Lectures on liturgics

Lectures on liturgics given to students of the Kazan Theological Academy in the 1880/1881 academic year Contents Lecture 1. Title and subject of science Methods of liturgical research Lecture 2 On liturgics Lecture 3. General analysis of the material of liturgics and its division into parts. A brief outline of the science - liturgics September 13. According to liturgics. Lecture 4 On liturgics Lecture 6. The need for forms of worship in the Christian religion Development of forms of worship Properties of forms of Christian worship Liturgics 8th lecture On forms of prayer: greeting (continued) October 29. 12th lecture on liturgics 13th lecture. Liturgics for November 5th. Lecture 14 Lecture 16. Liturgics Lecture 17. Lecture on liturgics November 22nd November 26th. Liturgics. Lecture 18. About Russian church singing History of Greek singing Osmoglasie singing Slavic osmoglasie, or Znamenny chant December 10. Lecture 21. About church singing in the West on December 17. Lecture 23. On liturgics Lecture 24 on liturgics. About rituals (2nd kind) that serve to express attitudes. God to man Lecture 25 January 17, 1881 Lecture on liturgics Lecture 30. Con. Gusev.. Lecture on liturgics February 7 About the normal rites Lecture 31. Liturgy of Chrysostom Lecture 32 on liturgics. Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts Lecture 34. Liturgics March 4th N.F. Krasnoseltsev. Appendix 1 In the proposed publication, for the first time in Russian liturgical science, a course of lectures on liturgics by the outstanding Russian scientist N. F. Krasnoseltsev is published. The introductory article to the publication establishes authorship and describes the structure and history of the creation of this lecture course. Nikolai Fomich Krasnoseltsev is an outstanding Russian liturgist, archaeographer and Church historian. He was born on December 3, 1845 in the village. Verkhosulye of the Bogulminsky district of the Samara province in a large priestly family. N. F. Krasnoseltsev received his initial education at the Bogulma Theological School and the Ufa Theological Seminary, and his higher theological education at the Kazan Theological Academy. For 18 years - from 1871 to 1889. – Nikolai Fomich taught church archeology and liturgics at the Kazan Theological Academy, and after moving to serve at the Imperial Novorossiysk University, he taught the history of the Church and various special courses. During his short life (Nikolai Fomich died in 1898 in Constantinople), Krasnoseltsev managed to do quite a lot in the development of liturgics and church archeology as academic sciences. In archeology, he published a number of articles and monographs on church architecture and Christian antiquities, and in his second specialty, liturgics, he published a number of documents important for the reconstruction of the historical development of worship 1. Until now, it was believed that the scientist did not have time to compile any generalizing work reflecting in a systematic form his views on the history of worship. However, it seems that this statement is not entirely true. In the fund of A. A. Dmitrievsky, stored in the Department of Manuscripts of the Russian National Library (f. 253, item 196), a course of lectures by N. F. Krasnoseltsev, given to first-year students of the Kazan Theological Academy in the 1880/1881 academic year, has been preserved in the student records. The folder containing the lectures is entitled “Dmitrievsky A. A. The science of Orthodox worship. Lectures on liturgics given at the Kyiv Theological Academy"; the total number of sheets is 449. In fact, the folder contains various materials: this is a course of lectures by Alexei Afanasyevich on the history of worship in the Russian Church, which he read to students of the Kazan Theological Academy in 1882–1884, and lectures on liturgics by N. F. Krasnoseltsev. On ll. 1 – 2 vol. “Program of readings on liturgics” has been placed. L. 3 – fragment of a lecture by A. A. Dmitrievsky on the history of liturgical books; l. 5 – 8 rev. – lecture on methods of processing liturgics; l. 9 – 10 rev. – lecture on liturgical books; l. 11 – 26 rev. – lecture on worship in the Russian Church 2; l. 27–103 – lectures on liturgics by N. F. Krasnoseltsev, recorded by his listeners; l. 104 – 170 rev. – fragment of a candidate’s essay by A. A. Dmitrievsky; l. 171–218 – lectures by A. A. Dmitrievsky on the history of worship in the Russian Church; l. 219 – 230 rpm – lecture on general liturgics; l. 231 – 238 rpm – draft of an article by A. A. Dmitrievsky about the stichera “We have seen the true light” 3; l. 239–257 – lecture by A.A. Dmitrievsky on the history of worship in the Russian Church; l. 257 rev. – lecture by A. A. Dmitrievsky “Divine services in the South Russian Church”; l. 258–281 – 1st trial lecture by A. A. Dmitrievsky on modern Slavic-Russian typography; l. 282–297 – lecture by A. A. Dmitrievsky on the history of worship in the Russian Church; l. 298 – 345 rpm – lecture by A. A. Dmitrievsky on the history of worship in the Russian Church; l. 346–357 – lecture by A. A. Dmitrievsky on the history of worship in the Russian Church; l. 358 – 373 rpm – trial lecture by A. A. Dmitrievsky on the rite of churching; l. 374 – 389 rpm – 2nd trial lecture by A. A. Dmitrievsky; l. 390 – 446 rpm – the initial part of A. A. Dmitrievsky’s lectures on the history of worship in the Russian Church. Nikolai Fomich's lecture course was recorded by students of the XXV course who entered the Kazan Theological Academy in 1880. This is indicated by the information given by some scribes about the date and name of the compiler of the lecture; By comparing this information with the list of those who entered the Kazan Academy in 1880, one can easily identify the full names of the scribes and the year of study. The vast majority of lectures are dated 1880–1881, which allows us to conclude that the course was taught to first-year students. In the 1880/1881 academic year, N.F. Krasnoseltsev was the only teacher of liturgics at the Kazan Theological Academy and, at the end of the course, compiled an examination program for summer tests of students 4, which partially coincides with the volume of lectures given to the first year. In addition, it is clear from the program that lectures were also given to third year students, and probably jointly. Based on these conclusions, we can say with a certain degree of confidence that the author of this lecture course is Nikolai Fomich. Liturgical classes were held twice a week, on Wednesdays and Saturdays. Unfortunately, the lectures have not been preserved in full: 5, 7, 10, 11, 19, 20, 22, 26–29, 33 lectures are missing for a complete set; however, by comparing their content with the program, we can guess what educational material was contained in these lost lectures. Thus, the content of the 5th lecture, apparently, was the definition of the form of Christian worship, because this issue was not considered within the framework of the 4th lecture, and in the 6th lecture the next question was dealt with - the need for an external form of worship. In the 7th lecture, N.F. Krasnoseltsev probably touched on the history of the Christian cult according to the New Testament books in the apostolic age, especially focusing on the constituent elements and forms of worship of this time. Also, the material for this lecture could be an important topic - about prayer in general and its place in worship; nothing is said in the subsequent, 9th lecture, about prayers borrowed from the Holy Scriptures. In lectures 11–12, the scientist told the student audience about “various types of chants in the Ancient Church” and the historical development of hymnography up to the 5th century. In lectures 19–20, Nikolai Fomich spoke about Russian liturgical singing, the influence of Western music and partes singing on it, and in the 22nd lecture he spoke about the meaning of the actions accompanying prayer. Lectures 26–29 were devoted to an analysis of the order of readings during the service and the rituals accompanying them. Also in this section, N. F. Krasnoseltsev considered the place of sermon during the service and spoke about the sacramental actions that are part of all rites. In the 33rd lecture, the scientist probably briefly examined the rites of the evening and morning services and their structure in ancient times. The 34th lecture - the last one that has reached us - took place on March 4, so there was still about a month and a half left until April 28, 5 when the examination tests began. During this time, Nikolai Fomich could have time to read at least 10–11 more lectures 6 and, perhaps, finish presenting the material. This was also in his interests for the reason that in the fall of 1881 the scientist intended to go on a year-long scientific trip to the West, so he would not have been able to continue reading the course. As already noted, in addition to the text of the lectures, some sheets contain notes from scribes: the date, the name of the person who recorded the lecture, etc. These records can be presented in a table (see Table 1). In general, the published course of lectures covered almost all sections of liturgics - general and specific. The lecture course had a two-part structure and, probably, could have been taught in some years in two courses, which can be partly evidenced by N. F. Krasnoseltsev’s report on teaching in the 1877/1878 academic year 7: in the first year of study, he read introductory sections and entirely general liturgics; in the second year, the scientist read either entirely private liturgics, including both the sequences of daily worship and the rites of the sacraments, or only the rites of the sacraments. In 1880/1881, Nikolai Fomich missed three lectures due to illness 8 and one due to being busy in the Kazan District Court as a juror 9. Of course, much of the content of the lectures is partly outdated, and partly the views on some issues have been revised, but the publishers considered it useful to nevertheless introduce this monument into scientific circulation as an example of a lecture course on liturgics, given in one of the outstanding theological schools of pre-revolutionary Russia. In addition, the published material in some way testifies to the scientific development of the lecturer himself, Nikolai Fomich Krasnoseltsev: by comparing the somewhat, relatively speaking, “low” level of lecture material with the subsequent works of the scientist in the field of liturgics, one can both trace the dynamics of the development of his scientific preferences and evaluate the results of his literary activity. If the lecture course, compiled by the author himself and, of course, constantly updated by him, had been preserved, then, probably, we would have had in many ways a completely different work by the outstanding Russian liturgist. The program of the lecture course and the lectures themselves are published according to two manuscripts: NART. F. 10. Unit. hr. 7613. L. 17–18 (program) and OR RNL. F. 253. Unit. hr. 196. L. 27–103 (lectures). The boundaries of the sheets are indicated in the traditional format - the sheet of the manuscript is placed on the margin of the page. When expanding abbreviations or adding additional words and phrases, square brackets – [] – are used for clarity of understanding of the text. Although there are practically no headings in the manuscript itself, we found it possible to make such additions for convenience using a program. The text of the lectures is given in modern spelling and punctuation. In the century designations, we replaced Arabic numerals with Roman ones. Unless otherwise noted, all notes are those of the publishers. All crossed out words and phrases have been removed from the main text and added interlinearly. Lecture program on liturgics Published by: NART. F. 10. Unit. hr. No. 7613 (Case of the KazDA Council with testing programs for master's students of the fourth grade). L. 17–18. Autograph of N. F. Krasnoseltsev. Program of lectures on liturgics for first and third year students of the church-practical department for 1880/1. Introduction. The concept of liturgy as a science. The need and possibility of scientific treatment of the subject of liturgics. Processing method. Separation. General concepts about Christian worship. Content and form of Christian worship. Determination of the content of Christian worship from its objective and subjective sides. Definition of the form of Christian worship. The need for external form. Indication and consideration of various types of liturgical forms. Historical justification of this concept of worship. Christian worship based on the New Testament books. Components and forms of apostolic worship. Part one – general liturgics. On the general constituent elements of Orthodox worship. 1. The latrevic element of Orthodox worship. a) Prayer as a verbal manifestation of inner reverence for God. Various types of liturgical prayers. The place occupied by prayer in worship. The oldest and most commonly used prayers in Orthodox worship. The origin of these prayers. Prayers borrowed from the Old Testament. Prayers borrowed from the writings of the New Testament. Prayers compiled by the fathers and teachers of the Church. Prayer formulas, initial and final in Orthodox worship. b) Chanting. The difference between chant and prayer. Various types of chants in the Ancient Church. Historical development of chants in Orthodox worship. Ancient chants before the 4th century. Works of Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Nepos, Athenogenes. Chants from the 4th to the 9th centuries. Works of Ephraim the Syrian, Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyrus, Roman the Sweet Singer, Anatoly, George Pisis, Sophronius of Jerusalem, Andrew of Crete. Works of John of Damascus and Cosmas of Mayum. Hymn after Damascus. Studites, Theophanes the Inscribed and Joseph the Songwriter. General character of Slavic chants. Hymns in the Ancient Western Church. Ambrose of Milan, Augustine, Prudentius as hymns. Medieval Western chant. c) Singing as a musical form of internal worship. The meaning of this form. Its features in Orthodox worship. Instrumental music and singing. The origin of Christian liturgical singing. Singing during divine services before John of Damascus. Transformation of singing by John of Damascus. Greek singing after John of Damascus. Liturgical singing in Russia. Origin and various types of Old Russian liturgical singing. The singing is degenerate. Kondakar and Greek singing. Znamenny singing. Liturgical singing in Russia under Western influence. Partes singing and its history in Russia. Church singing in the Western Church. (d) Actions accompanying prayer and chanting, as a special form of internal worship. The meaning of this form. Particular consideration of the actions accompanying prayer. Standing during worship, kneeling, bowing, facing east, sign of the cross. 2. The charismatic element in Christian worship. a) Didacticism in Christian worship - aa) Reading of Holy Scripture during worship. Books read in ancient times during worship. Order and number of readings. The image of reading and the rituals that accompanied reading. bb) Sermon as an integral part of worship. Rites that accompanied the sermon during ancient worship. b) Sacramental or mysterious actions included in all liturgical rites. Blessing with invocation of the name of God. Sign of the Cross. Part two - private liturgics of the Orthodox Church. On the composition of the rites of Orthodox worship. 1. Orders of daily public worship. - Liturgy. Historical development of the Orthodox rites of the Liturgy. Liturgy according to the description of the fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Liturgy in the 4th century. Works of St. Basil the Great and John Chrysostom on the composition of the Liturgy. Changes that occurred in the Liturgy of Chrysostom after Chrysostom. – Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. Origin and antiquity of this Liturgy. Who owns its compilation? - The rites of the evening and morning services. The composition of these rites in ancient times. 2. Orders of private worship. Orders of the sacraments. Baptism. The image of its implementation in the Ancient Church. Rite of Annunciation and Baptism. Confirmation. Its close connection with Baptism. An image of how it was performed in ancient times. Repentance. The image of its implementation in the Ancient Church. The discipline of public repentance. The ranks of appointment to priestly ministerial positions. The antiquity of the rituals included in their composition. Order of Marriage. Antiquity and significance of Christian marriage rites. Rite of Anointing. The rituals that make up it, and their antiquity and significance. Associate Professor Nikolay Krasnoseltsev Lecture 1. Name and subject of science The name of liturgics comes from the word “Liturgy”, however, such a name does not accurately define the subject and content of the science. The science of liturgics has as its subject not only the Liturgy, but the entire Orthodox service in general. The inaccuracy in the name of the science is explained by the fact that this name was first adopted in the West, where the science of worship is at a low level. Liturgics is still in a state of little processing; it is a relatively new science and appeared only around the 40s [XIX century]. Its subject - worship - until very late times served as a stumbling block for scientists. Some of them looked at this subject as an insignificant fact that did not lead to good results, while others, although they were aware of its importance, accessibility and application to life, did not delve into its inner meaning. The unsatisfactory state of the science of worship and the reason for its late appearance can be explained in part by the general law of the development of science in general and, in particular, the human mind. A person with an awakening mind is at first especially interested in what is hidden beyond the boundaries, and, first of all, pays attention to distant objects; That is why science, at the first stage of its development, first strived for the distant, then moved on to the study of concrete phenomena, when they began to find that studying them could lead to useful results. This was also the case in theological science. Religion has always been a subject of first importance in humanity, and the desire to assimilate it in external manifestations, although it began early, could not achieve its goal for a long time. In the first centuries of Christianity, religious truths, manifested, in particular, in worship, were communicated only from the church pulpit for edification, that is, for a more practical purpose, and were not of a scientific nature. However, the desire to grasp religious truths with the mind and prove them began in the first centuries, especially in the fight against heretics, the Church Fathers sought to prove religious truths through scientific means. However, until later, such aspiration had little scientific character. The practical side prevailed over the scientific one. Only since the time of scholasticism did the predominance of the practical side begin to weaken little by little. Scholasticism developed a scientific method, which was applied to the study of religious Christian truths, at first, however, only to the theoretical side of religion. But again, the theoretical development of these truths proceeded slowly. This depended on the fact that secular science did not want to know its relationship with theological science; secular scientists had a low view of theological science. Some said that religious truths were not worth studying, while others said that they could not be subsumed under the scientific method. True, theoretical religious truths are difficult to scientifically process, but this does not mean that the study of religious truths cannot be of a scientific nature. The inner side is not the only side of religion; In addition to it, religion also has an external side - the manifestation of religious life in external tactile forms. This manifestation makes them quite suitable for scientific techniques. Liturgical Research Methods 10 Liturgics belongs to the class of sciences that study the external realm of manifestation of religious truths. Divine service is an external, tactile fact, and can be accessible to the most rigorous study; hence the worship should be convenient for application to the study of its scientific techniques. The importance and necessity of scientific research follows from the importance of worship for the life of the people. Religious cults existed among all peoples as something important that could not be avoided; they had a very great influence on the character of the people. People valued their cult, wars happened because of them, and to abandon the cult meant to abandon their nationality. Considering this fact, one would have expected special interest in the study of the science of worship. Meanwhile, in the West there is still an unfavorable view of the study of this science. The Western world is split into two halves: Catholics and Protestants - two extremes of the same worldview. Catholics, although they recognize rituals as a Divine institution, look at them as something accidental, not arising from the very spirit of religion. Protestants are completely repulsed by the ritual aspect; ritual, in their opinion, is a sign of the underdevelopment of the religious concepts of the people. With such views, the science of worship loses its ground. In the West, if they studied worship, it was for their own purposes; they studied church monuments with a polemical purpose and for knowledge of antiquity. The East was free from unfavorable views on the study of the ritual side of worship. Most of the works of the East, although there were many of them, still did not satisfy the task of liturgics - to explain worship, because the means for studying the ritual side of worship are not scientific, and the research method itself is not scientific. In the ancient times of Christianity, worship was explained exclusively from an almost dogmatic point of view (Ignatius Bogonosets, Clement of Rome and Alexandria, etc.) But the dogmatic method is predominantly a subjective way of explanation, because rituals for the most part were given meaning according to their own view; the rational [understanding] of the essence of the ritual always remained almost unsaid. Many people realized this shortcoming and soon began to adopt another method - the historical one. The historical method is more applicable to the study of worship; Due to the understanding of its historical foundations, there should be less mockery of it, but nevertheless, experiments in the application of this method went to extremes. The historical method of the West was especially strongly developed in the polemics between Catholics and Protestants. Protestants, rejecting the errors of the Roman Church, wanted to restore the apostolic Church with the rites of antiquity. To accomplish their task, Protestants needed to show the antiquity of the rituals they accepted, and this could only be done using the historical method of liturgical research. They published many monographs where they proved the antiquity of the ritual or vice versa, but, guided by the historical method, Protestants came to the conclusion that they accepted only those church rituals that existed in the first 3 centuries of Christianity, and thus went to extremes. The study of the antiquity of rituals gave a systematic character to archeology and prompted the transformation of the historical method itself into a historical-archaeological one. This method, although it has brought a lot of benefits, still has limits, because according to this method of explanation, only what has the right to exist is that it originated in antiquity. It seems impossible to agree with this idea at all: it is not the antiquity of the ritual, but its usefulness that gives it the right to exist to the extent that it expresses a well-known religious truth. Some rituals also have a later origin, but this in no way prevents them from having the right to exist. Further, rituals have their own history, their development goes hand in hand with religious life, therefore not all rituals can be explained from ancient church practice. Another method is broader than this; this method is comparative-historical. In ancient theological science, this method was not known everywhere and was not appropriate everywhere; it was generally used little, but in secular literature it had a wider application, especially in the study of folk life, arts, language, etc. Western science paid special attention to the study of the external situation of the people in connection with beliefs, as a result of which a new science was formed - culture 11. The compiler (Taylor) also designed the liturgical cult in its field and expected great results from the comparative historical method. To prove the need to replace the historical method with a comparative historical one when studying liturgical rites, Taylor said the following: “The historical method alone is one-sided; a comparative historical method is needed, because rituals cannot be considered as a product of one system. They, on the contrary, [are] modifications of other, earlier systems. If it is proven that a well-known ritual belongs to previous systems, then you need to know: does it remain the same in the new system and is it not the result of gradual development? And all these questions are very important.” (These are the author’s conclusions about the method.) Thus, secular science wants to study religious rituals using the comparative-historical method. With this method, great effort is required, a lot of work is required to explain a simple ritual. With the dogmatic method of explaining the rite, one only needs to cite the 12 teachings of the Church (Church Fathers) about it, but the historian does not limit himself to this, he tries to find out: how was this rite understood in ancient times and with what meaning did it appear for the first time? The work is further complicated by the fact that with this method it is necessary to examine the state of the ritual among pagan peoples and, moreover, at different degrees of development: among the educated and among the savages. But can the comparative historical method be applied to the study of the Christian religion, to the study of Christian liturgical rites? This question is very important. In the West there is no doubt about the application of this method. But is such an attitude conceivable in Orthodox science? In the West, this is possible because there everything supernatural is reduced to the level of the natural: the Christian religion, supernatural, supposedly developed from natural religions and the Christian worldview is only the highest stage of wild culture, therefore Christian rituals seem to have degenerated from the rituals of other peoples. But to explain Christian rituals as pagan does not mean, they say, to reduce Christian teaching to the level of pagan beliefs? Indeed, when explaining Christian religious rites, such a view cannot be allowed in Orthodox science; but this, however, does not mean that the method is unsuitable if it is scientific 13. Moreover, the connection between the Christian religion and other natural religions is still recognized by the Orthodox Church. You just need to know: to what extent can this method be applied? The comparative historical method can be applied to the study of liturgical rites, but to all rites, as, on the contrary, says the science of culture. Taylor, the author of science-culture, divided the rituals into three groups: existing in early times and existing at the present time in the same way and with the same meaning as in former times; 2) early rituals, but changed; 3) rituals passed down according to tradition (legend), rituals that are good and bad. But in this list another whole category of rituals is forgotten - purely Christian, to which the comparative historical method cannot be applied at all. (The sign of the cross, for example, cannot be explained comparatively). Thus, the comparative-historical method can be applied in liturgics with great limitations, namely, only in the study of such rituals that have a connection with the rituals of other peoples and, so to speak, universal human rituals. 1880, September 6th. On liturgics Lecture 3. General analysis of liturgical material and its division into parts In fact, two methods are indicated that were practiced in the study of liturgical material: historical-archaeological - the easiest - and comparative-historical, suitable for the study of rites of universal significance. The method of any science is a matter of paramount importance, but in order for it to be completely useful, in order to more accurately and accurately reach scientific conclusions, it is necessary to make a classification of the subject of science. Classification is very important in any science: it alleviates the difficulty in studying the material and assimilating it. A completely accurate and correct distribution of material is not as easy to achieve as it seems at first glance; classification must necessarily follow from the very properties of the subject of science; therefore, it is necessary to define the subject of the science of liturgics in general and its parts, it is necessary to make, so to speak, a general analysis of it. Considering worship (the subject of our science), we see that it is a strict system of various rituals and rites. Taking a closer look at the rites, we find that the rites of the daily services consist of almost the same ritual actions; The rites of the holiday services are combinations of ritual actions of the daytime services, therefore it seems more convenient to first consider the common elements included in the 14 rites, and then their various combinations. Hence, liturgics is divided into two parts: general, which examines all the simplest elements of rites, and particular, which studies combinations of these elements; the last part can be divided into 2 more sections: the first section, which considers the simplest combinations, the second – more complex combinations. But this scheme of liturgics is still too general. The first part of the science, the main and fundamental part of liturgy - the symbolic rites - the elements themselves are very simple, but so numerous that the need for a correct classification is nowhere so felt as here. Paying attention to the external form of ritual symbolic actions, we find that the most numerous in the classification are verbal symbols, and this is very natural: the human word is capable of expressing the most subtle, elusive movements of the heart and thoughts. They are followed by sound symbols, then by gesture symbols - many of the symbols should be classified in this class (sign of the cross, kneeling, etc.). Finally, some symbols can be called material, because things (utensils, monuments, etc., this also includes holy relics, churches) are often used to express religious feelings; all these are symbols that are directly related to worship. According to such forms of symbols, this first part of liturgics, which deals with the consideration of simple religious ritual symbols, could be divided into several departments, of which a separate class of symbols should be considered in each. But will such a division based on a purely external, formal side be valid? Indeed, the aforementioned classification, based only on the external side of liturgical symbols, turns out to be imperfect, because the external side of divine service is not its essential side. It is therefore necessary to look for another starting point for division in the internal side of the rituals. From this side, the entire set of liturgical symbols can be divided into two classes: the first includes symbols that serve to express the subjective side of religion, the second includes symbols that serve to express the objective side. In liturgics, the first class of symbols is usually called latretical 15, the second – sacramental. Thus, the first part of liturgics can be divided into 2 parts, each of which deals with a corresponding class of religious symbols. Each department, in turn, can be further subdivided according to the classification of symbols. Now we still need to resolve the following question: to what class of sciences does liturgics belong? The answer itself is clearly assumed: it belongs to the number of special theological sciences and specifically to the department of theological and practical sciences. It is known that theology is usually divided into theoretical theology and practical theology: the first examines religion in itself without regard to its external expression, while the second, on the contrary, examines religion in its manifestation. A brief outline of the science of liturgics Christian worship today presents quite a number of aspects to study; the existing studies are too diverse: some researchers only present liturgical rites, others only comment. At the first time of the emergence of Christianity, there was no particular need to present the divine service in all its details: it was understandable by itself. Similar needs could appear, and indeed did appear, already in subsequent times, when the divine service became so complicated that in many parts it was not understandable to everyone. In many of the writings of the fathers and teachers of the Church one can find many instructions or teachings about the meaning of worship and its spirit. As more remarkable works in this regard, one can point to the works of Clement of Rome, Ignatius the God-Bearer, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianza, Augustine, Leo the Great and especially John Chrysostom. The first experience of a coherent presentation and interpretation of Christian worship belongs to Justin Martyr, then the treatise of Tertullian especially attracts attention, we will find some indications of this kind in the catechetical teachings of Cyril of Jerusalem, in the works of Paulinus of the 16th Nolan of the 5th century, in the work of Ambrose on the sacraments and in the work known as the work of Dionysius the Areopagite, on the church hierarchy, but all these works, while providing information about the meaning and significance of church forms, can serve, rather, only as sources, but not as direct guides. Especially many works on worship begin to appear from the 7th century, both in the East and in the West. Maximus the Confessor wrote in the East, and Isidore the Spanish in the West; He was almost the first compiler of an explanation of the divine service there, and many followers began to follow him in this direction. The desire to explain worship especially developed during the time of Charlemagne. Thanks to his efforts, from then on the history of the literature of this science actually begins. Since that time, in Germany, France and other places there have been especially many works on liturgics: the works of Rabanus 17 Maurus, Valafrid Strabo (IX century) 18, Ulrich von Celle 19, Honorius of the priest of Autun 20; in the 13th century, the writings of Pope Innocent III, Albert the Great, John Com. All these works are similar each other in a way that is almost completely alien to the historical element; when explaining rituals, mystical elements predominate, but, nevertheless, they are all of great importance even now, because from these works one can obtain a lot of information about the rituals of different Churches. In the 16th and 17th centuries, liturgical materials were subjected to multifaceted processing, and many scientific aids on liturgics were acquired; the most remarkable of them are: the works of Cassander 21, the Descameria, editions of the Liturgy of the German scientist Hugo, the works of Leo Allation 22, etc. From the end of the 17th century, divine services began to become the subject of archaeological and historical research. The first path to such research is paved by Catholic writers: Cardinal Bona 23, Armellini 24 and others. In modern times, the works of Driya and Muller are remarkable. Their tasks were to explain the spirit or meaning of worship and to give it a descriptive meaning. Recently (at the beginning of this century) some writers, carried away by the rationalist trend, wrote several works against the Catholic cult (Eymester). Since the 40s, the best treatments of liturgics as a science began in the West (works by Xailer, the experience of a scientific presentation of the divine service by [Franz] Staudenmayer 25). But the first scientific experiment actually belongs to Schmidt 26 . Then the attempts to compile the liturgics of Steyer, and in the 60s the liturgics of Luft 27 deserve attention. 1880 September 10th. September 13. According to liturgics. Lecture 4 We will indicate the following guidelines and aids for the study of liturgics: 1) in the Eastern Church: Dionysius the Areopagite in the book on the church hierarchy. The Liturgy and other rites and sacraments are explained here: Confirmation and Priesthood. 2) In the 8th century. Herman of Constantinople and Sophronius of Jerusalem, Simeon of Thessalonica - interpretations of all rites. From Western researchers: Schleine - about church customs in the first 3 centuries, Sieble 28 - an archaeological guide, Gasei 29, Brocker 30, etc. The purpose of research on liturgics in the West was to build it on a scientific basis. And therefore, all these researches of Western scientists can provide a great service to Orthodox liturgics: it is only necessary to separate out in them what has no scientific value in them, as well as what is not suitable for Orthodoxy. The view of Catholics and Protestants on Christian worship. 1) According to the teaching of Catholics, worship in all its ritual forms is a Divine institution, substantiated by Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and therefore it is completely obligatory for each Christian. In terms of its administration, it belongs to the divinely established hierarchy, whose persons are intermediaries between believers and God, so that the latter have little participation in the performance of divine services. In their science, Catholic theologians, although they use the archaeological method, only prove to them the Divine origin of worship; their authority in this case is history. According to the teachings of Protestants, worship has a purely subjective beginning, and therefore, as an external expression of Christian truths, it must be subject to change and diversity - progressive. Life, according to the view of Protestant scientists, is development, and development necessarily requires change. Therefore, defending the inviolability of divinely established liturgical forms is the same paganism. These forms, in their existence, change and abolition, must be subject to the freedom of Christian communities. This position, by the way, is proved by the fact that the Founder of Christianity did not, strictly speaking, establish any liturgical forms, much less legitimize them. Likewise, the apostles, if they established certain ritual forms, then only those that, by the nature of their internal meaning, corresponded to the needs of the Christians of their time. Moreover, the beginning of the freedom of ritual forms is at the same time the beginning of their strength, as having emerged from the free will of the community and corresponding to its needs. What is the authority of antiquity, on which theologians rely when trying to prove and defend the immobility of ritual forms? The authority of antiquity is of no importance to a Protestant; for him, it is the principled point of view that is important, not the archaeological one. This is how a new science began among the Protestants, under the name “theory of cult.” The views of Orthodox theologians on the ritual side of religion occupy the middle between the extreme views of Protestantism and Catholicism indicated above. True, the views of Orthodoxy are closer to Catholicism than to Protestantism, but without the extremes of the first. The Orthodox Church, although it does not allow arbitrariness of ritual forms, this non-admission is not a Catholic fossilization of form: it distinguishes between forms sanctified by practice, universal and particular forms; it has the idea of ​​ritual forms, which it preserves therefore not as a monument only to ancient Christian life, but also because they correspond to its idea. Thus, in it 31 both the theory and the history of the Christian cult are of equal importance. The theory of worship in general is a system of ritual forms that serve to externally manifest the religious life of believers and embrace the essence of the Christian religion. So, a sign of a ritual is needed: its form and content. That form cannot be without content, albeit presumptive (every form, if it does not have content, is certainly designed for it) is an axiom, to which, in turn, liturgical forms are also subject. Experience proves this. From a superficial glance, for example, it may seem that the expressions “The doors of the catechumens shall come forth” and “Doors, doors, let us enter into wisdom” have no meaning, but in fact the Church retains them because they, which had vital content in the past, are suitable and now, out of convenience, 32 can be given a new meaning to them. Only one misunderstanding, one ignorance can, on the one hand, give rise to superstition, as we see among common people who impart magical power to the performance of rituals; on the other hand, it can lead a person to deny the inner meaning of the ritual system: many so-called. educated people begin worship only with empty pomp, aimed at arousing certain impressions 33 among the masses. But such skepticism of the latter can be explained by the absence in their souls of such a state, for the detection of which a certain form would be needed: for example, others are unable to pray with kneeling because their spirit does not reach that height of prayerful tension at which the designated form is so natural and necessary. So, the denial of the meaning and importance of divine [service] forms is purely subjective in nature; and therefore the position is true that worship in general is a set of ritual forms that have content. From this position it naturally follows that worship can be considered from two sides: internal and external. The content of liturgical forms is religious. Although religious ideas, as embracing all phenomena of the spirit in this direction, are embodied in various scientific systems, for example, literature, art, and, on the other hand, the entire order of human life can and should serve as a reflection of religions, but the forms of Christian worship serve to express religion primarily - specifically. The former bear the stamp of subjectivity, while the latter are objective. Worship is an organic combination of both forms of religious life. It is therefore necessary to define the concept of religion. It is the union of man with God, conditioned, on the one hand, by the feeling of man’s weakness, on the other, by the property of the all-perfect Being - God, from whom man can receive help. Thus, the composition of religion is the activity of two factors - man and God, which act in accordance with their nature and position: man asks God for help, and God helps. A person thanks, praises, asks God; God gives him help through the revelation of His will in word and grace. The activity of God directed at man, of course, must be understandable to him - through words and actions. Therefore, in worship we must distinguish between the Divine (objective) and human (subjective) sides. The content of liturgical forms can be considered from two sides - objective and subjective. What is the objective side of religion? Philosophy of religion and dogmatic theology resolve this issue. Here liturgics has a connection with them in a certain respect. The philosophy of religion teaches that the objective side of religion is the influence of God on man through His providential actions: preserving the world and directing it towards good, and assisting man in achieving his 35 highest goals, stored in the depths of his spirit: truth, goodness and beauty - God. To achieve these goals, it is necessary that God Himself allow people to know Himself. On liturgics Lecture 6. The Necessity of a Form of Worship in the Christian Religion Rituals can be divided into the following classes: subjective, serving to demonstrate a person’s relationship to the Divine, and objective, to express Divine help. Form and rituals are also necessary in the Christian religion. Protestants say that this is not in accordance with the spirituality of the Christian religion. God is Spirit, and His Kingdom is a spiritual Kingdom. Why external signs? Rituals, they say, are a sign of the underdevelopment of a people; the lower and cruder the people, the more predominant the external element of religion seems to be, and the less predominant it is, the more educated the people are. This objection consists of two parts or can be considered from two sides. The first is directed against signs in general, the second against many signs. The first objection is based on the idea that external signs degrade worship, but this is not true. Our worship must be in spirit and truth, but it does not lose its dignity by being expressed outwardly. The second is based on a historical paradox: as if with development a person loses the need and need to express his inner life in external signs. But observations of people show the opposite. At every level of development, a person needs signs. Even more: the more educated a person is, the more ways and means he has to express his inner feelings outwardly. So it is in the religious world and life. History does not support the views of Protestants. Savage peoples have the simplest cults, and at the highest level of development they have more complex cults. The Greeks and Romans, as representatives of education in the ancient world, had a religious cult in which many symbolic signs were noticed. Consequently, history proves that the cult becomes more complex as a people develops. The complexity of cults not only does not speak Development of forms of worship Worship is performed by people and for people; therefore, the form must be the kind that people use to express feelings. Its general character is symbolism. The three main types or forms of symbolism are: word, action and symbol. The word should come first. In worship it serves as an expression of the subjective and objective sides of 36 religion. Prayer, teaching, blessing, doxology exist in the form of words. The abundance of this form is explained by its convenience for expressing feelings and versatility. A word is an articulate sound; therefore, there are two sides to a word: articulateness and sonority. When articulation predominates, then in worship the word is speech; why in worship is reading. When sonority predominates, then in worship this is expressed in chants. Thus, worship is in the form of reading and singing. Purely musical form, due to its artificiality, cannot be understood by many. It is an accessory to feelings in general. Therefore, music can only accompany the word, and not be an independent form, as can be seen from the Greco-Roman religion, where music was only an accompanying form of worship. The Catholic Church uses music during worship, but, however, not as an independent form. A musical form, strictly speaking, is a modification of a verbal form. The second form of expression of inner life is action. During actions, movements are necessary, as with words, which is why the word is given the name of action, and also the action is called a word. Therefore, in a general sense, this form is closely related to the first. The word enters into action, without it (without a visible gesture) it is somehow dead, but with gestures it has its own special meaning. In the hostel there are frequent body movements: hands, head, facial muscles, etc., etc. When there are not enough necessary words to express a thought, then it is conveyed through movements. With the development of language, gestures seem to acquire a secondary meaning; but this is only apparently. Among poorly educated peoples, facial expressions take the place of language and are in the foreground. Language consists of many actions - natural and artificial. These actions are included in all liturgical forms. In Christian worship, actions are less important than verbal form. (Actions express either a person’s religious mood, or serve as a means of communicating grace, for example, a blessing). In pagan religions it was the other way around. Pagan cults consisted primarily of sacrifices, which were replaced by a verbal form, which for a Christian constituted a verbal sacrifice. The third form of worship is symbol. This form can hardly be considered independent. It is included in the first two as their complication. A symbol is an external sign indicating an idea. But both word and action express the same thing. In the language of liturgics, it is customary to attach a closer meaning to a symbol. In liturgics, a symbol means an object taken from nature and used in worship to express some truth (a lit candle means prayer). But can symbols be called a form of worship? A stationary object can only be an instrument of action, the goal of action; it can be called a form of cult in general and, thus, a symbol is a form of cult in a broad sense, and in a narrow sense it is an accessory to worship, complicating the first two forms. The symbol can be considered a sub-heading of liturgical actions. Symbolic actions differ only in subject (anointing with oil) or goal (turning to the east), which does not constitute natural actions, but constitutes a transitional step from word to action - for example, raising the eyes, raising hands, etc., etc. Other actions - for example, standing is an expression of respect and at the same time it points to the Resurrection of the Savior. In worship we will consider two forms: symbol and action. The common property of all forms is symbolism, that is, they are signs of ideas, embodiments of content; Thus, content, correspondence to the idea [e] is a general property of forms. Properties of forms of Christian worship What differences does the form have in worship? The purpose of the form is to convey the content of religion; therefore, the forms must be distinguished by their highest character and accessibility. Height and accessibility are their properties. Height also contains the concept of truth; thus, forms must convey true, Orthodox teaching and, therefore, must be Orthodox. The soul must be manifested in worship, and therefore worship is an organ of edification, and, moreover, an organ available for the implementation of truth. Secondly, height contains the concept of beauty: forms should be beautiful. The reason for this lies in their content and in human nature. Manifestations of strongly excited feelings are distinguished by their roundness, this is expressed in art, and art excites feelings. Therefore, religious forms should arouse religious feelings. Liturgical forms must correspond to the content. Therefore, liturgical forms, thirdly, are distinguished by their Divine character. The purpose of worship is to strengthen the will in goodness, and the form is to communicate the grace of the Holy Spirit. Spirit, therefore they must be special forms. All these properties - truth, beauty and holiness - depend on content. In addition, the forms must be accessible. Hence the second main property – accessibility. To be accessible, forms should not be complex, but rather natural. Accessibility of the language is especially required; at the same time, the language of worship must have a special style. Orthodox worship has an accessible language, which makes it different from the service of the Catholic Church, which is already beginning to make concessions. The question of the language of worship is one of the first questions. From what has been said about the content and form of worship, we can derive the concept of its composition. It contains subjective and objective elements. Its acts are sacramental (sacraments) and latrevental (hymns). Divine services serve as an organ for communicating grace, on the one hand, and a means for expressing religious feelings, on the other, which is why it is a set of latvental and sacramental acts. But every other divine service is a combination of these and other acts. There is no doubt that these same elements are part of both pagan and Jewish worship. What is the difference between them? It is usually said that in the pagan religion the subjective element predominates, since the pagans were not under the guidance of God, and in the Jewish religion the objective element, since the Jews were under the guidance of God and His Revelation, and the dominant position here was occupied by sacrifices of a sacramental nature (which expressed the Covenant with God). In Christianity, both elements take place. In its external form, Christian worship is distinguished by the fact that its forms are more spiritual, the verbal form predominates here, while the forms in Judaism are more sensual, and in paganism they are coarse sensual. 1880 September 20th day. This lecture was compiled by K. Gusev, and rewritten by Iv. Lebedev Who compiled the public prayers - there are no specific instructions on this. However, the existence of authors of public prayers of the Ancient Church is beyond doubt. As for the prayers themselves, in them we know, based on the testimony of the ancient fathers, that they had the form of short petitions, to which those present gave short answers, like “Lord, have mercy,” “Amen,” and so on. Their content was prayers not only for Christians, but also for their enemies, not only for the living, but also for the dead and for everyone in general. The first prayer was for the peace of the whole world, the second for the king and his authorities. The existence of this type of prayer is evidenced by the following Church Fathers: Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius 38, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, John Chrysostom and others. John Chrysostom testifies to the prayer of the first kind, that is, prayer for the peace of the whole world, when he says that the priest, standing on the pulpit, commands to pray for the peace of the whole world. We have the following large series of testimonies about prayers for the king. The leading Christians were criticized by the pagans as if they were malicious and misanthropic. To refute this untruth, Justin the Philosopher wrote an Apology, in which, among other things, he asserted that Christians not only do not have ill-will, but, on the contrary, pray for everyone and for the king in particular 39 . When emperors became patrons of Christians, prayer for the king became even more common, as Eusebius testifies. Cyprian and Tertullian say: “We know the One God, to whom we pray for the health of the emperor and all living” 40. Arnobius (apologist) asks: “Why did they destroy our churches, in which we pray for the king, for the authorities and even for all our enemies?” The prayer for the tsar was supplemented by petitions for the civil authorities, for the synclite, for the leaders and church authorities. Further, they prayed for the elders, deacons, [members of] the entire clergy and for all Christians. Church practice was as follows: the priest prayed for his bishop, the bishop for the metropolitan, etc., as evidenced by Epiphanius when he says that he prayed for John Chrysostom. The commemoration of the name of a bishop at the Liturgy in the Church meant the communion of this Church with the bishop it commemorates; disobedience, on the contrary, meant that the Church broke off communication with him. The commemoration was by name, that is, the names of well-known civil and spiritual authorities were listed. Further, the Church prayed not only for those present, but also for those absent - for those sailing, traveling, for the faithful and the unfaithful, and for all the names that God knows. Christians prayed not only for the living, but also for the dead. Therefore, in the Ancient Church there was a third type of prayer: prayer for the dead. Tertullian, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius and others unanimously testify to this. For example, Cyril of Jerusalem says: “We also remember those who have died, so that they too pray for us” 41 . Epiphanius says the same thing, even more extensively. All these types of prayers were petitionary. In the Churches, as you know, there were even a special kind of books for recording the names of the dead who were commemorated by them at services, the so-called “diptychs” (the same as our commemorations). In addition to prayers, firstly, for the peace of the whole world, 2) for the king with his various authorities and 3) for the departed, in the Ancient Church there were many 4th kind of prayers - prayers for various special cases. Many of this kind of prayers are of very ancient origin. But it is impossible to definitely indicate who their authors are. Although there are inscriptions from the authors on them, not all of them should be trusted, because in most cases the names of the most famous church fathers and teachers are mentioned here - which gives rise to doubts about their ownership. [Prayers compiled by the fathers and teachers of the Church.] However, many of this kind of prayers actually belong to those shepherds of the Church whose names are inscribed on them. It is very difficult to make a complete list of the authors of prayers; Therefore, let us pay attention to the most prominent compilers of prayers. The first to compose prayers was Clement of Alexandria. He ends one of his writings with a prayer to the Father and the Holy Spirit. According to Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, this prayer is one of the most commonly used church prayers. We have very little information about the compilers of prayers from the time after Clement of Alexandria until the 4th century. As for the compilers of prayers of the 4th century, the information about them is quite detailed and definite. The fathers of this time (IV century) left us a lot of prayers. Firstly, there are several prayers compiled by Athanasius of Alexandria, which are still used in worship. Patriarch Michael (12th century) defended their belonging to Athanasius. Balsamon mentions in the 4th rule about Athanasius’ prayer for the dead. Several prayers of Athanasius have been preserved in his essay “On Virginity,” where he indicates the time of prayer (hours 6 and 9), indicates which prayers should be read when, which ones should be read before and after meals, etc. Many scholars doubt the origin of this work from Athanasius, but in vain. Further, many prayers remained from Ephraim the Syrian, which were written by him in the Syrian language and then translated by another person into Greek and Latin, many were altered and survived only in alterations. Scientists indicate many prayers with the name of other authors, but which actually belong to Ephraim. For example, in the Greek missal, Ephraim’s prayer “Undefiled, unblasphemous...” is signed with the name of Paul. Ephraim owns a prayer that begins with the words: “Righteous God, great and mighty God...”, although it exists with the name of another author (this prayer is now read after the 20th kathisma); the prayer “Lord, Master of the belly...”, a prayer to the Holy Spirit, beginning with the words “Lord, the Heavenly King...” (it is not inscribed with anyone’s name). Then, in his composition there were 9 prayers to Jesus, 11 prayers to the Mother of God and others. Ephraim was a very prolific writer. Therefore, we have the right to say that very few prayers have reached us from him compared to how much he wrote. Among the compilers of prayers of the 4th century, Basil the Great and John Chrysostom are remarkable. The prayers of Basil the Great from his Liturgy deserve special attention. But besides the liturgical prayers, he composed many other prayers that are part of various rites, such as: morning prayers read by the priest at Matins (for example, “A vision in our hearts...”), prayers read by the priest at the evening service. Some of the prayers now being read belong to him: “Lord Almighty...”, “God the Lord of hosts...”, “Sovereign Lord...”, “Blessed art thou, O Lord...”. He also owns the prayers at the beginning of the 3rd hour, at the end of the 6th, two inter-hour prayers, prayers before Communion and after Communion, two prayers of exorcism, the order of the evening service on the Holy Pentecost, etc. In general, [he] did so much in the matter of composing prayers that other compilers of prayers had relatively little work left to do, and these works are not distinguished by their independence. With all this, it must be said that great work has been done in compiling the prayers of John Chrysostom. Of course, they are inferior to the works of Vasily the Great, but nevertheless they have the character of originality. Chrysostom owns: the prayer before Communion “Lord our God...”, at burial, at the Blessing of Anointing, 4 incantatory prayers, etc. Both the Liturgy of Chrysostom and all his prayers are highly valued, because they are imbued with a deep religious feeling and, moreover, are distinguished by their extraordinary simplicity. After Basil the Great and John Chrysostom, there is not a single person who could stand on a par with them, although during this time there were quite a lot of prayer compilers. After Basil the Great and Chrysostom, it is difficult to indicate the original writers of prayers. Prayers are now written for the most part according to ready-made models; they are written for different occasions and often on the orders of civil authorities. During this time, especially many prayers were compiled to saints and for the occasions of the coronation of emperors. But mainly from this time onwards chant developed, which from ancient times has been and now constitutes one of the elements of worship. [Prayer formulas.] In addition to the listed types of prayers in the Christian [Ian] Church, there are, along with them, special prayer formulas, which are nothing more than abbreviated prayers. These are, for example: “Amen”, “Peace to all”, “Let us hear” and others. Between them, some are introductory formulas, in which good wishes are expressed: “peace to all,” “Peace be with you,” “Woe to our hearts,” and others; others are final. Formulas containing the desire for peace are of the most ancient origin. They were used by the Jews and Semitic peoples in everyday life, as expressions of good wishes, and were based on the disunity of tribes: in ancient times, between tribes, due to their disunity, there were constant clashes and struggles, which, as obviously harmful to the well-being of those fighting, were highly undesirable. So the good wishes of the world came from here in various forms, which over time began to be used with the meaning of simple greetings. They were used, as is known from the Gospel, both during the earthly life of Christ and during the apostolic times. But among Christians, the expression “Peace be with you” received a different meaning, the meaning of a higher peace, reconciliation with God, that peace about which Christ said: “Peace I give to you, peace I leave with you” 42 . With this latter meaning, “Peace be with you” is used in Christian worship of the present time, precisely in that part of the service that was accessible only to the faithful, that is, at the Liturgy of the Faithful. Written by Gennady K. Nikolsky. About the forms of prayer: greeting (continued) Greeting form “Peace be with you!” in ancient times it was exclusively the property of the faithful. The leading Christians used it only among themselves. This was especially true in the 3rd century. Then they did not address her to the catechumens, much less to pagans and heretics. They did not convert because the expression “Pax vobiscum”, etc. was tantamount to acceptance into the society of Christians. Receiving peace meant: joining the Church, receiving Baptism and using other sacraments. Tertullian compares and identifies the greeting "Pax vobiscum" with the kiss of love. Evidence that it was used among the faithful alone and formed part of the Liturgy of the Faithful. But in the IV and V centuries. such limited use of the greeting form “Peace be with you!” began to appear. Little by little it loses its original strength, importance and meaning. Chrysostom says that “είρήυη πάσιυ” is pronounced both before the penitents and before the catechumens. Be that as it may, the origin of this form is very. ancient[e]. From the first times of Christianity, in all churches, clergy addressed believers with the words either “Peace be with you,” or “The peace of God be with you all,” etc. etc., and the believers answered: “And with your spirit” or “And with your spirit.” In this form, this greeting exists in the Liturgy of James and other ancient Liturgies. In the West, the “pax vobiscum” greeting has undergone some (and quite significant) changes. So, instead of [n]ee, “Dominus vobiscum” is found there. Although one can find the basis for this last formula in Holy Scripture, namely in the greeting of the Archangel Gabriel to the Blessed Virgin Mary, it is of late origin and was not in general use. Ambrose of Mediol[an] and his other contemporaries say that in their time the greeting was expressed in no other way than in the form of “Peace be with you!” In all likelihood, the second form of the greeting “Dominus vobiscum” began to come into use when the Liturgy of the Catechumens was combined with the Liturgy of the Faithful. And from the evidence of later liturgists it is reliably known that at first it did not exclude the first form of “Pax vobiscum”, but was used together with it. The difference between them was that at the beginning of public worship, the first form was pronounced by the presbyters, and the second by the bishops. Only in the VI century. The Council of Braganza in the West condemned the greeting "Pax vobiscum", attributing it to the heretic Valens, and established "Dominus vobiscum", basing its opinion on the Book of Ruth. However, this definition of the Council was not finally accepted by the Western Church. Epiphanius testifies that there, in the West, it was subsequently decided: before the beginning of prayers, to say to the people “Pax vobiscum”, as Jesus Christ Himself greeted His disciples, and in other liturgical actions - “Dominus vobiscum”. Behind the welcome form “Peace be with you!” the so-called invitational forms should be put in: “Let us pray,” “Bow your heads to the Lord,” etc. These forms were introduced too early: since, on the one hand, they were intended to arouse the attention of believers, on the other, to maintain order during the divine service. An example of invitation forms should be considered the “Let’s Pray” form. This form was and is used with the addition of other words, for example] “The announcement, let us pray,” “Vernia, let us pray.” Its use was closely related to discipline. It is known that in the early Church Christians were divided into classes, and each class required a special invitation form. It was this heterogeneity in degree and perfection that gave rise to various additions - “catechumen”, “revelation”, etc. Subsequently, with the weakening of church discipline, some invitational forms became unnecessary. Nevertheless, they were preserved, partly as a legend, partly because a different meaning was associated with them. No matter how ancient all invitational forms are, perhaps the most ancient of them should be considered the form “Woe are our hearts.” From all written evidence it is clear that it existed in the most ancient times and in all Churches, and was subject to minor changes. So in the Apostolic Constitutions we read it: “Woe is our heart,” while in Cyril of Jerusalem, “Woe is our mind”... Final forms of prayer. In addition to introductory forms, there are also final forms. Such, for example, are “Amen” and all the doxologies. This also includes “κύριε”, “ἐλέησον” and “alleluia”. However, the latter forms are rather accompanying forms. Let's look at them first. Of these, “κύριε, ἐλέησον” is especially remarkable. This form undoubtedly existed in ancient times, in all Churches and, most importantly, in the Greek language. Although it is not entirely original, nevertheless, nothing prevented it from being generally accepted in worship. The reason is simple. In its external and internal aspects, it is nothing more than an abbreviated prayer. Among the Jews, the prayer appeal “Have mercy on me, O God” existed very early and was in great use. We meet him in the psalms. During the time of Jesus Christ, this appeal was so widespread that the Jews not only used it in hymns, but elevated it to the level of an ordinary prayer expressing helplessness. We see the expression “have mercy on me” everywhere in the Gospels, as the cry of suffering people. That is why this prayer formula, together with the formula “Peace be with you,” could also pass into Christianity. The fact that this form was always and everywhere used exclusively in the Greek language gives reason to think that it came into use from the Greek Church. But didn’t it exist among the pagans? Indeed, there are many indications that the expression “Have mercy on me, O God” or “Lord, have mercy” was in general use by the time of Christianity to express prayerful actions. In the work of Epictetus 43, Arrian, a priest of Ceres, says that all nations pray to the gods: “κύριε, ἐλέησον,” “Lord, have mercy.” Among the Latin writers, Virgil very often comes across the appeal “miserere mei” - “God, have pity on me.” It is also found in other classical authors. All this shows that the cry “Lord, have mercy” was universal. And since it did not turn out to be contrary to Christianity, on the contrary, it was felt to be suitable, it was introduced into worship. At first it was used in the Eastern Churches, and then transferred to the Western ones. But when this happened is unknown with certainty. Some writers attribute the introduction of this expression in the West to Pope Sylvester, a contemporary of Constantine the Great. But this does not prevent us from assuming that it was used before. Under Gregory the Great, “κύριε, ἐλέησον” was used, but had some peculiarities. Namely, in the East “κύριε, ἐλέησον” was pronounced by everyone. In the West, the priests said “κύριε, ἐλέησον”, and the people “Χρήστε, ἐλέησον”. The Council found this custom salutary and decided to introduce it into use in all Latin Churches. In the Middle Ages, this prayer appeal was so widespread that it was sung by workers. The final category of forms includes “Alleluia.” The meaning of this word is known - “praise Jehovah.” But various meanings have been attributed to it. So, for example, Western scholastics did not want to be satisfied with a philological explanation of the word “alleluia”. Anselm of Canterbury says that “alleluia” is not a human word, but an angelic one. It was given from Heaven and cannot be translated. But these and similar opinions are refuted very simply. In Jewish worship, “alleluia” was used when singing on Passover. Just as the Jews also had psalms with his inscriptions. In the New Testament it appears in the Apocalypse as an angelic doxology. This proves that “alleluia” came into use very early in Christian worship. During the time of Jesus Christ it was used when singing psalms and other hymns. That is why, perhaps, Gregory the Theologian says that “Alleluia” was transferred to all Churches from the Church of Jerusalem. And Tertullian testifies, speaking about himself and about all Christians, that we connect praise to God with the word “alleluia.” In addition to this Jewish doxology, other doxologies were used, varied in form and identical in content. They all included praise to God the Father. We can see the use of doxologies in the Jewish church - again among the Jews. There it was almost obligatory that the one who read the prayer should conclude it with a doxology. The usual final doxology of Jewish prayers was: “Blessed be His name forever,” “Blessed be He forever and ever,” “Let His name reign forever,” etc. The people answered and ended the prayer with the word “Amen!” Obviously, Christian doxologies are similar to Jewish doxologies. However, it cannot be said that Christians borrowed their praises from the Jews. Doxology is a universal human phenomenon. There is not a single people who pronounces the name of God or calls on the name of God without praise. It exists among both Arabs and Mohammedans. This should be all the more true for Christians, since the latter express in them not only a pious, religious mood, but also the dogmas of the revealed religion. This, as we will see, explains the very change in doxologies. Heretics used them as expressions of faith and distorted them to further their own opinions. Doxologies were used in the times of Jesus Christ and the apostles. Some of them were even communicated by Jesus Christ Himself, for example, the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer: “For Thine is the kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit...” Others - by the apostles. Thus, in the Epistle to the Romans we read: “...To Him belongs the glory...” 44 . In the Epistle of Peter: “To him be glory and dominion forever and ever” 45. In the Epistle to the Hebrews: “To Him be the glory and the dominion...” 46 . There are especially many doxologies in chapter 5. Apocalypse: “To the Father who sits on the throne, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever” 47. In the Old Testament Jewish doxologies, glorification was included, for the most part, to the first Person of the Holy Trinity, and sometimes together to the second. In Christian doxologies, almost all include praise to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. But the doxologies in the New Testament were initially uniform in form and similar in content. All of them glorified one Person of the Holy Trinity - namely, God the Father, and only one of them contained a doxology to the Son. In our time, all three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity are the subject of praise. In the Old Testament church there was a doxology with the mention of Jesus Christ alone (is it so? - S.A.), but it was used very rarely. There is no doubt that in ancient times the praises of all three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity were used. The most ancient form of doxology should be considered the following doxology: “Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” There is evidence that it dates back to the 1st century. In the martyrdom of Ignatius the God-Bearer, at the end of the work, thanksgiving is noted to Jesus Christ and through Him glory to the Father with the Holy Spirit. The martyrdom of Polycarp, who again lived in the 1st century, also contains the following doxology: “To him be glory with the Father and the Spirit forever and ever. Amen". We find evidence of doxologies with three faces even among pagan writers. Lucian, for example, who is remarkable for having personally attended Christian worship, says that he heard a prayer ending with many names. It must be understood that this was a song concluding a glorification of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In later times, Clement of Alexandria ends his famous work “The Teacher” with a doxology: “I praise the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Basil the Great himself in many places of his writings used doxology to all three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity and says about Dionysius that he always ended his work with the words: “To the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit be glory and power forever and ever. Amen". In general, in the 4th century. doxology was in great use. Quite a few prayers ended with it. During the Arian disputes, the small doxology of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit attracted the attention of both Orthodox and heretics. The first saw in him confirmation of their Orthodox teaching. The latter, wanting to introduce their heretical tendency into the consciousness of the people, thought to change it into the following form: “Glory to the Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit.” But the Orthodox did not allow this form and, in refutation of the heretics, added to the doxology the words: “... always, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen". In the West, the last form of doxology was even more clearly defined and approved at the Councils. Finally, there is the final final form, “Amen.” The word is Hebrew and means: “let it be!” As an expression of unanimity, it must certainly exist in Christianity, where unanimity is elevated to a principle. There is clear evidence of its use from St. Paul in I Cor[inthians], where he says: “Those who stand [in the place of] the common people will say “Amen” if ...” 48 Here it is obviously used as confirmation on the part of the hearers of the truth of the words spoken by someone. Augustine expresses himself in the same sense when he says that “Amen” is our signature, our agreement. Justin Martyr is the first to testify to this form. He argues that the word “Amen” was used in the Eucharist and in prayers as a conscious understanding and confession of all sacred rites. And indeed, in the Apostolic Constitutions all prayers are concluded with the word “Amen.” At the Liturgy, this word was pronounced several times, but it was of particular importance after the exclamations: “Take, eat...”, “Drink from it, all of you...” as a confession of the well-known dogmas of the revealed Christian religion. Bearing in mind this use and with this meaning of the words “amen,” Tertullian says that this is a sacred word and should be pronounced with clean lips, and should not be profaned. In general, “amen” was used very often. It was part of the praises, prayers, etc. and contained them. The second type of prayer is chants. Their difference is more external than internal. They are more sung than read. Their language is sometimes the same prose, only measured and adapted for singing; sometimes the chants were written in verse and truly represent a work of poetry. Often we see in them not only a special way of expression, but also a different way of thinking from the ordinary one... The poetic way of expression is closer to man than the prosaic way. Therefore, naturally, sung prayers are greater than prose, ordinary prayers. Such chants represent not only liturgical, but also historical material. They can understand the process of assimilation of religious truths by believers, they can show the course of religious consciousness, the movement of the internal life of the Church. In short, they are worthy of study and will yield rich results. But a comprehensive study of them should not be included in the content of liturgics. The task of the latter is neither the content of the chants nor their external form. She studies chants from the side of their liturgical use: she studies their origin, introduction to worship, method of use, as the outer shell of an internal religious feeling, etc. In a word, she considers them as an integral part of liturgical liturgical actions, as an element of worship, as an expression of a pious religious mood of the soul... Student D[a]v[i]d S[o]l[o]d[o]vnikov. October 29. 12th lecture on liturgics [Church hymnography from the 5th to the 8th centuries] All chants received a special character and development from the 5th century, whose representatives were Anatoly and Roman the Sweet Singer. According to history, the cult of saints spread in the 5th century; Anatoly’s activity was aimed precisely at this goal, i.e., towards the creation of a new liturgical environment. Therefore, in Anatoly we find a lot of hymns for the days of saints and martyrs. He has a lot of stichera for the holidays - the Nativity of Christ, the Presentation, the Transfiguration and others, and for the days of saints - Hilarion and others. Obviously, their content is the praise of these saints. Another songwriter is Roman; the content of his songs is similar to the content of Anatoly's hymns: he wrote on saints' days and on holidays - the Lord's and the Theotokos. The significant advantage and difference of his song is its form. Roman's chants have the character and form of Greek versification, representing, for the most part, acrostics with the name kontakions and ikos. These names are explained differently, so that there are still no satisfactory explanations. Mark of Ephesus writes that the Mother of God once appeared to Roman with a scroll in her hands and ordered him to eat this scroll; After that, he ascended the pulpit and began to sing the kontakion: “Virgin today...” 49 In the same way, Mark of Ephesus attributes to him the composition of the ikos. So, Roman is the first compiler of kontakia and ikos. As for the meaning with which kontakia are used, some argue that they (kontakia) came from the word “Kondakion” 50, which means a bundle written on both sides, in particular a bundle with church services. Others derive this name from the word “kontas” - short, and make it somewhat dependent on ikos - another word that means “house”. But why other chants are called this way is again difficult to determine. It is better to understand the word “ikos” as a couplet, as borrowed from ancient Greek terminology. In general, regarding the entire system of Roman chants, it must be said that it consists of kontakia and 24 51 ikos and is called the “canon,” which, through its wide distribution, replaced the kontakia and ikos. Currently, the connection between kontakia and ikos has been lost, and they represent separate forms of chants, although, however, for some time this type of poem stood together with a new one - the canon. Even after this, kontakia were written in great numbers and were respected, especially in private services and in some Churches. But when the importance of the canons was recognized and they spread in abundance, the kontakia and ikos lost their meaning and were abandoned. After Anatoly and Roman, creative activity in the field of church chants began to fall silent, since these two luminaries did a lot. At least in the 6th century we no longer find anything special, although some hymn writers are pointed out - Timothy, Savva, who, however, are not remarkable. The first - Timothy - introduced the Creed into use during worship, the second is also no more remarkable. Much sooner can we give honor to the hymn writer John Scholasticus and Justinian the emperor. The first introduced “Thy Supper...” and something else; the second - “One Son”; for the second, the very fact of composing the song is important: it shows that secular people also took part at that time. In the 7th and 8th centuries. there are new poets - Herman and George of Pisidia. The latter is remarkable for its poetic form, and his works are all purely poetic in nature. However, his writings were not included in the liturgy, except for the akathists, the composition of which he is remarkable for. The first akathist was [composed] in honor, praise and gratitude to the Mother of God for the successful outcome of the war with the Persians and Avars (akathists are songs of thanks that ended with “hallelujah” or “rejoice”). He is also credited with composing the songs “Now there is strength...” and “Let the lips be filled...” and others, some of which were even translated into Slavic. In addition to George, Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, is remarkable. He was the first to write three songs - the beginning of the Triodion, of which there were up to 40, but now they no longer exist. But many stichera remain from him - for Christmas and Epiphany - he was a multifaceted poet. Sophrony also wrote many poems and epigrams - for example, he glorifies the exploits of the first martyr Stephen, the worship of the Magi and the Last Supper. The 8th century is the most remarkable in the history of chants. At this time, the struggle for icon veneration began; and this question, of course, also affected rituals. By their denials of icon veneration, the heretics damaged the splendor of the church; and this required a reaction, and therefore many songs appeared in praise of the saints. Remarkable hymnographers of this time are: Andrei of Crete, Herman of Constantinople, Cosmas of Mayum 52 and Damascus. Andrey Kritsky and German deserve special attention. Many of the chants belong to them. Thus, the first is credited with composing the stichera for St. apostles Peter and Paul, the second – self-confessed stichera to the Theotokos, Athanasius, the canon to the Seventh Ecumenical Council and other canons. However, this view of their activities is not entirely correct. For example, the canons attributed to Andrew of Crete - for the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, the Conception of John and the Great Canon - cannot be said for sure that they belong to him, or at least in the form in which they exist now. The canon on the transference of the Image Not Made by Hands, attributed to Herman, cannot belong to him, because this event took place later, and Herman compiled it only 53 on the basis of an already existing song to the Image Not Made by Hands. The great canon of Andrei Kritsky did not come out of his hands as such. It consists of 250 troparions and is remarkable in form and content. It is impossible to attribute the compilation of this canon entirely to Andrew of Crete, because here, for example, the troparia of Mary of Egypt have a completely different acrostic, which does not belong to him; Also, irmos began to be written from the time of Damascus, and therefore also not by him. In general, all the canons of German[an] and Andrew were not the same as they exist now - they were only a series of stichera, and later became canons - under Damascus. Damascene is the main figure in church hymns of the 8th century. Just as in the field of theology he was an efficient taxonomist, so in the field of worship he eliminates all irregularities and systematizes the material. There are many of his works and they are all varied in content. And before him, too many hymns were written, and therefore he could not be completely original. He used, for example, as is known, the sermons of Gregory the Theologian - but the form of his chants is completely independent and original. What does it consist of? The Canon of Damascus, responding to this, is defined by one of the interpreters as follows: the canon received its name from a certain number of songs, of which there are 9 in it according to the number of angelic ranks and the threefold trinity 54. The Irmoses in the canon impart order to the troparions and even give them a melody; and the troparia were so named because their tone was commensurate with the tone of the irmos. But this definition is not entirely accurate, although, incidentally, it is correct. In this way, Damascene imparted harmony to the church hymns: each section began with an irmos and concluded with a certain number of troparions, the melody of which depended on the irmos. There are a lot of canons of Damascus, but some of them were not included in the divine service, and those that were included can rightly be considered exemplary, for example, for the Nativity of Christ, Epiphany, Easter, Transfiguration and Assumption. The best canon is for Easter. The following prayers are attributed to Damascus: “Glorious Ever-Virgin...”, “All hope...”, “Many multitudes...”, “Lord, have mercy on us...”, prayer to the Arch[angels], “To Your Most Pure Image...”, “Rejoices in You...”, also the antiphon “From my youth...”; self-agreed “What a worldly sweetness...” and also dogmatists. The dogmatic element in his chants is very strong, especially in the Sunday antiphons and in the canon, for example, “Thy Maniam,” which contains all Christian dogma. As for the external form of Damascus's chants, not all of them are written in verse. But even in prosaic songs one cannot help but see his poetic talent and poetic mood. The poems use iambic meter. Cosmas is hardly lower than him in the merits of his works. He was the bishop of Mayuma, was brought up with Damascus, and with him he was in the monastery of Sava and here he labored in poetic labors. His creations are closely related to the creations of Damascus, and Octoechos in ancient times was called Cosminus in the same way as Damascus. The canons of Cosmas were as popular as those of Damascus, and interpretations were written on them. Remarkable are his canons for the Week of Vai, for the Presentation, for the Nativity of the Mother of God and Pentecost. His most remarkable canon for the day of the Lord’s Cross is “Drafting the Cross,” compiled by him in memory of the liberation of the Lord’s Cross from Persian captivity. It has two 55 ninth songs and this differs from other canons. [Ancient Greek singing. Frets. ] In order to clarify the nature of Christian singing, it is necessary to clarify the general nature of singing used in the era of the advent of Christianity. Before the Coming of Christ the Savior, Greek singing was predominantly used in almost all countries of the then known world. It was mainly accepted by the Christian Church and was introduced by it into use during worship. Therefore, we need to pay special attention to Greek singing. Greek singing of that era was not yet as developed as it is now; it was at a very low level. The main distinguishing feature of his 56 character is the lack of harmony, that is, the combination of different voices in singing. In general, Greek singing was in an independent position: it did not even have its own independence. The Greeks did not use singing alone, but singing to music, and the singing itself mattered only to the beat. In this form it was used during choral dances and during military campaigns. But, despite its low position, Greek singing still had its own theory. The basis of this theory was three scales: diatonic - the simplest and most natural scale, chromatic - sluggish and melancholic, and enharmonic - the most difficult of all scales. In addition, there were also frets. There were 15 of them. At first there were three main modes: Phrygian, Lydian and Dorian. Each of them began with a special note: Phrygian - “re”, Lydian - “mi”, and Dorian - “fa”. These are the main modes - “ἲ χοι κύριοι”. Then, through raising and lowering, each of these main modes was divided into three modes: Phrygian - into Phrygian, Hyperphrygian and Hypophrygian; Lydian - into Lydian, Hyperlydian and Hypolydian; Doric [sic!] – into Doric, Hyperdoric and Hypodoric. The modes Iperphrygian, Iperlydian and Iperdoric came about through elevation; hypophrygian, hypolydian and hypodoric - through reduction. The rise and fall followed in fourths, that is, after 4 notes. That. Hyperphrygian began with the upper “A”; Hyperlydian – “before”; hyperdoric – “re”; Hypophrygian – lower “A”; Hypolydian - “before”; hypodoric – “re” 57. This created 9 frets. Subsequently, two more main modes were added to them: Ionian and Aeolian with their divisions into modes: hyperionic and hypoaeolian - through elevation, and hypoionic and hypoaeolic through depression. In total, 15 frets were formed. It should be noted that these modes were not melodies, but they only gave a shade to the above-mentioned scales or melodies, which very sharply changed the very character of the melodiousness. The following anecdote is told about Pythagoras on this occasion. A Lydian musician arrived to the Pythagoreans. Having become one of Pythagoras' students, he told him that when he plays songs in the Lydian mode, he becomes furious and has a desire to kill his mistress, and asked him for advice. Pythagoras advised him to play songs in a lower mode. They say that this change in mode gave such a tone to the songs that it made a complete revolution in the musician’s soul: he repented and made peace with his mistress 58. [Singing in the early Christian Church. ] The Christian Church adopted singing from the Greeks. Which of these modes were used in the Church? When choosing between all these modes of modes for use in Christian worship, St. the fathers, naturally, had to choose a solemn, important and at the same time simple and accessible to everyone to perform. This was the Doric mode of the diatonic scale in Greek singing. It was he who primarily entered Christian worship. But at the first time of the appearance of Christianity, other scales were also used in its worship. Thus, according to the testimony of Clement of Alexandria, the chromatic scale was also used in the Church of Alexandria. The enharmonic scale was used least often due to the difficulty of its execution. The diatonic scale was predominantly used. Clement himself, having spoken about the use of the chromatic scale in Alexandria, advises avoiding it and using the diatonic scale. Not all frets were used either. Clement of Alexandria says: “The modes used in Christian worship should be sound and strict; therefore, the Doric – sacred – mode should be used in it.” But among the fathers of the 3rd century. There is evidence of the Phrygian and Lydian modes as modes suitable for Christian worship. The Phrygian mode was used as evoking courage. Clement of Alexandria mentions 5 modes; but in Greek worship there were only 4 of them. Voices were formed from modes in Christian worship. [Liturgical singing in the 4th-6th centuries.] Thus, we see that at first there was no specific organization of singing in the Christian Church, although voices existed. Singing received a more correct organization in the 4th century. Basil the Great - in Caesarea, Chrysostom - in Constantinople, Ephraim - in Syria, Athanasius the Great - in Alexandria, Ambrose - in Milan, they tried to sing in opposition to the heretics. This was also encouraged by abuses in relation to singing in the Church itself. But how many voices were used at this time: whether all eight or more are absolutely unknown - there is no direct evidence. There is a legend that John Chrysostom introduced 8 voices. But history only says that John Chrysostom, in opposition to the Arians, who sang antiphons, adding to them blasphemies against Christ, organized a service and assembled a choir, for the management of which the empress gave her regent. But the information about other fathers of that century, more clear, gives the right to conclude that not all voices existed in the Greek Church. Ambrose imitated the Greek fathers in the arrangement of divine services, therefore his worship can be considered as Greek. And it has not 8, but only 4 voices. This quadriphony was, in all likelihood, also in the East. But soon it increased to eight voices. Anatoly, Patriarch of Constantinople (VI century), wrote his songs in 8 voices, and his contemporary Roman the Sweet Singer did the same. In the VI century. octagonism was introduced into Roman worship through Gregory the Great. Thus, the technical structure of singing was formed from Greek singing. The singers were either the whole people or some. But soon the rank of singers was established. Psalts, or singers, are mentioned as early as the 2nd century. In the III and IV centuries. they formed a choir. At first they were only lead singers, and the people sang. But the Council of Laodicea forbade “some others to sing in the Church” 59. With the increase in good singers, the people completely ended their participation in singing. He was replaced by a clergyman. Historical evidence shows that under Justinian it consisted of 25 singers and 100 readers. There were two faces. Under Theodosius the Great, the clergy had a regent and schools. The performance was either symphonic or unison; in addition, there were also antiphons. Western songs differ greatly from the songs of the Orthodox and are inferior to them in number. If we take into account the enormous importance of lyric poetry in the Church, then its absence in the Roman Church is an abnormal phenomenon. Subjective (songs) and objective (rite of worship) elements are equally necessary in worship. Lyric poetry is a subjective expression of religious feeling - and this is not the case in Roman worship, in which 60 the main role is played by spiritual persons, and the people constitute Plato's μή ὄν. Obviously, the phenomenon is abnormal. But it is not accidental, since it is in close connection with the peculiarities of the Roman doctrine, one of the features of which is the external attitude towards grace; a sacrament is an opus operatum where no internal preparation is required on the part of the believer. Hence, there is no need for the believer to have a live participation in the worship service - he only needs to be in the church. With such a teaching, concern for church singing is unnecessary. Forms of saying prayers and chants. Being present at the divine service and feeling like a living member, a person expressed his feeling in words. But for feelings, music is a truer expression. Therefore, among all peoples, music was an essential element of worship. It entered Christianity from the first times, but not as an independent form, but in combination with the word; otherwise, Christianity accepted only voice music - singing. In the Apostolic Decrees, music is prohibited because, it says there, music in the Old Testament was allowed for the sake of human weakness - “and we use only one organ - the word” (3rd century writer). The grace and musicality of the voice was the reason for the introduction of vocal music into the Church - especially since it does not violate the main conditions of worship - its intelligibility, etc., and expresses the subjective mood more conveniently. In addition, singing is sanctified by the example of the Savior and the apostles (“Be filled with the Spirit, singing and making melody in your souls to the Lord,” says Paul) 61 . Having established vocal music, the Church had to assign it a place in worship and take care of its processing. She completed this task. At first there were many tunes. First of all, singing 62 was influenced by Jewish singing. Music among the Jews stood at a high level of perfection, as evidenced by the organs. Musical singing was also used - “And there was one voice in singing and kivlali” 64 (transferring the ark to Solomon’s temple). As Clement noted, “Jewish singing was similar to Doric.” This is what Christianity adopted as a solemn song. But other national tunes could not yield to the Jewish tunes, since the Jews recently borrowed their singing from the Greeks. Jewish singing has especially fallen under the influence of Greek music since Roman rule. For their part, the Hellenes, having borrowed a Jewish melody, processed it. Hence the influence of Greek singing on Christian singing. This influence has especially intensified since Christianity spread among the Greeks. The difference between Greek instrumental and vocal music is the lack of harmony. Music accompanied singing, was unison and associated with dancing, which is why the word “music” among the Greeks meant drama, dancing, singing, and music. So, we need to consider in detail the structure of music among the ancient Greeks. Lecture 15th 65 November 12th. K. Gusev The liturgical singing of the Ancient Christian Church was borrowed from Greek, which is why we need to know what Greek music was. If we compare ancient Greek music with modern music, we will see that it was alien to harmony (the joint performance of several melodies, when a harmonious whole emerges). Among the Greeks, melodies were performed in one voice: instrumental music only accompanied singing, and singing itself was associated with dancing and poetry; hence the Greeks by music meant singing, dancing and poetry. But despite this, musical art was developed theoretically. The Greek three scales are better known: diatonic (through tone), chromatic and enharmonic 66. In addition, the Greeks also knew about 15 modes. They gave rise to our voices. The Greeks had three main modes: Dorian, Lydian, Phrygian. From these came the secondary modes through rising and falling. The first (through promotion) were designated by the prefix ὐπέρ (ὐπέρ Dorian, ὐπέρ Phrygian...), and the second by adding the preposition ὐπὸ. This happened for 9 frets. Then the Ionian and Aeolian appeared; from these came two more; a total of 15. So, these frets indicated the height of the system; but the Dorian tune was distinguished by its importance, while the others were more passionate. About Pythagoras, for example, it is said that he found a young man singing one of the passionate tunes - his soul was in such a mood that he was ready to set fire to the house of his mistress. Pythagoras ordered a change of tone, and he calmed down. This was the music of the Greeks. The simplest mode is Doric. What kind of melodies did Christians begin to use - and in what mode? It is undeniable that they began to especially use melodies in the Dorian mode, which was distinguished by its importance, strength of feeling and simplicity. The introduction of this Doric mode was also largely due to the fact that the Christians of the Ancient Church were inexperienced in singing. But it was not only the Doric mode that Christians adopted - they borrowed all modes from the Greeks, only in a smaller size. This is clear from the testimonies of the Church Fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, especially since freedom was allowed during divine services at first. In addition, these scales are preserved to this day. On the first fret, singing was primarily used before Clement of Alexandria. Clement of Alexandria did not respect chromatic singing on the 2nd fret, because it was distinguished by tenderness, and enharmonic singing because it, perhaps, seemed very difficult for him. Besides this, other modes were used very little because they were not entirely suitable for a Christian. And what is characteristic of a Christian must be strict and sound. The Dorian mode was considered sacred, like psalmody among the Jews. Therefore, this mode was commonly used. In addition, mention is made of the Phrygian mode, which exalted the spirit of courage and was used by the Greeks to excite them to exploits. Therefore, it was also used in Christian worship. All five modes mentioned by Clement still make up 5 voices. Thus, the beginning of singing lies in ancient times. In fact, there were voices in the Church, but singing received its full structure in the 4th century, when the rite of Christian worship was generally established. Basil the Great worked on the organization of singing in Caesarea, John Chrysostom - in Constantinople, Ephraim - in Syria, Athanasius - in Alexandria, Ambrose - in Milan. The creation of singing was encouraged by heretics, freedom of singing and abuse of singing. But what the activities of the Church Fathers consisted of is completely unknown, whether all voices were allowed or not, although in the Greek Church there is a tradition that 8 voices were used in the 4th century and, therefore, had the same composition as at the present time. The osmonic singing of the 4th century was not much different from the singing of subsequent times. The shepherds of this famous century were especially concerned with the organization of singing. One of such shepherds of the Church in the East was Chrysostom, although little is known about his activities in this regard. In the West, Ambrose took special care regarding singing, about which we have more information. Historical information gives us the right to believe that at that time in the Eastern and Western Churches the same voices were used as in subsequent times, with the only difference that some were used less frequently. Ambrose introduced the singing of the Eastern Church in Milan. The imitation extended to the way of singing in church. This imitation was determined by circumstances: if Ambrose borrowed singing, he had to borrow voices. But the singing he introduced had a slightly different character compared to the singing of the Eastern Church. It was based on four tones and was called quadrivoice. But the four-voice of Ambrose was in essence the same osmi-voice of the Eastern Church. The only difference was that the difficult voices were thrown out, because the first time it was difficult for those who could not sing. Osmiglas appeared in the West shortly after Ambrose. It was introduced in the 6th century under Pope Gregory the Great. The image of singing in the Church. The performers of church singing were either the whole people or individual singers. But singing of the first kind presented many inconveniences: it could not be harmonious - since it depended on the abilities and degree of education of each: one knew some tunes well, the other knew others; Therefore, since ancient times, a special rank of singers has been established. This establishment dates back to the first centuries. Singers are mentioned in the Liturgies of James and Mark. These singers were called psaltists. In the time of Chrysostom they formed something like today's singing choirs. But the people's participation in singing did not stop. The Council of Laodicea (in the 4th century) decreed that some others should not sing during worship. But still, the participation of the people in singing was not completely eliminated. Over time, the number of psalms began to increase. Their meeting was called a liska, a choir, a choir. There were two choirs. In the East there were schools that taught singing; a similar school was founded under Gregory the Great in Rome and existed after him for about 300 years. How did the singing happen? It was monophonic or polyphonic (unison and symphonic), and antiphonal. Unison singing consisted of everyone singing the same sounds in the same tone, or voice; the symphonic consisted of performing various harmonies. There were also chords. This was required by human nature itself, because singing is impossible without chords. The Church Fathers also pointed to symphonic singing. Antiphonal singing was performed by two choirs; one choir was an octave higher than the other: male, female and children, or repeated the words of the other. Antiphonal singing was widely used during worship. It was performed by two choirs. One choir sang an octave higher than the other, 67 while one choir repeated the words of the other. Ignatius, 3rd Bishop of Antioch, who lived and treated the apostles, saw in a vision angels praising the Most Holy Trinity in successive choirs, and this image of singing, revealed to him in a vision, he betrayed to the Church of Antioch. The introduction to the use of antiphonal singing, according to legend, is attributed to Ignatius the God-Bearer, Bishop of Antioch, an apostolic man. The historian Socrates says that Ignatius established this singing due to a special vision: he saw angels singing alternately to God 68. Another historian, Theodoret, disagrees with this opinion. He attributes the introduction of this chant to Flavian and Diodorus, presbyters of Antioch who lived in the 4th century. This contradiction between the two testimonies can be explained by the fact that Theodoret speaks about the antiphons in Greek, and before they were sung in the Syrian language. Otherwise, Theodoret’s testimony must be rejected, p.ch. Antiphonal singing was spread throughout many Churches. Basil the Great writes that antiphonal singing was used in Egypt, and this already indicates its antiquity. In the Church of Constantinople under Chrysostom this singing was used as usual. So, even before John of Damascus, there was a certain order of singing. But there were abuses in singing. Even Clement of Rome rebelled against the strangeness of singing. In the 4th century. They began to introduce theatrical techniques into singing, as can be seen from the words of the Egyptian ascetic Pamva. He says that it is indecent for monks to sing while waving their arms and stamping their feet. These abuses took place in the Church of Alexandria; but they were not limited to her alone. Abuses appeared in the Church of Constantinople and in the Western Churches. In Constantinople, John Chrysostom armed himself against them, and in the West, Jerome and Augustine. Jerome, explaining the words of St. Paul, “singing in their hearts,” says: “Let them know that they should not sing in a theatrical way.” Abuses occurred because the people especially loved circuses and theaters, where noisy and cheerful music was played. The Trullo Council armed itself against abuses, but all this was of little help, and meanwhile it was necessary to protect church singing from the mentioned abuses. John of Damascus, with his Octoechos, removed obstacles and protected church singing from abuse. The main advantage of Octoechos is its simplicity. Damascene chose tunes of the diatonic scale. This singing could be performed by people even with little knowledge of music. From the modes he took 4 direct ones: Dorian, Lydian, Phrygian and Ionian and 4 indirect ones - with the preposition ilo. Damascus borrowed these melodies from previously existing ones; he did not hide his borrowing, because all these names were inscribed in the Octoechos. Russian voices differ from Greek ones in names. The Greeks and we count the same up to the fifth voice, but the fifth voice among the Greeks is called the secondary voice of the 1st, the 6th secondary of the 2nd, the 7th of the 3rd, the 8th of the 4th; however, the 8th voice is also called low. This correspondence of names was not only external, but was based on the similarity of melodies, so that the 1st voice was musically akin to the fifth, etc. So, John of Damascus: 1) limited the number of voices, 2) he chose the simplest voices, 3) left in use the commonly used common melodies. Damascene was even an independent composer. He is credited with composing the melodies for “The Lord has cried,” the stichera for “The Lord has cried,” “Now are the powers of Heaven...”, etc. But the element of his independent creativity could not have had much of an impact, because otherwise the goal of simplifying the singing would not have been achieved. As for the composition of Octoechos, it is now difficult to determine it. The real Octoechos contains chants and others, for example, Anatoly (5th century), Leo (10th century), Constantine Porphyrogenitus (10th century). In Octoechos, Damascus owns the arrangement of services by Week and the melody of chants. Oktoich Dam[askina] also moved to the West. But still he did not put an end to new creativity. At the imperial palaces there were entire choirs with learned regents - domestics, who were engaged in composing original melodies and studying the theory of singing. In addition to these singers, there were other composers. History of Greek singing after Damascus. The history of Greek singing after Damascus presents many names of composers. So in the 10th century. Ktenos the domestic, “gifted old man” is known, Euthymius is, according to testimony, a rather free composer. Later he was Georgiy Manuil, Georgiy Finaret, and Georgiy Domestic. The Georgies were generally connoisseurs of music; they transcribed both spiritual and secular pieces into sheet music. In the 13th century John Kukuzel 69 is known, in the 15th century. John Legas, Isidore Bulgaris, Agathon the monk, etc. Thus, in the Middle Ages, the Greeks formed a kind of special class of compilers. These compilers differed from Damascus in their artificiality in their chants. Ep. Porfiry finds manuscripts where melodies were written in imitation of a nightingale, the sound of a wheel, a dry tree, etc. “It is clear,” he says, “that the Greeks used chants of different nations.” Thus, the Greeks had freedom to sing. And this freedom was probably the reason why the singing of medieval composers can rather be called music. Freedom of singing has led to many abuses: many features have arisen in singing that may be strange to us. These features are called “anagrammatisms”. Anagrammatisms are stichera written in music books; they are completely similar to non-notated stichera and differ from the latter in the arrangement of thoughts. The stichera were broken down into separate thoughts and combined in a completely different order, as a result of which the very meaning of the stichera was lost. The composition of anagrammatisms is attributed to John Kukuzel 70. Even more strange are the features called “cratimats”. “Cratimats” were called insertions of words that are not in the text and that do not make any sense. Lecture 17. Lecture on liturgics November 22nd During the Middle Ages, singing acquired some characteristics. The main of these features was the use of anagrams and cratimates; anagrams consisted of distorting the text, while cratimats concerned the melody. Kratimata were considered by the Greeks to be an ornament to singing and were held in high esteem, so that their compilers constantly signed their names. Kratimats consisted of the words: “neither, not, on; ti, ri, rem.” They were sometimes used (separately) together, but mostly separately and formed the decoration of one particular chant. Sometimes this repetition took up a lot of space and time, for example, Herbart gives melodies with sometimes countless cratimats. They are still used by the Greeks, according to the testimony of almost all travelers in the East. One of the Russian travelers, His Eminence Porfiry, heard a similar performance of kratimats in the Russian Athos Monastery of Panteleimon (June 27, 1859). At the end of the lithium stichera, he says, the singers chanted for another 10 minutes: “ti, ti, re, rem...” And the singing of the troparion “Rejoice to the Virgin Mary” continued for a whole hour. Such singing could not please our taste, but it even seemed disgusting. In addition to kratimats, the words πάλιν and δύναμις were used even more inappropriately and less meaningfully. Originally these words had a meaning as superscripts, and corresponded to our bis and forte; but later the Greeks put them on notes and entered the text itself. To complete the information, it is necessary to say something more about ancient musical notation. In order for some melodies to be preserved in the memory of the singers, it was necessary to write them down and designate the sounds with signs. Even in the time of Sirin, Syrian singers had their own notes. Since singing was under classical influence, it is very likely that, along with singing, Greek notation entered the singing system. The Greeks indicated rising and falling voices using letters of the alphabet. At first, the letters alone were enough, but then, when singing became more difficult, the letters began to be placed either upside down, or horizontally, and, moreover, either in full form or in truncated form. The Romans also designated their singing with the letters of the alphabet, first the Greek one, and then their own. Christian singing was also designated (by similar signs) by the letters of its alphabet. At least this was the case in the 4th century. Ephraim the Syrian used the same means to denote singing, which was in general use. Alphabetical notation was quite complex and lengthy in the last years of its existence, so in the East they began to worry about a possible shortening and simplification of it - tachygraphy 71 . Subsequently, this art of tachygraphy developed with such force (in the West) that almost all branches - 72 had their own signs. Mention is made of notes for judicial acts, etc. Thus, musical cursive writing developed, and already in the 3rd and 4th centuries the hook designation of notes appeared. The latest researchers have fully identified this singing. One researcher says that hook singing evolved very quickly. Hook notes greatly facilitated musical writing and (soon) completely replaced the ancient form of notes. Gregory the Great and John of Damascus wrote with hooks. The simplicity of hook notation was that fewer hooks were required to represent a known melody. Sometimes a hook represented an entire line. In terms of writing, it really did have an advantage over alphabetical notation, but for performance this ease is conditional. By origin, this notation (hook) is not completely independent; it comes from the abbreviation of letter (alphabetical) notation. Initially, the hooks were the same letters, but only in an abbreviated form, due to the assumption of arbitrariness in the very form of their writing. After Damascus, the hook system remained unchanged, but changed only in the sense that only one hook was changed several (5, it seems) times, then some of them were issued, then accepted again. And to this day hook singing of notes still predominates among the Greeks. Sheet music the linear Greeks did not accept it, perhaps because they were invented in the West, among the Latins, although they are aware of the superiority of this method. However, at present, even among the Greeks, a linear system of notes is beginning to be introduced. Russian singing, it was brought to us from the East along with faith and acquired wider development. The entire history of musical singing in Rus' can be divided into two periods: 1) the history of ancient - melodic singing, and 2) the history of new - harmonic singing. The history of ancient singing extends to the 17th century; This period is particularly confusing and quite difficult to imagine clearly. Where did liturgical singing come to us from - directly from the Greeks, or from the Slavs, (and if from both, then) simultaneously or successively? – This is the first question, on the solution of which depends the solution of the second question: what type of singing was used exclusively among us? First question. Since the Christian faith came to us directly from the Greeks, then, at first, it is natural to think that liturgical singing was borrowed directly from the Greeks. The evidence of the chronicle agrees with this. So, even in the time of Vladimir there were Greek singers. One might think that at first Russian worship was performed in Greek. The Russians could listen to this singing and then make up their own. The book of degrees says that under Yaroslav, three singers, Greeks, came to us to teach Russians how to sing. There is no reason to deny this news. Similar singers came to us later (to Mstislav, 1137). It was these Greek singers who taught our ancestors Greek singing. But in this case (in teaching singing) our compatriots, the Slavs, had much more importance. Osmosonic singing passed to the Bulgarians back in the 9th century. Among the books was Octoechos. The first beginning of singing among the Bulgarians was, of course, laid by St. brothers Cyril and Methodius. From the biography of Methodius it is clear that, among other sciences, he also possessed the art of music. In the 10th century, the Bulgarian Slavs could already be Russian teachers in singing. The Patriarch of Constantinople sent to Prince Vladimir learned Bulgarians, including teachers in church singing. These teachers, of course, passed on their books to the Russians and managed to gain success. According to some evidence, it is clear that the first organizers of singing and the first domestics in Rus' were from the Slavs. Thus, church singing came to us partly from the Greeks directly and partly from the Slavs (the Slavs received simple Damascene singing; and among the Greeks, singing has already changed several times), which explains some of the differences in the melody of our (ancient) church chants. Looking at the ancient church music books, it is clear that some of them bear traces of Greek writing, while others - Slavic. The first such monument is the May Menaion, followed by the stichiraria. According to the research of scientists, it turns out that they (monuments) are mostly copied from Bulgarian manuscripts and the musical notes are also completely similar to Bulgarian, and not to Greek, although our musical singing, as can be seen, depended a lot on Greek chant, especially the notes of the 11th century, when, according to the legend of the Degree Book, Greek singers came, they should have had a strong resemblance to Greek notes, but we don’t notice this, and this is explained by the fact that our musical system and the Greek one were too different from each other. But, however, if we have some books taken entirely from the Slavs, then there are also those in which Greek singing is very noticeable. These are the books of “Kondakar” (XIII century). It contains chants, first with Slavic text, and then with Greek; it also contains the remnant of some chants that have now fallen out of use. All this serves as proof that our ancient musical singing was borrowed from the Greeks. Thus, both from literary chronicles and from the evidence of church monuments it is clear that singing came to us partly from the Greeks and partly from the Slavs. November 26. Liturgics. Lecture 18. About Russian church singing Our church singing was borrowed partly from the Greeks, partly from the Slavs. The first mention of singing is found in the Degree Book. It says here that it was “angelic singing, considerable osmosis and tripartite sweetness.” Analyzing the said words of the Book of Degrees, some see here an indication of two types of singing: church and home, and are based on the fact that in the ancient Greek Church church songs were also used privately in homes and were sung somewhat differently from the actual church chant. Others saw here an indication of three types of singing: osmosonic or Damascene, palace or demestial and harmonic or tripartite. Under the name osmoglasiya one cannot really mean any other singing except Damascus singing. But what should be understood by demonic singing? Razumovsky derives this name from the word δημώστι 73 and understands by the name de-local simple home, private singing, since Christians in ancient times used church songs instead of secular songs. But this cannot be confirmed by anything. Rather, this name can be derived from “domestic,” the name of the court officials, whose duties included, among other things, the management of court church singing. Thus, demonic singing was nothing more than court singing. It differs significantly from osconsonant. As a courtier, it contains more artificiality. The very melodies of de-local singing are very different from osmoglasia; the latter tries to put the melodies in accordance with the content, while de-local singing is not constrained by these rules of its artificiality, complexity and intricacy. Osmoglasny singing is organized and transformed by Damascene, and demestial singing is free from his changes. It does not have voices, like the singing of Damascus, which could interfere with its freedom. True, sometimes the designation of a voice was also placed above local songs, but this stemmed from the scribes’ habit of always placing one or another voice over well-known songs. Thus, demestial and osconsonant singing are two completely different types of singing. Now we just have to decide: what was the “three-part sweetness” that is mentioned in the same Degree Book? They think that this three-voice harmonic singing was more melodic than osvocal and even demonic singing. This opinion has its basis in the fact that the Greeks knew the rules of harmony and, therefore, they could use more than just unison singing. It was they who knew the symphony as a combination of several tones. Thus, Aristotle says that a symphony consists of 6 parts or mixed sounds, high and low, long and short. Thus, if the Greeks had symphonic or harmonic singing, then it, without a doubt, passed into the Christian Church. Therefore, under the name of “three-part sweetness” we can safely mean precisely this kind of singing. The only thing that can speak against this is that the notes of this three-part singing were written not in three, but in one line, but this actually does not prove anything, since three lines of notes are not necessarily required for three-part singing. However, Razumovsky explains this three-part singing somewhat differently. He says that three-part singing is closely related in form to osconsonant singing. By its name, it only indicates the quality of singing, which was more melodic than simple osmoglasis, and was based on the three singing systems used. The Greeks had three singing systems: octachord, pentachord and tetrachord. Every voice adapted to these diatonic ladders. In Russian church singing we constantly encounter the same ladders of singing. Tripartite singing can also be called such in terms of its performance by voice, since the voice when singing rotates within three octaves, on which both Greek and Russian singing are based. This explanation is special, but it does not exclude the first opinion. Consequently, from the very beginning we knew of singing of two kinds in its form: osvocal and demonic. It also differed into two types according to its origin: from the Greeks, demonic singing was borrowed, not subject to the laws of osmoglasiya, and from the Slavs, osmoglasnoe, Damascene. The first spread little and tightly among our ancestors. Demastic singing, as more artificial than osmoglasiya, was predominantly used during happy periods of our history and, moreover, only in capitals and large monasteries. The first teachers of native singing came to Yaroslav's court. Then our chronicles mention demesne singing in the 11th-15th centuries. 74 According to the legend of the chronicle, Prince Dmitry of Novgorod “began to sing as a child.” We find the last mention of him in 1444, when Vasily the Dark, during his illness, sang “Alleluia” with his youth. But during this entire period, demesne singing was not set to notes, but was studied by ear (sic!) from singers and, in this way, according to legend, continued until the 16th century. In the middle of the 16th century. it was written down and transcribed onto notes using special signs, without rulers. This was done for the first time in Novgorod in 1569, and from here it was later transferred to Moscow. On all great holidays and on solemn occasions they usually sang in democracy. So, at the wedding of Mikhail Feodorovich, the choirboys sang for many years. But although in the 16th century demestvenskaya singing was recorded in musical notations, it is still difficult to restore it in its original form, although some melodies have reached us, since it suffered many distortions at the time when it was transmitted orally from one singer to another. Osmosonic singing was of two kinds: one came from the Greeks, and the other from the southern Slavs. The first was not widespread and is known under the name kondakarnogo. Kondakar singing was used in our country until the end of the 14th century. Its decline was due, on the one hand, to the difficulty of translating it into notes and the difficulty of performing them, and on the other hand, to various historical events, such as the decline of Greek shepherds, the invasion of the Mongols, etc. Theoretical guides to the study of kontakary singing were either not written at all, or did not reach us. The most monuments of this singing exist only in Russia; they do not exist in Greece. After the loss of kondakar singing, Greek melodies are not found among us until the 17th century. A new era of Greek singing begins with Nikon, when he ordered the singing of Greek and Kiev singing in the St. Sophia Church, during his administration of the Novgorod flock. Moscow soon drew attention to this singing, and in the last quarter of the 16th century. Church schools began to teach the Greek language and Greek singing. In 1649 The famous Arseny Sukhanov was sent to the East by Alexei Mikhailovich to find out how church singing was maintained there. Notes from this time have been preserved. The establishment of Greek singing in Russia was greatly facilitated by the stay of Patriarchs Alexei and Ap. (sic!) From the second half of the 17th century. Greek singing developed significantly among us and was performed by patriarchal sextons. This is how the canons sang to “The Chosen Voivode.” Often in one choir the chant was Greek, and in another it was from linear books. This is how, for example, the Easter canon was sung. Slavic osmoglasie, or Znamenny chant Slavic osmoglasie is otherwise called znamenny chant - from the banners or hooks (notes) with which it was written. This chant was the most common and widespread and was also called the pillar chant - either from the notes, or from the fact that it was predominantly an unconsonant chant, located along 8 pillars. It has survived to this day and is opposed to simple singing, not notated. The history of znamenny singing is divided into two parts: the history of the melody and the history of the signs themselves. The first monument of Znamenny singing dates back to the 12th century. This melody was well adopted by the Russians and became very widespread. And later, when the question arose about the origin of this melody, the matter was not without controversy. Some said that this singing came from the Greeks, others - from the Russians, because there is nothing similar in it to the Greek tune. But the second opinion is also wrong. Rather, we must assume that it appeared among the Greeks, was corrected by Damascus, passed on to the Slavs, depicted by them in signs, passed on to the Russians and is known under the name Znamenny chant. December 10. Lecture 21. About church singing in the West When reviewing Orthodox church singing, one cannot ignore singing in the West. The musical forms of Western singing have had and still have a very important influence on our singing and therefore also deserve due attention. Western singing had a different direction, although, however, this happened much later, but the germ of its originality was still noticeable earlier. The first organizers of Western church singing were Ambrose and Gregory Dvoeslov. Ambrose introduced antiphonal singing of psalms and defined the very technique of singing and poetic creativity. His singing was based on four diatonic modes or tunes: Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian and [Ionian] 75 . His singing was four-voice, simple; it was unisonal, not harmonic, and lasted two centuries. Gregory Dvoeslov made a reformation in Western singing: he added 4 more voices to the Ambrosian four voices and, in this way, made 8-vowel singing, which was not the same as the first. Gregory assembled his antiphonary, revised the previous forms of singing and introduced a new chant, which became known as Gregorian. However, this new singing did not differ significantly from the first, Ambrosian one. It was monotonous and, like Ambrose’s, was alien to harmonies and was called “cantus firmus”. To spread his singing, Gregory organized special schools for clergy. Over time, this new singing spread from Rome to all lands, to which Charlemagne greatly contributed. “I want church singing to please God,” he said, and for this purpose he organized a huge choir of singers at his court, who studied in special singing schools. In England, Alfred the Great, a contemporary of Charles, also contributed to the spread of Gregorian chant. But such a happy fate of this singing lasted only until the 13th century in Rome, and from that time on, Gregorian chant was already losing its meaning: it was supplanted by harmonic - musical singing. Gregorian chant did not satisfy the religious state and feelings of believers, the language of chant was no longer incomprehensible to listeners - therefore, a reform in chant was required; sequences appeared - vaults and figures above the words of the song, prose also appeared - text to the vaults. Both of these new forms of singing are the same as the kratimata 76 of Greek singing. A certain Walter became especially famous for his sequences. Under the influence of such a change in singing, a taste and competition for harmonic singing appeared in the listeners, which, sharply different from classical and Gregorian, subsequently began to fall into greater pretentiousness. Attempts were made to introduce polyphonic singing, which consisted of changing the Gregorian melody to a voice 77. The first person to combine sounds in chords was a deacon, who laid the foundation for harmonic singing. Soon such an attempt found its own imitator tel. The Cologne monk Limbron 78 already gave experience in the theoretical study of harmony. A new system of notation appeared - with signs; they began to use 4 lines that stretched under the notes - this was the first to be invented by the 79 Limbron monk. However, Diderot himself called this method of writing notes and considered it not very convenient and recommended another - the Gregorian - alphabetic. The names of the notes were indicated by the initial letters of one song composed in honor of John the Baptist. At first there were only 6 such signs or letters, and the sound “si” was added later (XVII century). Thus, Guido 80 was the first to point out the names of the notes - “ut, re, mi...” as the best sign to remember the harmony of a piece. Having recognized the certain merit of the 81 methods indicated by Guido for learning to sing, soon, however, a deficiency was felt in these names, since the seventh sound had not yet been developed. The whole piece was therefore divided into hexachords 82, and 7 the sound “si”, although it had already begun to exist, still remained closed; as a result of this, difficulty arose in memorizing pieces, which ended or was resolved by the emergence of a new system of singing, in which the sound “si” had already become open. It consisted of the initial letters of the last two words of "Sancte Jo[h] anne[s]" of the above song. With the development of new rules of singing and notes came the development of harmony, which was done by many after the famous Franco 83 of Cologne. So, for example, in the 14th century. Marcellus worked a lot on singing harmony. But the actual development of harmonic singing proceeded very slowly, which was partly facilitated by the so-called “counterpoints” - the art of matching one voice with another, which was invented by no one knows who. At that time, a papal bandmaster was a lover of this art, in whose compositions - four-part - harmony was especially evident. Counterpoints were especially developed in the Netherlands, where they were strongly applied to church singing - music. There they took first place in harmonic singing. The first counterpoint was composed by John Bach in the 18th century. He was the first to indicate harmony in church singing, and the first to make voices move and diverge - to create dissonances 84. He owns many works (4 masses 85 of him). He had many students, and the most remarkable of them was a certain Jagassen 86, who was the common favorite of everyone and who had no equal opponent. He also had many of his students, and the best was Lasso (1595) 87. In his compositions, Jagassen reached the point of whimsicality, and his students, with all their merit for harmonic singing, could not fully satisfy the needs of religious feeling. In their compositions they revealed only technical dexterity, familiarity with contrapunt [kt] and love for [him] 88 . Such a passion for counterpoint and neglect of harmony itself was reflected later in various abuses, which developed especially after the return of the popes from Avignon. With increasing disregard for the meaning, obviously, ancient singing was even in danger of dying altogether. The composers of the plays were often guided only by the music, and in order to amaze the listeners with strangeness, they introduced various vulgar melodies of songs into church singing. This distortion of church singing obviously did not please the Catholic Church - it could not look with indifference at the retreat and decline of ancient church singing and its character. As a result, there was a need for reform - a change in singing - which was decided at the Council of Trent. Here they began to resolve the issue of singing and, having learned the reason for the decline of singing, they nevertheless defended the fate of harmonic singing, which they thought was to be replaced by the former - Gregorian. This was the outcome of the matter due to Palestrina, who composed a test composition of the mass (he wrote 3 six-voice masses in 1565) and surprised everyone by defending, in this way, the existence of harmonic singing. Here, at the Council, the order of singing was determined. There is nothing pathetic in the music of Palestrina’s composition, but only calm harmony, where the voice means nothing; there is no dramatic excitement here either. In this way, Palestrina ended the history of harmonic singing in the West. Although they practiced singing there after him, the spirit of his music lives to this day, as an example of all harmonic singing (we have Glinka as his imitator, for example) December 17. Lecture 23. On liturgics External form occupies a very important place in any worship service and serves to express a wide variety of spiritual movements. It is known that facial expressions in general have a very extensive application in expressing our thoughts and feelings, and in the absence of developed words among savage peoples, they even replace them. A word that is not accompanied by a gesture is not so clear and can even be understood in a completely opposite sense. It does not lose its significance among educated, developed nations. For this reason, in all peoples, in all religions, we see one or another facial movements, facial actions; and since facial expressions are generally the same among all peoples, religious facial movements and actions in all religions are also more or less the same. However, this can only be said regarding purely natural facial expressions. As for the artificial (dancing), different nations have their own special folk character. Facial expressions of the first kind consist of gestures: 1) expressing a feeling of contrition and respect, 2) joy and delight. In view of the importance of facial expressions in general for humans, Christianity could not neglect it. We see that Christians not only transferred into their worship the mimic movements common to all religions, but even invented their own special ones, of a purely Christian nature. Strictly speaking, there are a lot of religious external signs that accompany prayer, but they can be divided into two categories: 1) natural or universal and 2) purely Christian. The first includes standing, which is one of the most natural expressions of the spiritual disposition of the person praying, detached from all everyday activities. Standing during prayer was also practiced by the pagans. The Jews also had the custom of praying while standing, although we do not see any instructions about this either in Moses or in other sacred writers. Subsequently, however, a positive definition of the rabbis to pray while standing appeared. Standing during prayer was also prescribed by Jesus Christ Himself: He sometimes expressed himself this way: “When you stand in prayer...” Although this form of expression does not show the legalization of standing in prayer, nevertheless, from these words it is clear that Christ regarded this custom with approval. This consideration is fully confirmed by the testimonies of Origen, Cyprian, Clement and Peter of Alexandria, Hilary, Epiphanius, Basil the Great and others. Standing was especially common on Sunday and resembled the Rebellion of the Lord. The first Council of Nicaea made this custom mandatory for all Churches. Standing is the first action that accompanies prayer. From the ancient Liturgies it is clear that it was accompanied by another action - kneeling. We find evidence of this last action even in the times of the apostles. Thus, it is known that the ap. When Paul said goodbye to the Ephesian elders, he prayed on his knees. Some church writers even called prayer itself genuflection. Thus, Tertullian writes: “When and what kind of drought was not eliminated by kneeling?” The time for special use of kneeling is the days of fasting and repentance. Prostration to the ground serves as a sign of fear, humiliation and submission before God. This gesture was not an ordinary prayer gesture, but was used on special occasions. In the Old Testament, the high priest was supposed to prostrate himself to the ground when making a sacrifice for the sin of the people. Among Christians, penitents were supposed to use this gesture during prayer. Bowing the head is one of the most common Christian actions. We have no information regarding its use in ancient times. It is known, however, that this gesture was used by Christians together with the sign of the cross, and therefore, in all likelihood, it spread along with it. True, in the Apostolic Decrees we find evidence that the catechumens were supposed to bow their heads (“bow and bless”), but this was nothing more than a preparation for the blessing of a priest or bishop. Instead of bowing with the sign of the cross, ancient Christians used the raising of hands. This is also one of the most natural and expressive gestures, indicating the desire of those praying to get closer to God. It was used by both Jews and pagans. Thus, it is known that Moses prayed with the raising of his hands during the battle of the Israelites with the Amalekites. Ap. Paul also advised Christians to pray by lifting up their hands (“lifting up clean hands”). Origen and Clement of Alexandria look at this gesture as the most ordinary one. Other Church teachers attributed a mystical meaning to the raising of hands. They interpreted this gesture as a sign of the cross and saw in it an image of the cross. This is how Minucius Felix looked at this gesture, and later Ambrose and Eusebius. Thus, we can conclude that at first this gesture replaced the sign of the cross. In ancient images, on mosaics in the catacombs, we see images of faces with raised hands, and this position was undoubtedly a prayerful position. With the use of the sign of the cross, this gesture began to go out of practice, and now it is preserved and used as a feature of priestly service. Involuntary gestures: beating the chest is a sign of repentance and contrition. Jesus Christ did not condemn this gesture and mentioned it in the parable of the publican and the Pharisee. But, nevertheless, this gesture has not become widespread among Christians, precisely because it contains too much of a theatrical element. Already in ancient times, the too wide development of gestures, reaching to extremes, caused reproof from the teachers of the Church. Thus, Cyprian says: “We must say prayer calmly...”; Chrysostom: “It is indecent to raise your arms high,” to turn your whole body, to knock your feet, etc. The gestures we have indicated are quite natural and therefore could easily turn into purely theatrical ones, depending on the vividness of the feelings of the person praying. There are other kinds of gestures and actions that can be called more or less artificial, such as: baring the head during prayer, turning to the east, making the sign of the cross, smoking incense, lighting lamps, etc. Baring the head of the person praying is a purely Christian custom. Among the Jews and eastern peoples in general, it was considered obligatory to begin prayer with a covered head. This was an expression of extreme reverence for the deity. The existence of such a custom is explained by the view of eastern peoples on deity as a formidable, inexorable being. In the east, it is still customary at the entrance of persons in authority to fall on their faces. The custom of covering the head during worship also existed among the Romans. Their priests (and in general those who made sacrifices) had to stand with their heads covered. In Christianity we see the completely opposite. The meaning of this custom is explained differently. Some believe that by this a Christian shows his slavish attitude towards God. The basis for this explanation is that among Jews or pagans a cap or hat served as an attribute of freedom and independence. That is why the Romans did not allow slaves to wear hats. When they were released, they were usually provided with hats as a sign of their free status. Others think that an open head serves as an expression of respect, as, for example, we see among European peoples. Still others understand this custom as an expression of their defenselessness before God. The basis for this opinion was the custom of European peoples to cover their heads and generally their bodies with various weapons when they went to war or hunt, this served as a sign of their strength and power; on the contrary, an uncovered head means defenselessness. But this is not the meaning of Christian custom. Ap. Paul, instructing believers to stand bareheaded in prayer, says that this serves as a sign of the high dignity of a Christian, as a recreated and renewed image of God. The teachers of the Church also attached such importance to this custom. We have a lot of evidence about the strict observance of this custom that has come down to us from ancient times (Tertullian). Eastern peoples also had the custom of washing the body before prayer. For this purpose, the Greeks and Romans had pools of water at their churches. By their bathing they wanted to show respect and reverence for the deity. Following the example of these peoples, swimming pools were also installed in some Christian Churches. We also find a clear indication of them in Tertullian. But in the Eastern Christian Church this custom of ablution has not come into general use, whereas in the West it is more or less respected. To do this, at the entrance to the church, a vessel with water is usually placed there, with which believers, upon entering the church, sprinkle themselves. Facing the east. The custom of turning one's face to the east during prayer is widespread; it is based on the worship of the sun by primitive peoples. The East is the idea of ​​light, happiness, glory, while the idea of ​​darkness is connected with the concept of the West. This view was sharply reflected in the customs of peoples of laying the dead facing the east and also facing the east during prayer. This is what all the ancient peoples did, not only European, but also other countries. In Asia, even today, Brahmins, when praying at sunrise, sit facing the east. This custom of peoples turning to the east during prayer also passed into Christianity. If we look at this custom of Christians from a historical point of view, it can hardly be considered borrowed from the Jews, because the Jews did not pray to the east; its existence among other ancient peoples who later adopted Christianity seems to sufficiently explain its appearance. There is no doubt, in any case, that Christians adopted this custom very early. In the 3rd century, the enemies of Christians, noticing this custom of Christians, already accused them of worshiping the sun. But Christians attached a different meaning to their custom. Many teachers of the Church explained in detail why Christians should turn to the sun when praying. Clement of Alexandria says: “The East is the region of light, and since the Sun of Truth, Christ, the true Light, has shone from the East, we turn our faces to the East when praying.” Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and others see the basis of this custom in the fact that in the east there was paradise - the dwelling of the first people, to which we should strive. Justin looks to the east as the most excellent country, and Lactantius considers the east to be the region of Light, and the west - darkness and evil. The custom of facing the east sometimes has its own independent meaning, as 92, for example, at Baptism. The meaning and significance of this rite at Baptism is explained by Cyril of Jerusalem in one of the catechesis. He says: “The newly enlightened (catechumens) at Baptism turn their faces to the west and deny Satan, whose domain is darkness, and when combined with Christ they turn to the east, where there was paradise.” Then, when performing prayer, Christians also use special, purely Christian actions. This includes, first of all, the sign of the cross, indicating the basic dogma of Christianity, the distinctive belief of Christians in the Crucified One. The extreme antiquity of this action is beyond doubt. Even if there is no mention of its use in apostolic times, this still does not mean that it was not known to Christians at that time. Tertullian says that the sign of the cross owes its origin to oral tradition. Frequently marking oneself with a cross at one time drew the attention of pagans to Christians. During persecutions, the sign of the cross, or, better said, the custom of often marking oneself with a cross often betrayed Christians to the pagans. Moreover, Christians attached a very important, mysterious meaning to this action; they believed that with the sign of the cross they could remove various troubles and misfortunes from themselves. Augustine says that without the sign of the cross no ritual can be performed. In the 4th century, this custom of Christians to mark themselves with the sign of the cross was already decidedly widespread. Basil the Great writes: “The first of the legends is that the faithful must protect their faces with a cross.” Cyril of Jerusalem says: “Let us not be ashamed to confess the Crucified One, depicting the sign of the cross on our foreheads.” Chrysostom: “The cross should be depicted not only with the finger, but also with the spirit.” These words of Chrysostom show that many Christians of his time did not understand the true meaning of the sign of the cross and performed it mechanically. The subsequent history of this custom is the history of finger formation. Lecture 24 on liturgics. About rituals (2nd kind) that serve to express attitudes. God to man Rituals of this kind, which constitute the sacramental element of Christian worship, are divided into two sections: 1. Rituals through which the will of God is revealed, or rites of a didactic nature, 2. Rituals through which the grace of the sacrament is communicated to people, or actually sacramental. What place did these rituals occupy in Christian worship? To see their meaning, one must remember that Christian worship must give place to all the facts that make up religion, namely: human activity (subjective side) and Divine activity (objective side). All religion cannot be expressed in subjective feelings. Such an outpouring of the feelings of believers presupposes faith in God, as well as confidence that God will not abandon man. It is this confidence that gives grounds for the fact that during divine services there are rituals or actions that testify to God’s attitude towards man. The pagans knew, for example, which sacrifice was pleasing to God and which was not. There, although God did not have such a relationship with man (there it was illusory), as in Revealed Religion, but with all this, the pagans were satisfied with such an attitude. The pagan went to the temple, made sacrifices, prayed and made various offerings, but did not limit his worship to this; he tried to find out the result of prayer and achieved this by examining the entrails of animals. Prophecies and miracles occupied a prominent place in pagan worship, they all pursued one goal - the revelation of the will of the gods. But between the above elements in pagan and Christian worship there is a great difference, which has degenerated from different views. In pagan religions there was no awareness of the close relationship of God to man, as in Christian religions. In the first, the punishment and judgment of the deity over man prevailed, which is why the pagan found out the will of the gods through oracles. In the Christian religion, on the contrary, God stands in close relation to man. The proof of this is that Jesus Christ Himself came down to earth, established the Church and began to relate to people as the head of the body to the rest of the members. Its organ is the pastors and teachers of the Church, who, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, proclaim the will of God to the believers and bestow the gifts of grace. Thus, the relationship of God to man in Christianity is constant, close and is expressed in the constant teaching and communication of the gifts of grace through shepherds. What do these and other elements of Christian worship consist of – didactic and actually sacramental, in which God’s attitude towards man is expressed? Didacticism consists, firstly, of reading the Holy Scriptures and, secondly, of teaching. In real worship there is a sharp line between these two types of didactic element, but before there was none. Reading Holy Scripture was then only a form of teaching. The story about the last Supper of Jesus Christ, which was the prototype of Christian worship, is of great importance for us. From it we see that before the celebration of the Eucharist, Christ taught His disciples. Likewise, in the primitive Church the didactic element constituted an essential and necessary part of the divine service. From the Book of Acts of the Apostles we see that the first Christians spent their time in constant prayer and breaking bread. From another place in the same book it is clear that ap. Paul talked in Troas until midnight. And since oral conversation could not always take place, it was necessary to replace it with the reading of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, which was recommended by the apostles themselves. We can find evidence of this in the writings of the apostles. Yes, app. Peter praises Christians for turning to the books of the prophets for instruction. Ap. Paul writes to the Colossians to admonish themselves with psalms. The evidence for reading the New Testament books is more numerous. Evangelist Luke writes at the beginning of his Gospel that at that time there were already legends about Christ. Ap. Paul, in his Epistle to Thessalonians, advises that his epistles be forwarded to other Churches for reading. The same apostle in the Epistle to the Colossians demands that it be read in the Laodicean Church. Thus, in the primal Church there was a custom of reading the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. This custom, naturally, could not be neglected even after the apostles. There could be no doubt about the liturgical use of Holy Scripture; it would be unnecessary to prove it. Difficulties here may arise not from a lack of evidence, but from its abundance. The liturgical use of the Scriptures has had its own complicated history, which stands in connection with the history of the canon. Thus, the question is, first of all, what books were read by Christians at first. Since the purpose of reading Holy Scripture was highly moral - edification, and the entire divine service was intended to bring believers into a relationship with God, it was obvious that God-inspired books were used, some related to the Old Testament, others apostolic. The Old Testament came into church use, no doubt, earlier. They existed before, when there were no New Testament books. Meanwhile, there was a need for reading and edification. This is supported by the practice of the Old Testament Jewish Church, which had a great influence on the very establishment of this custom among Jewish Christians. In the Old Testament Church, the first place was occupied by the Pentateuch 94 of Moses, from the time of the Babylonian captivity. During the earthly life of the Savior and the Apostles, the custom of reading Holy Scripture, namely the Pentateuch, was in full force. For ease of reading, it was divided into 54 sections, which were called paraskhas. In addition to the Law, the Prophets were also read in the Old Testament Church - a less ancient custom (under Antiochus Epiphanes). The prophets were also divided into departments, the so-called haftars 95. Psalms were used next to them, but, in all likelihood, the scriptures known as ἀγιάγραφαι were not used. These same books were probably used by Christians, and, above all, the Prophetic Books, as confirming the truth of the promises of the Messiah and the Christian religion in general. The apologist Justin Martyr says: “On the day of the Sun there are meetings in cities and villages, where the Scriptures of the apostles and prophets are read.” In monuments from the 3rd century we see a clear indication of the liturgical use of the Law and the Prophets. Origen says that during Holy Week the Book of Job was read, which was not used by the Jews. The author of the “Apostolic Constitutions” lists the books of Holy Scripture that were read during the divine service. The reader, he says, standing on a raised platform, reads the Pentateuch of Moses, the Book of Joshua, Judges, etc. – almost all the Books, except “Ruth” and “Esther”. In the 4th century, all the books were already listed. Thus, at the Council of Carthage, a list of liturgical books was compiled, on the basis of which it can be understood that non-canonical books were also read. The very resolution of the Council relating to this was, it seems, caused by this. The same list of books is indicated in the rules of the Laodicean Council, with the difference, however, that it does not mention the Books of Tobit and Judith, which are listed in the resolution of the Carthage Council. Saint Athanasius of Alexandria has a complete listing of the books necessary for liturgical use. Along with the canonical ones, he also mentions non-canonical ones, distinguishing, however, among the latter, special books that provide edification for those newly converted to the Church. In this way, in the 4th century, all the sacred Books of both the Old and New Testaments were used during divine services, and even some non-canonical ones. So, at least in the Eastern Church. Regarding the Western one, one can doubt. There, the believers were dominated by an element from paganism, for which the writings of the Old Testament could be incomprehensible. Moreover, the West treated the East with disdain. Strabo testifies that in the Western Church until the 5th century only the writings of the New Testament were read. Cassian also says that on the eve of Easter, on Easter itself and until Pentecost, exclusively the writings of the New Testament were read. But these testimonies of two Western scientists can hardly be understood in their own sense. In all likelihood, they only wanted to point out the preferential use of the New Testament Books over the Old Testament. In relation to the testimony of Cassian, this seems to be quite certain, because he points to Easter and Pentecost - such a pro a period of time in which, in accordance with the events being celebrated, it was natural to read mainly New Testament books. Lecture 25 January 17, 1881 Lecture on liturgics The books of the New Testament came into liturgical use later than the Old Testament. They were introduced into liturgical use as they spread. Before all other New Testament books, the Gospel of Luke and the Epistles of Paul began to be read in the Church. Although it is impossible to determine exactly the order in which the New Testament Books were introduced into liturgical use; but what is certain is that the leading Christians, when reading from the New Testament, distinguished: 1) the Gospel, 2) the Epistles, 3) the Acts of the Apostles. Their use in the Christian Church is evidenced by: Justin, Tertullian, Apostolic Decrees, etc. Thus, the truth is beyond doubt. If doubts may arise, it is regarding the minor Council Epistles. However, Eusebius also has testimony for them. The church use of the Apocalypse is especially questionable. Until the middle of the 5th century it was not used at all for reading in the Church. Nobody mentions him. If Athanasius the Great mentions 96, then this testimony speaks more for its canonical dignity than for its ecclesiastical use. Until the 5th century, the Fathers of the Church did not have sermons on texts from the Apocalypse, which proves its non-use in church services, proves that the Church, having accepted this Book into the canon, did not want to introduce it into church services for special reasons. In the West, the Apocalypse did not have ecclesiastical use until the 7th century - or, at least, it was used very rarely. In the modern Catholic Church there is only one reading from the Apocalypse. Liturgical didacticism was manifested in the Ancient Church in the reading not only of canonical writings, but also of others, not so significant in their origin, but also useful for edification. Therefore, from very ancient times we see the use of non-canonical writings for reading along with canonical writings. These were writings that claimed or actually originated from the great teachers of the Church. Of course, in this case there were mistakes and abuses. In order to eliminate these abuses and blunders, the Councils made certain instructions as to which of the writings could be read in the Church and which could not. From the Books included in the canon and contained in the Bible, the following were read: 1) the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, 2) the Book of the Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach, 3) Tobit and 4) Ruth. And Jerome also mentions the Books of Maccabees. Rufinus also mentions them. However, they were in greater use in the West than in the East. Some manuscripts indicate the use of: the Book of Sirach from the 1st Sunday of the month of August to the 1st Sunday of September; Tobit - from September to October, Judith - from October to November. Later, in some Churches even the apocrypha began to be read: the Apocalypse of Peter, Διάταξεις Ἀποστόλων, etc. According to the testimony of Sozomen, the Apocalypse of Peter was used in the 5th century in some Palestinian churches. But in the West there is no trace of its use. Διάταξεις Ἀποστόλων and was used for the edification of the catechumens in the Alexandrian Church. Those writings that were known as the writings of godly men were in great use. These are: “Shepherd” of St. Hermas, 1 Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, later - the writings of Ephraim the Syrian, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Augustine and many others. There is a lot of evidence left about the use of “Shepherd” Hermas, namely, that it was read “publicly”: Eusebius, Jerome, etc. Eusebius says about the use of the 1st Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, namely, that it was read “publicly.” The beginning of its liturgical use dates back to the 1st century. In addition, it is known that the Roman Bishop Soter read it in meetings. In the West, Augustine’s conversation on the Nativity of the Savior is still read at Compline for the Nativity of Christ. In the liturgical use of the Ancient Church there were also readings of a different kind: readings of acts of martyrdom. As soon as martyrs began to appear in Christianity, descriptions of their martyrdom began to appear. Therefore, collections containing a description of the suffering of martyrs appeared early. From these collections, for example, the collection of Eusebius is known. The Council of Carthage allowed acts of martyrdom to be read in the church. Augustine in his conversations clearly speaks about the liturgical use of these acts. In general, the circle of liturgical readings in the Ancient Church was very extensive, much more extensive than at the present time. Let's see how large the number of these readings was in the first centuries of Christianity. At each service, several passages from different Books of Holy Scripture were read. A large number of these passages were read from the Psalms. Regarding the use of other Books, the same must be said, namely, that excerpts were read from them. Cassian says that in Egypt and Thebaid it was the custom to read from the Old Testament and the New; and on some days they read only from the New Testament. Usually one reading was from the Old Testament, and the other from the New; or from the Old Testament, from the Epistles of the Apostles and the Gospel. Basil the Great has a conversation where he says that those present listened in the Church: 1 - psalms, 2 - parables, 3 - epistles and 4 - the Gospel. Mabillon, talking about the All-Night Vigil of the 5th century, says that here they read from the Books of Moses, from Isaiah, from Acts and the Gospel. At the Liturgy of the Catechumens it was read, as we learn from the Apostolic Constitutions, in addition to the Gospel, Acts and Epistles, also from the Books of the Old Testament. John Chrysostom, in one of his conversations, addressing his listeners, asks: “Which prophet, which apostle and which Gospel were read today?” The only exceptions were on Easter and Pentecost, when reading the Old Testament Books was prohibited. Maxim, ep. Turinsky, says that at the Liturgy it was read: from Isaiah, the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John. Thus, the liturgical reading was threefold: 1) from the Old Testament, 2) from the Epistles, and 3) from the Gospel. How was the order of liturgical readings determined? This deserves special attention. In determining the order of the readings, one notices a desire to adapt the readings to church times and the state of the listeners. In the 2nd book of the Apostolic Constitutions, it is required to read one, the already known 62nd 97th Psalm at the morning service and the 140th at the evening service. In the 4th century. These same psalms were read at Matins and Vespers. The Church's concern for the division of readings is confirmed by historical monuments, which testify that the Church Fathers tried to draw up guidelines that would give each day its own constant reading. This is the work of Hippolytus “The Easter Circle”. Here the readings are distributed by time; but one cannot help but notice that Hippolytus’ instructions are rather vague, like the following: Ἰ οσίας, Ἔ ζδρας, Πάθος Χρίστου and the like. Nevertheless, this “Easter [Easter] circle” shows traces of the fact that the Church, in the person of its representatives, early took care of the division of readings during divine services. As for subsequent centuries (IV and onwards), there remains no doubt about the existence then of very clear and constant divisions of the sacred Books into readings. Chrysostom, Augustine and other fathers even give reasons why this particular reading of the Holy Scripture is offered on a given day. Regarding the distribution of readings during worship in general, it should be noted that there are two orders here: 1) adaptive, when a selection of passages from Holy Scripture is made to suit the time, and 2) simple, when the books of Holy Scripture are read in the order in which they are found in the Bible. Gennady Nikolaevich Nikolsky. Lecture 30 98. Con. Gusev. Lecture on liturgics February 7th So far we have considered simple forms of Christian worship. These elementary forms are combined into groups and form ceremonial forms of worship. Church rites can be divided into two groups: 1. Ordinary, ordinary, normal rites, which are always performed without change; 2. Orders are those that undergo changes, depending on the time of year, various memories, and are performed only at a certain time. The first group of rites includes Liturgy, Matins, Vespers, Sacraments, etc., and the second group includes festive services. Let us first consider the rites of the first category. About normal rites The first place between these rites, without a doubt, should be occupied by the Liturgy. Let's look at her story here. It must be said that the history of the Liturgy is very long and can be divided into several periods: the 1st period extends until the 4th century, when the rites were subject to changes, the 2nd period from the 4th to the 9th, the 3rd - from the 9th-14th, the 4th - from the 14th to the present. The peculiarity of the first period is that freedom was allowed in the celebration of the Liturgy, although the basis was uniform. At first the Liturgy was performed according to oral tradition, and then it was written down. We find evidence of the initial celebration of the Liturgy in the Book of Acts, the Apostolic Epistles and the Fathers of the Church. The first detailed description is found in the 2nd century. in Justin Martyr's First Apology. According to Justin’s description, the Liturgy was performed as follows: “On the day of the Sun,” says Justin, “we all gather together and read, first of all, the writings of the apostles and prophets, as long as time allows, then the primate gives instructions; after this we all get up and pray, the prayer is followed by a kiss; then the primate takes the Cup and offers praise and glory to God, and says the prayer for a long time; those listening to the prayer conclude with the word “Amen.” Then the deacons distribute bread and wine (the Cup), but not simple bread and not simple wine, but the true Body and Blood of Christ" 99 . Thus, two components of the Liturgy are indicated here: the initial part and the celebration of the sacrament itself, or the Liturgy of the Catechumens and the Liturgy of the Faithful. The Liturgy of the Catechumens began with the reading of the Old and New Testaments, as time permitted, then a sermon was delivered. The Liturgy of the Faithful, as described by Justin, began with the prayer of the faithful, followed by a kiss, an offering of bread (our proskomedia), a prayer said for a long time (as long as possible) for the consecration of the Gifts and ended with communion. Other writers of the 2nd century. There are no such details in the description of the Liturgy; they complemented only what Justin does not touch upon at all or speaks about which is unclear. Thus, Justin says that the primate gives praise and glory to God, but Irenaeus complements what Justin said: the primate brings thanks to God for the fact that He has created and given us all kinds of benefits, then calls on the Holy Spirit, while saying these prayers as much as he wants (freely). Justin's description can be considered the most important monument of antiquity. It, together with other descriptions, very clearly indicates an essential feature of the worship of that time - freedom. This freedom of service was the reason why there were differences in different places in the details of the celebration of the Liturgy, as can be seen from the lists that have come down to us from the 3rd century. Thus, the period before the 4th century can be called the period of the use of local liturgies. This depended mainly on the persecution of the Church. The Church, as we know, was still scattered at that time and the relations between the private Churches were very difficult. But from the 4th century. is the desire for centralization: the Church begins to group itself around metropolitans and archbishops. Along with this desire begins the desire for uniformity in the celebration of the Liturgy and the destruction of arbitrariness. True, freedom was an apostolic tradition, but it was not unconditional; it was determined by those forms of Liturgy that were intended for all Churches; only the apostolic traditions soon began to be forgotten, and arbitrariness appeared. This arbitrariness in the 4th century. began to limit. Attempts were made to correct and streamline the celebration of the Liturgy and to create one common order of rites. The first attempt belongs to the Council of Carthage. But these were only attempts; they were not the result of an order of the Church, but the fruit of the zeal of the shepherds of private Churches - Basil the Great and John Chrysostom. The corrections they made came into general use not because of official authority, but because they met the needs of believers. The first attempt to correct the divine service was made by Vasily the Great. It is difficult to determine in what form the Liturgy came out of the hands of Bas[ili] the Great, because its copy has been lost, as well as its early copies. All the efforts of scientists to find even a copy of the original Liturgy of Bas[ili] the Great remained in vain. The copies from it date back to the 8th century. Although these lists are not far from the time of Basil the Great, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that they do not correctly reproduce the Liturgy of Basil the Great. In his Liturgy, as it is described in the copies of the 8th century, there are many differences compared with the Liturgy of Basil the Great of our time. In Vasily’s writings there is no indication of the order of the Liturgy. This order can only be determined by guesswork. What was the basis of the Liturgy of Vasily the Great? Bas[ili] the Great was a bishop in Caesarea, so he belongs to the Antiochian metropolis and, therefore, began to correct the Liturgy of the Antiochian Church, which was the Liturgy of the Apostle James, as is confirmed by general traditions and the contemporary writer Proclus of Bas[ili]. The Council of Trullo puts the Liturgy of James in close connection with the Liturgy of Basil the Great, and Proclus says that those who had weakened in the faith began to get bored with the long service, therefore, Basil the Great shortened the Liturgy of James, and this reduction consisted in the fact that he partly shortened the prayers of the Liturgy of James, and partly replaced them with a new one 100 . In this form the Liturgy came into use in the East; it was translated into all languages: Syriac, etc., etc. Chrysostom also worked in the same direction for Vasily the Great. Chrysostom's correction was more influential than the correction of Vasily the Great. The Liturgy of Chrysostom became something obligatory. But the correction of Chrysostom was carried out in connection with what the Antiochian Church had developed. The Liturgy of Chrysostom is an abbreviation of the Liturgy of Basil the Great. The Liturgy of Basil the Great seemed long to the believers; John Chrysostom often complained that many left the church without even listening to the sermon; others after communion, without hearing the prayer of thanksgiving, “that’s why I shortened it.” Proof that Chrysostom knew the Liturgy of Vasily the Great is evidenced, on the one hand, by his life in Antioch, and on the other, by the words of Vasily the Great. Thus, Chrysostom only has the honor of shortening the prayers, which only concerned their length, while the number and order of the prayers remained the same. Consequently, the changes of Basil the Great and John Chrysostom were made on the same basis - the Liturgy of the Apostle James. What was the original form of the Liturgy of Chrysostom? This question is not as strange as it might seem. The Liturgy of John Chrysostom has not reached us in its original form; she has undergone many changes. Its oldest list (Barberinovsky 101), which has come down to us, belongs to the 8th century, but this list does not convey the true Liturgy of Chrysostom. It is difficult to reconstruct it only on the basis of essays Chrysostom and his conversations. Chrysostom's liturgy was very simple. It began with the words “Peace to all,” followed by the singing of psalms (this is evidenced by Chrysostom’s conversations). The singing was followed by the reading of the Apostle and the Gospel. There was no small entrance yet with the Gospel. Further teaching, litanies for the catechumens and prayers for the faithful; then proskomedia. The priests took the substance from ordinary believers - the deacons carried the Gifts to the altar and then prayers followed for the consecration of these Gifts, then a fraternal kiss took place, after which the priest said the words “Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,” etc. Then followed the prayer for the living and the dead, “Our Father” and the breaking of the lamb. The liturgy ended with the words of the deacon, “We will go out in peace,” and the prayer behind the pulpit. Ghoul Dashing 102 wrote 1881 March 6 Lecture 31. Lit[urgy] of Chrysostom The Liturgy of Zlat[oust] has not reached us in its original form. Its oldest list dates back to the 8th century. The liturgy of Zlat[oust] can only be restored on the basis of his writings. It began with the words “Peace to all,” followed by the reading of the psalms, the Apostle and the Gospel. There was no small entrance yet. Then followed the teachings, litany 103 for the catechumens and prayers for the faithful. Then proskomedia. The priest took bread from the believers, the deacons carried the Gifts to the altar, and the very consecration of the Gifts followed. Then came the prayer for the living and the dead, “Our Father,” the breaking of the lamb, and so on. The Liturgy ended with the words of the deacon, “Let us go out in peace,” and the prayer behind the pulpit. From the 6th century the abbreviated Liturgy of Chrysostom began to expand. And from that time on, there was a desire to implement dogmas through rituals. From the writings of Maximus the Confessor, Sophronius and Herman it is clear that in the 7th and 8th centuries. Many changes occurred in the Liturgy of Zlat[oust]. Proskomedia began, as now, to be celebrated at the beginning of the Liturgy. Bread and wine were prepared on the altar. A lamb was cut from the prosphora. This part is eaten by a copy so as not to forget the side of Christ. Next, the lamb was placed on the paten, and Sophrony talks about the star and the covers. Whether there was a special prayer in honor of the Mother of God is unknown. But it must be said that proskomedia in the 7th and 8th centuries. was still in its infancy; it could also be performed by deacons, and therefore it has not yet lost its ancient character. In the 7th and 8th centuries. The liturgy of the catechumens has undergone many changes; it merged with the Lit[urgy] of the faithful, which began with the great litany 104 - a prayer for the faithful 105. At the beginning of the Li[urgy] of the catechumens, antiphons, the troparion “Only Begotten Son” and the small entrance with the Gospel were sung. According to Sophronius, the Gospel is carried by a deacon, and according to Herman, by a priest, saying: “Come, let us worship.” Then the Trisagion, and then, as now, there followed a special litany 106, for the catechumens and for the faithful. Changes also took place in the Liturgy of the Faithful: during the Great Entrance they began to sing the Cherubic hymn, they carried Gifts from the altar, and before them the ripids. In 510, under Patriarch Timothy, the reading of the Creed was introduced. “It is worthy to eat” began with the words “The most honorable cherub,” because the first part appeared already in the 10th century. Before the “Our Father” it was said: “Abba, Father, give us...” The exclamation: “With the fear of God...” was pronounced more extensively than now. This was followed by prayer behind the pulpit and the distribution of Gifts, which ended the Liturgy. There is no doubt that Sophrony and Herman worked a lot in compiling the order of the Liturgy, but these works did not end its development. True, Herman’s edition apparently contains everything, but if we pay attention to the sacred actions and the end of the Liturgy, we will find that Herman’s works were not at all final. From a consideration of the lists of the Liturgy of the 9th and 10th centuries. it is clear that sacred actions differ in many respects from each other. It should be noted that there is a difference in the composition of the proskomedia, in the prayers of the Liturgy of the catechumens and the faithful, and at the end of the Liturgy. The difference is that in some verses there are additions, and in others there are deficiencies. Prayers for the consecration of the Gifts are also different. In the ancient editions there are no words “Lord, like Thy Most Holy Spirit...” The 14th century should be considered the final limit of the development of the Liturgy. At this time, Patriarch Philotheus issued a handwritten charter of actions. This charter was brought to Russia by Metropolitan Cyprian and became an unchangeable norm. The publication of Patriarch Philotheus put a barrier to change. Although the lists of subsequent times are not yet complete, this can be attributed to the negligence of the copyists. In general, the rite of the Liturgy has been since the 14th century. hasn't changed. But its development, however, has not yet ended: one can think that it will continue. Lecture 32 on Liturgics. Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts Along with the famous Liturgies of Bas[ili] the Great and John Chrysostom, in the Christian Church we encounter a special Liturgy - the Presanctified Gifts. In its composition, it differs significantly from the ordinary Liturgy, since it contains neither proskomedia nor the consecration of the Gifts; nevertheless, it has a very close connection with the latter - in comparison with it, the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts is only incomplete, so that among some church writers it does not have a special name and is known under the name “incomplete Liturgy.” The reason that led to the emergence of a special type of Liturgy of the Pre-Consecrated Gifts was the fact that Christians during Lent wanted to remove from themselves not only worldly, sinful pleasures, but even holy and spiritual ones, which the performance of the ordinary Liturgy gave them, since in its content and character it contains a lot of solemn and joyful things. Who owns the edition of this Liturgy? 107 Judging by the inscriptions found in our collections above the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, it belongs to Gregory Dvoeslov, Pope of Rome. Inscriptions, of course, should be of great importance for us, since they are usually made by contemporaries of the authors. However, the inscription above the mentioned Liturgy in our collections cannot have such a meaning in the matter of its edition. In service books from the VIII-XVI centuries. we do not find such inscriptions, since this Liturgy was directly attributed to Bas[ili] the Great. Only in manuscripts of the 16th century. we find traces that it was already attributed to Gregory Dvoeslov. Thus, in some manuscripts we find in the dismissal of the Presanctified Liturgy the name of Gregory Dvoeslov, as well as the troparion composed in his honor. The Liturgy itself was still inscribed with the name of Bas[ili] the Great. The name Gregory appeared in its inscription already from the time of printing, in the same 16th century. But on what basis did the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts begin to be attributed to Gregory Dvoeslov in Russian service books? Back in the 17th century, Dositheos, Patriarch of Jerusalem, proved the injustice of this. He positively asserts that the Li[turgy] of the presanctified Gifts can in no way be attributed to Gregory [Dvoeslov]. He referred firstly to tradition, in which he did not find a trace of anything like that. Thus, Sophronius of Jerusalem and the Alexandrian Chronicle not only do not attribute the Liturgy to Gregory the Two-Speaker, but positively assert that its origin dates back to ancient times; secondly, that Gregory the Two-Eloquents could not even write the Liturgy of the Pre-Consecrated Gifts, since he did not know the Greek language. It is known that when works in Greek appeared with his name, he, in a letter to Eugene of Thessaloniki, rejected them, among other things, on the grounds that he did not even know the Greek language. On the other hand, in the collection of Gregory’s works we do not find the Liturgy of the Pre[consecrated] Gifts. What, however, made us assume that it belongs to Grigory Dvoeslov? The reason for this was the distortion of one passage from the life of Gregory the Dvoeslov. In his ancient lives we do not find any news about his compilation of the Liturgy. Only in one synaxarium, compiled by [John] 108 Deacon, do we find a special life of Gregory, in which, among other things, the following was reported about him: “Gregory laid down the law for the Romans to celebrate the full Liturgy during Lent, which is celebrated among them to this day.” From this remark it is clear that the Greeks had already heard that the Romans celebrated the full Liturgy during Lent and that this was an innovation of Gregory the Two-Speaker. And this is in complete agreement with the sacramentary written by Gregory the Dvoeslov, where we actually find the rule to celebrate the full Liturgy during Lent. But later this news was distorted - the word “complete” was omitted, as can be seen from the printed prologues. Then the very word “Romans” was replaced by “Greeks”. The last replacement could be based on the fact that since the founding of Byzantium, the Greeks began to be called Romans and the Greek capital itself bore the name “New Rome”. The Romans were simply called Latins. We find this replacement of the word “Greeks” by Romans quite established in the writings of Maximus 109. Thus, the opinion about the origin of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts from Gregory the Dvoeslov does not have sufficient grounds and was formed only due to distortions of the text in the life of Gregory indicated by us. If, in this way, the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts does not belong to Gregory the Two-Eloquent, then how did it happen? If in its composition it is only an incomplete ordinary Liturgy, then it is clear that it must be contemporary with the canonical prohibition of celebrating the full Liturgy during Lent. As is known, this prohibition took place at the Laodicean Council (364), in the 69th rule of its decrees, which prohibits “bringing bread” during fasting, with the exception of Saturdays and Sundays. The expression “bring bread” is equal to “blessing bread,” as can be seen from canon 19, 58. The purpose of such a decree is the same as that pursued by the prohibition to celebrate the days of martyrs, birthdays, etc., during fasting, that is, to limit or reduce the joy, even though it is holy, but nevertheless still does not agree with the nature of the time of fasting and contrition for sins. However, this rule of the Council does not at all prohibit the communion of the laity, since it is known that Bas[ili] the Great makes it an obligation for every believer to take communion 4 times a week. If, in this way, the prohibition to perform the full Liturgy during Lent dates back to the 2nd half of the 4th century, i.e., it coincides with the time of the life and work of Bas[ili] the Great, then it is likely that the edition of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts also belonged to him, as can be seen from the inscription above it. However, in reality, the Lit[urgy] of the presanctified Gifts dates back to the most ancient times. It is known that Christians of the first centuries had the custom of receiving communion every day and, therefore, in one form or another, the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts must have existed since apostolic times. Socrates writes that Christians of the Alexandrian Church during Lent read the Holy Scriptures and receive communion, although they do not perform consecration - and this is an “ancient custom.” Cyril of Alexandria also takes up arms against those who considered it not as valid to partake of the presanctified Gifts as those prepared on the day of communion itself (here, of course, the Nestorians). The Chronicle of Alexandria and Sophronius of Jerusalem (8th century) also testify to the antiquity of the Presanctified Liturgy. The first one says that at the Liturgy after “May my prayer be corrected,” then “Now the powers of Heaven are with us.” Consequently, the Liturgy of the Presanctified already existed before the 7th century. Sophronius of Jerusalem writes that in his time the Liturgy of Bas[ili] the Great, John Chrysostom and the Presanctified Gifts was used, which he attributes to apostolic times, attributing its composition either to James, then to Peter, or to the other apostles. The Council of Trulla commands the celebration of the Presanctified Liturgy. The final edition of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts belongs to Herman (8th century) and Philotheus (14th century). Thus, from everything we have said about the Presanctified Liturgy, it follows that it does not belong to Gregory the Dvoeslov, that Gregory’s contemporaries considered it to have existed since the times of the apostles, at least before the 4th century, since Basil the Great was editing the already finished Liturgy. In the 7th century, special new songs were added to it. In the 14th century it was finally edited by Philotheus. The name of it after Gregory Dvoeslov occurred as a result of a distortion of the place of his life, which contains a completely different meaning. Lecture 34. Liturgics March 4th Currently, the rite of acceptance into Christian society is performed through two rites - Baptism and Confirmation, following one after the other. However, this practice agrees with the practice of the apostles, who never extended the period of acceptance into membership of the society of Christ, only later this period gradually extended over a relatively long time. These rituals have been preserved to this day with minor changes. The entire rite of acceptance into the community of believers is divided into three main acts: the act of preparation, the act of acceptance and the act of sealing. Those preparing were called catechumens, who were already considered junior members of the community of believers. They were accepted into this class with certain rituals: reading the prescribed prayer, making the sign of the cross and laying on of hands. They had to prepare for Baptism for a more or less long time. In the time of the apostles, it is true, there was no long interval between the catechumen and Baptism, but subsequently, due to many examples of falling away from the faith, the time of the catechumen was extended, so that the entire period sometimes reached three years. But this custom was far from common: according to Jerome, in his time the period of testing was limited only to “fourty” days, and later even to 8 days. At this time, those preparing were supposed to learn the truths of the faith of Christ, listen to teachings, memorize the Creed, and generally prepare to accept the new faith. In accordance with how the catechumens assimilated Christian truths and improved in Christian morality, they were divided into 4 different degrees: 1) crying 110, 2) listening (they were allowed to listen to the word of God and teachings; before the prayer of the faithful began, they had to leave), 3) kneeling 111 (were present at the prayers of the Liturgy of the catechumens; a special one was read for them prayer, which they listened to with kneeling), 4) those being baptized 112 - these were already prepared for Baptism in a special way: their names were first entered into the book along with the names of their recipients; for 20 days they were subjected to a spell consisting of blowing and washing. The ancient Fathers of the Church have many references to this custom, which was performed even on infants. In our present rites, almost the entire order is observed - at least all four points of the announcement are observed. But according to other rites, there were other customs that have now been abandoned: for example, catechumens had to walk with their heads covered, which according to some meant spiritual slavery, and according to others it was used simply for greater convenience in the perception of spiritual truths. There was also a custom to anoint the eyes with clay, following the example of the Savior, who once anointed the eyes of a man born blind, or to pronounce the word “εὐφαθὰ” in the ear. Next, the catechumens had to deny the devil and read the Creed. The formula for renunciation was the same as now; it was pronounced three times and was pronounced not in the baptismal chapel, but in the vestibule, with the face facing the west; the denial was followed by the combination to Christ, which, according to Justin, was only fitting for those who promise to be always faithful to Christ. In addition, everyone who was baptized was required to confess their faith. This confession was pronounced three times from an elevated place, with hands raised upward, and then signed with one’s own hand. In fact, only one recipient was needed at Baptism. Their duties, as now, consisted in the fact that they had to teach those who had received the truths of the faith. Before immersion, anointing with oil was performed, which was called conjuring anointing. Some gave it the meaning of a means of burning away sins with spiritual fire, others gave it the meaning of burying a person. Along with the anointing, the sign of the cross was placed on the forehead. As for the action of consecration of water, it was performed after anointing with oil. The Apostolic Decrees describe the rite of consecration of water before Baptism. The prayer of consecration included in our rites is somewhat different from that presented in the Apostolic Constitutions, although in essence it is the same. The consecration of water was followed by the act of Baptism itself. According to the unanimous testimony of all the fathers, it was done like this: clothes were taken off, which meant Adam’s nakedness, and the person being baptized was immersed in water three times, which signified the burial of the old man; men were baptized separately from women. The baptism of 113 infants was also carried out through immersion; they were baptized through pouring only in exceptional cases, for example due to the illness of the person being baptized, or when Baptism was performed in prison. Some carried out triple immersion from the apostolic time, others from a later time, and some did not even consider it necessary. But the ancient fathers directly recognized the need for threefold immersion. During immersion, the very formula of Baptism was pronounced - “The servant of God is baptized...”, etc. All the fathers testify to its universal obligatory nature and importance. Jesus Christ himself once said: “Go and teach all languages...” 114, etc. There is no doubt, however, that during the heretical movements the formula of Baptism was distorted. Baptism, in fact, should end with immersion. In ancient times, Baptism was immediately followed by Confirmation: all the ancient fathers testify to this. Confirmation was performed by priests, although at first they received this right with the consent of the bishops. The formula of Confirmation, prescribed by the rule of the Second Ecumenical Council, has remained to this day. During Confirmation, the newly baptized person was clothed in clean clothes, which meant putting off the old person and putting on the new. In addition, there was a custom at Baptism to stand with lit candles, or to greet the newly baptized with a kiss of peace. After Baptism, the newly baptized were already admitted to the sacrament of Communion. N.F. Krasnoseltsev. Appendix 1 Published by: OR RNB. F. 253. Storage unit. 196. L. 5 – 8 vol. Methods of processing liturgics 115 In the early days of the existence of the Church of Christ, when the ritual side of Christian worship was just beginning to be developed and was not yet firmly established, there could be no talk of its scientific presentation. Religious truths, clothed in the form of symbols and rituals, were communicated from the church pulpit by primates who pursued only practical goals, that is, so that believers, through the assimilation of the order of worship, would become acquainted with the dogmatic and moral truths of Christianity. However, the positive presentation did not last long. Soon heretics appeared who rebelled against the cult and dogmatic-moral truths. It was necessary to repel the attacks of the heretics using the scientific method, that is, with the same weapons with which they acted. Still, the scientific method was not developed at this time; it has just begun to develop. As for the practical side of Christian truths, it was abandoned. There were even secular scientists who looked down on the theoretical side of dogmatic-moral truths, because they could not be proven and studied. But it is in vain that these scientists do not see that, in addition to the internal, theoretical side, there is a practical side in concrete forms, which is the subject of our science. The need for scientific research on this aspect is proven by the fact that religious forms were a precedent for the moral, everyday and social life of all peoples. The religious cult existed and exists among all peoples and has a tremendous influence on the character of peoples, even giving rise to bloody wars. One would expect that Western scientists would pay attention to this aspect, but even here they did not take it seriously. The West is splitting into Catholic[s] and Protestant[s]. The former look at form as something accidental, and the latter as an institution for the masses, as a sign of underdevelopment. Still, collections were published there (ranks, etc.), but for polemical and practical purposes. The Christian East was alien to extremes, but little was done here at first. And if anything was done, it was meant to reveal to the believers the meaning of the rituals of worship. In this case, the fathers (Ignatius the God-Bearer, Clement of Alexandria) used a dogmatic method of presenting the truths of Christian worship - as they appeared to direct religious feeling, and introduced a lot of arbitrary, subjective things. But why, for example, a well-known ritual came into practice and why it is given such significance - they do not answer this. Therefore, the fathers 116 realized the unsuitability of the dogmatic method and soon replaced it with the historical one. The historical method is more suitable for the study of Christian worship than the dogmatic one. By showing the beginning and reason for the establishment of this or that rite, this method gives every son of the Church the opportunity to explain the reasonableness and necessity of our worship. But there can be extremes when using this method. Using it, Protestants came to the conclusion that Catholics had deviated far from the original ritual 117 Christian worship, and therefore rejected all ritual. Catholics, in order to protect their worship from attacks by Protestants, turned to the study of patristic literature and thereby laid the foundation for the historical-archaeological method of research. The importance of this method cannot be denied; but even here there can be extremes. Coming from the position that in Christian ritual only that which has the force of prescription is sacred, we would have to throw out a lot from our worship and thereby deprive it (the service) of a living element, with the help of which the Church has the opportunity to embody any religious truth in the form of a ritual, and at the same time deprive our worship of its main interest - the education of the people. Our worship is improving along with the development of the people themselves; therefore, just as it is impossible to stop the development of a people, so it is equally impossible to stop its religious cult. That is why the historical-archaeological method when studying worship must be used with great caution. In view of the recent special development of the natural sciences, where the comparative-historical method is practiced, Western scientists recommend this method to the Christian cult as the most fruitful. Indeed, with the help of this method, Western scientists have achieved brilliant results in natural science research. In the West, even an entire science has been created - the history of culture, in which the life of the people is studied using this method in connection with their religious beliefs and ideals. Taylor 118 especially attaches enormous importance to this method and thinks of applying it to the field of Christian worship. He argues that although the student of the general principles of savage life finds them amusing and the study itself useless, in fact their beliefs and rituals are not a pitiful mixture of various absurdities; they are correct and logical, they reveal the beginnings of their education and development, although they act in an environment of inveterate ignorance. Coming out of this situation, Taylor looks at the rituals of one or another people as modifications of the life of other different peoples. Taylor's method also finds support among Western scientists. But we must make an important caveat. No matter how great the scientific significance of the comparative-historical method, it is inaccessible due to difficulty and cannot be fully applied to the study of the rites of the Christian religion. The fact is that it is not enough to answer that such and such a ritual existed in ancient times, but one also needs to investigate why this ritual appeared and why it was given such significance. In this case, it is necessary to study the different state of cults among ancient peoples, and this is backbreaking work. Further, it is not safe to apply this method to the rites of the Christian religion, because many of them exist as Divine institutions, and their origin is considered supernatural; consequently, to put them in connection with the rites of natural religion means to bring them down from the pedestal of Divinity. It is clear that in the West, where the supernatural is reduced to the level of the natural, this method is applicable, but in Orthodox science it is not entirely allowed, although it can be used with restrictions, and this circumstance does not at all speak against the scientific nature of Orthodox research in the field of Christian cult. According to Taylor, all rituals are divided into three groups: 1) rituals that have existed for a long time now exist with the same meaning, such as, for example, turning to the east in prayer, cleansing from offenses through fire, water, etc., 2) rituals that existed before, but have now lost their meaning and 3) rituals passed down from ancestors by tradition, by habit of experience - a remnant that proves the previous state of the cult. These rituals are useful or useless, depending on the degree of their application in the community. When studying this threefold group of rituals, the comparative-historical method will be of significant benefit. But Taylor forgets the 4th group of purely Christian rituals (for example, the sign of the cross), to which this method is no longer applicable. Therefore, the comparative historical method is applicable only when studying rituals that have universal human significance, and so on. arr., two methods are most suitable for our science: historical and historical-archaeological, rarely comparative-historical, and dogmatic has no scientific significance at all. For more information about him, see: Funeral service for N.F. Krasnoseltsev: (d. September 11, 1898). Odessa, 1899. The lecture is not presented in full in the manuscript. For the continuation of the lecture, see: OR RNL. F. 253. Unit. hr. D. 135. “Notes (5) on liturgical books: Lenten and colored triodions, typikon, missal, service book, etc. L. 48 – 67 vol. The article was published by: Dmitrievsky A. A. About the stichera “We have seen the true light” in the rites of the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great // Guide for rural shepherds. Kiev, 1886. No. 10. P. 265–278. The program of Nikolai Fomich's lectures for the 1880/1881 academic year is preserved in: NART. F. 10. Op. 1. Unit hr. 7613 (The case of the KazDA Council with testing programs for master's students of the fourth grade). L. 17–18. Autograph of N. F. Krasnoseltsev. Report on the activities of the Kazan Theological Academy for the 1877/1878 academic year. Kazan, 1878. P. 40. Without taking into account Holy and Holy Weeks, when students had vacations. The report says: “Associate Professor Nikolai Krasnoseltsev, in liturgics, taught second-year students, in introduction to science, about Christian worship in its component parts; third-year students - about liturgical chants, reading Holy Scripture, about sacramental actions and about liturgical rites in their entire composition" (Report on the activities of the Kazan Theological Academy for the 1877/1878 academic year. Kazan, 1878. P. 34). One in September (Minutes of meetings of the council of the Kazan Theological Academy for 1880. Kazan, 1880. P. 227) and two in January (Minutes of meetings of the council of the Kazan Theological Academy for 1881. Kazan, 1881. P. 23). In March (Minutes of meetings of the council of the Kazan Theological Academy for 1881. Kazan, 1881. P. 79) The lecture presented on l. 28 rev. – 32 vol., there is another entry presented on fol. 5 – 8 rev. Published in Appendix 1. Followed by a strikethrough: In addition... Followed by a strikethrough: everything... In the manuscript – latricial. In the manuscript - Roban. Raban the Maurus (c. 780 - 856) - German theologian and writer, Archbishop of Mainz. Probably, this refers to the work of the Moor “De institutione clericorum libri tres” // PL 107/1. Col. 294–420. Valafrid Strabo († 849) - medieval Latin poet and theologian. This probably refers to the work of Strabo entitled “De rerum ecclesiasticarum exordiis et incrementis, sive de rebus ecclesiasticis” // PL 114. Col. 919–966. In the manuscript - Atomsky. Honorius of Autun [Augustodunsky] (1075/1080 - ca. 1156) - Catholic theologian, philosopher and historian. This probably refers to the work of Honorius “Gemma animae, seu de divinis officiis et antique ritu missarum...” // PL 172. Georg Cassander (1513–1566). Probably, this refers to the work Allatius L. De libris et rebus eccelsiasticus Graecorum. Paris, 1646.” John Bona, cardinal († 1674). This probably refers to the work “Bona I. Rerum liturgicarum libri duo. Romae, 1671.” The manuscript is illegible. The reference is probably to Mariano Armellini (1662–1737), an Italian Benedictine monk and historian. In the manuscript - Steideymeier. This refers to the essay “Staudenmeier F. Geist der Christenthums dargestellt in h. Zeiten, Handlungen und der h. Kunst. Mainz, 1835. Bd. 1–2.” This refers to the essay “SchmidtF X. Liturgik christkatholischen Religion. Passau, 1832–1833. Bd. 1–3.” In the manuscript - Lyuvta. This refers to the essay: Luft J. B. Liturgik oder wissenschaftliche Darstellung der katholischen Kultus. Mainz, 1844. 1847. Bd. 1–2. This probably refers to Karl Christian Friedrich Siegel (1780–1846), who owns, in particular: SiegelK. Handbuch der christlich-kirchlichen Alterthumer in alphabetischer Ordnung. Leipzig, 1835–1838. Bd. 1–4. Probably, this means I. Gass and his work: Gass I. C. Uber den christlichen Kultus. Breslau, 1815. Probably, this means I. Brocker and his work: BrockerI. Der evangelisch-christliche Gemeindegottesdienst aus der Schrift entwickelt. Hamburg, 1843. It should be crossed out: possible... Should be crossed out: replace. Followed by a strikethrough: for. Followed by a strikethrough: secondly. In the manuscript - towards achievement. Followed by a strikethrough: various types... Justin Philosopher. Apology 1:17. In Tertullian, this thought sounds as follows: “For we ask the emperors for health from the eternal God, from the living God, from that God, whose favor the emperors themselves primarily desire” (Tertullian. Apology. Ch. 30). “Afterwards we remember those who have died before, firstly the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, so that through their prayers and intercession God may accept our prayer.” See: Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Secret teaching fifth, ch. 9. The phrase from the Gospel of John is given in modified form. It should be: “Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you” (John 14:27). Rom 11.36: “To him be glory forever...” 1 Peter 5.11: “To him be glory and dominion forever and ever.” Hebrews 13.21: “To him be glory forever and ever.” Open 5 . 13b: “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.” 1Кор 14. 16 : «Ибо если ты будешь благословлять духом, то стоящий на месте простолюдина как скажет: «аминь» при твоем благодарении?» Filaret (Gumilevsky), archbishop. Historical overview of the hymns and hymns of the Greek Church. St. Petersburg, 1912. P.167–168. In the manuscript - Kozma Mayumsky. Followed by a strikethrough: already... Opinion of John Zonara. Точное звучание мысли следующее: «Канон получил свое название от того, что заключает известное и определенное число песней, то есть девять. Песнию называется здесь не то, что поется на инструментах, но что живым и стройным голосом выражается пред Богом Девять песней в каноне потому, что они служат изображением небесной иерархии и ее песней. Иначе – девять песней заключают в себе образ Святой Троицы, в честь которой они издавна назначены отцами. Ибо трижды три составляют девять – число песней, которое потому заключает в себе трикратную троичность». Quote by: Filaret (Gumilevsky), Archbishop. Historical overview of hymns. P. 216. Followed by a strikethrough: the last... Side note: NB: These notes are from my own womb. Note in the margin: NB: Another version of this anecdote says that it was not the musician himself who was furious, who was not even a student of Pythagoras, but one of Pythagoras’ students. It should be crossed out: the main persons... Eph 5. 18-19: “...be filled with the Spirit, speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord.” 2 Chronicles 5.13: “And they were as one, trumpeting and singing, uttering one voice to praise and glorify the Lord; and when the sound of trumpets and cymbals and instruments of music resounded, and they praised the Lord...” Lecture 15 repeats lecture 13 in its material. In the manuscript it is enuromatic. It should be crossed out: and one repeated... Socrates Scholasticus. Church history. 6, 8. There is a long line in the manuscript. The manuscript dates from the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th centuries. In the manuscript, this word is replaced by an ellipsis. Perhaps this refers to Franco of Cologne (c. 1250–1280), who developed the doctrine of harmony. The scribe of the manuscript systematically poorly reproduces from ear the name of the Italian musical theorist Guido d'Arezzo, calling him either Limbron or Diderot. Followed by a strikethrough: Diderot... The term "dissonance" actually means unfavorable consonance. Large Mass in B minor and 4 short ones. This student of Johann Sebastian Bach could not be identified. In fact, Orlando Lasso lived before Johann Sebastian Bach, so he could not have been a student of Jagassen. It should be crossed out: you need... It should be crossed out: so... It should be crossed out: received... It should be crossed out: Eusebius, then... It should be crossed out: Lecture 29... Justin Martyr. Apology 1, 67. Outdated view. For more details see: Leroy F.J. Proclus, De Traditione Divinae Missaë Un faux de C. Paleocappa // Orientalia Christiana Periodica. Roma, 1962. Vol. 28. P. 288–299. In the manuscript - Marze isisky. The name of the first copyist of ancient Russian books. Followed by a strikethrough: after which. About authorship, see: Yellow M. S. Is the Pope the author of the Byzantine Liturgy? On the question of the authorship of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts // Byzantium and the West (950th anniversary of the schism of the Christian Church, 800th anniversary of the capture of Constantinople by the crusaders): Abstract. report XVII All-Russian. scientific sessions of Byzantinists. M., 2004. pp. 61–63. Space is left in the manuscript for a name. There is a question mark above this word. Nowadays it is customary to call them “falling”. Nowadays it is customary to call them “purchasable”. Followed by a strikethrough: above... The lecture presented on l. 5 – 8 rev. our manuscript, there is another entry presented on fol. 28 rev. – 32 rev. It should be crossed out: Christianity... You might be interested in: