Глава ЧЕТВЁРТАЯ. Просвещение.

I. Vladimir’s failed attempt to introduce enlightenment among us and our real enlightenment is literacy. We said above that the baptist of Rus', St. Vladimir, accepting Christianity from the Greeks, at the same time wanted to borrow from them their entire culture, with the intention of making his people in relation to this latter the same as they themselves were, and that enlightenment was in the foreground. But, alas! The 10th century was still a time that had not yet passed for us, and our first Peter the Great suffered a complete failure with his good plans. Having become a Christian people, we have not become an enlightened people at all. Enlightenment was introduced and introduced to us, but it was not accepted and taken root among us and almost immediately after its introduction disappeared completely without a trace. After this, our enlightenment in the pre-Mongol period was the same as in all subsequent times of old Rus' before Peter the Great, precisely in the complete absence of any real enlightenment or scientific education, just simple literacy. One simple ability to read, which was only a means for some self-enlightenment through reading books or being well-read in books. That in the pre-Mongol period we did not have real enlightenment, as Karamzin wanted to think. Nowadays, for people who do not have an exceptional way of thinking, this is an indisputable subject, which it would be in vain to prove. On the contrary, at present, that episode of our history is not noticed or noted in our history, which constitutes his great merit in relation to Vladimir, that he wanted to introduce enlightenment to us. This latter is, however, an undoubted fact. Having become a Christian, Vladimir, at all costs, wants to enter into a family alliance with the Greek emperors and to achieve his goal resorts to such an extreme means as war. Why could he need this family union? Just to satisfy your vanity, to have the sister of emperors as your wife? But to imagine that only he would even decide to go to war for this purpose means to consider him an extravagant madman and a perfect Don Quixote, which, based on everything we know about him, we do not have the slightest right to do. The only reasonable meaning that can be given to this, by all means, Vladimir’s desire to enter into a kinship alliance with the emperors of Constantinople, is that he wanted to enter into the closest possible alliance with the Greeks and that in kinship with the emperors he saw the best means to achieve this goal. But why could he possibly need a close alliance with the Greeks? Having baptized Rus', Vladimir annexed it to the family of states professing Christianity, or to the family of European states. For this, he could only wish for his state that it not only in faith, but in everything or in everything, would become like those states that stood at the head of this family and which represented an ideal for all others. That is, so that all that civil culture that the Greeks themselves had was transferred to his country, so that these latter transferred to his Rus', handed over to it and planted in it everything that they themselves had in the matter of civil success. For this purpose, he needed quite a lot of people, whom the Greeks would give him. For this purpose, he most of all and absolutely needed the Greeks to have a desire to be kind to Rus'. And, therefore, for this purpose he really needed that close, kindred alliance with the Greek emperors, which he so urgently sought. But if, in this way, from the behavior of Vladimir it is necessary to assume that he wanted and sought to transfer to Rus' from Greece everything that the latter had, then enlightenment is naturally and first of all assumed. The civil culture of the Greeks, like any culture, consisted of education and craftsmanship (constituting the practical application of education for the benefit and elevation of everyday human life, more or less industrial or industrial development); wishing and seeking its transfer to Rus' in its entirety, Vladimir had to wish and seek that one and the other be transferred. It goes without saying that Vladimir, as a person not only not enlightened, but also completely illiterate, could not indicate to the Greeks what exactly he wanted regarding enlightenment. He could only generally demand that Rus' be given everything that the Greeks had. And then to put the matter one way or another, to give certain people already depended on the goodwill of the Greeks, which was secured through a kinship alliance, so he sought it that way. Thus, it must be assumed that Vladimir wanted enlightenment to be transferred from Greece to Rus'. Our chronicle testifies that this desire was realized, it was carried out. Immediately after returning from the campaign near Korsun, when with his wife, the sister of the Greek emperors, he brought all those Greeks who he needed for his intended and desired cultivation of Rus', he, according to the chronicle, “sent, began to take children from deliberate children and began to give them book studies” 1387. The deliberate child means the chosen class of society - the boyars and aristocracy. I have already said several times above that it is impossible to assume that the children of the boyars were recruited for book studies with the purpose of preparing them for priests. It is not only impossible, but also absurd to assume this. Firstly, the children of the boyars were not at all necessary for the priesthood, and yet the prince himself needed them for his own service: why on earth would he decide to sacrifice them? The chronicler does not tell us what kind of book training the children of the boyars were given out for - whether it was just learning to read and write, the ability to read, or real, scientific teaching: why on earth should we assume the latter, and not the first? For this very reason, everything we said above about Vladimir’s behavior necessarily forces one to assume the latter. He makes the greatest efforts to achieve the closest possible alliance with the Greeks; He needs this alliance in order to get the people he needs from the Greeks. It is clear that here we are dealing with people of very great importance, from whom something far from ordinary is expected: Are these people, because of whom so much trouble and effort, because of which the war and the marriage with the sister of the emperors, nothing more, no less than just literacy teachers? If this were so, it would be a true parturiunt montes, nascitur ridiculus mus. If Vladimir only needed literacy teachers, then why on earth would he seek and obtain them from the Greeks? It would be natural for him to take teachers of Slavic literacy from the Bulgarians or from the Hungarian Russians, and not from the Greeks, because in this case the real teachers would be the first, and not the last at all. Finally, for literacy, he did not need to seek teachers anywhere - literacy had been introduced in our country a long time ago... After the campaign near Korsun, Vladimir hurries to distribute the boyars' children for book studies. If this book teaching was real enlightenment, then the haste in such a distribution of boyar children will be completely understandable to us. Vladimir is in a hurry to introduce enlightenment into Russia, which had not existed in it until then and which was supposed to mark the beginning of a new period in its life. The class of boyars was intended to be the educated or enlightened class of Rus', and so Vladimir hurries to recruit the children of the boyars. But what sense will this haste have if we mean only learning to read and write? Why would Vladimir rush to make his boyars literate? To quickly turn them into admirers of divine scriptures? But everyone will understand that this role is not for the boyars. The class of clergy was being prepared; this veneration of the divine scriptures was naturally granted to him and expected from him. And it would be extremely strange for Vladimir to rush here with the boyars. Having been installed among us for a very short time, having been installed in that upper class of society, people belonging to which even today are relegated to the category of writers as only a rare exception, enlightenment did not leave us with any clear traces of its existence with which we could undoubtedly prove this latter. Nevertheless, however, we encounter in our history during the ancient time of which we are talking, several such phenomena, before which, if we do not allow the short-term episode of the existence of enlightenment that we assume, we will remain in complete and decisive bewilderment. And who, therefore, speak for nothing else but for this fact of its existence. Let us point out what we know so far, hoping that attention paid to the matter will reveal something else. We spoke above about Metropolitan Hilarion, who was a natural Russian and who was appointed metropolitan by Yaroslav in 1051. in Russia itself without a message for initiation to Greece. This Metropolitan Hilarion left behind a famous work called the Word on Law and Grace, the contents of which we will convey below. The work or word of Hilarion, truly famous in a well-deserved manner and of all the written monuments of the pre-Mongol period, is comparable in quality and merit only to the Lay of Igor's Campaign. Although in essence it has nothing in common with it, it is precisely this kind of phenomenon that we, not assuming the existence of real enlightenment in ancient Vladimir-Yaroslav Rus', will be absolutely unable to explain. Hilarion's speech is the most brilliant oratorical work, the most famous and impeccable academic speech, with which only Karamzin's speeches can be compared among new speeches. In terms of these external merits, Hilarion’s Word is completely impeccable: the general arrangement of the word is done with perfect oratorical skill and art, the perfect knowledge of oratory as a school science is evidenced by the finishing of all the details, where everything is finished perfectly, where there is nothing superfluous and where all external oratorical resources are used with perfect scientific skill. If we were to translate the Word into Russian and tell you that it is Karamzin’s newly discovered best speech, then you would not find anything incredible in it, both in terms of its internal and external qualities. And the only thing that would remain not entirely clear to you is why on earth Karamzin took it upon himself to write a speech of spiritual content. So, the Word of Hilarion stands before us as a mysterious phenomenon. How can we explain its possibility to ourselves if we do not assume that in ancient Rus' there was a short time when real enlightenment existed in it, when rhetoric was taught and studied as a science? Absolutely not. But suppose that Hilarion, by his origin, was probably not a boyar, but, in some random or non-random way, unknown to us, ended up studying with one of those teachers appointed specifically for the boyars, who were supposed to teach real sciences, and for us the matter will become clear. Hilarion's teacher turned out to be a very good teacher of rhetoric and, by teaching it to him, he externally formed his internal oratorical talent 1388. Vladimir, who wanted and actually tried to introduce enlightenment into Russia, and Yaroslav, who still supported his attempt, of course, first of all cared about the education of their own children, that is, they cared that the introduction of that real scientific education that they wanted to introduce to the boyars began precisely with these very children of theirs. From later writers, representatives only of literacy, and not of enlightenment, and who understand the latter only under the guise of the former, we cannot expect anything except that they would say that the children of both were taught to read and write, for to say this in this case was all that they could say. This is exactly what the Monk Nestor says about the education given to Boris in 1389. But, fortunately for us, one completely reliable person made a random note that presents the whole matter in a completely different light. Vladimir Monomakh, in his famous moralizing letter to children or in his teaching of 1390, says that his father Vsevolod, son of Yaroslav, knew five languages, “my father knew five languages”... 1391. Consequently, a person who studies foreign languages ​​not for practical purposes must be imagined as an educated person, and, therefore, this is Vsevolod, the son of Yaroslav, before us. Concluding from him, we have the right to think that the education of all the other sons of Yaroslav, as well as the sons of Vladimir (meaning those among them who were still capable of education according to their age at the moment of our acceptance of Christianity), consisted not only in the fact that they “taught bahu and literacy.” In the chronicle we have news of Yaroslav’s own bookishness. Reading this news with a preconceived idea, you will not find anything special in it. They don't find anything special. Yaroslav was very fond of reading books; on his orders, many manuscripts were copied and even translations were made from Greek. This is how the chronicle is understood. But here are the true words of this latter: “Yaroslav loved books... and diligently (to them) and read them often at night and in the day, and collected many scribes and translated from the Greek to the Slovenian letter and copied many books” 1392. Take a closer look: it talks about scribes, but does not talk about translators; scribes copied many books, but the translation was translated, but not translated. Isn’t it clear that the direct and literal meaning of the chronicle is that Yaroslav himself was engaged in translation from Greek? This does not in any way eliminate, if you like, the possibility of the assumption that the translations were not made by him; but, in any case, there is hardly any doubt that the above evidence from the chronicle speaks of translations made not by his order, but by himself. But if Yaroslav knew the Greek language, if he was able to translate from Greek into Slavic, then it is clear that his education consisted not only in the fact that he “was not even taught to read and write.” So, there is no doubt that enlightenment was introduced to us by Vladimir. But it did not take root among us and did not take root and very soon disappeared from us. What could be the reason for this? The reason for this must be assumed to be that the Greeks introduced to us their, so to speak, ideal way of maintaining enlightenment, which turned out to be beyond our power. The reader, accustomed to seeing that education is supported through government-run schools, of course, believes that this is the only way to support it and cannot imagine anything else. In fact, this method is not the only one and not at all the original one, but appeared only, comparatively speaking, very recently. Before governments came to the idea of ​​making education a state matter and taking care of it upon themselves, which happened in the West only at the beginning of our modern times, it existed among people for a very long time as a private matter, left completely to itself and exclusively to their own concerns. Such a private matter was enlightenment throughout classical antiquity, which did not know state schools at all; It remained such among the Greeks from classical times until the very time when we accepted Christianity from them. Private people who had a desire to teach others or teach others what they themselves knew, on their own initiative opened, so to speak, public readings either in their homes or in well-known public places. Other private people who had their own desire to learn gathered to one or another of the first whom they wanted to listen to their courses. - In this form the matter of teaching existed throughout classical antiquity, in this form it was preserved among the Greeks until later times. Naturally, the form of maintaining enlightenment that existed among them, that is, the one we have now indicated, was transferred to us from the Greeks, and it was this form that turned out to be beyond our strength 1393. After Korsunsky’s campaign, Vladimir brought with him learned people and teachers from Greece, but he did not unite them into one school and did not form one out of them. And he left each of them as a separate and free or, so to speak, freely practicing professor and distributed to them for training, as the chronicle directly and literally says, the boyar children he recruited 1394. This form, not of state schools, but of private education, was, as one must think, the reason why enlightenment, so to speak, only passed through us, like water through a sieve. If state schools had been established, or as at first only one school could be established in Kyiv, if a state school had been established, then a certain certain course or range of learning would have been introduced in it, which would have been recognized as the best possible. In a state school, this course of study would not be subject to the danger of arbitrary abbreviations and would constantly remain the same. Students, not being released from such a school until the end of the full course of study, would, willy-nilly, study all the required sciences, and thus such a school would involuntarily and, so to speak, forcibly implant education in the boyar class until it became its voluntary need. Something completely different should have happened with the method of private education we borrowed from the Greeks. Learned people were brought from Greece and opened private boarding schools in their homes, to which the children of the boyars were distributed and sent to study. The intention and desire of the government was that in these boarding houses the children of the boyars received the best possible scientific education that the given teachers could give, so that they studied everything that was in Greece. But under the private boarding school system there could be no government control to ensure that students completed the fullest possible courses of study, and here everything regarding this had to be left solely to the good will of their parents. These latter were not inclined towards education, did not recognize its need, and, at the will given to them, very quickly shortened the courses of study for their children so that the latter came down to simple literacy. There is no doubt that many people involuntarily ask the question: why did Vladimir, if he really wanted to introduce education in Russia, not do such a simple thing as start a state school like today’s gymnasiums and universities? The answer is precisely that Vladimir did not see an example and model of such schools among the Greeks, and to invent them himself was far from such a simple thing as it might seem to others. To invent such schools meant to invent a completely new way of maintaining education, and meant to carry out an extremely important reform in this regard. It is not surprising that Vladimir, who only thought about education for his country, was not enough to be a reformer in the way of maintaining it. The current state-owned schools were invented by the practical West, and, as one might think, it was not invented immediately either, although very early in 1395. How long the period of real enlightenment lasted among us, in our boyars, we, of course, cannot say positively. But it is necessary to think that it lasted extremely short and that, in fact, it began to end at the same time as it began. It is very likely, or better to say, it is necessary to think that from the very first set of children made by Vladimir immediately after returning from Korsun, very many, if not most, did not complete full courses of study. And that, thus, in fact, there was not one generation of boyars that was enlightened in its entire composition, or at least in its majority. With what speed there was a further decrease in the desire to be enlightened by real enlightenment, and at the same time how quickly this last one disappeared, one can conclude from the fact that at the end of the 11th century the Monk Nestor finds it possible to assimilate St. Boris is no more enlightened than he is “learned to read and write” 1396. Having answered the question why Vladimir’s attempt to introduce enlightenment to us was not crowned with success, we have not yet answered the question: why were we left without enlightenment at all? This general question is a question in itself and requires its own special answer. After Vladimir's unsuccessful attempt, dozens of other attempts could have been made, and yet we did not make a single one. Meanwhile, we were a people who should have had enlightenment. In terms of our territory, we belonged to the European peoples; Having adopted the same Christianity as them, we became a living member in the family of these peoples. But the distinctive feature and common affiliation of the European peoples was that they had enlightenment. Why are we the only ones in their family left without this enlightenment? This question, as the reader understands, is nothing more or less than a question about ourselves, for it asks: is our ignorance our responsibility or not? It would be pleasant and desirable to answer with a clear conscience with a decisive “no”; Unfortunately, to be honest, we will not find it possible to answer this way. It was on the heart of our venerable historiographer to exonerate us from reproaches for our ignorance. Believing that enlightenment was not only introduced, but actually introduced to us, he explained its disappearance among us by the civil strife of our princes, which was a consequence of the appanage system, and then by the invasion of the Mongols. At present, it is a subject that requires proof that enlightenment was introduced to us, and it is no longer at all a subject of controversy that it was not introduced in a lasting way, that it was not installed in such a way as to have a more or less long period of our present existence. But they want to see in these civil strife among the princes the reason that prevented enlightenment from appearing among us. Alas, just as Karamzin completely groundlessly referred to them, thinking that they would explain the disappearance of enlightenment among us, it is also completely groundless to refer to them as the reason that prevented him from appearing among us. Internecine wars were supposed to destroy many soldiers, cause a lot of damage to civilians and cause extremely great harm to the state: but how could they interfere with education? Fathers were busy with wars or suffered from them, but how could this prevent their children from learning? Is it possible to imagine that the children were busy gawking at the wars? In internecine wars, cities were constantly burning, so it was necessary to save lives, take care of shelter, and there was no way to think about studying? But when they talk about these constant fires of cities, everyone knows and understands that this is not said at all literally, but rhetorically and hyperbolically. The cities burned, but not at all incessantly and there was nothing like all the cities burning every year. Take the history of Kyiv and other capital cities, and you will see that it would be extremely strange to say, not jokingly, that it was impossible to study in these cities in the pre-Mongol period, to say the least. Civil strife, if you like, promotes enlightenment because it excites the minds of people with social disasters, but, being heavily accused of many things, they cannot in any case be accused of being some kind of hindrance to enlightenment. Finally, if you like, the civil strife of our princes can be left completely aside, and the question will still remain a question. When we ask why enlightenment was not introduced in Russia, we do not at all exclude our clergy from those to be answered: but the civil strife of the princes, of course, no longer has anything to do with them. What external government disasters could prevent enlightenment from establishing itself in our monasteries? 1397 That the Mongol yoke could not prevent us from introducing enlightenment to ourselves will be completely clear to anyone who remembers that the Mongols, having devastatingly passed through Russia once, then sat aside and did not interfere at all in our internal affairs. But we will not dwell on this yoke. If during the two and a half centuries that preceded it we remained without enlightenment, then it will become clear to us, even without any external reason, why we were left without enlightenment later. Over the course of two and a half centuries, lack of enlightenment or ignorance has already acquired among us the right of citizenship and prescription, and has already acquired the appearance of a normal situation 1398. Thus, Karamzin’s attempt to save our national honor must be considered completely unsatisfactory. Why we did not stick to Western Europe regarding enlightenment is, of course, self-evident: religious enmity separated us from it, as a result of which a very strong mediastinum was soon erected between it and us. But the Greeks were in front of us and constantly at our service: why didn’t we borrow enlightenment from them? We will not find or invent any insurmountable obstacles that would decisively prevent us from taking enlightenment from the Greeks, in order to present a new enlightenment of Eastern Europe in parallel to the new enlightenment of Western Europe, and which would completely excuse and justify us. The only question can be whether the fault is not solely ours. Comparing our position in relation to the Greeks, from whom we should have borrowed enlightenment, with the position of Western Europe in relation to the Romans, from whom it borrowed it, we find a significant difference, which can indeed serve to some apology for us and to some explanation of why it did not happen that, in parallel to this Western Europe, we presented an educated Eastern Europe. In relation to the Greeks, we were a completely new people, who should have fully reintroduced enlightenment; on the contrary, the peoples of Western Europe in relation to the Romans were, so to speak, a living and continuous continuation of them, having in the Italians, who formed their focus, the same Romans, only under a new name. In the West, enlightenment and its spirit, strictly speaking, never died, but only declined significantly. The living tradition of enlightenment there was never interrupted at all, but no matter how close it came to the danger of being completely interrupted and extinguished, it nevertheless continued to be preserved 1399. Thus, in the West, to appear to enlightenment meant, so to speak, to be reborn by fire from under the ashes, but in our country, on the contrary, to appear to it meant to be captured by fire through a completely new friction. Having the task not to completely reintroduce enlightenment, but only to revive it, the peoples of Western Europe constituted one whole. Thus, they accomplished their comparatively much easier work with the common strength of many, while we, on the contrary, were completely alone. There were common efforts, mutual assistance and competition, but we have nothing like that. The actions of men are powerfully influenced by their consciousness of their responsibilities, and the West has indeed been placed in a position to recognize its mission to revive enlightenment. He remained the successor of the western Roman Empire. Called and, in the person of Charlemagne, actually accepting the responsibility of being the resurrector and successor of this empire, he had to recognize his duty to take care of the most important thing that Rome bequeathed to him, i.e., enlightenment. This consciousness of duty, this consciousness of historical duty and calling should have had a strong and beneficial effect on the awakening of the West: the fire of enlightenment, which had not completely died out there, but was only covered with ashes, from the influx of this moral air, again broke out and flared up... We have not had any such moral stimulus in our history. (And the Greeks did not unite with themselves the barbarians who accepted Christianity from them). If the Eastern Empire had fallen earlier, then it is very likely that we would not have continued its enlightenment in parallel to the West, for whether or not we were capable of it, in any case, we were not prepared for this, as the West was prepared for its role. At the same time, and regarding this latter, we do not at all want to say that the whole point was in the fall of the Western Roman Empire. But in the living and existing Eastern Empire, we were not such a living member of it as to be aware of part of its historical responsibilities. The Eastern Empire was on its own, not at all embracing us under itself, but we were an addition to it completely external and, so to speak, accidental, we were something only additional and had no historical meaning or significance in it. Not realizing that we were involved in the historical obligation to be enlightened, placing this responsibility entirely on those who without us represented the enlightened East, that is, on the Greeks, we did not bother about enlightenment, and found it possible to live without it)... Through the fog of many centuries, through the thick colors of later times, the image of St. Vladimir and, looking at Rus' after him, we somehow find it hard to believe that he had the intention of making it what Greece was in his time, that is, an enlightened country. But he had this intention in the broadest sense, he wanted from Greece not only enlightenment, but also the arts, he also wanted from her what she could not give in the form of modern works, but could only give in the form of the remaining monuments of antiquity. Throughout the pre-Mongol period for St. The Mother of God of Tithes stood in Kyiv with two copper blockheads and four copper horses, at which the “silent” Kievites gaped, wondering what they were and what they were for. These six perplexing wonders were two bronze statues and four bronze horses, brought by Vladimir from Korsun, which, in the likeness of all old Greek cities, was decorated with sculptures left over from classical times. After Vladimir, these artistic trophies, brought by him from the defeated city, became the prey of sparrows and jackdaws; but there is no doubt that he did not bring them for this purpose. There is no doubt that he brought them for the purpose of decorating Kiev with works of sculpture, if not completely, then at least to some extent in the same way as, according to the stories of ambassadors and merchants who traveled to Constantinople, the latter was decorated with them... So, Vladimir wanted and tried to introduce enlightenment to us, but his attempt remained unsuccessful. After him, we no longer made any attempts and were left without enlightenment, with only literacy, with only the ability to read. Before turning to this last point, we must make one caveat regarding enlightenment. In the pre-Mongol period, as in all subsequent times of old Rus' before Peter the Great, we did not have it. But at the same time, due to the special circumstances of this period, throughout its continuation until the very end, we could, as an exception, have individual people more or less enlightened, individual people with real greater or lesser scientific education. Throughout this period, we had Greeks who, firstly, constituted the retinue of the metropolitans, and secondly, who were with the bishops, since between these latter individuals who belonged to them, the Greeks, were almost never transferred. Among these Greeks there could be educated people who had a desire to teach science to others, and among them there were certain exceptional people, endowed with a super-ordinary thirst for enlightenment, and could receive the best or worst scientific education. Below we will see that during the pre-Mongol period we actually have examples of such exceptional people. Let us turn to literacy, which constituted our enlightenment. Literacy, whatever it is, still presupposes ways of teaching it, still presupposes learning. How was this last thing accomplished? And for literacy, as well as for enlightenment or scientific education, there were no government-run schools in Greece. Literacy there was mainly in the private care of the clergy. Namely, parish priests, practicing teaching literacy as the most suitable and most decent craft for them, maintained private literacy schools at churches, to which everyone sent their children, paying teachers for teaching according to their diligence and means 1400. In addition to the priests, they probably ran private literacy schools and anyone interested. And this method of private, rather than state-run, government schools has established itself here in Russia. As you know, a significant part of our researchers are of the opinion that in the pre-Mongol period we had state-run literacy schools. But we positively and reliably know that we did not have them in subsequent times, and it is necessary to think that they also did not exist in the pre-Mongol period, or otherwise, that they were not there from the very beginning. If these state-owned real literacy schools had existed in our country for a whole period, they could not have disappeared in later times. For we will not find any reasons for such a disappearance, and referring to the civil strife of princes and the Mongol yoke is completely as unfounded and untenable as to explain by them the disappearance or non-appearance of enlightenment among us. Literacy schools are not like education; but to think that, having existed for two centuries and a half, they could then suddenly disappear among us for no reason, is just as impossible and unthinkable as it is for such a completely unhistorical incident to happen with enlightenment. The a priori need to conclude from the non-existence of state schools in subsequent times to their non-existence in the pre-Mongol period is fully supported by the written monuments of this period. In these monuments we do not read positive evidence that would directly say that there were no state schools then. But, firstly, we do not find the slightest trace of them there, and secondly, we have such indirect evidence regarding their non-existence that is almost equal to direct evidence. In the written monuments of the pre-Mongol period, not only is there not a single direct mention of state schools, but also not the slightest hint of them. But this could not have happened if such schools existed. If they existed, they would be discoverable, and the discovery of at least one or two of them would be recorded in the chronicles; if they existed, then the princes would show their favor to them, and although once or twice the chroniclers would have noted cases of such favor of the princes, along with how they talk about their favor to the clergy, to monasticism, to the poor; in general, if there were state schools, it could not have happened that the chroniclers would not have had a single opportunity to mention them 1401. Finally, in the written monuments of the pre-Mongol period we directly have news that talks about teaching children to read and write. If the children had studied in state schools, then, of course, the news would have used the expression that they studied in schools. However, we do not find schools in them, but only teachers, i.e. not state schools, but only private teachers. In Nestor’s Life of St. Theodosius of Pechersk we read that he ordered his parents to give themselves to the teaching of divine books “to one teacher.” If Theodosius had been sent to school, then why would it not have been said so directly? Then what would be the meaning and why would the expression “to one from the teacher” be used? Doesn’t the way of expression used make it absolutely clear that this is, of course, one of the private teachers? Those who recognize the existence of state schools in the pre-Mongol period all agree that these schools, no matter who opened them and whoever maintained them, were under the supervision and authority of the spiritual authorities or bishops. But we have decisive proof that at the time mentioned there were no schools under the supervision and authority of bishops. It is presented to us by the so-called charter of Vladimir. This charter lists in great detail the institutions and persons supposedly placed under the authority of the bishops, but, as is known, there are no schools or teachers in it... They insist on the existence of state schools in the pre-Mongol period because they cannot imagine literacy possible without these schools. But we positively and reliably know that we did not have state schools in the 15th and 16th centuries, although there was literacy. Consequently, it is possible for literacy to exist without state schools. We believe that readers are again perplexed: how come they didn’t invent state-run literacy schools? The simple answer is still the same: they did not invent it, not although or without being able to go further than the order that existed in Greece. How difficult it is to invent such apparently simple things as state-run literacy schools, this is clearly and convincingly shown to us by an example from the subsequent history of our church. In the 16th century, at the Council of the Stoglavy, it was clearly recognized and stated that our private literacy schools are extremely bad. One would expect that the cathedral would condemn the establishment of state-owned schools for the future, and, however, it does not do this at all: for the future, the same private schools in the homes of priests, deacons and clerks, only with some attempts to improve the matter 1402. Thus, we repeat, in the pre-Mongol period, as in all subsequent times of pre-Petrine Rus', literacy existed and was supported in our country not through state schools, but through private or home schools. Literacy has taken two paths for us. On the one hand, Vladimir’s unsuccessful attempt to introduce true enlightenment into the boyar class had the consequence that he introduced at least literacy into it. On the other hand, it came from the clergy, for whom it was a professional necessity. The teachers of science brought from Greece did not achieve the intended goal of establishing these latter, but they nevertheless became teachers of literacy, and the private schools that they opened, soon ceasing to be schools of science, remained schools of the only science that constituted our education. From these first teachers of literacy in the boyars, further teachers in the same class were to come. There is no doubt that the children of the boyars had no desire to devote themselves to the title of teachers so that subsequent teachers would come from among themselves. But the teachers had their own children, whom it was natural for them to prepare as their successors, and for whom it was natural to inherit their craft or profession. Thus, the class of literacy teachers for the boyars should have arisen hereditarily from science teachers brought from Greece. Over time, not limiting themselves to the children of the boyars, they, of course, began to accept everyone into their private, home-based schools or boarding houses, as it were, and everyone, and thus their literacy schools became schools for everyone. These literacy teachers, descended from the Greeks brought in, were its leaders in Kyiv itself. Priests should be considered its leaders everywhere and throughout Rus'. It is necessary to think that the priests, created by one way or another by the government, as we talked about above, in the same way as it was in Greece, and whether as a result of direct instructions from the government or of their own free will, took on teaching literacy as one of their responsibilities and began to open literacy schools in their homes as the desire for teaching literacy arose in society. Then, to the aid of the priests who laid the first foundation for literacy, the laity came soon or not. Partly, probably because for poor people, teaching literacy was a profitable profession. Mainly, probably for reasons of piety, out of a desire to devote oneself to such a godly task as learning to read and write, the only purpose of which in ancient times was the veneration of divine books. Following the priests came the laity, who also began to open private literacy schools in their homes 1403. These private home schools, maintained partly by priests and members of church clergy in general, partly by laymen, who later received the technical name of masters, constituted our literacy schools in the pre-Mongol period, as well as in all subsequent times of Old Rus' until Peter the Great. One monument from the pre-Mongol period shows that literacy spread extremely quickly among us, that already in the first half of Yaroslav’s reign there were several teachers for it even in the most insignificant cities of Rus'. This monument is the life of the Venerable Theodosius of Pechersk, mentioned above, written by Nestor, who, as we have seen, says that Theodosius learned to read and write from a single teacher, the years of the latter’s study should approximately fall in the middle of the reign of Yaroslav 1404, and the place of his teaching was one of the then insignificant cities - Kursk. But this testimony of Nestor, while retaining all its strength in relation to the absence of state schools in his time, is very doubtful in its testimony regarding the too great prevalence of private schools already at the indicated early time. For to assume such a rapid progress of things that by the end of the first half of Yaroslav’s reign literacy would have spread everywhere and become everywhere the need of all classes of society so that a sufficient number of teachers would appear everywhere is completely incredible. The desire for literacy presupposes the possibility of its application, namely, the opportunity to read church teaching books. But serious concerns about the distribution of these books in society, as we know, were taken by Yaroslav alone. In general, it is necessary to think that literacy began to more or less spread everywhere and among everyone no earlier than towards the end of the reign of Yaroslav, and as for the testimony of the Monk Nestor, he, no doubt, represents the time of the childhood of the Monk Theodosius in his own time. If we accept as true the position that the desire for literacy could only spread in parallel with the distribution and proliferation of four books in society, because without books, of course, it is difficult to assume the desire for literacy, then one will have to think that things did not go very quickly. Because books, as we have discussed in detail above, could only spread extremely slowly. Books at that time were so expensive that only rich people could own them; other people's books could be used to some extent only by residents of the cities in which these rich people were concentrated; therefore, based on this dependence of literacy on books, one must think that in the pre-Mongol period it was more or less widespread - firstly, among rich people, and secondly, among city dwellers. As for the inhabitants of the villages, one must think about them in the pre-Mongol period in such a way that they remained completely illiterate or that literacy among them was nothing more than an extremely rare exception 1405. From the above it follows that in the pre-Mongol period only cities, but not villages, could need literacy schools. As for these latter, they could have local literacy schools, partly in the houses of priests, partly in the laity, only in a special way for those who wished to enter the clergy. II. Translated and generally borrowed writing. Our enlightenment was literacy. True enlightenment is an end in itself; but literacy, the ability to read, is only a means. Anyone who knows how to read and write and does not read anything, in fact, does not yet have any enlightenment. Literacy involves a special kind of self-enlightenment through more or less reading of books. Therefore, after literacy, we should talk about book reading. The ability to only read, of course, presupposes ready-made books to read. Such books for our pre-Mongol ancestors were books translated from Greek and partly books that independently appeared in Slavic before us among the Bulgarians. So, 1) how rich was the composition of these four books in the pre-Mongol period, 2) to what extent were our pre-Mongol ancestors self-enlightened through reading them? In the pre-Mongol period, translated literature from Greek was not very poor in our country, for we were given the fortunate opportunity to take advantage of the works of others that had been carried out before us for almost a whole century and a half. Translations from Greek began in the middle of the 9th century by Constantine the philosopher or first Slavic teacher, inventor of the Slavic alphabet, to whom all Orthodox Slavs owe the fact that they began to have worship and writing in their own language from the very beginning of Christianity. Constantine himself, the philosopher, who lived very briefly after the start of his work († 869), managed to translate liturgical books in their then composition and the liturgical part of the biblical books. His brother Methodius, Archbishop of Moravia († 885), who remained after him and worked for quite a long time, with the help of his students, translated the entire Bible (with the exception of the books of Maccabees 1406), the Nomocanon (as revised by Scholastic) and laid the foundation for the translation of the books of the fathers - or actually teaching books, it is not yet known what and how much he did in this last regard. and in its entirety, for a long time, fell under the domination of the Greeks 1407, there could always be individual people who knew the Greek language so well and were so little educated as to be able to translate from Greek into Slavic. So after Simeon, similar people continued little by little the work of translation throughout our entire pre-Mongol period. In addition to translations from Greek, the Bolgars produced several independent literary works (more precisely, compilations based on Greek sources) during the reign of Simeon. Partly even under Vladimir, and mainly and in our own way under Yaroslav, having borrowed from the Bolgars everything that they had in translation and not in translation at the time of this latter, we gradually continued to borrow from them everything that was again translated from them. It is necessary to think so because not only do we have no direct evidence or indirect hints that a whole series of translations were published under Yaroslav, but so far there is absolutely no evidence or hints that at least one book was translated under him. If we assume this translation of very few books, done on Yaroslav’s instructions, then it is necessary to think that, without forming a whole company of translators, he had two or three people as assistants in the translation, no more. The question of where Yaroslav could get these two or three people is resolved very simply, and there is no need to assume that they were brought from Bulgaria, as they do: Among Yaroslav’s peers, who studied at a time when education had not yet completely disappeared among us, in Kyiv there could be found among the Russians two or three people who knew the Greek language well and were literate enough to be translators. In any case, there were in Kyiv the children of those Greek scientists who were brought by Vladimir, and perhaps they themselves remained in part. As for the entire subsequent time of the pre-Mongol period after Yaroslav, it is necessary to think that translations were nothing more than isolated and very rare cases. After Yaroslav, our education and knowledge of the Greek language disappeared, and, consequently, there were no more people capable of translating. After him, translations could only be done either by Greeks who lived for a long time in Russia and acquired knowledge of the Slavic language, or by Russians who lived for a long time in the East and acquired knowledge of the Greek language. Or, finally, those who appeared as a very rare exception, the Russians, who acquired real education, and with it knowledge of the Greek language, from the Greeks who lived in Russia. There may very well have been several translations now made by these translators, but so far only one is known, namely the translation made by a Greek who lived in Russia around the half of the 12th century in 1408. (We consider it necessary to make one very important reservation here: Philologists, when deciding the question of the place of translation of books based on the characteristics of language, are inclined to completely deny our Russia at least one book translated in the pre-Mongol period, on the grounds that there is not a single translation from the mentioned time that did not contain Bulgarisms. But basing the decision on this issue on the characteristics of language is far from completely and not always reliable: Slavic-Bulgarian the language was the literary language of Rus', and therefore Russian translators, when using it, had to fill their speech with Bulgarisms. The absolutely correct use of Bulgarisms, of course, should show that the translator is Bulgarian. But incorrect use can mean both that the Bulgarian translator was damaged by Russian copyists, and that the translation belongs to a Russian who is not sufficiently familiar with the Bulgarian language). So, in the matter of translating books from Greek, we mainly took advantage of the work of others and did very little ourselves. Be that as it may, this translated literature, in combination with the works of Bulgarian’s own written language, was not at all poor. Without listing with bibliographic detail all the works of translated and generally borrowed literature that were at the disposal of our ancestors of the pre-Mongol period (which we will do below in a special appendix), we will present here its presence in the most important works in order to see how much our mentioned ancestors had the means for book reading or for self-education. All the literature just mentioned, with the exception of or putting the Bible itself first, can be divided into four sections: 2) biblical-interpretive, The entire Bible, with the exception of only the books of the Maccabees, as we said a little higher, was translated by the first teachers Constantine and Methodius. Whether or not these last books were translated in the pre-Mongol period in Bulgaria or here remains unknown. But, in any case, they represented a missing thing so small and unimportant that in general there remains and there is every right to say that our pre-Mongol ancestors had the entire Bible in the Slavic translation. According to the dogmatic department, they existed in the pre-Mongol period in the Slavic translation: 3) Words against the Arian Athanasius of Alexandria. 4) Two words about theology and a few words on the Lord's holidays of Gregory the Theologian and 5) Treatise on autocracy or free will (περὶ αὐτεξουσίου) and three words on the resurrection of Methodius of Patara. In the biblical-interpretative department, our pre-Mongol ancestors had at their disposal: The Sixth Day of John the Presbyter and Exarch of Bulgaria, which consists of six words about the creation of the world, compiled by the author partly independently, partly on the basis of Basil the Great and Severian of Geval, and together with the interpretation of a little from the Bible, which had to serve for our bookish people as an encyclopedia of knowledge in all branches of natural science (for, speaking about creation, he speaks in detail about everything created); a shortened interpretation of the book of Job by Olympiodorus of Alexandria; two interpretations of the Psalter, one adopted by Athanasius of Alexandria, the other by Theodoret of Cyrus; a consolidated interpretation of the unknown on most of the 16 prophets, taken from several fathers, and an interpretation by Hippolytus of Rome on the prophet Daniel; belonging, or only assimilated, to the Ikumenius of Trikka, an interpretation of the first five epistles of St. Paul; interpretation on the apocalypse of Andrew of Caesarea. In the moralizing department, to which we include, firstly, deliberate works of moralizing content, secondly, church words of the same content, and thirdly, the lives of saints, in the pre-Mongol period there were: a) from deliberate works: several treatises of this content by Methodius of Patara (On living and acting wisely, On separating poison, On leprosy); the so-called Stoslovets of Gennady of Constantinople, after a brief exposition of the Christian faith, dedicated to an (aphoristic) exposition of Christian morality. Anastasia Sinaita Answers about various chapters, mixed in content, but mostly moralizing; Ladder of John Climacus; the so-called Pandect (Πανδέκτης) of Antiochus of Jerusalem, which is a collection of chapters with predominantly moral content. Chapters on the prayer of Nile of Sinai; Pandects and Taktikon of Nikon the Montenegrin, of which the first mainly, and the second in a fairly significant part, have Christian moral teaching as their subject. Several so-called Patericons or Fatherland books, which are collections of moralizing stories about famous ascetics and moralizing words of these ascetics. b) From the words of the church: some selection of moralizing words of Gregory the Theologian (very small); a huge selection of words from John Chrysostom, extending to two hundred and a half words, if not more. A collection of 106 words by Ephraim the Syrian, known as Parenesis; a collection of 124 words of Theodore the Studite, known as the Small Catechism, teachings for all Sundays of the year, numbering 51, compiled by Constantine, Bishop of Bulgaria, based on the Greek fathers, mainly Chrysostom. c) The lives of saints in Greek existed in two forms - in the form of initial, lengthy biographies, the monthly collections of which are the Menaions, and in the form of abbreviations of these lengthy lives, the collections of which are the Prologues or Synaxari. As for the lengthy biographies that make up the Menaion, at present very little is known from the pre-Mongol period in the Slavic translation, namely two complete months and several separate lives from the other ten months: We do not yet have reliable information, but there is a strong possibility of assuming that these Menaions were with us in the pre-Mongol period in a complete translation of all months. We undoubtedly had complete Slavic translations of the Prologues or Synaxarei in the pre-Mongol period. Thus, in general one must think that our ancestors of this period possessed more or less all of the life-descriptive Greek literature. In the historical department we had in the pre-Mongol period translated from Greek: 1) two stories of the Old Testament, called Paleas (Greek Παλαιά, with the implied noun διαθήκη, - Old Testament), a lengthy one (Explanatory Palea), brought up to the reign of Solomon inclusive, and a short one (Historical Palea), brought up to the reign of David inclusive. The first is polemically directed against the Jews and Mohammedans and, in describing the six days of creation, offers information on astronomy, physics, zoology and natural sciences (from Basil the Great's Six Days), and both are filled with apocrypha; 2) the chronograph or chronicler of George Amartol, brought by the author to the year 842, continued after him by Simeon Logothetes or unknown until the half of the 10th century and containing, firstly, the sacred history of the Old and New Testaments and ancient civil history, and secondly, new civil and church history; 3) the chronograph of John Malala of Antioch, starting from the creation of the world, containing primarily civil history, but supplemented by the translator with sacred history (Palea) and ending in translation with the times of the first Roman emperors. Attached to the chronograph in translation is the so-called Alexandria (“Book of Alexander”), containing a fabulous legend about Alexander the Great, and the chronograph itself reads a very detailed story about the capture of Troy by the Greeks. We do not include articles on rhetoric and philosophy in our review. Articles on both, however, very few in number (and only two - one on rhetoric, the other on philosophy), randomly translated in Bulgaria (in one collection, the so-called Svyatoslav, together with other articles), even more accidentally came to us, undoubtedly, were not read at all by us 1410. The review we have presented of the most important works of writing from the pre-Mongol period is, in all likelihood, significantly incomplete. We have indicated only what either undoubtedly already existed with us during this period, or should be attributed to it with all probability, but it is quite possible that other and even many things that we now know from manuscripts only later also appeared to us during the mentioned period. Be that as it may, and from the presented review it is clear that our pre-Mongol ancestors had absolutely enough books to read and absolutely enough resources to acquire book knowledge. What can we say and what should we think about the state of this latter? A person who is only literate, who only knows how to read, being seen sitting over books, always raises the question: “Do you understand even as you read?” The Greek books we indicated, which existed in Slavic translation, were not written with a special purpose for people who only knew how to read and write, like today’s books for the common people. But they were written for educated people, written in that artificial book language, which for a person limited in his education only to the ability to read, and at the very last degree of its simplicity, is half-impressed wisdom. This wisdom should have been imprinted on our pre-Mongol ancestors even more because the structure of the Greek language is very different from the structure of the Slavic language and that, as a result, in the translations, made for the most part with literal accuracy, quite a lot came out in a way that would have been completely unintelligible without the original and for an educated person. Consequently, whether our pre-Mongol ancestors diligently or not diligently read a very sufficient number of books at their disposal, in any case they could master these books with their understanding far from to the proper extent 1411. In the Alexandria we mentioned above or the fabular history of Alexander the Great, our ancestors had an example of such a story, and there is reason to think that out of everything historical, it constituted their main and most favorite reading. Our ancestors, of course, should have had a desire to read books of biblical, interpretive and dogmatic content, because every zealous Christian should have such a desire. But what should have stopped them here was not reluctance, but something else. Those and other books were not written in such a way that they were completely easy to understand; therefore, to understand their meaning, one needed one's own interpretation. But the interpretation can be right or wrong. Since it is wrong to interpret books about the Bible or dogmatic ones, it means exposing oneself to the danger of falling into wrong theological opinions, and since our ancestors, with their absolutely no education, could not have confidence in their ability to interpret the law, fear should have refrained them from reading these books, the fear of becoming unintentionally wrong-thinking people, unintentional heretics and enemies of right opinions and dogmas. Books are important, but difficult to understand; illiterate people always prefer not to read than to read, but not the right to understand. Now what we have said, in all likelihood, should also be applied to the Bible itself, that is, the Old Testament itself, with the exception of the Psalter, for the New Testament-Gospel with the Apostle and this Psalter, both by the reader and the non-reader, both literate and illiterate, were constantly read in church at services 1412. Of all the books, moralizing books remained the most suitable for our ancestors. And here, of course, about a considerable amount of something they had to say the same thing that the woman said to John Chrysostom: “The well of your teaching is deep, but the ropes of our mind are short.” But here, with a long or short rope of understanding, there was no danger of pulling out mud instead of water. Much or little was understood here, everything was for the benefit of the soul. And it is necessary to think that the department of moral books was the favorite and preferred reading of our book readers. It goes without saying that in this department, what was most preferred was what was simpler and most satisfying to taste. The lives of the saints were the simplest and most should have been liked, for here moral teachings are taught in living examples and in the dramatic form of stories. These, as one must think, constituted the most favorite reading of our book readers 1413. So, reading the lives of saints and partly some other moralizing works - this was mainly the bookishness of our pre-Mongol ancestors. If we reduced our enlightenment to simple literacy of our own free will, then we had to greatly limit the choice of books for our reading out of necessity. Our ancestors of the pre-Mongol period read little compared to the very much that was at their service. But it is necessary to think that the circle of any decent and real book readers in this few was then comparatively very limited. Book knowledge then had to depend not so much on the desire to read books, but on the opportunity to acquire them. Books were extremely expensive and not everyone could purchase them, but only very rich people, therefore, book reading, due to the nature of things, should have been limited only to this small circle of rich people. Only princes and boyars had the opportunity to acquire books and compile larger or smaller libraries, and, therefore, people who were more or less well-read could be mainly - firstly, between themselves, and secondly, between those for whom access to their libraries was open. After the small class of readers in the world, another class should have been monks. It would seem plausible at first glance to think that in monasteries the concern for acquiring books and establishing libraries was a public matter, that is, that in them general or state libraries were gradually compiled through the deliberate efforts of the authorities through the constant assignment of a certain number of brethren to the work of writing books. This would seem especially likely to those who know about the practices in this regard of Western monasteries. But besides the fact that we do not have any positive evidence regarding this, and to some extent we have positive evidence that says the opposite, this method of compiling state monastic libraries presupposes communal living in monasteries. And to assume the latter in our monasteries of the pre-Mongol period, as we will see below, there is extremely little reason 1414. In our monasteries, as one might think, books for reading initially appeared and gradually arrived, if not exclusively, then mainly as the private property of rich monks who had the opportunity to purchase them with their own funds: Rich monks, dying, left and refused their books to the monasteries, which is how their public or state libraries were primarily compiled and gradually increased 1415. Be that as it may, having appeared through private zeal or public concerns, in our monasteries, if not in all, then in the most important and significant ones, as must be concluded from the pre-Mongol period from subsequent times, there should have been better or worse libraries of four books. There is no reason to suppose that all our monks of the pre-Mongol period had a penchant for reading books; There is no reason at all to assume that all of them would certainly be literate: but, nevertheless, there is no doubt that the best among the literate among them and who had the opportunity to read their own, other people's or official monastic books, diligently indulged in this reading, considering it one of the essential and necessary duties of a true monk, who must seek the benefit of his soul 1416. So, here is a brief extract from everything we said about our enlightenment in the pre-Mongol period: Our enlightenment consisted of one literacy or one ability to read, followed by enlightenment itself through reading books. The number of people who self-enlightened themselves through this reading was comparatively very small. The choice of books that served him was very limited in composition. In a word, our enlightenment in the pre-Mongol period was at the lowest possible level. Very few people read and had the opportunity to read books and thus, to some extent, became self-enlightened and had the opportunity to self-enlighten themselves in Christianity. But how did the illiterate and bookless masses, who did not read and did not have the opportunity to read, become enlightened in him? It was enlightened in the same way that our masses are enlightened even now, for even to this day they are illiterate and bookless among us, although for reasons other than in ancient times. She was enlightened in the same way as everyone else, for in ancient times she was equally illiterate everywhere. The only school for the illiterate masses or the decidedly illiterate majority in our country, as elsewhere, was a church with church services performed in it. Our masses had a decisive advantage over the masses of Western Christians in that they listened to divine services not in a foreign and incomprehensible language, but in their own. (Moreover, a certain and even significant reservation must be made. Our liturgical language was not our own Russian language, but the Bulgarian language. It is true that he was very close to the Russian, but to believe and assert that he could be understood as much as the Russian himself means the same as believing and asserting that at present the common people understand the language of worship as much as their own spoken language. More details can be found in the section on divine services. And regarding Western Christians, at least for the sake of accuracy, it does not hurt to remember that the Latin language was completely foreign to the German half of them. For the Romance half, it was a kind of Slavic language, for everyone knows that the languages ​​Italian, Spanish and French originated from Latin). In addition to the church, the masses sought instruction in the faith and, mainly, Christian morality from those bookish people to whom God revealed the gift and gave the desire to teach and who had the convenience and free time to do so. Based on the last sign now indicated, it is clear that such people could be mainly among the monks. And at the present time we see examples that a teacher, true or imaginary, will appear in a monastery, an ascetic, much or little capable of teaching, and the people will flock to him in thick crowds and endless lines 1417. But at the present time, if not the gift, then the desire for teaching is suppressed by the police, that is, we want to say - by the suspicion, for the most part, however, fair, with which the civil and spiritual governments treat these teachers who are currently these teachers by vocation and will. As for ancient times, there is no doubt that there were relatively quite a lot of teaching monks, who more or less and even completely dedicated themselves to teaching conversations with the masses. Since they created glory for the monasteries and contributed to their material well-being, the latter were interested in deliberately creating and having them. The people, visiting monasteries, after praying in the church, hurried to the cells of these teachers, from which they carried out and spread instructions to live like a Christian. Such teaching, of course, was extremely insufficient; but it couldn't be more sufficient... III. Our own (original) writing. We turn to our own writing of the pre-Mongol period. We did not have real enlightenment in the pre-Mongol period. Nevertheless, we could have our own writing, a writing not of enlightened people, but only of literate people, a, so to speak, primary writing, or the kind of writing with which it usually began. Others, starting with this primary writing, went further and further forward, achieving greater or lesser perfection. A distinctive feature of our writing is that it has remained motionless at the same level from which it began, that it has no history in the sense of gradual movement forward or development and improvement. Our writers follow one another in continuity of time or chronological order, but do not form among themselves the slightest internal continuity and not the slightest progressive-historical order. Just as the state of our mental life was motionless, so was the state of our writing. The history of our writing of the pre-Mongol period, as well as the subsequent long time, is not so much a real history, in which it would be impossible to change and break the internal connections, as a mechanical Bibliography, in which, at will, one can start anywhere from the beginning, middle and end. Our writing had, to some extent, only an external history, namely the history of external form and external techniques (Not all peoples borrowed enlightenment from others ready-made, some created it themselves; we neither borrowed nor created...). The presence of our writing of the pre-Mongol period represents the following departments: 1) historical, which consists of chronicles and lives of saints, 2) moralizing, which includes words and teachings of the church, or spoken in church or written for edifying reading, 4) descriptions of travel to holy places, 6) partly dogmatic. It is innate for every nation to remember its history and cherish it. Peoples who cannot write remember it by heart, storing it in their epic songs. Peoples who acquire the ability to write make one of the very first uses of this skill to record their history. As it was with others, so it was with us, and thus state historiography appeared in our country in the form of chronicles. Our church, represented by the founders of Christianity among us, Olga and Vladimir, had its equals of the apostles and then was adorned with its saints. Just as the lives of saints were written in the Greek Church, so in its likeness it appeared among us, making up the actual church part of historiography. We will begin with the latest private or church historiography. Our first writer in the department of private and sacred historiography, or the initiator and founder of it, was Jacob, who until later times remained completely unknown. Who was discovered 50 years ago, and who laid the foundation for our aforementioned historiography by writing two tales about the founders of the glory of the Russian Church - about Vladimir and Olga, her equals to the apostles, and about Boris and Gleb, her martyrs of 1418. Who this supposed Jacob was, biographical information is still completely unknown. The Monk Theodosius of Pechersk, dying in 1074, proposed to his brethren that Presbyter Jacob replace himself as abbot, who, according to the chronicler, without having been tonsured at the Pechersk Monastery, came to it from Alta. That is, probably from the Pereyaslavl Monastery of Boris and Gleb, built on the site of the murder of the first in 1419. The assumption that this presbyter Jacob is one and the same person with our deceiver Jacob is entirely probable. Be that as it may, what is certain is that Jacob wrote the legend about Boris and Gleb, as he himself directly testifies, a few years after their martyrdoms, or at the end of the reign of Yaroslav or at the beginning of the reign of Izyaslav, and in any case before 1072, for he does not yet speak about the church built in Vyshgorod by Izyaslav in honor of the martyrs in this last year, and that he wrote more or less another legend, conceived simultaneously with the first soon after him. In chronological order, Jacob should have written first about Vladimir and Olga, then about Boris and Gleb. But he, as we just said, did the opposite, although having written one legend, as he himself lets it be known, he had at the same time the intention of writing another. The reason is not entirely clear; but probably it is that Boris and Gleb were glorified and canonized saints, which Vladimir and Olga were not even then. The legend about the latter, with which we will begin, has a lengthy inscription, which at the same time serves as a brief table of contents: “Memory and praise to the Russian prince Volodimer, how Volodimer and his children were baptized and the whole Russian land from end to end, and how Volodimer’s woman Olga was baptized before Volodimer.” Unfortunately, the author sets his task mainly not to write a historical story, but to write a historical word of praise. As a result of this, the story for the most part appears to him without any details, only in the most general terms, giving up the main part of the space to his praise or his own oratory. As for the arrangement, the author does not speak separately about Olga, and separately about Vladimir, but places a very brief comparative speech about the first as an introductory episode in the midst of praise for the second. At the beginning of his story, Jacob says that he decided to write about Vladimir and his sons, the martyrs Boris and Gleb, firstly, prompted by the instructions of the apostle. Paul to Timothy: The child, having heard many rumors from me, was also betrayed by a faithful man, - secondly, - having before him the example of Christian historiography, begun by the Evangelist Luke and continued by the writers of the lives and torments of the saints. In these words, Jacob makes it clear that he is the first who decided to write about Vladimir and Boris and Gleb, and in general the first historical writer in the Russian land. The content of the legend, which cannot boast of perfect consistency and separateness of presentation, consists of: speech about Vladimir’s intention to be baptized; we are talking about baptism itself; praise to Vladimir as the baptist of Rus'; interpolated praise for Olga; praise to the Christian virtues of Vladimir with additional speech about his victories and campaign against Korsun. Finally, a speech about his death with a brief overview of his affairs after baptism and with the chronology of his reign. About Vladimir’s intention to be baptized, Jacob says that, firstly, he himself thirsted for holy baptism, like he thirsts for fir trees for springs of water, and secondly, that he was kindled by the example of his grandmother Olga. Jacob does not have the slightest hint that ambassadors from different nations would come to Vladimir with offers of faith, as we said above. About the baptism itself, Jacob speaks briefly and in general terms, that at first Vladimir was baptized himself and baptized his entire house, that then he baptized the entire Russian land from end to end, destroying idols and erecting churches. Praising Vladimir as the baptizer of Rus', James calls him an apostle among princes and compares him with Constantine the Great. The praise that follows this to Olga, the transition to which is a speech about Constantine’s mother, Elena, being not very extensive in volume and not representing praise in the proper sense, contains a brief speech: About Olga’s journey to Constantinople for baptism, about her return from there and about the destruction of the demonic trenches. About her virtues (especially almsgiving) and about her death. We have already said above that Jacob’s testimony that Olga was baptized in Constantinople cannot have historical authority. Praising the Christian virtues of Vladimir, Jacob speaks of his bright celebration of the master's holidays, at which he served three meals: one for the metropolitan and bishops with priests and monks, another for the beggars and a third for himself with the boyars and all the men - in general, about his virtuous life and deliberately and especially about alms. I have already conveyed an additional story about the campaign against Korsun much higher. The speech about the death of Vladimir is brief and general. Despite its historical inconsistency, the memory and praise of the monk Jacob to Vladimir is still a historical monument precious to us. Together with the word about the law and grace of Metropolitan Hilarion and with the legend about Boris and Gleb of the Monk Nestor, it serves to completely resolve the issue of Vladimir’s baptism against the story placed in the chronicle. She tells us something new, of the greatest importance, the news that Vladimir went to Korsun not before baptism and not for it, but in the fourth year after it and, therefore, for other reasons. Finally, her chronological instructions and testimony are very important. As an oratorical work, the present work of Jacob cannot be considered perfect. His eloquence is not very abundant and, as can be seen, is the fruit of considerable effort; nothing remarkable in terms of oratory, the speech is in some places quite coherent and coherent, but in others it lacks this quality and it simply turns into a completely disordered set of phrases 1420. The legend of Boris and Gleb, inscribed: “The Tale of the Passion and Praise of the Murder of the Holy Martyr Boris and Gleb,” contains a detailed story about the aforementioned murder committed by Svyatopolk, preceded by a brief introduction about the sons of Vladimir and his death and accompanied by a detailed additional story about subsequent political events, the beginning of which was the mentioned murder. It is the story of the struggle between Yaroslav and Svyatopolk until the former’s final occupation of the grand-ducal throne. The author, no doubt, adds this long ending, firstly, so that the legend takes on the appearance of a perfect whole, especially since the subsequent events have not yet been described by anyone, since the chronicle appeared later. Secondly, because the story of Boris and Gleb actually ends only with the final accession of Yaroslav to the grand-ducal throne, for only then was Glebovo’s body found and transferred to Boris’s body in Vyshegorod. It seems strange and not entirely clear that the legend of Boris and Gleb has one form and not another. It is only a legend about their murder by Svyatopolk. But at the time Jacob wrote, Boris and Gleb were already recognized and canonized saints of the Russian Church. Deciding to write a legend about the saints, he, apparently, had to take Greek legends of this kind as a model. It was accepted and established among the Greeks that legends should be written about saints that would represent their lives. There might not be enough information to write a complete biography of the saint, the information might be very incomplete and fragmentary: But the established custom demanded that real lives be written, which, starting from the youngest mile and from birth itself, and going along the line, if they were not, then would seem like complete biographies, and in which the lack of information, if any, was customary to compensate for the lack of information in generalities and rhetoric. The legend of the monk Jacob does not want to be such a real life. It is difficult to say why he, acting as the first compiler of legends about saints, did not seek the honor of being the first real biographer. He probably did not yet dare to completely imitate Greek models, not feeling the strength to compete with them. If he decided to write a life, then, in accordance with this loud title, he would undertake to fulfill his task. He felt that he was not enough for such a complete work, and decided to write in such a way that the proverb would not be attached to it: “If you take up the tug, don’t say that it’s not strong.” That is, he chose such a more modest form for his story so that demands could not be made of him that he did not feel able to fulfill. As a literary work, the tale of Boris and Gleb is distinguished by the author’s intense desire for drama, which is expressed in the fact that he puts into the mouths of Boris and Gleb many long speeches, consisting, in view of the bitter deaths awaiting them, in plaintive lamentations and prayerful appeals to God. The speeches are not without dignity in relation to the composition, but somehow artificiality and composition are noticeable in them, that is, they somehow lack real naturalness, they look not so much as speeches that directly pour out from the souls of the speakers, but as speeches that are composed and pronounced by them. Monk Jacob, among the representatives of private historiography or writers of individual legends about saints, is followed by the Monk Nestor of Pechersk. The Monk Nestor, unfairly considered to be our first chronicler, which we will say below when we talk about this latter, came to the Pechersk Monastery shortly after the death of Theodosius, under his short-lived successor Abbot Stephen, therefore, shortly after 1074. Ordained by the same Stephen, therefore, shortly after his monastic vows, to the rank of deacon or hierodeacon in 1421, Nestor, being in this rank, wrote before 1091. 1422, just like Jacob, two legends - one about the same Boris and Gleb, and the other - the life of St. Theodosius of Pechersk. The first in order of time was the legend about Boris and Gleb, which is inscribed: “Reading about the life and destruction of the blessed passion-bearer Boris and Gleb” 1423. First of all, of course, the question arises: why on earth did Nestor, after the legend about Boris and Gleb already written by Jacob, decide to write the same one again? Comparing one legend with another, we find in Nestor some separate factual differences against Jacob, and thus one would think that he wanted to correct Jacob, wanted to present the matter in a more reliable and accurate way, in his opinion, than in his predecessor. To think this, however, does not seem at all probable: ancient times were not at all a time of such scrupulous and meticulous research that new legends could be written because of unimportant and insignificant differences. In addition to the now indicated difference between the legends of Jacob and Nestor, we find another difference between them: the first is precisely only the story of their murder, while the second wants to be their real life. It is necessary to think that this last circumstance is the true reason why Nestor decided to write his own new legend in place of Jacob’s tale. Following the example of the Greek, the saints of our church Boris and Gleb should have their own lives. The legend written by Jacob was not such a life, and for this reason Nestor writes his new legend. Thus, Nestorov’s legend about Boris and Gleb represents our very first experience of real life. A person who decided to bring this form of writing to us from Greece naturally had to set his task to imitate his models as much as possible. Consequently, the lives, starting from the very first of them, should have appeared in our country as similar as possible to the Greek lives. One could think about hagiographies, which are a kind of historical monographs and which make up the bulk of our old writing, and many think that they represent very important historical material. Unfortunately, in reality this is far from the case. The proper purpose of the lives was not history, but Christian edification, and therefore the historical has lost all its own and immediate value in them and appears in them only in the form of a possibly colorless shell, as much as it is impossible to do without it when talking about what happened in space and time. It would be extremely important for history if they called everything that the lives talk about by their proper name, because then they would tell us a lot of historical facts that otherwise remained unknown to us. But proper names do not add edification; whether something happened to a person called so-and-so or to a certain person, whether something happened in a place called so-and-so or in a certain place, for the purposes of edification it is all the same and indifferent. And it was the custom of the writers of the lives of saints to clothe, if possible, all living reality in this “certain”: a certain man, a certain boyar, a certain city - in these constant “certain” they undoubtedly hid from us extremely many precious historical facts. Each saint lived and moved in a certain environment and was more or less in contact with it. An image among any given time, if it were as alive as possible and really reproduced it, would be very important for us. For then the lives would provide us with material for a possibly true and living and more or less individual understanding of different given times. But the lofty subject - the depiction of the exploits of the saints, and the lofty goal - Christian edification did not allow the actual trivial life to be depicted in its everyday triviality. And it is usually depicted in lives in such a vague way, in such a high style through general phrases, that any coloring of living and modern reality disappears and that a description from one time becomes absolutely applicable to any other. Concern for historical accuracy in detail was also not one of the main concerns of the writers of hagiographies. History requires authenticity. But edification could not tolerate in the slightest that this or that detail would be presented unreliably; and therefore the details often appear to them not as reliability would require, but as required for the purposes of edification. We said above that the Greeks had a special, accepted and established form for their lives. The human tendency to exaggerate everything has led in the field of hagiography to what was stated as a general position and as a general indispensable requirement that every saint be a chosen person and sanctified from the womb. On this basis, it was customary not to directly describe the exploits of saints, but always to write their entire biographies, starting from their birthday and leading through childhood and adolescence to the age of manhood or generally until the time of actual exploits. In fact, not every saint fit the general situation mentioned above, and, most importantly, not every saint’s childhood and youth were actually known. But this is how it was customary to write, and this part of the lives, in the absence of actual information, was filled with generally accepted passages and rhetoric, presenting the writers of lives with an extreme temptation to give free rein to their imagination. As for the externally literary side, or what is called artistic, the lives of the saints do not in the least represent artless historical stories, but on the contrary, they have a decisive inclination towards artificiality, towards cold composition, towards floridity and rhetoric. For all rhetoricians, an attack is considered an important matter. In particular, it was considered such among the writers of hagiographies, most of whom were not the best rhetoricians: to begin, if possible, ab ovo was an almost general custom. No matter what you say, just talk as elaborately as possible and make the attack as long as possible, it was absolutely necessary. This is the form in which the Greeks wrote the lives of the saints. It goes without saying that we could not see through its shortcomings and create some new, better type. We could only slavishly imitate. This is already being done, as we said, by our very first writer of lives - the Monk Nestor. Both of his lives, representing an imitation of the lives of the Greeks, bear their character and suffer from their shortcomings 1424. The author begins the approach to the lives of Boris and Gleb with a brief prayer to God for the gift of reason, and a rather common among writers of lives with a humble, sincere or feigned, confession of his rudeness and unreason. Then its content is that, this time quite to the point, speech ab ονο, which we talked about above, namely, the image of the entire divine economy about the salvation of people, which began: from time immemorial, God created heaven and earth and in which, at the tenth hour, it was the turn for us Russians to be illuminated with the light of Christianity. A brief speech about Vladimir and his baptism of Rus' constitutes a transition from the attack to the narrative itself. In this latter, the author fulfills the adopted plan indicated above only halfway. Skipping to talk about the birth of Boris and Gleb, he directly begins with their childhood. What prevented him from starting his speech from the very beginning, as required by the complete form of life, is not clearly visible. But in all likelihood, Boris and Gleb still belonged to paganism by birth and that thus, not providing any data for speeches filled with edification, it was still, so to speak, outside and beyond the sphere of life. Writing after too much time, Nestor, of course, could not have absolutely any real information about the childhood of Boris and Gleb. But, having taken upon himself to write their life, he had to write about it, for this was required by the form of life, according to which the legend should have the appearance of a complete biography. Without actual information, Nestor could do nothing but create the part of life he needed through commonplaces. This is what he does. He speaks generally about the piety of Boris and Gleb, about the fact that they were “like two brightly shining stars in a dark environment,” about their diligent veneration of divine books - the lives and torments of the saints, which kindled their hearts to imitate these latter and to evade the vanity of the world, about their diligent exercise in prayer all the time, about their, in the likeness of their father, generous alms to the poor, widows and orphans, and, finally, about the similarities between them and those saints whose Christian names they bore - St. Roman the sweet singer and King David. The further narrative contains the story of the murder of Boris and Gleb by Svyatopolk, without the addition from civil history that is read in Jacob, and with significant differences against him, as we noted above, in particulars. We said that for writers of hagiographies history is not at all a serious concern, that they not only do not count among their duties the accurate transmission of historical facts when they have to do this, but, on the contrary, deliberately convey them so generally that in their transmission the facts lose their historical significance. Here are examples of this in Nestor, who, like a real sworn writer of life, tries in everything, and, by the way, in the now indicated respect, to imitate Greek models, in comparison with Jacob, who in his tale behaves in relation to history not yet as a biographer, but as a chronicler. Jacob says that when Vladimir fell ill with a dying disease, an army of Pechenegs came to Rus', and that he, not being able to go against them himself, called Boris from Rostov, whom he sent with an army in his place. This fact of a campaign against enemies can only have historical meaning if we know who exactly the enemies were (which is exactly what James tells us). Nestor, telling the same thing, expresses himself about these enemies, whom Jacob directly names: “an army has come into his country (i.e. Vladimir). From this general, sufficient life for one’s own purposes and, if you like, for one’s own purposes of life a more appropriate “addition to the army,” the fact loses all historical meaning for us. For a writer of life there is no need to call enemies by name, for they were one or the other, it makes no difference to him, but for us this naming or not naming is the whole point. Jacob says that Svyatopolk, having planned to beat the brothers after the death of Vladimir, found himself advisers and assistants in the Vyshegorod men, with a certain Putsha at their head, and that he entrusted them with the murder of Boris. Talking about the same thing, Nestor calls these advisers and assistants of Svyatopolk simply his servants: “and the enemy put evil into his (Svyatopolk) heart, and sent him on the way to destroy (Boris), and he also destroyed his servant’s ambassador, choosing frantic men, an ambassador against blessed Boris, told them”... Jacob tells us a historical fact, but Nestor does not tell us nothing. We said above that historical accuracy in detail, not at all important for the purposes of edification, is not only not a deliberate concern for writers of hagiographies, but is often sacrificed by them for edification. Here is an example of this in Nestor compared to Jacob. The latter says that Boris, sent by Vladimir against the Pechenegs, did not find them and therefore returned (“I went to him and did not find my adversary and returned to him”). In Nestor this is completely different: he says that the enemies, having heard about the approach of Boris with the army, did not dare to stand against him and fled (“the army, as if they heard the blessed Boris, went howling, ran, not daring to stand against the blessed one”). We said above that Nestor differs from Jacob in quite a few particulars. Out of many, we will point out one. Jacob says that at the moment of Vladimir’s death, the youngest of the brothers Gleb was on his appanage reign in Murom, that treacherously summoned to Kyiv by Svyatopolk, he set out on the road, but was killed on the road near Smolensk. According to Nestor, Saint Gleb, never sent to his inheritance, was in Kyiv at the moment of Vladimir’s death; Having learned about Svyatopolk's plan to kill St. Boris, he fled from Kyiv, but on the way he was caught up by assassins sent by Svyatopolk. This disagreement with Jacob is an obvious inconsistency. At the moment of Vladimir’s death, Gleb was in Kyiv, but Svyatopolk begins the murders not with him, who was present, but with Boris, who was on the campaign. Without taking any measures to detain Gleb while he was in Kyiv, Svyatopolk gives him the opportunity to escape, but when he flees, he immediately sends assassins after him. We do not know who owns this amendment against Jacob - whether it is Nestor himself or the tradition on the basis of which he may have corrected Jacob; in any case, it proves the well-known and sad truth that history is both written and composed at the same time 1425. We turn to the life of St. Theodosius 1426. Nestor, as we said, did not personally know the Monk Theodosius, for he came to the Pechersky Monastery after his death. Nevertheless, he had the opportunity to collect the most detailed and most thorough information about him. For he came to the monastery almost immediately after his death, when the latter still consisted entirely of people who knew him personally. And when among the brethren there were still people who not only saw with their own eyes his entire monastic life, but also knew about him everything that preceded monasticism until the very day of his birth 1427. Thus, Nestor had the opportunity to write the life of Theodosius with full knowledge of his life. Indeed, it is a very detailed biography of the Monk Theodosius, starting from the very day of his birth, leading through childhood and youth, detailing the external events of his monastic life, saying a lot about his monastic exploits and setting out in order all his works regarding the gradual establishment of the Pechersk Monastery. In a word, giving his complete and detailed biography. What should be said about the inner virtues of the lives? Comparing it with the previous life of Boris and Gleb, they find that it is far better and higher than it; in general, they find that it was written “with special love for the saint of God,” and that “the writer’s word poured straight from the heart and from the fullness of conviction.” The latter want to say that the life, without being a cold rhetorical work, was written with soul and warmth. For our part, we do not find that this opinion can be considered completely fair. Nestor had so much actual information about Theodosius at his disposal that he did not need to resort to the enhanced help of rhetoric and had only to tell. As a result, the latter is not so strong in life that it hits the eyes and repels in an unpleasant way. The exceptional personality of the Monk Theodosius is so interesting that the story about her, whether warmly or not particularly warmly composed, could not help but become entertaining and instructive, not through the fault of the narrator, but because of the very subject of the story. These external conditions, which did not at all depend on the author and did not in the least constitute his merit, nevertheless create positive merits for his narrative. But, if we do not impute to the author merits that do not constitute his own merit, then we will need to say about life that it is life as life. That is, that it is not some kind of pearl of direct artistry, in which the hero would be depicted in such a way that he appears before us as a living person, but that it is a more or less artificial work, compiled according to the general template of lives. Nestor could not write that truly artistic narrative, that truly living and sincere story that people want to see in life, because he did not see or know personally the Monk Theodosius and that he had to convey not his own direct impressions, but only the retellings of others. What is certain is that, without standing out from a number of other lives by any special internal artistic merits, the life does not suffer from any special external shortcomings, simply literary. For this last quality, in the series of our lives, he, undoubtedly, should be given one of the first places 1428. Our writers of hagiography often lack the ability to tell an intelligent story. At the same time, the passion for oratory sometimes carries them into a completely incongruous oratory, into a set of phrases in which there is no structure or harmony and which turns out to be a terrible “God knows what.” Reverend Nestor, as far as one can demand from a person who is only literate and knows other than this grammar only by ear, is a completely satisfactory storyteller, and now the oratory we have indicated cannot at all be considered its ancestor. What has been said applies equally to both the life of St. Theodosius and the life of Boris and Gleb. The latter is inferior to the first in terms of the interest of its content, but not inferior to it, but completely the same and equal to it in literary merit 1429. After the lives of St. Nestor, we have no legends about saints for a whole century. All other currently known legends of this kind date back to the end of the pre-Mongol period, to the 3rd century. In chronological order, first place after Nestor belongs to the unknown compiler of the legend about St. Leonty of Rostov and the discovery of his relics 1430. I said above that our writers of legends about saints, imitating the Greeks, should have tried to write such legends that would have the appearance and form of complete lives, and that for this reason the Monk Nestor, following the legend of Boris and Gleb by the monk Jacob, found it necessary to write his own new legend about them. But there is a big difference between a desire and its implementation. To write a legend, in the form of as complete a life as possible, about such a saint, about whom there was no sufficient biographical information, required considerable literary skill. Not all compilers of legends about saints could have it, and those of them who did not recognize themselves as possessing this art, writing about saints about whom they had insufficient biographical information, should have limited themselves to simply transmitting this information, without trying to create real lives. Thus, next to the real lives, in content or at least in form, there should have appeared legends about saints, representing only some records about them. This type of not real lives, but only records, includes the legend of St. Leonty of Rostov. Its content consists of: news of the saint’s birthplace, a brief mention of his two predecessors at the Rostov cathedra, and then a story about the miracle through which he converted the inhabitants of Rostov to Christianity. The appendices to the legend include: the news of the discovery of the relics of Leontius and the establishment of the celebration of his memory, and the story of two miracles that occurred simultaneously shortly after this. It concludes with a brief word of praise to the saint, expressing some claims to oratory, without which it was absolutely impossible to do without words of praise, but showing in the author the orator only a forced one. We talked much above about how much faith can be attached to the historical news of legends. For the legend of St. Leontia follows the Paterik of Pechersk 1431 in chronological order. Paterika - πατερικόν, we mean βιβλίον, in Russian otečnik, otechnaya book, i.e. a book of fathers or about fathers, the Greeks called in the field of ascetic literature collections or short, particularly miraculous, stories about the ascetics of some famous monastic locality, or short the ascetic and moralizing words of these fathers, or both together. Thus, the Egyptian Patericon (Alphabetic and Skete), Jerusalem Patericon, Sinai Patericon and others are known. Our Patericon of Pechersk, representing an imitation of the Greek Patericon, was a collection of the first kind, namely a collection of short, wonderful stories about the ascetics of the Pechersk Monastery and about the monastery itself. The first beginning of the Patericon of Pechersk was laid by our first chronicler, about whom we will talk a little lower. Being a monk of the Pechersk Monastery, he could not leave, so that, by passing on to posterity the deeds of, so to speak, strangers, he would not perpetuate the glory of his native place. Having told in detail, firstly, under 1051. about the founding of the monastery by the Monks Anthony and Theodosius, and secondly, under the year 1074 about the death of Theodosius, the chronicler adds to the last of the stories, for the praise and glorification of the monastery, the story of the saint’s residence in it under Theodosius and after his death. Having said that the monks who had copulated with Theodosius and the monks who remained after him shone like lights in Rus', that some of them practiced in some feats, others in others, and that they all represented a union of brotherhood bound by strong and high love, the chronicler then, as he says, replaces several wonderful husbands. That is, he talks, for example, about several ascetics of Pechersk, who during their lifetime became famous for one or another gift of miracles. After the small beginning made by the chronicler, there were no further stories about the ascetics and miracle workers of Pechersk for about a hundred and a quarter years. Finally, in the first half of the 13th century, two collections of stories about them were written almost simultaneously, which formed their own Patericon of Pechersk. The authors of these collections were Bishop Simon of Vladimir and Suzdal and the monk of the Pechersk Monastery Polycarp. Simon, a monk of the Pechersk Monastery, taken from it by the Grand Duke Vsevolod Yuryevich to be abbot of the Nativity Monastery he founded in Vladimir, probably at the very founding of this latter in 1197, and, in any case, appearing as such in 1206, was installed as the first bishop of the newly discovered diocese of Vladimir, separated from Rostov, according to elected son and successor of Vsevolodov Yuri, in 1214. After a 12-year reign, he died in 1226. The stories about the ascetics and the miracles of Pechersk, written by Simon, are in the form of an appendix to a private letter, namely, addressed to the above-mentioned monk of Pechersk Polycarp. This Polycarp, being either Simon’s favorite monastic disciple or, what is much more likely, his close relative, belonged to those people who could not arrange themselves and who were not happy and at ease everywhere. Arriving from the Pechersk Monastery to Simon in Vladimir, Polycarp lived with him for some time and returned again. Realizing that he was no worse than other people, he strove for power so that, as a boss, he could bring more benefit, but when he received power, he repented and found that it was better to be subordinate: twice he was given the abbot’s place and twice he returned from it to the Pechersky Monastery. Having returned for the last time, he still did not calm down - he began to present himself as a criticizing the authorities and a fundamentally or unreasonably dissatisfied opposition with everyone, and at the same time imagining himself as a person not appreciated, persecuted and offended. Polycarp expressed his complaints, his discontent and his grievances in a letter to Simon. This letter from Polycarp, together with all his behavior, forced Simon to write him a strictly accusatory and instructive letter. And to this message, in order to show Polycarp what a chosen and exclusively holy place the Pechersk Monastery is and in order to convince him of his continued stay in it, Simon attached a number of legends about the miracle workers of the Pechersk Church and about the miracles that took place in the monastery itself during the construction of its main or great church. This is the literary form in which Simon published his collection of tales. It cannot help but seem somewhat strange and not entirely understandable. There is no doubt that the collection of legends was not intended for Polycarp only in the form of his personal edification, but in general for all Russian people or had the purpose of a public composition, and, however, it is given the form of an appendix to a private letter. We cannot say positively what made Simon do this. It can be plausibly assumed that he was embarrassed to publish his collection of legends in the form of a real or ordinary public work, fearing doubts and disbelief. By giving the collection of legends the form of a work that has a private purpose, Simon gave the unbelievers the answer that it was not written for them. Be that as it may, the matter in its present form is far from natural. We are talking about the famous ascetics and miracle workers of the Pechersk Monastery. Both Simon and Polycarp are both monks of this monastery. If one knew about ascetics and miracle workers, then, obviously, the other should have known about them too. Meanwhile, one appears to be telling another as unknown what should have been known to him, and, moreover, the one who is absent from the monastery tells the one who is in it 1432. There is also something not entirely natural in Simon’s work in its present form, which also catches the eye, although not particularly sharply. There is no complete correspondence between the letter to Polycarp and the appendix to it, consisting of stories or making up the Patericon. In the letter, Simon denounces Polycarp for this and that; the stories are attached, of course, in order to confirm with examples everything he said himself. In fact, they do not serve this purpose, but to confirm something that does not at all constitute the main subject of the letter, so that in the appendix we find not what should be expected from the letter, and it is not a real appendix, but a special and independent thing, only clothed in an inappropriate form. The collection of legends written by Simon consists of nine separate stories about the miracle workers of Pechersk and five, constituting one whole, separate stories about miracles that accompanied the construction of the main Pechersk church. As for the time of life of the persons and the time of the events that Simon talks about, in two cases he speaks as an eyewitness, in two he reports from the words of eyewitnesses, in all the rest the source of his information should be considered the legends preserved in the Pechersky Monastery 1433. Simon's collection was supplemented with a new collection by the same Polycarp to whom he wrote, and who addressed his work, like a message, to the then Archimandrite of Pechersk Akindinus. First, a short introduction or introduction is read, in which Polycarp tells Akindinus, firstly, about the source of his information, and secondly, about why he writes to him instead of telling him orally, then the stories themselves follow, of which Polycarp has 11 in number. Just as Simon actually wrote not for Polycarp, but for the public, and only found it most convenient to publish his work in the form of a meeting appointed for a private person, so Polycarp, of course, actually wrote not for Akindinus, but for the same public. The literary form he chose must be considered even more awkward than that of Simon. If the situation is presented in such a way that of two monks of the same monastery, one knows about the miracle workers who were there, and the other does not, then at least the older ones tell the younger one. Here, on the contrary, the matter is presented in such a way that the younger one tells the older one what the latter should have known without him and better than him. Polycarp refers in the introduction, probably to give greater authority to his words in the eyes of readers, to Bishop Simon as the source of his information. But this link cannot be looked at otherwise than as a new and also great literary awkwardness. If this were really so, then, firstly, the question would be: why Simon himself did not finish telling what Polycarp was telling; secondly, and most importantly, then the question would arise: how did only Simon and no one else know about the wonderworkers and miracles of the Pechersk? Finally, Polycarp, giving his work the strange form of a message to the archimandrite of his own monastery, realized it was necessary to answer the question: why on earth is he writing, and not telling it orally to a person who is in the same place with him. To this question he gives the following far from entirely natural answer, addressed to Akindin: “you asked me and told me to tell you about the deeds of those monks. But you know my rudeness and bad custom, that no matter what it is about, I always talk to you with fear. How could I clearly tell the miracles they performed? I told you some of those glorious miracles, but I forgot much more out of fear and told it foolishly, ashamed of your piety.” Polycarp gives his work the form of a private letter, of course, for the same reason as Simon; but it is strange that he gives him the form of a letter addressed to his own archimandrite, and not to someone else. The persons and events of all 11 stories of Polycarp belong to such a distant time from him that the source of all should be considered the oral traditions of the Pechersk Monastery. The content of all the stories of Simon and Polycarp, as we said above, is the miracles that took place in the Pechersk Monastery. The distinctive feature of most miracles is their exclusivity and greatness or special extraordinaryness. Simon himself, pointing out this trait to their Polycarp, asks him: “Truly, brother Polycarp, where did you hear about such wondrous miracles that happened in the holy Pechersk monastery?” Having talked about the miracles that took place during the construction of the main church of Pechersk, Simon writes: “we went through the books of the Old and New Testaments and nowhere did we find such miracles about the holy churches as about this one.” In literary terms, both works, Simonovo and Polikarpovo, are comparatively very satisfactory. Simon, in his introductory part to the stories or in his own accusatory letter to Polycarp, allows us to see in himself not just an intelligent storyteller, but in general a very remarkable writer and speaker. The greatest number of copies of the Patericon of Pechersk that have reached us undoubtedly testifies that it was the most beloved book of our ancestors. On this basis, it seems, many people think that it is the most edifying book for people seeking edification. But this last requires at least some explanatory speech. The own goal of the compilers of the Patericon, as they directly and clearly make it clear, was to perpetuate in posterity the memory of the great miracles that took place in the Pechersky Monastery, and at the same time to show that the Pechersky Monastery is God’s chosen and holy place. Independent of this goal of the compilers and direct, in relation to the readers, the edification of the Patericon is that through the hands of great ascetics God works great miracles. But if we understand edification in the ordinary sense of instruction and guidance to a pious Christian life, then in this sense, and not only for monks, for whom it is natural to have before their eyes the example of ascetics, but also for laymen who cannot be ascetics, the Patericon is not a book either exclusively or deliberately edifying. He was a diligent reader at all times, firstly, because of his high spiritual interest. For if fabulous miracles are of interest, then even more so should the great true miracles be of interest. Secondly, because God deigned to commemorate our holy place in Rus' with great miracles and that in this way he, the Paterik, narrating about these miracles, provides evidence of God’s special favor specifically to our Rus'. The own Patericon of Pechersk, according to the intention of the writers, consists of collections of legends from Simonovo and Polikarpovo. But not a single manuscript has survived to us in which the Patericon would appear to consist only of these two collections. On the contrary, in all manuscripts that have reached us they appear with more or less additional articles. Starting with those close to them in content and related to the history of the same Pechersk Monastery and its founders (from the chronicle of the founding of the monastery, the death of Theodosius and the first ascetics, the discovery of the relics of Theodosius, Nestor’s life of Theodosius, etc.) and ending with those that are not very close to them and related to the initial and generally ancient history of our church and our state. According to these additional articles, which in some lists are in one quantity, in others in a different number, the latter are divided into groups or editorial boards. In addition, the collections of Simon and Polycarp themselves are not read in the same form in all copies: Consisting of each of many separate stories and, in addition, the first - of three separate parts (the epistle to Polycarp itself, the tales of the miracle workers of Pechersk and the tales of miracles during the construction of the Pechersk Church), they presented the possibility of rearranging and releasing both separate tales, and the first in addition and parts, which was actually done. There are quite a lot of all currently known editions, especially if we take into account individual differences. The oldest and most important editions, which received their names from the oldest copies of each list, are: 1) Arsenyevskaya, on behalf of the Tver Bishop Arseny (a saint who rests in the Zholtikov Monastery), for whom the Patericon was written in the Pechersky Monastery. (The place of his tonsure and monasticism) in 1406 (the oldest list of the oldest editions, of course, is the oldest of all that have come down to us. Currently it is in the Public Library, which was received from the merchant Bersenev, why is it otherwise called Bersenevsky); 2) two Kasyanovskys - the first and second on behalf of the Kryloshan and the charterer of the Pechersk Monastery Cassian, by order or according to a series of whom they were written in the Pechersk Monastery in 1460. and 1462 two lists of the Patericon, representing two special editions. (Since the first list of 1460 was written on the orders of Cassian, but not for himself, but for the former metropolitan governor in Kyiv, the holy monk Akaki, the edition is otherwise called Akakievskaya). In the first edition or Arsenyevskaya, half of the work belonging to Simon is read without its first part or without its own accusatory message to Polycarp, so that the collection of legends does not look like an appendix to a letter, but an independent whole. In both second editions, Simon's work is read in its entirety, but with the separation of the third part into a separate whole, which was delivered first and is separated from the other two parts by a significant interval of interpolated articles. Anyone can read about the remaining editions in the article by the Right Reverend Macarius: Review of the edition of the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon, placed in Historical Readings on Language and Literature of the II Division of the Academy of Sciences 1856–57. And for a thorough acquaintance with the editions in general, one must also attach Kubarev’s article: About the Pechersk Patericon, with an additional one to it: Description of the charatean list of the Pechersk Patericon, in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1847. No. 9, and another, – About the editions of the Paterik of Pechersk in general, ibid. 1858 book 3. Here is a brief overview of the collections of Simon and Polycarp. The first, as we said, consists of three parts: an accusatory letter to Polycarp, legends about the ascetics of Pechersk and legends about miracles that took place during the construction of the main Pechersk church. Leaving the first part, the content of which we conveyed, let's start directly with the second. It consists of legends: 1) About Onesiphorus the presbyter and the unworthy man. Onesiphorus had one spiritual son and friend from among the monks, who in appearance was an imitator of the saint, seemed chaste and fasting, but secretly ate and drank and lived badly, which was hidden from his spiritual father. One day he suddenly died and such a stench came from his body that no one could stand it. They wanted to throw him out of the cave, where he was buried with difficulty, but through the prayer of the saint, to whom it was revealed in a vision about the cause of the stench, the latter disappeared and the venerable Anthony, who appeared, said to Onesiphorus: “I had mercy on the soul of this brother, because I cannot break my vow: I promised you that everyone laid here will have mercy, even if he has sinned..., no one from this monastery will condemned to torment... 2) About Eustratius the faster. Captured by the Polovtsians (during one of their attacks on Kyiv and the Pechersk Monastery), he was sold to a Korsun Jew. After many tortures and torments, the Jew crucified him for reproach on the cross, on which he remained alive for 15 days. His death, which followed from being pierced by a spear, was accompanied by miracles, and his tormentor and all the Korsun Jews suffered severe heavenly wrath in 1434. 3) About Nikon, who is very patient and dry. Having been taken prisoner along with Eustratius, he did not want to be ransomed, as relatives and outsiders were ready to do, but wanted to endure for the Lord. For this, the Polovtsians tortured him without any mercy. Finally, after three years of suffering, he was invisibly released from captivity and invisibly transferred to the Pechersk Monastery, where after that he remained alive for a long time, all withered and rotten from the wounds received in captivity. 4) About the holy martyr Kuksha and Pimen the faster. The first, having baptized the Vyatichi, suffered a lot of torment from the infidels and was finally killed by them along with his disciple. The second, having foreseen his death in two years, announced in the monastery the murder of Kuksha at the last hour and died on the same day as him. 5) About Athanasius the recluse. Having died after a long illness, due to negligence he was not buried on the very day of death (as was done at that time). When they came to bury him the next day, he turned out to be alive, for he had risen from the dead. Having taught the brethren, at her urgent request, several instructions, and the main thing among them was to pray in order to end his life in the monastery and be worthy of burial in a cave with the holy fathers, he entered into a hopeless and silent seclusion, in which he remained for 12 years after that. When he died for the second time, a miracle of healing from illness took place near his body (the last miracle was heard from the healed person himself). 6) About the Venerable Saint, Prince of Chernigov. Svyatosha, which is a diminutive of Svyatoslav, was the son of David and the grandson of Svyatoslav of Chernigov and the great-grandson of Yaroslav the Great. He was the first among the princes to voluntarily take monastic vows, and the only one to take monastic vows not before his death, but long before it, with the goal of being a real monk. Having become a monk with the name Nicholas in the Pechersk Monastery in 1107, he lived there for 36 years, held the positions of cook and goalkeeper, and spent the entire time of his monastic life in free, wretched poverty and in the feats of fasting, for which he was awarded the gift of insight and miracles. 7) About the monk Erasmus. Arriving at the monastery with great wealth, he used it all to frame the icons of the monastery’s great church. Having spent everything and reached poverty, instead of the expected honors, as someone who had nothing, he began to be neglected by the brethren; at the suggestion of the devil, he began to despair that he would not receive an eternal reward for the wealth he had spent, because he used it for the church and did not give it out in alms. As a result of this, he began to neglect his life and spend his days in all kinds of negligence and disorder. But suffering from a serious illness, he was rewarded with a vision of the Monks Anthony and Theodosius with the Mother of God, of whom the first two told him that through their prayer the Lord was giving him time to repent. And the second said: because you have decorated My church and magnified it with icons, and I will glorify you in the kingdom of My Son. After this, he confessed his sins to everyone, accepted the schema and died in peace on the 3rd day (heard from eyewitnesses). 8) About the monk Apefa. Having great wealth, he was extremely stingy, so that he starved himself. In one night, thieves stole all his wealth, from which he fell into great despair, not wanting to hear any admonitions and consolations from the brethren. But the Lord, who wants to save everyone, enlightened him through a vision of angels and devils who came to him. After this, he repented, and the missing silver was included in alms by the angels (he tells it as an eyewitness). 9) About Titus the priest and Evagrius the deacon. Titus and Evagrius were at first great friends, and then, due to the enmity of the devil, they became bitter enemies. When the first one fell ill one day and, being near death, wanted to be reconciled with the second, the brethren could not force Evagrius to do this, who said: I never want to be reconciled with him, either in this century or in the future. For this, he was invisibly struck by an angel with a sudden and terrible death (he tells it as an eyewitness). The third part is about the miracles that took place during the construction of the main Pechersk Church: 1) About Shimon Prince of Varangian. Yakun the Blind, Prince of Varangian, who helped Yaroslav against Svyatopolk, after the death of his brother African, expelled his two sons from their regions. One of the two expelled, named Shimon, came to serve Yaroslav, who held him in honor and made him the senior boyar of his son Vsevolod. This Shimon began to have a special love for the Pechersk Monastery on the occasion that when in 1066. Yaroslav's sons Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod, setting out on a campaign against the Polovtsians, came to Anthony for prayer and blessing, then the elder predicted defeat for them, and predicted ulcers for Shimon, who was with the princes. But also salvation and burial after a peaceful death in his monastery. And that, according to this prophecy, Shimon, having been wounded, was miraculously delivered from the danger of captivity and together healed of his wounds. After this incident, Shimon, coming to Theodosius, told him that his father Africanus had built a cross, on which he placed a golden crown and a golden belt. That when he, Shimon, getting ready to flee, took the crown and belt, then a heavenly voice came to him: never put the crown on your head, but carry it to the place prepared for him, where the church of My Mother is being built by the venerables, and give it into their hands to hang over my altar. That, sailing on the sea during a great storm, he saw a church in the sky with his companions and heard about it, that this was the church that was to be built by the monks, and that he was given the measure of that church, measured by the belt from the cross that he carried with him. Until now, Shimon concluded his story, I did not know where the church I had seen would be built, but now from your words that I will be laid here, in the already created church, I learned this. With these words, Shimon, renamed from the monk Simon, handed him a crown and a belt. Next it is told how this Simon, having come to the Monk Theodosius, asked him, in assurance that he was praying for him and for his family as well as for his monks, a written prayer, as we spoke about above. And then an additional story, how the son of this Simon, George, during the reign of Yuri Dolgoruky, bound the tomb of the Monk Theodosius, which work was marked by a miracle over the unfaithful assistant of George, on whom he entrusted its execution 1435 3) about painters. Both of them were miraculously sent from Constantinople - the first during the life of Anthony and Theodosius by the Mother of God, who also sent a local icon for the church, the second by Anthony and Theodosius themselves, who had already passed away. 5) (No. 4 was lost somewhere in the manuscript) About John and Sergius. In Kyiv there were two people from the great city, John and Sergius, who entered into spiritual brotherhood before the wonderful icon of the Mother of God, sent to the monastery by herself. Many years later, John, having fallen ill and preparing to die, called Sergius and gave him for safekeeping the money that he was leaving to his five-year-old son as an inheritance. Having reached the age of 15, this son of John wished to receive his estate from Sergius, but he locked himself away and did not want to give it away. Then the icon of the Mother of God, called as a witness, before whom the spiritual brotherhood was concluded, denounced and severely punished Serius and together doubled the money in his custody. 6) About the holy meal. When the church was completely ready, they looked for a long time for a craftsman who would make a stone plaque for St. throne, and not finding it, they decided to prepare a wooden board. But the then Metropolitan John did not want a wooden board on the altar in such a great church. The abbot was in great sadness. But when, on the eve of the appointed day of consecration, they came to the church to sing vespers, they found a stone plaque near the altar barrier. Several bishops gathered for the consecration of the church, who were not called by anyone, but appeared by a miraculous calling. The collection of Polycarp, after the brief introduction that we gave above, contains the stories: 1) About Nikita the recluse, after the Bishop of Novgorod. This Nikita, wanting to gain fame from people, despite the prohibitions and admonitions of the abbot, went into seclusion. But soon, as the abbot predicted, he was seduced by a demon, who appeared to him in the form of an angel and with whose help he truly became famous among people. Finally, from his aversion to the books of the New Testament, which he did not want to see, hear, or read, it was known that he was deceived by the enemy. The holy fathers, having gathered to the seduced man, and praying over him, drove the demon away from him. After this, coming out of seclusion, Nikita devoted himself to abstinence, obedience and a humble life. 2) About Lavrenty the recluse. Wanting to go into seclusion and not having received permission to do so in the Pechersky Monastery, he retired to the Dmitrievsky Monastery. For his strong life he was awarded the gift of healing. One day he could not drive out a demon from a demon-possessed man he had brought and sent the latter to the Pechersky Monastery. At the same time, the demon testified that in the Pechersk Monastery there are 30 monks who can drive him out with one word. 3) About St. Agapita, the free doctor. He healed the sick with prayer and the potion he drank. Among others, he healed Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh. He put to shame a doctor who was at that time in Kiev, a native of Armenians, and finally persuaded him to convert to Orthodoxy and take monasticism in the Pechersk Monastery. 4) About St. Gregory the Wonderworker. Being diligent in prayer, I received victory over demons. According to the teachings of the demons, he was robbed by thieves and miraculously punished the latter. He accepted death at the hands of one angry prince, who ordered him to be thrown into the Dnieper. Moreover, the dead man with a stone around his neck, with which he was thrown, found himself in his cell. 5) About John the recluse. He spent thirty years in close seclusion in a cave, struggling mainly against carnal passion. Finally, I received the gift of satisfying it in others. 6) About Moses Ugrin. There was a brother of that Georgy Ugrin, who fell defending St. Boris. Taken captive by Boleslav of Poland, there with his beauty he wounded the heart of a rich widow, who, having tried for a long time and in vain to persuade him to her lust, betrayed him to cruel torment. Finally, having gotten rid of the widow who had suffered God’s execution, he came to the Pechersk Monastery, where he healed the illness of carnal passion by the power of God 1437. 7) About Prokhor Lebednik. He ate only quinoa, not eating anything else. During the famine, he fed the poor with bread made from this quinoa, which seemed to those who received it from Prokhor to be real and tasty bread. Once, when due to the war there was no supply of salt, he turned ashes into salt to distribute to the poor. He turned the Grand Duke Svyatopolk Izyaslavich to the path of repentance. 8) About the Venerable Mark the Pechernik. He lived in a cave and was busy digging graves in the cave for the dying, and carrying the earth on his shoulders. During his godly life, he was granted such a gift of miracles that the dead listened to his voices. 9) About Theodore and Vasily. Before entering monasticism, Theodore gave away all his wealth to the poor, but in the monastery he began to repent and was tempted by the demon of the love of money. Vasily was the instrument of his healing from mental illness. Both of them suffered from one, it is not entirely clear how, who had power in Kiev, the prince, having been slandered by the latter by a demon. 10) About Spiridon the prosphora-maker and Alimpia the icon painter. Both of them possessed the gift of miracles. 11) About the long-suffering Pimin. Having been born and raised in illness, he wanted to become a monk; but his parents, hoping for his recovery, did not allow him to do this. Brought to the Pechersk Monastery for healing, he was tonsured in one night by angels. After lying ill for many years, he performed many great miracles. The printed Patericon of Pechersk, which has existed for a long time, does not represent a printed collection of ancient legends in their original form, but there is a later one of them and, based on them, a compilation or processing is far from satisfactory in its merits. Its original compiler was Sylvester Kossov, Bishop of Mstislav and Mogilev (1635–1647), then Metropolitan of Kiev († 1657), who published his work in Polish in 1635. under the title: Paterikon abo Żywoty s.s. oyców Pieczarskich (w Kioiwie, w drucarni Lawry Pieczarskiey). But the Pechersk monks, having decided to publish this Patericon in Russian, subjected it to their own alteration, and not only changed it somewhat, but also somewhat worsened it 1438. For the first time they published their new edition in 1661, during the archimandrite of Innocent Gisiel or Gisel, under the title: Patericon or Fatherland of Pechersk, containing the lives of our holy venerable and God-bearing fathers, who shone in caves, etc., etc. After the preface to the Orthodox reader, containing answers against blasphemy against the saints of Pechersk, the Patericon is divided into three parts: In the first, the lives of Anthony and Theodosius (the second of Nestorov), legends about the construction of the church (from Simon), the lives of the abbots Stephen, Nikon and Varlaam, the lives of the Venerable Ephraim the Eunuch Bishop of Pereyaslavl and Isaiah the Bishop Rostov and from the chronicle of the lives of the Monks Damian, Jeremiah, Matthew and Isaac. In the second, the legends of Polikarpov are added at the end of their beginning or the introductory address of Polycarp to Akindinus. In the third, Simon's legends with the addition at the end of the life of Niphon, Bishop of Novgorod, the first or accusatory part of Simon's letter to Polycarp and the lives of the writers of the Patericon Nestor the chronicler, Bishop Simon and the monk Polycarp, whom the compilers take for one person with Archimandrite Polycarp, who died in 1182. In all likelihood, the life of the Venerable Euphrosyne of Polotsk should be attributed to the pre-Mongol period, who labored as a monk, with the construction of two monasteries for women and men near Polotsk, in the second and third quarters of the 12th century and died in 1173. The literary treatment of the life in its form, as it is now known, belongs to a later time. But the content of the life, by its factual side, i.e., by the information it provides, makes it possible to see in its author a direct or, at least, a very close contemporary. We cannot say anything about the literary merit of the life for the reason we have now indicated. (That is, that the current literary treatment is a later one). As for the content, in relation to this last life is quite complete, presenting the life of Euphrosyne in continuous sequence from beginning to end and, as if having no important omissions 1439. The last work from the pre-Mongol period, which belongs to the present department of private moralizing historiography, is the life of the Venerable Abraham of Smolensk 1440, who labored at the end of the 12th - beginning of the 13th century. Having been written by the personal disciple of the monk Ephraim, the life is not a short record, similar to the legend about St. Leontius of Rostov, but a real complete and detailed life, similar to Nestor’s life of St. Theodosius and the anonymous life of St. Euphrosyne. So, after two real lives of Nestor and one anonymous, it is the fourth for the pre-Mongol period. The Monk Abraham was not one of the fathers of our monasticism, like Theodosius, and in general was not in its history one of the, so to speak, luminaries and representatives of decisively outstanding ones. But, nevertheless, he was a remarkable person and very interesting in relation to the history not of monasticism, but of the church in general and the history of church life. He began with a kind of asceticism of foolishness. And then he devoted himself to the activity of a folk teacher as a teaching monk, ready to serve everyone who wants spiritual conversations, which we talked about a little higher. To our greatest regret, our author does not depict the Monk Abraham either in the exploits of foolishness or in the activities of a teacher with such sufficiency that we could remain more or less satisfied with the image. That Abraham began with foolishness, he only reports about this without any further expansion. True, he speaks deliberately about his activity as a teacher, and not only does he speak deliberately, but it is as if he primarily devotes all his speeches to it: however, in the end, what comes out is that after many words there is no image of this activity at all. However, we should be very grateful to our author for what he did with his strength. If he did not describe to us what was remarkable in Abraham’s life, he at least pointed it out, and this is already important. As a writer, Ephraim is significantly lower than Nestor, whom he had before his eyes. Which he obviously tried to imitate and which he partially copied. Since the life of the Monk Abraham was not rich in external events that could be talked about, and depicting him in the motionless external activity of a teacher was beyond the power of the author, he was in danger of being too brief. In order to achieve a decent size in relation to the volume of his life, he resorts to digressions, which he takes every opportunity to go into and which, while supposed to be oratorical according to his intention, cannot quite be recognized as such in reality. Our author prudently saves himself from the painful task of composing an attack for all writers of lives by copying it from Nestor, taking one half from the life of Boris and Gleb, and the other from the life of Feodosiev. Moreover, however, he had the misfortune that one half of the attack (the first, taken from the lives of Boris and Gleb) came out completely unrelated to the case (Concerning the information that the author reports about the parents and the special circumstances of the birth of the Monk Abraham, we cannot say anything; but as for the fact that on the 8th day after birth he was brought to the church to be named, and on the 40th day he was baptized, and then further about his childhood, then here are the general ones, so say, passages from the form of all the saints, which the author literally copies from Nestor). This section should include the following belonging to unknown authors: 1) the legend about the transfer of the relics of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker from Myra in Lycia to Bargrad, 2) stories or records of several miracles of the same saint. The legend about the transfer of the relics in 1441, written by a very close contemporary of the event that took place in 1087, presents some mystery. The unknown Russian author or compiler, firstly, had at hand one of the Latin legends about the transfer of relics, written in Bar itself. Secondly, he used the oral stories of someone unknown, who was personally in Bar and who supplemented his information against the Latin legend 1442 that he had at hand: how could both of these happen? There are two possible assumptions. Firstly, that the Latin legend was brought to Kyiv and additional information against it was provided by one of the Italian merchants, who in the pre-Mongol period undoubtedly traded in Russia or, at least, in Kyiv; mainly the Venetians (Venedits) traded, but since Bargrad or Bari belonged to the number of trading cities, merchants could trade from this latter or from itself. The second assumption is that the legend was brought and additional information against it was reported by a Kiev ambassador who was then visiting Italy. In the Nikon Chronicle under 1091. We read that “that same summer Fedor, Metropolitan of Greece, came from the Pope from Rome and brought many relics of the saints.” This Theodore, no doubt, was sent by Metropolitan John 2 to Pope or Antipope Clement III with his famous response letter to the latter’s message. Having visited Clement in Rome or another place in 1443, Theodore could go from him to Bar to the relics of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, the fame of the miracles that took place during which spread throughout Italy and the desire to see which was very natural for him to have 1444. We will convey the very story of the transfer of the relics, which is narrated in the legend, later, when we talk about establishing a holiday in our country in memory of this event. In the collections of miracles of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, records of four miracles belonging to Russian authors of the pre-Mongol period are read. Two miracles took place in Constantinople, during the reign of Emperor Constantine Monomakh (1042–1054) and Patriarch Michael Cerularius (1043–1058), and were recorded by some Russian, during whose stay there they took place. The first miracle is inscribed: “About the carpet, having bought it (St. Nicholas) return it back V17; again,” and it consisted in the fact that one artisan named Nicholas, who had diligently honored the festivities of his patron all his life, had reached poverty in his old age and had nothing to buy for St. Nicholas’s day. Nicholas wine, prosphora and candles, he decided to sell the only valuable item he had left - the carpet. St. Nicholas bought a carpet from him, appearing to him in the form of an honest old man, but before he returned home, he brought the carpet to his wife, who was at home, as if sent back by her husband 1445. The second miracle is inscribed: “About a man, deliver him from iron and from prison” and consisted in the fact that one boyar shackled one of his slaves in iron and put him in prison on the unfair, from his own forgetfulness, suspicion of stealing money and that St. Nicholas, appearing to the boyar in a terrible vision, brought the truth to his memory. The second two miracles took place in Russia. The first of these two second miracles is inscribed: “About a certain child” and consisted in the fact that the baby, dropped by his mother into the water while returning by boat along the Dnieper from Vyshgorod to Kyiv from the feast of the holy martyrs Boris and Gleb, through the prayer of his parents, who had great faith in Nicholas the Wonderworker, was found alive on the bed of St. Sophia at the image of St. Nicholas. The second miracle is inscribed: “About Polovchin, a certain Christian handed over his bail to St. Nicholas,” and consisted of the fact that one resident of Kyiv had a captive Polovchin, who did not have anything to buy out of captivity, - that the Kiev resident gave him freedom so that he would deliver the ransom upon returning home, only to take as his guarantor the icon of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, which Polovchin, laughing over a strange guarantor, he wanted to deceive the Kievite, but St. Nicholas, with his reprimands, forced him to fulfill the obligation of 1446. We turn to our general and proper historiography or to our chronicles. We said much above that Russians have become literate since the time of Igor. It is necessary to think that individual chronicle records and notes began to be made and that individual chronicle narratives about the most important events began to be compiled from the very first times of literacy. It may very well be that before our current first chronicle, written at the beginning of the 12th century, attempts had already been made to create real chronicles or processed chronicle codes from existing material. Be that as it may, our actual first chronicle, which came into general use and which has survived to the present day, was written at the beginning of the 12th century by one monk of the Pechersk Monastery. Who exactly this famous father of our historiography was, this remains a not entirely resolved question. A case happened, not at all unprecedented in history, that another began to be considered the first chronicler, who had no right to this honor and did not appropriate it to himself at all; this is precisely the Monk Nestor, about whom we spoke a little higher, as the author of the lives of Boris and Gleb and the Monk Theodosius. This happened in very ancient times and through the fault of those very monks of Pechersk, from whose midst the chronicler was. His name, not mentioned by him in the chronicle, was not preserved among the Pechersk monks through oral tradition; and meanwhile, either in the inscription of the chronicle it was read without a name, as is read in most of the copies that have survived to this day, that it is the story of the temporary years of the monk of the Feodosev Pechersk Monastery, or if in the inscription the words: monk, etc. are a later addition in the text of the chronicle itself, it is repeatedly and clearly made clear that it is the work of a monk of the Pechersk Monastery. Looking for this brother of theirs, who did not call himself by name, the Pechersk monks naturally attacked Nestor, who lived at the same time as the chronicler and who, according to his well-known historical works, that is, according to his lives (in which he both calls himself by name), there was every likelihood of being mistaken for the chronicler. Thus, in the Pechersk Monastery Nestor began to be considered a chronicler. This opinion about Nestor as a chronicler, formed in the Pechersk monastery, was recorded in the Patericon of Pechersk, through which it became a general opinion in 1447. In modern times, after the real scientific development of history began, it could very easily be discovered that the opinion of the Pechersk Monastery is completely unfounded and unfair. But this was hampered by the inclination to look at the testimony of the Patericon of Pechersk as some kind of divinely inspired testimony, which in no way can be suspected of its authenticity. For a long time, or, in fact, from the very beginning of scientific research, serious obstacles were seen to consider Nestor as a chronicler. But the researchers had before them the testimony of the Patericon, and they, not daring to even think about doubting the reliability of the testimony, exhausted all their strength to, one way or another, remove the obstacles. Only in a not-so-long-ago time did scientists finally find the courage to recognize the principle of historical criticism that common sense is more authoritative than any authority, and thus decisively doubt the reliability of the testimony of Paterik 1448. Be that as it may, there can be no doubt that the Monk Nestor is not the author of our original chronicle. We are not talking about the fact that the author of the chronicle and Nestor, in their narrations about the same subjects, clearly expose themselves as two different persons, partly by their disagreements, partly by their direct contradictions. We don’t talk about all this because there is no need to talk - because the matter is briefly resolved by the testimony that the author of the chronicle and Nestor give about themselves. They give such testimony about themselves, from which it is as clear that they are different persons, as it is clear that two and two are four. Nestor says quite clearly about himself that he came to the Pechersk Monastery after the death of Theodosius under his successor Stephen in 1449. On the contrary, the author of the chronicle says just as clearly about himself that he came during the life of Theodosius and to him himself in 1450. We believe that two different persons cannot testify even more clearly than this that they are precisely two different persons. It remains, of course, a mystery how the researchers, in view of this evidence, which was not a secret to them, nevertheless recognized Nestor as a chronicler. We explained this riddle above: in front of them was the testimony of the Patericon, which was divinely inspired in their opinion, and in view of it, they did not want to know even the testimony of the interested persons about themselves 1451. Being unfairly mistaken for Nestor, the chronicler, like the latter, was undoubtedly a monk of the Pechersk Monastery. Having told under 1051. about the founding of the monastery by the Monk Theodosius, he adds about himself at the conclusion of the story: “Theodosie lived in a monastery and ruled a virtuous life and the Chernech rule and accepted everyone who came to him, and to him came a bad and unworthy slave, and I have been with me for 17 years from my birth.” In 1091 at the discovery of the relics of St. Theodosius, he was, as he himself says, that trusted representative from among the brethren who was entrusted by the abbot to secretly dig up the relics; and then under the same year he calls himself a disciple of Theodosius: “I am a sinner, your servant and disciple,” he says, addressing the latter. Under 1096, talking about the sudden attack on Kyiv and in particular on the Pechersk monastery of the Polovtsians, he writes: “and they came to the Pechersk monastery, we were in our cells, resting at matins, and they clicked near the monastery and placed two banners in front of the monastery gates, while we were running behind the monastery, and others were running up on the floor.”... Under 1065 the chronicler reads the following entry: “the brainchild was thrown into Setoml, the same brainchild was dragged out by a fisherman in a net, he was disgraced until the evening and was thrown back again V17; into the water; say: there is shame on his face, but there is no other way to say shame for the sake of it.” The river Setoml or Setomlya (Sitomlya) flowed near Kiev from its northern side in 1452. Since it is completely on the opposite edge of the city from the Pechersky Monastery and very far from it. Since it is difficult to imagine that monks would allow themselves such an indecent activity as staring at a freak child all day. And, moreover, some other very shameful freak (at least, the monks of that time and the Theodosius Monastery): that is, there is every likelihood that the indicated incident took place when the chronicler was still in the world of children or youths. If we accept this, we will receive two biographical data about the chronicler: firstly, that he was from Kyiv itself, and secondly, that he came to the Pechersk Monastery and entered monasticism sometime after this 1065. To this is added the data that we have already indicated above, namely, that he came to the monastery as a 17-year-old youth, that this was quite a long time before the death of Theodosius or before 1074. (for he calls himself a disciple of Theodosius, therefore, he not only managed to find him alive, but lived with him for more or less time), that in 1091. he enjoyed special, exceptional respect and trust in the monastery, or at least from the abbot. At the end of the original chronicle, under the year 1110, the following inscription or entry is read: “Abbot Silivester of St. Michael wrote a book and chronicler, hoping to receive mercy from God, under Prince Volodymyr, who reigned for him in Kyiv, and at that time I was abbess with St. Michael, in 6624, indictment of the 9th year (1116); and if anyone reads these books, then be in my prayers.” While Nestor was considered a chronicler, this abbot Silivester was looked upon as a copyist. But by eliminating Nestor, we get a very high probability of seeing in him the chronicler himself, while understanding the matter, of course, in such a way that he was taken to his abbess from the monks of the Pechersk. Unfortunately, Abbot Sylvester does not express himself with complete certainty, which would undoubtedly make it possible to see in him either the chronicler himself or only a copyist. But, in any case, his expression “written” and not “prepis” is more in favor of the fact that he is a chronicler than that he is only a copyist 1453. When starting to write his chronicle, our chronicler had before him a sample of Greek chronicles or chronographs, of which two, which existed in the Slavic translation, namely those of John Malala and George Amartol, were not only known to him, but to some extent were used by him in his work. However, the external form of our chronicle is not the form of the Greek chronographs, but is different from them and its own, representing a lower, more initial stage in terms of processing. In Greek chronographs there is not yet a real systematic history in the current sense of the word, but also a simple chronological chronicle. But, at the same time, Greek chronographers do not put chronology and an unmissable chronological sequence in the foreground, and do not obey it with unconditional obligatoriness. Without binding themselves in the order of presentation to an invariable sequence of years, they observe only the order of reigns. They describe in chronological order one after another the reigns of the sovereigns, but in the presentation of the events of each reign they either observe or violate this order, depending on how the convenience of presentation requires it, and generally do not consider it an indispensable duty. On the contrary, our chronicle is also a chronograph or time recorder, a time scribe in the most precise and most literal sense of the word. Without introducing any artificial system into its presentation, it has as its unconditional system the natural system or natural order of years. The years are placed in their sequential and continuous order and under each of them its events are recorded without the slightest systematization of even the events closest to each other. The way of presentation of the Greek chronographists is already a certain degree of artificial processing and some approximation to real history. On the contrary, the form that our chronicler chose is the primary form with which the writing of chronicles usually begins. Did this happen because our chronicler realized that he was unable to imitate his Greek models, or did he, out of deliberate sound reasoning, prefer the simplest form: Be that as it may, but, in any case, whether due to simple modesty or the conscious intention of the chronicler, the fact that our chronicle appeared in a form less perfect and more, so to speak, crude, we must look at this no other way than This is a very happy circumstance for us. There can be no doubt that a more perfect and more processed form, which, however, was not at all suitable and not timely for us, would have introduced chaos and darkness into our chronicles and would have caused considerable trouble to later true researchers of history. (Let the knowledgeable reader remember the Volyn Chronicle, the author of which, unfortunately for us, wanted to imitate the Greek chronographers, as he himself boasts of this in 1254). Our chronicler entitled his chronicle: “The Tale of Bygone Years (the monk of the Theodosian Monastery of the Pechersk 1454, where did the Russian land come from, who first began to reign in Kyiv and where did the Russian land begin to eat.” The chronicler did not borrow the name “Tale of Bygone Years” from the Greek chronographists, who adopted names for their records χρονογραφία or χρονογραφεῖον (- γραφίον) and χρονικόν, which in Russian means time writing, a temporary book. That list of Amartolov’s chronograph, which was in. in the hands of the Bulgarian translator, had the inscriptions - above the preface: Βιβλία χρονικἀ καὶ ἱστορικὰ, what was translated by him: “temporary and figurative books”, and at the beginning of the text itself: χρονικὸν σύντομον, abbreviated timebook, which is translated by him: “Simply temporary.” The word “temporary” as applied to “summer” (of temporary years), which is a meaningless pleonasm, was used by the chronicler not in its ordinary sense, but in the sense of having a chronology (χροηχός, χρονολογικός), placed under the year. So the tale of bygone years means the tale of years, equipped with chronology (years), conducted according to chronology (by years). With this title of his chronicle, the author wants to indicate its property that the narration, as we said, is conducted in it chronologically, by year 1455. The Tale of Bygone Years proper, which begins in 852, is preceded by a rather extensive introduction. The speech begins with the division of the earth between the three sons of Noah and the placement of tongues during the pandemonium of 1456, because the lots of all the inhabitants of the earth originate from the first and because all nations originate from the second. From 70 and two languages, into which God mixed people during the pandemonium, became (and our) Slovenian language, says the chronicler, and then turns to the Slavs. After speaking about the original place of residence of all the Slavs in Europe in 1457 and about all of them settling from it by land or to different lands, the author speaks in particular about the Russian Slavs, namely about the settlement of the different tribes into which they split into different places in Rus' and partly about the origin of tribal names. Then - about the foundation of the city of Kyiv by the Polyan tribe, about individual tribal princes among different tribes and about all the peoples, except the Russians themselves, who inhabited the territory of Rus'. After this, after several interpolated news relating partly to the history of other Slavs, partly to the prehistoric history of the Russian Slavs themselves, and after additional news about the tribes of these last Slavs, the chronicler speaks about the prehistoric life of our ancestors, depicting by tribe their customs, laws, and traditions. The chronicler ends his introduction with a speech about the grievances of Polyana after the death of Kiy, the founder of Kyiv, from the Drevlyans and about the fall of their power to Kozar. The chronicler, as we said, begins his story of the present time years with the year 852, because in this year, according to his chronology, the Greek Emperor Michael began to reign, under whom for the first time “the nickname Russian Land began.” Moreover, the chronicler understands that during the reign of this emperor he first finds the Russians in the Greek chronicler (Georgiy Amartol): “about seven, he adds to the previous one, having learned that during the seven kings Rus' came to Tsargorod, as it is written in the chronicles that there were seven Greeks.” Having placed under this year 852 a general chronological list or “numbers” from Adam to him and from him, as the initial year of Russian history, until the death of Svyatopolk Izyaslavich (1114), the author then proceeds to his weather or temporal narration. Having skipped six years, under which nothing is written down from our own history, and only one event from the history of the Bulgarian 1458 taken from the Greek chronicler is recorded, the author begins the first under the year 859, opening it with the news that the Varangians from overseas had tribute in the northern half of Rus', and the Kozars in the southern. Our first chronicler described the space of time in 260 years, from 850 to 1110. Of this total number of years, he describes the last forty years as a contemporary and a direct eyewitness of many things. Then his sources were: stories of old people, of whom he directly calls two by name and who could tell him a lot, going back up to the very baptism of Rus' in 1459, individual historical tales compiled before him in 1460, some official documents and records in 1461, oral history preserved in folk legends and folk epic songs or epics, records in church synodics or commemorations, inscriptions in burial vaults or tombs and in churches 1462. And finally, as we said above, either fragmentary chronicle notes and larger or smaller records made before, or even, perhaps, entire sets of these notes and records, representing the first attempts at a real chronicle. To our greatest regret, our original chronicle has reached us not in its original form, as it was written by the chronicler, but having undergone more or less changes, undoubtedly supplemented by later insertions of 1463 and, as one must think, having undergone some, and perhaps even quite significant, reductions. The oldest currently known list of the chronicle collection, in which it has been preserved to us, dates back to the second half of the 14th century, written in Suzdal in 1377. monk Lawrence, from whom it is called Lavrentievsky 1464. After the beginning laid by the unknown monk of the Pechersk Monastery or Abbot Sylvester, the chronicle was continued by several persons at a time, so that from where the first chronicler left off (from 1111), we have not one, but several chronicles, each of which was kept by its own series of successors. We have even less information about all these successors than about the very first chronicler, or, strictly speaking, we have none, not even knowing where one of them ends and where the other begins. As for the pre-Mongol period, we currently know of two special continuations of the original chronicle, written by two special series of successors, or in other words, two special series of continuations. We find one continuation or one series of continuations in the Lavrentievsky chronicle collection mentioned above. Another continuation or another, a series of continuations - in the so-called Ipatievsky or Ipatsky collection (which, according to the letter, is either contemporary with Lavrentyevsky or a little younger than him - the end of the 12th or beginning of the 15th century and which received its name from the Kostroma Ipatsky monastery, where it was found). The continuation of the Laurentian collection was conducted first in the south - in Kyiv or Pereyaslavl, and then, and it seems to us, precisely from 1164, in the Suzdal region and more precisely in Vladimir 1465. Continuation of the Ipatsky collection, brought up to 1200. 1466, all belonging to unknown chroniclers of the South 1467. Thus, the continuations of the first collection are the Kiev-Suzdal chronicle and mainly the last one; and the continuation of the second chronicle of Kyiv. The Suzdal Chronicle, or otherwise the chronicle of the northern great princes, went with these princes in later times; on the contrary, the Kiev chronicle ended with the mentioned year 1200, after which Kiev, having lost all state significance, no longer had its chroniclers 1468. Along with the all-Russian chronicle, in the pre-Mongol period, a private and local chronicle was also kept, namely the Novgorod one. The local chronicle in Novgorod began to be kept around 1120–1130. At the same time, the first chronicler of Novgorod did not act in such a way as to begin maintaining a special Novgorod chronicle from the very beginning, but in such a way that until 1116. he used the all-Russian chronicle, and began his own special chronicle only from this last year. With the all-Russian chronicle, placing it in his own place, the chronicler of Novgorod acted in a special way: until 1016. inclusive, he placed it in his entirety, and from 1017. to 1115 only in a very large abbreviation. He did this, as one must think, because until 1015, - until the death of St. Vladimir, the all-Russian chronicle is of general Russian interest, and since the death of Vladimir, in his chronicler’s opinion, it has been of particular southern Russian interest. After the death of Vladimir, he placed another year in full because under 1016. ends the story begun in the previous year 1015. and, moreover, the story is specifically about the Novgorodians (about the victory they delivered to Yaroslav over Svyatopolk). In its reduction from 1017 to 1115. Regarding the chronicles of the pre-Mongol period, one rather dark question remains unresolved. In later chronicle collections compiled in the XV-XV centuries, these chronicles are not in the form in which we have them in the above-mentioned Laurentian and Ipatsky collections, but with a rather significant number of surpluses or additions compared to the latter 1472. Some of these additions, obviously, or in all likelihood, are later works, based on something or nothing, by the compilers of the collections themselves. But there is no reason to think this about other additions, so they remain and should be considered genuine ancient news. But where could the compilers of later collections find this authentic ancient news? Did they have other chronicles at their disposal, besides those that have come down to us, from which they took them, or did they have the same chronicles that we have now (in the Laurentian and Ipatian collections), only in a more complete form, so that they read everything that in later collections could be mistaken for ancient genuine news? We consider the latter opinion to be more likely than the former. That other chronicles besides those that have come down to us could have existed in the pre-Mongol period is in itself completely probable and possible. But it does not seem at all probable to us to believe that the compilers of later collections had such chronicles at hand, on the basis of those surpluses in the chronicles of the pre-Mongol period that we find in them. These extras, if we exclude from them everything that is either undoubtedly or in all likelihood a later composition, will turn out to be not particularly numerous small records, although sometimes very important in their content. If there were other chronicles besides those known to us, then in them what would be superfluous against the latter would, of course, be not just these records, but much more: why didn’t the later compilers add at least a little of this much to themselves? Thus, from what has been said, in our opinion, it is clear, or at least it follows as the most probable, that the compilers of later collections had only the same initial chronicle and only the same continuations, which are currently known from the Lavrentievsky and Ipatsky collections, but they only had them in a more complete form than how they are read in the now mentioned collections of 1473. Since chronology is an auxiliary science of history, we must add here one article on this latter, written in the pre-Mongol period, which, however, has no practical significance either for history or for anything else, and was written solely for the aimless discovery of learning. The article, very brief, is inscribed: “The teaching that a person knows the number of all years” and belongs to the famous Kirik of Novgorod, the author of the famous canonical Questions. It consists of 18 short paragraphs and contains: in the first five paragraphs an indication of how many months, weeks, days and hours passed from the creation of the world to the year the article was written, in the sixth-eighth - the doctrine of indicts, solar and lunar circles (what is called each of them), in the ninth - about the types of the world, namely, how many millennia elapsed from the creation of the world to the author, in the tenth-thirteenth - about the renewal of the heavens, the earth, the sea and the waters, i.e. in what years are they all renewed again or completely renewed in their composition, the fourteenth - about leap years, the fifteenth - about the great circle, the sixteenth-eighteenth - how many months, weeks and days there are in a year. The only meaning of the article is its final postscript, from which we obtain biographical information about the author; it reads: “written in Velitsy Novgorod I am a sinful and bad Kaluger of Antonovsky (Antony Monastery) Kirik deacon, domestic of the Church of the Holy Mother of God (the main one in the monastery), under the Greek Tsar John, Prince Svyatoslav son Olgov in the reign living in Novegorod for 1 summer, and from the age of (he) years 30... and even under the archbishop (sic) of Novgorod, the God-loving Niphon, my birth was about 26 years ago here (the year in which the article was written, as indicated in many places above, is 6644 from the creation of the world or 1136 from R. X. 1474. 2) The moralizing department. We turn to the moralizing department of our writing. This section consists of two types of words and teachings, namely: firstly, words and teachings in the proper sense, spoken in church from the pulpit, secondly, having either the size and form of words and teachings, or their name alone - articles of moral content, written for reading. Only a person who has received a real education and has studied the school science of oratory can write church words that would be real works of church oratory and its best or worst examples. We did not have real education, and with it the science of oratory; from this it would follow that we could not have writers of church words in the sense of real works of church oratory. But above we talked about the possibility of exceptions in our country in the pre-Mongol period, namely, that during this period, due to its special circumstances, in the general absence of real education, we could have, as an exception, individual people who would have acquired it. One of these exceptional people was endowed with oratorical talent, felt a calling to monastic life and in monasticism, and became our church speaker in the proper sense. It was St. Cyril, Bishop of Turov, who lived in the second half of the 12th century. Unfortunately, we do not have detailed information about Kirill of Turov; Some news about him is read in a short prologue about him. He was born in the same Turov, where he was later a bishop. Being the son of rich parents, he did not like the wealth and corruptible glory of this world, but was exclusively devoted to the teaching of God's books, in which he achieved that he was “well-familiar with the divine Scriptures.” In time he entered a monastery and became a monk in 1475. After an unknown how long stay in the monastery, in which he worked for God most of all, depressing his body with fasting and vigil, he desired great feats, which is why he entered the pillar to shut himself up in it. When after this the fame of him spread throughout the whole country or Turov region, the appanage prince and all the citizens of Turov begged him to accept the rank of bishop. In the rank of bishop, having lived honorably and piously and tended the flock entrusted to him well, and, having marked his activity by denouncing the heresy of Feodor of Rostov, which we spoke about above in 1476, he reposed into eternal and endless rest. When exactly Cyril was installed as bishop of Turov, the exact image remains unknown; but according to vague instructions, this installation should be placed before 1169, in which he was already a bishop in 1477, and it is unknown how long after 1146, after which there was still a bishop before him in Turov in 1478. If we were to believe that one work assimilated by Cyril was actually addressed by him, as the inscription says, to Vasily, the abbot of Pechersk, and if we were to consider one letter written to this abbot to belong to Cyril, then we would have to think that before 1182. he retired or was removed from the pulpit. And that, after living in retirement or retirement for about ten to fifteen years, he died in the last decades of the 12th century, 1479. But both, as we will see below, are very doubtful. It is unknown how many church words or sermons Kirill of Turov wrote in total. At present, eight words are considered undoubtedly to belong to him, namely: for the week of Vai, for Easter, for the 2, 3, 4 and 6 weeks of Easter, for the Ascension and for the 7 week of Easter 1480. We do not know how Cyril of Turov managed to get a real education - whether by a lucky chance he found a Greek capable of teaching science in Turov himself, or, what is much more likely, he went to Kyiv for this, where he found the teacher he needed among the Greeks who were under the metropolitan. Be that as it may, what is certain is that he was a man who received a real education and that he, representing an exception among our writers and speakers of his time, is not a self-taught writer and speaker, devoid of any school preparation, like all our other writers (with one more exception of Metropolitan Hilarion), but a writer and speaker in the proper sense educated and having studied the science of oratory, representing exactly the same as the educated people of his time Greek writers and speakers. What has just been said is clearly convinced by the very words of Kirill Turovsky. It is enough to read them once to immediately see that there is some significant difference between them and the words and teachings of other contemporary and our later writers, that they are something completely different from these other words and teachings. Looking a little more closely at them, it is not difficult to see with complete clarity what exactly this difference consists of. The words and teachings of other writers represent the work of self-taught people who do not know the science of oratory and therefore write with primitive simplicity, without any application of external techniques of oratory. On the contrary, the words of Kirill of Turov clearly make it possible to see in himself the work of a learned master: the author quite obviously appears in them as a learned preacher who has studied and knows the science of preaching and writes his sermons precisely on this science, with all its knowledge and with all its application. The words of Cyril of Turov, having nothing in common with other contemporary words and teachings, are exactly the same oratorical works as the words of our contemporary learned preachers. If you translate them into Russian and say that they belong to such and such a modern preacher, then hardly anyone will be deceived. That the words of Kirill of Turov stand out sharply from a number of contemporary words and teachings, having nothing in common with them and representing something special from them, we have just said. But to say just this does not at all mean to determine the merit of Kirill’s words. Putting a learned master on the same board with a self-taught one and seeing how much higher he is than the latter does not at all mean giving him a proper assessment. To say about Cyril of Turov that he is immeasurably higher than all his contemporaries, that in comparison with these latter he is the Russian Chrysostom of the 12th century, means to speak, on the one hand, the complete truth, and on the other hand, to say nothing at all. A seminarian who has studied rhetoric and knows how to write a chria is immeasurably superior to a simply literate peasant and is, in a sense, a great orator. However, this, of course, does not mean that he actually is. Kirill Turovsky should be considered, valued and judged not in comparison with his Russian contemporaries, with whom he has nothing in common, but as a real preacher, having received a real oratorical education. He is an exceptional and accidental representative in our midst of real Greek oratory: from this point of view he should be assessed. Kirill Turovsky had an undoubted and very good oratorical talent. But, unfortunately, his teacher in the art of church preaching was one of those Greek teachers of rhetoric who prevailed in his time, who believed that the task of this preaching was not to teach people the truths of the Christian faith and excite them to a virtuous Christian life, with the possible and necessary use of oratory, but to make this latter, which is only a means to a better achievement of the goal, the end itself. To shine in front of listeners with the most eloquence, without thinking about the teaching and edification of words, but only taking care to arouse their surprise at his oratory talent and art 1481. A distinctive feature of the sermons of Cyril of Turov is the almost complete absence of teaching and moral edification. The preacher is, one way or another, a panegyrist or a historian of holidays, shining with his eloquence and his wit, and nothing more. In his words, he either glorifies the triumph of the holiday with its fruits, or allegorically interprets its details in a spiritual sense, or oratorically and dramatically depicts its stories - and this is the entire content of the words. In panegyric speeches and in dramatically presented stories, an extremely large number of flowers of eloquence are scattered before the listeners, or, if you like, they are all eloquence; in allegorical interpretations there is a lot of wit. But all this is neither teaching nor edification of the listeners. Of course, all this is panegyricism, but such panegyricism, which was not at all approved by the best ancient preachers, who said that the divine school church 1482 does not know its law. True, at the end of his words, Kirill does not always forget his listeners and sometimes addresses them with brief moral admonitions. But these exhortations, ex abrupto and completely general, have no real meaning and are nothing more than a simple accepted form of concluding words. Thus, according to the custom of most Greek speakers of his time, Kirill of Turovsky does not edify his listeners at all, but only delights them. In other words, according to the custom of most Greek speakers of his time, his sermons are almost fruitless in relation to the listeners and almost aimless eloquence. There is a lot of eloquence, but its whole meaning in relation to the listeners comes down to, if not absolutely nothing, then to very little. Here is a brief analysis of Kirill's words. In the homily for Palm Sunday (on Verbnitsa), firstly, the circumstances of the Savior’s entry into Jerusalem are depicted and allegorically interpreted: today this happened, this means spiritually this, etc. Secondly, panegyrics or praise for the holiday are written through an oratorical set of commonplaces depicting the rejoicing of nature, angels and men, and the despondency of the devil and the elders of the Jews. (Today the creation rejoices, freed from the work of the enemy... Today the mountains and hills yield sweetness, the fields and fields bear the fruits of the Lord... The mountains above sing and the hells weep... etc.). In conclusion, a brief moral exhortation to the listeners to honor the Lord with good deeds in the image of the material honors shown to him upon entering Jerusalem. The word for Easter, according to the author's intention, was supposed to be a panegyric to the holiday, in which its fruits were shown and glorified according to its three names: Easter, the Great Day and the third, unsaid and remaining unknown. But being very unsatisfactory in its execution, the word is partly a panegyric, partly a historical retelling of the circumstances of the resurrection with sometimes allegorical interpretations of them. The word for the week of St. Thomas or for Antipascha consists of two parts. The first part contains a panegyric for the holiday, consisting of an image of the material spring with which nature greets this day and an image of the spiritual spring, which is prefigured by the material one. In the second part, the preacher introduces the listeners to the upper room of Zion, in which Christ appeared to the disciples, and here he dramatically depicts the conversation of Christ with Thomas, namely, putting a lengthy speech into the mouth of the Savior and the same answer into the mouth of Thomas. The words for the third, fourth and sixth weeks, being similar to each other, represent dramatically depicted stories of the holidays. In the word for the third week, the Myrrh-Bearing Wives, the action begins with the lengthy lamentation of the Mother of God at the cross of Jesus, after which she addresses Joseph, begging him to go to Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus. This is followed by Joseph's lengthy speech to Pilate and his weeping or crying over the body of Jesus, which Pilate gave him and which he buried with Nicodemus. Next is the story of the myrrh-bearing women coming to the tomb of Christ and the angel’s lengthy speech to them. In conclusion, praise to Joseph, the noble and admirable 1483. In the word for the fourth week, about the Paralytic, the speech begins with the historical news of the font of Bethesda and an allegorical interpretation of it as a prototype of baptism. Behind this is the plaintive speech of the paralytic to Jesus Christ; response speech of Jesus Christ to the paralytic; the latter's accusatory speech to the Jews, who reproached him for taking his bed on Saturday. In conclusion, a brief instruction to the listeners by referring to them the speech of Jesus Christ spoken to the paralytic. In the word for the sixth week, about the Blind Man, after a historical introduction, the ineffable mercy and love of God is glorified, and the blindness of the Jews in relation to the great Wonderworker is depicted. Then the reflection of the Jewish host: what should they do with Jesus and the accusatory speech to this host from the one who received his sight; In conclusion, praise to this last one. The word for the Ascension depicts a picture of the triumphal entry of Jesus Christ into heaven. The preacher leads the listeners to the Mount of Olives, to which Christ came and with Him (invisibly?) all the holy orders. After this, he depicts how the angelic and archangelic armies, some prepare the way for the Lord, others prepare the cherubic throne. How God the Father waits, and the Holy Spirit gives orders for the meeting, how the faces of the saints, following the angels, begin solemn songs, how the pagan church, ignorant of Christ, mourns, seeing Him moving away from itself, how the apostles grieve and how He consoles one and the other, how the heavenly gatekeepers do not want to open the gates of heaven for a person who cannot enter heaven. And how, by the voice of the Lord, they recognize God who has descended to earth in secret from them, how the Holy Spirit proceeds to meet the One who ascends, and how the Father seats Him on the throne at His right hand. In conclusion, an appeal to the listeners to rejoice in the Lord, who has entered the heavenly heavens and is seated at the right hand of the Father. In the homily for the seventh week, the Holy Fathers, the history of the first ecumenical council is told partly narratively, partly dramatically (the debate between Arius and the fathers of the council), and praise both to the fathers of the council and to all the holy fathers in general who stood and fought for the faith. This brief overview of the content of the words of Kirill of Turov clearly shows to what extent they lack moral edification and what their direction or character is. As we said above, without at all thinking about the moral edification of his listeners, the preacher is either a panegyrist or a spiritual interpreter or a dramatizing painter of holidays. The goal he pursues is not edification, but entertainment, as a result of which his words are mainly for the ears and imagination of the listeners and very little and almost not at all for their hearts. At present, regarding the dignity and nature of sermons, we have not returned to the times of Chrysostom. If the reader imagines a good sermon today so that its distinguishing features are the greatest possible desire for external eloquence and the greatest possible absence of moral edification, then he will have an approximate and almost completely real understanding of the sermons of Cyril of Turov. The distinctive features and peculiarities characteristic of his time consist, firstly, of an inclination towards allegory, towards the interpretation of the visible in a spiritually representative sense, which, with some tension of wit, he finds in absolutely everything. Secondly, drama, the depiction of characters speaking and delivering more or less long speeches. Finally, thirdly, the constant desire for picturesqueness of the image through the incessant use of “now” and “today.” However, as can be judged from the hitherto comparisons of his sermons with Greek sermons, this was not the case; he actually more or less uses the latter, allows himself to make even direct borrowings from them, but not at all to such an extent as to deign to the role of a simple compiler: With his use and with his borrowings, he retains completely, as far as one can at least assert this now, the right to be considered an orator independent 1485. Kirill of Turov, as a real, in the proper sense of the word, preacher in our country in the 12th century, there is no doubt, is a very remarkable phenomenon. But at the same time, it is also a strange phenomenon. His eloquent words were as appropriate in relation to his listeners as, for example, the words of the late Metropolitan Philaret would have been appropriate in a rural parish church. If the purpose of the words were the moral edification of the listeners, then the latter, although offered in an inappropriate form, would still have its meaning. But the purpose of Kirill Turovsky’s words, as we have said many times, is not the moral edification of the listeners, but, so to speak, eloquence in itself, providing an independent opportunity to enjoy it for a few minutes. Imagine that a modern word of this kind, eloquent for eloquence itself, is taken and that it is pronounced in a rural parish church to peasant listeners, what could be more incongruous than this? It is difficult to admit that Kirill Turovsky did not understand all this incongruity, that is, all the discrepancy between his words in their nature and those listeners for whom he wrote them and to whom he spoke them. Probably, on the one hand, he was seduced from the right path by the example of Greek orators. Seeing that they set eloquence as their main goal, he considered himself obliged to strive for it, putting eloquence above expediency in preaching. On the other hand, it is not impossible that he preferred surprise to his eloquence on the part of readers of his words, contemporary and future, to the benefit of his listeners. Be that as it may, we repeat again that, reading the eloquent words of Cyril of Turov, spoken by him to a completely uneducated flock of the 12th century, you involuntarily recall those rural priests who decide to tell their parishioners the words of the late Metropolitan Philaret 1486. In addition to church words in the proper sense, spoken from the pulpit, of which Cyril wrote, perhaps not eight, but much or significantly more 1487, he also assimilated quite a large number of articles of moralizing content, also mostly called words and addressed partly to everyone in general, partly to the laity, and partly to the monks 1488. The first six are accepted: – The Word is a parable about wisdom, or as in other lists – The teaching of a certain person is true to his spiritual brother, - The Word about the exodus of the soul and the ascent to heaven, - A word about the heavenly powers and for the sake of which man was created on earth, - A word about how not to forget your teachers, and – A parable about the soul of mankind and the body and about the transgression of God’s commandments and about the resurrection of human bodies and about the future judgment and martyrdom 1489. The word about the Passion of God, addressed to beloved brothers and sisters, convinces us to always have the fear of God and the hour of death before our eyes, and to always remember these terrible torments prepared for sinners. Then he exhorts - fearing these torments to leave atrocities and try to overcome them with good deeds. Judging by the beginning, the word seems to be not only written for reading, but also spoken in church. If it had not been so brief and so fragmentary and somehow hasty, but rather more slowly, more extensively and more urgently offered its admonitions, then it not only could have been assimilated by Kirill of Turov, but should also have been ranked among his best words. However, even in its present form it can be assimilated by him not as a deliberate word, but as a kind of record made at the moment of the need to pour out his feelings and for the memory of his soul and every pious soul 1493. The parable about the human soul and about the body, and about the transgression of God's commandment and about the resurrection of human bodies and about future judgment and torment is that a man of good kind planted grapes and, wanting the guards not to rob him, assigned a blind and lame man to him. For one saw but could not walk, and the other walked but could not see. But that these latter, combining their abilities of vision and walking by having a lame man sit on a blind man, managed to rob him, after which they were judged and condemned. This parable, in which a man of good birth means God the Father, a blind and lame person means the soul and body of a person, the theft of grapes means the fall of the latter, etc., is actually a translation from Greek 1494. But the work of its Russian author consisted in the fact that instead of the brief explanation with which it is accompanied in the original, he wrote a lengthy moralizing interpretation of it. This latter, in manner and in character and in general in everything, reminds us of the Legend of the Black Risen Order, which is now discussed below and which Kirill has every likelihood of learning; and therefore we are inclined to see his original composition in the present case. The interpretation, on the one hand, contains a lot of very good things - edifying, intelligent and witty, but on the other hand, there is something outsmart, strained and incomprehensible in it. However, the advantages undoubtedly prevail in it to a large extent over the disadvantages 1495. Of the moralizing articles addressed to the laity, Cyril learns one, which is inscribed “Punishment” and which consists of two separate and special parts 1496. In the first part, the author exhorts to read holy books, without apologizing with any excuses and without saying that “the book veneration is not our business, but Chernech’s.” At the same time, those who say: “even though I honor, but do not understand,” instructs to purify the heart and soul to accept wisdom. Ask your wisest about the unknown and wait with faith for instruction from God. In the second part, the instruction is taught not to bless the wicked who live in wealth, but, on the contrary, to bless those who live well and accept misfortune in this flattering world. The entire punishment is very small, and why on earth the speeches about two special and separate matters are combined into one remains unclear. It seems very doubtful to consider the work of Kirill Turovsky as a real one. This part not only lacks general unity, but is not particularly satisfactory in its particular presentation, despite the fact that it is the best in the story, full of real edification. The second part, “about the Arroni vestments and the Skime image,” speaks of the Old Testament high priestly robes, signifying the fall of man in Adam, and of the monastic robes corresponding to them and signifying the redemption of man by Christ. This part, allowing myself to speak without hesitation, is completely unsatisfactory - it is full of those shortcomings that we pointed out above in the interpretation of the parable of the human soul, namely - it contains extreme darkness, arbitrariness and strained interpretations, and a cunning wit that goes beyond all proper boundaries. The third part explains why monks are called bearers of an angelic image, and namely, that they represent the image not of heavenly disembodied angels, but of earthly angels, “that is, the venerable man of law, who has served (lived?) well in the Old and New Law in bodily purity.” The word about the lay order and the monastic order of 1499, according to the inscription addressed to the Pechersk abbot Vasily, in fact, unless the currently known text is interpolated, was addressed not to this Vasily and not to the Pechersk monastery, but to the brotherhood of some other unknown monastery. For at the end of the word, the author addresses not one person, but many (your fatherland, your souls, your peace) and above speaks of the Pechersky Monastery in Kyiv as a stranger and stranger to these many persons. Through a parable, which is not original, however, but borrowed and only adapted to the given occasion 1500, the word shows the relationship between worldly life and monasticism, namely that the world is vanity, and the monastery is a refuge of salvation, and that the bad monastic life is infinitely more honest and blessed than the bright life of the world. Nothing can be said as to whether this word belongs or does not belong to Kirill, but, judging somewhat strictly, it is hardly possible to recognize any other merit for it other than the trivial amusement. The only thing of this kind that was really required were accusatory words or articles against the vices that were specifically characteristic of pre-Mongol Russian society. However, we had a few people who distinguished themselves in this kind of writing, and they distinguished themselves mainly not so much as writers in the proper sense of the word or original, but as compilers who composed words and teachings by selecting from Greek sources that existed in the Slavic translation. Writers are divided into two groups: known by name and unknown (anonymous). In a very short series of writers known by name, the first place in chronological order is occupied by Bishop Luka Zhidyata of Novgorod, remarkable in that he is generally either the very first or at least the second (after Metropolitan Hilarion) our writer. Luke was installed as bishop by the election of Yaroslav in 1036. In 1055, he was slandered by his slaves before the metropolitan, as a result of which he was summoned to Kyiv, where he was kept in prison for three years. Having then been acquitted, having been released and returned to the department, he died after a 23-year reign in 1058 or 1059. Bishop Luke marked his writing activity with very few people; he left behind only one moralizing work, the size of the shortest teaching of 1501. This work, which in the copies that have reached us has the inscription of a teaching, is usually accepted as an actual teaching spoken in church. But if this were so, then difficult perplexities would arise. If Bishop Luke had the ability and desire to compose and deliver teachings, then why did he limit himself to only one? If he had neither the ability nor the desire to do this, then who forced him to write this one thing? Such perplexities lead us to think that the teaching of Bishop Luke is not an ordinary teaching, but something else. It is most likely to see in it an instructive message to the flock or a teaching addressed to them in writing in the event of some kind of separation from them - temporary or eternal. There is no obstacle to understanding the last case, that is, to see in Luke’s teaching his dying testament addressed to his flock. But it seems to us more likely to mean one of the first cases. We said above that in 1055. Luke, due to the slander of his slaves, was summoned to Kyiv to the metropolitan: it seems likely to us to think that it was precisely on this occasion that our teaching to his flock was addressed to them. That, in any case, it is not an ordinary teaching spoken in church, but rather a teaching written to the flock on some special occasion, this is confirmed by himself. In his conclusion it is said: “God of peace be with you all” - these words of farewell, in no way appropriate in an ordinary teaching, can only go specifically to the written teaching we have indicated on a special occasion. We said that the teaching in the copies that have reached us is inscribed with a teaching, but it is written not just with a teaching, but with a teaching to the brethren - “the teaching of Bishop Luke to the brethren.” This addition “to the brethren” also makes it clear that it should be understood not as an ordinary teaching spoken in the church, but as a more general teaching addressed to the entire flock. If you look at the teaching of Bishop Luke as we look at it, then it may very well be that it was not composed by him himself, but by his order and on his behalf by someone else. Be that as it may, the teaching, which is not very extensive, is a series of brief and general instructions in the faith and good Christian behavior. “Behold, brethren,” it begins, “first of all, all Christians must keep this commandment; we must believe in one God, in the Trinity we glorify - in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as the apostles taught, and the holy fathers affirmed: I believe in one God to the end. Believe in my baptism 1502 and eternal life and eternal martyrdom for sinners. Don’t be lazy and go to church for Matins, Mass and Vespers. And in your cage, although you slept, bowed to God, you only lie..." 1503. Further about proper standing in the church, about love for neighbors, about lack of respect, about non-judgment of others, about mercy towards the strange and imprisoned and towards one’s orphans, i.e. As a true abbot of a true monastery, the Monk Theodosius had to try to fulfill his duty to constantly teach the brethren who were under his spiritual guidance. This duty of constant oral teaching did not impose on him the obligation to become a writer for his brethren; but he is also one. We believe that the Monk Theodosius wanted in this case to become completely like his ideal - the Monk Theodore the Studite. This latter wrote for the monks of his monastery or for his students a very long series of teachings, which represents a whole, more or less complete and complete system of moral teaching. And which, as a whole, bears the general name of the Catechism or Catechumen of 1506. The Monk Theodosius was not able to do anything like that and, declaring his zeal, did what he could and what was within his power. Quite a significant part of one teaching, which is inscribed in the lists with the teaching about the executions of God, is devoted to speech about executions sent from above to lands and peoples. Having said and shown that these executions, namely illness, hunger, lack of rain, invasion of foreigners, internecine wars, are sent by God for the sins of people, the author denounces his contemporaries for the latter and calls them to repentance. Further in the teaching there follows: a denunciation of the author’s contemporaries for the pagan superstitions and pagan customs that they adhered to, and for all the indecent deeds with which the devil deceived them. Reproof for bad standing in church with an exhortation to stand reverently and come to church with a purified heart; instructions on observing fasts not only physically, but also spiritually; finally, a strong reproof for those who are drunk, showing how disgusting it is with God and how pleasing it is to the devil. In another teaching, which is also mixed in content, the instructions are first given that there are two prayers for lunch and every meal, that kutya is ordained to be sacred in honor of the saints 1511 and for repose, but not for the remission of sins, that lunch and dinner are not established to be consecrated for repose 1512, that nothing edible should be brought into the altar except prosphora, incense and candles; then it is spoken at greater length about sitting at the table gracefully and honestly during dinner, without empty words, without laughter and blasphemy, etc. 1513 and finally, most at length about drunkenness. Drunkards managed to turn piety to their advantage. There was a custom to drink at solemn and festive dinners the cups of the Savior, the Mother of God and the saints, celebrated with the recitation of troparions before them 1514: Drunkards, wanting to drink as many of these cups as possible, argued that the more troparions said, the more pious. The author of the teaching, wanting to put limits to this pious drunkenness, makes a decree regarding the number of cups at dinners: “at a feast, only three troparions should be said to the cups - before the start of the dinner, Christ our God is glorified, before the end, the Virgin Mary, who gave birth to Christ God, is glorified, and the third cup is the prince, and we do not command any more; if the troparia sung in church with a sober mind do not give rise to crying, then the troparia sung while drinking do not give rise to crying, but sin and torment; “Many troparions were not directed to God to speak at the feast, but to the belly of the workers, desiring to drink a lot.” The largest and main part of the teaching is a very strong admonition and reproof with which the author addresses troparal and troparal drunkards: “Try for yourself in the scriptures what the Most Holy Theotokos said to St. Vasily 1515: “If you want,” she told him, “to be my beloved friend and have me as an intercessor and quick to listen in all troubles, give up drinking a lot. And if you offer prayers while drunk, you will not only not be heard, but you will also anger God even more.” Whoever makes another drunk by force, let him fast for 7 days, and if he is drunk and vomits, let him fast for 40 days 1516. A lot is written about this in the rules, but the smart ones have enough to say, and the stupid ones won’t believe it, even if they were told the tales of books all over the world. If you don’t believe the scripture, have faith in your deeds: when those who get drunk with troparions, some crawl on their knees, not being able to stand on their feet, and others roll around in feces and vomit, ready to give up the ghost 1517, having cursed and laughed at themselves and the guardian of their soul, driving away from them, then many of the troparia that they spoke over the cups will save them from that misfortune selfishly enraged? A possessed person suffers not of his own free will, and he will receive (for his suffering) the kingdom of heaven, and a drunken person, suffering of his own free will, will earn himself eternal torment: a priest, coming to a possessed person and saying a prayer, will drive away the demon, and even if priests from all over the earth gathered to visit a drunken person, they will not drive away the self-willed demon of evil drunkenness. And that is why the holy fathers laid down in the statutory books not to say troparia every day in church, but only on deliberate holidays.” The first half of the first teaching, i.e., the teaching about the executions of God, is a borrowing either from Chrysostom’s word about the bucket and about the executions of God, which is read in the collection of Chrysostom’s words, known under the name Zlatostoya, or from another Greek, unknown to whom it belongs and unknown in its original form, words or generally works 1518. And the second half of the teaching is borrowed from various ancient, partly known, partly unknown teachings of 1519. From what has just been said, it follows that the teaching cannot be assimilated by the Monk Theodosius of Pechersk as his real work or in the exact sense of the word. But then the question is: can’t it be appropriated by Theodosius as the compiler, since in any case it was compiled by someone? Now the scientists we named answer the question negatively, but we, for our part, believe that the answer to the question should be given in the affirmative. Unfortunately, we do not have at hand the authentic life of St. Pankratius neither in the Greek original nor in the Slavic translation of 1521, and therefore we cannot say: whether Theodosius simply extracted the teaching from the life or only used the latter when compiling the first as one of his sources. But on the basis of some indications the second case should be assumed 1522. Who was Theodosius, who composed the teaching? Is it Reverend Theodosius of Pechersk or Theodosius the Greek, who lived in the middle of the 12th century, about whom we spoke above and about whom a little lower? In the department of our writers from the Greeks, we do not have any data to answer this question, and the only thing we can say here is only that there are no obstacles for the Monk Theodosius of Pechersk to assimilate it 1523. Above we spoke about the recently discovered teaching of Archbishop Elijah, which he offered to the priests of his diocese on the first gathering Sunday after he occupied the episcopal chair. This teaching, on the one hand or in part, is a canonical monument, a kind of episcopal administrative decree, since the archbishop in it gives instructions to priests regarding their proper and desirable behavior in various cases of their priestly practice. On the other hand, or in part, the teaching is, in the proper sense, a teaching that should be classified as such in the moralizing department of written monuments, since the archbishop addresses in it admonitions to the priests about a good Christian and pastoral life. As an instruction, in the proper sense having to be attributed to literary works and being evaluated as such, the instruction undoubtedly testifies to the natural oratorical talent of the author. Archbishop Elijah occupied the See of Novgorod for 21 years; therefore, during his reign, the same 21 times the congregational resurrection took place or was repeated. It is possible and probable to think that with his ability to teach, the archbishop did not limit himself to just the teachings delivered on the first assembly Sunday of his stay at the department, and that if he did not compile them every year, then at least he compiled several more. And therefore, one can have hope that these several other assembly or Sunday assembly teachings of his will someday be found in one number or another. Likewise, it is not impossible to think that, having a talent for composing teachings, he was generally to some extent engaged in composing them, so that here, too, the corresponding hope for the future is not completely unfounded. In our manuscripts one brief teaching to Metropolitan Hilarion is assimilated. The teaching is inscribed either with the words of St. Hilarion, Metropolitan of Kyiv, or with the teaching of St. Hilarion about the benefit of the soul to all Orthodox Christians and, beginning with the words: “Let us strive, brothers and sisters, towards the eternal life of light, which the Lord, in His mercy, gives us, but sows temporary and filthy things, like the poisonous lips of the serpent, we run and do not let’s touch it,” contains a number of exhortations to do now the indicated 1525. But we very much doubt that the teaching actually belonged to Metropolitan Hilarion. Being quite complex and generally satisfactory in literary terms, it nevertheless does not in any way make it possible to see in its author the brilliant speaker that Metropolitan Hilarion was. If we look at the teaching as an actual teaching delivered in the church, then a completely perplexed question will arise: what does it mean that Hilarion, wanting to write teachings, limited his activity in this case to just one teaching? And that the teaching was written on some special occasion, which could explain the appearance of a single teaching in the world, this is not at all given in it. But it is quite clear from the teaching that it is not a real teaching delivered in church, but a moralizing article written for reading. If this is so, then to assume that Metropolitan Hilarion wanted to write a moralizing article of such small size and such lightness in relation to the content for reading would mean to assume that he wanted to write a student exercise. It is likely that the teaching belongs to some Greek Hilarion and that Metropolitan Hilarion was taught it by one of our old unsuccessful bibliographers. We said above that we are very inclined, together with Shevyrev, to assimilate to the Monk Abramius of Smolensk “The Word about the heavenly powers and for the sake of which man was created and about the outcome of the soul.” In one of the Volokolamsk manuscripts (No. 576, l. 101) the word is adopted by the Venerable Father Abraham; and the reason for us to see Avramia of Smolensk in the Monk Abraham is that the latter, being a preacher of repentance, was engaged in ordeals, to which half of our word is devoted, and ordered to write an icon with their image (life). The unknown Kirill, in whom Turovsky should not be seen, as we also indicated above, learns the “Word in the 1st week of Lent, a lesson for gathering.” The word, as if not very bad or even very good, consists of two parts: in the first part - about fasting, namely, about its importance and what it must consist of in order to be a true fast; the second part tells the story of the Orthodox festival of 1526 that took place in the first week. There are too few pre-Mongol writers of words and teachings, in the proper and improper sense, currently known by name. But it is very possible that there were others like Kirill of Turov, exceptional speakers, that is, speakers who, like him, received a real education. In any case, there is no doubt that there were others besides those indicated, non-exclusive compilers of words and teachings with an education that consisted of only literacy 1527. We said above that the number of these latter should not be imagined as too large, since writing of the real kind we are talking about is a very difficult thing for a person who is only literate. We believe, however, that a reservation should be made to what has been said. There were, no doubt, few compilers of words and teachings who were at all independent, or who would have a real right and claim to the name of authors. 2. Sermon on the Sunday of All Saints, in which the Russian land is called newly enlightened and in which the Russian holy martyrs Boris and Gleb, and the holy hegumen of Pechersk Theodosius, a Russian monk elder, are glorified 1529. 3. Word of praise from St. Clement of Rome, said on the occasion of the renewal by an unknown prince and in an unknown year of the Kyiv Tithe Church, in which were the relics of the saint, brought by Vladimir from Korsun. As far as we can judge from the fragment known to us, which is not particularly large, the word is very good and very oratorical, leading us to suspect the author of a real orator, like Cyril of Turov 1530). 4. A sermon on the day of remembrance of the holy martyrs Boris and Gleb, spoken, it seems, in Chernigov or one of the cities of the Chernigov region, dating back to the second half of the 12th century. and consisting of a rather short but sharp rebuke to the princes for their civil strife and for the disobedience of the younger ones among them to the elders 1531. The work of an ordinary literate person, not brilliant in eloquence, but endowed with special zeal. Sitting in a sleigh (in a carriage), he used his free time to compile his “literacy”. (It is placed in the Laurentian Chronicle under 1096 and is inscribed: “Instruction”, 2nd edition p. 232 sqq) 1536. Regarding literary merit, the prince’s small exercise, being exceptional and unique as such, does not represent anything particularly remarkable, although it shows that he could have been a good writer (among others, that is, in the sense of that time) if he had devoted himself to the work of writing deliberately. It is, so to speak, a literary “something”, consisting of several particular “somethings” sketched out with complete freedom in relation to connection. Then, he cites the instructions of Basil the Great to the young men, namely the instructions taught by Basil the Great in Antioch to the disciples of Libanius, at the request of the latter, which are read in the life of Basil the Great, assimilated by Amphilochius of Iconium 1537. After this follows an appeal to the Mother of God, so that she takes away from the wretched heart pride and rage and exaltation by the vanity of this world, followed by a series of instructions regarding being a worker of piety in this wasteland of life, and exhortations to cleanse yourself from all filth of the flesh and spiritual by fasting and repentance. Next is the praise of God’s merciful love for mankind, which allows us to get rid of sins by “small deeds” (not great labors) - repentance, tears and prayer, and praise, or so to speak, singing of praise, in the image and spirit of the Psalmist, of “the great miracles and kindness of God that were built in this world,” that is, the wisdom of God and His goodness revealed in the structure of the world 1538. Now what has been conveyed can be called the first half of the teaching. What follows are: first, direct instructions to children; secondly, speeches about oneself. “And behold,” the first prince begins, “from my evil madness (my children) there is a punishment (for you), if you do not accept everything, then half of it,” and then he gives instructions: Repent of sins with tears while in church and going to bed. Never go to bed without first praying; and while on the road, “riding a horse,” always have prayer in your mind. Above all, do not forget to feed the poor, help orphans and protect widows. Neither the right nor the wrong should be put to death. Do not swear or kiss the cross unnecessarily, but having taken an oath, strictly observe it. Do not distance yourself from bishops, priests and monks, but love and provide them according to your strength. Most of all, no longer have pride in your mind and heart, remembering that we are mortal today, alive, and tomorrow in the grave. To look at riches as something entrusted to us for a few days, and not to bury them in the ground, “for this is a great sin.” Honor the old as fathers, the young as brothers. In your home, do not be lazy to look after everything yourself, without relying on either the tiun or the youth, and in the same way in war, without relying on the governor. Avoid lying, drunkenness and fornication. military campaigns and trips to catch wild animals (turs, moose, boars, bears, wild horses), which, due to the danger associated with them, represented a kind of military campaigns - and then he lists his campaigns and talks about the dangers he was exposed to while hunting. The purpose of these stories about oneself is that, together with the natural desire for every person to perpetuate the memory of one’s deeds and works (autobiography), to arouse competition in children. Drawing a conclusion from the stories, the prince exhorts the children to always be courageous and not to be afraid of death, either in the army or from animals, for he says: “Where we die is appointed by God, and no help and no precautions will save us from what is appointed.” The letter concludes with beautiful sayings taken from the Holy Scriptures: “Who says: I love God, but I do not love my brother (does not love), there is a lie” (1 Epistle. John 4:20)..., “If you do not forgive your brother’s sins, your heavenly Father will forgive you” (Matthew 6:15)... “Do not be jealous of those who are evil, neither be jealous of those who do evil.” lawlessness" (Ps. 34:1), .. "what is good and good, but the brethren must live together" (Ps. 132, 1 )! 3) Travel to holy places. Skipping the section of canonical works, which we indicated above in the chapter on management, we turn to descriptions of travel to holy places. We have two descriptions of these from the pre-Mongol period: Pilgrim to Jerusalem by Abbot Daniel and Pilgrim to Constantinople by Archbishop Anthony of Novgorod 1539. Since the northwestern part of the current province of Chernigov is adjacent to the ancient principality of Polotsk-Minsk, then according to the now given instructions from Daniel about the place of his homeland, you need to think one of two things: Either that he was a Polotsk citizen from the southeastern part of the principality and knew the Chernigov Snov River in the neighborhood, or that he was a northwestern Chernigovets, and wrote down the names of the Polotsk-Minsk princes for the same reason. More likely the latter than the former. Regarding the time of Daniel's journey to Jerusalem, we find him to be quite precise. He says that he traveled from Jerusalem to Lake Tiberias under the cover of the troops of the then Christian sovereign of Jerusalem, Baldwin, who went on a campaign to Damascus (chapter XIV), and Baldwin undertook several campaigns to Damascus, to help the local emir against one Turkish leader, during the years 1106–1108 1540. Daniel put all his efforts into this, as he himself says, and since he was a man of means, he was quite successful in this (ibid.). Not limiting himself to Jerusalem and its immediate surroundings, Daniel wanted to compile as complete a description of all the holy places of Palestine. But in those days, due to robbers, the journey from Jerusalem to ancient Galilee, to Lake Tiberias, was extremely dangerous. Energy and happiness helped our traveler in this case. While he was in Jerusalem, as we let you know, the holy city was in the possession of the crusaders, who then had Baldwin I as the king of Jerusalem, or, as our pilgrim calls him, Prince Baldwin. Daniel introduced himself to Baldwin, managed to gain his full favor and walked from Jerusalem to Tiberias with him, when he undertook a military campaign in Damascus, which we also mentioned above. From this, Daniel’s Pilgrim comes out, if you like, somewhat dry, but on the other hand, it has the greatest dignity of a description, not cluttered or confused by anything superfluous, the greatest dignity of a description, which its illiterate readers did not need to comment and interpret at random, but only had to read, completely understanding what was being described, as far as it depended on the writer. The Pilgrim of Daniel, as we have said, is not a separate description of only a few holy places in Palestine, but the Pilgrim of Palestine or Jerusalem is completely complete, with a description of the entire holy land, as far as it is noteworthy for Christians. Following the order in which he surveyed the shrines and which is a natural topographical order in itself, Daniel describes: 1) Jerusalem with all its shrines and all the holy places closest to it in Palestine itself or ancient Judea (after the shrine of Jerusalem itself one reads here: about Bethany, Gevsemane, Bethlehem, Jordan, Jericho, about the monasteries of Theodosius, Sava and Chariton, about Hebron and the oak of Mamre); 2) holy places of ancient Galilee with the inclusion of a few places in Samaria (here about the city of Samaria, the upper reaches of the Jordan, the city of Tiberias and the sea, Mount Savor, Nazarene and Cana of Galilee). At the beginning and end of the Pilgrim, Daniel provides a brief schedule of the routes taken from Constantinople to Jerusalem and back. As an appendix, he includes a story “about the holy light that descends from heaven to the Holy Sepulcher,” in which he very thoroughly and interestingly tells how this descent took place in his own presence. Daniel's Pilgrim must undoubtedly be considered not only a completely satisfactory book for its time, but also a remarkably good one. The dignity of the Pilgrim was also appreciated by our ancestors, among whom he enjoyed very great popularity, as is clearly evidenced by the many lists of him that have reached us. Hegumen Daniel, a rather official man, being in Jerusalem, recognized himself as a representative of the Russian land; therefore, he wanted to commemorate his stay in it with the act of such representation: On the day of Great Saturday, on which the heavenly fire descends on the tomb of the Lord, Daniel asked permission from Baldwin to place on the last candil for the Russian land in the likeness of the other two that were placed on it for that day, namely the Greek and the monastery of St. Savva. “On Great Friday at 1 o’clock,” says Daniel, “I went to Prince Baldwin and bowed to the ground. Seeing me, he bowed down and called me to himself with love and speeches: “Whatever the Russian abbot wants,” he knew me well and loved me as a great man, as if he were a good and humble husband and not the least proud. I said to him: Mr. Prince, I pray to you, sharing God and the princes for the sake of the Russians, I would like to place my candela over the Holy Sepulcher for all our princes and for the entire Russian land, for all the Christians of the Russian land. The Pilgrim of Constantinople or Constantinople was written by Archbishop Anthony of Novgorod about a hundred years after Abbot Daniel. Anthony, in the world called Dobrynya Yadreikovich and, in all likelihood, was from among the most noble Novgorod citizens. In 1543, for some unknown reason, probably out of curiosity and to worship the Constantinople shrine, he traveled to Constantinople and remained there for a more or less long life even before his entry into monasticism. In one place of his Pilgrim he makes it known that he was in Constantinople in the month of May 1200. That before or after this he lived in it for one or another significant time, this must be assumed because such an assumption is required by the close acquaintance with the shrine of Constantinople, which he discovers and which could not have been acquired in a short visit. But whether he lived in Constantinople after 1200 until the capture of the latter by the crusaders in 1204 (April 13), as is considered likely to be assumed, is a difficult question to resolve in 1544. Returning from Constantinople to Novgorod, Dobrynya Yadreikovich became a monk at the Khutyn Monastery with its founder and his “peer” and friend, the Monk Varlaam, from whom he was elevated by his fellow citizens to the archbishop’s see in 1211. Anthony the Pilgrim of Constantinople is not a description of the Christian sights of Constantinople, but a pointer to the overview of its shrine - exactly the same in this respect as a guide or guidebook as today's guides or guidebooks for travelers. Without describing anything, Anthony only indicates the shrine for worshipers located in Constantinople - relics, miraculous icons and other objects of special honor; namely, he lists one after another the churches in which such a shrine was located and at the same time reports what exactly was in each church. We do not know for whom Anthony intended his book. If for fans of Constantinople, then it had all its meaning, because it could be used by them as a guide, which it was. If, however, for people who had not been to Constantinople in order to give them the opportunity to formulate an idea of ​​Christian Constantinople from it, then it had absolutely no meaning, for, being a guide and nothing else, it is not at all a description. During the pre-Mongol period, several new and special holidays were established in the Russian Church against the Greek Church, on the one hand - in honor of their local saints who appeared, on the other hand - in remembrance of some of their own and not their own events. New holidays required new services, as a result of which the writers of these latter had to appear among us. In addition, in the pre-Mongol period, we had prayers written partly on special occasions, partly without any occasions, simply for the use of pious Christians. The currently known service writers of the pre-Mongol period, in chronological order, are the following: 1. Metropolitan John 1, who wrote the service to Saints Boris and Gleb, the celebration of whose memory was established under Yaroslav during his reign. [From the “Addition and Amendment”: Metropolitan John 1 was placed by us among our natural Russian writers in an erroneous way: he was not a Russian, but a Greek by birth (see footnote 508), and belongs to the number of our writers from these latter.] 2. The monk of the Pechersk Monastery Gregory, who lived at the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th century and is called in the Patericon (by Polycarp about Nikita) the creator of the canons. It is likely that he can learn the canon of St. Theodosius of Pechersk; not without some probability it is possible to assimilate the canon for our established holiday of the transfer of the relics of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker from Mir to Bargrad 1546; and for whom else he wrote and could write canons (unless he wrote canons for home prayer use, like Cyril of Turov), this remains unknown and does not seem entirely clear (although, having written only two canons, he could be called the creator of the canons). 3. John, Bishop of Rostov, who lived at the end of the 12th - beginning of the 13th century (1190–1214). He wrote a canon to Saint Leonty of Rostov, the celebration of whose memory he himself established in 1194. Prayers and supplications were written by the Monk Theodosius of Pechersk and Kirill of Turov. The Monk Kirill of Turov wrote a whole very long series of prayers and, in addition, one, and perhaps several canons of prayer services, so that this type of writing, judging by what has survived to this day, was devoted to them no less, if not more, as a whole half of all writing activity. Currently, 30 of his prayers are known, which, representing one whole, are written for the days of the week, to be read every day after Matins, after the hours and after Vespers. In prayer appeals, being adapted to the designated remembrances or celebrations of days, in their content they are the fervent prayers of a grave sinner, aware of his extreme coldness and all-scorchingness and calling on God or His heavenly representatives for non-betrayal to the enemy, for deliverance from Gehenna and for the granting of paradise. In their tone, they resemble prayers before communion. In addition to 30 prayers, there is also: remembrance and confession (daily, morning and evening) before the icon of the Lady of the Image or before the cross. There is reason to believe that Cyril of Turov wrote several canons of prayers, but, in any case, he owns one such canon, each hymn of which, in its external composition, consists of an irmos and 4 troparia. In its content it is as repentant as the daily prayers of 1547. As for the literary merit of the prayers of Cyril of Turov, they are very, remarkably good oratorical works, which in all fairness should be given a place along with the best Greek prayers. Being as eloquent here as in his sermons, Cyril is a higher orator here than there - here he masters the art of oratory somehow much more firmly, so that here there is much greater processing and completeness than there. Just as in his sermons, Cyril naturally imitated Greek models here, but whether the imitation turned into larger or smaller actual borrowings, we cannot say. The full title of the work is as follows: “About the law given by Moses, and the grace and truth of Jesus Christ who was, and as the law departed, grace and truth filled the whole earth and faith in all languages ​​extended even to our Russian language, and praise to our Kagan Vladimir, from whom we were baptized, and prayer to God from all our land.” The task and subject of the essay is to depict and glorify the divine economy for the salvation of people in general and in particular for the salvation of our Russian people, accomplished through the chosen one of God, Grand Duke Vladimir. The human race, - the speaker begins, - after the fall of the forefather in paradise, having deviated into the darkness of idolatry, the merciful Lord God predestined to save it by sending down to earth his Only Begotten Son. But people had to be prepared to receive this Son of God. Therefore, the Divine economy for their salvation was realized in two Testaments: the Old-preparatory and the New-perfective. The temporal had to give way to the eternal, the Old Testament to the New, and so this happened by divine definition and pre-established, says the speaker, and then depicts how the Lord, who appeared on earth in the form of the God-man and showed the Divine and human, accomplished our salvation, - how the Jews, who did not know Him, were rejected, - how new wine was poured into new wineskins, new ones were called to grace and truth pagan people. The grace-filled faith, spreading throughout the whole earth, has reached our Russian language, God has had mercy on all good countries and has not despised us, but visited us with his love for mankind,” says the speaker, and at the same time turns to the manifestation of divine economy in particular on us, Russians. “We were pagans and by the grace of God we became Christians. Here he extensively depicts what we were while in the darkness of paganism, and what we became when we came into the light of Christianity, and adds to this how the foretelling prophecies came true for us that all pagans, people and tribes would serve the true God. Having again pleased Vladimir for converting his entire region from the delusion of idolatry, and comparing him with Constantine the Great, the speaker further praises his Christian virtues and in particular his many alms and bounties. With an appeal to Vladimir that the work he began does not destroy, but is diligently continued and completed by his worthy successor, his son Georgy-Yaroslav, he ends his praise. In conclusion, there follows a prayer for the newly baptized Russian people, in which God’s mercy is asked for the weaknesses and stumblings of people not yet established in the faith and in which His mercies and generosity are called upon them. The work of Metropolitan Hilarion, undoubtedly testifying that he was not a self-taught orator, but truly educated in the science of oratory and knew it perfectly, is extremely remarkable for its oratorical merits - it is perhaps an impeccable and brilliant oratorical work both in general and in particular. The whole is arranged with a perfect, skillful hand in such a way that it represents a truly harmonious whole, in which everything is in its place and everything is proportionate, and in which nothing falls out like something accidentally inserted. The speaker is not like a blind man who moves forward gropingly, now walking straight, now wandering around - he has in his hands a strictly thought-out plan in advance, which he follows in execution. Likewise, in presenting his thoughts in detail, the speaker is brilliantly eloquent from beginning to end. Endowed by nature with excellent oratorical talent and possessing completely scientific oratory skills, from beginning to end he is a master of the highest analysis in this presentation. We have already said above and repeat again that the reader will have a possibly correct idea of ​​Hilarion’s work if he imagines it as Karamzin’s best academic speech. The beautiful and truly remarkable oratorical work of Metropolitan Hilarion constitutes a thing that is not entirely clear in its purpose. Since Hilarion is a metropolitan, a spiritual person, then everyone, of course, thinks that he is the word of the church. In fact, it is not this word: it is not inscribed with a word, although we have called it that several times for lack of another suitable name. It has no signs of a word at all and from the author himself is called not a word or a teaching, but writing. It was pronounced, but not in front of the listeners who came and happened, but in front of some selected people, “who were overfilled with the sweets of the book.” What is it? We can answer, as we have already made clear, not positively, but only tentatively. In terms of its merits, we said, Hilarion’s work should be equated with Karamzin’s best speeches. But in its essence or in its character it is exactly the same as these Karamzin and non-Karamzin solemn speeches: and we think that it is precisely such a solemn speech. Michael in the Vydubitsky Monastery, standing above the Dnieper. In the monastery itself, or in Kiev in general, there was an orator who, at the celebration that took place in the monastery after the completion of construction, pronounced and presented his scripture to the Grand Duke, although it was far from the same as the scripture of Hilarion of 1551. Metropolitan Hilarion is a considerable mystery for us as a writer. He had such wonderful oratorical talent and, however, did not write anything more than our essay. Why is this? Why didn't he become a spiritual speaker, which he had such ability to be? Unfortunately, for now we can only ask a question that involuntarily arises, but we absolutely cannot answer it. About the recently found message of Metropolitan Kliment Smolyatich and about him in general - Kliment as a writer. In 1892 Kh. Loparev and N. Nikolsky simultaneously found and published the letter of Metropolitan Clement to the Smolensk priest Thomas 1552. Agreeing with each other on the question of the state of our education in the pre-Mongol period, namely, that during this period we did not only have literacy, as others claim, but there was real enlightenment, Messrs. Loparev and Nikolsky see in the message of Metropolitan Clement they found an important literary monument that testifies in favor of the opinion they accept. In fact, Clement’s epistle not only does not support the opinion adopted by Messrs. Loparev and Nikolsky, but on the contrary speaks precisely against him. The history of the message is not clearly visible from it, but, as one might guess, there is the following. The Smolensk prince Rostislav Mstislavich, the brother of the Kyiv Grand Duke Izyaslav Mstislavich, on whose orders Clement was installed as metropolitan, declared himself decisively against the metropolitan installed in Russia itself and in addition to the patriarch, considering his installation illegal. Wanting to reconcile Rostislav with himself and prove to him his legitimacy, Clement wrote him a message. In this message, he more or less offended and insulted the priest Thomas, who was a close person to the prince, perhaps his confessor, and with whom he was angry, probably because the priest, like the prince, considered him an illegitimate metropolitan or even armed the prince against him. Offended by the metropolitan in a letter to the prince, the priest wrote him a reproachful or reproachful message. In response to this reproachful message of Thomas, Clement wrote him our message, found and published by Messrs. Loparev and Nikolsky. Priest Thomas reproached Clement in his letter to him that he, the Metropolitan, in his letter to Prince Rostislav showed himself to be a vain man - that, glorifying himself and being a philosopher, he wrote a letter with (high) philosophy, namely that, leaving the revered (fatherly) writings, he wrote from Omir, Aristotle and Plato. Answering Thomas, Clement says that it is completely untrue that he wrote from Omir, Plato and Aristotle, that he does not seek human glory. But what he, being unjustly accused of seeking such glory, is an ardent admirer of the allegorical or spiritual interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. And in the same way, the perception of spiritual meaning in material nature, moral teachings of which nature were probably filled with his message to Prince Rostislav and which was accepted by Thomas as a philosophy borrowed from Omir, Aristotle and Plato. Then, justifying his commitment to the spiritual interpretation of Holy Scripture and to the contemplation of the spiritual in material nature, Clement gives examples of this interpretation and this contemplation, showing that they, being much higher than the interpretation of the literal and the contemplation of the sensory, are necessary interpretation and contemplation. These examples of spiritual interpretation and contemplation, moreover, remain unknown what in them belongs to Clement himself, having been copied by him from one book, what was inserted after some interpreter of the message by the monk Athanasius 1553, and constitute the further, rather extensive, content of the message, turning it into a real compilative work. What evidence is there in favor of the opinion that before the invasion of the Mongols we did not only have literacy with book reading, but there was real enlightenment, find Messrs. Loparev and Nikolsky in the message of Metropolitan Clement to the priest Thomas? The priest Thomas, who attributed this cunning and ingenuity to the motives of vanity, the desire of Clement to be known as a philosopher, and who also had an inclination to reproach the metropolitan who insulted him, intentionally or unintentionally suspected that this cunning and ingenuity represented something very reprehensible, that they were borrowed from Hellenic or Greek pagan sages, between the last of whom he knew by name were Omir, Aristotle and Plato. Clement responds to Thomas’s reproach not by recognizing its justice, but by decisively denying it. He writes: “You say that I write in philosophy (with philosophical cunning). But then you write very unfairly, as if I, having left the revered (fatherly) writings, wrote from Omir, Aristotle and Plato, who were famous among the Hellenic (pagan) cunning people” 1555. As for the evidence of Klimentov’s message about the supposedly extraordinary prosperity in our country in the 12th century of the knowledge of the Greek language and Greek writing: this is the point. Reflecting some kind of reproach for himself from the Metropolitan, namely, as one should think, a reproach not for particularly great bookishness, Thomas referred in his letter to Clement to the authority of his teacher - Gregory, whom we mentioned above, whom he himself, the Metropolitan, highly respected for his virtuous life. Regarding these references of Thomas to his teacher, Clement writes in one place: “I remember the packs (and) the teacher (your) Gregory, who was spoken by you; . (24) words and letters, and do you hear, I have men (are, are), of whom I am a witness, who can alone reciprocate an alpha not a river - for a hundred or two hundred or three hundred or hundred, and Vita too.” Now Mr. Loparev understands the words of Clement we cited as evidence that Thomas’s teacher Gregory and he himself knew the Greek language and that in the time of Clement and among his Kyiv flock there were amazing readers of Greek writing. But Mr. Loparev understands Clement’s words incorrectly: He is not talking about Gregory and Thomas’ knowledge of the Greek language, but about their knowledge of alpha and vita and all 24 letters of literacy. And not about the amazing knowledge in Greek writing of this or that number of people from his flock, but about the fact that he has people who can say alpha, and also vita, not only for a hundred of something, but for two hundred, three hundred and four hundred. It is absolutely clear that what Clement is talking about is not what Mr. Loparev means, although it is not entirely clear what exactly is meant in his words. Regarding this, which is not completely clear in itself, there can be no dispute. By Gregory and Thomas’ knowledge of the 24 letters of literacy, the Metropolitan undoubtedly means their knowledge of literacy or the art of reading (for by knowledge of the letters of the alphabet, what else could be understood other than knowledge of the art of reading?). By the ability of some of his people to say alpha and vita not only for a hundred, but for two hundred, three hundred and four hundred of something, the Metropolitan means, perhaps, the complete assimilation by some, so to speak, of a course of exercises - exercises, either just the basic ones or the basic ones and grammatical ones. Moreover, in the first case, it means warehouses, and in the second case, knowledge of words that are questionable in relation to pronunciation or spelling (spelling and orthography) 1556. It remains puzzling that Clement speaks of Gregory and Thomas’ knowledge of the Greek number of 24 letters of the alphabet, whereas in the Slavic alphabet there are much more of them. This most likely needs to be explained by the fact that our Slavic alphabet (as textbooks on the science of reading) was a translation from the Greek alphabet (as the same textbooks). And that for this reason the letters of the Greek alphabet were, as it were, dominant in them 1557. Thomas, dismissing the reproaches made to him by Clement and which probably consisted of the fact that he was not a particularly great literate, referred to the fact that he was a student of Gregory, whom the Metropolitan himself greatly revered. Answering this, Clement says: “I greatly respected Gregory for his life, but he did not know literacy perfectly, which is why he could not make you a perfect literate. But here in Kyiv I really have amazing literate people.”... As for him, Thomas, I have not written to him, and do not intend to write (with the exception, it is understood, of this epistle). And Mr. Nikolsky cites part of this answer from Clement to Thomas right there, following what we have written out! We turn to Metropolitan Clement himself as a writer. The Ipata Chronicle speaks of him: “he was a scribe and a philosopher, as if there were no babble in the Russian land” 1560. And the Nikon Chronicle adds to this: “and he wrote a lot of writings to the faithful” 1561. For Clement to actually write many writings or compositions, this seems very doubtful, and the words of the Nikon Chronicle should most likely be looked at as the own addition of its compiler, made according to the conclusion that if there was such a scribe and philosopher as never existed, then he should have left many writings 1562. And it was for this wit and insight that the chronicler found in Clement, although they did not belong to Clement, having simply been borrowed from books by him, but what the chronicler might not have known at all, and he could call him such a philosopher and scribe, which had never happened in the Russian land. Clement's Epistle to Thomas in its teaching part consists precisely of a series of extracts from one work, which has the character we have indicated 1565. About this work, read in one manuscript of the Trinity Lavra Library in 1566, one of the old readers of the manuscript made exactly the same review as the compiler of the Hypatian Chronicle does about Clement, namely, he says that it (together with other similar works placed in the manuscript) is wise beyond measure 1567. In conclusion, let’s talk about the Greek writers who lived among us during the pre-Mongol period. Although these writers, strictly speaking, do not constitute our writers, but since they wrote mostly for us and since they all wrote with us, they should be given a place in the history of our literature. Of the very many Greeks who survived the pre-Mongol period among us, it turns out that there are very few writers; only five of them are known at the present time. Of these five writers, four were metropolitans and one was not a metropolitan, but a monk or perhaps a hieromonk. Metropolitan writers are: [See from “Additions and Amendments” from “4) Liturgical Department” §1] As can most likely be assumed, the impetus for Metropolitan Leon to write the essay was the fact that before his accession to the see of the Russian Metropolis and during his stay there, the pope made attempts to subjugate us to his authority (see above). Given this assumption, it will be strange that the work is known only in the Greek original and that its ancient Slavic translation is unknown. But one can think that the translation existed and that it has either not yet been discovered or has not reached us at all (having been superseded by numerous later articles against the Latins). If the work were recognized as an independent work of Metropolitan Leon, then it would highly recommend him as an author. But, as it seems, this independence constitutes the issue 1568. First, Metropolitan George reports when and how the Latins separated from Orthodoxy, and then briefly, point by point, lists their errors - in both cases, as is natural, he conveys in Russian what he had at hand in Greek, in other words, he reproduces the Greek polemics in his Russian work. During the continuation of the seven ecumenical councils, he speaks of the apostasy, the Latins were like-minded with us, saying the same things and thinking the same things. Then the Germans took possession of ancient Rome and its land, and for a short time the old faithful men who preserved and upheld the law of Christ and the holy Apostles and holy fathers died. After them, the young and unestablished followed German charms and fell into many and various wines; since they did not want to remain doing evil, they were rejected from us. Enumerating the errors or faults of the Latins, George counts 27 of them, which huge number, following the Greek polemicists of his time, is that the errors of the Latins include not only real errors, but also simple church-ritual and even everyday differences from the Greeks. We will talk about them later, when we talk about the relations of the Russian Church to the Latin or about the relations of the ancient Russians to the Latins and the papacy of 1569. 3. John 2, in all likelihood, the successor of George, died in 1088. The chronicler’s review of him as a man cunning in books and teaching, merciful and affectionate towards everyone, humble and meek, silent and at the same time eloquent, who consoled the sad with holy books, and in general as a metropolitan, which never was and never will be, I cited above. John wrote, just like George, two works - a canonical one, containing answers to the questions of a certain monk Jacob, whom I also spoke about above, and a letter to one pope, or more precisely, an anti-pope. The German Emperor Henry IV, in his struggle with Pope Gregory VII Hildebrandt, decided to oppose him to an anti-pope, to which he was elected in 1080. Vibert or Gibert, Archbishop of Ravenna under the name of Clement III. It was this Clement III who sent his bishop to our metropolitan with a proposal to begin an alliance with the Roman Church, and in response to this invitation, John 2 wrote his letter to Clement. In general, Metropolitan John’s message to the pope is a kind of diplomatic note, composed very well - on the one hand, very politely, and on the other, with complete dignity 1570. 4. Nikephoros 1, who occupied the throne from 1104 to 1121. Four works from him have survived to us - two against the Latins and two with moral content. The first two works are epistles written to the princes - one at the request of the one to whom it was addressed, the other, as it seems, at the metropolitan’s own zeal. At the request, a message was written to Grand Duke Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh, who asked the Metropolitan how the Latins were rejected from the holy conciliar and Orthodox Church. The Metropolitan's answer, consisting of a brief notice about the fall of the Latins and a calculation of their errors, is very similar to the essay against the Latins by Metropolitan George, differing from it in that he calculates the errors of the Latins in a different order and that, omitting some of them, he lists them in total not 27, but 20 1571. Another message was written to the Vladimir-Volynsky prince Yaroslav Svyatopolkovich, who had his inheritance in the vicinity of the land of Lyadskaya, and by what must be understood, the motivation was that this neighborhood posed a particular danger to the prince from the Latins. The epistle first briefly reports the same thing as in the previous one about the falling away of the Latins, then also briefly enumerates their errors, omitting some old ones and pointing out some new ones, and finally one error is refuted in detail, namely, the use of unleavened bread 1572. The moralizing works of Metropolitan Nikifor are: a message to the Grand Duke Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh and a church teaching. This warning to the prince against the inclination to listen to slanderers and earphones, as it seems, was the main purpose of the message, although the Metropolitan deliberately denies this, exposing his motivation as a general desire to make the prince a memory or teach an instruction, and also that the charter is the church and the rule during this time - Lent - and to the princes to say what is useful. The message itself is very good, but, being abstract and cunning, it represents very little edification for simple people 1573. Firstly, Reverend Theodosius of Pechersk could not have had the information about the deviations and customs of the Latins that the author reports. Secondly, what he, the author, says about himself and his father does not at all suit St. Theodosius. And finally, thirdly, the Monk Theodosius, and to Izyaslav’s question: is it worthy to slaughter cattle a week, begins the answer: “What did the God-loving prince think of asking me, an unlearned and evil person, about such a thing,” but is this how our author answers his completely different kind of question? In general, we have no doubt that the word belongs to our Theodosius and was written by him either for the same Nicholas the Svyatosha, which is most likely, or for some other prince, and was acquired by the Monk Theodosius later due to a very understandable misunderstanding. Answering the question of the Saint or the unknown prince, Theodosius partly points out the deviations and unclean customs of the Latins, but mainly convinces them to observe their faith and teachings and to flee their communities. The Polovtsians, Asian nomads, appeared in the steppes of present-day New Russia, between the Don and the Dnieper, in the middle of the 11th century, displacing the Pechenegs who had previously roamed here, after which they remained neighbors of Rus' until the Mongol invasion, which destroyed them. As all nomads behave in general, one of their occupations and one of their means of existence was predatory raids on their neighbors, as a result of which the Russians had almost constant wars with them, just like Moscow later had with the Crimean Tatars. The Polovtsy, without any reason or pretext, raided Rus' when they gathered strength or found it convenient. On the contrary, the Russians acted in the same way - these mutual raids were, so to speak, completely commonplace for both sides. One of these raids is the subject of our word or our story-song. However, seeing that the Polovtsians were not taken by surprise, that they were preparing to meet the attack, and everyone had gathered, the princes decided to retreat. If they had set off on the return journey immediately after the victory, when the Polovtsians had not yet gathered the courage to return to them, they would probably have reached home safely with glory and booty. But those whose horses had been tortured in the previous battle opposed an immediate retreat, demanding some rest. The night following the victory was spent in rest, but the next day the Russians saw all the Polovtsian regiments in front of them. They decided to dismount everyone so that the horsemen could not leave the foot soldiers as prey to the enemy, and then attempt an armed retreat, similar to the famous retreat of the Greeks under the leadership of Xenophon. The first day and night they retreated and fought safely. But the next day part of the army fled. Igor wanted to stop the fugitives, but, having separated from his regiment for this purpose, he was intercepted by the Polovtsians and that was the end of it. All the other three princes were taken prisoner. Of the entire army, partly killed, partly taken captive, partly driven into the sea (Azov, near the confluence of the Kayaly River, on the shore of which, near a lake not called by name, trouble happened to the Russians) 1578, less than 30 people escaped and ran to Rus'. Taking advantage of the victory, the Polovtsy made two raids on Rus' at the same time: one half devastated the Pereyaslavl region (besieging Pereyeslavl and then taking and plundering ancient Rome, present-day Romny), the other - the Kursk-Chernigov Posemye (the region along the Semi River, the current Seim, from where the princes were taken prisoner, burning volosts and villages and also the fort of the city of Putivl). Meanwhile, Igor, with the help of one Polovtsian, who had the good idea to leave his own people for Rus' and, taking advantage of the absence of the main Polovtsian princes who were on the now mentioned campaign against Rus', escaped from captivity in 1579 and returned to his Novgorod. The story about Igor’s campaign is divided into three parts: the subject of the first is Igor’s campaign, which ended in his captivity. In the second - lamentations about the misfortune that befell Rus' of Svyatoslav of Kyiv and the singer himself, a depiction of further disasters of Rus' from the Polovtsians, to whom Igor opened the gates, an appeal to the princes to stand up for the offense of Rus' with poetic digressions. And, finally, the crying of Yaroslavna or Igoreva’s wife Evfrosinya Yaroslavovna (daughter of Galichsky Yaroslav Vladimirovich Osmomysl) on the Putivl visor. In the third part - Igor’s escape from captivity and the joy of Rus' about it. The word is not a folk epic in the sense that it was composed orally and gradually by the impersonal creativity of many and was only written down by someone already ready. It is undoubtedly a literary or poetic work in the proper sense, belonging to one particular author who composed or compiled it, in general, in the proper sense, the work of an unknown writer. That in the pre-Mongol period, in parallel to written literature, which was exclusively ecclesiastical, there was a secular literature of non-written folk epics, this is understandable, for oral folk art cannot be suppressed by any extreme opposite to the direction of written literature. But a secular work of real written literature is a very remarkable thing for that time and represents a considerable mystery, which cannot yet be answered in a completely satisfactory way. Thus, it seems most likely to look at the Tale of Igor’s Campaign not as a single and exceptional phenomenon, but as a remnant of our pre-Mongol troubadour that has survived to us, other monuments of which either perished from later inattention to them or are still hidden in manuscripts, undiscovered 1581. In the only monument of its kind, some are inclined to see the work as unique in the sense of perfection. Let us not agree at all with this exaggerated opinion. The Tale of Igor's Campaign, undoubtedly, is a very good and very remarkable poetic work, but we have the decisive courage to think that it is nothing more, and that it is very far from the height of perfection. It is usually read after a preliminary thorough acquaintance with the event and the persons who are glorified in it, which acquaintance is served by the story of Igor’s campaign, read in the Ipatiev Chronicle, written by a direct contemporary, almost even a participant in the campaign, and conveying the event very fully, not only with external thoroughness, but also with internal liveliness. But put away this preliminary acquaintance, which, when reading a word, completes the picture, and you will see in it more flickering shadows than living and finished images, more hints than fully expressed speeches, so that it looks more like a program of the poem than the poem itself in a fully processed form. There is no doubt that the prosaic source of the poem was the aforementioned story about Igor’s campaign, located in the Ipatan Chronicle, and one would almost have to admit that in some cases prose is higher than poetry. On the 9th day after Igor set out on a campaign against the Polovtsians, a solar eclipse occurred. On this occasion, he tells the chronicler to the squad, who saw in this a bad omen for themselves: “brothers and squad, no one knows the secrets of God, but God is the creator of the sign (as) and to his whole world, and what God does for us, either for good or for our evil, we can also see.” In a word on the same occasion, Igor says: “brothers and squads, I wish I could have been better off 1582 than I am full of being, but everyone, brethren, on their own generous komoni 1583. The first is to the point and wonderful, the same cannot be said about the second. The best place in the word is considered to be Yaroslavna’s cry. Let's assume that he is good; but, firstly, it seems to us that Yaroslavna could cry a little more extensively, and also a little more sensitively. Secondly, here’s the strange thing: she lost not only her husband, but also her son, a young man in his first youth, and, however, her crying is limited only to her husband, without a word touching her son. We think that a very good poet would never forget about his mother and would even put her ahead of his wife 1584. Looking into the chronicle, we find more reasons for bewilderment. In the latter we read that when the news of the misfortune that befell Igor and his squad came to Posemye, “the towns of Posemskie were in turmoil and there was sorrow and fierceness, as never before in the whole of Posemye and in Novgorod Seversky and in the entire Chernigov volost, the princes were confiscated and the squad was confiscated, beaten. And they rebelled as in the story of 1585, the cities rose up and mercilessly beat each other with their neighbors, but many then renounced their souls, pitying their princes.” Our author does not say a word about this general cry of the entire Posem region. Having appeared among us and firmly established itself even before the time when the Greek influence began to more or less strongly assert itself, it remained for the entire subsequent time its own and special region, which did not want to succumb to this influence 1586. The word of Daniel the Imprisoned or the Sharpener is also a wonderful thing, but in a completely different and opposite sense, namely, as a curiosity, showing that even in the pre-Mongol period we had writers who were sad and amusing genius-clowns. After the invasion of the Mongols, we broke (and we ourselves broke) all ties with all other people, so we were left completely alone and closed exclusively in on ourselves, becoming, as it were, a remote village. But before the invasion of the Mongols, we were a suburban village - we were in relatively lively communication with other people who were higher than us in development. Throughout the entire period of the Kyiv period, our metropolitans were Greeks, and during its entire continuation a considerable number of other Greeks lived with us in episcopal departments and as officials under metropolitans and bishops. Throughout the entire period, bookish and pious Russian people, both monks and laymen, prompted by pilgrimage zeal and simple curiosity, undoubtedly visited Constantinople in large numbers, the easy water road to which from Kyiv was so familiar through trade connections. And our merchants, who traded with Constantinople, lived in it for several months every year. Finally, during this period, with isolated exceptions, there were also people among the Russians themselves with a real Greek education. In the same way, throughout the entire period we were not completely separated from the European West, as later, but had more or less close acquaintance: in our cities we constantly saw a large number of local merchants and artisans. We constantly had close political communication with our immediate neighbors - the Poles and Hungarians, sometimes interfering in their affairs ourselves, sometimes tolerating their interference in our affairs, sometimes being in positive friendship with them, sometimes in positive enmity (which is also a means of mutual communication between people, like friendship). Throughout the entire period, our princes did not cease to establish family ties with the entire West, either marrying off their princesses there, or bringing in the local princesses from there. Everything we have said now would be in vain and completely unfounded to exaggerate, carried away by the desire, one way or another, to create a real Europe from our pre-Mongol ancestors. But no action remains without any influence, and it is necessary to think that our pre-Mongol ancestors, who had communication and made acquaintance with educated people, to some extent represented something different than our post-Mongol ancestors, for whom this communication ceased and who ceased this acquaintance. We will return to speeches about this later. APPLICATIONS. Tatishchev about schools and education in our country in the pre-Mongol period. The national pride of the Russian people does not easily reconcile with the unpleasant fact that throughout our historical existence before Peter the Great we remained a people without enlightenment, or that during all this time we were an unenlightened people. Karamzin found a way to satisfy our national pride, namely in a way to place the blame on independent circumstances: we Russians, he wants to argue, really wanted to be an enlightened people, we borrowed enlightenment from the Greeks and began to succeed in it to such an extent that we were even going to be teachers of Western Europe. But the civil strife of the princes and then the Mongol yoke suppressed our wonderful, promising beginnings of enlightenment. We cannot say positively, but we are inclined to suspect that Karamzin borrowed the idea or thought of his theory from Tatishchev. Be that as it may, this latter, before Karamzin, also wants to assert that in the pre-Mongol period we had schools and there was enlightenment, that is, real schools and real enlightenment. It may be that even Tatishchev’s national pride did not allow him to think that we were a people who had never had enlightenment. But, in any case, he had more, and most importantly, other motives. Born in the old pre-Petrine Rus' and moving to the new Rus' with Peter himself in 1590, Tatishchev (a most talented and remarkable self-educated person) was the most ardent defender of the new light against the old darkness, enlightenment against ignorance. In this struggle against ignorance for enlightenment, he wants to make and have our history as his assistant. By the qualities and turn of his mind, inclined towards freedom of thought, he raised and educated himself according to those free-thinking books of his time, which attributed all the darkness and all the evil in the world to the power-hungry and self-interested clergy (mainly, as one must assume, the Lexicon of Baylev or Belev. cfr vol. I, pre-notification p. XXIII sub fin.) 1591, Tatishchev represents the matter of enlightenment in our history, for edification, i.e. In support of his general speeches, he cites individual positive evidence - and this is where all the power lies: One way or another, they say, understand Tatishchev, but the positive evidence that he cites proves the fact of the existence of education and schools in our country in the pre-Mongol period. For, they say, he does not compose these positive testimonies of his, but takes them from somewhere. There is no doubt, however, that he composes them, understanding and commenting in his own way on the evidence known to everyone, presenting only his own assumptions as direct, positive facts, directly reading in the evidence what he would only like to see written in them. (And with all this, acting not with any outrageous dishonesty, but simply according to the custom of most historians of old times, which our historians have not abandoned at all, even at the present time) 1592. Tatishchev does not say directly that in his testimony regarding schools and education he uses generally known evidence. But he makes this known by the fact that, with the exception of one case, he does not at all refer to any special manuscripts that he had. Here are his testimonies regarding schools and education in our country in the pre-Mongol period, in chronological order. Under 1086 about the daughter of Vsevolod Yaroslavich Yanka or Anna, who became a nun as a maiden and gathered many monks in the monastery of St. Andrei, built for her by her father, Tatishchev writes: “Having gathered young girls, she taught them writing, crafts, singing, sewing and other useful knowledge, so that from youth they would learn to understand the law of God and hard work, and lust in youth would be killed by abstinence” (II, 138). In the chronicle 1593 under the same 1086. we read: "Vsevolod founded the church of St. Andrew under Ivan the Reverend (Var.: under the good) Metropolitan. Create a monastery at that church, and in it his daughter was tonsured, named Yanka; (the same Yanka) having married many black monks, staying with them according to the monastic rank." Tatishchev cites everything now written out from the chronicle before what we have cited, and then, without referring to any new source, he says what was given. It is clear that he does not take this latter from any other source, but speaks on his own, expressing his own understanding of the matter and his own idea of ​​it. That is expressing in the form of a positive fact how he himself would like to present the matter. He dreams of the Smolny Monastery for the education of noble maidens (in the likeness of such monasteries in the West), and antiquity gives him an example of such a monastery. That we must understand him this way and not otherwise, he points out to us right away. The chronicle says that Yanka, “having collected many monks, arrived with them according to monastic rank.” And he, for the edification of the nuns of his time, conveys this: “having gathered many nuns, she remained in it (the monastery) in all reverence, fasting and chastity, cruelly keeping the monastic law.” (He makes it even clearer about the motivation that guided him when, praising Yanka, he says: “This great or praiseworthy Anna is worthy to be called, and God grant that we may still have such Anna” - II, 457, note 355). Under 1097 Tatishchev makes a famous certain Vasily, who wrote a story about the blinding of Vasilko of Galich, included in the chronicle, say: “Vasilko was kept in Vladimir... and as Lent approached, it happened that I was then in Vladimir to look after schools and instruct teachers” (II, 181). To the regret of people who believe in Tatishchev, we are capturing the venerable historian here, so to speak, red-handed. No other unknown sources can be assumed here, because we are talking about only one known story, as it is read in the chronicle. We know that in the chronicle this story is read without any mention of schools and teachers in 1594, and, therefore, it is clear that Tatishchev himself invented the schools and teachers in 1595. Under 1180 about the Smolensk prince Roman Rostislavich, regarding his death this year, Tatishchev says that he “was a great scholar of all sciences”, that “he forced many people to study, establishing schools and teachers for this, he supported Greeks and Latinists with his treasury and did not want to have unlearned priests” (III, 238). Turning to the chronicle under the same year (Ipatskaya, 2nd edition p. 418 beginning), we find that it spreads praises for the deceased prince and only says nothing about his learning and his concerns about enlightenment. The chronicle says that Roman was “adorned with all virtue”; and since for Tatishchev the first virtue was education, he assimilates it to the prince. The chronicle says that Roman was “filled with the fear of God, showing mercy to the poor, watching over the monasteries.” And since for Tatishchev the surveillance of monasteries only made sense if it was to support enlightenment, this is exactly how he presents the matter. When he completely composes the Greeks and Latinists, in the first case he probably means that they came to Mstislav Vladimirovich Romanov’s grandfather in 1137. four Greeks (Manuilo, a great singer, is the third himself, - the Hypatan Chronicle under this year). And the second is that in his own time, Tatishchev, in Smolensk, a city bordering Poland and for some time under the rule of this latter, there were Latinists in the person of Jesuits and other Catholic monks who acted in the field of enlightenment (and at the same time seduction). Regarding Roman Mstislavich, Tatishchev allows himself too much freedom in his writing, as we suspect, because this prince was his ancestor: the Tatishchevs were descended from the Solomirsky princes, and the Solomirsky princes were descendants of the Smolensky princes. Having found in the chronicle praise for one of the princes of Smolensk (actually two, about the other, see below), which allowed him to comment on himself in a broad way, he comments on it so that one can proudly say that from ancient times our family was distinguished by its great love of enlightenment. Under 1188 about the Galich prince Yaroslav Osmomysl, on the same occasion of his death this year, Tatishchev says that he “studied languages (and) read many books”, that he “corrected a lot in the church rank and organized the choir and instructing evil faith, eradicated it, and instructed and taught wisdom and the right faith, monks and with their incomes (and with their incomes, which, it is implied that he himself assigned them) to teach children” (III, 280). Turning to the chronicle (Ipatskaya, 2nd edition, p. 441 fin.), we find that in our case Tatishchev almost does not add anything of his own in the proper sense, but only reproduces what is in the chronicle in such a way that in this reproduction something completely different appears than in the latter. It is, of course, for the purpose of creating one of the evidence of the existence of the pre-Mongol enlightenment in our country. Highly praising Yaroslav, the chronicle says that he was “a wise prince and eloquent in his tongue”: from this “speaking in his tongue” Tatishchev makes his “taught in languages.” Then the chronicle says that the prince “walked in all the law of God, coming to the church rank himself and building a good choir”: Tatishchev reproduces these words verbatim, and only adds a little (which completely changes the meaning of the testimony) that he eradicated evil faith, and taught wisdom and right faith. The chronicle says that the prince loved the rank of Chernoris and gave honor (to him) to the best of his ability: giving honor to monks for Tatishchev means nothing more than giving them income for schools and teaching - this is how he understands and represents this in this case. As far as we know, the same manuscript of this so-called chronicler Simonov or Paterik, which was in the hands of Tatishchev, remains unknown in 1596. But in view of the countless currently known lists of the Paterikon of Pechersk, which do not represent anything similar to what Tatishchev presents as an exact extract from the Paterikon, who would be willing to believe him that he had the only list of the Paterikon, in which the unexpected news he reported was supposedly read? There can be no doubt that Tatishchev did not read anything similar to the above in any Patericon. And that he composed all this partly on the basis of the Laurentian Chronicle, and partly probably on no basis, but simply driven by his boldness in considerations and assumptions. (Which were offered to the reader in the form of positive facts). The Laurentian Chronicle, extremely praising Constantine in all respects, speaks of his love for reading books and his bookish erudition, that he “often read books with diligence,” that he commanded his children to listen to book teachings, and that, endowed by God with the wisdom of Solomon, he made everyone wise with bodily and spiritual conversations (2nd edition pp. 420–421). This evidence really gives us the right to assume that Konstantin had a more or less good library of four books: Tatishchev makes this assumption. But only according to his custom and according to his inclination in this case (namely, the inclination to point out the truly educated people in pre-Mongol Rus') turns the assumption into a positive fact. And Konstantin’s bookishness is understood as knowledge of many sciences. (Probably, the words of the chronicle that Constantine filled many of the churches he built with books, and, of course, liturgical books, Tatishchev also understood about four books). The chronicle gives the right to assume a library of Slavic books and does not make any hint of Greek books: where does Tatishchev get these latter from? With a peculiarly free understanding of the matter, he finds evidence of them all in the same chronicle. Under the same 1218 the chronicle reads: “That same summer, the Bishop of Polotsk from Tsesargrad came to the Grand Duke Kostyantin (in) Volodymer, knowing his love and desire for the entire divine church structure, for the holy icons and relics of saints and for the whole spiritual path leading to eternal life. And bring him here (some) part of the passions from The Lord, even for our sake, the Lord Jesus Christ suffered from the Jews and the relics of St. Login the martyr centurion - both holy hands are his, and the relics of St. Mary Magdalene” (2nd edition p. 419). Tatishchev did not particularly need the shrine and relics, but he needed books. And so, transferring the prince’s love from the first to the last, he now conveys the news we have given in such a way that the bishop brought the prince a shrine and relics, but that at the same time he brought him “and many books of ancient Greek teachers, knowing that the prince loved them more than any property” (III, 410). Regarding Tatishchev’s assurance that Konstantin had more than a thousand Greek books alone, one can only express regret that his hand trembled, and that instead of a thousand he did not write: ten thousand... How to understand the matter with Tatishchev’s assurances that Konstantin also had learned people with him, that he ordered Greek books to be translated into Russian, that he collected many of the works of the ancient princes and partly wrote them himself, partly forced others to work. Whether these assurances are the fruit of some misunderstandings and freely understood hints or a simple and pure composition, we cannot say. In any case, Tatishchev himself gives us the right to assume here the possibility of misunderstandings on his part, no matter how curious or how unfounded. About the Smolensk prince Svyatoslav Rostislavich, brother of the above-mentioned Roman, Tatishchev says that this prince Svyatoslav, adorned with many virtues, by the way, “was a student of the Greek language and read books willingly” (III, 177). Going for information in the chronicle, we find that Tatishchev freely reproduces the review of Svyatoslav in the Ipatian Chronicle (under 1172, 2nd edition, p. 376, in such a free way that from a good prince from the chronicler’s point of view, he became a good prince from his own point of view - Tatishchev). But in the chronicle, of course, there is not a word about knowledge of the Greek language, just as there is nothing that could have been about willingly reading books, meaning Slavic. About the Suzdal prince Svyatoslav Yuryevich, son of Dolgoruky, Tatishchev writes: “this prince was a great prudent, learned scripture, and read a lot of books and learned people who came from the Greeks and Latins graciously, he often talked with them and had competitions (III, 196). Of course, there is nothing like this in the chronicles, but in his speeches about this prince Tatishchev reveals himself to us in the most undeniable red-handed way. The Laurentian Chronicle says about the prince: “This prince was God’s chosen one: from birth to the accomplishment of manhood, he had an evil illness, even the sickness of all the holy apostles and holy fathers of God; whoever suffers from that illness, as the books say, his body suffers, and his soul is saved; so is the truly holy Svyatoslav, God’s saint, chosen among all princes” (under 1174, 2nd edition p. 347). And Tatishchev, rewriting the chronicle, writes: “the blessed prince Svyatoslav Yuryevich passed away, who was healthy from infancy to adulthood, and in his best years a serious illness befell him, with which he was tormented for many years and died.” Tatishchev forces the prince, who was sick from birth, to fall ill in his best years, as one must think, in order to give him time to become a scholar of the scriptures and read a lot in books; and he acquires learning, probably because he boasts very much as a chronicler (“chosen among all princes”, how could he not be a scientist?). About the Grand Duke Mikhail (Mikhalka) Yuryevich Tatishchev writes: “Velmi studied the scriptures, spoke their languages ​​from Greek and Latin, like Russians, but he never wanted to have a debate about faith and did not like it, believing that all debates come from pride or spiritual ignorance, and the law of God is the same for everyone” (III, 220). We cannot say for what reason Tatishchev wrote this about Mikhail, because the chronicle, speaking about his death, makes absolutely no mention of him (Lavrentievskaya under 1177, 2nd edition p. 360). But, of course, no one will dare to argue against the absolute obviousness that this is not said by some chronicler and not by anyone ancient at all, but by Tatishchev himself, who preached religious tolerance following his Western teachers (in particular Bel, who was an ardent preacher of it). (We also intended to place here our article about the imaginary Joachim Chronicle of Tatishchev; but since half of the volume is too thick, we postpone the intention and ask people interested in the question of this imaginary chronicle to read our article in the 28th, 1881, part of the Addendum to the works of the Holy Fathers). A bibliographic review of the translated and generally borrowed writing that existed in our country in the pre-Mongolian period. From the above general overview of the translated writing that existed in our country in the pre-Mongol period, and from the detailed review presented after this, it is clear that this writing was very, not poor. But there can be no doubt that in fact she was incomparably richer than what is known to us now and so far. Here is one convincing proof of this: From the pre-Mongol period, only two months of the Four Mena have been preserved or discovered to this day. (March and May, see below, paragraph: Menaion-Cheti). And in these two surviving months there are 30 words of St. John Chrysostom. If we assume that in the ten months that have not been preserved or are still unknown, there were a total of at least five words in each, then we get that 50 words of Chrysostom, which were in the pre-Mongol period in the Slavic translation, remain unknown to us. And if we assume that there were a total of 15 of them in each month, as in the two surviving ones, then we get a huge figure of 150. Some of what was in our Slavic translation already in the pre-Mongol period was preserved only in later manuscripts and with such updating and such alteration of the language that traces of antiquity can no longer be discovered with confidence in the latter. Other things (and probably quite a lot), which were in our Slavic translation already during this period, may remain undiscovered, and finally, others may not have reached us at all. In general, our currently known translated literature of the pre-Mongol period should be looked at not in the way that it represents all of the truly former literature, but in the way that it represents only the literature that is still known to us 1598. The largest part of the translations was not made by us, the Russians, and we, for the most part, only borrowed them from the Bulgarians. The question: whether everything that was translated by the Bulgarians was borrowed by us from them is an incomprehensible question. If any translation is known from manuscripts of the pre-Mongol period, written in Russia and in general by Russian scribes (which, in addition to direct records, is recognized by the language, pronunciation and spelling), then it is clear from this that it was known to the Russians. But if any translation is currently unknown from Russian manuscripts of the pre-Mongol period, then, on the contrary, it does not necessarily follow that it remained unknown to our pre-Mongol ancestors. For this can only mean that Russian manuscripts remain unknown to us or have not reached us at all. On this basis, both above in the general review and in the detailed review below, we place not only what we find in Russian manuscripts of the pre-Mongol period, but in general everything that is known to have existed in the Slavic translation in the pre-Mongol period. We said above that not every presence of Bulgarianisms in translations necessarily means that the translations were made in Bulgaria, that their other presence does not at all serve to resolve the question: The latter were made in Bulgaria or in Russia, and that, thus, the absence of positive information about at least one translation made in Russia in the pre-Mongol period, and the presence of Bulgarianisms in all known translations, should not at all be understood to mean that in Russia in the period pre-Mongolian, not a single translation was made. In addition to this, it does not hurt to point out one more circumstance, which should prevent a hasty decisive conclusion that the Russians in the pre-Mongolian period did not make a single translation from Greek: other Russian translators of the pre-Mongolian period could translate with the possible avoidance of Bulgarianisms or perhaps in pure Russian; Regarding the translations of such translators, if we have them in later manuscripts and in their ancient, not at all updated, language, it cannot be decided (due to lack of funds in Russian philology) whether they were made in the pre-Mongol period or after. Then, in the language of such translations, over time, any signs of antiquity could disappear and smooth out much more easily than in translations with Bulgarianisms (because later scribes had to deal more freely with their Russian archaisms than with Bulgarianisms). For the convenience of reference, we will arrange this review not in systematic order, but in alphabetical order, precisely according to the alphabet of the names of writers and titles of books, highlighting only from the alphabet and putting the Holy Scriptures in front and also placing the apocrypha at the end, in a special section. Constantine the philosopher, the Slavic first teacher (for brief information about whose life see below, in the chapter on worship), having decided to give the Slavs, as a result of a challenge from the Moravians (how to understand this challenge, see ibid.), worship in their own language, in his very short life after this decision, he translated from the Holy Scripture along with liturgical books what constitutes the liturgical selection from it, i.e., the Gospel and The Apostle's liturgical readings (a selection from both liturgical readings), the Psalter in its entirety and a selection of liturgical readings from the books of the Old Testament, constituting the so-called Parameinik. Konstantin's brother Methodius, who remained after him as the successor of his work and lived after him (in the rank of Archbishop of Moravia) for quite a long time, translated all the books of the Holy Scriptures in their entirety, with the exception of the books of Maccabees 1599. Thus, already the first Slavic teachers gave the Slavs the Bible in its entirety (with the minor exception now indicated) in their own Slavic language. That the Holy Scriptures were borrowed from the Moravians, together with liturgical books, by the Bulgarians, and from the latter by us, this, of course, cannot be doubted. But in the first and second cases it could have been borrowed in its entirety or not in its entirety. In ancient times, the books of the Holy Scriptures were never written in such a way that they all constituted one volume (one solid manuscript), because with the ancient statutory letter it would have been an impossibly huge volume. They were always written in parts, the Pentateuch separately, the historical books separately, the prophets separately, etc. With this method of writing biblical books, it could happen that the Bulgarians borrowed from the Moravians, and then we borrowed from the Bulgarians not all of them, but only some, or that not all of them, but only some, borrowed if not the Bulgarians from the Moravians and we from them, then we alone from the latter. As it was in reality, whether we borrowed the books of Holy Scripture from the Bulgarians in full or not in full, and in one or another composition we had them in the pre-Mongol period, positive evidence regarding this is still unknown. It seems most likely to accept the first one. From the very end of the pre-Mongol period we have evidence which, although not entirely certain, assures us that at the end of this period we had all the books of Holy Scripture in their entirety. Polycarp in the Pechersk Patericon, talking about the temptation that happened to the recluse Nikita (after the bishop of Novgorod, the saint), says: “no one could compete with him with the books of the Old Law, for you knew everything from your mouth: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Judges, Kingdoms, and all the prophecies according to order, and all the books of the Jewish book were compiled good” 1600 . Among the manuscripts of the pre-Mongol period that have survived to the present day or have been opened and made known to this day, from the books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament we have only manuscripts of the Psalter, and it is the simple Psalter and with interpretations (explanatory). We will indicate the surviving lists of the first, as a book of liturgical services, below, in the chapter on liturgical services. And the surviving lists of the second are known: One small excerpt from the Psalter and one entire Psalter of the 11th century. (the first Evgenievsky, about him Vostokov in the Scientific Notes of the II Department of the Academy of Sciences, book II issue 2, p. 59. The second is in the Library of the Chudov Monastery, Sreznevsky in Ancient Monuments of Russian Writing and Language, p. 21 col. 2. The entire surviving remainder of the first, samples of the text of the second and photographic photographs of the writing of both Psalms in the appendices to Sreznevsky’s book), one Psalter XII (Public Library, Sreznevsky ibid. 39). The manuscript of 16 prophets, written in Novgorod in 1047, has not survived to the present day, but is known from the surviving record. for Prince of Novgorod Vladimir Yaroslavich by priest Upir Likhim. (The entry of priest Upir is read in some later lists of prophetic books, see it in Sreznevsky, ibid. 12). The chronicler also testifies to the existence of prophetic books in our country in the pre-Mongol period, when in 1037, speaking about the benefits of reading books, together with the Gospel and the Apostle and the lives of the saints, he also calls these books: “honoring prophetic conversations”... From the Gospels, not liturgical, representing not only a liturgical selection of readings, but the evangelists in their entirety (which we called tetroevangeliums and tetras, which is the Greek τετρευαγγέλιον, four gospels, while the selections of readings were called aprakos, see 2 half of volume 1 edition p. 445) is currently known: two complete Gospels, one of which was written in 1144 and, called from the place of its former location Galich, is now in the Moscow Synodal Library (published by His Eminence Amphilochius in 1882–1888 under the title: Four Gospels of Galich 1144, collated with ancient Slavic manuscripts Gospels of the 11th-17th centuries and printed...; see about him in Gorsky and Nevostruev in the Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 20, section I, p. 208 sqq, also in Buslaev in the Historical Reader col. 41, in Slavic-Russian Paleography of the 11th-14th centuries, p. 150 Voskresensky in his publication: The Gospel of Mark according to the main lists of four editions, Sergiev Posad, 1894, p. 9); As for the non-liturgical Apostle, not a single list is known in a separate form (without interpretation) and together with the complete composition of the books that compose it, but the following lists are known: 1) written in 1220 and containing the messages of St. Paul to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians and an unfinished one to the Ephesians (interrupted at article 4, chapter 4), together with the interpretation on them belonging to or at least assimilated by the Ikumenius of Trikka, located in the Synodal Library (Gorsky and Nevostruev Description of the Synodal Manuscripts No. 95, Section II, 1, p. 142, and in Voskresensky in his study: Ancient Slavic translation of the Apostle and his fate until the 15th century, M., 1879, p. 50); 2) written before 1250. or about and containing the Apocalypse with an interpretation of Andrew of Caesarea (Sreznevsky Ancient monuments of Russian writing and language, 59 col. 2), located in the same place. Of the interpretations on the books of Holy Scripture were in the Slavic translation in our pre-Mongol period: 1. On the book of Job, the interpretation of Olympiodor the Deacon of Alexandria (abridged against the original, see Gorsky and Nevostruev Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 1–3, Dept. I, p. 57, and No. 63, Dept. II, 1, p. 54). 2. There are two interpretations of the Psalter, one attributed to Athanasius of Alexandria (Vostokov Description of the Rumyantsev Museum No. 331, p. 469, and Gorsky and Nevostruev Description of the Synodal Manuscripts. No. 64–69, department II, 1, p. 69), and that belonging to Theodoret of Cyrus (Vostokov ibid. No. 333, p. 470), both committed by the Bulgarians in the very first time of Slavic writing (Vostokov, ibid.). 3. On the Song of Songs of Philo of Carpathia (Gorsky and Nevostruev Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 1–3, Div. I, p. 74 sqq). 4. On the 16 prophets the interpretation is quite significantly incomplete, belonging to an unknown person, mainly abbreviated from Theodoret of Cyrus, but also selected from other fathers. With this interpretation, the prophetic books were read in the manuscript of 1047, which we spoke about above (Gorsky and Nevostruev Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 78 et seq. Section II. 1, p. 109 sqq; about the interpretation itself - about its composition and incompleteness, p. 113) 1601. Hippolytus of Rome's interpretation of the prophet Daniel, consisting of 12 words. See the book about him by I. I. Sreznevsky: Tales of the Antichrist in Slavic translations, St. Petersburg, 1874, p. 8 sqq., and the first two words printed according to the Chudov manuscript of the 12th-13th centuries. right there, in the second account, p. 5 sqq (borrowing by the Kiev chronicler under 1111 from the 9th word of this interpretation - Ipata Chronicle, 2nd edition, p. 195). 5. For the first five messages of St. Paul's interpretation of Ikumenius Trikka, which we mentioned above and which the late A.V. Gorsky, as it seems, dates back to the beginning of the 13th century (Description of Synodal Manuscripts II, 1, preface, p. 11). 6. On the Apocalypse, the interpretation of Andrew of Caesarea (abridged against the original), attributed by A.V. Gorsky to the beginning of the 13th century (ibidd. and No. 70 and No. 105) 1602. Writers and books in alphabetical order. Augustine of Hippo. A short extract from: “Ugustina from the statutes” (ἐκ τῶν δογμάτων), containing some similarities that clarify the secret of St. Trinity. Beginning Let's see what kind of fiery power it is - in Svyatoslav's Izbornik 1073. l. 247. Agapius Rev. See apocrypha below. Alexandria See John Malala. Amartol Georgy. See Georgy Amartol. Anastasia Sinaita (about whom see Fabric. Biblioth. Gr., ed. Harles, X, 571) “Answer what was done to him with an answer (read: question) not from any of the faithful about various main principles,” divided into 395 chapters and representing a continuous series of extracts from the Holy Scriptures and from the fathers, constitute the main content Svyatoslav Izbornik 1073, fol. 27–223 (about the Slavic division of questions and answers, which does not correspond to the Greek, as well as their table of contents according to the Slavic translation, see Gorsky and Nevostruev in the Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 161). The word about the six psalms, and (sic, combination with Greek λόγος) the teaching of holy fasting (in Greek: κατανυκτικώτατ o ς περὶ μετανοἰας). Beginning Like the Lenten beginning of chaste repentance, the image of the church is to imitate the teachings of St. Spirit,” reads in the Trinity Lavra collection of the 12th century, No. 12 f. 195 1603. Andrew of Jerusalem (monk) or Crete (archbishop). Praise for the four-day Lazarus. Beginning Lazarus, having come and bought the collection and wants his own revival, - in the May Day of the XII-XIII centuries of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, fol. 222 rev. (Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities, 1879, book I, Bibliographic Materials, p. 34. In the Greek original, the word is in Min’s Patrology, t. 97, p. 960. In the same volume, Min also talks about Andrei himself). Andrew of Caesarea. See above in the section: Holy Scripture. Antiochus, monk of the monastery of St. Savva of Jerusalem (about whom see Fabric. Biblioth. Gr., ed. Harles, X, 499 fin.). Pandect 1604, consisting of 130 moralizing chapters on virtues and vices, was translated into Slavic no later than the 11th century. The oldest list of Pandect, namely from the 11th century, is located in the New Jerusalem Monastery; about him - News of the Academy of Sciences 1858, pp. 44 and 131, and Sreznevsky Ancient monuments of Russian writing and language, pp. 21 fin. (text samples and a photograph of the letter in the appendices to Sreznevsky’s book). A significant part of Pandect is read in the Trinity Lavra collection of the 12th century, No. 12, fol. 64–155. Contents of Pandect in Gorsky and Nevostruev in the Description of Synodal Manuscripts .V 153, dep. II, 2, pp. 247 sqq. Antony and Silivester. See Kecapius. Apostolic Commandments. In Svyatoslav's Izbornik 1073. on l. 247 rev. extract: “On the addition of the Lord from the apostolic commandments.” Beginning “For our Lord Jesus Christ was born from the holy virgin Mary...” (chronological testimony about the life of Christ the Savior). Aphroditian. See apocrypha below. Athanasius of Alexandria. His four words against the Arians were translated into the Slavic language on behalf of the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon, by Bishop Constantine (see Constantine the Presbyter). “Inquiry of Prince Aniokh from St. Athanasius the Archbishop.” Beginning “The question: are angels from the essence of this light, or are things from this” (or only in a very small part belonging to Athanasius or completely spurious, VI-VII centuries) - in the Trinity Lavra collection of the XII-XIII centuries, No. 12, fol. 188 rev. 193 rev. On the translation of the interpretation of the psalter, assimilated by St. Athanasius, see above in the section: Holy Scripture, and about his life of Anthony the Great, see below, paragraph: Menaion-Cheti) 1605. The Mother of God's journey through torment. See apocrypha below. Basil the Great. Extract. “From that on Eunomia, O holy Dus.” Beginning “And as if there is a mental illness, it is evil,” - in Svyatoslav’s Izbornik 1073. l. 4. “Ask and answer (as if) Gregory the Theologian and Basil” (about the incarnation of the Son of God and about the invisibility of the Divine). Beginning "Vasily: what is the beginning? Gregory: first fault," - in the same Izbornik, l. 241 rev. In the Suprasl manuscript - Praise of Basil the Great about the 40 martyrs. Beginning “Of the memory of the martyr, how full there will be”... In the Trinity Lavra collection of the 12th century, No. 12, the Word of Basil (we cannot say whether the Great) is a law on difference. Beginning “The six laws were given to man first in the flesh of our Lord Isa. Christ’s coming,” - l. 46 rev. If it is not necessary, then at least it is very likely to think that the so-called Fasting (ascetic, from the ancient - to fast-ascetic, fasting-ascetic) words (Lenten book) of Basil the Great or his writings on monasticism (Τὰ ἀσκητικά), if not in their entirety, then in part, were translated into the Slavic language already in ancient times (see about them in the chapter on monasticism). In the now indicated Lavra collection, the now named word of Basil the Great is followed by the Monastic Rules, l. 49–53; but in the description of the manuscripts their beginning is not given and nothing is said about them at all, except that they are in the manuscript without end 1606. Gennady Patriarch of Constantinople († 471) “Stoslovets”, which is like a hand-written Christian book, after a brief presentation of the Christian faith, containing the rules of Christian morality and all Christian good behavior. Received its name from the fact that it is divided into 100 short paragraphs, read in Svyatoslav’s Izbornik 1076. and in the Trinity Lavra collection of the 12th century. No. 12, l. 53. (And then in the Lavra Golden Chain of the 14th century, No. 11, fol. 67 volume. In the Russian translation, printed in Additions to the works of the holy fathers, in year 3, 1845; reprinted by Ponomarev in Monuments of Old Russian Church Teaching Writing). George the monk, nicknamed Amartol 1607, who lived in the half of the 9th century, wrote an abbreviated chronicle (χρονικὸν σύν then μον) from the creation of the world to Emperor Michael III (842–867) 1608. This chronicle, continued after the author by Simeon Logothet or unknown until 944, was translated by the Bolgars in 1609 into the Slavic language, under the name “Vremennik vproste”, it is unknown when before our original chronicler, who uses it when compiling his chronicle, referring to it with the words: “George speaks in the chronicle.” The Greek original of the chronograph was printed by Muralt in the VI volume of Scientific Notes of the II Department of the Academy of Sciences. The ancient Bulgarian translation remains unprinted, and half of the later Serbian translation, from the beginning to Constantine the Great, was printed photo-lithographically based on the Synodal manuscript of 1386. Society of lovers of ancient writing. (“The chronicle is shortened from the various chronicles and stories chosen and compiled from St. George the sinful monk,” 1878–1880, XXVI and LVI). About the chronicle: book. Obolensky article: About the Greek codex of George Amartol, stored in the Moscow Synodal Library and about the Serbian and Bulgarian translations of his chronicle, in the Reading of the Society of History and Antiquities 1846. No. 4. Mixture. Sukhomlinov’s research: On the ancient Russian chronicle as a literary monument, in the III volume of Scientific Notes of the II Department of the Academy of Sciences, p. 85 sqq. (For the new conclusions that the late Undolsky came to regarding the mutual relationship between the Bulgarian and Serbian editors of the chronicle, see Undolsky’s letters to Popov, published in the Russian Bartenev Archive, in No. 6 for 1886, p. 298, and to Stroev, published in Barsukov’s book: The Life and Works of P. M. Stroev, p. 527. Also in the article by A. E. Viktorov: Essay on the collection of manuscripts of V. M. Undolsky in its entirety, attached to the Catalog of Slavic-Russian manuscripts by V. M. Undolsky, M. 1870, p. 55.sub fin. The oldest list of the Bulgarian translation of the chronicle of Amartol, parchment, XIII century 1610), is in the library. Moscow Theological Academy, No. 100. But, unfortunately, it does not contain the entire chronicle, but only its first half, up to the fifth ecumenical council, which is in the Greek original by Muralta on page 528). Georgy Khurovsky (Khirovosk, about him Fabric. Biblioth. Gr., ed Nagles, XII, 18). An extract from it “On images” (about figures and rhetorical tropes, of which there are supposed to be 27) – in Svyatoslav’s Izbornik 1073, fol. 237 rev. Deep Books. See apocrypha below. Gregory of Antioch (bishop, † 594, – Fabric. Biblioth. Gr., ed. Harles, XI, 102). Word on the holy and saved burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Beginning This church law is commendable, preparing for the three-day death of our Savior to celebrate the memory of our Savior - in the May Day of the XII-XIII centuries. Moscow Assumption Cathedral, l. 239 rev. (Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1879, book I, Bibliographical. Materials p. 55. – Greek original of the word in the Patrology of Minya, t. 88 col. 1848. It was translated into the Slavic language because it was supposed to be read at a church service on Holy Saturday, see 2 halves of the volume of the 1st edition p. 657 beginning). Gregory the Theologian. The St. Petersburg Public Library contains an 11th-century manuscript containing thirteen words of Gregory the Theologian. In later manuscripts, starting from the 14th century, we find a collection of sixteen words of Gregory the Theologian, accompanied by an interpretation of Nikita, Metropolitan of Irakli. Eight of these 16 words are the same as in the Public Library manuscript, and eight are new. The translation of the last eight words by experts in the matter dates back to the same extreme antiquity as the first and other words of the Library manuscript. Consequently, at least twenty-one of all the words of Gregory the Theologian that existed in Slavic translation in the pre-Mongol period are known. About the 13 words found in the manuscript of the Public Library, see Vostokov in the Scientific Notes of the II Department of the Academy of Sciences, book. II, issue 2, p. 75 sqq and special work by A. S. Budilovich: Study of the language of the Old Slavic translation of the XIII words of Gregory the Theologian according to the manuscript of the Imperial Public Library of the 11th century, St. Petersburg, 1871. The very words were printed in a scholarly and diplomatic manner by the same Budilovich under the title: XIII words of Gregory the Theologian in the Old Slavic translation from the manuscript, etc. St. Petersburg, 1875. List of 16 words of Gregory the Theologian, with the interpretation of Nikita, Metropolitan of Irakli, parchment, XIV century, in the library of the Trinity Lavra, No. 8 (and in the library of the Moscow Theological Academy there is a magnificent list of the 16th century, No. 70). Regarding the extreme antiquity of the translation of all 16 words, see Gorsky and Nevostruev in the Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 117, department. 2 p. 73 sqq: (In his description of the manuscript of the Public Library, Vostokov happily remembered that Constantine the First Teacher, according to the Pannonian Life, was an ardent admirer of this holy father. And, without assuming, just as Vostokov does not assume, that it was translated by Constantine himself, for the latter could not have time to translate, with full probability one can think that he was translated Methodius, who revered the memory of his brother, or, on his instructions, one of his disciples. So we can confidently count among those unknown fathers whom Methodius, according to the testimony of his Pannonian Life, translated with his disciples). “Theologian from words.” Beginning and yes, they are not stuffed with books,” which is a translation of the poems of Gregory the Theologian Παλαι ᾶ ς καὶ Νέας Διαθήκης or Περὶ τῶν γνησίων βιβλίων τῆς θε about πνεύσ then υ Γραφῆς, - in Svyatoslav’s Izbornik 1073, fol. 253 1611. In the manuscript of the New Jerusalem Monastery of the 11th century, containing the Pandect of Antiochus, they are attributed no later than 1200. “Granes” by Gregory the Theologian, representing a series of short moralizing sayings (fol. 309–311, see Sreznevsky Ancient monuments of Russian writing and language p. 40 beginning, and the very Granes ibid. p. 218). See even higher Basil the Great. Gregory the Dvoeslov or the Conversator (Pope, I of this name, the Great, 590–604). Perhaps the translations date back to the pre-Mongol period: 1) his Conversations on the Gospels, made somewhere among the southern Slavs from the Latin original. See the Description of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 149, and 2) his Interviews on the life of the Italian fathers and on the immortality of the soul, made from a Greek translation. See Descriptions of the manuscripts of the Solovetsky Monastery, located in the library of the Kazan Theological Academy, part I, page 372, No. 244 (68). Gregory of Nyssa. Extract “From the catechumen” (from the word of the great catechumen, - λόγος κατηχητικὸς ὁ μέγας). Beginning “It is too little to say and human nature is described in little,” - in Svyatoslav’s Izbornik 1073, sheet 13 vol. Gregory, presbyter, is considered the leader of all Bulgarian churches. See John Malala. Dioptra, (which is translated into Russian by Mirror 1612. Written in 1095 by the monk Philip for the spiritual father Kallinikos, who lived “in the Smolensk countries.” It is a poem in Greek, consisting of five books or words, in which they talk (in verse) about moral and druggmatic subjects between the soul and the body. And just like that (original) in the way that the body appears to be the teacher of the soul. Erroneously thinking that Dioptra was written for a resident of our Russian city of Smolensk, some believe that it was translated into Russian immediately after writing in Greek (see Sreznevsky Ancient monuments of Russian writing and language 19 fin.) Σμολἑνων, should understand the limits not of our city of Smolensk, but of the Greek (Bulgarian) city of Smolen (τὰ Σμόλενα), located in the Metropolitan of Philippi (catalog of bishop's sees, assimilated by the inscription to Emperor Leo the Wise) and believed by scientists to be on the site of the current seaside the town of Orfano or Orfani (not far to the east from where the river flows into the sea). Struma, between Athos and Fr. Tazosom, – Tafel De via Romanorum militari Egnatia, Tubingae, 1841, p. 16. As for the translation, it must be dated back to a later time, and it seems very likely to think that it was made unknown to that king Zinovy, who in 1388. wrote a list of Dioptra in Constantinople, located in the library of the Chudov Monastery. Gorsky and Nevostruev Description of Synodal manuscripts No. 170, dep. II, 2 pp. 456 fin. and 459 approx.; In the same place, see a similar table of contents of the Dioptra, and also the fact that the Dioptra published in Evju, Vilna, Kutein, etc., is not our Dioptra - page 461). Eusebius of Alexandria (bishop, about whom Fabric. Biblioth. Gr., ed. Harles, VII, 409). The Word about the Entry of John the Baptist into Hell. Beginning In love, goodness is said, what is the Annunciation of the Forerunner into hell, - in the May Day of the XII-XIII centuries. Moscow Assumption Cathedral l. 216 (Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1879, book I, Bibliographic Materials p. 33. Greek original of the word in the Patrology of Min, t. 86 col. 384). Eusebius of Caesarea. Extract “From the Years” (ἐκ τῶν χρονικῶν, about the time of the birth, baptism and death of Jesus Christ and about the differences in the calculation of time among different nations). Beginning “At the end of more than 5500 years from the creation of the world,” - in Svyatoslav’s Izbornik 1073, fol. 247 rev. Epiphanius of Cyprus. Extract. “From Ponari”, (ἐκ to ῦ Παναρίου). Beginning “Let it be known, like a whole parable,” - in Svyatoslav’s Izbornik 1073, fol. 240 rpm “O prophetess and prophetesses.” Beginning “1 Adam, 2 Enoch, 3 Noah,” – ibid., l. 254, “O 16 to the prophet, from where or where I died.” Beginning “O Hosea son of Beir from Velemoth” - ibid., l. 254 rev. “A Sermon on the Burial of the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ and on Joseph from Arimathea”... Beginning. “That today there is much darkness on the earth” - in the Suprasl manuscript (the first Kiev successor to the original chronicler refers to Epiphanius in that an angel is assigned to every creature and every language - under the years 1110 and 1111, Hypatan Chronicle 2nd edition pp. 189 and 195). [From “Additions and Amendments”: Regarding Epiphanius of Cyprus, see above (“Additions found in the nomocanon 14-tit §3”).] Ephraim is one of the most ancient and very first translations from Greek into Slavic 1616. Chrysostom, a collection of words by John Chrysostom Fr. See John Chrysostom. Golden Chepi. The biography of St. Avramius of Smolensk refers to the book “Golden Chains of All the Universes of the Holy Fathers” 1617. As one might think, these Golden Chains were a collection similar to later collections of this name (Golden Chains of the 14th century - in the Trinity Lavra Library, No. 11). Collection of Svyatoslavs. See Collections. Icumenius of Trikka. See section: Holy Scripture. Hippolytus of Rome. In the Izbornik of Svyatoslav 1073. two brief legends of Hippolytus: “About the 12 apostles, where they preached or where they died.” Beginning “Peter in Pontus and in Galatia and in Cappadocia”, fol. 261, and “About the 70 Apostles”. Beginning "1. James, God's brother, bishop in Jerusalem", l. 262. In a manuscript from the end of the 12th – beginning of the 13th century, located in the library of the Chudov Monastery, one reads something belonging to Hippolytus: “The Tale of Christ and the Antichrist” (printed by the late K.I. Nevostruev in the book: The Word of St. Hippolyte about the Antichrist, M. 1868). For his interpretation of the prophet Daniel, consisting of 12 words, see above in the section: Holy Scripture. Irenaeus of Lyons. Extract. “From that, a hedgehog from kinship” (about the difference between the soul and the Spirit of grace) - in Svyatoslav’s Izbornik 1073, l. 246 rev. Isaiah the prophet. See apocrypha below. Isidore Pelusiot. In Svyatoslav's Izbornik 1073. extract without title. Beginning “More and worse things are being tortured”, l. 10 vol., and then: “about 60 books and elko (except) those” (about the canonical and non-canonical books of Holy Scripture and about the “secret” or apocrypha), l. 253 (see Pypin’s article “For an explanation of the article on false books” in the Chronicle of the Activities of the Archaeographic Commission of 1861, issue 1, p. 9 fin. sqq., where the article of the Izbornik is printed in full). In the Trinity Lavra collection of the 12th century, No. 12, they read: Blessed. Isidore of Pilusius reason. Beginning “As sorrows and many sins are scattered with thanksgiving,” l. 175, and Writing on Faith. Beginning “I believe in one God, the unborn Father, and one begotten Son, and one emanating Holy Spirit,” l. 181. Hesychius of Jerusalem. Extract. “From this, the hedgehog about the birth of Christ.” Beginning “In the fourtieth year and the second summer of August’s reign,” - in Svyatoslav’s Izbornik 1073, fol. 250. Jacob the Patriarch. See apocrypha below. Jeremiah the prophet. See also there. John the Theologian. See also there. John of Damascus. Dogmatic Theology of John of Damascus faith) translated from Greek into Slavic by John, Exarch of Bulgaria, about whom see the next paragraph. In Svyatoslav's Izbornik 1073. there are articles belonging to John of Damascus or assimilated by him: 1. “About the Macedonian months from church tradition,” fol. 250 vol., 2. “Months according to the Romans about the various months... according to the Jews... according to Macedon”, l. 251, 3. “About the deliberate (deliberate) books” (about the canonical books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments), l. 252. In the May Chet-Mineya of the 12th century. The Word of Damascus about the withered fig tree is read at the Moscow Assumption Cathedral. Beginning : “Move me into singing and conversation by God’s own and the Father’s Word, who did not leave the Father’s smell” (Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1879, book Bibliographic Materials p. 26). For the translation of the Grammar and Dialectic of Damascus, see the following John Exarch 1618. John the Presbyter, Exarch 1619 of Bulgaria, a contemporary of Tsar Simeon and one of his collaborators on the introduction of books (and education) in Bulgaria, a famous man in his time (as can be seen from the review of Presbyter Kozma, which is discussed below). 1. He compiled “The Six Days” or Six Days, a book about the six days of creation, similar to the Six Days of Basil the Great, which he partly composed himself, partly selected from Basil the Great, Severian of Geval (from Severian’s six conversations about the creation of the world, which are usually learned by John Chrysostom) and from other unknown fathers, as well as from Aristotle. He dedicated his book to Prince Simeon (that is, he wrote it when Simeon had not yet accepted the title of king), at whose request, as one might think, he compiled it. (Research about the book along with other works of John the Exarch in the work of Kalaidovich: John the Exarch of Bulgaria, M. 1824. A detailed description of Shestodnev by Gorsky and Nevostruev in the Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 54, department II, 1, p. 1 sqq 1620. The Shestodnev itself according to the oldest known list, the Synodal, written on Mount Athos in 1263. “Christ, the righteous sun, today from the Virgin the most pure and holy ones”, - in one of the manuscripts of the library of V. I. Grigorovich, currently located in the Rumyantsev Museum, see Museum Report for 1876–1878, p. 14 fin., No. 21 (inscribed “Exarch John presbyter"); 2) for the Entry of our Lord Jesus Christ (into heaven - for the Ascension). Beginning “Rejoice in the heavens, and rejoice in the earth, since Jesus has cleared the middle wall of the barrier,” - in the May Day of the Moscow Dormition Cathedral of the 12th-13th centuries (about which below, without the name of the author), in the Tsar’s collection No. 362 f. 49, in manuscript. Tolstoy department. I No. 106 l. 306 and in the Volokolamsk manuscripts No. 431 l. 276 rev. and No. 433 l. 170 (in all after the Menaion it is inscribed: “John the Presbyter, Exarch of Bulgaria”), printed three times - by Kalaidovich in Io. Exarche, p. 174, Bodyansky in Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities, 1848. No. 7, and Popov in the same Readings, 1879. book I, Bibliographical Materials p. 37. Then, we also know words that are inscribed with the name of either John the Presbyter, without adding the Exarch, or John the Bishop of Bulgaria, and which, perhaps, also belong to John the Exarch. They are: 1) on the Nativity of Christ from the Gospel legend: “Jesus will be born in Bethlehem”... Beginning. There is much need for vigil and much need for prayer,” in the said manuscript by Grigorovich, now in the Rumyantsev Museum, see ibid. (inscribed: John the Presbyter); 2) on Epiphany. Beginning “God is the Lord, great and bright light,” - in one of the manuscripts of the Vilna Public Library, see Description of the manuscripts of the F. Dobryansky Library, No. 80, l. 266 vol., p. 119 (inscribed: John the Presbyter); 3) to the Transfiguration. Beginning “God created the right man and brought him into paradise and gave him the commandment that is in it to eat,” in the Tsar’s manuscript No. 362 f. 140 and Tolstoy, dep. I. No. 292 l. 527, printed by Bodyansky in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities, 1848. No. 7 (inscribed: John the Presbyter; in one of the collections of the Public Library it is learned by John Chrysostom, - Description of Bychkov’s collections No. 86 l. 343); 4) a word from the Gospel legend: “The disciple returned to himself, marveling, while Jaria stood outside the tomb weeping, for the female race is pitiful,” Volokolamsk Manuscripts No. 432 f. 94 and No. 433 l. 70, Undolsky No. 561 l. 325. Nevostruev, neither one nor the other translation can be assimilated by him. (As the language reveals a much later time and points not to Bulgaria, but to Serbia; and the grammar, in their opinion, as well as in the opinion of others, should not be considered to belong to John of Damascus - Description of the Synodal Manuscripts No. 156, department II, 2 p. 312 sqq) 1625 . John Chrysostom. Words of St. John Chrysostom, our pre-Mongol ancestors, as we said above, had a very significant number in the Slavic translation. 1) The Bulgarian Tsar Simeon Borisovich, who received an excellent Greek education in Constantinople and had the desire and ability to introduce Greek education and book learning into Bulgaria not only with the hands of others, but also with his own, translated an extensive selection of the words of Chrysostom, to which he gave the name, borrowing the latter from the dignity of the book he translated, the Book of Gold or Chrysostom 1626 . At the beginning of the book, a short notice belonging to an unknown person is read from the manuscripts, which is inscribed (in cinnabar): “The book of the most Christ-loving King Simeon” (i.e., which wants to say that this or the following book is the book, the book, the work of King Simeon himself) and which reads: “All books, old and new, external and internal, the faithful Tsar Simeon experienced the divine scripture and taught all morals and customs the wisdom of the mind of all, while Blessed John Chrysostom was struck by the verbal wisdom and grace of the Holy Spirit, and as if all the books were familiar to him with honor, he chose all his words from all his books into this one book, even called the Golden-Swept One. 3) In the pre-Mongol period, in a Slavic translation, there was a collection of words of John Chrysostom, consisting of 21 words, known under the name Andriatis, i.e. a collection of words spoken by Chrysostom in Antioch regarding the overthrow of the imperial statues (in Greek Ἀνδριάντης from ἀνδριάς - statue. See Gorsky and Nevostruev Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 125, department II, 2, p. 111 sqq; table of contents of words, except Tsar's, which is indicated in the Description, also in the Description of Slavic Manuscripts of the Trinity Lavra Library No. 151). One word out of these 21 is already read in Zlatostruya (15 Andriatis and 124 Zlatostruya. Beginning: “Likewise today and on the previous Saturday”). 4) There are 20 words of Chrysostom in the March Chet-Minea XI (the so-called Suprasl manuscript, see Menaion). 5) There are 17 words of Chrysostom in the May Chet-Minea of ​​the 12th-13th centuries of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, and 5 words are common with the March Chet-Minea, one is common with Zlatostruy (in Zlatostruy 11, “Bring today more than the previous ones”), and 11 new ones. John Malala, or Malela 1630 of Antioch, who appears to have lived in the second half of the 6th century, wrote a chronograph (χρονογραφία) from the beginning of the world to the unknown years of the reign of Emperor Justinian (who 527–565). This chronograph was translated into Bulgarian, at the behest of the Bulgarian prince Simeon, by Gregory, “presbyter of all the clergy of the Bulgarian churches” in 1631. Moreover, it was supplemented by the translator with the sacred history of the Old Testament according to the biblical books (from Genesis to Rus', the so-called Palea, inserted after the IV book of the original) and the so-called Alexandria (Books of Alexander) or the fabulous story (novel) about the life of Alexander the Great (inserted after the VII book of the original). Greek original chronograph, known in one list, having neither beginning nor end, in the Patrology of Minh t. 97; the only known copy of the translation, from the 15th century, is in the library of the Moscow Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. See Prince Obolensky's preface to the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl of Suzdal, in book 9. Temporary, pp. VIII sqq, A. John of Patelarea. His monastic charter is read in the Helmsman's Book of the pre-Mongol period. See above (“Additions found in the nomocanon of John Scholasticus”: No. 11). John the Faster. His so-called confessional nomocanon is read in the same Pilot's Book. See footnote 1235 above. Justin the philosopher. Extract: “Oh, the hedgehog about the right faith.” Beginning For God alone, cleanse (instead of: honor, honor) us and punish God’s scriptures and fatherly teachings - in Svyatoslav’s Izbornik 1073, l. 10 rev. and the next Caesarea unknown. In our manuscripts of the 16th century. and the later one reads the essay: “St. Selivester and St. Anthony’s interpretation of the Holy Trinity and all creation, a reasonable exposition, about the heavenly elements and about the earthly, and the Holy Mother of God and about the angels and the saints, a leading legend” and so on. In the Greek original, the work is inscribed: Καισαρίου then ῦ σοφωτάτ o υ then ῦ ἐν ἁ γίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Γρηγορ ί ου then ῦ Θεολόγου δμαίμωνος Διάλογοι τέσσαρες, i.e. Caesarius the wisest, (brother) half-blooded like our holy father Gregory the Theologian, four conversations. According to A.V. Gorsky, this work, in accordance with its Greek inscription, should be learned by Caesarea, but not by the brother of Gregory the Theologian, but by a later and unknown one. In his opinion, the work was translated in Bulgaria “quite in ancient times” (Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 129, department II, 2, p. 142 fin. sqq. – Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod in his famous letter to Archbishop Joasaph of Rostov under the name “Selivester of the Pope” means our essay). 3. lives (it is not said how many) and exploits of martyrs. (Life according to the edition of Menshchikov and Shevyrev, §22). A writer of words that are rather short teachings (as some of the words are called). Clement actually turns out: (something is missing, the sentence does not sound) 12 of his words are currently known from manuscripts. As for the lives of the prophets, apostles and martyrs, which Clement, of course, did not write, as already written, and which would have been very strange for him to write, one could consider him as their translator (and, therefore, as the translator of the Chetiykh-Mineas). But in general the testimony of life is very unreliable (The currently known words of Clement are: 1. The commandments about feast days, whenever an apostle or a martyr or a saint wants (who wants) on holy days, a lesson (to say) to people. Beginning May you know, brethren, that today is the feast of Saint Immork... 2. A sermon in memory of an apostle (or martyr). Beginning Brethren, ever thirsting for our salvation, the Lord our God ever calls us... 12. Praise to Saint Cyril, teacher of the Slovenian language. Beginning Behold victory for us, lovers of Christ... For the words of Clement, see Undolsky’s Letter to Bodyansky, in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities, 1848. No. 7, Palauzova: The Age of the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon, p. 86, and the article: “Clement Bishop of Slovenia, the work of V. M. Undolsky, with a preface by I. A. Lavrov,” published in Book I. Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities for 1895. The late A.N. Popov published in the III book. the same Readings for 1880. the ancient word for the Nativity of Christ and the reading for the Baptism of the Lord, considering it likely that Clement of Slovenia would assimilate them, Bibliographical Materials, V1, 155. The reading under the name of the teaching was reprinted by Archimandrite Leonidas in Monuments of Ancient Writing). [From “Additions and Amendments” “Article by Mr. P. Lavrov. “A new word of praise of Clement of Slovenia” (40 martyrs), with the word itself appended to it, in 4 books. News of the Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences, pp. 1086 and 1335."] [From the “Addition and Amendment” “More about Clement of Slovenia and Constantine, the presbyter bishop of the city. Petukhov in the article “Bulgarian literary figures of the most ancient era on Russian soil”, published in part 286 (in the April Book of 1893) of the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education "]. Upon returning to Constantinople from a trip to Khazaria, Constantine, according to the testimony of his Pannonian life, described his debates in Khazaria with the Jews and Mohammedans in a special work, which later, after his death, Methodius translated into Slavic and divided into eight words. This work of Constantine is currently unknown (one can suspect that the compiler of the Palea, the so-called explanatory one, used it in his denunciations of the Jews and Mohammedans). Deciding, at the call of the Moravians, to give the Slavs worship in their own language, Constantine in his short life thereafter translated (with his collaborators) from Greek into Slavic all the liturgical Greek books in their then composition, including the entire liturgical selection from the books of the Holy Scriptures. “The writing on the right faith, studied by Constantine the Blessed, the philosopher, teacher of Bose in the Slovenian language,” which is an exposition of the faith, namely, on the Holy Trinity, on the Incarnation and on the veneration of icons, with the same probability should be considered a later (12th century - according to the signs) work learned by Constantine the first teacher to give it greater authority (see Voronov’s study “Cyril and Methodius,” - page 250 sqq; the “Writing” itself was published in the Slavic original by Sreznevsky in “Information and Notes on Little-Known and Unknown Monuments,” No. XXXVI, issue IV, p. 47, and by Barsov in Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities, 1885, book I, in Russian. translation - in Sunday Reading for 1841 No. 45, p. 407). Everything else that is assimilated in manuscripts by the philosopher Constantine or Cyril should be considered not to belong to our Constantine-Cyril. The helmsman's book of the pre-Mongol period. See footnote 1235 above for this. Kosma the Bulgarian presbyter, who lived after Tsar Peter († 968), but before the destruction of the Bulgarian kingdom by the Greeks in 1019. and when many who knew John the Exarch were still alive. He wrote “A Word on the Heretics Controversy”, in which he expounds and denounces the false teaching of the Bogomilovs (printed in the Orthodox Interlocutor of 1864, in parts I and II, and an extract from it of the teachings of the Bogomilovs in Rudnev’s book: Discourse on heresies and schisms, note 33, cfr Gorsky and Nevostruev Description of the Synodal Manuscripts department II, 2, no. 188, p. 512). Leo Pope, I or the Great. His letter to the Bishop of Constantinople Flavian against the heresy of Eutyches was translated here in Russia by the Greek Theodosius for Prince Nicholas Svyatoshi. See above in the review of Russian writers section: our writers from the Greeks. Malala John. See John Malala. Maxim the Confessor. The summary of the extract: 1. “About the dry and the separate” (περὶ ἐνουσίου καὶ ένυποστά that υ), and 2. “About unity, as in ten there is an image of unity,” - in Svyatoslav Izbornik 1073 l. 236 and 237. See also paragraph: Bee. Methodius of Patara's works: 1. About things and about autocracy (Περὶ αὐτεξουσίου), 2. About living and acting wisely, 3. About resurrection in three words, 4. About the separation of food and about unity, menime in Leviticus, 5. About leprosy. 6. About piavitsi existing in parables - read in manuscripts of the 16th century, but based on the signs of language they are attributed by scientists to ancient times (Gorsky and Nevostruev Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 110, section II, 2, p. 23). From the apocryphal “Tale of the Kingdom the language of the last times”, assimilated by Methodius of Patara, our original chronicler makes an extract under 1096, with his name. About the word, see the study by Sukhomlinov: On the ancient Russian chronicle as a literary monument, p. 108, and Nevostruev: The Word of St. Hippolyta on the Antichrist, I, 73; and it itself was published by Tikhonravov in Monuments of Renounced Russian Literature, II, 213 sqq. [From the “Addition and Amendment” “Research by Mr. Istrin on the “Revelation” of Methodius of Patara - in Book II. Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1897."] Menaion-Cheti. Slavic Menaia is the Greek adjective μηναῖον (τό), with the implied noun βιβλίον, and means: month, monthly book. In the appendix to the lives of saints, Menaions are those collections of the latter in which they are collected by month and arranged by day of the month. Menaions, the contents of the lives of the saints, are called Chetyi, which means - assigned for reading, in contrast to the liturgical Menaion, containing services (and called in other lists of books of true and false petii - Minaion-Cheti, Minaion-Petia). When the lives of the saints were collected among the Greeks in Menaions (monthly collections), remains unknown, but no later than the beginning of the 9th century, for the Monk Theodore the Studite († 826) 1635 speaks about our Menaions. There can be no doubt that in the pre-Mongol period we had in the Slavic translation a complete circle of the Chetiyh-Menai, although to this day only a few months of manuscripts have survived from this period. This cannot be doubted, firstly, because it is absolutely impossible to imagine that the Bulgarians and we Russians could do without books so necessary for worship (reading the life at Matins) and books so important for personal reading as our Menaion. Secondly, because we have manuscripts of some months from the pre-Mongol period: It cannot be allowed that some months were translated by choice or by chance, and not all together (since they constitute one whole). And if we have some months, then it necessarily follows that they were translated and all 1636. (But in what composition and in what completeness is another question. General evidence of the existence in the pre-Mongol period in the Slavic translation of the lives of saints, which, however, does not directly say that the lives were in full 12 months, is found in St. Theodosius of Pechersk, in the original chronicler and in St. Nestor. The Monk Theodosius, in one of his teachings to the monks, denouncing the latter, says: “we honor the lives of the saints and stop our ears from them, as if we do not hear their courage.” And again: “let us remember the holy martyrs and no one will be amazed at their patience..., and we see the venerable fathers, in the midst of patience they ended their lives, creating their memory and honoring their lives, we praise the Creator”... 1637. The chronicler says under 1037, regarding the establishment of a library of four books by Yaroslav: “honoring the prophetic conversations and the Gospel teachings and the apostolic and lives of the holy fathers, I crawl greatly to receive souls.” The Monk Nestor says in the Lives of Saints Boris and Gleb that “blessed Boris, taking the book and honoring... honoring the lives and torment of the saints” 1638. There are only two known manuscripts of the Four Mena that have survived from the pre-Mongol period to the present day. They are: A 12th (or perhaps early 13th) century manuscript containing the month of May, located in the library of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral. (A detailed description of L.N. Popov in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1879, book I, Bibliographic Materials. The lives of the saints are also not for all days, but only for some. Along with the lives are also the words of the fathers: 17 John Chrysostom, one John of Damascus, one Eusebius of Alexandria, one Andrew of Crete). Individual lives and individual stories from the Four Minyas, which have been preserved in manuscripts that have reached us or which we know from references and indications in monuments of the pre-Mongol period, are: Anthony's memory in ancient times was, as it is now, on January 17th. “On the 8th day of the month of November, the story and revelation of our venerable father Arkhip the hermit, paramonar of the all-glorious and honorable church of (arch)angel Michael in Khonek.” Beginning “The beginning of the healing of the gifts and grace given to us by God”..., in the Trinity Lavra Collection of the late XII - early XIII centuries, fol. 38 rev. In the Menology of Emperor Basil, as in the current calendar, there is a memory of a miracle that took place through the prayers of the Monk Arkhip, on September 6th. Life of the Great Martyr Eustathius Placidas. The existence of his translation is made known by Nestor in the lives of Boris and Gleb, according to the edition of Bodyansky, page 3. Memory of September 20. Life of Euthymius the Great. The existence of his translation is hinted at in one of the teachings of St. Theodosius of Pechersk, according to the publication of the Right Reverend Macarius: III, 1 fin., and in the life of Abramius of Smolensk. Orthodox Interlocutor p. 142. Memory of January 20. Life of Hilarion the Great. The existence of his translation is hinted at in the same life of Avramius of Smolensk - ibidd. Memory of October 21. Life of John Chrysostom. A reference is made to him in the same life of Avramius of Smolensk - ibid. page 145 fin. His memory was and is celebrated on November 13 (he died on September 14), and the commemoration of the transfer of his relics is on January 27. The Life of Kodrat the Martyr, which is in the Suprasl manuscript, since his memory is on March 10, two more separate leaves of the 11th century have been preserved, according to another translation against the Menaion (Vostokov in the Scientific Notes of the II Department of the Academy of Sciences, book II, issue 2, p. 65, Sreznevsky Ancient monuments of Russian writing and language, pp. 21 col. 2 and 169 col. 1; the entire surviving passage with a photograph of the letter in the appendices to the second book). The life of the Hieromartyr Pancratius, Bishop of Tauromenia (in Sicily, a disciple of the Apostle Peter), like Nifontov’s, is apocryphal. (See Lambec. Commentarr. t. VIII, ed. Kollarii p. 199 sqq and Fabric. Biblioth. Gr., ed. Harles, X, 303, also in the first edition of the collection of articles by A. N. Veselovsky: “From the history of the novel and story”, St. Petersburg, 1886, article: “The episode about Taurus and Menia in the apocryphal life of St. Pancras, p. 65) translated in Bulgaria by an unknown person, together with the mentioned life of Anthony the Great, at the behest of Archbishop John of Bulgaria (See our book indicated there, p. 708 fin., very rare both in Greek and Slavic, similar to the life of Nifontov and according to the same). for this reason, it was probably not placed in the Menaion. The memory of Pankratius is February 9 and July 9 (in the Menology of Emperor Basil under the first number). The Life of St. Roman, creator of canons, sweet singer. Nestor hints at the existence of a Slavic translation of the life in the life of Boris and Gleb, according to the edition of Bodyansky, page 4 fin. Memory of Roman October 1. The Life of St. Savva the Sanctified. The existence of his translation is hinted at in one of the teachings of St. Theodosius of Pechersk, according to the edition of the Right Reverend Macarius: III, 1 fin. And Nestor refers to him in the life of St. Theodosius, according to the edition of Bodyansky l. 23 vol., and Ephraim in the life of Avramius of Smolensk, - in the Orthodox Interlocutor p. 142. Memory of Savva December 5. Life of Thekla the First Martyr. Two sheets of the 11th century have been preserved from him (Vostokov and Sreznevsky in places cited under the life of Kodrat; the entire surviving passage with a photograph of the letter is in the appendices to the book of the second). Memory of Thekla September 24. Life of St. Theodosius the Great. The existence of a Slavic translation of the life is hinted at in the life of Avramius of Smolensk, - Orthodox Interlocutor p. 142. Memory of Theodosius January 11. Maxim the Confessor. Extract. “From how much the word has been infused, it’s someone else’s infusion.” Beginning “The Universe cannot be understood by any kind of own mind” is read in Svyatoslav’s Izbornik 1073, fol. 8. The historical paleya was published by A. N. Popov in book I. Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities for 1881, Moreover, see the publisher’s learned preface about it, and its Greek original was published in the publication by A.V. Vasiliev: Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina, Mosquae, 1893, p. 188. [From “Addition and Amendment”: – Article by Istrina: “Notes on the composition of the Explanatory Paleia” – in 2 books. News of the Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences, p. 339. – Article by Mr. A. Karneev: “On the issue of mutual relations between Tolkova Paleya and Zlataya Matitsa” in the February book of the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education for 1900. – Article about the Patericons of Archimandrite Leonid: “Information about the Slavic and Russian translations of the Patericons of various names and a review of their editions” – in Ι V book. Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1890.] Patelarean John. See John of Patelare. Prologue. The Slavic prologue is the Greek πρόλογος, and the Greek πρόλογος from πρό - before, ahead and λέγω - I say, means preliminary, preceding speech and is used in later Greek in the sense of a preface (in some book). How it happened that the collection of abbreviated lives of saints, which the Greeks call the Synaxarium (Συναξάριον) 1651, was given the name Prologue by us, remains unknown and unexplained. It is believed that in the Greek original of the Synaxarion, which was first translated into the Slavic language, there was a preface, inscribed, like a preface in Greek, πρόλογος, and that this inscription of the preface was taken as the title of the book itself (which was thus called in Slavic Prologue). And since the second or secondary edition of Vasiliev’s Synaxarion could not appear among the Greeks immediately after the publication of his work, and, of course, more or less, did not appear soon: it is very likely to assume that in the pre-Mongol period the Prologue existed in our country in two editions - Vasily’s own (which represented a translation of his Menology) and a secondary one (now known). John of Damascus compiled two similar collections, arranged according to the letters of the Greek alphabet, with the division of the articles read under each letter into one or another number of titles, which both called Ἱ ερὰ παράλληλα (Τὰ ἱερὰ παράλληλα, Παράλληλα ἕ τερα ), – Sacred similarities (which means an extract from sacred and non-sacred writers and a collection of places similar in content) 1657. Finally, a certain monk Anthony, who lived unknown where and when, compiled a fourth similar collection, consisting of two books and 175 chapters in both books (75 in the first book and 100 in the second). The last of these writers called his anthological ἀνθολογία collection The Bee (Μέλισσα), with the idea, as it should be implied, that he collected sayings from fathers and writers in the same way as a bee collects honey from flowers 1658. From the collections of Maksimov and Antoniev, new collections were compiled by combining a selection of sayings given by both, and the name Bees was also retained for these new collections. Our Slavic Bee was a translation of one of the latest collections now indicated, that is, those in which Maximus and Anthony are combined together 1659. Others believe that the famous Daniil the Prisoner used the Bee in his word, from which it would follow that it was translated into the Slavic language already in the pre-Mongol period; but special researchers of the Bee language believe that it was translated no earlier than the 14th century. See about it Sukhomlinov’s “Notes on the collections known as Bees” - in the News of the Academy of Sciences, vol. II p. 222, Bessonov’s article “The Book of the Bee” in the Temporary of the Society of History and Antiquities, book. XXV, and Mikhailov’s article: “On the issue of Greek-Byzantine and Slavic collections of sayings” in the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education, 1893, January. Two editions of the Bee itself were published, one in the Collection of the Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences, vol. 54, 1893, the other in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities, 1895. book II (Based on the Bee, our ancestors could cite the sayings of many classical scientists and famous men, see Sukhomlinov, p. 233 notes, which makes other naive people assume their own great learning). Collections. In ancient times, in the absence of printing and with the existence of manuscripts, moreover, on parchment and by charter, compiling libraries of different fathers and writers in complete collections of their works was a very expensive matter and completely inaccessible for most reading people. Therefore, in ancient times (as in everything later before the introduction of printing), we, following the Greeks, achieved the opportunity to have varied reading in such a way that we compiled collections from individual works of different fathers and from short, fragmentary extracts from their works. Collections from the pre-Mongol period have survived to the present day: “Izbornik” of Svyatoslav, written in 1073. for the Grand Duke Izyaslav Yaroslavich, but then passed on to his brother Svyatoslav, from whom he received the name, which is a translation of a Greek collection, made by order of the Bulgarian prince Simeon, and inscribed: “Collection from many fathers of interpretation about foolish words in the gospel and in the apostle and in other books, briefly compiled for memory and ready answer." The main content of the collection consists and most of it is occupied by Anastasia Sinaita “Answers against the answer (question) inflicted on him from not any (from some) faithful about various main principles,” and then in the collection extracts from the works and short works of: Basil the Great, Cyril of Alexandria, Isidore Pelusiot, Justin the Philosopher, Gregory of Nyssa , John Chrysostom, Theodore of Raifa, Maximus the Confessor, George of Khurovsky, Epiphanius of Cyprus, Augustine, Gregory the Theologian with Basil the Great, Theodoret of Cyrus, Irenaeus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Hesychius, John of Damascus, Hippolytus. (Description of the collection located in the Synodal Library, in Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 161, department II, 2, p. 365, and in Vostokov No. 356, based on a copy made for Count Rumyantsev. Samples of language in extracts and photographic photographs of writing in Sreznevsky in the appendices in Ancient monuments of Russian writing and language. Currently, we have in print both the Izbornik itself and, moreover, in two editions: complete, photolithographic, made in 1880, at the expense of the merchant T. S. Morozov, by the Society of Lovers of Ancient Writing, and incomplete, with the appendix of Greek and Latin texts, representing the work of the late O. M. Bodyansky, in Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1883, book IV). Collection of Svyatoslavs from 1076, located in the Public Library (received from the Hermitage Library. And this latter from the historian Prince Shcherbatov). Until recently, the Collection, which is an extremely indecipherable manuscript, was little known in its content. Currently, it is completely known, since it was published, namely, by the Warsaw scientist, Mr. V. Szymanowski, and was published twice: The first time in 1887, as an appendix to his, the publisher’s, dissertation: “On the history of Old Russian dialects.” The second time in a separate book, which has the title: V. Shimanovsky. Collection of Svyatoslav 1076 Second edition, revised. Warsaw. 1894 (Philologists find the edition of the Collection made by Mr. Szymanovsky unsatisfactory for themselves; See the article on Szymanovsky’s edition, owned by I.V. Yagich, published in the XI volume of his journal Archiv für sklavische Philologie; but not for philologists, the publication is so satisfactory that we only have to thank Mr. Szymanovsky). Consisting of 276 sheets in a small quartet (in print, in the 2nd edition, an octomatic book of 124 pages), the collection contains, according to the table of contents of Mr. Szymanovsky, 48 small-sized articles of predominantly moralizing content, which belong to (or are only being acquired by): the prophet Joel, Jesus son of Sirach, the apostle. Paul, Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Patriarch Gennady (Stoslovets), Hesychius of Jerusalem, Moses Skitnik, Nile the Monk, certain Gennady, George, Xenophon and Theodora, several unnamed writers or anonymous writers and of which one was taken “from the (unknown to us) Patericon” (according to several articles from the Collection were published - in Buslaev’s Reader, col. 289 sqq, and in Sreznevsky’s Ancient Monuments of Writing and Language, p. 141 sqq; about the questions and answers of Athanasius of Alexandria to Antyukh read in the Collection, see A. S. Arkhangelsky in his collection of articles: “Creations of the Fathers of the Church in Old Russian writing”, issues I-II, pp. 37–60, 186; issue Ι V, pp. (50), and since this crossing resulted in a chronological inconsistency, the Collection aroused suspicions against itself. Nowadays, when the original figure has been restored in the signature, there is no longer any suspicion against the Collection. (I. I. Sreznevsky, who expressed suspicions in the 1st edition of Ancient Monuments of Writing and Language, does not express them in the 2nd edition, as well as in the Slavic Russian Paleography. And Mr. Yagich, in his article mentioned above, notes regarding Sreznevsky’s refusal of his suspicions that he did this wohl mit Recht). We, for our part, maintaining our bad reputation as a person who doubts too much, now harbor great suspicions against the Collection: our suspicions are aroused by the entire signature of the scribe. If the scribe of the Collection, who was also its compiler, selected the articles contained in it from many books of princes, then, obviously, from the books of the Grand Duke Svyatoslav, and it is obvious that he did this on behalf of Svyatoslav. But if this were so, then, in our opinion, he would have to speak directly and to some extent in detail about this, for the glory of the Grand Duke would directly and greatly require this. And on the Izbornik of 1073, written not on his instructions and passed on to him from his brother, Svyatoslav took great care to immortalize himself. And the very bad and simply pitiful parchment of the manuscript does not indicate that it was written for the Grand Duke and on behalf of this latter. (About the parchment of the manuscript, Mr. Yagich writes: Das Pergament der Handschrift ist schlecht ausgearbeitet, dunkelgelb und dick, mit Lochern und abgerissenen Enden reichlich versehen). As for the forger, on the one hand, he did not have the courage to go into details, and on the other hand, he was afraid of lying. We think that the Collection is a manuscript of an unknown year of the 11th-12th centuries and that the matter of the fake scribe’s entry in it, after being attributed, should be presented as follows. The unknown falsifier of the record was familiar with the Izbornik of Svyatoslav of 1073; but, reading our Collection, i.e. the Collection quasi of 1076, he saw in it similarities with the Collection of 1073. For in it, one inscription of the articles is taken from this latter (“Afanasievi, instead of Anastasiev’s Izbornik, answer against the response inflicted on him (sic, and in the Izbornik of 1073) from certain true believers”..., from Sreznevsky p. 145), and the other inscription is compiled in the likeness of the inscription read in the Izbornik (“Collection from many father and apostle and prophet”..., Buslaev col. 295). Seeing in the Collection the similarity with Izbornik 1073, the falsifier also adopted it for Svyatoslav. And since the preface and afterword of the Collection of 1073 speaks of many books of princes, he also wrote that the contents of the Collection he falsified were “selected from many books of princes.” The first article of the Collection “On reading books” says: “Listen to the lives of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom and St. Cyril the philosopher and many other saints.” If here we mean Cyril the philosopher, the first Slavic teacher: then it is more likely to attribute the manuscript to the 12th century than to the 11th century, for in the 11th century Cyril was still called by his secular name, worn until his death, by the name of Constantine, and not by the monastic name, which was adopted by him only on his deathbed, by the name of Cyril. (The manuscript was doused with some kind of acid, as a result of which now some of its leaves cannot be read at all, and in general the whole of it is extremely unreadable. Does this mean that it is a new manuscript, only copied from an ancient one, and that it was doused with acid to give its parchment the appearance of antiquity? Unfortunately, it remains unknown where and from whom Prince Shcherbatov received the manuscript. As for the possibility of a good one, it is difficult recognizable, copy: then about the copy from the Izbornik of 1073, made for Count Rumyantsev, Vostokov says: “the scribe perfectly imitated the ancient statutory handwriting,” Description of the Rumyantsev Museum p. 499 sub. Collection of the Library of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, No. 12, according to the descriptors of the manuscripts of the Lavra - the exodus of the 12th or early 13th century, according to Sreznevsky (Ancient monuments of Russian writing and language, 39 fin.): probably the beginning of the 12th century, contains: the words of John Chrysostom, the words of Clement, Bishop of Slovenia, the apocryphal journey of the Virgin Mary through torment, from November Menaion: on the 8th day, the story and revelation of the Monk Arkhip the paramonar, the word of Basil the Great, the unknown Peter unworthy about fasting and prayer 1660, the words of Ephraim the Syrian, a significant part of the Pandect of Antiochus, which constitutes the main content of the collection, extracts from Isidore Pelusute and Anastasius of Sinai. (Cathedral of the Grand Duke of Vladimir-Volyn Vasilka Romanovich († 1271). The Galich-Volyn Chronicle, speaking in 1288 about the death of Vasilkin’s son Vladimir, writes that he put in his monastery along with other books “the great collection of his father”, Ipatsky Chronicle, 2nd edition p. 609). Silivester and Antony. See Caesarea. Suprasl manuscript. See Menaion-Cheti. Timothy, presbyter of the Great Church of Constantinople. His treatise: “On the distinction of those who come to our immaculate faith.” Beginning We find three ranks... in the pre-Mongolian Helmsman's Book, see above (“Additions found in the 14-title nomocanon” §4). Philip monk. See Diopter. Photius Patriarch. A word on verbnitsa and about Lazarus. Beginning When the youths were hosanna in the highest, they read in the Suprasl manuscript. It is necessary to think that the extensive instructive Epistle of Photius to the newly baptized Bulgarian prince Boris-Mikhail was translated by the Bulgarians into the Slavic language immediately as it was received by them. Theodoret of Cyrus. “From that, the hedgehog about the Holy Trinity,” which is a brief summary of church dogmas, is in Svyatoslav’s Izbornik 1073, fol. 243 rev. For the translation of his Commentary into the Psalter, see the section: Holy Scripture. Theodore Presbyter of Raifa chapters are logical and ontological: “about nature (de substantia), about self (de hypostasi), about person (de persona), about difference (de specie)” and so on - in Svyatoslav’s Collection of 1073, sheets 224–236. Theodore the Studite. We have never seen any indication that in the pre-Mongol period the works of the Monk Theodore the Studite existed in our Slavic translation; but we have no doubt that his so-called Small Catechism, which is a collection of short moralizing words spoken to monks and begins to appear in our manuscripts from the beginning of the 14th century, existed in our translation already in the pre-Mongol period. The Monk Theodore, the last famous father of monasticism († 826) and its reorganizer or reviver after a previous decline, enjoyed great fame in the monastic world. Therefore, it is very difficult to admit that with the advent of monasticism among the Bulgarians, its guide book for monks, which is the Small Catechism, did not appear in their Slavic translation. If for some reason the Bulgarians did not translate it, then it is necessary to think that it was done through the efforts of our Rev. Theodosius of Pechersk, who introduced the Theodore Rule in his monastery. (As edited by Patriarch Alexei, see about the charter in the 2nd half of the volume). Penance book of Theodore the Studite, inscribed: “On the remains of the church canons.” Beginning Not found (in the church) at the beginning of glory... in the pre-Mongolian Book of the Pilot, see above (“Additions found in the nomocanon of John Scholasticus” §12). [From the “Addition and Correction”: The Venerable Theodosius of Pechersk in one of his teachings to the monks says: “It is not fitting to lie down when striking a blow, but to stand in prayer, as the God-bearing Theodore teaches” (according to the edition of the Right Reverend Macarius VII, p. 210 beginning): but does Theodosius understand the Small Catechism of the Venerable Theodore Studite or his penance, about which above (“Additions found in the nomocanon of John Scholasticus” §12), we cannot say.] The Virgin Mary's journey through torment. See now below the apocrypha. Brave, Bulgarian Monk, who lived at a time when some people were still alive who personally knew the first teachers Constantine and Methodius and, therefore, in the last years of the 9th - beginning of the 10th century, a contemporary of John the Exarch and Constantine the Presbyter-Bishop. He wrote the legend “On (Slavic) writings”, in which he reports who and for whom invented the Slavic alphabet and made the translation, and in which he defends the latter from the criticism of ill-wishers, that is, how it is necessary to accept the Greeks (the legend was published by Kalaidovich in John the Exarch p. 189 and, with critical analysis, by Sreznevsky in the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education 1848 No. 7). Of the works of apocryphal content, of which our later literature was not at all poor, and of which, probably, the literature of the pre-Mongol period was not entirely poor, the following are known from the manuscripts of this last period that have survived to this day and from references in the monuments of that time: Agapia of our father The Legend, for the sake of which they leave families and their homes, and wives and children, and take up the cross and follow the footsteps of the Lord, as the Gospel commands. Beginning Our father Agapius began to fear God from a young age - in the May Chet-Minea of ​​the 12th century. Moscow Assumption Cathedral; fully published by A.I. Popov in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities in 1879. book I, Bibliographic Materials p. 41. Aphroditiana The legend of the miracle that happened in the Persian land, - in the Tolstoy manuscript of the 13th century, No. 8 (however, it may seem, not the first half, but already the second); published by Tikhonravov in Monuments of Renounced Russian Literature, II, 1. The Virgin's journey through torment in the Trinity Lavra collection of the 12th century, No. 12; printed by Sreznevsky in Ancient monuments of Russian writing and language, p. 204 (with Greek text) and Tikhonravov ibid. 2, 22. Deep Books. The life of the Venerable Avramius of Smolensk says that some of the slanderers who rose up against him accused him of reading the “Deep Books” in 1662. What these Deep Books are, like books forbidden and renounced, remains unknown. In the lists of true and false books according to the editions of the 17th century, the book is called “Depth", but among the true books, and not false ones (in Kalaidovich in John Exarch p. 209). The well-known verse about the Dove Book (Varentsova Collection of Ancient Russian Poems, p. 11 sqq, Bessonova Kaliki Perekhozhie, p. 269 sqq), by which, fairly or unfairly, they want to understand the Deep Book itself (in Vostokov’s Dictionary the word depth is written: depth, not glubina) also seems to make us assume a book not renounced. One might think that by the Deep Books we mean the so-called “Mathimathian” books (βιβλία τὰ λεγ ό μενα μαθηματικά) - astrological (about which see Zonaru and Balsamon in the interpretation of the 36th rule of the Council of Laodicea, - in Rally and P. III, 203 sqq, and the deliberate treatise of the second - ibid. Isaiah the Prophet Vision - in the May Chet-Minea of ​​the 12th century. Moscow Assumption Cathedral; published by Popov in Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1879, book. I, Bibliographic Materials, pp. 12 fin. (according to a later list, published by the same Popov in the Description of Khludov’s manuscripts, p. 414). Jacob the Patriarch's Ladder, read in the Paley explanatory, which was translated (as we said, Paley's paragraph) in the pre-Mongol period (according to the Lavra list of Paley of 1406, printed by Tikhonravov in Monuments of Renounced Russian Literature I, 91). Jeremiah of the prophet Paralipomenes, - excerpt in the May Chet-Minea of ​​the 12th century. Moscow Assumption Cathedral, see Popov ibid page 9 fin.; according to the list of the 14th century. printed by the same Popov in the Description of Khludov's manuscripts, p. 406 fin., and according to the list of the 15th century. Tikhonravov in Monuments of Renounced Literature I, 273. John the Theologian's Word on the Dormition (of the Dormition) of the Theotokos, read in manuscripts of the 12th century; published in an excerpt by Sreznevsky in Information and Notes on Little-Known and Unknown Monuments, No. XXXVIII, and in full by Popov in Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities, 1880. book III, Bibliographic Materials No. II. To the introduction, a note regarding chronology. Currently, our year begins on the 1st day of January, and in the past it began with other months, namely until the half of the 15th century, from the 1st day of March (until what year in life itself remains unknown, and for different chroniclers up to different years), and then until 1700 from the 1st day of September. For this reason, if any event before the half of the 15th century happened in the month of January or February, and from the half of the 15th century until 1700 in the months of September - December, then we had to transfer one or another from the previous accounts to the current one. This translation should consist in the fact that in the first case the months January and February are attributed not to the current year, but to the previous year, and when translating the years from S.M., which we used to count until 1700, to the years from A.D., subtract from the first not 5508 (the accepted number of years from the creation of the world to the Nativity of Christ), but 5507, and so that in the second case the months September - December should be attributed not to the current year, but to the next one, and subtract from the years from S.M. not 5508, but 5509. To footnote 46. There is a special study on the subject, namely the work of G. S. Petrovsky: Tales of the Apostolic Preaching along the North-Eastern Black Sea Coast. Essay on the history of ancient Christian literature. Odessa, 1898 (review of the essay in volume VI of the Byzantine Temporary Book, section II, p. 220). To footnote 80. A Greek chronicle record has recently been discovered, according to which the Russian invasion of Constantinople took place: “the month of June 18, (indict) 8, summer (from S.M.) 6368, in the 5th year of (Michael’s) reign,” i.e. June 18, 860 from A.D., and this date is recognized by scientists as reliable, see Volume I Byzantine Temporary Department. III, p. 258 fin., Vasilievsky’s message about the year of the first Russian invasion of Constantinople, and in volume II of the same Vremnik, dep. I, p. 582, article by Loparev: “Church word about the Russian campaign against Byzantium in 860.” To footnote 109. An extensive article about the life of Stephen of Sourozh, with deliberate speeches about the Russian attack on Sourozh, under the title: “The Life of St. Stefan of Surozhsky,” published by the late V.G. Vasilievsky in the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education for 1889, in the May and June books (part 263). And for the second time with the appendix of the Slavic Life according to our academic manuscript No. 90, which we indicate in the text, in the ninth, 1893, issue of the Chronicle of the Archaeographic Commission. (May God forgive the deceased for his not entirely decent interpretation of me in the first edition of the article). To footnote 122. An extensive article about the life of George of Amastrid, with deliberate speeches about the Russian attack on Amastrid, under the title: “The Life of George of Amastrid,” was published by Vasilievsky in the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education, for 1878, in the February and March books (parts 195 and 196), and for the second time, corrected, with the appendix of the life itself in Greek original with Russian translation, in the ninth edition of the Chronicle of the Studies of the Archaeographic Commission. To footnote 193. About the imperial palace, see the book by D. F. Belyaev: Byzantina. Essays, materials and notes on Byzantine antiquities. Book I. Review of the main parts of the Greater Palace of the Byzantine Kings. 1891 (Review of the book in Volume I of the Byzantine Temporary, Section II, p. 173). To footnote 285. Nikifor Grigora assures that the Russian sovereign received the title of (hereditary) head of the imperial table or chief imperial steward from Constantine the Great, - History of the Prince. VII, ch. 5, Russian translation p. 231 (title τοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης), about which see Ducange in Gloss. Graecit. under the next Τράπεζα ). To footnote 296. In most of the lists of Memory and praise of Vladimir by the monk Jacob it is read that he defeated the Silver Bulgarians, i.e. the Kama Bulgarians. But we resolutely stand for victory over the Bulgarians of Nizovsky or the Bulgarians of the Balkan Peninsula. (It made no sense for Vladimir to have a desire to conquer the Kama Bolgars, because how could he maintain his power over these Bolgars, who were so far from Kyiv?). And that, in any case, Vladimir was in relations with these last Bulgarians before his baptism is evident from the fact that one of his pagan wives was the Bulgarian Nizovskaya (of the two sons he fathered from whom, one was named Boris, as one must think, by the name of the Bulgarian-Nizovsky or Bulgarian-Balkan king Boris). (G. Speransky points out one feature of his list, which confirms our assumption that we consider the Greek to be the author of the life - p. 41 fin.). To footnote 513. The Russian Metropolitan Michael, who was present at the council in 1171, about whom we speak in footnote 557, occupied 12th place among the 24 bishops present at the council, - Synodal Manuscript No. 33 (by Archimandrite Vladimir in Description No. 336), fol. 89 rev. To footnote 516. Patriarch Callistus of Constantinople, in his letter of 1358 to the Patriarch of Antioch, says that the patriarchal throne of Constantinople (since it is ecumenical) from ancient times received from the divine and sacred canons the advantage in all the churches of the universe everywhere to examine and judge (διερευν ᾶ ν καὶ ἐξετάζειν) church affairs happening in them. And Patriarch Nilus of Constantinople, in his 1382 letter to Metropolitan Thessalonica, insists on the interpretation of the rules of the 4th Ecumenical Council by Aristinov and Vlastarev, and, following Vlastar, along with the right of appeal to the court of other patriarchs, he also understands the right of stauropegy in other patriarchates, see Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop. Miklosic, t. I, p. 380, and t. II, p. 40. To footnote 541. Another list of metropolitans can be read in the manuscript of the Moscow Theological Academy from Volokolamsk No. 486, fol. 297 vol., written in 1519. This list was published by I. I. Sreznevsky in the publication “Tales of the Antichrist”, St. Petersburg, 1874, p. 55 (He agrees with the other Volokolamsk list we indicated, namely, after Theopemptus it contains Cyril and after Nicephorus 2 - Gabriel and Dionysius). To footnote 544. In one Greek note on the movements of bishops from department to department, read in one manuscript of the Synodal Library, it is said that during the reign of Porphyrogenitus Theophylact of Sebaste was moved to Russia, see in the article by A. S. Pavlov: “The most remarkable Greek manuscripts of canonical content in the Moscow Synodal (former patriarchal) library”, printed in XIII volume of Proceedings of the New Russian University, p. 30 fin. and in part one of the Description of Manuscripts of the Synodal Library of Archimandrite Vladimir, No. 336, l. 27, p. 491. Some take this Theophylact, about whom absolutely nothing is known from Russian or other Greek sources, for Theo Pempt. But it is also possible that, having been transferred to Russia, he died before leaving for a new department. By Porphyrogenite we mean either Vasily Porphyrogenite, also known as the Bulgarian Slayer, who reigned with his brother Constantine from 976 to 1025, or this second one, who reigned after his brother’s death until 1028. To footnote 548. About Theodore Ptochoprodromus, nephew of Metropolitan John 2, see two articles on the Prodromes, printed in Greek in volumes IV and V of the Byzantine Temporary (owned by Mr. Hadjidakis and Mr. Papadimitriou). To page 181 paragraph 4 from above (“After all that has been said, we still have some speech about the Greek metropolitans”). Neil Doxopatra in his Τάξις ’e τῶν πατριαρχικῶν θρόνων, written in 1147, calls Russia great Russia: Καὶ εἰς τὴν μεγάλην Ῥ ωσίαν ἀπὸ then ῦ πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως στέλλεται μητροπολίτης, -in Patrology Min t. 132, col. 1105 subfin. If there were indeed people in the Greek clergy who did not express a desire to become Russian metropolitans (they point to a certain Leontius, who was later the Patriarch of Jerusalem (Constantinople?), who allegedly did not express such a desire during the reign of Emperor Manuel Komnenos, 1143-1180): then such reluctance must be explained by fear of our climate and a reluctance to live among barbarians. And also, perhaps, due to some temporary circumstances. That the Greek metropolitans and Greek bishops sent the wealth they had accumulated in Russia to their homeland, and that thus, during the pre-Mongol period, very large sums of money left Russia for Greece, this would naturally have to be assumed, and Archbishop Elijah of Novgorod directly makes this known in his teaching to the clergy of the diocese, spoken on Assembly Sunday in 1166. See footnote 1265. To page 183, to the phrase (It has recently been suggested that probably in Kyiv from the very beginning there was no convenient premises for the metropolitan). This truly strange assumption, expressed by the late N. in the form of, so to speak, a slip of the tongue, some continue to repeat to this day. In the city there was no ready-made premises for the metropolitan, but in the village, which was Pereyaslavl in relation to Kyiv, it was found! If in Kyiv there really was no ready-made room for the metropolitan, then during the time that elapsed from the start of the baptism of the people until the arrival of the metropolitan in Russia, not one room, but ten rooms could have been prepared... To footnotes 650, 658. Bishops made up of monks. For the first time, monks began to be appointed bishops in the Patriarchate of Alexandria: in the Patriarchate there was a shortage of worthy candidates for bishops between clergy and laity, and yet people who were possibly worthy became monks (for this was the case at first). And therefore they came to the idea of ​​electing bishops from monks. The monastic bishops were ordered to retain monastic attire even after their installation by the Council of Constantinople in 869–870 (8th ecumenical for Catholics), see Labbey in Sacrosancta Concilia t. VIII, col. 1377 beginning and in Mansi in Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio t. XVI, col. 405 (canon of the council 14). It can be assumed that the later existing custom among the Greeks (although the council was not recognized by them as a valid council) of calling bishops from among monks and the bishops themselves being called monk-bishops originated from this order of the council, see Theophan’s successor lib. VI, i. 5, in Minya Patrology t. 109, col. 372, and George Amartol according to Muralta's edition p. 762 beginning. (Patriarch Photius says in the first: “I know the monk Theodore (Sandavaren) Archbishop of Euchaitis." The successor of the second writes about Photius that a certain Leo Salivara recommended to him Theodore the monk of the Archbishop of Euchaitis), the signatures of the bishops under the acts of the Councils of Constantinople that took place under the Emperor Manuel Komnenos and Patriarch Luke Chrysoverge in the years 1156-1166, by Angelo Maio in Spicilegium Romanum, X, 88 sqq, and in Patrology Minya t. 140, coll. 197, 257, 280, and partly the signatures of the bishops under the acts, partly their notes, given in the 1st issue of the VI volume of the News of the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople, pp. 6, 33, 93 and 125 fin. (“The humble monk Luke and by the grace of God the archbishop of new Rome... signed..., the humble monk John and by the grace of God the patriarch of the mother of all churches... signed..,, Manuel the last monk and bishop of Tiberiupol or Strumvitsa... signed” and so on and so forth... Judging by these signatures, the relationship between the clergy and monastic bishops was largely different from what we indicate in the text, namely, that it was still with a very significant preponderance on the side of the former. - That a monastic bishop is not a monk and that at the same time he is not released from all the vows given when taking monastic vows, Metropolitan Philaret writes about this in one of his notes: “A monk, he who is elevated to the rank of bishop is, of necessity, obliged to subordinate the character of monasticism to the higher character of episcopacy and to perform monastic duties to the extent that they are consistent with the position and duties of a bishop,” see Collections of opinions and reviews of Philaret, vol. IV, p. 194 fin.. To footnote 680. Our bishops stopped visiting the dioceses, but at the same time their annual collections from the priests, called the entrance, did not stop (after that it became a tax from the priests, as if on the contrary, for the fact that they got rid of episcopal visits). This was also the case in the West, see Ducange in Gloss. Latinit. under the next Procuratio paragraph: Procurationes Episcoporum, also Walter's Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts aller christlichen Konfessionen, §197, 14 Ausg. S. 454 (If we pay attention to the other side of the matter, namely, that the useless tours of diocesan bishops could be very painful for the clergy: then their quick cessation can be considered a positive and positively good thing). To footnote 717. In Greece, at least in later times, and in at least some dioceses, there were diocesan officials who corresponded to our district governors: they were called exarchs. See the letter to such an exarch from Rally and P. V, 583 sub fin., Ἑ τερον. Cfr footnote 687. Our current vicars in Greek are called τ o ποτηρήτης 'ami, see Ralli and P. V, 525. To footnote 724. There is a children's game (about which, unfortunately, we do not have detailed information): “tiun is not our judge, our ruler is our judge,” which means: we do not want to sue such an unimportant judge as tiun, and which indicates precisely that tiuns were judges (subjects). – The Bulgarian bishops, like our Russian bishops, in the 11th century had lower officials from secular people. See in our Brief outline of the history of the churches of the Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian chrisovul of Emperor Basil the Bulgarian Slayer, given by him to the Bulgarian archbishop after his conquest of the Bulgarian kingdom in 1019, p. 259. (The emperor prescribes in the chrysovul that every bishop of the archdiocese should have these officials, who are called wigs, πάροικοι, which name should be understood in such a way that the bishops had them from their household people - (had) no more than a certain certain number, (similar to the spiritual officials), - each his own according to the space or size of the diocese. This is so that the maintenance of an excessive number of our (as well as spiritual) officials would not be burdensome for the clergy of the diocese. - Spiritual officials are called clergy in Chrysovule - κλήρικοι). To footnote 725. In the prayer for the work of the archpriest, read in the old and current euchology or missal, his duties are signified by words addressed to God: τῶν πρεσβυτέρων then ῦ λαοῦ σου καὶ καλὸν ῦ γενέσθαι καταξίωσον, that is, adorn him by standing at the beginning (at the head) of the elders of your people and honor him to be a good example for those with him - the old missal from Morini De ordinationibus p. 93. But the following should be said about our archpriests of the district cities: not being diocesan officials in the proper sense, they, as most likely should be thought, were to some extent and in some respects, so to speak, instruments of diocesan power, which we see later. Due to the extreme vastness of our dioceses, since ancient times it has been customary for us that bishops should not personally consecrate all churches, as was the case in Greece, but instead issue antimensions. Then, from Greece, legislation came to us so that priests perform marriages only with the written permission of the bishops each time or for each marriage. Which permissions were called vulla among the Greeks, and among us crown banners (and which were introduced so that priests, through ignorance or abuse, would not solemnize marriages in illegal degrees of kinship). In later times, antimensions for the consecration of churches and banners for marriages were issued not only by the bishops themselves personally, but also through the district archpriests, and one must think that this was the case in ancient times. In later times, this was done, no doubt, because given the vastness of the dioceses, it would have been difficult for everyone to come personally to the bishops themselves for antimensions or banners. But in ancient times this reason existed even more, for then the dioceses were even more extensive. (In later times, the district archpriests, issuing antimensions, consecrated churches together - either themselves personally, or through sent cathedral priests). To paragraph 3 after footnote No. 725. In Greece, as evidence suggests, archdeacons of bishops laid claim to becoming officials - superiors of all deacons and heads of production to the degree of deacon (in Ralli and P. IV, 480, and V, 411). It is very possible that something similar happened with us (about the importance of archdeacons in our country in the 17th century under the patriarchs, see the study by S. A. Belokurov: “Arseny Sukhanov”, part I p. 99 and in S. M. Solovyov in History, vol. XV, edition 2 p. 108). Accepting this, of course, it will be necessary to think about the relationship of the charter to the message of the unknown Bishop of Vladimir, addressed to the unnamed son of Alexander Nevsky, which is the opposite of what we think, considering the charter to be the elder letter. To footnote 831. In the Code of Laws of John IV it reads: “but there is no elderly priest and he is free to go out indefinitely” - §88, Acts of History I, 247. This, in all likelihood, should be understood as follows: if a priest enters a parish belonging to some patrimonial landowner, and if he does not conclude a contract regarding the term: then he does not obey the rules regarding the transfer of peasants (about which in the same paragraph - from the autumn Yuri before him). Or he can leave the parish whenever he wants, and at the same time he does not pay the elderly for the patrimonial house in which he lived. To footnote 835. Under 1175, Theodulus, abbot of St. Vladimir, is mentioned in the chronicles. Theotokos, together with the archpriest of the same church, Nikolai (Mikulitsa and with the demestvyanik or regent of the singers, who are called here kliroshans, Ipatskaya, 2nd edition, p. 402, Lavrentyevskaya, 2nd edition, p. 351); under 1178, the Hypatan Chronicle mentions Ephraim, abbot of the Holy Mother of God (2nd edition p. 411 beginning), in all likelihood the Kyiv Tithe: these, as one should think, are the spiritual fathers of the churches. In Greece it was the custom that white parish priests, having become monks, continued to remain parish priests, Walsam, in the scholium to Chapter 3. 1 title of Nomokanon Fotiev, from Ralli and P. 1, 41. What the purpose of this tonsure was is not clear to us (the desire to acquire the right to become a priest, which was given only to monks?), and whether this was the case for us - we did not find any instructions. To footnote 836. And regarding the second half of the 14th century. see Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop. Miklosic II, 170. To footnote 854. Zonara and Balsamon make it clear that the παραμονάριοι were among the Greeks church officials (of the lower class), for they say that they are προβάλλονται (produced) like the economists, ecdics, chartularii and others - among Ralli and P. II, 218 and 219. To footnote 857. And according to the Greek missal, the sexton is not a dedication, but only a prayer. In the old Greek breviary he is called κηροφόρος 'om, i.e., a candle-bearer, - in Morini De ordinationibus p. 66. To footnote 864. Balsamon clearly uses the word ἐκκλησιάζειν in the sense: to perform church services in the interpretation of the 31st apostolic canon, - in Ralli and P. II, 40. See also about the word: ἐκκλησιάζειν in Ducange in Gloss. Graecit. and Switzer's Thesaur. ecclesiastic. To footnote 886. Currently, at church, public and private services, priests read the prescribed prayers (with very few exceptions) secretly or silently, and only the ends of the prayers are read out loud to those praying or they make exclamations. In fact, all prayers should be read aloud to those praying in full. The main reason for establishing the present custom, of course, was the desire to shorten the services. But the second reason behind this is very likely to be considered the absence of service books and missals, why they were forced to make it the duty of the priests to know well by heart only the ends of the prayers, and leave the knowledge of the prayers themselves to the conscience and quality of memory of each of them (the new or current custom began to be introduced before the Emperor Justinian, who in the novel 137 of 564 - Chapter 6, makes the order that remained ineffective to return to the old or original and, so to speak, genuine custom). To footnote 890. For more information about the teaching “to gather”, assimilated by the unknown Cyril, see the article by A.V. Gorsky: “On the ancient words for the Holy Pentecost”, printed in the XVII part of the Additions to the works of the holy fathers, page 45. – In later Kievan Rus, bishops assigned newly appointed priests a period to study completely church services until our council, “and about the council,” says the bishop to a newly ordained priest in one record of priestly ordination - God willing, you will come to us, and we ourselves will listen to you; You will be proficient in all the priestly rites, and you will continue to be a priest. Or you won’t learn to study, and you won’t be able to do everything that suits you to be a priest, and we won’t command you to sing and we’ll give the church to someone else until you learn much of your entire priestly rite,” see Description of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 366, fol. 89, p. 102 beginning “Before us in Rus',” writes Svyatoslav, “our great-grandfathers and grandfathers laid down a statute for the bishops to receive tithes from tribute, from wealth and from sales, (depending on) how much the princes receive in total (from these items of income). And here in Novgorod, how much tithes should the bishop collect from tribute, we found this settled by former princes before us. But the tithes from the vir and from sales, (the bishop) received as much (in the original “he saw” from the prince) as (annually came) the prince’s income to his treasury (that is, depending on how much annually...). (This uncertainty) caused trouble to the bishop, trouble to the prince regarding this subject, a tenth of God. For this reason I installed St. Sophia, so that the bishop collects (annually) for tithes from vir and from sales one hundred hryvnias of new kunas, which should be given to him by Domazhirich from Onega (the official collecting Onega tribute) "... etc. "(Also) I ordered St. Nicholas Prince of Novgorod (in a worldly way) Svyatoslav. Sophia and wrote”: in such and such a place the bishop should take so much, in such and such so much, - there follows an additional list about the collection of tithes from tribute. To footnote 985. Extracts from the charter of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral were made by Barsukov according to the publication of the charter in Volume III of the Russian Historical Library, printed by the Archaeographical Commission. – In some areas of Russia, “hackwork” (havtura) means a wake, and “hackwork” (havturovat) means to participate in a funeral dinner, to feast at a funeral. In Galicia, the common people call church clerks havturniki (as here in Great Russia the same common people call them kuteyniks), see Linguistic and historical considerations of A. S. Petrushevich, Lvov, 1887, p. 75. According to Snegirev, in Lithuania, ceremonial commemorations of the dead are called chauturas, havturs, see his Russian common folk festivals and superstitious rites, I, 109. To footnote 1022. For a very interesting story by Blagoveshchensky about one of the modern Greek bishops, belonging to the category of those about whom Liutprand speaks, see in his famous book “Among the Pilgrims” - Thessaly, part two, the village of Zarko, 2nd edition p. 388 sqq. To footnote 1022. However, Bishop Theodore could have been eaten not by a hunting dog, but by a mad yard dog, or even a mad lap dog. To footnote 1030. That in Greece there were priests who were trappers and bird-catchers, or even hunters in general, this is shown by the 135th rule of the Nomocanon in the breviary, which says: “The priests (animal catcher or birder) shall be idle for three months.” To footnote 1036. About the color of the clergy's clothes and the decorations on them. Balsamon makes it known (in Rally and P. II, 616), and Simeon of Thessaloniki directly says (in Min in Patrology, t. 155, col. 396) that the clothes of the readers were (or were supposed to be) black. Regarding the clothing of priests and deacons, Simeon of Thessalonica says that for decency (for modesty, - διὰ τὴν εὐλάβειαν) it should be purple (dark red, - ἄμφα ὀξέα) or black (ibid. col. 393 fin.). Our Metropolitan John 2 in the Rules of Jacob the Monk prescribes that the clothes of priests should be black, and in case of extreme need - white, - in Pavlov’s Monuments col. 20 beginning One ancient teaching to a newly ordained priest instructs him to “wear clothes as long as possible, neither stains nor worldly utensils,” - Nikon’s Helmsman Ch. 60, l. 602 vol., and Pavlov ibid. col. 104 fin. B. XVII century single-row priests, as can be concluded from one satirical poem on them (priests), were predominantly dark green in color, and caftans were green, see A. E. Viktorova Description of the manuscripts of I. D. Belyaev, M. 1881, p. 35. Pososhkov, in his essay On Poverty and Wealth, says that in his time priests and deacons wore homespun clothes of gray and white undyed cloth, according to Pogodin’s publication, page 30. During our childhood, which dates back to the end of the first half of the last century, the old rural priests’ cassocks and cassocks were mostly yellow nankeen. (And the council of 1675, in accordance with Simeon of Thessaloniki, ordered that lay priests and deacons wear clothes that were not colored, but black or purple-colored, made of woolen cloth and not made of other fabrics or colors, History of the Hierarchy I, 344). As for the decorations on the clothes of the clergy (including bishops): the 7th Ecumenical Council in canon 16 prescribes that “robes of different colors made of silk fabrics should not be worn (by the clergy), and no decorations of a different color should be placed on the edges of the clothes.” And Balsamon, in his interpretation of the rule of the council, says that in his time other clerics sported axamite (velvet) imatii, which had (on which they were sewn) not only multi-colored fringes (έτερόχροα ἀντίπανα), but also woven (embroidered) with gold, as well as expensive gold jewelry, called (from its shape) writing (γράμματα), - by Ralli and P. II, 624 sub fin., see his interpretation and the 27th rule of the Trullo Council, ibid. p. 365). The Council of 1675, History of the Hierarchy I, 323, speaks about certain wearing of multi-colored decorations in clothes and some new inventions regarding clothing of our Russian bishops. For stripes on the clothes of our priests and monks (monastic authorities), see footnote 1056. Regarding the head cover of Greek priests, Arseny Sukhanov writes in his Proskinitary that on the island of Chios “priests and deacons wore skufia, on the back (of which) the tail is wide and long, supposedly the magpie’s, and in addition, the head is girded with a white scarf, like a crown for the girls,” - Synodal manuscript No. 574, fol. During my childhood and youth, white hats were quite common among rural priests (at least in our Kostroma province) and almost came out of hitherto common use. (The priestly choir of Metropolitan Cyprian is called “white forming”, see above footnote 714: doesn’t this mean the white head covers of the choir monks?). To footnote 1056. In the loose-leaf books of the Nizhny Novgorod Pechersk Monastery of the 17th century, printed in Book I. Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities for 1898, describes to some extent the archimandrite’s riot, it is in the books that the entry is read: “Archimandrite Hilarion gave inscriptions (in the commemorative synodics) for his parents, 30 names each, a riot of cherry (dark red) cloth, a silk nail stripe (scarlet), lining kindyak (printed paper fabric) tausin (dark blue), under-fur trim (trimmed on the inside with a fur ribbon or trimmed with a hem?) for 10 rubles,” page 28. Judging by this description of the moat, one should think that it was a more or less decorated mantle; and if so, then the injunction to the monk of Cyril of Turov or an unknown author will be understandable: “don’t lay the bluegrass on yourself”; it will mean: don’t wear a decorated robe, like the ones worn by the authorities. To footnote 1060. Protopresbyter P. Alekseev in his Church Dictionary, according to the 3rd edition of 1816, expresses himself about the current cassock in such a way that as if not all priests wore it in 1816, he says: “The cassock, Grech, is a more serviceable race, the outer garment of the spiritual rank, worn by people especially monastics.” - In one rite of episcopal ordination it is said that after the rite instructions of the newly installed bishop “the metropolitan cell attendant places a nan paramanatka from the sources”, Acts of the Expedition vol. I, no. 375, p. 473, col. 1. To footnote 1123. Basil the Great, who died in 379, did not yet know the apostolic rules, see his rule 91 and Zonarino’s interpretation of the rule in Ralli and P. IV, 284 fin. To footnote 1125. Gregory the Theologian says that in his time there were bishops who looked at their rank not as λει then υργίαν ὑπεύθυνον, not as a service subject to responsibility, but as ἀρχὴν ἀνεξέτασ then ν to irresponsible power. – The word in which Gregory the Theologian justifies his removal to Pontus: Greek original in the Patrology of Min t. 35 col. 410, Russian translation of the Moscow Theological Academy, part 1, edition 3 pp. sub fin.. To footnote 1126. In the old Greek rite of consecration of bishops, according to some of its lists, it is prescribed regarding the exclamation in the prayer of consecration: if the dedicator is a patriarch, then he says: μητροπολ ί των καὶ ἀρχιεπισκόπων ( καὶ ἐπισκόπων ) καὶ τῶν ὁσιωτάτων πρεσβυτέρων, and if the dedicator is a metropolitan, then he says ψήφω καὶ δοκιμασί ᾳ τῶν θεοφιλεστάτων ἐπισκόπων καὶ τῶν ὁσιωτάτων πρεσβυτέρων ἡ θεῖα χ ἅ ρις, etc., see Meursius in his Glossarium under the words. χαρ then φύλαξ, p. 620, col. 2, also in Gohar in Εύχολόγιον’е, ed. Paris, p. 302. To footnote 1128. John Chrysostom at the council convened against him by Theophilus of Alexandria, among other things, was accused of “performing consecrations without a council of elders (ἄνευ συνεδρίου) and without the knowledge of the clergy,” Orr. Chrysost. ed. Montfauc. Paris, altera, XIII, 327 C fin. The cathedral, as it should be thought, was dedicated to St. father's slander, but the accusation shows the views and practices of the time. (On the last cfr Lavsaik Palladius §125, Russian translation p. 286, and see the book by Mr. Ostroumov: Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemais, M. 1879, p. 144). To footnote 1135. We looked through all Russian courses and textbooks of church law, starting with Notes on Church Law by Archpriest I. M. Skvortsov and ending with the latest lectures by A. S. Pavlov at the time of publication (in the Theological Bulletin). And with regret we must say that no one was able to find such deliberate speeches on the subject as it deserved in its importance (some exception is Father M.P. Albov with his Short Course of Lectures on Church Law, St. Petersburg, 1882). To footnote 1166. In the words of the statute: “striking between husband and wife about the stomach” it is more likely to mean two things, and not one thing, namely: 1) beating or beating, which means women (in the agreement between the Novgorodians and the Germans, concluded around 1195: “a man breaks a man’s wife, either his daughter, then the prince” so much, and his wife or daughter so much; in the alleged charter of Yaroslav §3: “if anyone beats a boyar’s daughter or a boyar’s wife...”; 2) between husband and wife about the belly or belongings, disputes and quarrels are implied (“speech,” as stated in the letter of the unnamed Bishop of Vladimir to the unnamed son of Alexander Nevsky, in which “smearing” is listed as a special matter [see. “Message from the Bishop of Vladimir” first paragraph]. To footnote 1168. Yuri Kryzhanich, in his Denunciation of the Solovetsky Petition, says that “here in Russian jezik sorcerers jizhe za bsmi speaks) they call them heretics,” see in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1893. book II, p. 153. To footnote 1220. The word “toloka” in its current Little Russian meanings was not only used in ancient times, but is still used in the North, and by the way, precisely in Novgorod, which should be taught the drafting of the charter, see Dahl’s Explanatory Dictionary under the following words. pound. To footnote 1298. In the list of Novgorod bishops, read in the manuscript of the same Rumyantsev Museum of the late XV - early XV century, No. 358, and printed in Volume I of Materials for the History of the Russian Church, published by the Kharkov Spiritual Bulletin, Kharkov, 1862, p. 56, it is said about Bishop John: “(seventh bishop) Ivan, priest Ian, gray 20 years and the archbishops have rejected this, but they do not remember this in their prayers.” To footnote 1314. The Resurrection Chronicle says that at the first built cathedral church of Rostov, which burned down in 1160, seven bishops served: Theodore, Hilarion, Leonty, Isaiah, Ephraim, Nestor, Leon - Collection of Chronicles VII, 313 fin.. To footnote 1375. The relics of Bishop Simon were indeed never transferred to the Pechersk Monastery and are still in the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral, see the article by the Right Reverend Sergius: “St. Simon, Bishop of Vladimir and Suzdal”, published in the Proceedings of the Vladimir Scientific Archival Commission in 1899. (It could also be that Simon, without being buried in Vladimir, was sent for burial, according to his dying will, to Kyiv, to the Pechersk Monastery, as Metropolitan Eugene suggests in his Description of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. But so that after his burial in Vladimir - and that he was buried in Vladimir, in the Assumption Cathedral, about this The Laurentian Chronicle says quite clearly - the great princes of Vladimir, and then of Moscow allowed his remains to be dug out of the ground and transferred to Kyiv, to the Pechersky Monastery, as, for example, the Right Reverend Philaret accepted - Russian saints, May 20, this is completely impossible to allow). As for Simon, who rests in the Kyiv caves, it is believed that this is Simon of Rostov, who probably lived in the first half of the 12th century. But Simon of Rostov did not exist at all, but is only erroneously listed in one list of bishops of Rostov - Collection of Chronicles IV, 102, VI, 128, VIII, 69, Typographical Chronicle p. 208, the same Simon of Vladimir. Without searching in vain for another Simon to replace Simon of Vladimir in the Kyiv caves, the riddle about the latter must be explained and the only way to explain it is, so to speak, by cutting the Gordian knot... Simon of Vladimir, being one of the tonsures of the Pechersk Monastery, was also his ardent admirer. Having written half of his Patericon for his glorification, he says in the last to Polycarp: “truly I say to you: now I would attribute all the glory and honor (of the Bishop of Vladimir) for nothing, if only I could stick out with a stake outside the gates, lie litter in the Pechersk Monastery, so that people would trample on me, or become one of the poor, begging for alms at the gates of an honest Lavra, it would be better for me for this time honor,” and in the Pechersk Monastery a legend was compiled (moreover, as if in a later time, cfr lower than Kalnofoysky) that a tonsured man and ardent admirer of the Pechersk Monastery, who wrote half of its Paterikon for its glorification, expressed a desire to lie with his bodily remains in the monastery. After the legend was drawn up, it could also happen that one of the nameless relics located in the caves began to be reputed and taken for the relics of Simon... (Kalofoisky in his Teraturgim of 1638 does not yet have Simon of Vladimir, but there is Swiety Symeon Metropolit, St. Simeon Metropolitan, later converted to Simon! To footnote 1426. Article by Mr. D. Abramovich: “On the question of the sources of Nestor’s life of the Venerable Theodosius of Pechersk” - in the News of the Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences, 1898, issue I, 243. The author considers it beyond doubt that Nestor, compiling the life of the Venerable Theodosius, used, as one of the sources, the life of Sava the Sanctified, belonging to Cyril of Scythopolis, and precisely the ancient Slavic translation (and not the Greek original) of the last life (about the article in V1 of the Byzantine Temporary Book, section II, p. 230 fin.). – In Readings of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities 1890, in the book. II, printed by Archimandrite Leonid: “Nestor of the Pechersk Monastery, the word on the transfer of the relics of our holy venerable father Theodosius of Pechersk.” But this word represents a fake, later assimilation by Nestor of the story of the chronicler (who is not Nestor) about the excavation by him, the chronicler, of the relics of the Monk Theodosius on behalf of the abbot of the monastery (read in the chronicle under the year 1091). To footnote 1557. I. V. Yagich, in the indicated 1st volume of Studies in the Russian Language, makes reference to four publications by the German scientist Peter Egenolff concerning the grammatology or literal vocabulary of the Greek language. Namely: 1) Anonimi Grammaticae Epitoma (about which he notes that it contains a rich literature on the subject of Greek letters), 2) Erotemata grammatica ex arte Dionysiana oriunda, 3) Die orthographischen Stücke der byzantinischen Literatur and 4) Die orthoepischen Stücke der byzant. Literatur (in Yagich pp. 315 fin., 609, 610 and 794 beginning), which, in all likelihood, would help us positively answer the question of what kind of scholarship Clement means in his words: “I have men, of whom I am a witness, who alone can solve the alpha”... etc.; but, unfortunately, we do not have any of these four publications at hand. To footnote 1570. Archimandrite Andronikos Dimitrakopoulus in his work Ὀρθόδοξος Ἑ λλάς (Ἑ ν Λειψί ᾳ, 1872) says that Sophocles Ikonom, who published in 1868. in Athens, the letter of Metropolitan John to Pope Clement, attached to his edition an excerpt from another letter of Metropolitan John περὶ ἀζύμων (about unleavened bread), page 10. Unfortunately, we do not have Ikonomov’s edition, and we cannot say anything about this passage from another letter of our Metropolitan. To footnote 1598. To the well-known works on bibliography of the pre-Mongol period (and church bibliography in general), which are: Historical Dictionary about the writers of the clergy of Metropolitan Eugene, Review of Russian spiritual literature by Archbishop Philaret, Bibliological Dictionary of I. M. Stroev and Ancient Monuments of Russian Writing and Language by I. I. Sreznevsky, there should also be added: article by A. S. Arkhangelsky: “Creations of the Church Fathers in Old Russian Literature (Review of Handwritten Material)”, printed in part 258 (in the July and August Books for 1888) of the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education, and a brochure by Mr. N. Volkov: “Statistical information about the surviving Old Russian books of the 11th-14th centuries and their Index”, which is No. CXXIII edition of Monuments of Ancient Writing, St. Petersburg, 1897. (This also includes an article by Archimandrite Leonid: “Bibliographical research in the field of the most ancient period of Slavic writing of the 9th-10th centuries,” published in the III book of the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities for 1890. To footnote 1651. Article by Mr. Petukhov: “On the history of the Old Russian prologue” in the XII volume of the News of the Historical and Philological Institute, book. Bezborodko in Nezhin (talks about the ancient Slavic prologue and the book of N.I. Petrov: On the origin and composition of the Slavic-Russian printed Prologue, Kiev, 1875). The Laurentian and Ipatian chronicles, as is known, do not always agree with each other regarding chronology (after 1110, before which they have the same original chronicler). In designating the time of the reign of the princes, we follow the chronology of the first chronicle, and the differences (as well as the agreement) of the second (abbr. - I.) are indicated in brackets. If the years of the second chronicle are not put in brackets, then this should be understood to mean that these years are not in the first chronicle. Laurentian Chronicle under 988. sub fin. It may be objected to us that Hilarion, a man with a completely exceptional nature, represents a single exception (similar to those isolated exceptions that we talk about a little later in the subsequent time), i.e., that he alone managed to receive a scientific education from one of the Greeks who were in Russia, and that from his example there is no right to draw general conclusions. But even people with exceptional natures strive for enlightenment when they see it in front of them or when they hear about it. Hilarion's youth dates back to such an early time of Christianity among us that he could not yet have heard much about enlightenment among the Greeks. Therefore, it is necessary to think that he saw him, that is, he saw him at home. In the middle of the 9th century, under Emperor Michael III, the famous Caesar Vardas, an enlightened man who had a zealous desire to patronize education, established a kind of higher state school in Constantinople, giving it premises in the imperial palace and precisely in that department of the latter, which was called Magnavra or Manavra (Scriptores post Theophanem, ed. Paris., p. 115 sqq, Constantini Continuat. lib. IV nn. 26 and 29, Amartol, according to the edition of Muralta, p. 734 note; about the Magnaurus of Byzantium Κωνσταντινουπ I, 207 and 593). But after Varda we do not find any mention or news about this school anywhere, and there is no doubt that immediately or not immediately after it it ceased to exist, cfr. Liutpranda Antapodosis, lib. VI, §5). As for the opinion of many scientists who attribute the original foundation of this so-called court school to the first half of the 5th century, to the reign of Emperor Theodosius the Younger, it is not fair: Emperor Theodosius in his decree of 425 on which it is based (Cod. Theodos. lib. XIV, tit. IX, 1. They did not constitute any kind of school, but were learned librarians at the imperial library and had their duty, in cases of need, to make scholarly inquiries and submit their learned opinions to the civil and ecclesiastical governments: from this last duty the name of the chief librarian is derived from this – universal teacher. The teachers of the great church (διδάσκαλοι τῆς μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας), i.e. Patriarchal Sophia of Constantinople, were not school teachers, but preachers who, by authority and on behalf of the patriarch, taught the people through sermons (Balsamon in the interpretation of the 19th canon of the Trullo Council: ἐπισκόποις , καὶ οἱ διδάσκαλοι τῆς μεγἀλης ἐκκλησὶας δικαί ῳ τοῦ πατριάρχου διδάσκουσι, - in Rally and Π II, 348). “Having sent the children to take children from their children and begin to give them books to learn... And these (children) who were given books to learn, the prophecy on the Russian land would come true.”... The first few experiments in establishing state schools in the West belonged to the pagan emperors (Vespasian, Antoninus Pius and Hadrian). Although an exceptional man, St. Theodosius, also assimilates, as we said, real enlightenment. If in the pre-Mongol period enlightenment existed in our monasteries, then its main breeding ground between these latter, of course, would have been the Pechersky Monastery. But is there any reason to suspect that there was enlightenment in this monastery? Read the Patericon of Pechersk and find even the slightest indication of the existence of enlightenment in the monastery. Of the huge number of monks who lived in the monastery during the pre-Mongol period, only five were writers (the Monk Theodosius himself, the chronicler, Nestor, Simon and Polycarp), and does at least one of them allow himself to be seen as an educated person? And don’t two of them (Nestor in the approach to the life of Theodosius and Polycarp in the legend of Mark the Pechernik) directly say that any education is alien and unknown to them? Let us allow ourselves to turn to people with an exceptional way of thinking, who stubbornly insist that in the pre-Mongol period we had real enlightenment and that it was destroyed by the Mongol invasion. Let these people take the trouble to explain to themselves and to us how this could happen. Let us assume that the Mongols, in their first invasion, burned most of the schools, destroyed most of the educational books and killed most of the teachers: could it really be that because of all this, the education that had existed before for two hundred and fifty years could have disappeared? Couldn't the schools be built again, just as the burned churches and homes were built? Couldn't educational books be written again, just as non-educational books that were destroyed were written? Couldn’t new teachers take the place of those killed, just as new priests appeared in place of those killed? Enlightenment existed for two and a half centuries and suddenly it died from such a reason! If they are not making fun of us and if God has not denied us human meaning, then we absolutely do not understand the matter. Is enlightenment really such a thing that after two hundred years of existence it could perish from such a cause as the fire of very many school buildings and the death of very many teachers? In 1812 there was an invasion of the French on us, and in recent times the invasion of the Prussians on the French was not at all better than the invasion of ancient Rus' by the Mongols: has it ever occurred to anyone to fear for the death of enlightenment among us and among the French? But finally, we have Novgorod, ancient Veliky Novgorod, which the Mongols spared as if on purpose in order to leave visual evidence that it is in vain to blame them for the imaginary death of enlightenment. Novgorod was not subjected to the defeat of the Mongols, and, however, after their invasion we also do not find enlightenment in it, as in the rest of Rus'... And Charlemagne did not at all lay the foundation for a new enlightenment in the West in the proper sense of the word (after the ancient enlightenment had completely disappeared before him): He found enlightenment and scientists in Italy and Scotland. (Of which in the first, enlightenment never disappeared, as many of us completely mistakenly think. And in the second, it appeared in the second half of the 7th century - Theodore of Canterbury - having been borrowed from Ireland, where its beginning dates back to the middle of the 5th century, to St. Patrician, the apostle of the country. In general, a very common idea among us regarding the decline of education in the West, as if it came to limiting oneself to literacy, is a representation that does not at all correspond to reality. In this case, we are misled by Western historians and scientists in general: the latter speak very harshly about the decline of enlightenment, but they do not at all understand a decline that reaches just literacy, but a decline as a state only comparative with what was and what later became). In one collection of church canons, Canon 6 of the Ecumenical Council is directly read, charging priests with the responsibility of teaching children to read and write and maintaining schools in their homes: Presbyteri per villas et vicos scholas habeant. Et si quis fidelium suos parvulos ad discendas litteras eis commendare vult, eos non renuntient suscipere. Nihil autem ab eis pretii exigant, nec aliquid ab eis accipiant, excepto quod eis parentes eorum, caritatis studio, sua voluntate obtulerint, in Bingham, vol. III, p. 273 (lib. VIII, p. VII, e 12 sub fin). For the imaginary evidence read in Tatishchev, see the appendix. First, Tatishcheva speaks about the establishment in our country of “many book schools” by our first Metropolitan Mikhail, Nikon Chronicle (under 989, I, 94). But, not to mention the fact that Metropolitan Michael himself, who never existed, arose from a simple misunderstanding, the Nikon Chronicle sufficiently exposes itself when it speaks of “many” schools: The first metropolitan could open one school in Kyiv, but so that he could cover all of Rus' with schools, with a wave of his staff making it the next day after baptism more zealous for book veneration than it was in In the 5th century, when the author of the chronicle wrote, before this, of course, one can only smile... Then, the author of the chronicle does not say at all that state schools should be established. And since in his own time there were no such schools in Russia at all, it is obvious that he should also mean private schools, not state-owned ones. (The words of the Nikon Chronicle that Metropolitan Michael established “many book schools” in Rus' have an undoubted correlation with the words of the Stoglavy Cathedral that “before this, in the Russian kingdom in Moscow and Veliky Novgorod and in other cities there were many schools” - Chapter 25, Kazan edition p. 121. In the 16th century. even private schools - as, indeed, before, there were few for teaching literacy to those wishing to enter the priesthood: and so people, as is usual for them, in order to reproach and shame their time, want to assure that in the old days it was not so - that in the old days, starting from the very advent of Christianity in our country, there were many schools) ... Regarding the use of the rod and hand by priestly teachers, there was a doubt that the canonical rules (Apostolic 27 and Double Council 9) forbid them to beat. Even in Greece, such authoritative people in relation to the canons as Theodore Balsamon answered to resolve this doubt that οὐ μὴν ἡ διὰ παίδευσιν καὶ μἀθησιν μετἀ λόγου (? χειρὸς μετρία παίδευσις τῶν διδασκάλων , - in Rally and Π. II, 681. In the non-existence of printing and, therefore, in the absence of printed alphabets and printed books or books from which to teach reading, teachers acted in such a way that for each student, what everyone was asked to learn by the next day, they wrote themselves on scraps of paper or, for lack of paper, on birch bark and on smooth wooden tablets (the Greek technical name for these writings or spellings πινακίδιον – tablet, tablet). We'll talk about this in more detail in Volume 2. Since such writing of lessons for all students was very difficult (although in general one must think that there were very few schools), it may be that this circumstance was one of the reasons why students preparing for the clergy were sometimes not taught by other teachers to read, but were directly taught to perform oral (abbreviated) services. [Cm. "Additions and amendments"]. The chronology of the life of St. Theodosius is described in detail below. In the Patericon of Pechersk, Polycarp speaks of the Monk Spyridon the Mallow: “He was ignorant in word, but not in mind, for he did not come to the monastery from the city, but from some village.” Why, with the exception of the books of the Maccabees, see below in the Bibliographical Review under the following. Methodius. Anyone can look at the history of Bulgaria in our book: A brief outline of the history of the Orthodox churches of Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian, M. 1871. The message of Pope Leo the Great to the Patriarch of Constantinople Flavian, made by the monk Theodosius, about which below. And to this day, our people look at reading the Bible in its entirety as an extraordinary task, threatening a person with the danger that his mind will go beyond his mind and that he will read too much. That even in ancient pre-Mongol times they looked at such reading as an exceptional and remarkable rarity, this is shown by one example known to us, namely the ascetic Nikita of Pechersk, who is described in the Patericon (Polycarp's story 1). This Nikita, wanting to distinguish himself as much as possible from others and become as famous as possible, by the way, did exactly that: he tried to read a lot in the Old Testament and, in order to surprise everyone, wanted to talk to everyone only from him (The darkening of the mind, which the people are afraid of to this day, actually happened to him). We still have a proverb indicating what constituted the predominant erudition of our book readers: “Great teacher! Prologue by heart.” They usually refer to Nestor’s life of the Monk Theodosius, which says that “one of the brethren, named Hilarion, was cunning in writing books and writing (theirs) all day and night in the cell of our blessed father Theodosius.” But the life does not say what kind of books Hilarion wrote - cetii or liturgical books. Since the latter were necessary before the former, and since one scribe mentioned in the life could not write too many books, it is much more likely to mean not the former, but the latter. The monks of the Pechersk Monastery had libraries or libraries of four books as private property (Simon in the Patericon about St. Nicholas the Svyatosh and Polycarp in the same place about Gregory the Wonderworker). But if the monastery were concerned about compiling a state or general monastic library, then it would be natural for them (the monks) to add books to this latter immediately upon tonsure or generally during their lifetime. Descriptions of monastic libraries compiled after the Mongol invasion show that they were primarily compiled through donations or contributions. The word about book veneration, assimilated by Cyril of Turov, to which we referred a little higher, directly makes it clear that book veneration was considered a predominantly Chernesky matter (Manuscripts of Count Uvarov, II, 70.) It is worthy of note, or at least it should simply be noted, that at present there are no manuscripts of the pre-Mongol period written by monks. Among the teaching ascetics of modern times, we can point to the famous Archimandrite Macarius Glukharev (whose biography was published by D. D. Phil(imo)nov in the Orthodox Review of 1888). Both legends, revealed by the Right Reverend Macarius, were published by him in Christian Reading for 1849, in book II. The Tale of Vladimir and Olga was then reprinted by him in History - in volume I. The chronicle says that Jacob came from Letets, var. Ltda, Lttsa. But this is not a tributary of the Alta with its name in a diminutive form, but it itself is called in a diminutive form at the present time (Ltytsya, Iltytsya, in the Ipata Chronicle under 1149, 2nd edition p. 265, Ltitsya). For there is no tributary of the Alta with its name in a diminutive form, see in the XI volume of the Notes of the Geographical Society, the article by N. Markevich: Rivers of the Poltava Province, p. 426, No. 214. The memory and praise of Vladimir by the monk Jacob is currently known from lists in three editions: extensive, as we conveyed its contents, medium, in which the interpolated praise of Olga is missing, and short, which represents one last part of the extensive, starting with praise of the Christian virtues of Vladimir. (Reverend Macarius, History vol. II, edition 2 p. 151). It is necessary to consider the extensive edition as the original work of Jacob, for all that it contains is required by the inscription of the legend, which more than likely belongs to the author himself. The praise for Olga could have been released later because it represents a seemingly random and completely mechanical insertion that disrupts the coherence of speech. The last part of the legend could be written in the form of a separate legend because it, having its own beginning, can really be separated into such a legend: without being distinguished, as we noticed, by special coherence, the legend of Jacob seems to fall apart on its own, and as a result of this, several later editions. - We, for our part, consider or are inclined to consider as a later insertion or interpolation in praise of Olga the speech about her tomb in the Church of the Tithes, on which was indicated much above. Nestor himself reports this information about himself in the life of St. Theodosius (at the end, in the final afterword). In the life of Theodosius, Nestor does not talk about the discovery of his relics, which happened in 1091; hence, wrote it before this year. And he wrote the lives of Boris and Gleb before the lives of Theodosius, as he directly says in the approach to the latter. Printed several times - in the Orthodox Interlocutor of 1858, book. I, Bodyansky in Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1859, book. I, and Sreznevsky in the publication "Tales of Saints Boris and Gleb. Sylvester's list of the 14th century", St. Petersburg, 1860. The lives of saints among the Greeks were not always what we find them in later times. From ancient times we know examples of lives that, representing artless, detailed and therefore visual and living stories about the exploits of saints, should rightly be called truly good lives. If the lives for which the corresponding material existed were constantly written like this (and written by contemporaries and eyewitnesses, according to their own impressions): then the Chet-Minea would be a book for Christian reading, undoubtedly the most edifying, capable of producing its effect on the hearts of the most materially hardened people. For visual and living narratives about the manifestation of high moral power, assisted by the grace of God, by the human spirit in the matter of evangelical renunciation of the vanity of the world and in the matter of seeking the one thing needed, have an irresistible effect on people most immersed in the vanity of life. (And since many saints were people of the most attractive character, which was expressed in all their behavior and in all their deeds, then the Chet-Minea would be a book to read and most entertaining). Unfortunately, what we indicated did not happen: from artless, reproducing reality, lives turned into rhetorical “creations.” About the reason why Vladimir, before his death, called Boris from his region to his place in Kyiv, Nestor writes: “having learned from them (about the fratricidal malice of Svyatopolk), he sent and brought blessed Boris to himself, so that the blood of the righteous would not be shed.” But, composing this touching speech, he does not notice that he is speaking inconsistency: if Vladimir knew about Svyatopolk’s malicious intentions, then why did he not take action against him? Printed by Bodyansky in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1858, book. 3 (according to the consolidated list compiled by him), Yakovlev in the publication Monuments of Russian Literature of the 12th and 13th Centuries, St. Petersburg, 1872 (according to the list of the half of the 16th century with options from Bodyansky), A.P. Popov in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1872, book. 1 (based on an exact copy from the list of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral of the 12th century, prepared by Bodyansky) and Mr. Shakhmatov and Lavrov in the same Readings. 1899, book. 2 (based on the same copy from the list of the Assumption Cathedral prepared by Popov). Russian translation of the Right Reverend Philaret in the Scientific Notes of the Second Branch of the Academy of Sciences, book. II, issue 2. [See. "Additions and amendments"]. Testifying that he generally collected information by asking the contemporaries of Theodosius who remained in the monastery (see the end of the life), Nestor in particular points to the monk Theodore, who was a cellarer in the monastery under Theodosius, according to the publication of Bodyansky L. 6 vol., p. 25, and 14, p. 20; also names Hilarion, who either was the cell attendant of the Monk Theodosius or, at least, was engaged in writing books in his cell, ibid. l. 15 vol., p. 15. The Monk Theodosius was undoubtedly an exceptional man and more or less great in his own way. It is necessary to think that, like all exceptional people, he was a more or less original person. But we do not find this unique man in his individuality at all in the Monk Nestor, who sets his task not so much to portray a natural man as to portray a supernatural miracle worker. (The only thing we want from Nestor is the story of the return of the Monk Theodosius from the Grand Duke Izyaslav on the cart given to him by the prince, and by order of the driver, he gave up his place in the cart to the latter, and instead sat on a horse). Reading about the life of St. Theodosius, of course, everyone will remember and miss the life of St. Anthony. The ancient life of St. Anthony has not reached us, and its existence is a rather dark mystery. Simon and Polycarp refer to this life several times in the Patericon (the first - in the first part and in the stories about Athanasius the recluse and about the architects, the second in the stories about Agapit, the unpaid doctor, about Prokhor the Swan and about Theodore and Vasily). But at the same time, in the latter we read: “I am amazed at how silent the great correction of our most holy father Anthony was, and even if the light was extinguished by our negligence, how the rays will shine from it”... and so on (in the story about Agapit, and a few lines below there is a link to the life of Anthony). Then, some of the links are unwittingly striking in their strangeness. Simon writes to Polycarp (in the first part): “Metropolitan Hilarion and you yourself are a man in the life of Anthony, as if from that he was tonsured and thus honored with the priesthood.” For Hilarion to be tonsured by the Monk Anthony is absolutely and absolutely incredible. Firstly, the chronicle says quite clearly that Anthony came from Athos not before Hilarion’s tonsure, and not many days after. Secondly, if we assume that in relatively few days or a short period of time the chronicler could have experienced confusion and that Anthony came before Hilarion’s tonsure, then, in any case, there is no doubt that at the moment of the latter he was not yet a renowned ascetic, but a completely unknown monk who moved from monastery to monastery, looking for a place for himself. Why on earth, and how could he tonsure Hilarion? (We are not talking about the fact that, not being a presbyter, he himself did not tonsure anyone afterward. The life of St. Anthony, read in the printed Patericon, belongs to the editors or compilers of this Patericon, i.e., it dates back to the 17th century. And the prologue life was compiled before the beginning of the 15th century, see the Most Reverend Macarius History vol. VIII, p. 30, note 35, on Moscow, because it was not known in Kyiv in the 6th century, see Bychkova Description of the collections of the Public Library, I, 143, No. 38, department 17). [Cm. "Additions and amendments"]. In the original edition or in its own and original form, the legend was published in the Orthodox Interlocutor of 1858, part I. For many later editions, see Klyuchevsky Ancient Russian Lives of Saints, page 3 sqq. [Cm. "Additions and amendments"]. Printed by V. Yakovlev under the title: Monuments of Russian literature of the 12th and 13th centuries, St. Petersburg, 1872. Russian translation: Kiev-Pechersk Patericon based on ancient manuscripts, translated into modern Russian by Maria Viktorova. Kyiv, 1870. Having spoken briefly about the Hieromartyr Kuksha and Pimen the Faster, Simon adds: “For now I will leave a lot of talk about the saints; if my conversation does not suffice you, even if you hear from my lips, then not even the scripture will lead you to assure you, if you do not believe in this, then if someone rises from the dead, you do not have faith.” It was written to Polycarp, but obviously not intended for him, for if unbelief had been suspected in it, it would have been exposed above - in the letter itself and not in passing. Speaking about Athanasius the recluse, Simon directly addresses all non-believers and, in the end, gives them the answer that we assumed, namely, that this was not written for them. Starting to describe the miracles that took place during the construction of the Pechersk Church, Simon completely forgets that he is writing for Polycarp, and not for everyone, and entitles the story: “The word about the creation of the church, (yes) thou shalt be understood as the Lord himself by providence,” etc. Simon says that Eustratius is called protostrator in the memorial or synodikon of Pechersk; but what this means remains unclear to us (The word πρωτοστράτωρ is not in the Greek language; perhaps it is necessary: protostator - πρωτοστάτωρ instead of πρωτοστάτης, which means superior, supreme, leader, and in the application to Eustratius could be used in the sense of the first ascetic). In this last story, Simon's chronology is lame, cfr Ipatan Chronicle under 1130. This story about Moses Ugrin leads us to great bewilderment. Moses may have been taken captive by Boleslav in 1018. and return from captivity as a young man within the next ten to fifteen years. Meanwhile, the Pechersk Monastery was founded after 1051, so Moses could have come to it only in old age, separated from the temptation that happened to him in captivity for dozens of years. On the relationship of the Russian Patericon to the Polish Patericon of Kossov, see Pekarsky’s article: Representatives of Kyiv scholarship, in Domestic Notes vol. CXLI p. 373 (also in the Description of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra of Metropolitan Eugene, chapter XVII). Before Metropolitan Macarius, the life of Euphrosyne is not found in manuscripts, probably because for Muscovite Rus', the manuscripts of which we possess, Euphrosyne was, so to speak, a stranger. Metropolitan Macarius placed the life in his Chet-Minea (under May 23), and one can think that it was at this time that it received its current literary treatment. In addition to the Chet-Minya of Macarius, the life is also included in his Degree Book, - I, 269. In modern times, it has been published in the Monuments of Kushelev - Bezborodko, - IV, 172 (according to the Trinity Lavra manuscript of the 7th, not the 16th century). Published in the Orthodox Interlocutor of 1858, part 3. Beginning “For ever, brethren, we must keep the feasts of God in honor”...; based on two manuscripts of the 16th century, it was published twice by the Right Reverend Macarius: in the first volume of Materials for the history of the Russian church, published by the Kharkov “Spiritual Messenger”, and in the second volume of the History of the Russian Church (appendices No. 7, 2nd edition p. 343), and for the third time based on two manuscripts - the 14th and 16th centuries, by Mr. Shlyapkin in Monuments ancient writing, published by the Society of Lovers of Ancient Writing, No. X (XIX), 1881 (with a learned introduction, entitled: “Russian teaching of the 11th century on the transfer of the relics of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker and its relation to Western sources”). Two Latin legends were written in Bar immediately after the transfer of the relics - by Archdeacon John on the orders of Archbishop Urson of Bar - printed by Surius in De probatis Ss. vitis under May 9 and by Angelo Maio in Spicilegium Romanum, IV, 324, and by the cleric Nikephoros at the request of the Bar civil authorities. Russian translation in the Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy, 1870. vol. 2, p. 401 sqq. The compiler of the Russian legend had the legend of Nikephoros at hand (or, having both of them, he used the latter). He has something extra against Nicephorus, which he could have learned from someone’s oral stories (or from a third written legend unknown to us), - about the construction of a church by the Baryans in honor of St. Nicholas: Nikephoros only mentions the construction of this church, but does not tell in detail, as we read from our narrator. That he used oral stories is also evident from the fact that according to him Bargrad is a city in Murmansk, a German region, which he did not read in the legend and which means that Bari then fell, along with all of Apulia, under the rule of the Normans. We don’t know whether Clement owned Rome and whether he was in it during Theodore’s stay; if he was not in Rome, then he should have been in Ravenna, from whose archbishops he was made pope. We consider the latter to be most likely and, having some reason to believe that the legend was composed by a Greek (who had only become completely naturalized in Russia, so for him it is our country), we suspect that Theodore himself was its author. Anthony of Novgorod in his Pilgrim says that in the church of St. St. Nicholas's carpet hangs in Sofia. It is likely that this is our carpet, i.e. that after a miracle was performed with it, it was applied by its owner, St. Sofia. The first three miracles are read in the collection of posthumous miracles of Nicholas the Wonderworker, appended to his life, which begins: “In the days of old, God was pleased to seek out the writing that was preached by the ancient prophets”; the fourth miracle is found separately in manuscripts. The first three miracles were published by Archimandrite Leonid twice: in the appendix to the now mentioned life, which he published in 1881. in Monuments of Ancient Literature, published by the Society of Lovers of Ancient Literature, under the title: “The Life and Miracles of St. Nicholas of Myra and Praise to Him, a Study of Two Monuments of Ancient Russian Literature of the 11th Century,” pp. 79–93, and in “Posthumous Miracles of St. Nicholas,” which he published in 1888. in the same place, pp. 19, 25 and 43, “numbers” or numbers of miracles 33, 34 and 40. The fourth miracle was printed by Archimandrite Leonid in the second edition, p. 47, number 41, and before Leonid in the first edition of Monuments of Ancient Literature by Kushelev Bezborodko, p. 71. Some consider the life we ​​have now indicated as Russian works dating back to the pre-Mongolian period and also the Eulogy to St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, which begins: “Behold, brethren, the bright holiday of our wonderful father and wonderworker St. Nicholas, like the whole world, like a shining sun and surprising the whole world with miracles”... (printed by Archimandrite Leonid along with the life). But the Greek original of the life was printed by Falconius in his book: Sancti confessoris et celeberrimi thaumaturgi Nicolai acta primigenia, Neapoli, 1751 (Russian translation in the Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy for 1869, vol. II, p. 452); the word, which has a close connection with life, is also not Russian, but Greek, only, perhaps, with a few Russian inserts. (The opinion of Archimandrite Leonid that not only our four miracles, but also all the posthumous miracles of Nicholas the Wonderworker, read in our manuscripts, represent in their entirety an original Russian work of the second half of the 11th century, belonging to Bishop Ephraim of Pereyaslavl. Preface to the indicated 2nd edition, p. III, cannot at all be considered to be at all thorough. Let us note here, by the way, something that should be noticed and taken into account: According to the Greek original, our life speaks not about Nicholas of Myra, but about another saint named after him - Nicholas of Pinar, bishop of the city of Pinar in the Lycian metropolis and who lived under the emperor Justinian, on which basis they want to accept two St. Nicholas Wonderworkers, mixed into one, but according to the Slavic translation, Nikolai’s life is the estate of Myra. For, whereas the Greek original says that Nicholas was appointed by Philip, Archbishop of the Metropolis of Myra, as bishop of the city of Pinar, n. 29, the Slavic translation says about him that he was appointed by Philip as Archbishop of the Feletian (in other manuscripts: Fetalian) Metropolis) as bishop of the Mir City, - Archimandrite Leonidas p. 67, and while the Greek original says that Nicholas died on the month of December 6, on Wednesday, indiction 13, during the reign of Justinian, in 18, under Archbishop and Patriarch Macarius (of Jerusalem), - n. 33, the Slavic translation says that he died in the month of December on the 6th day, on the fourth indicta (sic), under Tsar Constantine, in the summer of 28, under the blessed Patriarch Macarius), - Leonid p. 76. There is a Russian legendary legend about Nicholas the Wonderworker, see Klyuchevsky's Life p. 218; but judging by the extract from it made in the Description of the Undolsky Manuscripts - No. 569, it was compiled in Mongolian times, for it reads: “let us pray that (St. Nicholas) delivers us sinners, Orthodox Christians, from this filthy violence and this law.” Leonidas p. 75. Perhaps we need Phasilian, Phasilian: in the Hieroclean Synecdemus the city of Φασηλίς is the first in the diocese of Lycia, although the metropolitanate is M ν ra, and Constantine Porphyrogenitus in De Thematibus, - Thema 14, calls the city of Φασηλίς famous: Φασηλίς ἡ περικλυτ ό ς . ) Pointing out the contemporaneity of the event to Patriarch Macarius cannot resolve the dispute between the two testimonies, for there were two Macarii of Jerusalem and one of them lived precisely under Constantine, occupying the see from 313 to 331 or 332, and the other lived precisely under Justinian, occupying the see twice, from 546 to 548. and from 563 to 574. Nestor is twice called a chronicler by Polycarp in his stories: about Nikita the recluse and about blessed Agapit (in the latter case, with a clear indication of what he means by his chronicle to be our original chronicle). The late Kubarev began to doubt that the chronicle belonged to Nestor; Our late P.S. Kazansky finally doubted this. In the afterword to the life of Theodosius (where he also directly says that he writes not as a self-witness much or in part, but only what “his father heard experimentally from the ancients who were at that time” - during the life of Theodosius). Here are the true words of Nestor: “Behold, much higher about our blessed and great father Theodosius, I heard from the ancient men (that is, from the most ancient, the oldest of me) father, who were at that time, the same inscribed as the sinful Nestor, who put everyone in the monastery of the blessed and the father of all Theodosius; (to one, - to the monastery) by Abbess Stefan, and as from him he was shorn and granted the robes of the monastery, and again he was promoted to the rank of deacon from him.”... And in his very life, Nestor directly separates himself from the personal disciples of the Monk Theodosius: “let us sweat,” he says, for example, “a zealot of life and an imitator of the life of the venerable Theodosius and his disciple.” See now below in the text. Contradictions and disagreements between the chronicler and Nestor are found in the stories, firstly, about Boris and Gleb, and secondly, about the Monk Theodosius. The chronicler talks about Boris and Gleb according to the monk Jacob, including his legend; therefore, his contradiction with Nestor is the same as Jacob’s contradiction with him, which we indicated above. (Another contradiction should be considered that according to the most ancient list of the life, Nestor appoints Vladimir as Boris’ inheritance, but this reading is ambiguous and generally very unreliable). In the stories about the Monk Theodosius we find from them: 1) the chronicler speaks of Theodosius’s acquisition of the charter of the Studite monastery, that he found it in Kyiv with one monk of this monastery, named Michael, who arrived from Constantinople with Metropolitan George; According to Nestor, Theodosius sent one of the brethren to Constantinople for the charter to Ephraim the eunuch, who was there. 2) According to the chronicler, the monastery above the cave, instead of the cave itself, was built by Varlaam before Theodosius; according to Nestor, Theodosius did this after Varlaam. 3) According to the chronicler, the Monk Theodosius, dying, appointed presbyter Jacob as his successor and agreed to the election of Stephen only after the brethren did not want the first; Nestor, without saying anything about Jacob, speaks only about Stephen (and why, this will be clear to us if we remember that he was tonsured by the latter). For people who even now find it inconvenient to believe that the Pechersk monks could mistakenly confuse the chronicler with Nestor, we point out that the real learned Pechersk monks of the 17th century (which were not the monks of the late 12th - early 13th centuries) mistook the Archimandrite of the Pechersk Polycarp, who died, as the chronicle (Ipatskaya) clearly says, in 1182, for the monk Polycarp who wrote the second part Patericon (see printed Patericon). See Hypatan Chronicle under 1150, 2nd edition p. 280. Let us draw the attention of learned researchers to the fact that abbots very rarely rewrote books, entrusting this task to others. And also and even more to the following: the chronicle, as shown by the one placed in it under 852. general chronology ended after the death of Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, therefore, after April 16, 1114, when Svyatopolk died. Abbot Sylvester makes his note in 1116: if he were only a copyist, he should have received the chronicle from the hands of the author or, at least, know him well. Given this state of affairs, is it likely and natural for him to present only himself as a copyist in his postscript and not say a word about the author? Finally, if we considered the initial reading of the addition not as it is in the Laurentian list, but as in the Nikon Chronicle (II, 51), then it would be undoubtedly that Sylvester is not only a copyist, but a chronicler himself, which is what the compilers of this last chronicle consider him to be (IV, 17). For according to the second reading, he clearly and obviously expresses himself not as a copyist, but as the author himself: “all this writing,” he says here, “is for love for the sake of the Lord God and the Most Pure Mother of God and his and his saints for the sake of the fatherland of the Russian land, for the salvation and benefit of all.” The late I. I. Sreznevsky and K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin positively consider Sylvester to be the original chronicler. What is put in brackets is readable in most lists, but not in all. And the name of Nestor: “monk - Pechersk Nestor” appears only in very few later lists. And with the opinion accepted by some that the original chronicle was first written without years and that the years were added in it later (as was the case with the Volyn Chronicle), we strongly disagree. Having completed his general chronological list, made under 852, which is now discussed below, and turning to the narration itself (after the introduction), the compiler of the chronicle directly and clearly says: “let’s put the numbers in a row,” that is, we’ll put the numbers in a row, set the years, and we’ll conduct the narration according to them. What is taken from George Amartol. The names of deceased bishops were to be entered in the synodics of cathedral episcopal churches, with a marking of the days of their repose, so that the day of the annual commemoration would be known. Moreover, if not always, then sometimes, probably, the years of death were also celebrated. The same was done with the names of the princes in the synodics of those churches in which the princes were buried, in which they made contributions for commemoration, or which were their ktitoria. In the grave crypts, in all likelihood, inscriptions were made on their walls against the coffins or coffins of princes, indicating their names and the time of their repose. Church builders made inscriptions or inscriptions in them indicating their names and the time the churches were built. Church history, which our chroniclers limit almost exclusively to notes on the installations and deaths of bishops and the construction of churches, almost all of them could have been taken from memorials and from inscriptions in churches. Of which the most regrettable is the insertion of the story of Vladimir’s baptism in place of the news that was read about him from the chronicler. Since the collection was written by Lavrentiy for the Suzdal prince Dmitry Konstantinovich: then on behalf of the customer, and not the scribe, it would be much more fair for him to be called Dmitrievsky (just as the Ostromir Gospel is not called from the scribe Grigoriev or Grigorievsky). - About the original chronicle (as well as its continuations) read: Sukhomlinova About the ancient Russian chronicle as a monument literary, in III book. Scientific Notes of the II Division of the Academy of Sciences and separately (at the end in the additional chapter “Manuals for the study of the Nestorian Chronicle” - previous literature); Kostomarov Lectures on Russian History, part I, St. Petersburg, 1862; Sreznevsky Readings about ancient Russian chronicles, in Notes of the Academy of Sciences, vol. II book. 2, St. Petersburg, 1862; Bestuzhev-Ryumina On the composition of the Russian Chronicles until the end of the 14th century, in the 4th edition of the Chronicle of the Activities of the Archaeographic Commission; Shakhmatova About the initial Kiev chronicle code, in the III book. Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1897 Under 1159 the table of Andrei Bogolyubsky is called Rostovsky: it is clear that this is written not by a Suzdalian or a Vladimir citizen, but by an outsider who knows and recognizes the real table of the region. But since 1164 both Bogolyubsky himself - the Prince of Suzdal or Vladimir, and the Bishop of Rostov - the Bishop of Suzdal, from which it can be concluded that from this year Suzdalets or Vladimirets began to write: in general, we believe that the line between the two continuations is made by the years 1162 and 1163 left empty. The author or authors of the first continuation reveal the same knowledge of the affairs of Kyiv and Pereyaslavl, and therefore the question of the place and cannot be resolved positively, although it seems more likely to be Kyiv. Under 1128 it is made clear that the successor, probably the first after the initial chronicler, was not a monk of the Pechersk Monastery. The successors of Suzdal-Vladimir directly call themselves such under 1169. (siege of Novgorod). Then under the years 1175, 1176 (Vladimirets), 1180, 1207 (2nd edition p. 411 beginning) and 1227 (as if not Vladimirets. Writing under 1231. about Cyril Bishop of Rostov there is Rostovets, whose story was probably later inserted into the chronicle). Since in the lists of Radziwill, Pereyaslav (Pereyaslav Chronicler) and Troitsky or Academic (Troitsky or Academic Chronicle) the continuation ends in 1205, it is clear from this that this is 1205. the work of one successor ends, and from the next 1206. the work of another begins. - What is in the Trinity or Academic list from 1206. is taken as an independent and special continuation, in reality it is a reduction of the Novgorod Chronicle (only, as 1216 shows, made according to a different, very extensive edition of this latter than the one we have). And since 1201 it contains the Volyn chronicle, or more precisely the Galich chronicle, written after the Mongol invasion. But to us such an assumption does not seem at all probable: firstly, the year 1016, from which the reign of Yaroslav began, could not be the year in which the chronicler would have finished (that is, wanted, found it convenient to finish) his chronicle. Secondly, it is highly unlikely that the chronicle, completed in its entirety before 1016, was first continued until 1115. in the form of very short notes. As far as we know, no one has made this assumption out loud or in print). Under 1144 The first or second chronicler wrote about himself: “In the same summer, Archbishop Saint Niphon made me priest.” This is, in all likelihood, the priest of the Church of St. Jacob Herman Voyata, who after 45 years of priesthood died in 1188. and whose death is recorded in the chronicle under this last year. Around 1230 the chronicler calls himself priest John (and the sexton Timofey, whose name appears instead of the name of priest John in some lists, is the copyist - the one who wrote the Lobkovsky Prologue in 1262). In the complete collection of chronicles, our ancient Novgorod Chronicle is printed under the name 1 Novgorod Chronicle (in volume III). “Historical-critical studies on the Novgorod Chronicles” by Senigov - in Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1887, book. IV. [Cm. "Additions and amendments"]. Printed in Complete Chronicles, vol. III, p. 179; abbreviation of the Chronicle dating back to the end of the 15th century - in the Kharkov Spiritual Bulletin, 1862. March, p. 56. The words of the author of the record about himself, in addition to the chronicle of the rulers itself, are read along with borrowings from it about the death of Joachim - in the 2nd and 3rd Novgorod Chronicles (in the latter, however, with alterations) under 1030. and in the Nikon Chronicle under the same year. Other private or regional chronicles, except for Novgorod, from the pre-Mongol period have not reached us and are completely unknown. Simon Vladimirsky speaks in the Patericon about the old chronicle of Rostov. But that this was not a local Rostov chronicle, but an all-Russian chronicle, is clear from the fact that it contained many entries about bishops from the Pechersk monks. Simon calls it Rostov after the location of the list (probably in the library of the Rostov Cathedral), and old, probably because it was not completed much before his time. It is as likely to assume that Rostov kept its own local chronicle in the first half of the pre-Mongol period as it is to assume that villages are currently keeping their own chronicles. The latest collections are the Sofia Temporary, the Resurrection Chronicle and especially the Nikon Chronicle. The compilers of the Nikon Chronicle, the most abundant of additions, directly make it known that they had the original chronicler in the person of one “that great Selivester of Vydobyzhsky” (vol. V, p. 17, under 1409). And if they themselves did not redo Sylvester’s postscript, then they really had it in a different edition than in the Laurentian and Ipatian collections. The article was published by Metropolitan Eugene from one Novgorod manuscript in the Proceedings and Chronicles of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities of 1828, part IV of the book. I, p. 122; reprinted by Khavsky with notes in Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1847, No. 6, Mixtures p. 25. The words are printed: in the Slavic original: by Kalaidovich in his publication: Monuments of Russian literature of the 12th century, Moscow, 1821, M. I. Sukhomlinov, in the publication: Manuscripts of Count A. S. Uvarov, volume two, Monuments of Literature, first issue, St. Petersburg, 1858 (with an extensive introduction about Kirill of Turov, owned by the publisher), and A. Ponomarev in the first issue of Monuments of Old Russian Church Literature, published by the magazine “Strannik, St. Petersburg, 1894 (excerpts of words - in the Buslaev Reader), in Russian translation in the publication of the late Eminence of Astrakhan, before Astrakhan the former Minsk and Turov, Eugene: Works of our holy father Cyril of Turov with a preliminary outline of the history of Turov and the Turov diocese until the 19th century, Kyiv, 1880 (excerpts of words in edition of Y. Gorozhansky: Monuments of ancient writing in Russian translation, Moscow, 1886). Already in the golden age of preaching, such as the age of Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom, the Greeks, according to the testimony of the now named fathers, had many preachers who, not caring about teaching and edifying their listeners, tried to talk to them with such cunning and sophisticated eloquence that would delight them and which would encourage them to reward preachers with the subject of intense search on the part of the latter with applause and other signs of approval used in theaters (see the word of Gregory the Theologian about himself and to those who said that he, Gregory, desires the throne of Constantinople and 30 the word of Chrysostom on the Acts of the Apostles). But the further from the times of Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom, the more this inclination to shine with eloquence, without caring about teaching and edification, intensified and took over. In the 1st edition of the book we talk about inclination as a common disease of Greek preachers of later times. And we must take back our words, for among the later Greek preachers they point out those who set the goal of their sermons exactly as it should be, and who are fully teaching and edifying in their sermons, such as: Simeon, the new theologian († about 1050), Theophanes Keramey, Bishop of Tauromenia in Sicily († about 1150), Nikephoros Blemmydes († after 1255). See the conversation of Basil the Great on St. Day. Martyr Gordius. About panegyrics of the nature we have indicated, Vasily says: The word is known from the inscriptions in some manuscripts - on Great Friday, from the inscriptions in other manuscripts - on Great Saturday, which is an abbreviation of the word for the week of Myrrh-Bearers. Namely, he publishes a story about the arrival of the myrrh-bearing women at the tomb and the speech of an angel to them, and which in some copies is adopted by Cyril of Turov himself. (Printed by Mr. Loparev in Monuments of Ancient Writing, No. XCVIII). But if the word really belongs to Kirill himself, then it is not a special word, but just an abbreviation of our word. In the word for the week, Baius Cyril uses the explanatory gospel of Theophylact of Bulgaria, and in the word for the week of the myrrh-bearers - on Great Friday, on the lament of the Mother of God, Simeon Metaphrast (see Sukhomlinov pp. XLII and XLIII). But, as far as is known, the gospel of Theophylaktov and the indicated word of Metaphrastov were not yet in the Slavic language in the pre-Mongol period. 128, and that it is almost exactly the same with the opinion of I. Ya. Porfiryev, - History of Russian literature, part I, edition 4 p. 397 sqq. And the most moderate in his reviews, A.V. Gorsky, calls the eloquence of Cyril of Turov “florid eloquence”, see in his article: “On the ancient words for the Holy Pentecost”, published in the XVII part of the Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers, p. 49 beginning). In addition to the eight indicated church words, regarding which everyone agrees that they belonged to Cyril, two more church words are read in the manuscripts between his creations, the belonging of which to Cyril is denied, and, in any case, is subject to very great doubt; these are the words: in the 5th week of Easter and on Pentecost (they are read between the works of Cyril of Turov in the glassine manuscript of the 13th-14th centuries of the former Tolstoy, - according to the description of Stroev I, department No. 8; printed in the above-mentioned editions of Kalaidovich and Sukhomlinov). The affiliation of these words to Cyril of Turov is denied because they are not extensive words similar to the eight indicated and similar to them in their internal characteristics, but brief teachings that have little relationship or similarity with them in their internal characteristics. As for the word or teaching on Pentecost, which consists of two short parts - from the speech about the descent of St. Meanwhile, it has its own eloquence, corresponding to the matter (for example, the Right Reverend Philaret even calls it beautiful), and if it is not a word, but a teaching, that is, comparatively brief, then this can be explained by the same matter, namely, that he was not able to write at length on the indicated topic (as indeed it was not easy to write). According to what we have now indicated, there are no obstacles to assimilate the word or teaching of Kirill of Turov. Here are positive reasons for him to internalize it. The preacher complains to his listeners that, contrary to his hopes, they are not very diligent in going to church to obey the divine words offered to them; this is obviously said by a deliberate preacher, for the complaint of an unostentatious preacher would not make sense: but what other deliberate preacher do we know of during the pre-Mongol period besides Cyril of Turov? If we do not assimilate our words to Cyril, then it will remain incomprehensible to us that he, writing from the week of Vay to the week of the Holy Fathers for all weeks in a row, will miss one 5th week. All are published in Sukhomlinov’s edition. In Kalaidovich's edition: The Word is a parable about wisdom, The Word about the exodus of the soul and the Parable about the souls of mankind. In Ponomarev's edition there is only the Parable of the Souls of Humanity (Parable of the Blind and the Lame). In the edition of the Right Reverend Eugene there is also one Parable about the human soul (according to two editions). And in later copies the appeals are read further in the text: “my faithful friend, brother.” In none of the known lists is the word inscribed with the name of Cyril, but is assimilated to him only on the basis that it is placed in manuscripts between his works. In addition to the two titles given above, it also has a third: “The Word of the Holy Fathers on Punishment.” These two words are converted into special words, two parts of one word belonging to the unknown, which is inscribed “The Word about the heavenly powers and for the sake of which man was created and about the outcome of the soul,” and which we have at hand in the manuscripts of the Volokolamsk Library of the 16th century. No. 529, l. 655, No. 534, l. 114 and No. 576 l. 101. (The same one that in the last of our manuscripts is assimilated by the Monk Abraham, and which was published by the late Shevyrev in the news of the Academy of Sciences, vol. IX, p. 182). A word on the council of the Archangel Michael and other ethereal forces, published in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities in 1847. book VIII and accepted by the Right Reverend Macarius, History vol. 3 edition 2 p. 177 sqq, as the prototype of our words, in fact there is also an abbreviation from the mentioned word of the Volokolamsk manuscripts. As for the beginning, in this last word it is also: “For this mystery is not revealed to everyone and is unknown to many people, but as Cyril the philosopher spoke,” etc., and in the word for the council of Archangel Michael it is released. Consequently, here we are talking about not the whole word belonging to the philosopher Kirill - Slavic or not, but only the little that he said. With the late Shevyrev (News of the Academy of Sciences VIII, 326), we are very inclined to assimilate this word to the Monk Abraham of Smolensk, who, however, should not be considered its real author, but only its compiler. Among other things, the word reads: “We are afraid of fiery kinship.” We cannot say positively what this kinship is, but we assume that it points to its source in Greek, on which a pun could be made from Γέννα, which is one and the same with γένος - genus, kinship, and Γέεννα - Gehenna, hell (maybe the whole word is a translation from Greek and really belongs to some Cyril). In terms of content, the interpretation is intended for everyone, but it was written, as it is given in it, to some monks (“even if the rulers of this world and people who labor in everyday things diligently demand book veneration, since it is more appropriate for us to study in them”...) Printed by Sukhomlinov and the Reverend Evgeniy. The first two were published by Kalaidovich and Sukhomlinov; all three are from the Right Reverend Eugene (and before the Right Reverend Eugene, in the Slavic original, the letter to Abbot Vasily was published in the X part of the Additions to the works of the holy fathers). In the Synodal Helmsman of the 13th century, according to which it was printed in the Monuments of Kalaidovich, its inscription reads: “Kurila of Bishop Turov.” In other lists it is inscribed “The Parable of the White Man and of Imagination and of Souls and of Repentance.” Published in Russian Monuments, Part I, p. 7; according to a new list, representing some differences, by the Right Reverend Macarius in History, vol. I, edition 2 p. 278, and for the third time by Mr. Ponomarev in the first issue of Monuments of Old Russian Church Teaching Literature. That is, go to bed in your house only after praying to God in advance. All the teachings of the Monk Theodosius - complete and in fragments - were printed by the Right Reverend Macarius in the Scientific Notes of the 2nd Branch of the Academy of Sciences, book. II issue 2, the first five – pp. 203–213, the second two pp. 200–203 (Reverend Macarius accepts four passages, but we do not count two passages taken from Nestor’s life of St. Theodosius, which are too insignificant). Then the teachings were published in the first issue of Monuments, ancient Russian church teaching literature, published by Mr. Ponomarev. See Vostokov in Description of the Rumyantsev Museum, p. 615 col. 1. Of the five complete teachings of St. Theodosius to the monks, four have a rather monotonous inscription - two about patience and love, one about patience and almsgiving, and one about patience and humility. Doesn't this indicate anything? Printed by the Right Reverend Macarius in the same place, pp. 193–200; one of them with a significant insertion is still in the Orthodox Interlocutor of 1858, part 3, page 256. An explanation of this will follow in the section on worship. That is, that there are no obligatory and seemingly sacred lunches and dinners in memory of the dead. This is according to the list of the Orthodox Interlocutor. See Ducange Glossar. Graecit. under the words Παναγία and Πρεσβεία and the Rhaean Commentaries on Porphyrog. De ceremm. aulae Byzant. lib. II cap. 16, no. 45, in Min's Patrology t. 112 p. 1122. Vasily the New (March 26), the same one from whose life the story of the ordeal is told. In Kirik “let the drunken man fast for 40 days”, cfr by John the Faster, - in Ralli and P. IV, 445. In the Right Reverend Macarius, “they want to change seats,” in the Orthodox Interlocutor, “they want to die.” Halfway to denouncing his contemporaries for pagan superstitions, which begins with the words: "Are we not doing filthy things? If anyone kills a monk or a monk, they return." temporary years and attributed to the Monk Theodosius of Pechersk,” and the Right Reverend Anthony the article: “The so-called teachings of Theodosius of Pechersk to the Russian people,” in the 2nd edition of the collection of articles: “From the History of Christian Preaching p. 282 sqq. Eminence Anthony ibid., p. 291 fin. Eminence Anthony, ibid. page 294 sqq. The content of the word is described in detail in the article by A.V. Gorsky: “On the ancient words for the Holy Pentecost”, published in the XVII part of the Additions to the works of the saints. fathers p. 45). Between the denunciations, a very remarkable thing is read (as A.V. pointed out): “I see many who beat their squad (their neighbors) from lawless expenses (rosts, interest), until they sell themselves to the filthy. Wretched! Whom have you driven into filth for the sake of profit? The same person, more than a Christian.”... We divide the writers of the moral department into two categories - those who have received a real education and those who have not received it. We suspect that with greater development of monuments, they will be further divided into spiritual writers and secular writers, and that there will be a significant difference between the two. Rumyantsevsky Collection No. 406 l. 22, in Vostokov, p. 611 col. The word seems to belong to the bishop, for the author addresses the listeners or readers: “I pray to you, my people, the flock of Christ... this I say to you with my son.” But, in all likelihood, it does not belong to Metropolitan Clement Smolyatich, to whom the Right Reverend Philaret assimilates it (Review §30), for the Kievans are spoken of as outsiders and they are threatened with eternal torment for their action with Igor, and this last Clement did not at all want to be glorified as a martyr (although due to his rank he forbade killing him), see the Hypatian Chronicle under 1147, 2nd edition p. 249 fin.. In the same Rumyantsev Collection No. 406, l. 245 vol., in Vostokov, p. 620 col. 2. See about this word from the Most Reverend Macarius in History, part 3, edition 2, page 215 sqq. About this word and excerpts from it in Moskvityanin 1843. part VI p. 413 and in Pogodin’s Research, Remarks and Lectures on Russian History, vol. VII p. 406; in full and according to three lists - for each separately, under the title: “A word of praise for the transfer of the relics of Saints Boris and Gleb,” printed by Mr. Loparev in Monuments of Ancient Literature, No. XCVIII, 1894. Although the word is written in such a way that it seems to have been said in the church: “Today we celebrate her murder,” but we believe that in fact it was written to be read, not spoken. The word addresses the denounced princes themselves: “hear, princes, opposing the elder brethren”..., but hardly any preacher would dare to denounce the princes to their face and with unceremonious harshness. That the word was written in Chernigov or the Chernigov region can be concluded from the fact that examples are taken from the history of the Chernigov reign. About these words, see the Most Reverend Macarius History vol. 3, edition 2 p. 211 sqq. There are seven words for the holidays, namely: the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, the Exaltation of the Cross, the Protection of the Virgin Mary, the Conception of the Virgin Mary, the Nativity of Christ, Baptism and Presentation. There are five pre-holidays: the first two and the last three holidays. If it is proven that the Feast of the Intercession was established after the Mongol invasion, then, of course, at the same time it will be necessary to change the opinion about the time of the appearance of words. About these words, see the Addendums to the Works of the Holy Fathers, part XVII, the article by the late A.V. Gorsky: On the ancient words for the Holy Pentecost. Published by Mr. Ponomarev in the third issue of Monuments of Ancient Russian Church Literature. The Most Reverend Macarius assimilates the opinion of Jacob, whom we spoke above as the author of the Praise to Vladimir and the legend of Boris and Gleb, read in two manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum (No. 233 and No. 234), the letter of the monk Jacob to God's servant Demetrius, who in one of the lists is called the Grand Duke and whom he - His Eminence Macarius, - considers for Izyaslav Yaroslavich. (History vol. 2, edition 2 p. 156, the message itself is printed ibid. p. 339). That the message is very ancient in language is clear, although it cannot be decided whether it is from the pre-Mongol or subsequent period. That the message was written to the prince, there are no signs of this in it, and rather there is reason to think the opposite. That the message belongs to the pseudonym Jacob, although it was not written to Izyaslav Yaroslavich, this can be assumed, but there is no reason to say positively so far. For our part, we are inclined to attribute the article to the pre-Mongol period. Firstly, the author, speaking about the monks, that we see one doing this, the other doing that, writes: “the other (we see) working like a captive,” that is, we see the other working (household work) as a captive slave. But the captive slaves could have been in the pre-Mongol period, when the Russians waged constant wars with the Polovtsians and captured many of them; after that they had nowhere to go. Secondly, the author, having occasions to talk about the Mongol yoke (for example, in the chapter on princes), does not hint at it in a single word. We absolutely do not understand why the Reverend Philaret assimilates the article to Metropolitan Kirill: there is absolutely no hint or indication in it that it belonged to the metropolitan or bishop. As for Bishop Matthew of Sarah, it could have been learned by him either because he addressed it in the form of a message to his flock, or simply due to some accidental misunderstanding. The article is comparatively very extensive and represents a whole essay; it is, as it were, a brief system of all moral theology, partly including worldly wisdom and good citizenship - it is, as it were, the Russian Solomon and Sirach and the prototype of the Domostroy. After the introduction, which talks about faith and love, the article is divided into 17 chapters, named with words, namely: about fasting, about neighbors (whom not to offend), about the bishop (to honor), about princes (to submit and serve faithfully), about friends, about fear (of God), about servants. About the death of a wife (about the death of the first wife and about not letting the second wife offend the children of the first), about the wise men, about the secret (to be careful with it), about dreams (which you shouldn’t believe), about humility, about courage (of warriors in war), about slaves, about prayer. Read in the word or chapter about courage “Son, when you go into battle with the prince, you ride in front with the brave, and you will bring honor to your family and a good name for yourself,” etc. There is nothing particularly remarkable in the instructions, but in terms of its literary merits, the word belongs to the number of works that are far from bad - it is written remarkably well and at the same time remarkably witty (but we cannot say to what extent it is an independent work, and not a simple choice, which is the main question when assessing a work of this kind). - The Word of John Chrysostom should hardly be attributed to the pre-Mongol period (i.e., in the name of Chrysostom inscribed), addressed to those who are peasants only by reputation and denouncing bad Christianity in general, and mainly buffoonery and demonic games (printed by Tikhonravov in the Chronicles of Russian Literature and Antiquities, vol. IV, a mixture of pp. 110) for in this word “conversation” is used in its very ancient meaning of a city square. – We know from the instructions “The Word of Love of Klimovo” (Sreznevsky Ancient Monuments), but whether it belongs to Metropolitan Kliment Smolyatich is a question for us. – We know the teaching of “the sinful George of the Monk of Zarubs Cave”, written to one spiritual son and may very well belong to the pre-Mongol period (Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences vol. VII, book II, p. 160); [From the “Addition and Amendment”: Teachings of the Zarubsky Monk George - in issue I of Information and Notes on Little-Known and Unknown Monuments, No. VII, p. 51 (The Monk George was chosen as his spiritual father by some young man, in all likelihood a rich one. Fearing that the young man, dissatisfied with his Monk’s lack of teaching, would not go to another spiritual father, George writes to him that he should not do this, that if he does this, then this alone, even if he has not committed another sin, will be the destruction of his soul... It is suspected that the desire to keep his spiritual son, in all likelihood a rich man, was the main motivation for George to write his epistle, which in its teaching part, which is very vague, does not represent anything remarkable). morals, to which we will return much later. – The late A.V. Gorsky in his Description of the Synodal Manuscripts (together with K.I. Nevostruev) indicates several ancient Russian teachings: No. 231 l. 257 vol., No. 321 l. 157 rev. sqq. Based on two lists, printed by Tikhonravov in the Chronicles of Russian Literature and Antiquities, vol. IV, Mixture, page 87 sqq, reprinted by Ponomarev in the third issue of Monuments of Old Russian Ancient Teaching Literature. The best list in the Golden Chain of the Trinity Lavra No. 11. The beginning of the word arouses bewilderment: “Like Elijah the Tezbite, who slaughtered a priest and an idol’s priest numbering up to three hundred and said: jealous of the Lord God Almighty, so and this (this) could not tolerate Christians living in two faiths”... Who is this “this one,” to whom the author refers, if only he is speaking here, and not someone later whose hand itched to make a correction? found in the collection of Gregory’s words, in which the words are accompanied by an interpretation?), about how the first abomination of the real pagans bowed to an idol and laid demands on them, they still do it now (Tikhonravov ibid. p. 96, Ponomarev ibid.). This word is a reworking of part of Gregory the Theologian’s word on Epiphany: “Pakis my Jesus, pakis sacrament.” In relation to the “Slovenian language" it is the same as in the previous one. In part, the Word of Isaiah the Prophet, interpreted by St. John Chrysostom, also belongs here: about those who supply the second meal to the family and women in labor (Volokolamsk manuscripts No. 435 l. 203 and No. 521 l. 242, Synodal manuscripts according to the Description of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 231 l. 195 vol.), in the title of which the words: about those who supply, etc. are a later addition or translation instead of something worthwhile, which is a post-verse interpretation of the unknown on Isaiah ch. 65. 8 ff., and in which brief notes are made in places about the clan and women in labor (who serve God and do his will, and not the clan and women in labor, a vain idol..., forgetting My holy mountain and preparing a meal for the clan and women in labor, etc.). However, it is unlikely (and anyone will) think that Vladimir wrote or sketched out his “teaching” on the road, and left it like that: after, of course, he corrected it as it should. If he presents it as a work of exclusively travel value, then the clear purpose of this is to induce the reader to be lenient towards its shortcomings. [Cm. "Additions and amendments"]. The Life of Basil the Great, assimilated by Amphilochius of Iconium, we have at hand in the fundamental manuscript of the Moscow Theological Academy No. 210 - our instructions in the manuscript on fol. 248. In a separate form they are read: in the Illuminator of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk (if those from whom we take instructions are not mistaken), in Domostroy and in the preface to the grammar, printed in Moscow in 1647–48; some extract from them in the teaching of “St. Basil, as a person should be,” read in Svyatoslav’s Izbornik of 1076. In Monomakh, at first it is somewhat meaningless, because after the words: “souls are pure,” the word “to have” is missing, and then instead of: “the word of the Lord,” it is necessary: ​​“the word is honorable.” The incomprehensible word “irey” still exists among the Little Russians in the form “vyriy” and means warm countries where birds fly to for the winter. Is there a Greek ῆρ (short for ἔαρ), εῖαρ – spring? The first was printed five times: In Travels of Russian people to foreign lands, published by N. Vlasov, St. Petersburg, 1837. In Travels of Russian people in the holy land, St. Petersburg, 1839. In Tales of the Russian people by Sakharov, vol. II, book. 8, St. Petersburg, 1849, by the Archaeographic Commission edited by Norov (31 lists), St. Petersburg, 1864, and the Palestine Society edited by Venevitinov (70 lists), St. Petersburg, 1883. The second was published twice: by I. I. Savvaitov in 1872 (in two issues, of which in one 198 coll., in another – 187 coll.), and X. Loparev in 1899 (51 issue of the Palestine collection). And then not yet all of it, but about a third of the first - by I. I. Sreznevsky in Information and notes on little-known and unknown monuments - No. LX (end: “and the bells of Latin are ringing”, which is from Savvaitov in the 1st issue on col. 94, in the 2nd issue; on col. 84). So according to Venevitinov, based on the latest German research about Baldwin’s campaigns to Damascus. Previously, the campaign in which Daniel accompanied Baldwin was attributed to the first half of 1115 (moreover, the time of his departure from Russia was determined by the fact that he left under the Grand Duke Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, who died on April 16, 1113). And that they were really numerous, we will talk about this later. Daniel notices this deliberately because oil was usually used, more or less diluted with water. Klyuchevsky in the Lives of Saints, p. 61, considers him the son of the governor Yadrei or Yadreyka, who died in a campaign against Ugra in 1193. This is very possible, but we, for our part, do not know the grounds for affirming this positively. In any case, in our opinion, Anthony should not be taken as the author of the story about the capture of Constantinople by the Latins, read in the Novgorod Chronicle under 1204: this author is much higher than Anthony as a writer. Having said that the wonderful Mother of God Hodegetria was preserved from the Latins by good people, the author adds: “(even) even now, we hope for more” we believe that on the basis of these words it is more likely to see a Greek in him (that is, to see a translation from Greek in the story). G. Loparev finds our review of Anthony the Pilgrim harsh to the point of injustice. Let us assume that the review may be strict, but without injustice. Let's refer to others. G. Loparev cites reviews of the Pilgrim by I. Ya. Porfiryev and A. N. Pypin, without accompanying them with the remark that they are unfairly strict. Meanwhile, Porfiryev and Pypin say the same thing about the Pilgrim as I do, and differ from me only in that they do not add my remark about his uselessness for readers. And that for historians and archaeologists the Pilgrim has some significance, I do not deny this at all. – They date back to the pre-Mongolian period of the Pechersk archimandrite Dosifei, who traveled to Athos and from whom a message about the life of the Athos monks has been preserved (printed in an extract in the Addendums to the works of the holy fathers, part 6 p. 134). But they do so on completely unfounded grounds. This Dositheus is known for having brought to Russia from Athos “The rite, as befits a monk to sing 12 psalms individually,” see Stroev’s Bibliographical Dictionary under the word Dosifei. And since the singing of 12 psalms is already mentioned in the Patericon of Pechersk (in the letter of Simon, at the beginning of the introductory part), then on this basis it is believed that Dosifei lived no later than the beginning of the 3rd century. In fact, the custom of singing the 12 psalms existed with us from the very beginning of our monasticism, and it is quite clearly stated in the life of St. Theodosius of Pechersk: “Then the blessed one, that is, Theodosius, went to his cell to sing the tenth psalm according to the custom,” - according to the edition of Bodyansky l. 16 line 14. Dositheus brought the rite of singing 12 psalms from Athos, either because we had another rite before him, or, what is more likely and what he hints at in his indicated message, in his time it became a custom among monks to sing 12 psalms. He lived, as can be concluded from the language of his message and from his reference to the “smart attention,” that is, the smart so-called doing, of the Athonite monks, in the XIV-XV centuries. Printed by Archimandrite Leonid together with “The Posthumous Miracles of St. Nicholas.” For prayers, remembrance and the canon in the Slavic original with Russian translation, see the publication of the Works of Kirill of Turov, owned by the Right Reverend Eugene. Printed three times: in Additions to the works of the holy fathers, part II, 1844. (with Russian translation), in Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities, 1848. No. 7, and in Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences, vol. 72, appendices No. 5, p. 32. Eusebius of Caesarea made a speech before Constantine the Great on the occasion of the completed thirtieth anniversary of his reign (εἰς Κωνσταντῖνον τριακονταετηρικός, De laudibus Constantini); Paul the Silentiary delivered a speech to Emperor Justinian on the occasion of the consecration of St. Sophia (Ἔ κφρασις εἰς τὴν ἁ γ . Σοφίαν ). From later times, corresponding to our pre-Mongol period, several examples are known. For the word to be pronounced in one of the cases indicated by us, this is not directly and clearly indicated in it, but that it was pronounced after the completion of the building by St. Yaroslav. Sophia and the Golden Gate with the Church of the Annunciation (founded by both at the same time in 1037), it says this directly. That the word was spoken before Hilarion’s installation as metropolitan in 1051 is evident from the fact that it speaks of Yaroslav’s wife Irina, who died in 1050, as if she were alive. Hilarion's choice of the topic of divine economy in any case shows that the word was spoken about something final in relation to the establishment of Christianity in Russia. Placed in the Hypatan Chronicle under 1200. and constitutes in it the end of the Kiev chronicle. Message from Metropolitan Clement to Smolensk Presbyter Thomas. An unpublished monument of literature of the 12th century. Report by Khrisanf Loparev. St. Petersburg, 1892 (Monuments of ancient writing No. HS). – Nikolai Nikolsky. About the literary works of Metropolitan Kliment Smolyatich, a writer of the 12th century. St. Petersburg, 1892. We have at hand these excercises in one manuscript of the end of the 16th century, belonging to the library of the Moscow Theological Academy - fundamental No. 35, fol. 130–243. There are a number of them in Burtsov’s ABC, printed in 1637. – “There is a witness, says Clement, who alone can decide the alpha not a river for a hundred,” etc.... What is the meaning of these words when applied to being well-read? And isn’t it clear what they mean: I myself have seen how someone can at once say a hundred, two hundred and up to four hundred examples of a certain kind in alpha, as well as in vita? Not at all understanding real learning, Clement speaks of a certain kind of learning (sui generis), and it is desirable that someone undertake deliberate research regarding this ancient kind of learning of ours. In Volume I of Studies in the Russian Language, published by the Academy of Sciences (I.V. Yagich), an alphabet-grammatical passage is printed, which, indicating the dependence of our alphabet on the Greek alphabet, is inscribed: “The alphabet was created according to the alphabet, which is according to speed, how a letter is spoken and how much a speech and a proverb are divided into and how many is counted,” - page 781. Skorostichya from βραχύς - fast, short, and στοιχεῖον - letter (short letter). - It is also not impossible that Clement, instead of aza and beech, calls alpha and vita and instead of the number of Slavic letters indicates the number of Greek letters, wanting to boast of his learning in the Greek alphabet. Likewise, the expression: Gregory knew alpha and vita and all 24 letters of the alphabet instead: Gregory could read, Gregory was a literate person, probably understood as an example of Clement’s penchant for ingenuity and cunning. [Cm. "Additions and amendments"]. Under 1147, 2nd edition p. 241. And when Mr. Nikolsky says that the written works of Clement are evidenced by chronicles (p. 85 sub fin.), and not just one chronicle, then he allows himself his usual liberty. This is shown by Mr. Nikolsky, who should call his philosophers simple compilers - page 86. As Mr. Nikolsky points out, he also published the essay itself in the appendices to the dissertation. G. Nikolsky’s work was printed precisely according to the Lavra manuscript we understand. No. 122, in the Description of Manuscripts, a note at the end of the description No. (and there is no number, no!), Part I page 90 fin..-Above we say that Clement’s nickname Smolyatich, perhaps, does not mean that he was from the Smolensk region, as is usually accepted, but that it may have been his family nickname. Here we also add that the inhabitants of the Smolensk region in ancient times were called, as they are still called, Smolnyans and that according to philology, Smolyatich does not seem to come from Smolensk. Athanasius, see Sata Μεσαιονικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, I, 272. The conflict with the Latin of Metropolitan George was found by the Right Reverend Macarius in one manuscript of the Novgorod Sofia Library and, so far known in one copy, was published by him in History vol. 2, edition 2 p. 347; reprinted from the original by Pavlov in Critical Experiments, page 191. Metropolitan George reads a strange accusation against Latin bishops that they get married. Probably, here the speech that was damaged by the scribes (or even by the translator) is that the Latin bishops, wearing rings on their hands, justify this by saying, “as they say that they are the wives of the church and bear betrothal.” Some, like Pavlov for example, are of the decisive opinion that the Contestation is nothing more than a later compilation from the message of Metropolitan Nikephoros and the words of Theodosius the Greek (according to Pavlov - St. Theodosius of Pechersk), about which below, see Critical Experiments, page 57. However, to the question: why this compilation with the name of Metropolitan George could be needed, Pavlov does not answer. The message, sent to its destination in Greek, but probably at the same time, and in any case in very ancient times, translated into Slavic and reaching us in both, was printed: in Slavic in Kalaidovich’s Monuments of Russian Literature of the 12th Century, in Greek: by V. I. Grigorovich in Book I. Scientific Notes of the II Branch of the Academy of Sciences (with repeated Slavic), Sophocles Ikonomos in Athens, in 1868, a special brochure, and A. S. Pavlov in the appendices to Critical Experiments on History, etc. (about the publication of Ikonomos, which we know only from instructions, here p. 60). That the message was written to anti-pope Clement III was proven by the late Nevolin, - article about Metropolitan John in volume 2; News of the Academy of Sciences. [Cm. "Additions and amendments"]. Printed in the Monuments of Russian Literature of the 12th century by Kalaidovich. Comparison with the Contest of Metropolitan George and indication of what is missing from Popov pp. 101 fin.–107, see also Pavlova Critical Experiments. Printed by the Right Reverend Macarius in two forms - appendices to volume 2 of History Nos. 9 and 10. The indication of the actual prince to whom it is addressed is in Popov, p. 109. Published in Russian Monuments, Part I, p. 61. The teaching was printed by the Right Reverend Macarius, History vol. 2, edition 2 p. 366. The translation was published in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities, 1848. No. 7. Begun at the request of Svyatosha, it was completed after his death (see preface and afterword), which determines the life of the translator. The Epistle of Leo, the Slavic translation of which for some reason Svyatosh wanted to see, according to the translator (in the preface), for the sake of the faith of the prince, he came from Rome to Kyiv. If we understand this, which is not entirely clear, not in the sense that the message was written by the pope in Rome, but in the sense that his copy was received from Rome, then it will follow that in the pre-Mongol period, through merchants or anyone else, we had possible relations with Italy. And in this way the mystery that the legend about the transfer of the relics of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker was received from Bar to Kyiv will be explained. The knightly confession made by Vasilko Rostislavich Terebovlsky (in the chronicle, under 1097) undoubtedly expresses the spirit of most of our princes of the pre-Mongol period. Vladimir Monomakh, in his famous spiritual letter to children, mainly does what he portrays in his person as a true knight, whom children should imitate. Our Igor himself, going on a campaign against the Polovtsians, mainly dreamed of surpassing his fathers and grandfathers and taking glory and honor to the end (Laurentian Chronicle). See also Hypatan Chronicle 2nd edition pp. 310, 545 and 554. We believe that the author of the Volyn or Galich Chronicle under 1201. (at the very beginning) refers to a similar song about Vladimir Monomakh. We find it possible to believe that Daniil the Prisoner quotes words from a similar song about Svyatoslav when he says: “Svyatoslav prince, (son) Igor, going against the king with a small retinue, speech”... etc. When in 1251. Daniil Romanovich Galichsky with his brother Vasilko returned with victory from the campaign of Yatvyazhsky, then “the song is glorious in the lap of Ima” (Volyn Chronicle, 1251 fin. – Troubadours or singers, “gudtsi”, were also among the Polovtsians, - Volyn Chronicle under 1201). E. B. Barsov in his study: “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign as an artistic monument of Kievan Druzhina Rus” notes to us our words about Yaroslavna’s crying that have just been cited: “to measure the dignity of crying by the number of tears (author’s italics) and the art of its expansiveness, this is a method of criticism that is least decent in scientific research. You cannot ask why a wife cries about husband, forgetting his son, since one grief suppresses another. This is an ordinary psychological process,” I, 161 fin.. If you see an incantatory prayer in Yaroslavna’s cry, what does E.V. see in it? (II, 65): then, of course, there can be no talk of its brevity, for an incantatory prayer can be effective even if it consists of two words. But if we see in it an ordinary cry, which is what we see in it, then one really cannot help but find it somewhat short. (Moreover, of the three plaintive appeals - to the wind, the Dnieper and the sun, the last appeal is not entirely right, for Igor’s campaign took place at the end of April - beginning of May, and for the sun to have a murderous effect on Igor’s army with its heat at that time is completely incredible). To find that in a well-known work of art a certain part is meager, poor, disproportionately small, we believe there is nothing indecent. As for psychology, in this case the psychological law is “I feel sorry for my husband, but I feel sorry for my son.” In this case, the words of the Grand Duke need to be understood: I saw in a dream that the wilds of Kisanya were running through the outskirts of Plesensk (which has no meaning in this place: “besha” is turned into “bega”) and that I could not exile her (“I will not exile”) to the blue sea, i.e. to her actual place. – In the word strikus, the ending “us” is Latin, but there is no doubt that the word itself is not Latin. Therefore, it was written incorrectly. If we read instead of strikuses - strixes, then we will get a word that is monophonic with the Gothic Striks, with which Ulfilas translated the Greek word κεραία in the Gospel of Matthew, 5, 18. Accepting that in our case we have, as formerly in the ancient Russian language (in the form of one of the Varangianisms), this Striks, we can understand by it “those cues” or “those batogs”, which in Little Russia, when riding oxen, control these animals and drive them. Vseslav was a great sorcerer, and the author of the Word (perhaps) wants to say that as a sorcerer it cost him nothing to open the gates of Novgorod with cart cues. (Batogami, and regarding the carts, the author may also have another idea, that Vseslav came to Novgorod on carts so that he would have something to carry away the wealth that was to be looted there). Daniel calls Dolgoruky the son of the great Tsar Vladimir. Vladimir Monomakh, as the son of a Greek princess, was indeed called king by his contemporaries: a record on the Mstislav Gospel. Kargopol, in which Daniil was imprisoned, belonged to the Rostov region, and under Yuri Dolgoruky - to the Suzdal-Rostov region, but not to the Novgorod region. That is, we think that this postscript belongs to Daniel himself. Even in modern times there were people of humble spirit who saw this as a real fact. It is possible that there was no Daniel the Imprisoned, and that his imaginary prayer to the prince is a playful (playful-satirical) work of some sage (and satirist) of the 12th century, to which other sages later put their hands to it, which is why there is variety in the lists. May 11, 1227 There was a fire in Vladimir, in which, according to the chronicle, the courtyard or palace of the late Prince Constantine and the Church of St. Michael, which was in the courtyard or at the palace, decorated by the mentioned prince, burned down. Tatishchev, repeating the chronicle, does not forget what he said about Constantine above, and adds regarding the church: “Russian and Greek monks worked under it, teaching infants,” and regarding the library allegedly located with it: “and many books collected by this wise Constantine were burned” (III, 446 beginning). At the same time, regarding the following review, we must also stipulate that we do not directly and in detail indicate the numerous extracts from the fathers that are in the Questions and Answers of Anastasius Sinaita and in the Pandects and Taktinon of Nikon the Montenegrin, and we also do not indicate the numerous words and teachings of the fathers that are in the Chet-Menai and Prologues. - Time-based bibliographic review of I. I. Sreznevsky: “Ancient monuments of Russian writing and language (X – XIV centuries)” we quote from the 1st edition of 1863. [Cm. "Additions and amendments"]. In the ancient Greek Church, according to the Hebrews, the books of the Maccabees were not considered by all to be among the canonical books of the Old Testament: thus, the apostolic canons classify them as canonical books (among three, rule 85), but the Council of Laodicea (canon 60), Athanasius the Great, Gregory the Theologian and Amphilochius of Iconium (see all in the Book of Rules) did not are considered And in later times, also, not all of the Greeks considered them to be canonical books: The great authority in this case, John of Damascus in his Exact Exposition of the Faith (chapter 90), and also, for example, the little-known writer Josephus (Ί ώσηππος, Ioseppus christianus), who lived unknown when, but attributed by some to the end of the 10th century (in Patrology Minya t. 106, col. 32 fin). Based on what has just been said, in response to the question: why Methodius did not translate the books of the Maccabees, one of two things must be assumed: Either that he belonged to those who did not recognize these books as canonical, or that, given the frequent absence of these books in the Greek codes of the Bible for the above reason, he had at hand for translation just such a code in which they were not there. 53 sqq), it is not impossible to assume that our books were not at all transferred to us from Bulgaria, in which they could have been very rare or to which they could also not have been transferred from Moravia. – ) The late I. I. Sreznevsky attributes the Lavra manuscript to the first half of the 19th century, – Ancient monuments of the P. and I., p. 54 col. 1. But the book of Esther is read in it in the same translation as in the complete Gennady Bible, and this translation is undoubtedly late, see the instructions that are now below. There are no interpretations at all in the manuscript on the books of Daniel, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi; there are no interpretations on the book of Isaiah from ch. 15 to 51, on the book of Jeremiah there is no on chapters 1, 2, 25, 26, 40 and 41, as well as on Lamentations; for the book of Baruch there is only chapter 3, and for the book of Zephaniah there is only up to verse 10 of chapter 1. The translation reads the Latin word sanctus, holy, left untranslated, in various corrupted forms: sankyi, sant, sanity, saniti, in Gorsky and Nevostruev, pp. 75 and 194. To explain this oddity, it is believed that our translator had a Latin translation at hand; but it is not impossible that, knowing a little Latin, he himself inserted this word in order, to the surprise and bewilderment of posterity, to flaunt his learning. (Just as our scribes inserted letters and words written in Glagolic into their Cyrillic letter; if the translation had been from Latin, then the signs of the original would hardly have been limited to this sanctus alone). The translation of the Lenten words of Basil the Great, which is read in our later manuscripts, is considered by A.V. Gorsky to be not very ancient - Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 202, fol. 258 vol., p. 624). [From “Additions and Amendments”: Regarding Basil the Great, see above (“Additions found in the nomocanon of John Scholasticus”: §5, §13 and “Additions found in both nomocanons or common to both of them” §3)] George, out of monastic humility, calls himself a sinful monk - Γεώργιος ἁ μαρτωλὸς μοναχός; this is a sinner, ἁ μαρτωλός, and then they turned it into George’s own nickname. In the preface: ἕ ως τελευταίου Μιχαὴλ υἱοῦ Θεοφίλου, in Muralta page 3 sub fin., which in Bulgarian is incorrectly translated: “until the death of Michael’s son Theophilus." Some, however, our scientists consider it more reliable that the chronicle was translated not in Bulgaria, but in Russia - Bestuzhev-Ryumina History 1,1,135. On the back there are 17 l. of the manuscript, after the table of contents and preface, there is an image of the Savior with a man and a woman standing on his sides. Above the man there is an inscription: “Mikhail”, and above the woman: “Oksinya”. We assume that this is Prince Mikhail Yaroslavich of Tverskoy with his mother Oksinya, cfr Laurentian Chronicle under 1285. On the last sheet of the manuscript (due to the incorrect rearrangement of sheets by the late Bodyansky or Undolsky - now 9 from the end and according to the note 265, vol.) there is a postscript, but it is dirty and cannot be read. - We consider it necessary to give a warning to scientists. The late Archimandrite Leonid, in his Description of the Manuscripts of the Library of the Moscow Theological Academy, says that on the cover (rib or edge) of the foot (foot bench) of the Savior, who is depicted on the indicated sheet of the manuscript, the inscription is read: “much-sinful servant of God, prosbyter of Gregory,” and adds: this “in our opinion, finally resolves the question: who was translator of the Vremnik Amartol Bulgarian edition. It turns out that this is the same Bulgarian presbyter Gregory, who, as is known, translated the chronicle of John Malala into the Slavic language." There really is an inscription or signature on the foot of the Savior; but it is now in such a state that it cannot be read with certainty; the words are clearly read: “sinful servant of God"; then as if:” (Procopius?) and: “PIF”... At the same time, the not-quite signature should most likely be understood not as the signature of the translator of the chronicle, or the scribe of the manuscript, but as the signature of the painter who painted the image of the Savior. About the assimilation of our poems into Greek manuscripts, together with the following article in the collection by Isidore Pelusiot “On 60 Books” to the Evangelist John the Theologian, see the article by Pypin, indicated below. Isidore Pelusiot. “Diopter, in our language we call it a mirror.” But δίοπτρα and δίοπτρον do not actually mean a mirror, that is, a mirror, but an instrument for looking into the distance, for measuring heights and leveling, something like an astrolabe. Life of Abraham in the Orthodox Interlocutor 1858, part 3 p. 142; see also page 369. In the story about Titus the priest and Evagrius the deacon: “Ephraim said: if anyone happens to die in enmity, such judgment will be inexorably met.” Παραίνεσις actually means exhortation. For Parenesis of Ephraim the Syrian, see below. Athanasius of Alexandria, collection of A. S. Arkhangelsky, issue III, Kazan, 1890. Refers to Chepei's story about a certain holy father, slandered and then acquitted. Orthodox Interlocutor 1858, part III p. 379 fin. About John of Damascus and the translation of his works into the Slavic language, see the article by Arkhangelsky, indicated below. Anastasy Sinait. [Cm. "Additions and amendments"] See also Arkhangelsky in the above-mentioned article. Probably one and the same with Tudor or Theodore Doksov, who in 907. rewrote the translation of the words of Athanasius of Alexandria, belonging to the presbyter Constantine, see this word. See also Arkhangelsk ibidd... John the Exarch called the Theology of Damascus in the Slavic translation the Word of the Right Faith; in ancient times it was also called Uvery, and later it began to be called Heaven, which name was given to it by the life writer of Damascus, John the Patriarch of Jerusalem (Antioch?), see Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 155, p. 295. A word about those buried in churches. Beginning “To John the Great”, read in the Makarievskaya January Menaion under the 16th day and assimilated by the inscription to John the Exarch, to whom we mistakenly attributed it in the 1st edition, actually belongs to Gregory Dvoeslov. In one of Undolsky’s manuscripts, No. 219 l. 445 vol., a book is attributed to some John the Exarch. Composition: “John the Exarch wrote into the books, the verbs of the Compound, saying about communion as follows: to Saint Macarius the Father, a certain man brought his wife in the form of a horse”..., see Description of the manuscripts. Not having made a selection of words from their complete collection himself, as the unknown author of the warning, which we now present below, claims, who did not know the matter exactly, but by taking a ready-made selection or collection that existed in Greek, see the book by Mr. V. Malinin, Study of Zlatostroy based on a 12th-century manuscript. Imperial Public Library, Kyiv, 1878. Perhaps Simeon did not come up with the name Zlatostruya himself, but already found it ready-made. Regarding the translation, it is equally likely that it was completed entirely by Simeon himself, and that it was completed only in part by Simeon himself, with the assistance of one or another number of assistants. The author wants to say: if another (someone) was nicknamed by this name Zlatostruy (who, of course, cannot say; in the lists of books true and false it is read: “Gennady, called Zlatostruy”), then we, I think, should not be at all tempted by the fact that we see before us (we have) a book that is called (by its translator) Zlatostruy (book). G. Malinin misunderstood this place of the warning, and therefore incorrectly decided the question: what belongs to Simeon - is it our Zlatostruy, which we are talking about, or the collection of the Public Library. So according to the list of the Moscow Theological Academy No. 43 (1474); in other lists the word is marked 78 for the second time, Malinin, pp. 30 and 46. This second collection is preserved in a 12th-century Public Library manuscript. Mr. Malinin’s description in the mentioned book (we do not agree with the venerable researcher as to which of the two collections belongs to Simeon). The Syrian Malala or Malela means rhetorician, orator, sophist, scholastic, see the preface to the Greek edition of the Malala chronograph. [Cm. "Additions and amendments"]. Gregory's rank or position is not entirely clear. He was probably an exarch or dean (overseer) over all the Bulgarian monasteries (or an exarch of the metropolitan - patriarch over the clergy of the entire Bulgarian church, an exarch over the exarchs): after the word “mnih”, one must think, the name of the position is omitted. According to Sreznevsky, the insertions we indicated were not made by the translator, but already here in Russia and around the half of the 13th century. Finding many other inserts besides those indicated by us, he looks at the Malala of the archival manuscript not as a real Malala, but as the first known experience of a composite chronograph, which was based only on Malala. According to the list that Sylvester Medvedev had, “forced by Naum,” Table of Contents of the books, who compiled them, §128. Together with the Bible, “and the nomocanon, who decided to rule the law, and transpose the books of the fathers,” to mean by the books of the fathers, as some mean, the Patericon, is completely unfounded, because before there were monks, who did not yet exist in Moravia under Methodius, he needed to take care of the laity. Monastery τῆς ἁ γ ί ας Θεοτόκου τῆς Ῥ αϊθοῦ . This Antiochian Raif, of course, should be distinguished from the Sinai-Palestine-Arab, located in the upper reaches of the eastern (ancient Elanite) Gulf of the Red Sea. According to Kipert's map of European and Asian Turkey, the ancient Orontes, on which Antioch stands, flows into the Nar-el-Asi River, on the right side, not far from the latter, the Kara-su stream flowing from the north, which means black water in Turkish. And to the right of the headwaters of the stream is the village of Kara-bab, which means black gate. According to the preface to the Pandects of a later unknown writer, Nikon compiled them during the reign of Emperor Constantine Duca (see Description of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 217–225, Dept. II, 3, p. 21), and Constantine Duca occupied the throne from 1059 to 1067. During Nikon's life, the capture of Antioch by the Turks took place (ibid. p. 40), and it happened in 1085; he lived until the Crusaders appeared in Asia (ibid. p. 51), and the latter took Antioch itself in 1098. Of the Patriarchs of Antioch, who were contemporaries of Nikon, he mentions Theodosius and John (ibid. pp. 40 and 43), and these patriarchs (according to the Patriarch of Constantinople Constantius in the article Περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἀντιοχεί ᾳ πατριαρχευσάντων) occupied the department - the first since 1075. for nine years, the second (who had Nikephoros as his predecessor after Theodosius) from 1090. unknown time. Table of Contents of Nikon's Pandects in Greek – in Patrology of Minya, t. 106, col. 1359 (Ἑ ρμηνείαι τῶν θείων ἐντολῶν, cfr in the Slavic printed “preface of the present combination” l. 2, from Nikon’s letter to Cyrus Peter). Nestor, in approaching the life of St. Theodosius, says: “he writes in the books of his fathers, the weakest being of the last generation,” - edition of Bodyansky L. 1 vol., in which words, by paternal books, it is quite likely to mean the Patericon (cfr of the Most Reverend Macarius History vol. II, 2nd edition p. 205). Simon, in his own letter to Polycarp, preceding the stories, writes: “You, brother, just this day praised those who were lying at the meal and morning, complained about the cook and the serving brother, and did dirty tricks to the elder, and found yourself in a poisonous bloodworm, as it is written in the Pateritsa; when you ate or drank, you praised God, when you saw him as an elder those who blaspheme (brushna) - the blood-eaters, the praisers - the honey-eaters. Pateritsa, he prayed to God, may the robbers come and take it all away, but if God has heard, all that exists in Russia will betray them.” Polycarp in the story of the Venerable Mark the Pechernik says: “We imitated the sins of the ancient saints in the scriptures, which they explained and with much labor found in the deserts and mountains and abysses of the earth, and having seen them ourselves, and having heard them, the lives and miracles and deeds pleasing to God of the venerable men have written... which is the Patericon, we reverently enjoy those spiritual words.” See in the Acts of the Russian on Holy Athos, the monastery of St. Great Martyr and Healer Panteleimon, Kiev, 1873, Greek inventory of the property of the Xylurgu monastery 1143, No. 6, p. 56 beginning: between Russian books two Patericons are called (Πατερικὰ β᾿). XII century according to Sreznevsky, – Ancient monuments of Russian writing and language, p. 40 col. 1; XIII century according to Undolsky, see his Bibliographical Research, on the occasion of the release of the Description of the Library... of the Society of History and Antiquities... compiled by P. M. Stroev, p. 76. Sreznevsky details the manuscript in Information and Notes, No. LXXXII (Here Sreznevsky dates the manuscript even to the 11th-12th centuries). Special from Limonar John Moschus, who † 620 (Fabric. Biblioth. Gr., ed. Harles, X, 124) and older than him. The name Skitsky comes from the famous hermitage of Skitskaya, in which St. labored and gathered thousands of monks. Macarius of Egypt, - Kazan History of Orthodox monasticism in the East, II, 54 sqq. Sreznevsky in his Slavic-Russian paleography, p. 216, indicates the Skitsky Patericon of 1296, located in the Synodal Library. If the venerable scientist does not himself give the name to the Patericon, but borrows it from the manuscript, then we think that the latter would resolve the question of the most ancient and, in the proper sense, Patericon of Scete. The Greek name Συναξάριον comes not from συνάγω - bring together, collect (the lives of saints in one place), but from σύναξις - a meeting (of believers in the church to celebrate a holiday) and does not mean a collection of lives, but a book of holidays (in ancient times the Rules were called Synaxarii, - Ducange Gloss. Graec., lyrics συναξάρια, and then this name passed on to our Prologues, as to books of holiday readings). [Cm. "Additions and amendments"]. The word πρόλογος could also be used in the sense of an abbreviation, an abbreviated rendering, an abbreviated presentation of something (let the learned reader remember the prologues of Greek classical tragedies and comedies), and our Prologues are an abbreviation in relation to the Four Menaions. More detailed information about him can be read in the Complete Monthly Dictionary of the Most Reverend Sergius, I, 217. A list of them is from the Most Reverend Sergius ibid., p. 243 sqq. Regarding the year of the Prologue of Lobkovsky (now Khludovsky, in Popov’s Description .V 187), we do not agree with the Reverend Sergius, but agree with those who attribute it to 1262. Galich-Volyn Chronicle under 1288. says that the Volyn prince Vladimir Vasilkovich “Prologue of the list of the 12th month” (Ipat Chronicle, 2nd edition p. 609 fin.). Eminence Sergius ibidd. Wallpaper Παράλληλα ibid., t. 95–96. In some lists of the collection, Anthony himself is called the Bee - Μέλισσα, which is why he is generally known among scientists under the name Melissa; other lists say that he called his collection Bee, Fabric., ed. Harl., IX, 744. (Regarding the last circumstance, note n., with reference to Lambec. V, 19). Collection – in Patrology of Minya, t. 136. Mr. Bezsonov, in the article that we now quote below, is inclined to think that the connection between Maxim and Anthony was made by a Slavic translator. But similar compounds are also known in Greek, see Fabric. IX, 744, and preface to Antony in the Patrology of Minya r. 766 (and that the compounds were called Bees - Μέλισσα, - Bezsonov himself has a preface on page 3). In general, the legend - the word - still awaits further searches and searches. Eminence Macarius. History vol. 2, edition 2 p. 111, cfr p. 206. Orthodox Interlocutor 1858, part 3 p. 372 fin. You might be interested in: