Patriarch Photius and Byzantine worship of his time

One of the most outstanding in its influence aspects of Byzantine culture, the bearer of which was, undoubtedly, Patriarch Photius, whom we now honor, was the religious, church side, and in particular the church rite, cult or Orthodox worship. It is about this side of Byzantine culture, about this, one might say, its predominant element, which gave it a bright and unique coloring, about church cult or worship, that I intend to bring to your attention several of my thoughts, believing that it is very fitting to honor the memory of the blessed patriarch by considering a phenomenon with which he, as archpastor, naturally had to have close contact. But a cult is a very complex phenomenon; to consider it in its entirety for the present case would be too much and not entirely appropriate. Therefore, we will try to limit our subject matter as much as possible. A cult is a collection of various external forms that serve to reveal religion outside, which, being the property of the human spirit, according to the universal laws of mental life, requires a corresponding manifestation outside. The forms of this discovery are the same as those that serve in general for all manifestations of the life of the human spirit. The theory of cult points to three such universal forms that serve to detect religion in external cult. This is 1) a verbal-musical form, this is a language, a word combined with sound; this is the highest and most perfect of forms; 2) the form of actions and gestures, the form, so to speak, mimetic-dramatic, ceremonial and 3) the form of material symbols, the form, so to speak, artistic. No matter how interesting it would be to consider the artistic forms of the Byzantine cult: architecture, in the area of ​​​​which Byzantium created the church of St. Sophia showed art new paths, sculpture, painting and, in general, all church decoration, but we leave this subject aside. We leave aside the purely ceremonial side, which is also very interesting. We will focus our attention mainly only on the verbal forms of Byzantine worship. These forms are the most important and most abundant in the Orthodox cult. They predominate in this service to such an extent that sometimes a specific name is attached to it: verbal service. However, from verbal forms we select only two types, namely didactic forms or liturgical preaching and poetic or liturgical chants. This is because, by the way, here we can mainly indicate traces of the comprehensive activity of Patriarch Photius and his merits. So, let's see what kind of setting both of the elements we indicated, i.e. didactic or preaching and poetic, had in Byzantine Constantinople worship before Photius and under Photius, and what part did Photius take in their development and ordering? Byzantine worship is the same as we have, although of course during its long history it had some differences in different eras either in its general composition or in the organization and development of its constituent elements. In relation to ancient Christian worship, it also does not represent anything completely special. It is a direct continuation of it, and developed on its basis. What was this basis, especially in relation to the elements we have indicated? The general character here consisted of extraordinary vitality and freedom with complete expediency and orderliness. In particular, with regard to the didactic or preaching element, it is in the form of reading St. Scripture and living preaching had an unusually wide development and free presentation in early Christian worship, nevertheless constituting an inevitable and necessary element. All ancient descriptions of this service assure us that the first part of the liturgy was almost exclusively didactic. From the descriptions of Justin the Martyr 1 and the Apostolic Constitutions 2 we know that the liturgy began with the reading of St. Scriptures and teachings. Excerpts from various books of St. were read in great abundance. Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Then came the teaching; the bishop taught first; after him the elders did the same. Consequently, this act of teaching reality was quite lengthy and was carried out very diligently. This arrangement of liturgical preaching was determined to a large extent not only by the main purpose of the service, but also by the circumstances of the time, not far from the times of the apostles, when the spread and establishment of faith among the surrounding society was the main concern of the church. It goes without saying that this teaching was all the more fruitful the more talented and skillful the preachers were. Therefore, subsequently, especially in the 3rd century, we see that the leaders of the churches tried to find and encourage oratorical talents and Christian learning in order to bring greater success to church teaching. We know this, for example, from the story of the famous scientist and speaker Orion. At the same time, in the 3rd century. we notice that certain undesirable elements of secular eloquence have begun to creep into the pulpit. Thus, it is known that Paul of Samosata in Antioch set up a high oratorical platform for himself in his church and spoke from it, accompanying them with such gestures and techniques that could not always be found among secular speakers 3. This act of Paul, of course, did not find approval in the church, but its very possibility constitutes a significant fact, for it points to the broad and free development of church liturgical oratory. Another element of it, the poetic element, had an even broader and more lively setting in ancient Christian worship. Already in the messages of St. Paul we find an indication of spiritual songs, that is, composed by Christians under the influence of a new spiritual religion. Proconsul Pliny, in his famous letter to Emperor Trajan, mentions the hymn sung by Christians to Christ as God. The Roman presbyter Caius (2nd century) points to a very large number of songs of this kind, written by the faithful at the beginning (απ ̓ αρχη ϛ) 4. And in fact, it is very natural that in the first centuries, when religious animation, especially under the influence of persecution, reached an extreme degree of tension, religious hymns appeared in enormous numbers and, of course, for the most part were assimilated into public worship. True, very little of this enormous mass has survived to our time, but the reason is clear. The reason is that the song element in early Christian worship was a living element, constantly moving, transient, responding mainly to current needs and moods. Some chants appeared and rotated for some time in practice; then they were replaced by new ones, etc. This mobility in the field of verbal forms of worship justified and determined those differences in the text of prayers and songs that were so characteristic of the worship of the first centuries. Even such a central service as the liturgy in different places had, although the same content, but a different presentation, which is attested with complete certainty by monuments that have survived to this day. In the first half of the 4th century, when the need arose to organize church services in Constantinople, these differences apparently reached particularly noticeable strength, which was partly the reason for the reforms in the field of worship undertaken around this time by St. Basil the Great. In the new capital of the empire, which absorbed the Christian population and clergy from different places, worship at the beginning, in all likelihood, did not have very specific and uniform forms. The first organizer of it here was St. Gregory the Theologian - friend of St. Vasily - this great organizer of Orthodox worship. Gregory highly valued the works of his friend and, having become the Archbishop of Constantinople, of course introduced the forms he developed here into use. Then all this was arranged and expanded by St. Chrysostom, who replaced, and in part only shortened, the text of the liturgical canon of St. Basil, strengthened this form of liturgy in Constantinople. At the same time, he streamlined all other liturgical institutions of the Church of Constantinople. The activity of Chrysostom in terms of the organization of Byzantine worship in general constitutes the starting point of all history and all subsequent development of this worship. This activity was based on the principles of ancient Christian practice and was highly versatile and, so to speak, harmonious. Both main types of verbal liturgical forms - preaching and poetry - found in him an active organizer. In particular, as regards poetry or the song element, at the time when Chrysostom became Archbishop of Constantinople, this element apparently consisted mainly of psalms. Photius in his library preserved news from one of the lost works of Theodoret, where Chrysostom learned the concern for arranging the order of psalms. Based on some other evidence preserved by ancient church historians, especially Socrates, one can think that Chrysostom also composed short songs of original Christian content, which in the 4th century. were known under the name of troparia and were distributed throughout the city churches. These troparia were short pieces of two or three stanzas and were usually sung interspersed with verses of psalms, forming, as it were, choruses or interstice for them. But what stands out in particular is the activity of Chrysostom as the organizer of the preaching element in Byzantine worship. This element passed to Byzantium from the ancient Christian era in a very developed form. But here it received even greater development and an even more solid formulation, thanks to the works and talent first of Gregory the Theologian, who was in Constantinople for a very short time, and then, mainly of Chrysostom, who possessed such an oratorical talent that does not allow any comparison. How abundant the oratorical element was in the Byzantine worship of that time and how much vitality there was in it - we can clearly see this from the many hints contained in the speeches and conversations of St. Chrysostom. Here we find many indications of the extraordinary attention, and even enthusiasm, of his listeners. Shouts of delight and loud applause often interrupted his conversations. He was not always pleased with these manifestations of approval and attention, but sometimes he was grateful for them, mistaking them for involuntary manifestations of feeling, and perhaps because he saw in this a deeply rooted skill that is difficult to fight, and which, in essence, does not contain anything bad if it is not abused. It should be noted that at the end of the 4th century. the use of applause and exclamations of approval when pronouncing church words was, apparently, in general use and did not surprise anyone. We have remarkable evidence on this matter from the end of the 4th century. one western pilgrim to St. places of Sylvia, who, talking about the catechumen teachings delivered in the church of St. Sepulcher in Jerusalem by the local bishop, speaks as if about something ordinary, about the approval of the listeners, so loud that they could be heard far beyond the doors of the church, although these doors were locked 5 . In subsequent times, this custom gradually fell out of use, perhaps on its own due to the impoverishment of oratorical talents among church preachers. It is characteristic of Chrysostom’s time in that it indicates the extraordinary vitality of church preaching of his time. It can be said without exaggeration that in his time this liturgical form had predominant importance in the general system of worship, or, at least, aroused the greatest interest. This is evident, by the way, from the fact that at that time, as Chrysostom testifies, many went to church solely to listen to the sermon, and after listening to it, they left, which was partly the reason why the sermon from the beginning of the liturgy was attributed to its end. So, under Chrysostom at the end of the 4th and beginning of the 5th century. Byzantine worship was completely based on the foundations of ancient Christianity. Its two main elements, didactic and poetic, represented a vital and moving phenomenon, and the didactic or preaching element, thanks to the oratorical genius of Chrysostom, significantly prevailed over the poetic, which is comparatively less developed. This is how it was under Chrysostom. Was it like this after him from the 5th to the 9th centuries? The preaching element after Chrysostom, of course, was difficult to maintain at the same height. For this it was necessary that Chrysostom’s successors had the same talent as him. And we really see that after Chrysostom the preaching element in Byzantine worship is no longer so striking in its abundance and broad presentation. But this does not mean that it has stalled and become dead. This could not be the case simply because from ancient times it constituted an essential form, conditioned in its existence by the very content and purpose of worship. This only means that he again assumed his usual proper dimensions, which, through the talent of Chrysostom, were expanded somewhat more than usual. And in subsequent times we meet in the Byzantine Church talented and teaching pastors who were able to fully satisfy the teaching purpose of worship. These are Prokol, a student of Chrysostom, Anatoly, Herman, Tarasius and others. From the end of the 7th century. we have evidence from which it is clear that preaching at that time was necessarily daily. The nineteenth canon of the Trullo Council reads: “The heads of the churches must teach all the clergy and people the words of piety all day long, especially on Sundays, choosing from the divine scripture the understanding and reasoning of the truth and without transgressing the already established limits and the traditions of the God-bearing fathers: and if the word of scripture is examined, then let it not be explained otherwise than as the luminaries and luminaries have expounded. Let the teachers of the church be more satisfied with their writings and with these than with composing their own words, so that if they lack skill in this, they will not deviate from what is proper.” From this it is clear that at the end of the 7th century. (680) in Byzantium, the custom of daily preaching was so widespread that even pastors of little ability and little prepared for preaching did not dare to deviate from it. The Council confirms the custom, but finds it necessary to limit the zeal of the incapable by church censorship. Later, at the end of the 8th and beginning of the 9th centuries, we also see an abundance of liturgical didacticism and its vitality. In this regard, the testimony of Ignatius Metropolitan of Nicea about Patriarch Tarasius, who was the grandfather of Photius, is important for us. Ignatius, a student of Tarasius, recalls his teacher in the following terms: “I will not forget your useful instructions and the time spent in meager service to you. I spent my blooming and cheerful youth with you, from you I received torch lessons about trimeters, tetrameters, trochaea, anapests and heroics; Then the subject of my studies were your teachings, which you offered every day for the benefit of St. churches. I tried to write them down in cursive and gave them to the best Arctic foxes to copy. If I forget you, may God forget me." 6 Thus, even at the beginning of the 9th century. daily preaching during worship took place and, therefore, this element was far from dead, but had its proper position and development. However, one cannot help but admit that at that time he was less visible than the other, that is, the poetic element. The history of this last, that is, poetic, element in Byzantine worship represents a mass of characteristic and unexpectedly curious facts. We have seen how relatively small the volume of chants was in Byzantium under Chrysostom. But after Chrysostom, a period of gradual and unusually rapid development of hymnography begins. In the half of the 5th century. Patriarch K-th Anatoly enriched the hymnographic material that was in use until that time, and consisted of troparions, a very significant number of hymns known as Eastern or Anatolian stichera, dedicated mainly to the glorification of the memories of saints. Some time later, at the beginning of the 6th century. in the field of Byzantine hymnography, an unusual movement and, one might say, a revolution, was made by Roman the Sweet Singer, a Syrian by birth, but who lived in Constantinople and was a deacon at one of the Constantinople churches. The gift of poetry suddenly opened up in him after fervent prayer, caused by the ridicule of his fellow singers. He began to compose hymns of a special design, known as kondakars. These are rather long poems, usually consisting of one title couplet, called a kontakion, and 24 (according to the number of alphabetic letters) or more (according to the number of acrostic letters) other couplets, called ikos. Roman wrote a huge number of this type of chants. Some count them up to 4000. The liturgical hymnography was highly decorated with them, and it seemed to be cramped in the situation in which it had been until then, so that the construction by Justinian of the magnificent church of St. Sofia, who was equipped with a large staff of clergy and choirs of singers, had it just in time. The Kondakari of Roman, apparently, took quite a long time to complete the liturgical visa. poetry is the dominant element and not without reason. These are truly poetic works of high price. One of the newest German researchers of Byzantine literature, Krumbacher, says of Roman, perhaps not without some exaggeration, that “the literary history of the future may honor Roman with the title of the greatest religious poet of all times” 7 . But, no matter how highly valuable Roman’s works were, the principle that created the history of visas. worship, did not allow them to remain in its composition forever. Little by little they were replaced by new, no less harmonious chants. In the first half of the 7th century. under Patriarch Sergius, a special type of chant came into use, which, however, was an imitation of the kontakary of Roman, known under the name akathist. The composition of the first of them is attributed to George Pisida, a deacon of the Great Church and referendar to the patriarch. But Byzantine hymnography received special development in the 8th century, when the so-called canons began to appear, which soon became the dominant type of Byzantine hymnography. By the 8th century. refers to the hymnographic activities of Andrei of Crete, Herman of Constantinople, John of Damascus, Cosmas of Mayum, Stefan Savvant, and to the first half of IX - the activities of Theodore and other Studites, Theophan the inscribed, Cassia the noble maiden of the Emperor's bride. Theophilus, and then nuns, Methodius, Patriarch of Constantinople, Ignatius, Metropolitan of Nicea, and others. In a word, by the time of Photius, the development of the hymnographic element in Byzantine worship had reached its apogee. Many hymns were written and came into church use, perhaps as many as tens of thousands; huge hymnological collections were compiled: tropologies, kondakaria, irmology, triodion, menaion, paraclitics, etc. If you carefully review this entire mass of hymnological collections, and not only those that are now known from printed editions, but also handwritten ones, then you can discern some features in the development of this form of Byzantine worship, features that are far from harmonizing with the accepted opinion about Byzantinism. One is involuntarily amazed by the extraordinary abundance of hymnographic material, the variety of its forms and the multitude of authors. Above we mentioned the names of only the most outstanding authors, but many others are known, whose names were preserved partly in printed liturgical books, partly in handwritten ones, partly in various church writers. In general, there were an extremely large number of authors, and they were not only representatives of the highest hierarchy, but, one might say, people of every rank - lower clergy, monks, secular people, kings and even women. Apparently, all the poetic activity of the Greeks was directed to the church pulpit, where choirs of singers melodiously performed church chants and where poetic talents found shelter, encouragement and satisfaction. It is clear that the entire Orthodox people took an active part in the arrangement of hymnographic forms - both the archpastor and the royal government, and ordinary believers. - In all likelihood, however, not everything ended up in church use; what was written, and what did end up, not everything lasted long. Access to ecclesiastical use for hymnographic works was probably subject to some kind of procedure; Probably these works were previously examined by the leaders of the church. This was required by the essence of the matter. If, despite this censorship, hymns that were not entirely satisfactory came into church use, then they were punished by another censorship - the censorship of listeners. And this, of course, explains that many hymnographic works little by little fell out of use and were completely forgotten, although they were preserved in old manuscripts. In short, development in the field of hymnography took place on the basis of ancient Christian principles. The material was constantly updated; the old was replaced by a newer, more advanced and more interesting one. Only those plays that were especially distinguished by the importance of their content, combined with the extraordinary beauty of their form and depth of feeling, survived their time and even remained completely part of the divine service. – It is not surprising, therefore, that this element, being highly vital, aroused special interest in itself, was especially attractive and influential. The form of the hymns was no longer, however, classical, but it was more accessible to the tastes of that century, when the Greek people had already largely lost the ability and taste for classical metrics 8. As for the content and freshness of feeling contained in this form, which is undoubtedly poetic, in this regard one can find in Greek hymnography much that is inimitable and immortal. These virtues can be felt in some chants even when you read them not in the original, but in the Slavic, literal and not entirely intelligible translation. From what has been said, it seems that we can conclude that Byzantine worship in the time of Photius was an institution of utmost vitality, and therefore especially influential and attractive. In fact, when coming to church, the Greek-Byzantine listened to St. in his native, rich, highly developed language. Scripture, eloquent teachings, very often touching on the topics of the day; he then listened to the singers perform various poetic works, imbued with deep feeling and having a beautiful form. Add here the rich and varied ceremony, the luxurious and artistic furnishings of the magnificent church - and the impression should be amazing. The Byzantines understood this well. No wonder they took them to the Church of St. Sofia ambassadors Vladimir. The ambassadors were impressed, of course, mainly by the ceremoniality and pomp, since the content could hardly have been accessible to them. But it was all the more natural for the Byzantines of that time, and even after, to have the idea of ​​increasing and strengthening this impression by conveying the very content of the service or translating it into a language understandable to the newly baptized people. How did Photius feel about contemporary worship? Did he understand its significance and did he take any part in its construction? Photius's activities in relation to worship are obscured by his activities in other areas. However, a few known facts show him here as a man of great intelligence and energy. Let's collect these facts. – Firstly, with regard to his participation in liturgical teaching, then, taking into account his high education and talent, his extraordinary zeal for the dissemination of the truths of the Christian faith and Christian enlightenment in general, we can already say a priori that here, too, he was at the height of his position and was an active participant in filling this form with the proper content. But we also have factual evidence. About 20 conversations of Photius have reached us, which, both in their form and in their content, indicate that Photius was far from an ordinary orator. Not only the purity and fluency of the language, but also the fervor of feeling, constitute their distinctive properties. As a feature of his eloquence, one must also point out the harsh accusatory tone of his sermons, the severity and severity of his denunciations, which, of course, could not please his pampered listeners. This explains the fact that, according to his own testimony, “his speeches did not arouse theatrical applause” 9 . But he knew how to make his listeners cry. In his first conversation about the Rossov invasion, he finds himself forced several times to invite his listeners to stop the tearful cries caused not only by the danger, but also by the eloquence of the speaker. “Don’t cry,” he says, “don’t make noise... stop your tears, stop crying and be courageous,” 10, etc. But at the same time he cried himself. These conversations about the Ross invasion are especially famous. As for the rest, they are still little known. According to the lists, they can be counted more than 20 11 . This is, of course, not much, but this does not mean that that was all they had to say. There is no doubt that most of his sermons, some were not recorded in a timely manner, and some were lost. From the above testimony of Ignatius, we saw that in Byzantium the daily teachings during worship were delivered by preachers without notes. The recordings were made by hunters - shorthand writers or stenographers from the audience, and such could not always happen. At the same time, not all of the records made could survive until later centuries. Ignatius diligently took notes from Tarasius, but very, very little of Tarasius’ conversations has been preserved. That Photius preached very often is obvious, however, from his surviving conversations. In one of them he says, for example: “Often I admonished you and spoke to you even threateningly... often I cried out, struck you... often I inspired you” 12, etc. It cannot be thought that only surviving sermons are meant here. How did Patriarch Photius feel about the second form of worship we examined, liturgical poetry? Photius was not a poet; he was a scientist, thinker, lawyer, administrator, but not a poet. However, he had a deeply developed and ardent religious feeling (which in the field of religion often replaces the gift of poetry) and was very familiar with the technique of versification, which he could pass on to others. His disciple, Emperor Leo, through him became so familiar with this technique that he wrote several very good church hymns, which are still in church use today. Therefore, it would not be surprising if Photius composed hymns. And he really did experiments of this kind, although not very many. According to liturgical books, only two of his stichera are known in honor of Patriarch Methodius in the service on June 14. Some people think that the canon of Methodius, which does not have an inscription, belongs to him 13. According to the edition of Nicodemus the Holy Mountain - ϴ εοτοκ ἁ ριον νἑον - several more canons of Photius in honor of the Most Rev. are known. Theotokos 14, and according to the edition of Min 15, three of his poems for the coronation of Emperor Vasily. But it is unknown about the latter, however, whether they were intended for church use, or whether they were poems, so to speak, congratulatory. Perhaps Photius also wrote something else in the hymnographic kind, but, in any case, relatively not much. This does not mean, however, that he was indifferent to hymnography and did not understand its significance. He showed his attention and participation in the organization and development of this important liturgical element, mainly through his patronage of contemporary hymnographers. His contemporaries were two outstanding hymnographers: George, Archbishop of Nicomodia and, especially, Joseph the hymnographer 16. George was a personal friend of Photius and was ordained bishop by him. They corresponded, and in one of the letters Photius called him a poet. He, indeed, was a poet and quite a prolific one. He compiled a fairly significant number of canons and troparions, which were introduced into church use under Photius. Joseph was a Sicilian Greek by birth and upbringing and suffered a lot from the iconoclasts. He was in exile in Chersonesos and was returned by Empress Theodora. Photius respected him extremely, called him the father of fathers, the angel of God, and made him the confessor of the entire Constantinople clergy. Joseph's hymnographic activity was unusually abundant. Up to 300 canons are prescribed to him, more than half of which are still in use. Photius apparently sympathized with this activity and even encouraged it. This can be seen from the fact that in the thanksgiving service on the occasion of deliverance from the Russes, he introduced the stichera of Joseph, probably compiled on his instructions. As proof of the patronizing attitude of Patriarch Photius towards the church poets of his time, it seems that the following fact can be cited. In the Charter of the worship of the Jerusalem Church for Holy Week, compiled no later than the 10th century. and now published by the journal Orthodox Interlocutor, the famous stichera: “Lord, the woman who has fallen into many sins” is attributed to Photius - λεως 17. Meanwhile, it is reliably known that this beautiful stichera - one of the best works of Byzantine hymnography - belongs not to Photius, but to his famous contemporary, the nun Cassia or Icasia mentioned above. What does the inscription of the name Photius mean here? It seems to us that this means that the stichera was sent to Jerusalem and recommended for liturgical use by Patriarch Fatima, who was concerned about the widespread dissemination of the best works of liturgical poets. From these facts it can be seen that Patriarch Photius well understood the meaning of worship and actively participated in the movement and development that in his time was so largely characteristic of the Byzantine church cult. Moreover, we know that Photius, understanding this meaning of the cult and knowing about its attractiveness for the people, knew how to use it well to achieve practical goals, to eradicate, for example, the remnants of the pagan cult from the life of the people. To prove this there is, although insufficiently attested, but quite reliable, a fact from his activities. It is known that various pagan customs in the private, and partly also in the public life of the Byzantines, inherited from the classical cult, were in force for a very long time, and it was extremely difficult to fight them; even purely civil, sometimes very strict, measures taken by the emperors had little force. The Trullo Cathedral testifies that in his time, i.e. at the end of the 7th century. in Byzantium, the so-called Vota, Kalends, Vrumalia and the public gathering on the 1st day of March were also observed (pr. 62). In addition, “in the new moon (existed), some lit bonfires in front of their shops and houses, over which, according to some ancient custom, they jumped madly” (pr. 65). Balsamon in the 12th century, explaining the 65th rule, which talks about this, reports that the pagans and many of the Orthodox during the time of the Trullo Cathedral, jumped over the bonfires, “thinking that through this they may burn the misfortunes that happen to them and will receive other benefits.” The Council prohibited all these customs, but, in all likelihood, this prohibition did not suddenly take effect. During the time of Balsamon, jumping over fires on the new moon had already fallen out of use, but another similar custom remained, performed on June 23 on the seashore. Regarding the jumping on the first day of the month, Balsamon says that “instead, on the first day of each month, propitiatory prayers and church consecrations are performed by the faithful people and we are sprinkled with the water of blessing, and not disobedience” 18. So, in the 12th century. instead of the pagan custom, a prayer service with the blessing of water was performed on the first day of each month. Who made this replacement? Balsamon says nothing about this. But one, although later, but quite reliable writer speaks about this - Maxim the Greek Svyatogorets. He says that this replacement was carried out by Patriarch Photius, who allegedly drew up a council and decided to bless the water at the beginning of each month. At this council, the rite for the monthly blessing of water was drawn up, a rite that is also performed on Athos 19. Obviously, Maxim on Athos read the acts of the council and saw the order, perhaps inscribed with the name of Photius. And, therefore, one can hardly doubt the reliability of the information reported by Maxim. And if so, then Photius’s relationship to the cult appears before us in a new, even more attractive form. He not only took care of the structure of its components, but also knew how to use it to promote Christianity and eradicate paganism. We have thus come to a question that is most interesting for us Russians, and which involuntarily arises after all that has been said. If this was Photius’s attitude towards worship, then did he not take the initiative to use it for the most lasting implantation of Christianity among the Slavs by translating it into the Slavic language? A positive answer is more than likely. Having no intention of entering here into a detailed analysis of the reasons for such an answer, we find nothing better to say in conclusion, except for what was said here, in this place, 25 years ago, by the famous professor, Slavist V.I. Grigorovich. In his speech at the first ceremonial university act in 1866, he spoke about the three main facts in which Byzantium’s attitude towards the Slavs in the 9th century was manifested, namely: the conversion of the Russians, the conversion of the Bulgarians and the exploits of the Thessaloniki brothers, and, pointing out the mutual connection of these facts, asked: “Whose concerns, whose thought were present during the commission of these events? And then, he answers: “If, like any, and especially educational activity, bears the necessary imprint of the very personality of the figure, then a true story should illuminate these events with the name of one immortal chosen one. Following her direct instructions, even though they leave us monuments that fully explain the meaning of the facts, we cannot help but recognize Patriarch Photius as their only culprit. And then, a little further: “conscious of the possibility of prudent use of folk languages ​​in the sphere of Christianity and standing above contemporaries in understanding the meaning of the translation of St. books, Photius, and no one else, could comprehend the need for Slavic worship and, without a doubt, was the first to bless his gospel among the northern peoples” (pp. 7 – 8). Iust. Apol. maj. cap. 67. Constitution. Apost. L.II. cap. 57. Lib. Vil c. 5. Euseb. Hist. eccl. Lib. V. c. 30. Euseb. Hist. eccl. Lib. V. c. 28. Right Palest. Collection, vol. VIÏ Peregrinatio ad loca sancta p. 69: tantae voces sunt collavdantium, ut porro foras ecclesiae audiatur voces eorum. Acta sanctor. February, 25 p. 573, 580. Krumbacher, Geschicte der byzantt. Litteratur München 1871 p. 316. On the form of Byzantine hymns see Krumbacher, Gesch. byz. Litteratur p. 330 sq, and Lovyagin “On the form of church chants”, speech at the act of St. Petersburg. Spirit. Academician 1876; Here the opinions on this subject of Christ and Pitra and others are analyzed. Archimandrite Porfiry, Four Conversations of Photius. St. Petersburg 1964, p. 7, note. In the collection of conversations of Photius, found by Archimandrite Porfiry in the library of the Iveron Monastery on Athos, there are 24 conversations, but only 17 are available (see The first route to the Athos monasteries. Appendices to the 2nd section of the 2nd part, pp. 388 - 400). Four of them were published by Porfiry in Russian. lane and partly with a Greek text, between them and two conversations on the invasion of the Rosses. The Greek text of these two conversations was republished by Nauk (Nauk, Lexicon Vindobonense, Petrop. 1867 p. 201) and Muller (Muller Fragm. hist. grace, Vol. 5 p. 162 – 173). Two conversations were published according to Migne’s edition (Migne, Patrol. t. 102, pp. 548 – 875). Archimander. Porfiry, Four Conversations – page 6. Rev. Filaret, Archbishop. Chernigovsky. See his Historical. review of hymn writers ed. 2. Chernigov. 1864 p. 344. ữ ἁ γἰου δρους χειράφων βιβλίων … συνταχθὲν … παρὰ Νικοδἡμου μοναχοῦ τοὐ Ναξἰου. ῾Ενετίησιν 1796. See Porphyry History of Atheon III. 503, 504. Migne, Patrolog. curs. t. 102, p. 576. About George and Joseph, see Philaret. Histor. Review of the Songwriters pp. 245, 360. Divine services of Passion and Easter Week in Jerusalem according to the Rule of the 9th - 10th centuries. Ed. Dmitrievsky. Dept. adj. in Rights about. page 74. Rules of the Councils, ed. Readings in general spirit. right Part i. page 496. Works of Maximus the Greek, ed. Kaz. Spirit. Ak. 1859 – 62, part 3, pp. 118 – 122. Speech delivered at a public meeting of the Historical and Philological Society on February 6, 1891, on the day of the millennium of the death of His Holiness Patriarch Photius. You might be interested in: