Orthodox Church in the 12th century.” Participated in the debate as one of the representatives of the Syrian Jacobites, related to the Armenians in faith. Here is Feorian’s passage in full: ἐπιτεθέντες τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ σφραγίδα, συνιστῶμεν τὸν πόλεμον καὶ οὕτο τοῦτον καταγωνιζόμεθα, καὶ μετὰ τοῦ Δαβὶδ εὐλογοῦμεν τὸν Κύριον, εὐλογιτὸς Κύριος ό Θεός μου, λέγοντες ἔκαστος, ὁ διδάσκων τὰς χεῖράς μου εἰς παράταξιν καὶ τοὺς δακτύλους μου πόλεμον οὐ τὸν δάκτυλον, ἀλλὰ τοὺς δακτύλους, i.e. when this (previous) was said in this way, one Syrian priest stood up and said to Theorian: why do you depict the sign of the cross with two fingers? Are not the fingers separated (from each other) as if they were special from one another? therefore, in your opinion, the two natures of Christ are also separated (the idea is that if one recognizes two separate natures that have not become one nature, as the Armenians taught, then one must supposedly recognize two persons, and this would be Nestorianism). But Theorian, as if resorting to a joke (getting off with a joke), said: without signifying the two natures of Christ, we do this, but, having been delivered from the torment of the devil, we are taught to create militia (preparation) and warfare against him, for with our hands we do righteousness, alms and other virtues and this is militia (preparation), and with our fingers, relying on Christ's seal on our forehead, we formulate a battle, and thus we defeat him and together with David we bless the Lord, saying each one: Blessed is the Lord my God, teach my hands to fight and my fingers to fight (Ps. 143:1) - not a finger (i.e., not one finger, like you have - the Armenians) but fingers - in Minya in Patrol., t. 133 col. 298 subfin. Peter of Damascus says, “The bottom of the finger and one hand reveal the crucified Lord Jesus Christ, in two natures, and in one body known.” Demetrius, Metropolitan of Kyzia, speaks about the unity of the Jacobites, that they came up with the idea of marking a person with one finger, ὡς τὴν μίαν ἐν Χριστῳ φυσιν πρεσβεύοντες i.e. e. to preach the one nature in Christ, see Switzer in Thesaurus ecclesiast. under the next σταυρός, II, 1010; One unknown writer says about the one-fingered Armenians that they draw a cross on their faces with one finger, σημάνωσι, i.e., in order to at least signify (proclaim) the one nature of the Crucified One, see in the work of I. Troitsky “Exposition of the Faith of the Armenian Church”, St. Petersburg, 1875, p. 193, note. Detailed speeches about the Debate and it itself in A. Popov in the Historical and Literary Review of Old Russian polemical works against the Latins, p. 238 sqq. The debate is not some serious and authoritative work, but an anonymous satire on the Latins and partly on the emperors. Mikhail Palaeologus, who entered into an ecclesiastical union with the latter, belonging to a kind of sage from the people (a satire of a popular print, so to speak, of a character). But this in no way prevents the testimony of the Debate about the making of the sign of the cross from being accepted as completely reliable evidence (for in our case, a frivolous author, just like a serious one, could only talk about what the Greeks actually had, i.e., we want to say, in our case, the seriousness or frivolity of the author does not matter). The Latins are unfairly reproached in the Debate, as if they were making a cross with two fingers. This unfair reproach can be understood in such a way that the author wants to impose on the Latins the sign form, which partly still remained with the Greeks themselves and which was already considered incorrect. – Three fingers are also found in the Western Church, in which it is currently used for blessing, and in ancient times it was also used for the sign of the cross. We cannot say exactly when it appeared in the West; the first mention of him known to us dates back to the first half of the 12th century, see the work of Honorius of Augustodun (Autunsky), who lived in this first half of the 12th century, Gemma auimae, lib. I, cap. LVII, in Patrol. Minya t. 172, col. 560 (after Honorius of Augustodunus, Pope Innocent III, who occupied the throne from 1198 to 1216, speaks about triplicity, in the work De sacro altaris mysterio (De sacrificio missae), lib. II, cap. XLV, in IIatrol. Minya t. 217, col. 825, and Bishop Sicard of Cremona, contemporary to Innocent, in work Mitrale seu de officiis ecclesiasticis summa, lib. III, cap. IV, in Patrol. 213, col. But the eastern three-fingered, different from the western one in its form (about this form of the western three-fingered see. below), is not its reproduction, but appeared independently of it (long after the division of churches) and represents an independent ritual custom of the East (the Latin tripartite in its form is such that it can be mistaken for two fingers; and therefore the reproach of the Latins in the Debate that they cross themselves with two fingers can also be understood in such a way that the Latin tripartite was taken by the Greeks for two fingers). As can be seen from the postscript made in the 12th century to the article “On Friars and other Latins”, to the point denouncing the five-fingered Latins, which reads: “the fingers should be placed in signs in such a way that they signify the two natures in Christ and the three persons (of the Holy Trinity), as Christ showed when, ascending to heaven, he blessed the disciples with raised hands,” - from the Rev. Macarius in Ist., VIII, 110 (Patrol. Minya, t. 140 col. 542 fin.) It may be that the model for triplicate was also the deacon’s holding of the orarion with three fingers, cfr in Conversations to the spoken Old Believer, the continuation of the 9th conversation about folding the fingers for the sign of the cross and for blessing, § 13. When the Orthodox adopted two fingers instead of one finger, the Nestorians followed their example. It may be that the desire to have a special finger build from the Nestorians partly contributed to the adoption of three fingers instead of two fingers. In the above postscript of the 12th century. to the article “About the Friars” the words “as Christ showed when, ascending into heaven, he blessed the disciples,” obviously mean: how (with what fingers) Christ is depicted blessing on the icons. We consider it most likely to think that our “if anyone is not marked”... is really a translation of the Greek: εἴ τις οὐκ σφραγίζεται μετὰ δέο δάκτυλα, ὠς καὶ Χριστός, νὰ ειναι ἀφωριςμένος, as Andrey Denisov pointed out in the Pomor answers. Νὰ εἶναι will not at all be a new language for a Greek of the 12th-13th centuries, moreover, for a Greek with little education, such as a person who utters a curse on those who are not baptized with two fingers will see in himself (and in the rite “If anyone has been in heresy,” the curse was introduced in our country later). In the original it read: “He showed three fingers..., then he coupled two, and extended one” (as it is read in some Prologues, in which the passage was preserved without alteration - Rev. Macarius Ist., VIII, 118), i.e., he showed three fingers, and then bent two, which is the meaning of the word “couple” (Greek. συναγαγών - brought together, in the same sense in which we use the expression: “closed fingers”), and one stretched out. The defenders of the two-fingered movement translated “stretching out” into “bending down” and the word “copulation” received the meaning that two fingers were left outstretched. That the so-called Theodorite word (perhaps actually belonging to some Russian Theodorit, and in all likelihood christened with the name of blessed Theodorit by one of his first copyists on the basis that he took it either from a manuscript containing the works of St. Theodorit (interpretation of the psalter), or from a manuscript in which it was read after extracts from the bl. Theodoret) was originally written in defense of triplicate, this cannot be doubted. “Three fingers are equal to having together..., having two fingers is tilted, not extended..., bending the finger is interpreted”... When three fingers are spoken of without a direct or deliberate indication of which ones, then the first three fingers are taken for granted; the bending of the fingers (“perstu” is a dual number) occurs in the three-finger addition, and does not exist in the two-finger addition. The idea of ​​the word is that by adding the first three fingers, the unity of the three faces of the Holy One is well expressed (meaning, much better than in two fingers). The Trinity and their equality, and the bending of two fingers well expresses the mystery of the descent of Jesus Christ to earth (the editor of the Acts of the Hundred Head Cathedral, finding it incongruous in the application to the two fingers: “bending”, indeed, uses “bending” instead, and means a slight inclination of the two outstretched fingers - Chapter 31 fin.). If Theodorite’s word commands not only to be baptized with two fingers, but also to bless, then this means that its author, like some in Greece, incorrectly thought that the same sign of the cross should be used both for the sign of the cross and for blessing (see the above postscript to the article “On the Friars and Other Latins”). When the word commands “to have two fingers inclined, and not outstretched,” it means the use of such a three-fingered one, in which the last two fingers were not bent down, but extended (as in the first two fingers): an image of such three-fingered fingers, taken from one Greek monument, see Metropolitan. Gregory in “The Truly Ancient and Truly Orthodox Church of Christ,” Part II, 2nd ed. p. 131, the last image (Regarding the assimilation of the article by Blessed Theodoret, it is not impossible to think, the following: initially the article appeared unnamed, but then, when it was transferred to the two-finger, it was adopted by Blessed Theodoret because the latter’s interpretation of the psalter, by the way, says about the cross that it is “composed of two clubs,” and what is meant by the interpreter about the material cross is that it is composed from the two trees (clubs, club) we understood about the cross, which a person places on himself, that it is depicted with two fingers (club was turned into an anti-grammatical club). How the Latins were and are baptized, we indicated above. As for the blessing, it was and is performed with them through the three-finger, but not our Orthodox three-finger, but their own special one: the last two ports are bent to the palm, and the first three are extended, and that is - either all three separately, or the thumb and index finger are squeezed together, and one finger separately (protruding). Since, when a finger is pressed against two fingers, this three-finger turns into two-fingered, sometimes it is mistaken for two-fingered and is called by this last name. On the so-called Korsun Gate of the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral, the blessing hands of the Latin bishops are very clearly depicted with our three-fingered (taken by the Old Believers for their two-fingered!). It began to be compiled in our country, as we indicated above, no later than the first half of the 15th century (and according to some, already in the 14th century, an article on double-fingering began to appear in Russian Helmsmen along with a curse on those who did not observe this ritual, see Il. Belyaeva. Mandatory lists of the cathedral code of 1551 or Stoglav, M. 1863, p. 41). To assume that Met. Daniel and the Council of the Hundred Heads did not know what kind of finger formation was in common use among the Greeks of his day; it would have been completely unreasonable. Likewise, to assume that the metropolitan and the council prescribed two-fingers for general use with some kind of intent, like the intention of preparing a schism, would be extremely strange (the metropolitan and the council prescribe two-fingers for general use because, considering this form of finger formation to be true and correct, they want to establish complete uniformity among us regarding finger formation). Another thing is the completely unfair opinion of the metropolitan and the council about the corruption of the purity of Orthodoxy among the Greeks of their time. If in the two months of the Makariev Menaia, December and June, the Debate of the Panagiota is written without alteration of the reading about fingers: then one must understand this not as if before the Council of the Hundred Heads Macarius himself adhered to triplicate, but as if he ordered the monuments to be written without alterations (let us note here by the way that in the Book of Cyril, Ch. 26, Debate printed preserving the original reading about the fingers). And if the abbreviation of the Debate, published in the month of August, is read with the alteration about the fingers, then one must think that the alteration did not belong to Macarius himself, who was a man incapable of alterations, but had already been made earlier. All the months of the Makariev Mineas of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral were written after the Stoglavy Cathedral, for all the months bear the signature of 1553. The legend is read as forged or altered in the Prologues of the 14th century, - Rev. Makar. East. VIII, 118. Ibid., p. 118, note. 144. For this view of the difference in the sign of the cross, Artemy was condemned as for “blasphemy about the sign of the cross.” The Right Reverend Macarius wants to prove the significant prevalence of triplicate in our country before the Council of the Hundred Heads with the words of the Tsar to the Council: “Christians are not baptized essentially,” - Ist. VIII, 125. But by “not essentially” we should mean not the incorrect folding of the fingers, but the incorrect placement of the sign of the cross on oneself (meaningless waving of the hand across the chest or the position of the fingers on the chest and shoulders in the wrong order in the way they should be, against which the Greek subdeacon Damascene wrote in his famous word and about which Vassian Kosoy expresses himself in one essay, that “the sign of the cross on the face not everyone was fully baptized"). This should be understood by Elder Philotheus and others who wrote about the sign of the cross before the Council of the Hundred Heads. Lists of the life of St. Alexander, written before Patr. Nikon, when the amendment could have been made, several are known (see in the Description of manuscripts of the library of the Trinity St. Sergius Lavra for an extract of our place from the life according to the manuscript of 1633, No. 691, l. 196 and in the Description of Khludov’s manuscripts for an extract from the manuscript of the first half of the 17th century, - 198 l. 232); In general, the integrity of the reading of the passage cited cannot be doubted. As we said before, these efforts, of course, did not at all have the meaning of any bad intention, considering the two-fingered sign to be a true and correct sign; people, with completely understandable, laudable motives, made efforts to finally introduce this sign into general use. – These very strenuous efforts constitute decisive evidence in favor of the fact that before the time of Patr. Joseph's triplicity remained with us and was more or less widespread. It is very remarkable that Petreus and Olearius, speaking about the finger formation used by the Russians of their time (Petreus - the first quarter, Olearius - the second quarter of the 17th century), speak specifically about triplicate and only about it alone, as if it were their only finger formation - the Russian translation of the first in Reading. General East. and Ancient, 1867 book. II, p. 402 beginning, Russian translation of the second ibid., 1868 book. IV, p. 330. See the essay by Mr. Kapterev: “Patriarch Nikon and his opponents in the matter of correcting church rituals,” first issue, page 64 sqq. With considerable probability, the Large Catechism should be accepted as an exception, in which the initial instruction on the addition of three fingers should be learned by the author, and the further explanation, reducing three fingers to two fingers, by the Moscow editors. The word was printed in a separate form, a tiny brochure consisting of two quarter sheets, as a brochure at the expense or on the instructions (“invoice”) of the Bishop of Lutsk and Ostrog Kirill Terletsky, who was transferred from the bishops of Pinsk to the bishops of Lutsk on May 29, 1585. The place of printing, which, like the year, is not indicated, is considered to be Ostrog (Karataev. Chronological list, No. 89). In all likelihood, the word was indicated to Kirill Terletsky and printed for him by the Moscow printer Deacon Ivan Fedorov, who worked for Prince Ostrogsky in Ostrog († December 5, 1585 in Lvov). – Kyiv teaching people preached two fingers based on a Moscow source; but in Moscow under Patr. Joseph, the testimony of the Kyiv teaching books in favor of two fingers was accepted as an independent testimony of the Little Russian Church. – Let us note here by the way that the Ugortsy or Uhertse, in which in 1618 one book was published talking about double-fingeredness (“A collection of brief words from Divine Scripture and with an explanation of the presentation of the Holy Apostle of the Twelve Articles of the Orthodox Faith”), are not in Serbia (on the basis of which erroneous opinion conclude about the spread of double fingers in the latter), and in the same Kievan Rus, in fact - in Galicia (in the Sanok district, not far east of the town of Lizko). And when the famous Serbo-Athos hieromonk Damaskin, convicted in 1648–49. Athonite monks for double-fingering, referred in defense of the latter, in addition to Moscow books, to a Serbian manuscript written 130 years ago: then, as one can very likely think, he referred to a manuscript containing the works of Peter Damascene, the translation of which we owe specifically to the Serbs, see Description. synod RKPP. Gorsk and Nevostr. No. 140, l. 279, p. 187 beginning. There can be no dispute about the true origin of the word Maxim. It is in the collected works of Maxim, which belongs to him. This is the meeting before which the following is read: “Preface, briefly describing the power of this book,” beginning: “This newly-written book is a gift of the all-holy and worshiped Spirit.” That the author of the preface is Maxim himself is clearly evident from the fact that he calls the large book a book, as well as from the entire preface in general. The present collection of Maxim's works contains lists that are contemporary or almost contemporary with him - the foundation of our academic library. No. 42, which belonged to Metropolitan. Joasaph, and Khludovsky No. 73, written in 1583, and in both lists our word is read. The academic, former Joasaph list undoubtedly proves that the reading of the place in the word about fingers was not forwarded after Maxim, but actually belongs to him. In the original about the fingers: “by the union of three fingers: that is to say: the finger and the hedgehog from the middle and small we confess, .... by the extension of the long and middle we confess”... In essence, there is nothing awkward here: Maxim uses the expression “middle” not about the relative position of the fingers, but about their relative size, and by middle in the first case he means small middle, in the second - index, and by long large middle For the Orthodox, who are inclined to think schismatically, let us note here by the way that let them look in the Conversations to the spoken Old Believer at the 9th conversation about folding the fingers for the sign of the cross and for blessing. Let the reader remember what Patriarch Paisius of Constantinople writes regarding this in his answers to Nikon. In particular, about folding the fingers for the sign of the cross, one of the learned companions of the Jerusalem Patriarch Paisius told Arseny Sukhanov: “No one wrote (about that) how to fold the fingers - neither the Gospel, nor the Apostle: that is, it is unauthorized, as anyone wants, but only it is appropriate to repair the cross in a cruciform manner; otherwise there is no good and heresy and blasphemy against God; we put the upper finger (finger) with the two upper ones in the image of the Holy Trinity and with those we are baptized, and you put the great finger with the two lower ones in the image of the Holy Trinity, and with the upper two you are baptized in the same way.” Cfr in Martigny's Dictionnaire des antiquites chretiennes under the words. Benir, b. 85 col. 2 sub fin., indication of evidence of sculptural monuments. Certificate bl. Augustine, who † 430, in his 118th treatise on John. The following many testimonies are in Gretzer, T. I, lib. IV, p. 372 sqq. Testimonies of Sozomen and John Moschus, - from Rev. Macarius in Ist., VIII, 102, approx. 123. Patr. Sophrony, in his interpretation of church services, writes: “The bishop’s blessing of the people after reading the Gospel indicates the future coming (of the Lord) in 6505, since in numerical (counting) use the fingers (as they are folded for blessing) mean six times five thousand” (in Min’s Patrologist, t. 87 col. 400). These words, obviously read in a damaged form, should be corrected according to Patriarch Herman of Constantinople, who reproduces Sophronius, in whom we find: “The blessing by the bishop of the people indicates the future coming of Christ through the numeral use of fingers, meaning (i.e. in which the fingers, as they are folded for blessing, mean) the number six thousand five hundred” (ibid. t. 98, col. 417). About the fact that in order to obtain the number six thousand five hundred in manual counting, you need to fold your finger with the small middle finger, see the article “Evidence of the 8th century on the folding of fingers in a priestly blessing,” placed in the 2nd part of the Orthodox Interlocutor for 1858. The original words of Skylitzes ἕθος εὐλωγειν επιφωνοῦντι τῶ λαῶ τὴν ειρήνην, μιμένηκεν - Patrol. Minya t. 122, col. 372 fin. – In the Slavic Glagolitic missal of the late 10th-11th centuries, which was discovered at Sinai and published in Cyrillic transcription by the Czech scholar Heitler, in the rite of the Epiphany consecration of water, in the prayer “He himself is the most philanthropic to the Tsar,” after the words: “he is filled with angelic strength,” the injunction is read: “and then the priest will baptize the water in. with a cross,” that is, and then he will cross the priest three times with his finger (in the Glagolitic count, which for some reason was left by Mr. Heitler without translation into Kirillov, meaning not 2, but 3), - Euchologium glasolski spomenik manastira Sinai brda, izidao Dr. L. Geitler, p. 9 start This will “cross the finger,” i.e. with one finger, can be understood in three ways: either that in our breviary with a finger instead of fingers stands, so to speak, archaeologically, as a reproduction of a reading in his time that had already been abandoned and does not correspond to contemporary reality, or that the cruciform finger formation in the first time after its appearance was used only by bishops, and priests remained with the old method of depicting the cross with one finger; or that, finally, the measured time and bishops and priests used the cross-shaped finger only to bless people in the proper sense of the first word, and that the marking of the cross on objects by both was still done with one finger, as this was and still is the case among Catholics, see above p. 18 note. 1 (we also find the marking of a cross on water with one finger in later Greek euchologies, see Gohar in the rite of baptism, according to the Paris edition, pp. 357, 360 and 363). Page 260, § 543. Here are the original words: δάκτυλα μειγνύης, ἀλλὰ τὸν μέγα δάκτυλον σὺν τῶ παραμέσῳ μόνον, διότι ὁ μέν ὀρθὸς δάκτυλος, ο λεγόμενος λιχανὸς καὶ τὸ λύγισμα τοῦ μεσου δακτύλου τὸ ΙΣ (Ιησοῦς) ὄνομα σημαίνουσι ἤγουν ὁ ὀρθὸς τὸ Ι καὶ ὁ καμπύλος τὸ Σ, ὁ δέ μέγας δάκτυλος καὶ παράμεσος, ἐνούμενοι ἀλλήλοις χιαστῶ τῶ τρόπῳ, τὸ Χ, στοιχεῖον εἰκονίζουσι, τὸ δέ καμπύλωμα τοῦ μικροῦ δακτύλου τὸ στοιχεῖον Σ ἤτοι τὴν λέξιν Χριστός, i.e. When depicting a blessing hand, do not mix (do not connect) three fingers together (probably, the author means: do not write as the fingers are put together for the sign of the cross), but a finger (write) with one small middle finger, because the straight finger, called the index finger, and the bend of the large middle finger mean the name ІС (Jesus), i.e. the straight letter I, and the bent letter C, and the finger and the small middle one, being connected together in a cross-shaped manner (χιαστῶ τῶ τρόπῳ - like the letter chi) depict the letter X, and the fold of the little finger the letter C, i.e. the word Christ. Description Synod. RKPP. Gorsk and Nevostr. No. 407, l. 195 rev. The Charter is read in the Church Charter of 1610 and in the Joseph Charter, see Rev. Macarius History of the Russian Schism, p. 97 approx. 193 (text given in full). In any case, this is “three fingers, like a priest makes a cross,” read in the Rule of St. Mountains about panagia according to a manuscript of the 15th century, constitutes important evidence against schismatics in favor of three-fingered, cfr in Conversations to the spoken Old Believer Continuation of the 9th conversation, about folding the fingers for the sign of the cross and blessing, § 14. Patr. Paisiy, in his answer to Nikon’s question about folding fingers for blessing, says that the fingers should be folded in such a way that they form the four letters I and C, X and C, and adds: “and with the fingers whoever draws these four letters, there is nothing different” (answer 25). Assuming that this was the case or that this was valid in ancient times in relation to the cruciform folding, i.e. that in it, too, a finger with a small middle finger was not considered obligatory for depicting the cross, we will have on our old icons numerous examples of the cruciform finger folding. Examples of this type of formation are not uncommon in old icons, According to the assurance of the Conversations to the verb Old Believer, on the shroud donated to the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery by the modern Metropolitan. Photius led. book Vasily Dmitrievich with the image of St. Sergius himself on it, the latter’s blessing hand is depicted with a clear and precise nomenclature of the finger (ibid., § 7). 369) and others (Cicero, in his special work De oratore, without speaking in detail, gives a general instruction on the alignment of the fingers of the hand, and he means various finger formations, with the content of speech - lib. III, cap. 59). The stretching out of the hand and the shaking of the hand, which are spoken of in the book of the Acts of the Apostles (XII, 17, XIII, 16, XIX, 33, XXI, 40, XXVI, 1), as signs of an invitation to silence, are precisely the same oratorical raising of the hand and shaking of the hand that we are talking about (which is translated in Russian: “having given a sign with his hand, he gave a sign with his hand,” in Greek κατασείσας, κατέσεισεν τῆ χειρί, τὴν χεῖρα). And in later times, it was the custom of Christian speakers to extend their hand before starting speeches, see, for example, the testimony of the grammarian Corippus about the emperor. Justina, - in Gretzer T. 1, p. 368 beginning – For considerations regarding the various finger formations that we find on ancient monuments of Christian iconography, we consider it not inappropriate to list those types of finger formations that are known to us as usually oratorical gestures. Quintilian lists the following types of gestures as such: 1. The small middle finger was bent under the finger, the other three fingers were extended about this finger formation. Quintilian says that it is the most common, appropriate at the beginning of a speech, and with the further pronunciation of the latter - in narratives, censures and accusations; 2. the two middle fingers were bent under the finger, and the index and little fingers were extended; Quintilian says about this gesture that it is a more urgent gesture than the previous one, which is not used at the beginning of speeches and in narrations; 3. the last three fingers were bent to the palm, the finger was pressed against them, and the index finger was extended; but to Quintilian, this is a gesture for censure and for direction; 4. the first four fingers were slightly connected at their ends (did the little finger extend?); 5. the small middle finger and little finger were bent to the palm, the big middle and index fingers were extended, the finger was pressed against the last two; 6. four fingers tilted slightly, the finger bent inward; 7. the small middle finger bent (the rest were stretched out?); 8. the index finger rested on the side of the fingernail, the remaining fingers were extended separately or compressed; 9. All fingers were bent, and the finger was bent to the side. Apuleius speaks of the finger formation used by orators, in which the last two fingers were bent, and the first two fingers and the finger were extended, with the finger protruding (moved back or to the side). D. Danielis de Nessel Breviarium et Supplementum Commentariorum Lambecianorum sive Cataloguc et caet., Vindob. 1690, t. I, pars III first. Kortyum in the notes to his German translation of Paul the Silentiary indicates several such examples (note 55; the translation is attached to the famous edition of Saldenberg Alt-christliche Baudenkmale von Constantinopel), see also Tables to the History of Ancient Art of Rangavi (Πίνακες διὰ τὴν Ἱστορίαν τῆς αρχαῖας καλλιτεκνίας), - table. 8 No. 3, table. 9 No. 4, table. 11 No. 5 and table. 12 No. 2. In the famous group of Laocoon, one of Laocoon’s sons is depicted with his hand raised and folded as a sign that he is speaking, complaining of pain, to his father. Original words: The Savior is depicted in such a way that - Patrol. Minya, t. 86, pars posterior, col. 2149, vers. 778. T. I, pars I, pp. 55–102. Esau and Jacob are depicted, the first of whom sells his primacy to the second; Esau with his folded hand outstretched, - at Neesel r. 69: It is clear that Esau does not bless Jacob or pray for him, but speaks to him. Joseph is depicted telling his brothers a dream he had seen; Joseph with his outstretched hand folded at Nessus. r. 82: it is clear that he does not bless the brothers and does not pray for them, but speaks to them. Joseph is depicted in prison with a baker and cupbearer, and in front of the prison is the guard with his wife; the guard and his wife are facing each other with folded hands outstretched - r. 87 I it is that they are talking. Joseph's brothers are depicted standing in front of him after money was found in their bags; Joseph with a folded hand outstretched - R. 88: it is clear what he is saying to the brothers. See also pp. 60, 65, 71, 73, 76, 83 (especially the figure farthest to the viewer's right), 89 and 90. See the miniature depicting the fall of Lot and his daughters - p. 64. – None of the outstretched hands with folded fingers in the miniatures could be taken as prayer hands, and some could only be taken as blessing hands; but the blessing is depicted in miniatures by the person who blesses placing his hand on the head of the person being blessed - pp. 77, 78 and 99. Our miniatures clearly show that the folded hand from the cloud, in its original meaning, is not a blessing hand, but a hand serving as a sign of what God says (The fall of Adam and Eve is depicted and a hand from the cloud is above them - p. 55; it is clear that God does not bless Adam and Eve for the fall, but convicts them of it. The expulsion of Adam and Eve is depicted Eve from paradise and a hand from the cloud above them - p. 56: it is clear that God does not bless Adam and Eve, but commands them to leave paradise). – The prophets, who are still depicted on icons with outstretched hands, do not actually bless or pray, but prophesy, i.e. their hands are a sign that they are depicted as prophesying. Here are some examples. The bas-relief on one sarcophagus depicts the Savior's healing of two blind men; the Savior, the blind and two apostles are represented; the hand of the Savior on the head of one of the blind; one of the apostles with a folded hand outstretched, facing the Savior: it is clear that the apostle is speaking to the Savior, and not blessing Him. The bas-relief on another sarcophagus depicts the Savior's healing of a bleeding woman; the Savior, the bleeding woman and one of the apostles are represented; The Savior and the Apostle, facing each other, have folded hands outstretched: it is clear that they are talking. One fresco depicts the Savior’s denunciation of the Apostle Peter who denied Him; The Savior with a folded hand outstretched to Peter: it is clear that He does not bless Peter, but speaks to him, that is, he holds an accusatory speech towards him, see Martigny in the Dictionary pp. 64 (second image), 288 and 577. (Emperor Justinian placed the St. Sophia, her statue with her right hand extended to the east; but according to Svida’s explanation, this stretch of hand meant that the emperor was depicted speaking to the eastern peoples - in the Dictionary under the words. Ἰουστινιανός). Under October 9, in memory of Diakonios Poplia, it is depicted: imp. Julian sits on the throne, in front of him is Ioplia with a folded hand outstretched to him; it is clear that Poplia does not bless Julian, but makes an accusatory speech towards him (as it is said in the text of the legend about her). On October 8, to the memory of St. Pelagia, the image of Bishop Nonnus sitting on the pulpit with his hand outstretched: the text of the legend makes it clear that the bishop is presented as engaged in the teaching of the people. Under October 12, an image of the 7th Ecumenical Council; one of the bishops (far left) with a folded hand outstretched: it is clear that the bishop does not bless other bishops, but speaks. On December 29 - the massacre of the Bethlehem infants; Herod sits on the throne with his hand outstretched; in front of him, soldiers beat infants - of course, it is clear that Herod tells the soldiers, i.e., orders them to beat infants (cfr also depicted in Martigny in the Dictionary, p. 299, and in Labarthe in Histoire des arts industriels au moyen age, planche V). See also under September 9 and 23, November 25 and December 3 (in memory of Martyr Ananias). That the folded hands in the Monology are not blessing hands, but serve as a conventional sign of the faces of the speakers, this is absolutely clear from the following two circumstances: 1) the drawings of the Menology, like its text, represent one whole, produced at one time and by several few persons under one person’s supervision; Meanwhile, the finger formation in it is not the same on all hands, but different (this, of course, would not be the blessing finger formation: the painters who made drawings depicting the blessed finger formation, which was used in their time, would have depicted it in one or the same way); 2) there are drawings in which several faces are presented with folded hands and all faces have different folded hands or each face has its own special one (for example, part II, pp. 17 and 35). As for this variety of finger formations, as a conventional sign of the faces of speakers: it was partly borrowed by Christian painters from pre-Christian painters, who, in turn, were taken from living reality, representing a reproduction of the various finger formations used by speakers; partly it could have been borrowed by them (Christian painters) from their singing regents (domestic), who, when managing the choirs, let the singers know about the variety of singing through the different formation of the outstretched hand, see Ducange in Glossar. Graecit. under the next χειρονομεῖν. In Menology imp. Basil, two finger formations predominate: double-finger and cruciform (however, it is clearly cruciform only in some cases, in other cases it can be mistaken for a cruciform or for that oratorical finger formation, which is number 1 in Quintilian). In addition to the two-finger, which we have just talked about, there is a two-finger that is completely identical with our later or the current Old Believer two-finger, i.e. in which the finger rests its cannon against the cannons of the small middle finger and little finger (in the Menology of Emperor Basil several times; then see, for example, photographs from the miniatures of one Greek manuscript dating back to the 6th-9th centuries in the Collection Society of Ancient Russian Art at the Moscow Public Museum for 1868, department I, to p. 86, no. 6). This double finger should not be taken as an ancient prayer double finger, used as a symbol of the faces of speakers, for the latter, as we indicated above, should be represented differently, but as an independent symbol or as one of the independent types of finger formation, serving as a symbol of the faces of speakers. Since we do not find this double-fingered design on pre-Christian iconographic monuments, we can think that it was taken by painters at a relatively later time from those singing domestics that we mentioned above. As for its identity with our later and with the current Old Believer two-fingered fingers, then perhaps the latter is a simple accident, or maybe the ancient prayer two-fingered hand was transferred from us to the later precisely according to its model (the symbolic icon double-finger). In ancient and ancient times, the word was written differently in our country: alleluia, allilugia, alle(e)luia, alle(e)lugia, and abbreviated (but without the title) allugia (very often) and alley. In Greek polemical works against the Latins one reads, by the way, the accusation against the Latins that during Lent they do not bow to the cross and do not look at it, but hide it in some dark place, entwining it with a shroud, and with it (they hide it, at the same time they stop singing) the alleluia - that on Great Saturday, opening the cross, as if rising from the tomb, they show it from the altar to the people and suddenly great with a voice they proclaim: Alleluia, they have been crying out for a long time, as we did in the great week of Easter: Christ is risen, see in the Historical and Literary Review of Old Russian Polemical Works against the Latins by A. N. Popov, p. 67 and others according to the Index below. Hallelujah. This accusation refers to the customs that actually exist among the Latins, only the matter, intentionally or unintentionally, is somewhat misrepresented: the Latins hang the cross (together with icons) in the fifth week of Lent, but uncover it and, erecting it, worship it (denudatio et adoratio S. Crucis) on Good Friday; stop singing alleluia on the Saturday of the Prodigal (sabbato septimgesimae), resume singing on Holy Saturday (however, in ancient times, perhaps, it was exactly as it appears in polemical writings; about the funeral of the alleluia, sepultura alleluiae, performed on the Saturday of the Prodigal in some places in the West with a special church rite or rite, see Ducange in Glossarium?е Latiuitatis under the words Alleluia). - In ancient times, according to the testimony of Sozomen, the alleluia was sung in Rome once a year, on the first day of Easter - Church. East. book VII, ch. 19. Probably due to the fact that in the East, expanding the meaning of the word alleluia, they gave it the meaning: God is coming (the Lord is coming); Praise Him (Simeon of Thessalonica). We understand the evidence: Andrew, Archbishop of Caesarea, who lived, as they say, at the end of the 5th - beginning of the 6th century, in the 56th chapter of his interpretation of the apocalypse, dedicated to the initial six verses of the 19th chapter of the latter; Herman, Patriarch of Constantinople, who lived in the first half of the 8th century, in his interpretation of the divine service (however, not undoubtedly belonging to him), and Theophan inscribed, who lived in the first half of the 9th century, in the stichera of his service to St. George the Victorious (for this last evidence, see the letter of an unknown Pskovite to the defender of the double hallelujah song, monk Athanasius, - in Orthodox. Conversation 1866, book 145 and 165, cfr Synod of Gorsk and Nevostr. To the three clear ancient testimonies about the triplicity of the alleluia song, a fourth, not entirely clear, testimony of Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, who lived in the first half of the 7th century, should be added. In his explanation of church services, he says that at the liturgy after the apostle the omophorion is removed from the bishop during the singing of the last alleluia (εἰς τὸ ἔσχατον ἀλληλούια), and with this expression of the “last” he makes it clear that the alleluia was sung three times, and not twice (for otherwise he would have said: when singing the second alleluia). About the Patr. Statute Alexei, see our History of the Russian Church I, 2, pp. 322 and 503. For an indication and extracts of the places of the charter in which it is prescribed to proclaim the “bilabial” alleluia, see the works of the late I. D. Mansvetov: “On the song sequence”, placed in the Addendums to the works of Sts. Fathers 1880 (part 26), p. 1017, “Metropolitan Cyprian in his liturgical activity,” p. 93 and appendix. p. XIX fiu., “Church Charter - its formation and fate in the Greek and Russian Church”, p. 165 (our charter, according to the oldest manuscript that has survived to this day, from the end of the 12th - beginning of the 13th century, was known to Andrei Denisov, who refers to it in the Pomeranian answers - rep. 16). According to the Pochaev edition, pp. 2 and 3. “At the Midnight Office it is fitting to be undefiled from the beginning and to each glory 3 alleluias, according to the three glories Have mercy on me, O God, alleluia threes”... At Matins at the end of the canon “Rise again, also blameless with alleluia, tone 5, at the end Blessed art thou, O Lord, teach by your justification, and the troparia of the immaculate resurrect with the voice, also alleluia 2 times, Glory to Thee, God, 3 times.... That the expression: “Alleluia 2 times, Glory to Thee, God, 3 times” should be understood in such a way that double or double alleluia should be pronounced three times or triplicate with “Glory to Thee God”, this is quite clear and in itself himself, but in any case this is indisputably explained by Metropolitan. Cyprian, who writes: “Alleluia, alleluia (twice), Glory to Thee, O God, three times.” From the conversation between Nikon the Montenegrin and Cyprian, it follows that his expression in this place: “Alleluia trishchi” can be understood as a double alleluia, tripled with “Glory to Thee, God.” And that in general the prescription of liturgical books: “Alleluia three times” should not always and certainly be understood about our triple alleluia, but that the same way of expression is used about the double alleluia, tripled with Glory to Thee, God, this is clearly seen from the same Metropolitan. Cyprian, as well as from the Sryatin breviary of Gideon Boloban, about whom we will now read below. At present, the manuscript of the Moscow Theological Academy is the foundation. No. 142. Here are all the passages of the Psalter about Alleluia: l. 140 vol.: “Glory and now, alleluia, alleluia, glory to You, O God, three times”..., “glory and now, alleluia three times”; l. 155: “Alleluia, alleluia, glory to Thee, O God, three times”; on the back l. 155 and on l. 156 the same as on l. 155; l. 165: “Alleluia 3 times”; on ll. 167, 173 vol., 175 vol. and 179 the same as on l. 165; l. 393 vol.: “Alleluia three times, glory to Thee, O God.” It is clear that when Cyprian simply says: “Alleluia three times,” then what is meant is a double or double alleluia, pronounced three times with Glory to Thee, God. Λέγουσιν ἀλληλούια διπλοῦν, – in Patrol. Minya t. 155 col. 652, cfr Mansvetova: “On the succession of songs” p. 1017 (Simeon of Thessaloniki, who speaks many times about the song of alleluia, unfortunately, only once says directly how many times it should be proclaimed). See Rev. Macarius in Ist., VIII, 130, approx. 161, Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy, January 1863 book, pp. 40 and 42, and A. Popova Description of Khludov’s manuscripts, 138, p. 294. “Alleluia (the Greeks say) 3 times three times, while others say 2 times 3 times,” Synodal. RKP. Proscinitary No. 574, pp. 256 and 280 (on the first sheet, Arseny’s words were crossed out by someone later, but in such a way that they can be made out). If the Venetian euchologies do not differ in their attitude to the song of alleluia from other Greek euchologies: then in them to this day (we have at hand the euchologies of 1869) in the rite of priestly burial there is not a single alleluia, as it is with us and as it is in them in the rites of lay and monastic burial, but twice or more (Κύριος πριμαίνει με... The Lord shepherds me... Ἀλληλούια, Ἀλληλούια, etc.). This is the story of the many (several) multiple proclamations of the hallelujah song. But besides the many (several) multiple proclamation of the song in ancient times there was, as it is now, a single proclamation. Regarding this latter, we can note that in ancient times it was used in a greater number of cases than now, cfr Mansvetov’s works indicated on page 200 in the places indicated there and also “On song succession” page 784, also by Rev. Makaria East. II, 2nd ed. p. 254. We consider it necessary to add that the Greeks, until later times, retained the original custom of proclaiming the song of alleluia indefinitely or arbitrarily many times as such an exception and, as it were, an abuse that they allowed themselves to do this sometimes - regarding ancient times, see Rev. Makaria East. II, 254, in relation to later times - an essay against the schism, assimilated by Iveron Archimandrite Dionysius, published by Kapterev in the Orthodox Church. Review 1888 No. 12, appendix. pp. 48 and 49, and the Proscinitary of Arseny Sukhanov, - synod. RKP. No. 574, l. 326 rev. – In one of the manuscripts of the Florentine Laurentian Library there is a fragment of the work of an unknown περὶ τοῦ ἀλληλούια, but in Bandini’s description of the library manuscripts (Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Mediceae Laurentianae), T. I, p. 89, it is not clear what exactly the passage says. – We do not provide here evidence in favor of the fact that, along with the two-lipped alleluia, the Greeks and us before the Council of the Hundred Heads, and partly after this council, also used the three-lipped alleluia, because this does not relate to our goal. But without deliberately citing this evidence, we will point out some of them that may remain unknown to specialist polemicists. To the ancient Greek testimonies mentioned above should be added the testimony of the monk Philip, who in his work Dioptra, called the Mirror in our country, written in 1095, says that our song is proclaimed by the angels: “Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia” (the testimony of the Mirror is referred to by an unknown Pskovite in a letter to the monk Athanasius - Orthodox. Conversation p. 165; about the Mirror itself, see Description of the Synod. In three manuscripts of the 16th century: “Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia, Glory to Thee, O God,” see Description. synod RKPP. Gorsk and Nevostr. , No. 330, pp. 18 and 213, and the Rev. Macarius in Ist., VIII, 140 approx. In the manuscript of the former Khludov of the first half of the 17th century: allyl., allyl., allyl., Slava T., B., - Popova Description. p. 290, No. 130. Along with the evidence of manuscripts - evidence of the message of Dmitry Gerasimov to Archbishop Gennady, the life of Euphrosinov and the Council of the Hundred Heads (and in printed books, including those of Joseph, there is a clear order to transcribe the alleluia by means of the directly written: alleluia, alleluia, alleluia, see Rev. Macarius History of the Schism, p. 100 sqq). About Cyprian’s sending of the missal to Pskov, see his message to the Pskov clergy in Act. Ist., I, no. 8, and in Pavlov’s Monuments no. 30. In some of the very few copies of Photius’s message to Pskov that have reached us with a response to the proclamation of the song of alleluia, the metropolitan’s order to triple the song was later altered to an order to double it (which is why Andrei Denisov, who had the altered lists at hand, refers in the Pomeranian replies to Photius as allegedly commanding to say alleluia twice). But that Photius commands to triple, and not double, the song, this is revealed with absolutely undoubted clarity from the letters of an unknown Pskovite to the defender of the double song, monk Athanasius, - Orthodox. Interview 1866, II, 162. See the January book of B-go V-ka, page 52. We consider Hieromonk Athanasius, following others, to be a Tverite on the grounds that in 1436 he donated one manuscript, purchased on Mount Athos, to one of the Tver monasteries - Stroeva Bibliologist. Dictionary, p. 27 (the monastery, called Peremera, was located near Tver, see about it and its area in V. Borzakovsky in the History of the Tver Principality, p. 40 sub fiu., 210 and note 173). But it is quite possible that he was not from Tver, but from Pskov, and had a relationship with the Tver monastery not as with the monastery of his homeland, but in some other way. In the inscription of one letter from an unknown Pskovite to Athanasius, the monastery is called the Great Lavra of St. Nicholas; this seems to indicate that the monastery was quite prominent. But, despite all the searches, we could not find any indications about him. The messages were published in the Orthodox Interlocutor of 1867, book. II, pp. 140–165. Unfortunately, they came to us in very faulty lists. archim. Savva Index for viewing the Synodal Library, Greek manuscripts, words. Triodion). Now below we prove that the life of St. Euphrosynus of Pskov is a falsification in which data from the life of Athanasius is transferred to Euphrosynus. We consider it absolutely probable that the appeal to the archbishop of this latter, assimilated by the author of the life of Euphrosinov, constitutes a real fact in relation to Athanasius. Only the epistles of Euphrosyne, in reality Athanasius, to Euthymius and Euthymius to Euphrosynus, in reality to Athanasius, read in the life, should be looked at as lives rewritten by the author. What should be taken as the real answer of Euthymius to Athanasius is that, according to Dmitry Gerasimov in his message about alleluia, great people went to Archbishop Gennady when there was previously a dispute about the song (“both were judged together”). By the previous dispute we should mean precisely the dispute between the Pskovites and Afanasy, because there is no other dispute before Dimitri Gerasimov and Archbishop Gennady (And Gerasimov’s expression: “I remember” should be understood not in the sense that he was an eyewitness to the dispute, but in the fact that he knows, heard, about it). In one Tsarsky manuscript, No. 366, fol. 323, Description p. 369, the message to Jonah of some Athanasius is read about calling a Christian an infidel or a heretic. We accept that this is the message to Jonah of our Athanasius. See Jonah's message to the Pskovites in Act. East. 1, no. 60, p. 108 col. 1, and in Memory. Pavlova, no. 90, col. 677. The decree is read in manuscripts following the messages of the unknown Pskovite to Afanasy; published in Orthodox. Interview ibidem, p. 165. In some manuscripts it is inscribed: “The Word of the Council of Laodicea,” with which inscription, based on the apocalypse ch. 3, art. 14–19, perhaps they wanted to give it a special menace, cfr of the Laodicean Council a word to the half-believers in the Description of the collections of the Bychkov Public Library, 1, 194 (the well-known alphabet-grammatical Laodicean Epistle, translated by clerk Fyodor Kuritsyn, seems to contain the same idea in its title). The charter read in manuscripts in a separate form is called “the charter of singing Mephimon” - Klyuchevsk. Lives of the Saints, p. 256 notes, Rev. Makaria East. VIII, 131, Description. synod RKPP. Gorsk and Nevostr. No. 330 l. 213, p. 741, and in one manuscript of the Volokolamsk Monastery, No. 577 l. 212 rev. fin., it is given under the name of the extract from Theodoret on the three-lipped alleluia (while the interpretation of the Council of Laodicea is called the extract on the alleluia from Andrew of Caesarea - l. 213 fiu.). If the message of Dmitry Gerasimov to Archbishop Gennady about the three-lipped alleluia really forms part of his message to the archbishop about the seventh thousand or about the seven thousand (Reverend Macarius Ist. VII, 247), then the latter was written in 1491 (both messages were published in the Orthodox Sobesedn. 1861, book 1). Gennady asked Gerasimov about the triple alleluia, of course in relation to the disputes about it that were taking place in his flock. Disputes took place, as we learn from the first life of St. Euphrosynus of Pskov (quote now below), in Pskov and, therefore, they began here no later than 1490 (we note here by the way that the opinion accepted by some that Gerasimov sent Gennady a message from Rome is not based on anything, and at the same time, to assume that Gennady himself sent him to Rome is completely strange: as we know from Paul Jovius, until 1525 Gerasimov did not visit Rome. From one note in the message itself, about Yury, who translated something for Gennady: Rev. Macarius Ist VII, 248, it is clear that it was written from Moscow. By “and here” Gerasimov means Moscow, and by “I remember that we had an argument about this,” he must mean Novgorod or Pskov, for which he should most likely be considered a native of one or the other of them. By dispute, as we said, we should mean the dispute between Athanasius and the Pskovites, and by what the great people judged, we should mean the answer to Athanasius from Archbishop Euthymius). 31 beginnings, - Vasily has this according to the printed in Monuments of Kushelev-Bezborodko, IV, 88 beginnings, and the book of Judith was translated by Gennady from Latin for his complete Bible; but the author could have read it earlier than 1499, from which the oldest copy of the Bible has come down to us, for the translation of all the books of the Bible taken from Latin was made no later than 1493, see Description. synod. RKKPP. Gorsk and Nevostr., No. 1–3, p. 128). The author of the life seemed to be not a monk, see Vasily on the printed page 103, col. 2: “a skilled monk wants to be in it,” and if a monk (but not yet a skilled monk), then not Euphrosyne’s monastery, for nowhere does he call this our monastery a monastery, but always this or that – Euphrosyne’s monastery, and did not know the image of Euphrosyne that was in the monastery, so when he saw Euphrosyne in a vision, he went (to the monastery) to look at his image. That the abbot of the Euphrosyne Monastery Pamphilus, a student of St. Euphrosyne (known for his accusatory letter against the Pskovites to the Pskov authorities in 1505, - Addendum to Act. Ist. I, No. 22), had anything to do with the fabrication of the life, i.e., took part in it, this seems doubtful. According to his life, Euphrosynus went to Constantinople while still a young man: see l. 34 sqq of the speeches of Euphrosynus sent by Job, from where he learned to double the song of alleluia, in which this is not said directly, but is clearly made known, etc. 88 vol., where the author of the life directly says that Euphrosynus went to Constantinople, in response to a question to the patriarch about alleluia “in his youth.” And Vasily in this case, allowing for an obvious chronological inconsistency, remakes the author of the life (the journey to Constantinople of a young man, a Pskov villager, in response to a question to the patriarch, regardless of everything, is not particularly probable: but the author of the life precisely then sends Euphrosynus to Constantinople as a young man, otherwise this trip would not have taken place in the most beautiful flower of piety in Constantinople and long before its capture by the Turks, how the case should have been presented to the author). The author of the life does not say in what year Euphrosynus died, but regarding his age he says that in “the depths of old age” - l. 71. Basil, on the basis of the information he himself received in the monastery of Euphrosyne, which he does not present as reliable (“as if the monasteries would tell him about him”) and which in fact are not distinguished by reliability (Euphrosynus, according to him, handed over the abbot to Ignatius before his death, while in fact the abbot was Harlampy) says that Euphrosynus died in 1481, being 95 years old. It is reliably known that Euphrosynus was alive in 1472 and that he died no earlier than the reign of Novgorod Archbishop Theophilus, who occupied the see from 1471 to 1480, see the entry on the manuscript written in the Euphrosynus monastery and which is among the manuscripts acquired by the Rumyantsev Museum from Piskarev, but Viktor’s catalog no. 59, and the spiritual testament of Euphrosynus in Act. Expedition I, No. 108. Accepting that Euphrosynus died in 1480, at the age of 90, we find that the time of his 20-year youth began for him in 1410, and Photius occupied the metropolitan see from 1409 to 1431. Orthodox Interview pp. 141, 142, 164. Orthodox Interview page 141 beginning This Job, that is, the actual Job of the letters of the unknown Pskovite, is, without a doubt, the priest Job who in 1422 or 1425 came to Metropolitan. Photius as ambassador from the Pskov clergy, - Memorable. Pavel. col 427. Regarding his nickname as a pillar, compare. Archbishop Gennady's review of Met. Spyridon to Satan: “This man in this generation has been a pillar of the church, even from his youth the holy scriptures.” When the author of the life says that Job died after Euphrosynus, that is, gives him too much longevity, then it is very possible that he is telling a lie. In the chapter: “On giving (alms) from the monastery”: “We heard from the witness that in the Holy Mountain and in other great monasteries the fathers accepted the rule from the ancient saints”... (Athanasius was a contemporary of Euphrosynus, and it is quite possible that he was the witness from whom the latter had information about Athos). And if in the same charter Euphrosynus says that “12 koshnitsa (remaining from the feeding of five thousand people by Christ) and to this day by the grace of Christ are preserved in Constantinople as a testimony to the last generation of this” (in the main: “About needs”), then this does not at all constitute evidence that Euphrosynus was in Constantinople: all pilgrims talk about our koshnitsa Constantinople (pilgrims who could be read by Euphrosynus: Archbishop Anthony, Stefan of Novgorod, Hierodeacon Zosima) and this is read in the Prologue and Menaion under May 11, in the legend about the “renewal” of Constantinople, i.e. about its founding by Constantine the Great. Orthodox Conversation, pp. 140–141. Eg. Athanasius, according to an unknown Pskovite, “and also said (among other things) that the law went out from Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” – Orthodox. Interview page 141 fin. In the message, assimilated by Euphrosynus: “again the mother of the churches is Zion..., according to the prophetic word of Micah: from Zion will come the law and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem,” l. 114 rev. From the message it is clear that it was not Athanasius who began to denounce the Pskovites for their use of triplicities in the Alleluia song, but the Pskovites rebelled against him for introducing doubles in their monastery. He begins the message. “I hear from many that it weighs me down a lot, more than all of you the bloody pillar (sic) Ievko, especially the holy and apostolic church about allugia, that they say twice, and not three times, just as the others themselves say.”... l. 112. From the life, the name of Euthymius was unsuccessfully transferred by a later hand to the inscription of the Charter of Euphrosinov, which states that it was written with the blessing of Metropolitan Theodosius (1461–1464) and Archbishop Euthymius († 1458). The charter was written with the blessing of Metropolitan. Theodosius and Archbishop Jonah (1458–1470), obviously, simultaneously with the installation of the first abbot of the monastery. – We do not know whether the author of the life found in the documents he had on hand about the dispute between Athanasius and the Pskovians an exact indication of the time when Athanasius was in Greece; in any case, he could know this from the notes on the books that Athanasius took with him from Greece; So, in the entry on one book it reads: “in the summer of 6938 (1430) the book was bitten by the holy monk Athanasius of Ruthen in the holy Mount Athos,... in the kingdom of the Greek king of Cyrus Kalouan Palaeologus and under the holy Patriarch of Constantinople Cyrus Joseph (s),” - Stroeva Bibliologist. Words page 27. In the preface to the story about the appearance of the Mother of God, the descriptor says (not entirely clearly) that at first he actually wrote the life of Euphrosynus and that only then he gave his legend the form that it has at the present time (actually the legend about the debate between Euphrosynus and the Pskovites about the special alleluia). But this, in all likelihood, is only a literary device aimed at answering the question: why on earth did the Mother of God appear to him, the describer? And when in another place, in the story about the monk Konon, in Vasily’s printed book. pp. 75–76, the author says: “I wrote this miracle in the life of the saint and put it in a row of miracles, (but) because I didn’t correct it there,... and for this reason, I fulfilled it here even more”... l. 65 vol., whereas in the current legend there are no higher speeches about Konon: we think that this again is only the same literary device, aimed at strengthening the reader’s faith that the author has really remade the life. In this case, the fake link was unsuccessful because there was nowhere to write it. See in the letters of an unknown Pskovite to Afanasy, - Orthodox. Interview pp. 145 fin., 146 and 147 beginning. “All the languages ​​of Latin, including heretics, say this thing (Alleluia) twice, three times, but they do not know the secrets of it that are sought”... in Vasily in print, p. 104 fin. It was the Latins who doubled the alleluia (see now below). Glorified by the description of the life and thanks to him excluded from the calendar, Rev. Euphrosynus usually seems to be an ignorant person. But we do not have the slightest real reason to imagine him as an ignorant person. Meanwhile, the strictly cenobitic rules he wrote for his monastery make it possible to see in him one of our not very numerous adherents of true monasticism and a person in the history of our monasticism that is far from ordinary. In the preface to the charter, Euphrosynus says that he left the Snetogorsk monastery, where he took monastic vows, to found his own monastery, seeing his unworthiness. The real reason should be considered the displeasure of Euphrosynus at the weakening of the strict community life in the Snetogorsk monastery, as it was established there according to the charter of the Suzdal Archbishop Dionysius. Euphrosynus makes significant use of this charter in his charter. As the Stoglavy Council testifies in its definition of alleluia, which reports that in his time many, and the word “many” should be understood in the sense of the majority, in Pskov and the Pskov land said a threefold alleluia. Let us understand: its adaptation, carried out by the priest Vasily, at the request of the monks of the Euphrosynov Monastery, in 1547 (How the monks of the Euphrosynov Monastery in 1547 treated the special alleluia remains unknown. It may be more likely that after he wrote the life of Euphrosynov by an anonymous descriptor, they accepted it instead of the three-part alleluia; but it is not impossible that with the majority of Pskovites continued to adhere to the three-pronged alleluia, and in relation to life they awaited the judgment of the highest church authority). There is no doubt about the authenticity of the word to Maxim, just as there is no doubt about the Reverend. Macarius, - East. VIII, 139. In addition to several almost modern manuscripts he points out, the word is also read in a completely modern manuscript that belonged to Metropolitan. Joasaph and which is a collection of Maxim’s works, compiled by himself, is the foundation of the library of the Moscow Theological Academy. No. 42. As Macarius himself clearly testifies to this in his conciliar definition. During the time of Maximus, pure alleluia, as we have reason to think (see above), dominated on Athos. What reigned on Mount Athos, Maxim passes off as dominant throughout the entire Greek Church. In the article: “interpretation of names,” Maxim speaks about the word alleluia: “alleluia is praise to God,” Troitsk. Lavrsk RKP. No. 201, l. 482. The word “to those who dare to say three words alleluia” is read in the collected works of Maxim, which he himself made; and this collection was made by him in 1532 (“in the summer of 1940, the thousand and fourtieth year has come”). You might be interested in: