The Charter of Jerusalem and its fate in the East and in the Slavic lands

Mansvetov I. D. The Charter of Jerusalem and its fate in the East and in the Slavic lands // Additions to the Works of St. Fathers 1884. Part 34. Book. 4. pp. 466–564 (1st page). The Charter of Jerusalem and its fate in the East and in the Slavic lands Jerusalem Charter in the East The first information about the Lavra of St. Sava, with whom the origin of the Jerusalem statute is connected, and the orders that took place here under its founder are reported in the life of Sava the Sanctified. It was written by Cyril of Scythopolis, 80 years after the death of St. Euphemia († 472), therefore, 20 years after the death of St. Savva, based on the stories of reliable persons, his former students and witnesses of exploits, who at the time of the biographer “followed the lifestyle of the monk and illuminated the path leading to Christ.” Despite the desire to collect as much information as possible, the compiler of the life admits that he managed to obtain only a little in this way. But for this reason, according to the compiler, this news was strictly checked by him and was distinguished by its accuracy, which did not allow any doubts in the reader. As for the incompleteness of information, in this regard, compared with other works of hagiobiographical literature, one cannot reproach the compiler of the life. On the contrary, it is very detailed and sets out in a consistent story the circumstances of the life of Savva the Sanctified, his activities in establishing monasteries, relations with the then church leaders and participation in resolving dogmatic issues that worried the then church. Unfortunately, the biography is much more reserved when it comes to the rules of service and discipline and in this regard gives very little for the history of the charter. As for the special chronological accuracy that the biographer claims, the life, in its current presentation, cannot boast of this quality and contains many contradictions 1 . According to his life, St. Savva began his monastic exploits very early (almost in his childhood) and first lived in the Flavian Monastery (Φλαβιαναις), located 20 stadia from his native village of Mutalaski, near Cappadocia. Here he learned the psalter and learned in all its rigor the local order of monastic life, which the biography writer calls “το κοινοβιακο̃ κανόνο κατάστασις” (the order of the communal rule). What exactly it consisted of is unknown from the life, and it is unlikely that the order of this little-known monastery had any influence on the development of the statutes of the Savvina Lavra. In this regard, the rules of monastic life with which the Rev. were of decisive importance. Savva subsequently met at the Lavra of Euthymius the Great and St. Theoktista. Placed under the leadership of Blessed Theoktistus, he lived with him for ten years until his death, and then he began direct relations with Euthymius the Great, Gerasim of Palestine and Theodosius the Great. 2 Having separated from their leaders, St. Savva chose a lonely cave for his exploits, near a dry stream, and up to 70 people gathered around it who wanted to share his way of life. Then Savva laid the foundation for his famous monastery, built a small church (μικρόν ευκτηριον), near which the Kelliot community was located under his leadership. Most of the time the Lavriots spent each in their cell, doing work and prayers, correcting the established Rule (κανών ψαλμωδίας); but there were also common hours of prayer for which everyone gathered together, and this order came into special force since another cave church was built not far from the first church, which received the name God-created θεόκτιστη 3 . We know very little about the order of church services in St. Savvina Lavra. Services were divided into general ones, which included, first of all, the liturgy, then vigils on the eve of major holidays and all services in general on Saturday and Sunday, and solitary or monastic rule, performed by each individual separately. It is known under the general name κανων ψαλμωδίας and consisted of an obligatory number of psalms and prayers. This canon was read by everyone in their native language, as can be seen from the permission for the Armenians living in the Savvina Lavra to read the psalter in Armenian, but the liturgy and, probably, general services were performed in Greek as the church language (p. 264). On Sundays and the days of the Lord's holidays, a vigil was celebrated, and at the liturgy on these days everyone took communion. At the end of the liturgy, the monks gathered at the table and had “δίακλυσμα,” that is, a festive common meal, which was prepared from wine, bread, butter, σίτov, honey, cheese and other supplies (322) 4 . In particular, mention is made of the night service νυκτερινη ψαλμωδία (Vit. Evth. 46), to which the brethren were called by blowing the beater (at a certain hour, which was called ή το κρούματος ωρα), that a lot of people gathered for this night prayer brethren (οχλος πολυς); and they all sang psalms together, verse by verse, with sweet singing, using candles and censers (p. 287). Vespers (λυκνικον 325) and the third hour (η λειτοργια της τρίτης ωρας ρ. 347) are spoken of as special services. In addition, the following are mentioned: the usual rite of burial (συνηθης κανων 252), general holidays (except Sunday, the Lord's) and local (Saints - Anthony the Great (vit. Evthym. p. 79), Euthymia (January 21 vit S. Sab, p. 249), May 7 transfer of relics Euthymius (85), consecration of churches at monasteries (Evth. p. 93), renovation of the temple in Jerusalem, celebrated annually (Sab. 270). In terms of service, these days, as deliberate ones, were distinguished by vigils (αγρυπνία παννυκις); on the holidays of renewal they departed especially solemnly and with great illumination (λαμπρα φωταγωγια Evth. p. 93), and on the day of renewal of St. Anastasia, the abbot of the monastery went to Jerusalem. (vit. Sab. 270.) Of the persons who belonged to the monastery administration, in the biography of St. Sava, the following administrative and service positions are mentioned: district overseers - in the present day, deans of monasteries - under the name of archimandrites and exarchs. The Patriarch of Jerusalem Theodosius the Great was appointed such a person to manage the cenobitic monasteries in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and St. Savva the Consecrated for the laurels or monasteries. The first, in addition, had an assistant about δευτερευων in the person of Abbot Paul (vit. Sab. 261 - 62 r. 332). The housekeeper was in charge of the economic department in the monastery, and under his closest supervision was the χελλαριον (Du Cang. sub. h. voc.) pantry, where food supplies were stored (vit. Evth. 33), and a similar utility room άρτοθηκη (ibid.). The canonarch was in charge of the order of the service in the church and, by the way, it was his duty to strike the beater (εξυπνίζει τον χανοναρχον xaί ποιεί αυτόν κρθσαι (287). 5 It was a special person in charge of the sacristy (φυλακή των κειμήλιων ιέρων, κειμηλιάρχης Du Cang. Zhischman. Die Synoden S. 107–108. Vit. S. Cyriac. p. 110), prosphora (προσφοράριος Sab. 323), gatekeeper (94) monastery, (θυρωρός and έφεσθως τω πυλωνι) overseer of pack animals (κτηνετο η διακονία r. 34), baker (άρτοκοπιος,) cook μαγειρος (225–293), caretaker of the hotel where wanderers were received (ξεναδόχος), overseer of the hospital (νοσοκόμος), τεχνιταί artisans and workers at the monastery (293), according to these positions, special monastic buildings are also mentioned: οικονομίον, κελλάριον (pantry), αρτοκόπιον, μαγκειπιον (bread), ξενοδόχειον, άρηστήριον (dining room-meal), νοσοκόμιον (hospital). Of the customs observed in the Palestinian monasteries, the following can be noted: those entering the monastery were placed under the supervision of the elders and placed in a special monastery, where they learned the psalter and the monastic rule (258). Euthymius of the beardless was not accepted, but was sent to the Lavra of Theoktistus. The Reverend Savva (p. 260) also experienced the severity of this rule. It was forbidden to speak among themselves during services and at meals (vit. Evth. p. 19). That's all we know about the order of Palestinian monasteries from the life of St. Sava. The information is very poor, from which it is difficult to reconstruct the content of the disciplinary and service part of the original Jerusalem charter. Our information about him remains in this uncertain state until Nikon Chernogorets and the appearance of his complete records. In the space of five too many centuries (the death of Sava the Sanctified † 532, the activity of Nikon in the half of the 11th century), we are forced to be content with a few fragmentary news, without having at hand positive documents to become acquainted with this branch of the charter. There is no doubt that the Palestinian monasteries, under their first founders, had a close connection with each other and followed general orders, which formed the content of the original charter, known with the name of Sava the Sanctified. This is indicated by close relations between the first founders of Palestinian monasticism and a later tradition, according to which the rule of Sava the Sanctified is traced back to Euthymius and Theoktistus, and through them to Chariton the Confessor - these firstborns of Palestinian monasticism. This is how the genealogy of the Jerusalem charter is presented in its oldest copies, for example. Synodal No. 381/369 and from the Savostyanovsky collection in the Rumyantsev Museum No. 35/491 (both XIII centuries), and from here it passed into the later. In the instructions to the abbot about the exact fulfillment of the rules of the charter, it is said: “as was betrayed by the fathers who were before us, and legitimized in their monasteries and laurels, namely: Euthymius the Great, Savva the Sanctified, Theodosius the Cenoviarch, Gerasim on the Jordan, whom the beast served, Chariton and Kyriakos the hermit, and which (the charter) the great patriarch Sophronius handed down in writing for subsequent generations (τοι̃ς μετεπέιτα). When this record became a victim of fire from the barbarians, the wise John of Damascus, like a hardworking bee, again handed it over to his successors, and it has been preserved even to this day.” As for this genealogy, it has as its source the biographies of the main figures of Palestinian monasticism and brings to one result the scattered legends about their works regarding the rules. There is no doubt that the monastery of Sava the Sanctified was the center where liturgical and disciplinary orders were developed; here they little by little took shape in a stable form, were recorded and spread, first in Palestine, and then in other areas. But to what extent and in what way each of the named persons declared their participation in the processing of this charter, the path to resolving this issue, with existing scientific means, is lost and can only be approximately restored. Without going beyond the limits drawn by hagiographical sources, we can express only a few general considerations. Savva the Sanctified, Euthymius the Great, Gerasim on the Jordan, Chariton the Confessor, Kyriakos the Hermit, belonged to the family of the first figures of Palestinian monasticism, were in close connection with each other and went through the same monastic school: the younger ones under the guidance of the older ones. The monasteries they founded arose under the same conditions, had the same contingent of inhabitants, and pursued the same goals. So Savva the Sanctified spends the first time of his life in the monastery of St. Theoktistus, a colleague of Euthymius the Great, and then, under the guidance of the latter, he assimilates it “διαγωγήν τε χαι πολιτείαν.” From the circumstances of the life of St. Gerasim, our article notes one feature: that a lion served him and thus shows that, in the absence of typical internal features, they used an external feature to characterize him. But that this person also had close relations with a group of the first leaders of Palestinian monasticism, there is evidence of this in the lives of Sava the Sanctified and Cyriacus. It is known about Chariton the Confessor and Kyriak the Hermit that the former was the oldest representative of monasticism in Palestine after Hilarion the Great and founded the Suki Lavra, in which Kyriak spent a significant part of his life and became famous for his exploits. Having said that the teacher. Kiriak lived more than 107 years; the biography writer distributes these years as follows: he spent 9 years with St. Gerasim, 10 - in the monastery of St. Euphemia, 41 years old - in the Suki Lavra, etc. (Vita S. Cyriac. p. 126.). Nikon's pandects cite from the life of Chariton the Confessor an article about fasting for monks on fasting days and they are supposed to eat only bread with salt and water once a day. (Sl. 60 l. 598 vol.). On what basis did he become one of the figures involved in the processing of the Jerusalem Charter of Patr. Sophrony, it is difficult to say anything positive due to the absence of any indications on this matter in his biography and other sources. But he already used this meaning in the first complete records of the Jerusalem charter, and some of them are directly inscribed with his name. Nothing positive is known about the activities of Damascus in the processing of the charter, but his significance in this regard, as a hymnographer, was undoubtedly very important, and his work on the compilation of the octoechus and in the field of menaion inevitably had to be accompanied by major changes in the composition of the service charter. The review of Simeon of Thessalonica does not introduce anything new. He used the instructions of the same article, arranging the names of the figures named in it in a more consistent order. Here are the words of Thessalonica: “Our divine father Savva set out the charter, having received it from St. Euthymius and Theoktistus, and they received from those who preceded them and from the confessor Chariton. When the charter of Sava (διατύπωσς), as we learned, after the devastation of that region by the barbarians, was destroyed, then our holy father Sophronius, the patriarch of the holy city, laboriously set forth (ὲξέθετο), and after him our divine father John of Damascus, experienced in theology, updated and committed to writing.” (De Sacr. precat. p. 556. Patr. p. compl. T. 155.). A similar opinion was expressed by Thessalonica in his 54th response to Gabriel of Pentapol (ibid r. 900), but we are talking here only about the last two persons. What is known about the first records of the Jerusalem Rule? Having appointed a certain Melite as his successor, it is said in the life of Savva the sanctified, he gave him instructions to preserve inviolably the traditions kept in his monasteries (παραδωσεις παραδοθεϊσας) and conveyed them to him in writing: “δος αυτω̃ τάυτας έγγράφως” (p. 358). This entry has not reached us. It probably embraced the main rules of monastic life and, perhaps, was set out in the form of a dying will, in which the abbots conveyed their will and instructions to the brotherhood. This is, for example, the will of St. Athanasius of Athos and Theodore the Studite. The liturgical part was included in it only to the extent that it related to monastic life and was associated with the order of everyday life. This brief record of disciplinary orders began to be supplemented with liturgical remarks over time and to adopt customs from other ecclesiastical localities. First of all, she was influenced by the customs of the Jerusalem Patriarchate and the rituals of the Church of the Resurrection. Relations between Palestinian monasteries and Jerusalem began with the first founders of monasticism there and were constantly maintained. That is why the Palestinian charter received the name Jerusalem and is not separated from the customs of the Church of the Holy Resurrection. So in the Greek psalter of 862, from the collection of Rev. Porphyry, after pointing out its division into kathismas and glories, the remark was made: “καθώς φάλλομεν έν τη̃ άγια Χριστο το θεo ημών ’Άνάστασει.” And this psalter, undoubtedly for official purposes, was written by the deacon of the Church of the Resurrection - Theodore - at the behest of Bishop Noah of Tiberias. In a letter to his spiritual brother, Mr. Comite, about holy fasts, which is published under the name of Damascene 6, the customs of the great Church are also mentioned as authoritative. This very interesting liturgical passage contains several instructions about the service and food during Lent and Cheese Week. Without using the technical name τυπικόν, the author of this letter cites these rules under the name of the definition (ο̃ρος) and the law (νομος) of the Church, which is also observed in the Church of the Resurrection, that is, in the Jerusalem Patriarchate: “ον (i.e. νόμον) κάι " Further, it talks about eating meat during the week of Passover; therefore, the laity and the customs of the secular churches are meant. From here the holidays of the renovation of the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem and the day of the erection of the cross were transferred to the Palestinian charter. For the holidays of renewal, the abbots of Palestinian monasteries gathered in Jerusalem during the lifetime of Euthymius and Sava. Then the customs of the Church of Constantinople began to enter. So eg. The rule of Patriarch Nicephorus about allowing cheese and eggs on Wednesday and Friday of cheese week appears in the Palestinian charter almost simultaneously with its appearance in the capital. It was included in the Savvinus type already in the 10th century and is mentioned in the chronicle of the Alexandrian Patriarch Eutyches 7. He refers to the typicum Mar–Sabae, (p. 1090) to prove that the Melchites (i.e., Orthodox Syrians) abstain from meat during cheese week, and eat only cheese, eggs and fish, in accordance with the rule of Patriarch Nicephorus 8. Concluding his speech with the words: quemadmodum ostensum in typico ecclesiae (as shown in the church typique), the author of the chronicle makes it clear that this rule was also included in the typico of the great Church, from where it was transferred to Palestine. From the statutes of the Great Church, the rule about performing the full liturgy on Good Friday, when the Annunciation and the church feast falls on this day, also comes into play. Since Nikon Chernogorets already refers to this rule and says that it was also shared by other types, it means that it managed to enter into the practice of large monasteries before him. In the 11th century, the Jerusalem Charter was known in full, but from this time no monuments have reached us. From the words of Nikon Chernogorets it is clear that it was distributed in a large number of lists, which presented significant differences among themselves and in comparison with the statutes of other industries. Valsamon distinguishes it from the studious one and, in contrast to the latter, calls it “τό ιεροσοιημιτικόν τυπικov” 10. In the mass of these lists, Nikon distinguishes the oldest records from the later ones and refers to the first ones to verify and evaluate existing church customs. He calls this authoritative record “the ancient Jerusalem typology from the faithful father” 11 and refers to it in his liturgical parallels as a guide in explaining controversial issues of liturgical nature. Wanting to have a more ancient and competent list to verify the contradictory testimony of the then typical typographs, Nikon entered into contact with Cyrus Theodosius, abbot of the Spassky Laodicean monastery, and together with him found in the library of this monastery the “hidden ancient Epysalim type,” which “originally” (i.e., long before) was delivered by the abbot of the Savvina monastery, Nicodemus Metropolitan of Laodicea. Nikon took it from here, put it in storage in the monastery of Simeon Divnogorets and provided it to those who wished to copy it (fol. 6 fol. 62 vol.). Unfortunately, the list of abbots of the Savvina Lavra is unknown, and therefore it is impossible to decide when exactly Abbot Nikodim lived, and, consequently, how ancient this apographer was. To even greater regret, Nikon did not show the composition and features of this type and did not even refer to it directly in his comparative extracts, and therefore this charter remains lost to science. However, Nikon’s writings provide many instructions for getting acquainted with the charter of his day, and these instructions are all the more valuable since we do not have a complete record of the Jerusalem charter from the 11th century like the one that came down with the name of the patriarch. Alexy, we don’t even have a brief summary of it. In the 57th chapter of the pandect (fol. 571 vol.), Nikon cites excerpts from the Jerusalem statute on food under the title: “from the Jerusalem typology,” notes holidays according to this statute (ibid. l. 578), in the tactikon indicates its features in the performance of pavechernitsa (fol. 1 l. 12 vol.) and makes other references to it in the consolidated typique. What conclusions can be drawn based on these data about the composition of the then Jerusalem type? Firstly, it was already a complete record, which also included a general part in the form of a circle of daily services. 2) In terms of content, it was very close to the studio type and differed from it only in a few outstanding features, which Nikon carefully collected and noted. There were, of course, a lot of small ritual differences, as can be seen from the references in word 1 of the tacticon, but large ones, on the contrary. 3) It was distinguished by a consolidated eclectic character and contained many ritual and disciplinary details, borrowed from the type of the great Church, Studite, Svyatogorsk. With this character are the very decisions of the recording of the Jerusalem charter, which, according to the fair remark of Arch. Sergius, represent “the combination of the Studite charter with the Jerusalem one.” 4) As for the relationship of the Jerusalem typists of that time to the present one and, in general, to its most ancient copies, then, as can be judged from excerpts from Nikon, then some typical features of the Jerusalem charter had already developed; but there were also rules that we would search in vain even in his lists of the 13th–14th centuries: for example, a single blessing of water on the eve of Epiphany (Tactician, fol. 1 l. 32), the end of services with three great bows and twelvefold: Lord have mercy (ibid. l. 14); on Great Saturday there is a meal, on which there is no shortage of eggs or cheese (Pand, f. 57 l. 572), on great holidays, also the Forerunner and the Apostles Peter and Paul, no matter what day of the week they happen, “we eat everything as on a weekday without forbidden” (ibid.). On Thursday and Friday of Holy Week, if the Annunciation happens on these days, you can eat fish (Tact. I ch. 62, 88). This rule is read in Nicephorus the Confessor, from where it was probably transferred first to the typical type of the great Church and the Studite one, and then to the Jerusalem one 12. Thus, in the 11th–12th centuries there was a series of Jerusalem typologies of a special composition, which, based on the time of its appearance, we would call the first pre-written edition of the Jerusalem Rule 13. The memory of this ancient period was also preserved in his later notes, where from time to time references are made to some ancient type and extracts from it are given. Thus, Synodal Charter No. 456 indicates “παλαιωτέρα τυπικά” in the service of Theodore Tiron in the first week of Lent; in others, a whole article is read, beginning with the following words: “γέγραπται έν τω παλαιω τυπικω τω γραφεντι έν “Ιεροσωλυμαις οτως” and then it goes on to say that small vespers on the eve of the holidays is sung not in the church, but in the vestibule, and not in a singing manner, but in a patter χύμα. The distinction between the old and new typicals continues to be maintained in its complete lists of the 15th–16th centuries, but these references no longer refer to the original edition of the charter (with very few exceptions, passed down from the oldest typicals), but to earlier lists. The division is based on the comparative antiquity of some of them and, perhaps, on their coincidence in controversial points with the original edition. If we carry this comparison even further, it turns out that in the written regulations that have reached us, many of the customs of the ancient Palestinian monasteries have not been preserved, and judging by the fact that these indications of the original Palestinian practice are extremely poor and fragmentary, it is natural to assume that the number of points of disagreement would have to be increased to very large proportions. First of all, in the ancient monastic communities of Palestine the Kellyot way of life prevailed, and this gave a special character and order to the liturgical order. Their worship took the form of a monotonous cell rule, the essence of which boiled down to the performance of a certain number of psalms and biblical songs, without any dramatic, ritual atmosphere. If in later times the sketes and Kelliots, due to the special conditions of their position, diverged in rituals from the Cenobites and had a special charter of skete life, the more these conditions should have affected the nature of the service among the original Palestinian Lavriots, when the troparia, stichera, and canons were still little known and were considered indecent and seductive by strict monks, thanks to their melodic performance. In later statutes only fragmentary notes about these differences in Kellyot practice were retained, but its full structure was forgotten and the service was performed daily in the church, in a general meeting of the brethren. All-night vigils, or άγρυπνίαί, were at first such general services and already in the later Jerusalem rites they became part of other services, previously performed separately, without any indication of their originally Kelliot origin. From the article “περί τω̃ν άγιων νηστειων”, attributed to Damascus and conveying the rules maintained in Jerusalem, it is clear that in the first week of Lent they did not fast for several days in a row, as in later regulations, but only until the evening every day; on the contrary, on cheese week, which is called here προνηστιμός ε̃βδομας, fasting continued until the evening throughout the week, and not just Wednesday and Friday. There were no hours or Liturgy of the Presanctified this week, only during Great Lent. During Holy Week, dry eating is prescribed and the presanctified are not allowed. On Holy Saturday evening, fasting is allowed and everything except meat is eaten. There was a custom to retire from monasteries to the surrounding deserts during Lent and spend this time in solitary exploits. The date of this departure was not always the same, and the first desert dwellers departed on January 14, i.e., on the date of Epiphany, and then this date was postponed to the last Sunday before Lent, as can be seen from the life of Mary of Egypt. This rite was probably included in the most ancient records of the Jerusalem statute and constituted a special sequence, called the canon (ό κανών) in the life of Mary of Egypt. Lazarev's return to the monastery on Saturday gave content to the stichera at Vespers of Vai week (today the grace of the Holy Spirit has gathered us together), and thus found an echo in the very composition of the service. In the records of the charter, even the earliest, there is no longer any indication of the existence of this custom, with the exception of the stichera of the Vai week, which remain to this day witnesses to a once living practice. Then circumstances changed in such a way that this custom not only fell out of use in fact, but even caused opposition to itself in the well-known article “on the exact observance of the rules of the typique,” ​​where the abbot is strictly forbidden to leave the monastery and leave it, especially during the Great Lent, the Nativity Lent and the Apostles’ Lent. After Nikon, the Jerusalem Charter received significant additions and increased in volume. First of all, its processing was influenced by the liturgical works of Nikon himself. Some rules about fasting and entire articles of liturgical content appeared on the pages of the typique to him. Neither one nor the other, however, were included in the type with the name of their compiler, but were included here from his work without indicating the source. This is, for example, an article about the difference between holidays in relation to fasting and service, and about their division into large, medium and small 14. From the Patriarchate of Constantinople included extracts from the rules on fasting of Nicholas Grammar 15 and his famous letter to the priest of the Holy Mountain about holidays and fasts. It is read at the end of the (Serbian) Nicodemus Charter, but since this charter was translated from the Greek original taken in Constantinople, it is very likely that this article was first adopted in the Patriarchate and entered into the typologies. From the studio charter they used extracts from a short outline regarding the quantity and quality of food for the whole year, about officials and monastic clothing. The so-called Markov chapters were collected into one composition, supplemented and presented in two parts after Nikon. This should also include the rule regarding the Assumption Fast, on August 31st. Balsamon says that in the Jerusalem charter of his time there were no indications of the Assumption fast, although the fast itself was observed. Large monasteries and churches had their own special local charters of service, which, in the form of scholia or comments, entered the pages of the general type and could have an influence on its processing. These are, for example, the comments about the customs of the monastery of Paul of Latra in the Norovsky charter. (From the Bible. Roman. Museum). Later additions include new commemorations and services to Saints and holidays. The earliest known Greek copies of the Jerusalem charter date back to the 12th–13th centuries. But this, of course, is not the actual limit of the written regulations of this industry, but the limit of their relative fame. In the Holy Sepulchre Library, in Jerusalem, there is a charter written in 6667 (1159) by Theocharisius the Cappadocian. More of them remain from the 13th century, 16 but we did not have the opportunity to get acquainted with all of them personally and know about some only from descriptions in scientific catalogs of foreign libraries and from random instructions from travelers in the East. Therefore, it would be premature to enter into discussions about groups or editions of this branch of the statute. In fact, the dozen available copies that we had the opportunity to look through from beginning to end and compare with each other are too small a number for generalizations and thorough critical work. But since these lists cover the period from the 13th to the 17th centuries inclusive, during this period of time they represent very valuable material and make it possible to come to some positive conclusions. In terms of composition, they all belong to the group of complete charters and consist of three main parts: general (or presentation of the daily service), monthly and triode. They are supplemented by minor additions in the form of articles and notes of official and disciplinary content. These are: Mark's chapters, instructions to the abbot, an article on censing, on the meal, troparia, prokemeny, indication of the apostles and gospels, etc. The second difference, which runs through all the lists without exception, is the differences in the content of the ritual and the features in its presentation. There are so many of them and, generally speaking, they are so diverse that they could be completely exhausted by lengthy comparative extracts from different statutes. But we do not dare to resort to this method in view of the extreme complexity of such work and the comparative insignificance of the results achieved by it, and therefore in the present case we will limit ourselves to highlighting the larger features and bringing them to one or another explanatory motives. The difference in the rite sometimes depended on which monastery the service was held in - a community monastery or a Kelliot monastery. Several such cases are noted in the charters themselves and it is clear that the earlier ones, such as, for example. Synodal No. 456 and Savostyanovsky No. 491 were designed for use in Kelliot monasteries, but the following, later ones, already stipulate how to conduct business in both cases. There were rites that were part of local practice, were valid only in the known monastery where this charter was in force, but in other localities they remained unknown and were transferred to other charters with a reservation from which they were borrowed. Other variants of the ritual appeared under the influence of studio practice, or the customs of the Great Church, and in relation to the main content of the Jerusalem type, they were supplemented by sources from a different hand. Some, finally, were the result of further development and processing of church rites as a result of new historical conditions, when new rites were introduced, and old ones were supplanted and changed due to administrative orders, or simply when faced with new conditions. Let's give an example for each case. In No. 456 and Savostyanovsky it is said that the 9th hour on Saturday the brethren sing έν κελλιοις αυτών with interhours, in No. 381 and others it is added that this happens if the monastery is Kelliot, but if it is a monastery, then the 9th hour is sung in the church. Or - the Midnight Office was part of the Kellyot rule, and therefore was not written down in the charter, and went to the Book of Hours. Many features of local practice are preserved in the month's book, for example. in memory of Paul of Latra, Lazarus of Galicia, Michael Choniates, and therefore the number of vigils is not the same everywhere. In the service on September 14, regarding the memory of St. John Chrysostom, reference is made to the Constantinople practice, according to which this celebration is transferred to November 13. The borrowing of entire articles from the studio's regulations actually shows their use in practice. In earlier regulations, bows and prayer - “Lord and Master of my life” - are relied on at every weekday morning, that is, when they did not sing: God is the Lord; in later regulations, bows are limited to Monday, Wednesday and Friday during the non-fasting period, and even further, the everyday service with bows became an attribute only of fasting and was placed under the special heading of the two days of Lent, i.e., the fasts of the Nativity and the Apostles. Thanks to the same gradualism in processing, two schedules of the liturgical gospels appeared: one brief, the other more complete, in accordance with its presentation in the service gospels. Markov's chapters are also written sometimes in brief, sometimes in full. It is not clear from anywhere that during this period of time the charter was subject to revision and amendment. If such work was carried out, it was without any official authority and had local significance. The greatest effort was made in this regard by Nikon Montenegrin, who decided to revise, compare and reconcile different types on the basis of ancient church practice; but his works had no influence on the processing of the Greek type and were reflected in the fate of the Slavic charter. A lot of work was involved in putting Mark's chapters in order. In the charters of the 12th–13th centuries, they took the form of brief notes under the corresponding days according to the monthly word, then they are highlighted in a special article, which is stated in more detail in later lists, and shorter in earlier ones. The final version of them could not be established for a long time and gave rise to great misunderstandings. They are mentioned in Article No. 380 of the Synodal Charter. According to its compiler, the work of Mark Idruntsky in the hands of incompetent people became a reason for difficulties and led to damage to the charter itself. Some of them began to merge these articles (ερμηνείας) with the text of the typical text, while others, on the contrary, introduced articles from the charter into the interpretation and thus mixed the scholia to the text with the text itself. Thanks to this confusion, some ruled the service one way, others another, and this served as a reason for ill-wishers to criticize the regulations, and for lovers of order - a cause of grief. This circumstance prompted the compiler of the article to pay attention to the processing of Mark’s chapters and put an end to the misunderstandings. He took into account the ancient and later lists of the statute, tried to give credit to each, but did not follow one or the other exclusively, but walked, so to speak, the middle path (έν μέσοις), using statutes that were not very ancient and not very new and without introducing anything arbitrary on his part 17 . Testing this testimony by the very statute to which it is attached, we must say that the author treated the matter very carefully and did very little. He combined Markov's chapters into one article (but this had been done before him), placed it at the end of the charter and thus separated the text of the typical from these additional notes. However, in this case, what is important for us is not what was done by this anonymous corrector, but the very fact of correction and an indication of the weaknesses of the then statute, due to which this case was conducted. These corrections did not have any official significance, but belonged to an intelligent Svyatogorsk monk, who, without special powers, only with the blessing of his abbot, set to work and did what was within his means. Similar invisible work was carried out in other monasteries. They consisted of scholia and notes in the margins of the charter and noted differences in rituals according to other types, indicating that of the previous customs had already fallen out of use and remained on paper, and that new ones had appeared. These notes served as a guide to the conscious conduct of the service and, in addition, explained the meaning of more difficult liturgical expressions found in the text of the charter. We would call them glosses if they had a more systematic character and were carried out sequentially, but in fact they do not have such a character and consist of a series of notes of a casuistic nature, made sometimes by the scribe of the manuscript, and sometimes by the hand of some other book monk. There are such notes in the text itself, but they come across extremely rarely, and most of all we found them in the margins of the statutes: the Synodal Kutlumush (No. 380), which we were just talking about, and in another Synodal 487; two or three notes of the same content were made in list No. 381 (XIII century). In the charter of the Rumyantsev Museum from the Norov collection, No. 385 (XIV century), several features of the service in the monastery of Paul of Latre 18 are noted in the margins. But these instructions had no influence on the further processing of the charters and remained without consequences. 19 b) Of greater importance were the service manuscripts that came out of the Savvina Monastery. They spread his practice throughout the surrounding regions and processed it in connection with the composition of various kinds of service books, such as: triodion, menaion, paremeiniki and service books. From the recording on the Greek triodion of the very end of the 11th century, located in the library of the Sinai Monastery, it is clear that this triodion was copied in 1099 in the Lavra of St. Savva Gerasim the Antiochian for the cathedral church of the city of Ascalon in the name of the Great Martyr George. Thus, the official orders of the Savvina monastery were accepted at that time in the secular churches and contributed to the spread of the Jerusalem charter in these latter 20. Much more was done in relation to the charter by Nikon Chernogorets. Nikon was primarily a practical figure 21 . In pandects he explains the rules of general Christian and monastic behavior, in taktikon he deals with the organization of life in the monasteries of that time, establishes the order of worship and gives rules regarding fasting and celebrating holidays. For the same practical reasons, he was involved in the regulations. The life of the monks of that time was not distinguished by strictness, at least in many Syrian monasteries: the monks did not obey the abbots, the latter did not enjoy authority, many avoided the community and led a Kelliot lifestyle, which gave more freedom and independence. Nikon therefore recommended the hostel and pointed out the harmful aspects of Kellyotism. In order to ensure stricter rules in the monasteries, he began to revise and evaluate the existing statutes. They turned out to be very different from each other both in the service and disciplinary aspects. Even the types of the same industry in different lists diverged from each other and resulted in contradictions in practice. In addition, Nikon was struck by the very lack of evidence of the statutory rules. Establishing dissimilar orders, they expressed themselves in a categorical form: “we say this and that” without any explanation and without indicating the grounds and evidence justifying this or that custom. In order to eliminate these weak sides of the then charter, Nikon set out to compare the typologies with each other in the main issues relating to service and discipline, select the best from them, substantiate them on church evidence or, as he calls them, on divine scriptures - and in this way compile an exemplary typical, in its own way an ideal order. In the 57th chapter of the pandect, he deals with a selection of disciplinary rules from the main statutes of that time, and in the first word of the tacticon he sets out his exemplary type, about which in a letter to Father Gerasim he responds as follows: “I, even if I am unworthy..., both in my strength, having labored in the haste of God about fasts and holidays and other workable (πρακτικός, in contrast to the θεορητικός life (rules) from the divine scriptures and from those same types, having chosen the appropriate one and was testified by the grace of Christ from the divine scriptures... This book remains, like all the other works (that is, Nikon’s other works) here in St. Simeon The miracle worker for the joy of those who demand and for our benefit." (Takt. fol. 6 l. 62 vol. 63.) Does Nikon in the last lines understand the ancient Jerusalem type, which he found through the Laodicean abbot Theodosius and laid down for copying in the monastery of Simeon the Divnogorets? about Nikon's own type. Due to the lack of a Greek text, we cannot verify it from the original (Preface to the tacticon, l. 10). This typik, as we said, is contained in the first word of the tacticon and bears the following title: “the ruler (κανοναριον) with God, rekshe typik, was chosen from the divine scriptures for the establishment of the image (τύπων orders, decrees) handed down to us from the holy fathers for the salvation of souls and was given by scripture to those under us to the brethren.” In the Rapfsky monastery and at Simeon Divnogorets, this charter was accepted into the leadership and served as the basis for the local order 22, but had no generally binding significance. He lacked administrative and church sanction; and Nikon was far from the idea of ​​giving him such authority; he recommends it for guidance to those who wish, for the use of those who “have the will,” and then in the type itself he makes reservations that this is his personal opinion, that he does not present it as an infallible rule, but leaves it to the decision of those more knowledgeable. The content of this charter is divided into two parts: liturgical and disciplinary. The first is set out much more briefly and contains notes regarding Vespers, then rules about the hours of Easter and for the whole year, about Vespers, Midnight Office, Matins, prostrations, about the number of kathismas for the whole year (and about stichera and great doxology), about the cell rule (about special singing), about the time of the liturgy and meals on holidays large, medium and small. This article serves as a transition" to the disciplinary part, which begins with an article "on eating and drinking in quantity and quality", on the order at meals and on the distribution of food throughout the year in relation to holidays and fasts, and the rules in this regard are compared between the Studite, Jerusalem and Svyatogorsk types. Then follows a series of small articles concerning monastic life, of which we will name a few: about clothes and vows, about ministers and other brethren’s activities, about the fast of the Holy Mother of God (Assumption), about holidays, in which God the Lord is sung. Subsequently, we will familiarize ourselves in detail with the contents of these disciplinary rules, and now we will make a few comments about the nature of Nikon’s type and what sources he used in its compilation. A compiler by the main characteristic of his works, Nikon remained faithful to this direction in the first word of his tacticon. The type he compiled is of a combined eclectic nature and is set out on the basis of a number of sources: the present type,” he says, “I wanted to compile according to the tradition of communal decrees, from the Lenten (i.e., ascetic words) of Basil the Great, the life of St. Pachomius, the charter of the Studite monastery and other ancients.” (Sk. 1 l. 14 vol.). He chose its content “from the divine scriptures and from those very types” (Sl. 6 l. 63 preface l. 11). In accordance with this, the matter is conducted in its very type: with indications of these sources, he replete his speech, compares the testimony of different statutes with each other and makes excerpts from them. In addition to the statutes of large monasteries, he turns to the rules of the first founders of monasticism, to the writings of ancient ascetics, and to the liturgical decrees of the ancient Church. (Apostle. Decrees, cathedral canons) and is guided by the customs of different monasteries. So, for example, the article on liturgies concludes with the following words: “this is the reasoning of the holy services ... that we teach: first of all from the Studite type, and first of all from Jerusalem and the holy mountains, as well as about the fast of St. The Apostle bequeaths the same from the life of St. Thalassia... This head (article) here inscribed in testimony is relied upon, as we have learned: seeing the best, let him look” (fol. 17 f. 1). In the same way, he conducts business in other articles. 23 Further, this charter is not only consolidated, but also explanatory. Its compiler discusses various issues of church and monastic practice, makes decisions on the basis of logical and historical arguments, thus eliminating the lack of evidence that plagued his contemporary typists. For example, he cites paternal testimonies about the fast of Great Pentecost and Holy Week and often refers to the extracts he collected in pandects. For the same purpose, he makes a choice between evidence and evaluates them, recognizing some as generally binding, and expressing others as considerations and for guidance in clarifying misunderstandings. He calls the former “legal and obsessive chapters,” the latter “partially watchful (οικονομηκώς adaptive), which are not worthy of being taken into maintenance and legal evidence” (page 1, 28 vol.). Thus, Nikon made an attempt to reconcile the contradictory testimony of the typicals and put them on firmer historical ground. He had enough means to accomplish this task: he was in full possession of the necessary material, but he still did not achieve his intended goal and left quite a few questions in doubt. In addition, he had his own personal views, which he pursued very prominently and in favor of which he leaned historical arguments (for example, community life). On the issue of fasting and holidays, he leaned towards more strict rules and often strengthened them, expressing his personal opinion. Nikon's work was only the beginning of the extensive work that the statutes of that time asked the liturgists. Nikon has the greatest honor of being the spokesman for this need. He expressed an extremely important idea about revising the then typical type, correcting its weaknesses and bringing it to uniformity. But in order to complete this task properly, the united efforts of many, an agreement between the patriarchates and the regulation of local customs were needed. These conditions were not available, and therefore Nikon’s work remained an attempt that did not turn into action, a plan that had no successors. And indeed, Nikon’s work was not included in the Greek typology, and only a few comments and articles, known by comparison, were included there (we know: about the division of holidays into categories, however in a special presentation - Greek oral. S.B. No. 381/Z69). In their entirety, the disciplinary rules from Nikon were adopted into our Slavic charters, known with the name of Afanasy Vysotsky, or the eye of the church, then they were placed in the rules on fasting under the corresponding days of the month and adopted in places in the old printed Greek typicas. Even further, the type was revised in the so-called statutes of the patriarchs. Philotheus “Διάταξις της ίεροδίακονίας, etc. or Ordo sacri ministerii.” This revision was limited, however, to an insignificant part of the statute and affected only festive matins and vespers. (We are not talking about the liturgy, which is included in the missal). The task of the compiler was to determine the order of these services in those parts that are performed by the priest and deacon, and to delimit the official duties of the latter. As for the general course of the service on the choir, it is assumed to be known from other sources, and Ordo touches on it only to the extent necessary to determine the participation of clergy in it. Without introducing anything new into the structure of the then service, Ordo regulates its ritual details and consolidates the monotonous way of their execution. Before the advent of the Ordo, practice had not developed definite rules in this regard: the general headings of the charter were applied differently in different localities and by different performers, according to accepted customs. The compiler of the Ordo set out to eliminate this inconvenience by accurately indicating the details of the priestly service. So, for example, the charter does not say anything about the preparation of the priest and deacon for the service, at what time and how their vestments take place, and what they consist of. Ordo fills this gap and explains at what time, how and with what rituals it occurs. How is the beginning of the festive matins different when it is celebrated separately from vespers, and not in the order of the vigil? The Charter does not directly answer this question: the Ordo answers it positively and fixes this part in relation to the actions of the serving priest. When do the royal doors open? This article is not found in the sections of the Greek statute: we find it in the Ordo. The same kind of work is carried out in the presentation of further parts of the service, so that on the whole a consistent outline of Matins and Vespers is obtained in those parts that relate to the service of the priest and the Law. The Ordo begins with a note on which services and on which days a deacon should vest himself; then follows a series of instructions regarding the all-night vigil: with what rites the priest and deacon begin this service, how and where they vest, the beginning of the vigil is described in detail; Then we talk about the reading of the prayers of the lamp, about the beginning of Matins, when it is performed separately from the vigil, about how many times and when the royal doors are opened, about the deacon’s vestments at Matins, when there is poetry and when there is not, about the entrance to Vespers, about the litia, the blessing of the loaves, about the release of Vespers - whether it is performed separately from Matins, or together with it, about the litia after Vespers, about the beginning of Matins, performed separately from the vigil, the reading of morning prayers during the Six Psalms, the carrying out, reading and kissing of the Gospel, the censing at the beginning of the canon, the litanies on the canon, and so on until the end of Matins. At the end of the Ordo, it talks about the rite of anointing with oil after Matins, about the holidays on which litia is celebrated outside the church and, in connection with them, about the removal of the cross on the first day of August. This is the general content of the Philothean Charter. In the area of ​​issues he touches upon, he has an undoubted influence on the treatment of the type and introduces the following new aspects into it: 1) he sets out in detail the ritual setting of the service, about which the type is either silent or is limited to more or less general instructions 24 . 2) Where, according to different types, a well-known rite is presented differently, the Ordo establishes uniform execution for it 25 and 3) some articles of the charter are stated differently and revised 26. But despite this significance, the lists of the Greek charter that were at our disposal lead to the conclusion that Ordo had no actual influence on the editorship of the Greek type and passed without a trace for it. How can we explain this phenomenon? This probably depended on the special tasks of the Ordo and its direct relationship to euchology. Appointed for guidance to priests, it never merged with the content of the charter, and it was placed in ancient missals as an addition to the rites of Vespers and Matins for the priest. In terms of its content and purpose, it constituted a continuation of the statute of the liturgy and was printed next to it, under the general title 27. Only the rules of the liturgy merged with its text, and the rules of Vespers and Matins were not included in the general presentation of these services and remained a separate article. The exceptions are some of its headings, which were transferred to the Slavic lists of the charter and to the Greek early printed types, and from here they were adopted into our edited publications. As for the handwritten Greek charters, we did not find any traces of the use of Ordo in them. Who was the drafter of this charter? Judging by its inscription in the Greek missals, 28 the author of the Ordo is recognized as the famous Patriarch of Constantinople and liturgist of the 14th century, Philotheus. But this opinion has no other positive basis for itself and raises strong doubts in view of the inconsistency of the accepted opinion about the authorship of Philotheus in relation to the rules of the liturgy. In the Greek typica Synod. bib. No. 381, we found this charter with a mention in the prayer for the consecration of gifts about the Emperor Andronicus and Patriarch Athanasius, of whom the first (of course, Andronicus the Younger) reigned between 1287 to 1332, and Athanasius occupied the patriarchal see for the first time from 1289 to 1293, the second time from 1304 to 1311. Thus, the charter Liturgies according to this list warn Philotheus by at least half a century. (For details, see Metropolitan Cyprus 16–21, and for the entry itself, see the description of the statute. No. 381.) But the statute of the liturgy is in close connection with the statute of Vespers and Matins, and both of these parts bear the stamp of the work of one person, one editor. This is evident from the same methods of presentation, the identity of expressions and one general thought that runs through all its parts and connects them into one whole. Therefore, there is no reason to separate the rules of Matins and Vespers from the liturgical ones and assign the first to the name of Philotheus, thereby delaying its origin by half a century or more. The only positive thing we can say is that it was compiled on the basis of the Jerusalem type in relation to the monastic service and was subsequently supplemented, as indicated by the repetitions and contradictions found in it. In this expanded form, the Ordo is printed in ancient breviaries and was published by Gohar 29. Jerusalem Charter in the Slavic lands The first news of the Jerusalem order in the Slavic world comes from the South Slavic lands and is associated with the name of Savva the Serbian. For the Hilandar monastery he founded, he gives a charter, which can be considered the first Slavic monument to the Jerusalem charter. But this is not his pure type, but a mixed one and comes close to the rules of Empress Irina, sometimes literally repeating its rules. In it we see a combination of the orders of Athonite and Jerusalem. Like the charter of Empress Irina, the type of Sava of Serbia does not have a service part and concludes one disciplinary part with a brief summary of the daily service. 30 In the regulations in the Kareya cell, traces of the Jerusalem order are also noticeable, although in general it represents a unique system of service, different from all known regulations and adapted to the cell rule. 31 This order of service Rev. Sava introduced 32 into Serbia and subsequently had even more opportunities to get to know him during his trip to the Black Mountain, Jerusalem and Sinai. 33 At the beginning of the 13th century, in Serbia, the service was already governed according to the Jerusalem charter, as can be seen from the service of St. Paraskeva in the Dubrovac prologue of 1211. Mentioned here are: small vespers, great vespers with matins, and the entire service is called a vigil. 34 The Serbs did not have a complete type until the beginning of the 14th century, being content with Sava’s short charter for monastic use and liturgical books for conducting services. The full charter was introduced in 1319, in a Slavic translation by Archbishop Nicodemus. Its original, accompanied by a handwritten note by the translator, is kept in the Belgrade Public Library, and the preface to it was published by Danicic. 35 From this preface we learn that Savva the Serbian did not have time to complete the church structure of his fatherland, but entrusted this task to the responsibility of his successors. Fulfilling the will of the Serbian chief shepherd, Archbishop Nikodim decided to fill one of the important gaps in the church life of his flock and, while still an archimandrite of Hilandar, had the opportunity to become acquainted with the Jerusalem charter in Constantinople, where he was sent to settle dynastic strife and where, as he himself says, he saw “the hardworking charter of those men (Eastern patriarchs with whom met in Constantinople) holding a type according to the custom of the holy city of Jerusalem, according to the rule of Saint Sava the desert dweller.” 36 This was during the patriarchate of Niphon 1313–1315. Having become the Archbishop of Serbia, he turned to Constantinople to acquire it and, through his envoy, received a copy of the Jerusalem statute, which he “translated into his own language from the writings of the Greek language.” It is remarkable that Nicodemus takes the original charter not from Athos, with which he was so well acquainted when he was abbot of Hilandar, but from Constantinople; this shows that Mount Athos at that time had its own special charter, which diverged from the one that was adopted in the patriarchate and enjoyed, without a doubt, authority. Otherwise, there would be no need for Nicodemus to order him from Constantinople and transfer him, but it would be much easier to use his ready-made Svyatogorsk lists. One cannot ignore the fact that Nicodemus receives the charter from the monastery of “St. Forerunner and Baptist John." It is more than likely that we are talking about the studio monastery here, and if this is so, then it turns out that the role of the studio charter was at that time completed at the place of its origin, and it gave way to another branch. Received in Serbia, from here, under the authority of the metropolis, he moves to Athos and is received in Hilandar. So in 1331 the sinful Roman rewrote it by order of Abbot Gervasius. This list is kept in the Berlin Public Library. The Nikodimov edition, in its original form, did not last long in Serbia, and 30–40 years after its appearance, it gave way to another, more complete one, translated from another Greek copy and supplemented with some local Serbian features. This is how the Savostyanovsky charter in Rum presents the case. museum, (No. 1456) and from the Imperial. Public Bible Judging by the Easter tables placed at the beginning of the Savostian. charter, it was written in 1372. In it, in the margins, several notes were made about the days of remembrance of the Serbian kings, who are called saints; eg under October 29. “Repose of the great, all-merciful holy king of Serbia Stefan Urosh.” November 11th “Euphrosyne the monk, Lazarus’ concubine.” December 10th “Jovan the Despot” Uglesh. On the 21st, the memory of “Stephen the First Crowned”. At the litiya, a petition is raised “for the krala imrk” (l. 11) and the saints are invoked in prayer. Simeon and Savva. After the Midnight Office, the litany reads “about the state, our pious and saints, the kings or the kingdom...” and about the Serbian Archbishop (fol. 20). This means that the original list was compiled before the patriarchate. The teachers are recorded in the monthbook. Savva, Simeon and Arseniy of Serbia. In comparison with the Charter of Nicodemus, the Savostian manuscript differs in composition and differences in language. She compiles a translation from the Greek typique, which contained observations on the service and corrections by an unknown compiler, who compared the customs of different localities, referred to the practice of the Great Church and expressed his personal considerations in the first person. The Serbian translator retained all these notes, even preserving the first person form. In contrast to the Nicodemus list, there is no message from Nicholas the Patriarch here, but at the end there are several articles from the 2nd part of Mark’s chapters and then, under a special title: “inconvenient for us,” etc., a detailed presentation of Mark’s chapters in both parts and with the inclusion of those articles that were placed slightly higher. Finally, it reads a very interesting article about glorification (after mass on Christmas Eve), which talks about the impropriety of congratulating the abbot, drinking glycisma, and says why in desert monasteries there is no such glorification for kings. Charter Emperor. Public The library is identical in composition and presentation to Savostian's and differs from it in that it has Mark's chapters at the very beginning of the manuscript, and at the end there are several extra additional articles, namely: immaculate with troparia for Great Saturday, polyelean psalms and selected verses from psalms for major holidays and days of great saints in groups, but there are no choruses or magnifications for them. In all other respects, the composition and arrangement of official material are completely similar to Savostyanovsky’s list, so the features of the latter are quite applicable to the charter of the Public Library; one can make only one probable assumption that this list was also used in Russian practice, as can be concluded from the fact that the words were erased in it: kral, kralevstvo, Serbian archbishop - which had no meaning for us: there are no comments in it about the death of the Serbian rulers, while both are read in the Savostyanovsky list. The fate of the Jerusalem Charter in Russia In Rus', the turn from the studio charter to the Jerusalem one began at a time when the first was in full swing and is clearly visible in the 13th century. The matter began with the fact that customs came to us from the East, which had a basis in the Jerusalem statute adopted here, and, diverging from the rules of the studio, raised questions and bewilderment. In the East, at this time, an agreement was already taking place between the Studite liturgical books and the requirements of the Jerusalem Rule. Such books, appearing in circulation among us, aroused misunderstandings, for clarification of which our church authorities turned to the patriarchs and generally knowledgeable persons. They gave a decision in the sense of their accepted practice and thus opened the way for the Jerusalem order, despite the fact that our current charter remained the studio one. Eg. Should the liturgy be celebrated on Wednesday and Friday of cheese week, as well as on Holy Friday? We, following the Studite rule, in the 13th and 14th centuries, served presanctified mass on these days, but in the East this custom was already abandoned. To resolve these issues, Bishop Theognost of Sarai appeals on behalf of Metropolitan Kirill to the Patriarchal Council in Constantinople (1276) and receives an answer in the sense of the Jerusalem Charter, which does not follow. 37 If we had the Jerusalem Rule at that time, such a question would have been unnecessary and would have resolved itself. Somewhat later, Metropolitan Maxim, in his rule on fasting all year round, made an attempt to reconcile the then charter on meals with the Jerusalem typology and in many cases cites excerpts from it under the name of the charter of the Holy Resurrection (i.e., the Jerusalem temple of this name 38). But most of all was done in this regard by our metropolitans Cyprian and Photius. In their time, the contradiction between the regulations in force in the East and our practice, between the Jerusalem typology that had just come into use in our country and the previous official procedures took on such an acute form that it was impossible to remain in this situation any longer. Cyprian intended to carry out this agreement on a large scale, and his subsequent psalter can serve as a monument to his activity in this direction, where the order of the service is set out in accordance with the Jerusalem charter and where the entire service features of the latter are included in the triodion of fasting and the mena. 39 The same direction is noticeable in his letter to Athanasius and in letters to the Pskov and Novgorod clergy, where Cyprian, when resolving controversial issues, adheres to the customs of Jerusalem. 40 But neither one nor the other of the named metropolitans brought or translated the new charter to us: both under them and before them, we undoubtedly already had Slavic copies of the Jerusalem charter, only they did not have time to spread, enter into general use and eliminate the discord that arose from the clash of the old orders with the new. It continued into the 15th century. as can be seen from Photius’s answers to the Pskov clergy, where he refers to the Jerusalem charter and cites excerpts from it. 41 This charter was already known to the Pskov clergy, but apparently it had not yet been accepted, and they did not have time to get used to its rules. 42 However, it remains unknown when, by whom exactly and in what list the Jerusalem statute was brought to us. The silence of church sources about this naturally shows that the replacement of Studite customs with Jerusalem customs was not some kind of administrative act and did not have an official character. Just as in the East the change of types did not leave traces in the administrative sphere and did not supplant the previous methods of performing service, so it happened with us. Under the influence of the authority of the patriarchate, our metropolitans soon took the side of the new charter and disseminated it for church use. Yes, the widespread and simultaneous spread of the new order would have been unthinkable with the insignificant means with which our church libraries were replenished and the parishes were supplied with service books. From the 14th to the 17th centuries inclusive, we have up to 6 editions of the statute, of which four were the most stable, which we will discuss 43 . As for the differences in presentation, composition and language, there are so many of them that there are hardly two completely similar lists. And it is remarkable that these differences begin to be discovered in the earliest monuments of this branch, and already in the 14th century, despite the small number of type lists preserved from this time, three editions can be noted. The first of them in time was Serbian, introduced by Nicodemus. We know of six of its copies: Belgrade (Nikodimov’s original) 44 , Berlin 1331 45 , Savostyanovsky in the Moscow Public Museum 1371 46 , two in the Imperial Public Library 47 and one in the New Jerusalem Resurrection 48 . The last three do not have a chronological date, but according to the letter and other features they belong to the 14th century. This was probably the first edition of the Jerusalem Charter known in Rus'. Although no traces of local Russian adaptation are visible in it, except perhaps for the erased (in the list of the New Jerusalem and the Public Library) Serbian nicknames - kral, kralevstvo and replacing them with the word of kings, Russian holidays and saints are not recorded, but the possibility of using it in Russian practice is evidenced by our relations with Athos and Serbia, especially under Cyprian, respect for the name of Sava the Serbian and a large number of service books Serbian copy, remaining from the XIV, XV centuries. in our libraries, and they, without a doubt, stood in close connection with the presentation of the statute itself, then adopted in Serbia. In addition, the general content of this edition is taken entirely from the Greek statute. The lists in this edition are distinguished by their brevity and systematic construction. They contain: the general part, the menea service and the triodion. There are very few additional articles: about censing with an addition about when the Royal Doors open, prokeemnas, alleluia, lamps, and the message of Nicholas the Patriarch to the archpriest of Mount Athos. In comparison with the introductory parts in later charters, their number is very limited and gives the typists of the Serbian edition a concise and consistently carried out plan. In the earlier of them there are neither Mark's chapters nor extracts from the Nikon of Montenegrin. In the list of the Voskresensk Library, Markov’s chapters were added later, in a different handwriting, on different paper and separately bound, but in the Savostyanovsky and Public Library, Markov’s chapters are completely recorded. We have not come across complete and accurate representatives of this edition in Greek manuscripts. But it is very close to the Greek synodal lists, which especially needs to be said about the Savostianovsky and the Public Library. Here the common and triode parts are almost literally similar. The difference lies in the additional parts and the addition of new memories. That the Serbian lists constitute a translation from Greek is clear from the preface to the Nicodemus list and from the many Greek words that remained untranslated; only the degree of this proximity is not the same in different lists and can only be determined by literal textual comparison. Next edition, No. 383/328 384/329 from the Synod. library, differs in two features. It constitutes a local Russian reworking of the Greek type and serves as a transition from the studio statutes to the Jerusalem one. The first feature is expressed in the explanations of poorly understood and technical Greek expressions in Russian words; the introduction of the memories of Russian saints into the monthbook, and the South Slavic saints are not mentioned. This shows that the complementer and translator of the statute was a Russian, and not a South Slav, who, without a doubt, would have given place to his memories preferably over others, as the Serbian types of the first edition show. The same is indicated by the remark on how to celebrate Sunday vigils where there is a shortage of skilled singers, and the long autumn and winter nights require a long service. Of course, they did not know about the special duration of autumn and winter nights either on Mount Athos, or in Palestine, or in Constantinople. This remark is made on behalf of the expounder of the charter and probably belongs to the Slavic translator, who had in mind his local geographical conditions 49; mention is made of the fast of the Virgin Mary (No. 328 fol. 11 vol.), which is not mentioned in the Greek typicas (ibid. 17). The influence of the studio charter is evident from the article on the meal, which is given according to its Slavic translation in the charter of Patriarch Alexei. The existence of this article gives two important indications for characterizing the then statute: a) that it had not yet freed itself from the influence of studio practice and b) that the disciplinary part of the Jerusalem typical was not known to us. In this respect, the second edition has similarities with those Greek typicals in which articles from the short studio outline (ύποτύπωοις) are placed, with the significant difference, however, that in the Slavic statutes, which are now being discussed, the article on meals is taken not from the Greek ύποτύπωοις, but from the Slavic translation of Alekseev’s charter. This article is accompanied by the rite of panagia, about which only hints are made in the studio, but is discussed in detail in the Palestinian and Svyatogorsk charters. In our statutes, the rite of panagia (on the path) is called borrowed from the statute of the Holy Mountain. In comparison with the previous edition, there are no small articles of official content related to the daily service, as well as messages from Patriarch Nicholas, but in turn there are Markov’s chapters; in No. 383, the first part of them is placed under the corresponding days in the month-word, and the second separately - after the month-word; in No. 384, both are combined and presented separately at the end of the month. In addition, in No. 384, compared with the previous one, more additional articles were placed. At the head of the statutes of the 3rd edition is the name of the Russian church leader Afanasy Vysotsky and the statute translated by him in Constantinople, the so-called “Eye of the Church.” The translation was made in 6909 (1401) in the Constantinople Iperivlepto monastery, 50 as can be seen from the afterword of some of the statutes of this edition, 51 but the original itself has not survived, and we can judge it from later copies, of which quite a lot have come down to us. This shows that the work of Athanasius was widely known and had great practical application. The earliest list with the year (1409) is in the Imperial Public Library (F. No. 25) formerly from the collection of gr. Tolstoy. (See description of Tolstoy's manuscripts No. 11.) From the Rumyantsev Museum - (description No. 445) written in 1428 in the Savvin Storozhevsky Monastery, a copy of 1429 from the library of Kazan University written in the Sergius Lavra by order of Abbot Savva by the hand of the monk Jonah. List of Synod. library (No. 385/332) was donated to the Khutyn monastery by Archbishop Euthymius of Novgorod in 1441 (Description No. 385). The same edition includes Synodal No. 386/b78 (with some additions), Trinity Lavra Nos. 239, 240, similar in composition to Synodal No. 385, from the collection of Undolsky 114 of the same composition in the first part, Moscow Assumption Cathedral of 1438 (Snegirev Pam. M.D. 43). 52 Thus, in less than half a century, this charter spreads in Novgorod, Moscow, Trinity Lavra, Savvina Monastery and takes precedence over others. Macarius of Novgorod calls the statute in force in his time “The Eye of the Church” 53. There are significant differences between his lists; younger ones are more complete and introduce new articles. The increase in their volume is progressive and corresponds to the time of origin. The third edition is distinguished by its combined, compilative nature and particular completeness in the presentation of the general part in comparison with the previous lists. It consists of 67 chapters 54 and contains the following new articles: 1) extraction of disciplinary content from Nikon Montenegrin’s tacticon; 2) five chapters (40–44), borrowed from nowhere and 3) in the monthly and triode parts, a comparison of the Studite, Svyatogorsk and Jerusalem statutes in the rules on food, also from Nikon. The compiler of this charter had before him several types of different branches, compared them with each other, supplemented them from other sources, and in this way processed his liturgical work. This was not a translation from a ready-made Greek original, it was not even a collection of suitable material from various sources, but on some issues it was a comparative review of different types and a judgment about their relative merits. Therefore, Afanasy Vysotsky (if this work really belongs to him) was not a translator of the charter only, but an expounder or copyist (συγγραφέυς), using the book Byzantine expression. Yes, the preface does not talk about the translation, but expresses the work of the compiler as an independent work, that he laboriously touched upon this book, that jealousy disposed him towards this difficult task (for such a purchase of labor), that although he did not completely complete this work, he “reached a more difficult end.” Thus, when presenting the first general part, he used the Greek list of the charter with a detailed record of the casuistic rules of the synod. 1298, but in which the first part of Mark's chapters was merged with the text of the month. He brings into his work the latest liturgical news, which has hardly managed to firmly enter the Greek typologies, for example. mentions the synaxar of Nikephoros Xanthopoulus, the works of Patriarch Philotheus, takes the entire rules from the statutes of the second edition and, in parallel with them, provides articles on the same subject in a different presentation characteristic of the third edition (for example, the rule on the Assumption Fast). For the first time, an article appears in it about when the royal doors open. Introduces articles from Nikon Montenegrin 55: exactly 23 articles from the first word of the tacticon. As we have already seen, these articles have a disciplinary content and fill a very noticeable gap in the Jerusalem type. This part could not be established in his complete lists for a long time. In some, they took suitable articles from the studio charter, or from its short outline, in others they placed the message of Patriarch Nicholas to the archpriest of Mount Athos, while other charters did not have disciplinary rules at all and were limited to the official part. Nikon, with his comments and extracts from various charters, developed a whole series of these rules and placed them in his tactics, from where they were taken into the charters with some abbreviations and changes. These articles are not found either in handwritten or printed Greek typologies, and they probably owe their introduction in the Slavic charter to a Russian exponent. It is remarkable that the first Slavic translation of the tacticon coincides with the time of the Athanasian Rule and was made in Novgorod in 1397 for the Nativity Monastery on Lisichaya Mountain by the scribes monks Yakov and Pimen, and the very original from which this list was made was derived from Athos by Abbot Illarion, the predecessor of Varlaam, under whom this work was performed 56 . In the oldest Slavic list of taktikon from the Synodal Library (No. 227–189), which, according to the descriptors, dates back to the end of the 14th or beginning of the 15th century, traces of Novgorod pronunciation are noticeable (Description II. 3, 34). Doesn't this prove that the said list was made from the Novgorod copy and is a copy of the Khutyn list? Further, if it were possible to prove by comparing the translation of Nikon's articles in Afanasy's list with the Khutyn list that they are identical, then it would turn out that Afanasy used for his work some Svyatogorsk list of tactics of the same translation and edition with Novgorod. Some remarks about fasting in the monthly book are also borrowed from Nikon, but the source from which they were taken is not shown. This is also where the article is literally taken that says that one should not perform the blessing of water on the very day of Epiphany, but only on the eve, etc. As for the new articles from chapters 40 to 44 inclusive, we do not know their original and cannot indicate where they were borrowed from. In terms of content, they are not new and convey the already established order of service and the rules of Christian life. These are: Chapter 41 - about the hedgehog when it is appropriate to be on Friday evening about the departed, following at the meal for the high tide for the deceased and over the koliv for the deceased, and at the meal for the high tide about the health of the king and prince: 42 ch. - Oh, how candles are burned in churches on holidays; Chapter 43 - about life, resha, about fasting and the resolution of the whole summer; Chapter 44 - Oh, how proper it is to sing a prayer service for every request. The first two chapters and the last form a natural continuation of the 2nd part of Mark’s chapters, but 43 has a disciplinary content and is adjacent to extracts from Nikon Chernogorets. Judging by the mention of the tide for the dead, one can think that Chapter 41 was included in the charter from South Slavic sources, and this ritual itself is read in the Hilandar charter of 1331 (Starine book V. 1873). Chapter 42 about which and when candles are lit at services, although in a different presentation, is recorded in the Studio Synodal Charter No. 330/380. (Published by Archimandrite Amphilochius) and in the type of Empress Irina. In the Slavic charters it is processed in relation to the Jerusalem type and mentions little vespers and vigils. Chapter 43 - about the Life, Reksha, about fasting and the resolution of the whole summer - was compiled on the basis of Nikon the Montenegrin and the message of Patriarch Nicholas, but in presentation it differs from both sources and probably appeared in the Slavic world. 44th - about how to sing a prayer service - the content of the general liturgical. Finally, among the features of the statutes of this edition it is necessary to include the explanation of obscure Greek words of liturgical content with the corresponding Slavic expressions, and in the monthly book the introduction of Slavic-Russian memories and holidays. It is clear that the compiler intended his charter for use in the Slavic churches, and intended to simplify its use and apply it to Russian practice. So, at the beginning of Great Vespers, the word κελευσατε is explained “Rise up, command Reksha”, (3 vol.) throwing, Reksha bow, this real type is the hedgehog (10 vol.), the saint has much mercy (polyeleos), the princes are mentioned; instead of a bookish priest - an everyday priest, a nala with pavoloka - instead of one covered with a veil, etc. In an article about the fraternal meal on Holy Saturday, having cited a well-known rule on this subject from the Greek charter, which speaks of bread, figs and dates, the compiler supplements this article, in relation to Slavic customs, with the following remark: “and even in poor countries, let the brothers drink kvass from honey or rye; figs are found in many countries” (fol. 109; references made according to the statute of Publ. Bible No. 25) 57. Thanks to these conditions, the charter of Athanasius acquired especially important significance in the history of the typique on Russian soil, and with it begins the first major step towards the reworking of the Greek typique and its identification as Slavic. The very fact that we do not see many articles of the “eye of the church” in the Greek typography makes it clear that in Athanasius’s charter new liturgical elements appeared on the scene, which then firmly settled in the Russian editions and constituted their indispensable content. “The Eye of the Church” imparted its character to further monuments of this kind on Russian soil and gave impetus to the separation of the Russian church charter from the Greek. Further lists of our charter, with all their diversity, start from this type and adopt its distinctive features, modifying and supplementing the content of the Afanasyev charter with introductory articles. 68 Statutes: Synodal No. 387/331 (the so-called Tver, 1438), Rumyantsev Museum, No. 447, Trinity Lavra, No. 242, Typograph. bib. No. 288–289 58 constitute a special 4th edition and have their own characteristics in the composition and arrangement of parts. These features, in comparison with the statutes of the 3rd edition, are shown in the Description. manuscript S. bib. (III. 307–308) and can be summarized as follows. At the beginning of the charter there is an instruction to the abbot about the exact execution of the rules of the typica - an article known from Greek charters much earlier. The first part contains the same articles as the previous edition, but they are arranged differently and supplemented by the following new chapters: 10 - about the face, 21 - about the alarm clock, accompanied by the remark that this custom is no longer performed and explains why. This addition is read in the earlier Greek statutes and is obviously borrowed from there. (Description 308). Instead of the 67 chapters that made up the general part of the previous edition, here it is divided into 125, in this order: the first 22 chapters contain the general order of the daily service with comments to it: from 23 to 25 inclusive - additions to them of unknown origin (the same as in the previous chapters 41, 43 and 44); 26 – 44 articles from Nikon Chernogorets (taken in full. See Description of S. B.); from 44 to 125 Markov's chapters (numbering 81) were recorded in two parts, (1st of 53 chapters, 2nd of 28) under a special title, and thus attributed to the end of the 1st part. In the presentation of the service according to the month's word, it is adjacent to the statutes of the 3rd edition and repeats some of its features; eg cites excerpts regarding fasting and meals from Nikon, compares instructions on this subject from different statutes, prescribes a one-time consecration of water on the eve of Epiphany with the prohibition of the opposite custom in the words of Nikon, and generally retains the features noted in the Description. S. B: III, p. 299. Slavic charters of the 16th–17th centuries. according to the presentation of the main parts (we mean the general one for the Menaion and the Triodion), some are adjacent to the 4th edition (for example, Synod. No. 388, 390), others to the 3rd (No. 389, Trinity Lavra No. 244), others do not fit into either one or the other and have their own rather large features. Based on these features, it would be possible to count several more editions, but since almost every charter has its own differences, and the growth of their composition is progressing forward, it will be more convenient to outline the further development of the type in a general outline and note the main aspects of the work that took place on it. Until now, the division into chapters has been adopted only for the general part and for Mark's chapters; starting with the synod. No. 388, this list goes further and covers not only the monthly and triode sections, but also additional articles. In the Greek type, this numbering began even earlier, as can be seen from the regulations for the additional catalog to the synodal manuscripts. These divisions, with their own, of course, characteristics, continued in later statutes. So to the synod. Charter No. 391 (Abraham Palitsyn) the account is kept in this way: parts 1, 2 and 3 with additional articles cover 73 chapters, followed by Markov’s chapters - in 69 and the additional 70th on the church service, from 71 to 83 additional articles. In No. 392 there is a different account - namely: Markov’s chapters in 144, and the church article in 47 chapters. The service of menea and triodion with additional articles remains outside the count. The charter from the Undolsky collection No. 115 (XVI) has 235 chapters (see Description of the Undolsky manuscript 122–133), the charter of Rum. Museum No. 449 (1610) consists of 151 chapters and the number of additional articles exceeds all lists of this kind known to us. This increase in the volume of typical books in the 16th–17th centuries constitutes an outstanding fact in their history and is based, on the one hand, on the activities of Russian expositors, and on the other hand, it depended on many introductory articles of general church content, which sometimes had nothing in common with the charter. If we compare the statutes of this time, for example. from the Synodal Library, we will see that each of them has its own characteristics in composition, in the number of additional articles, and if we include lists of statutes from other libraries for comparison, the number of these options will increase even more. Starting from the general type of Greek charter in the Jerusalem edition, our exponents and translators made their own additions to it and even revised it in relation to local Russian practice. The statutes of this time, apparently, strive to capture as much official material as possible, give as many practical instructions as possible on the performance of the service, and highlight the local features of the rite. in Charter No. 391, a chapter on how Vespers and Matins are performed on the eve of holidays “in special monasteries where there is no all-night vigil.” p.71. But, since this chapter is an addition, it was not included in the general account and was placed in front separately from the general order of daily services. In No. 391, such additions include Ch. 7–8 (Description III 332) and an article about the person who has begun. This also included articles from everyday life, for example, how matins, vespers and all-night vigils are performed in the most famous monasteries. These additions were also included in the printed charter. The second part underwent much greater changes and processing. Here were placed the memory and services of Russian saints, various church rites from everyday life and entire collections of such ranks for a more convenient performance of the service. These are: Flowers taken from the charter for the whole year (S.B. No. 391/335), a decree on the great saints of new wonderworkers, celebrated from Monday of Bright Week until the Sunday of All Saints (Ibid. No. 392/946) and additions to Mark’s chapters on the service of Russian saints. These and similar articles expressed the local Russian direction of the charter, which began to emerge in the 16th century, especially intensified in the 17th century and was gradually replaced in printed publications. In the mass of articles of general liturgical content, these additions constitute, of course, an insignificant percentage, but they are important in their direction, and a rare article of disciplinary content in the statutes of the 16th–17th centuries dispenses with them, which gives them a variegated, mixed character. Even more - sometimes the previous presentation diverges from the new one, and there is a contradiction between two articles on the same subject. An example can be the article: about the holy fast of Great Pentecost, etc. (No. 389–496), from the rules of the saints father... it is best for every Orthodox peasant to fast 391 l. 328, ibid. l. 149 rev. and the following, where we talk about food during Lent. As for additional articles of various contents, the number of them in the statutes of the 16th–17th centuries. gradually increases, accompanied by an exorbitant increase in the composition of the type. In earlier charters, a very small number of such additions were placed and only the most necessary material was recorded that did not fit in the previous parts; for example, prokemenas, theotokos, apostles, gospels, and some extracts from the book of hours, services for various needs, etc. In the 17th century, the charter, in some copies, turns into some kind of reference book and takes in a lot of articles from other service books that are only distantly related to the tasks of the type. Their choice, apparently, was not determined by any firm goal, but depended on the personal techniques of the exponent and copyist. But, despite its completeness, the charter benefited little from him as a leader and, having become dissolved in a mass of small casuistic issues, confused the important with the unimportant, the necessary with the accidental, and did not develop a systematic plan. A little bit of everything, and of very little importance - this is the motto that can be put at the head of these additional articles. As a cell charter and a reference book for reading at home, the charter received a significant expansion in this direction, adopted many articles of an ascetic and generally edifying nature and became a kind of bibliotheca ascetica selecta, apparently forgetting its direct liturgical purpose. (This is Charter No. 396, Typographical Library.) The Rumyantsev Charter of 1610 is distinguished by its particular diversity in content and, presenting a rich selection of passages from almost all branches of the then church writing, can serve as a clear example of this compilative direction. Summarizing on the basis of these data the fate of the Slavic type, we have the right to come to the following conclusions: a) the Slavic charter significantly deviated from the Greek type and received major revisions and additions under the pen of Slavic-Russian exponents. b) This revision was not some kind of official act, but was due to the activities of private individuals who were more or less competent in this matter, c) The church authorities did not attach importance to the uniformity of the types and provided monasteries and churches with complete freedom to use one or another of its lists. As for the first conclusion, it is supported by a whole series of data with which we are now dealing. It remains to add a little to what has been said. In addition to the peculiarities of the Slavic liturgical language, noticeable in the translation of the Greek typology, in addition to Russian memories, rituals and rules about fasting, included in the Slavic lists from everyday books, the Greek charter has also received significant editorial revision. In the Slavic charters, a different arrangement of material and a lot of additions are noticeable, some of which are taken from Greek sources, but are unknown from Greek types, while others are of local Russian origin. Most of all was done in this regard by the “ecclesiastical eye” of Athanasius and the “discriminating charter” of Gennady of Novgorod. With few exceptions, Slavic lists are more complete than Greek ones, and this quality is especially distinguished by the first general part in some lists of the 3rd edition. In the Greek typicas, this part is presented much shorter and more systematically, limited to the order of daily services with service notes related to them. The Slavic lists, without each exhausting the full number of these comments, introduce the following new ones into it: a) from the tacticon of Nikon the Montenegrin, b) three chapters (on the illumination of the church, about food for the whole year and about the funeral service with a tide) from an unknown source, c) Markov’s chapters, either as part of the second part, or in their entirety, d) in the monthly and triode parts, excerpts on fasting and holidays from Nikon the Montenegrin are given and a comparative assessment of the Jerusalem, Studio and Svyatogorsk types is made, d) decrees on the Assumption Fast are recorded mainly from Nikon. A lot of articles from the studio type were included in the Slavic charters, unknown to us from any of the Greek lists. For example, the rules about the meal according to the Slavic translation of this article in the charter of Patriarch Alexy 61, the Easter service, when this holiday happens on the day of the Annunciation and others. 62 Apparently, the Slavic exponents of the charter, taking as its basis the lists of the Jerusalem branch, from time to time turned to the studio orders and included them in the composition of the Jerusalem service, especially since in the 14th and 15th centuries in our country the studio charter had not yet been completely superseded, and its orders in places remained in full force. We went into the Slavic charters and explanations of official content like those with which we became acquainted when talking about the correction of the Greek charter. Some of the comments in our statutes coincide with the Greek ones, but there are also those that undoubtedly belong to the Slavic expounders and appeared on Russian soil. Such, for example, is the remark already known to us about the lack of skilled singers, about the duration of autumn and winter nights, and about how the form of the Greek longevity for kings needs to be changed in relation to Russian princes 63. Finally, all these various additional articles with which we have now become acquainted also constitute a homemade work of Russian liturgists and speak of their wide activity in this field. This difference in the composition of the Slavic typics, in comparison with the Greek, and especially the complications to which they were subjected on Russian soil, must be kept in mind in order to judge the structure of the Slavic-Russian type at the time of the appearance of its first printed editions and to understand the work that fell to the lot of our reference workers in the 17th century. The correction and processing of written charters, as we said, was of a private nature and was outside of official control. The validity of this conclusion is justified by the entire history of the pre-press regulations and the absence of any indications of government measures in this sense. The persons and circumstances under which this matter took place remain either completely unknown, or are of a private, random nature. Figures well-known in this field work on their own initiative and are not much different from the copyists of our service books. Afanasy Vysotsky, who did so much to process the statute, was not an authorized person, did not work at the call of church authorities, but studied in the quiet of monastic solitude, like a book lover, equipped with all the best means for successful business. Metropolitan Cyprian comes closest to the type of official figure. He corrects and rewrites various ranks of services, provides corrected lists of service books for Pskovites, distributes his works in Moscow, promotes the use of a well-known excerpt or edition, but he did not introduce a mandatory service charter, but only tried to harmonize the service books in force with the Jerusalem order and strengthen its position in our practice. More modest figures in this field, the writers of the statutes, set to work with the blessing of the abbot and assigned their work for use in the monastery where they lived, without thinking about its further dissemination as a model list and without giving it binding force 64. We had questions about certain subjects of church practice, and were perplexed about fasts, holidays, and the conduct of services. These issues prompted decisions by representatives of the church authorities (Cyprian, Photius); our metropolitans made personal orders regarding the order of service 65 in difficult cases. But these measures were not generalized until the revision or correction of the well-known service book, until the mandatory use of a known, authorized list of it. An entire branch of the charter, with a major revolution in the composition of the service, was replaced by another in our country, leaving no trace in official monuments and declaring itself through the struggle of studio customs with Jerusalem ones and the simultaneous use of books of both branches, and from the 14th century the preponderance began to lean towards the side of the Jerusalem charter, and in the 15th century it took a dominant position. When the Jerusalem Charter came into force, it was distributed among us in many different lists that existed simultaneously, and the right to use one or another of them did not encounter opposition from anywhere. Even in the same monastery, over the course of some 50 years, there were several charters, and, therefore, each of them could have practical use. Thus, the charter from the library of the Trinity Lavra, No. 245, judging by the postscript, was rewritten in 1594 by the abbot of the Preobrazhensky Monastery attached to the Trinity Lavra on Vkhodna Ivakh (sic) and again bound in 1627 under Archimandrite Dionysius. In terms of composition, it belongs to the 4th edition. Charter No. 116 from the Undolsky collection, judging by the record, was donated to the Trinity Lavra in 1535 by the monks John and Paphnutius. The composition differs from the previous one. The Synodal Charter, No. 391–335, contributed by cellarer Abraham Palitsyn, represents a special type, both in the choice of articles and in arrangement. Finally, in 1645, an everyday book was written for the Lavra. (Bible. Trinity Lavra No. 249). So, we have, for 50 years, four statutes in force in the Trinity Lavra. Judging by this example of an authoritative Russian monastery, such an order of things was in the spirit of the times, and the church authorities remained indifferent to the question of the use of this or that list of the charter and did not bother to establish uniformity in this regard. This is approximately the situation in which our handwritten statutes are found in their first printed edition, published in Moscow in 1610. What tasks did the publishers present to him, and in what form did our editio princeps come out of the printing press? The first printed editions of the typika in Russia In the history of every written monument, its printed edition is a phenomenon of great importance, because it facilitates its dissemination in many identical copies and involves, if not revision and correction of the manuscript, then in any case the selection of a better and more satisfactory one from the available ones. By handing over a well-known official manuscript to the printing press, the best copy of it was selected, or at least the one considered more worthy of distribution was put into use. The publishers of the first printed type were also guided by similar considerations. Indeed, this was his first experience of official rule. Here was the beginning of the work that occupied our church authorities for a whole century - the awareness of the unsatisfactoryness of the previous typical lists and the desire to replace them with one exemplary authorized one was expressed. By using the printing press, the publishers not only wanted to make it easier to use this important church service book and strengthen its appeal: they made a choice between many copies of the then charter and had in mind to publish it in the best possible form, filling in the gaps that had crept into it and correcting oversights. “For many years this book,” says the preface, “has been translated from Greek into Slovenian, with many translations, or prescriptive, or incorrect, or in any way erroneous; For this reason, such a great thing... is happening in the beginning.” But who was in charge of this great work, how it was carried out, who was entrusted with the editorial work, the preface remains stubbornly silent, and its talkative compiler did not drop a single word to explain to the reader how the rules were prepared for printing and what considerations guided its publishers. Archival data has also not been preserved: at least in the Typographical Library, the receipt and expenditure books of the Printing House begin in the twenties of the 17th century, and earlier documents became victims of fire during the Moscow devastation. The publisher of the charter of 1610 was the famous Trinity head, and then the charterer, Loggin, nicknamed Shishelev 66. He is not named either in the preface or afterword, but his name became famous thanks to the controversy that arose in the case of correcting the missal of Archim. Dionysius and his employees, whose ardent opponent was Loggin, together with the Trinity charterer Philaret. They declared this correction heretical and supported this accusation officially at the council of 1618, which condemned Dionysius and his collaborators. The accused party, defending itself against the attacks, referred in its defense to the incompetence of the accusers and pointed out that Loggin could not be a judge in this matter, because he himself, when issuing the charter, made many mistakes in it and printed it with great errors. Mainly, they focused on the fact that Loggin allowed a discrepancy in the exclamations of prayers with her address to one or another person. Trinity. The same inconsistency occurred in the prayers of the breviary, which is why the correctors were forced to change the formulas of exclamations, or, as they put it, “mess up the ends of the prayers.” No other irregularities were indicated, but this was enough to, under changed circumstances, cast a shadow of suspicion over Loggin’s work and subject him to strict condemnation. This is what Patriarch Filaret did, by order of whom our first printed charter was withdrawn from circulation, taken away and burned. This strict decision was motivated by the fact that “those statutes were printed by the Kryloshanite Black Loggin of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery without the blessing ... of Patriarch Hermogenes and everything consecrated to the cathedral, and many of the articles in those statutes were printed not according to the apostolic and not according to paternal tradition, by their own willfulness.” 67 The justification for such a drastic measure is weak and unfounded. It is not true that the statute was issued without the blessing of the patriarch: from the preface, on the contrary, it is clear that it was approved by the patriarch with the entire consecrated council. Representatives of the Russian church authorities fully sympathized with this publication and allowed in the preface to call it a holy deed, a most honorable deed, and a heavenly gift descending from above. Another thing is how conscious and serious their attitude to the matter was. There is reason to doubt this, because the statute does not justify such a flattering opinion, and, very likely, the patriarch and the consecrated cathedral gave approval without carefully reviewing the type, only out of trust in the experience of the corrector. Having taken on this task, he carried it on his shoulders and could consider it his creature. He remained the main, if not the only, figure as an investigator and, apparently, a preface was drawn up on his behalf, in which, speaking impersonally, he once mentioned and expressed himself in the first person, as the person in charge of the whole matter: “with love I proclaim that through the bounty and love of God I was vouchsafed to begin and complete the work of this honest and surpassing all.” Even the printing master, Onisim Radishevsky, took such a prominent part in the fate of this publication that he considered it possible to appeal to his readers with a plea not to blame him if anything in this book “bewildered him, or was added, or was canceled.” A simple printer, whose work was checked by a reference agent, could not say this about himself if he did not enjoy a certain amount of independence on the editorial side. That the matter was carried out imprudently and without proper control is clear from Ivan Nasadka’s remark that “it is dumb and unreasonable that the typists, just as someone came up with the idea, completes the ends of the prayers,” 68 that “they corrected the general menu three times, but not a single inventory was corrected.” 69 Under such orders, Loggin was the master of the matter, and his work was approved without further ado in the form in which it came out from under his editorship. Another reason - that many articles in this charter were printed not according to paternal and apostolic tradition, but by his, that is, Loggin's, arbitrariness - remained unclear and was not confirmed by any arguments. The Patriarch could have expressed this thought under the influence of those reviews that were made about Loggin by Dionysius and his employees during the dispute about the “fire” pretext. Loggin, regarding the unsuccessful edition of exclamations in some prayers, was accused of allowing the heresy of Sabellius, “merging the faces of the Most Holy Trinity, mixing up the incongruous, although this was not a heresy, but out of foolishness” 70. The ground was thus ready for the accusation, and in order to launch it it was enough to refer to these editorial mistakes, especially since quite a few of them could be found in the charter. But the patriarch had no need to justify himself in this review. It took place already in 1633, when the inspectors of the charter, who were also Dionysius’ opponents, left the stage, two patriarchs condemned the pretext with “fire” with special letters and there was no one to challenge the fairness of the measure taken. The charterer Filaret died in 1619, Loggin in 1624, of their comrades Markel remained alive (he died in 1635) 71. The patriarch, of course, had become dissatisfied with the statute much earlier, but he waited for the final decision, awaiting the release of the second edition of the type, which he had conceived and carried out. It was started in 1630 on December 17, and came out of print on February 20, 1633, probably under the editorship of Arseny Glukhy, who at that time was at the printing yard as a director. This was soon followed by an order to confiscate and burn copies of the previous charter. When exactly it took place, we do not know, but judging by the fact that the charter of the patriarchal treasury was doomed to be burned on May 10, 1633, 72 and the order of the Arkhangelsk Bishop Macarius was announced on June 20 of the same year, it turns out that the fate of the charter was decided 2 months after the publication of its second edition. But this order was not strictly implemented, and according to the charter of 1610, the printer. Such was the fate of our first printed type - a fate, it seems to us, undeserved. We do not mean by this that Loggin’s edition is impeccable. No: it was carried out by unprepared persons, without a clearly outlined plan and with far insufficient means, and therefore it turned out unsuccessful 73 . But all these weaknesses did not amount to anything particularly outstanding in comparison with its previous lists and even subsequent printed editions until the charter of 1682. Here there were more of these oversights, and in some places they were rougher, but there were no self-wills contrary to the apostolic and paternal tradition. Upon closer acquaintance with the 1610 type, it turns out that there are major mistakes in its composition and editorial attitude. It contains a lot of unnecessary things and is a collection that includes a lot of inappropriate material, and this material was collected randomly and is not ordered. In the interests of the publication, some articles should be excluded altogether, while others should be placed separately 74. There were even more inaccuracies in the text, which are especially noticeable in the contradiction between different articles of similar content, in the inaccurate presentation of the details of the ritual and its incorrect presentation. But all these malfunctions were not a matter of deliberate distortion or cleverness, as far as can be judged from the data known to us; they were repetitions of mistakes previously made and passed from those lists of the charter that were used by inexperienced inspectors of our original charter, and thus most of the blame falls on the earlier lists. The preface says much more about the composition of the published type and the significance of this service book in church life. In this respect it is very interesting and gives some useful historical indications. Having briefly explained the origin and fate of the church charter, it traces its beginning to the founders of Palestinian monasticism and, without essentially saying anything new, repeats what is known from the instructions to the abbot on the preservation of the charter and from Simeon of Thessalonica. This information is supplemented by an indication of “many other wonderful saints, whose names are known to God and His holy church, and the essence of these wonderful saints has been declared.” The pure type of the Jerusalem Rule, as we have seen, was long lost at that time and took on a combined, eclectic direction, and therefore the publisher says of his type that it was “chosen by the holy fathers from many types of Jerusalem, and the holy mountains, and from the Studites, and from many holy fathers, and from the ecumenical saints of the council.” In this composition, a prominent place is also occupied by articles of Slavic-Russian content, although not specified in the given place, but included in the table of contents under their own name. The abundance of these articles gives the first printed charter a national-Russian direction and imparts a local coloring, which is maintained with remarkable consistency in its subsequent editions until the charter of 1682. In the preface to the first printed edition, between articles of general service content, the following Russians are mentioned: a decree on the great saints, possessing polyeleos... like the new wonderworkers in Great Russia, celebrated from Monday of Holy Week to the Sunday of All Saints... and the succession of church singing and the assembly of the whole world... with the new wonderworkers. We are not talking about a lot of introductory and additional articles. Apparently, the publishers were very vigilant about not missing anything or “missing anything” and collecting suitable material from various regulations. In this way they brought their work to such completeness that in subsequent editions they had to gradually reduce and shorten it. They apparently did not have a definite plan or a normal list, but for that reason, the rare articles included in its composition are not found here or there between the lists of the charter of the 16th - 17th centuries. The charter of 1610 begins with a long, verbose, rhetorical preface, which first talks about the appearance of the first printed edition, then talks about the origin of the charter in general and makes a detailed list of its contents. All this consists of praise for the publication and decent instructions to the reader on how to use and look at this important book. This table of contents is modeled after the preface to the synodal charter of Abraham Palitsyn and covers not only articles related to the charter, but also those that serve as an introduction to it. Having expanded on this topic and carried away by his lively pen, the compiler of the preface was right when he noted that “this whole superior thing of the preface requires the shortest verbs, the greatest amount of reason.” These introductory articles are followed by the typical article itself. It consists of 3 main parts: the 1st general, including 57 chapters, does not fit in composition to any of the manuscripts known to us and contains the following articles: 1) a general presentation of daily services with additions of casuistic content from later statutes, for example, to chapter 21, a note is added on how to serve if there is no menstruation, to chapter 28 - the rite for the tide according to the statutes of Russian monasteries, especially in the great monastery of our venerable and God-bearing father Sergius the Wonderworker, also in Makovets. 2) The disciplinary part is especially broadly defined. It contains: a) articles from Nikon Chernogorets. They are mixed with general liturgical ones and scattered between them without order. The article on liturgies occupies the 4th chapter, on clothes and vows - the 13th, the rest - between 32-49 chapters; 55 – about the departed brethren, 57 – about the holidays on which God the Lord is sung, and about the division of holidays. Articles from the study are also included here. Charter: about the second meal - addition to chapter 50, about the hospital, the hostel and monastic life - Ch. 53, the rank for the work of a housekeeper or cellarer - chapter 52. 3) Articles about holidays and fasts of unknown origin. These are: 29 ch. - about life, fasting and staying all summer with the addition of the rules of the Holy Father and from the traditions of the apostles, this is the matter for every Orthodox Christian to fast. 30 ch. - a charter on fasting on the day of the beheading of the Forerunner with the addition of articles on fasting on the Feast of the Exaltation and on the Fast of Philip. (Where these rules come from and what their significance is, see below). 51 – Charter of the Holy Mountain, if someone happens to remove an icon from the monastery. From this it is clear that the publishers had at hand different lists of the charter with Russian additions and casuistic rules. It is very likely that they selected articles for the first part from different sources, rather than following any one list. Indeed, most of these introductory chapters are read in various statutes of the 16th–17th centuries. Most of them are in the synod. statute (No. 391) of Abraham Palitsyn (the first 20 chapters are presented in the same order), and the others in other lists. The general part is followed by: 1) Markov's chapters under a special count, numbering 143, and with a special table of contents. In addition to general ones, Slavic memories have also been introduced. After the 143rd chapter, the following remark is read: “until Mark Hieromonk’s time, the write-off is kind.” This is how Markov’s chapters are set out in Synodal Charter No. 392 (1653). 2) Charter on the service of Slavic-Russian saints who have a polyeleos or vigil and are celebrated during the period of Pentecost. “A decree on the great saints who have polyeleos or the all-night vigil and in Great Russia the new miracle workers, celebrated on Monday of Bright Week or on the same day from the week of St. Thomas and from the week of St. Thomas to the week of all saints. This decree has chapters 25.” In fact, the service is indicated for 21 days. This entire article ends with the following remark: “this chapter, having been completed before, is similar to the Markovs and is written off industriously” (See Charter No. 392). 3) Church chapters. “The legend is known to the heads of others about the churches of the saint or saints from the month of September until the week of the publican and the Pharisee, even until the week of all saints. And this decree has chapters 46.” The last, 46th chapter, under the special title: “about the churches of the saints on their very church holidays,” contains an exhortation to honor the saints to whose name the church is dedicated. Then, in the usual manner, follows the charter according to the monthly word of the triodion. The next edition of the charter was published in 1633 and was directed against the weaknesses of Logginov’s type. The charter of 1633 is close in composition to the charters of the 4th edition and differs from the first printed edition in its greater brevity and some editorial amendments. It omits the first two prefaces to the charter of 1610, the table of contents is merged with the text of the extract from the “eye of the church” and begins with the words: “the charter is the eye of the church, chosen by St. fathers." The first part consists of 44 chapters. Its articles are placed differently (1–21 general order of service, 22–24 articles of unknown origin, 25–44 extracts from Nikon Chernogorets), excerpts from the studio charter and some disciplinary content are excluded, Markov's chapters are among 80 with a different table of contents and in a different presentation (they do not contain the memory of Russian saints and the Feast of the Intercession), an article about Russian saints celebrated in the course of Pentecost; but there are several additions: for example, at the beginning there is an article from the Nikonian Epistles of the first word about the communal rite of Chrysostom, at the end there is a prayer over the kutya. In the archives of the Printing House the following is recorded about this publication: “according to the signature list of Moses Fedorovich Glebov... 141 November on the 9th day, it was written to Semyon Ivanovich Volynsky. ... at the printing yard in the plant there were one thousand one hundred and twenty-five charters of books.... the price became one ruble, twenty, osmi altyn, two money, the charter in tetratech” (Arch. M. T. B. tetr. No. 14 l. 19). Then follows a list of how many printed charters were sent to whom and how many were sold out. The Sovereign, the Patriarch, the Empress Nun and Tsarevich Alexei Mikhailovich were presented with several copies bound with gold images, “On the 18th day of February by decree of the Great Sovereign, His Holiness Philaret Nikitich, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' and in memory of his Sovereign Patriarchal rank, signed by clerk Gavril Levontev in Cathedral of the Most Pure Mother of God to Archpriest Timothy and his brethren, book of charter, printed, bound in the image, covered in gold.... Yes, to Moscow cathedrals: to Arkhangelsk, to Spassky, to Sretensky, to Rozhdestvensky, to Chernigov, to Alexander Nevsky the Wonderworker, to St. Nicholas the Wonderworker of Gostunsky, to the Cathedral of the Sign, to the Intercession, which is on the ditch, the archpriests with the brethren to the church according to the book according to the charter... for the purpose that in all those cathedrals every church building is the sovereign and the sovereign's patriarchal" (ibid, l. 120 vol.) Then follows: To the Epiphany abbot Ilya, the sovereign's salary charter in tetratech was given without money. Hegumen Ilya took the book and put his hand.” As we will see further, the Epiphany abbot Ilya was one of the then inquirers. So, the charter of 1633 was put on sale in 1125 copies 75. Less than a year had passed since the 1633 charter came out of the printing house when a new one was undertaken and completed in 1634. This was nothing more than a reprint of the previous edition and literally repeats its afterword; what caused it remains unknown to us. Only the incorrect pagination of the charter of 1633 was corrected, in which, starting from sheet 100, the page count begins up to 120. In the charter of 1634, the correct designation of sheets was restored, and therefore their total count diverges. In the charter of 1634, the count goes continuously until 305 l., but then from December 25 a new one begins with one and continues until 315, i.e. until the end of the charter. At the end there is a new article - Easter under a special pagination (1-34) and an afterword, identical to the 1633 edition (ll. 316-319). In the papers of the Typographical Archive the following is written about this charter: “this year, in September 142, on the 30th day, one thousand one hundred and fifty books of charters went out of print 76 . The price became one ruble and twenty three altyns two money each, the charter book was in tetratech.” (Tetr. No. 20 l. 71). In March, a certain number of tray copies were sent to the sovereign's court, to the patriarch, and then the charter went on sale. In 1636, the price was increased to a ruble, twenty kopecks, eight altyns and two money. But it is remarkable that the buyers are, among other things, workers of the Printing House, some of whom take three or even five books in notebooks. Perhaps they were offered this book in exchange for their salary, and it was very profitable for the treasury to replenish the costs of maintaining the printing house in this way, especially when the publications were stale. So this year ninety-nine copies of the charter were sold to different persons. The further movement of the last two editions is unknown, but it is clear that in 1636 there was little left of them, because they are called “residues” from the sale of 143 years. The persons in charge of this publication are not named, but, judging by the expense books of the Printing House, these were the inquiry officers of that time: Elder Arseny Glukhoy (mentioned from 1627), Elder Sergius (from 1632), Grigory Anisimov and Epiphany Abbot Ilya 77. In 1644, Kozheozersky was mentioned among the inquiry officers monastery hegumen Abraham (No. 17 l. 3 vol.), in 1645 elders Savvaty and Bartholomew. From a comparison with the statute of 1610, it turns out that the editors of the second edition intended to shorten the first and exclude from it articles of Russian origin, borrowed from monastic and cathedral rites. In this way, they apparently wanted to introduce the type into the boundaries of its more ancient lists and put an end to the proliferation of its content. In places, a more strict edition of the text and ritual was introduced, correcting shortcomings of the first edition. In this regard, it can be called more successful, but it did not eliminate those errors and misunderstandings that were retained in the first printed charter, and were added to it from more ancient lists. The inspectors did not have a specific plan and did not carry it out consistently in their work. It is remarkable that in the next edition, which appeared eight years later (1641), the referees abandoned what their immediate predecessors had done and returned to the charter of 1610. So, in accordance with the first printed charter, in this edition the article “from the Epistles of Nikon” was excluded, the following were added: about the number of men in different monasteries, about the general content of the charter, in Chapter 3 of the general part - about how the service is carried out in Russian monasteries, a note on how to conduct the service in the absence of monthly mena, the article: from the rules of the Holy Father and from the traditions of the apostles, it is best to fast, the Lenten charter on truncation and erection. The charter of 1610 contains two rules regarding fasting in the erection: a detailed one from Nikon and a brief one from the Greek charters; in the charter of 1633 only the latter is given, and in the edition of 1641 - both. There are two sections about the Uspensky fast in the charter of 1610; in agreement with him in 1641. Even in the edition of the text, the referees of the charter of 1631 followed in many places the reading of the charter of 1610, preferring it to the more correct text of the 1633 edition in some cases. However, it has its own characteristics and introduces a new edition of the text. On the external side of this edition in the papers of the printing archive the following is read: “in the past in 148. (1640) on the first day of June, according to the Tsar Tsarev and Grand Duke Mikhail Fedorovich of All Russia, the decree began to print the book charter in wooden mansions in four camps, and in those camps the same books were allowed to be made in the book chamber in three camps, and in the upper house in five camps, and those book charters went out of business in the current year of March 149 (1641) on the 26th and that for those books there was paper and all sorts of different supplies according to the receipt of the artisans, and that was written out (No. 34 l. 4. We omit this economic extract). Yes, how those books were chartered to print and at those books a prayer service was sung twice; to the Myrrh-Bearing 78 priest Ivan for a prayer service and for candles, and to the craftsmen, typesetter, teredor and batyr worker and watchmen for kolachi ruble seventeen altyn” (ibid. l. 7). The charter was issued in 1200 copies and cost 2 rubles 18 altyns and three coins with half a sheet in sheets. Of this quantity, in addition to the tray copies given to the sovereign and patriarch and distributed to the enquirers, 50 books were taken by order of the large palace to the sovereign treasury, so that 1131 books remained for sale, each priced at 2 rubles 23 altyns and two money. The sale began on March 31, when 109 copies were sold, and continued until the end of August, so that by the beginning of the next 150 years there were only 41 books left (No. 35 l. 199 vol.). With such a rapid analysis, a new edition of the type became a matter of first necessity; but, despite this, it was undertaken ten years later in 1651 under Patriarch Joseph and differed little from its predecessor. Incomparably more important was the following publication of 1682, about which in the papers of the Printing House we read the following: “On March 4190, on the 19th day, by decree of the great sovereign and with the blessing of His Holiness the Patriarch (Joachim), they began to print books, charter for ten thousand two hundred books at the plant, and for the beginning of those books, they were given for a prayer service and for candles and all kinds of craftsmen people for kolaches three rubles twenty altyn two money... Yes, for the same dacha, three hundred books were given for unnecessary work by the teredor and batyr worker of eighty people, four money per person and that ruble twenty altyn” (No. 80 l. 12). The decree of the Great Sovereign and His Holiness the Patriarch (on the printing of the type) was said by His Grace Simeon, Archbishop of Siberia and Tobolsk (No. 82 l. 3). The next Moscow edition was in 1695. Thus, in the 17th century, the type went through seven editions in our country, and, assuming each of them to be 1,100 copies, it turns out that during the first century, 7,700 copies were sold among us. Arch. Sergius. Hagiology I under December 5th. Savva, says the life, zealously tried to imitate Euthymius’s lifestyle in everything and, according to the latter’s custom, every year on January 14 he went into the desert and here spent the entire Great Lent in solitude. On Saturday in the 6th week he returned to the Lavra, and everyone celebrated Easter together. The way of life of Euthymius was also adopted by Cyriacus the hermit, about whom in the life of Euthymius it is said that he was a πολιτείαν έμαθε ακριβως. (Quotes from this life, as well as from other Palestinian ascetics, are given according to Koteler’s edition: Monumenta Eccles. Graecae. T. IV.) (And on the remaining days, therefore, in the cells, everyone especially supervised the service). Subsequently, with the advent of the church in the name of the Mother of God, the cave was reserved for meetings on Saturdays, and the Mother of God - for Sundays (265). Another, no less remarkable example of a similar device is the following case: while clearing the soil of a hill to look for material, the monks came across, under a layer of earth (υποκατοθεν της όλης (256)) a large residential building (οῐκον βιωτιχόν) with vaults made of excellent stones, and, having dug it up, turned it into a church. Sometimes they did it even simpler, turning ordinary residential buildings into churches (ibid). The next episode, conveyed in the life of Savva, introduces us to some details of this festive table. “There was a severe famine in Jerusalem and throughout that region. The steward of the Great Lavra comes to St. Sava and says: I can’t hit the beater (χρεσμα ποιησαι) and call the brethren this Saturday and Sunday, because we have nothing and nothing from which to make a meal (διάκλυσμα) for the fathers. “I can’t forbid liturgy,” the elder answers, “if you lack something necessary for the table, then let the canonarch send some property or clothing with a prosphora for exchange, buy what you need and we will perform the liturgy.” bring with you a lot of wine, bread, grain, butter, honey, cheese; the pantry was filled with these supplies and a great celebration was held by the fathers” (322–23). It is said about Kyriakos the hermit that when he struck the beater (σημαίνων) before the start of the service, he did not finish ringing before, to put it today, as having read to himself “τον άμώμον” (i.e., blessed chastity); We will also encounter this custom in the later records of the Jerusalem charter. (Vit. Cyriac. p. III). Περί των αγίων νηστειών. Patr. c. compl. ser gr. T. 95 p 63–78. The author of the letter is called ’Ιωάννης έλάχιστος. Evtychii Alexandrini annales.Pair, c, compl. T. III The last event conveyed in the chronicle dates back to 325 Hejra. Syriae Damascenae incolae et Graeci Melchitae jejunant diebus Mercurii et Veneris usque ad nonam, dein ovis, caseo et piscibus vescentes secundum canonem a Saneto Nicephoro, patriarcha constantinopolitano, martyre et confessore, positum, quemadmodum ostensum in typico ecclesiae. Annal. p. 1090. De jejuuiis. Rhally et Potly T. IV. p. 566. ’Εάν φθαση ό ὲυαγγελισμός τη̃ μεγάλη πέμπτη η τη̃ μεγάλη ? We call it pre-literate, of course, in relation to the first records of the Jerusalem charter, which became known to us from the 12th–13th centuries. Greek Charter of the Synod. Bible 381 l. 36. και μικρων, Beginning. Ειδεναι χρη οτι εις τρεις ταξεις. Published by Pitra Spicil. Solesm. IV p. 445. In the margins of Greek statutes No. 456 and 381, references are made to his rule, which prohibits the consumption of cheese cheese per week and allows only fish and spruce. Information is borrowed from the written catalog of this library in the papers of the Reverend. Porfiria Ep. Chigirinsky. This article, translated and with explanatory notes, was published by us in Prib, k Tvor. St. Ot. 1884 book. I. ψ. 9. Against the words: the brethren stand in the stasidia “επι ψιαθιοις εν ορδινι”: οιμαι οτι δια τον κονιορτον υποστρωνονται τα ψιαθια... I think that the matting is covered with dust. ψ. 81. Εν τισι αποδειπνοις ψαλλεται το τριωδ συν διωδιω... In some pavechernitsy a triode with a two-song song is sung. ψ. 200. In the article on censing, when describing the movement of the censing priest around the church, it is noted on the field that it is consistent with the elongated plan of the church, σημ. (i.e. σημειωσον) οτι δρομικη η εκκλησία... Note that the church has an oblong appearance. In addition, in this charter, on holidays and especially holy days, a note is made in the margins: εικών, κολιβа, και λειτοργία μυστική or λειτοργία παρρησίας (funeral liturgy. Παρρησία on Mount Athos are called commemorations. See Anton. Notes of worship. Holy Mountain 126). Sometimes added: κηρία. This means that on the marked days an icon of the celebrated saint is brought out at the service, kolivo and kutia are brought (about this custom ibid. 367), the liturgy is performed and candles are given to the brethren at the service. No. 281. In the service of Vespers of Pentecost it is said about the prayers of genuflection: You should know that there are six and seven of these prayers and are read in twos and threes (at one time). No. 487. ψ. 1 rev. During the gospel for Great Vespers, the candilaptis reads the immaculates: εν δε ταις μικραις νυξι το ελεησου με ο θς. On small nights: God have mercy on me. ψ. 13. Regarding the censing by the priest during the time of the immaculates, a note was made that now this does not happen, but the censing occurs μετα εναρξιν then κανονος (at the beginning of the canon). ψ. 13 rev. Σημ, οτι ο λεγονται κοντακια ανατασμα. Τ. That is, note that Sunday kontakia are not read. This recording was reported by Prof. Kondakov in his description of the Sinai Library and reads as follows: λοιπη̃ς πασης άκολοθιας τη̃ς άγιας τεσσαρακοτη̃ς και της άγιας καί μεγάλης έβδομάδος. τω̃ν ζωοποιών παθών το σωτη̃ρος ημών ιυ̃ χβ το υιού το θεο... εν σεβασμία λαύρα το άγιο σάβα της εν ιεροσολύμοίς . χειρι το εύτελος και άμαρτωλο θρασίμο (γερασίμο) το άντισχίτο. και τη̃ ζεοϋση σποδή το τιμιωτάτο μοναχο καί δευτερευόντος τώ̃ν ?? Ίωάννο, λόγω τσ σεβασμίο ναο το ένδόξο μεγαλομαρτύρος γεωργίο έν αυτή̃ τή̃ άσκα το λεγόμενον κατά τὴν εγχώριον γλώσσαν το χάδρα. αρχιεραρχοντος της αυτή̃ς πόλεως το οσιωτάτο καί παναγίου γέροντος κυρ αντωνιο μηνι ιάνοαριω κε ινδ ζ εν ετοι σχζ. οι εν αυτή̃ τή̃ άγια βιβλω μελετώντες και ευχομενοι... i.e. This holy book of the Three Songs, canons and other sequences of the Holy Pentecost and the Holy Great Week of the life-giving passion of your Savior Jesus Christ the Son of God was written... in the venerable Lavra of St. Sava, located in Jerusalem, by the hand of the poor and sinful Gerasimos of Antioch and the ardent zeal of the most honest monk and second of the presbyters of the cathedral and apostolic church in Ascalonia, Mr. John, for the most honorable church of the glorious Great Martyr George in that Ascalon, which in the local language is called Khadra, under the bishop of that city, the most reverend and holiest elder Cyrus Anthony. Month of January 25 days, 7 indict, summer 6607 (= 1099), etc. One cannot but agree with the author’s explanation regarding the meaning of the word Aska in the sense of Ascalon, but there was hardly any need to doubt that under σεβασμια λαβρα ο αγιο Σαβα εν ιεροσολυμοις of course anything else other than the famous Lavra of St. Savva the Sanctified. It is true that this monastery was located outside of Jerusalem, but the holy city recognized it as a special honor to consider it its own. The geographical inaccuracy was a consequence of ecclesiastical considerations. And besides, the Lavra of St. Sava is called Jerusalem in the inscription of some church statutes, as belonging to the Jerusalem district. John the monk from the monastery of St. Sava wrote “paradise” in 1071. Garth. S. 325. Its activities date back to the last half of the 11th century, and in locality to the Patriarchate of Antioch. Originally from Constantinople, Nikon moved from here to Syria and became a monk at the Raifa Monastery of the Virgin Mary near Antioch. Forced, due to dissatisfaction with the monastic brethren, to move from here to the monastery of St. Simeon the Divnogorets, also on Black Mountain (about this area, see Historical R. Ts. Golub. T. I note, to Nikon) and also not far from Antioch, Nikon remained here until the destruction of this monastery by the Turks, and from here he moved again to the Raifa monastery. While serving in one and another position as a mentor to monks, he compiled a collection of moral and canonical rules in 63 chapters - pandects and 40 chapters of tactics. The first have a moralizing canonical content, the second is predominantly liturgical. Nikon's works have not yet been published in the original and remain in manuscripts. Several excerpts were published by Koteler in Monum. Eccl. Graec. namely: Presbyter Timothy on the method of accepting into the Church those who come from various heresies, p. 420, out of 63 words pandekt po slav. handwritten Significant extracts from Nikon are also presented here, introducing him to his personal relationships, the historical events of the then Eastern Church and the state of church ritual. Information about Nikon and his works, especially according to various Slavic lists, is in the Description. handwritten S. B. Gorsky and Nevostruev, vol. II, dep. 3. 21–52. To this thorough study we add: Srezpevsky, about Nikon’s pandects. Scientists Western By them. Academician, Sciences XX XXI t. Kaluzhnitsky: Review of monuments located in the libraries and archives of Lvov, where, among other canonical monuments, the St. Onufrievsky Lvov list of Nikon’s works is described and general information is reported about them based mainly on the Description of S. B.’s manuscripts and some other sources. Proceedings of Kievsk Arch. Congress II 246 sqq Nikon's works in the Slavic language were published in 1645 in Ostrog. But this edition is not complete (Stroyev. Description of the old book, Tolstoy § 94. Tsars. § 114). Then they were published in Nechaev in 1795 (Tsarsk. § 277). For this publication, see Description. handwritten S. B. II. 3.37. This is all that was considered (i.e., the rules about fasting during Holy Week for our brethren who are present with us, as otherwise we were told before according to the paternal charter (syllable 1 l. 24 vol.). About fasting on Great Saturday: we are here in the Church of the Holy Mother of God in Rondi (Raif) by testing the hour and with a banner, by resolving with a rivet, always zaiti to the sun and to the departed, ending at the third hour of the night, and both of these things I have created of myself, but have been found by writing about this (lyrics 6 l. 61 vol.). Of the lesser-known statutes, Nikon mentions: the type of the Great Church (Pand. 57 l. 679. Tact. l. 32), the statute of the Antiochian Patriarchate (Pand. 564. Tact. 61 vol.), the types of ancient monasteries (Pand. 587), the statutes of cenobitic monasteries, which are opposed to the monastery charter (Tact. 15–16. 20 vol.), liturgical decrees of the patriarchs (Tact. 87 vol.), rules of the monastery of St. Auxentius (Tact. 25 vol. 26 vol.), charter of the monastery of Simeon Divnogorets (Tact. 13 vol. 28 vol.), typik Black Mountains (ibid. l. 14). The cenobitic father traditions, the monastic rules of Basil the Great, and the teacher had force and practical use. Pachomius and Cassiana. For example, about vestments, about the order of censing, about carrying out and kissing the gospel, about anointing with oil after Matins and about lithiums. Eg. According to the Ordo, the lithium petitions are said by the deacon, and the priest says the prayer: Master is abundantly merciful. According to some types, both are acquired by the priest. The Ordo is silent about the commemoration of the living and the dead at the litany, which is indicated in some types. To bless the loaves, prosphoras are brought and placed in the number of five: according to some statutes, there are three of them, and they are chosen from ordinary breads prepared for the meal. The Epiphany blessing of water in Ordo is performed twice: on the eve and on the very day of the holiday. Eg. the article on censing is stated differently in the statutes and differently in the Ordo. The compiler of the Ordo undoubtedly had in mind its statutory edition and in some cases made extracts from it, and in others he presented it in his own way. To judge the degree of similarity in the presentation, we present several excerpts from the Ordo and from the article on censing according to the Greek Charter of the Synod. Bib. No. 456 l. 134. About δε διάκονος·,.. θυμια πρώτον το ιερατείων απαν ειτα εξερχεται διά το βορειο κλιτος και χαραττεί ςαυρον εμπροσθεν των άγιων θυρών. Και (θυμια̃) το ολον ιερατείον. μετα δε ταυτα εξερχεται δια το βορείο κλητιδος και μεχρι των αγιων θυρων χαραττων ςαυρον εν αυταις· Και θυμια πρωτον τας εικονας τας εν τω δεξιω μερει ιςαμενας πασασ.... και απερχεται και θυμια πρωτον την εικονα την εισ το ςασίδιον το πρωεστωτος ισταμενην ειτα τον πρωεστωτα. Και καθεξή̃ς τος αδελφος το δεξιό χορο μετά δε το θυμιασαι παντας τος χορος ισταται εις το μέσον those χορβ και βλεπων προςνοτον ποιεί σταυρον.... Θυμιων δε και προσκυνειται παρ ων θυμια καί αντιπροσκυνει μικρον. Εξέρχεται εις τον ναρθηκα και θυμιασας κακεισε παντας εισερχεται δια των ωραίων πυλών και χαραξας ςαυρον κατα ανατολας θυμια τον προεστωτα. Και παλιν εις το μεσον χαραττει ςαυρον και θυμιασας τας αγίας εικονας εισερχεται και αποτιθησι τον θυμιατον. Και διεισε μέχρι το νοτο μετά το θυμιάματος ειθοτως απέρχεται προς τον ανεστωτα ειδε παρεστιν εισ τον τοπον αυτο ποιων ςταυρον. Ειτα θυμιάσει τον χορον. ισταται απεναντι αυτο…., και τοτο μεθισταμενο απερχεται και θυμια τον ετερον χορον αρχομενος απο των αγιων θυρων. Ποιεί ςαυρον μετα το θυμιαματο προσκυνων αυτω χορω και αντιβαλλοσιν αυτω παντες οι το χορο̃ μετάνοιαν. Εξέρχεται εν ταις ναρθηξι δια το βορειο πολιδος θυμιων κακεισε ... βασιλικων πυλών… προθυμιών παλιν και τον ηγομενον ?? ... Διάταξις τη̃ς ίεροδιακονίας.... ὲν τε τψ̃ μεγάλω έσπερινω, τω̃ όρθρω καί τη̃ λειτοψγία. Σοντεθείσα παρά το άγιοτάτο καί οίκομενικο πατριάρχο κυρίο Φιλοθέο. The Greek list of Ordo with this name from the Leiden Library is mentioned by Harless. Fabr. Harl. Bible Gr. XI p. 516. Ordo has been published many times. Under the name "Ordo instituen di diaconum" printed in Latin translation in the Bibl. Patrum t. IV et t. VI. In Greek and Latin in the euchology of Gohar, then in Minya Patrol. Curs compl. t. 154 p. 745–766. Gr. Fabr. Harl. Bibl. Gr. XI. 516. In addition, it was published several times at the head of Greek early printed breviaries, for example, the euchology of the Venetian edition of 1560, 1602. On this basis, among Gohar, the rank of Philotheus took its place at the beginning of the euchology. In the Slavic lists, only the rules for the liturgical service are attributed to Philotheus, and the rules for the evening and morning are unknown. (We speak based on the data known to us). A commentary on this order was compiled by Goar, and from here some explanations were reprinted by Min. As for this commentary, it refers only to the text of the Ordo, without giving any historical explanation as to the origin of this rank, its relation to the previous charters and the question of the affiliation of its patres. Filofey. It mentions vigils and says that they “occur on weeks and lord’s holidays and in memory of other great saints, and the synaxar will teach about them.” The last remark shows that in the charter (synaxar) that the compiler had in mind, there already existed a positive rule on this matter. And such a rule, indeed, is read after the presentation of the all-night vigil in the ancient Jerusalem statutes, which indicate how many all-night vigils are required throughout the year, and on what holidays they are celebrated. In the Matins service it is said that when singing the 19th and 20th psalms, one must be careful so that the priest has time to consecrate the entire church. The same remark can be read in the Jerusalem charter. There is a remarkable coincidence in the article about bows and how they should be done. But that in the Hilandar charter we do not have a list from the Jerusalem type is evident from the rules about Great Lent, which do not agree with the regulations of the Jerusalem charter and coincide with those of Svyatogorsk; eg in the first week of Lent there is no liturgy and no meal only on Monday, and on other days, therefore, there could be a liturgy; the meal on Tuesday and Thursday is definitely mentioned. On Good Friday it is supposed to be “leavened and the potion is harsh”, and according to Jerusalem - “below the meal we put it below the food”. On the next day of the Annunciation, it is allowed to eat what is left from yesterday's meal, not excluding fish and two boils with butter. According to Nikon in Svyatogorsk: “fish for three days: on the forefeast, the holiday, and the afterfeast.” (See Nikon the Montenegrin exposition of the rules on fasting according to the charter of the Holy Mountain). From this it can be seen that Mount Athos maintained a special charter, close to the Jerusalem one in some official features, but different in the rules on fasting. Between fast days, except Wednesday and Friday, Monday is issued. Nikon Montenegrin says that Monday, with the character of a fast day, in his time was known only from the Jerusalem charter and in the rules of John the Faster. On the eve of the resurrection, vigils are held: “as is the custom of the imams.” This charter was written by St. Sava and handed over for execution in the year 1190, therefore before his trip to Jerusalem. And this shows that on Mount Athos at that time some Jerusalem customs were already in use: “For this reason, I wrote and signed my handwriting in the summer of 6607, the last Savva is a sinner.” (Charter of the Kareya cel. edition, edited by Arch. Leonid O. L. Dr. Pis. 1883). Life of Kral. Serbsk 84, 106. Ibid. 125, 126, 132, 143, 147. List of the Jerusalem charter at Sinai, 1214, discovered by Arch. Porfiry. The service was published in Glasn. Serb. Dr. Book XXXI, 1871, p. 320. This is what the inscription says about the time the manuscript was written. Information about the Nicodemus Rule, mainly from the philological side, as well as the translator’s note, is presented in the aforementioned article by Danichich. (Vol. XI 189–203). We owe more detailed information about the composition of this remarkable manuscript to Mr. Kulakovsky, who, when he was a professor at the Belgrade Higher School, made sure to provide us with extracts from this type, for which we consider it our duty to express our sincere gratitude to him. This description, with some abbreviations, is included in the appendix. The same type was written in the summer of swkz (6827–1319) of the solar kroug kg of the low kroug s indicta to. Page 47 of the original there is a footnote d). There is no such footnote in the text. Question 3. Do you sing the service on Great Friday? (In the Greek original λειτοργία). Answer: the holy fathers established that there would be no services on those days. Question 11. During cheese week, on Wednesday and Friday, do you serve Lenten service or Midsummer? Rep. Neither Lenten nor Midsummer services are sung then, but at 9 o'clock the hours with Vespers are sung. In canon 19, the council forbids allowing fasting on Wednesday and Friday not only on the feasts of the apostles, as the question was asked, but also on the feasts of the Lord, except for the Nativity of Christ, Epiphany, the week of Easter, the week after Trinity, the publican and the Pharisee. According to the Studio and Svyatogorsk charters, these days they used permission from fasting. Wed. Questions of the Svyatogorsk residents to Patriarch Nicholas. He is called a speaker of hours according to the statutes of the monastery of the Venerable Monastery in Jerusalem. your father Sava. In the first week of Lent, the presanctified service is supposed to be celebrated only on Wednesday and Friday, “according to the custom of the Lavra of Sanctified Sava and the Ven. our father Euthymius." This remark can be read in the current charter. According to him, the rule about fasting and liturgy on Good Friday is set out. (Details. Metropolitan. Cyprus. in his litur. acts. 68–70). R. and B. VI No. 48. Extracts are made regarding the singing of “God is the Lord” at Matins (408), the service on the eve of the Birthday. Christ. and Epiphany (414–415). Ibid. 413. And the statute ubo imate sitse about these (canons according to the Octoechos and Menaeus). Arch. Sergius lists three editions: the 1st edition includes the Church Eye, the 2nd – synodal lists, and the 3rd – the Charter of Tverskaya. (Agiol. I, 137). We did not have the Berlin manuscript (Typik Romanow) in our hands, but judging by the excerpts from it cited by Messrs. Yagich and Voskresensky, it is clear that this is a Serbian list of the Jerusalem charter. It begins with the rite of daily Vespers (the beginning has not been preserved) and, therefore, with the general part. This is followed by a presentation of the service according to the monthly text (up to 150 l.), according to the triodion (l. 151, 257) and additional articles. We present the latter according to the description of Mr. Voskresensky: l. 257 on the need to maintain the order of church services, l. 258–259 legend of how it is worthy to burn incense in a church, fol. 260–262 Sunday and afternoon prokeimnas, l. 262–263 common services for saints, l. 264–268 following services to saints who have troparia and fall on Saturday, fol. 268–270 Compline at Pentecost, l. 270 rev. 271 prayers over the tabernacle, l. 271–274 about the commemoration of the creators of the Hilandar monastery. For details about the time of origin of the charter, about abbot Gervasie and the scribe Roman, as well as an extract of Slavic memories, see the article by prof. Yagich Tipik Romanow (Starine. book V 1–6) and Mr. Voskresensky (Slavic manuscripts in foreign libraries 12–16). In both descriptions it is said that the text of the manuscript, due to the loss of the first pages, begins on the 2nd day of the month of September, but the following excerpt refers, apparently, to the administration of the rite of daily vespers, and not to the monthly book, and, therefore, it has been preserved more fully. The charter of the 14th century belongs to the same type. from the library of the Czech Museum in Prague, about which several comments were made by G. A. Voskresensky in the work now named (fol. 23–24). G. Yagich dates the Romanov charter to the 13th century, but it is difficult to agree with this definition. In terms of composition, this type belongs to the post-Nicodemus period. The existence of a complete Serbian charter before Nicodemus would contradict the clear instructions of the first Serbian translator about the absence of such a list until then. In this charter, under October 28, the memory of Arseny the Serbian is recorded (§ 1266. According to Golub. 1262–63). We attribute it to a series of statutes of the 14th century, Serbian edition. This charter is described in detail by A.E. Viktorov in the Description of Savostyanov’s manuscripts. No. 27. Arch. Sergius had it at hand and was the first to mention it in his Hagiology. An indication of these lists was made by Mr. Yagich in his article just mentioned. Thanks to the supportive assistance of A. O. Bychkov, we had the opportunity to familiarize ourselves in detail with the oldest of these manuscripts and place information from it in the appendix. Information about him with a detailed presentation of the message of Nicholas the Patriarch is in the description of the New Jerusalem library Arch. Amphilochia. We have compared this manuscript with excerpts from the Belgrade Charter and distinguished some of its features in the description of the latter. Behold, we have considered the lack of skill in us and the inability of cunning singing and about the tiredness of ourselves except for the statutory command, and if they are the great autumn and winter nights, if we will be filled with cunning words and reading, and when there will be a small summer night according to the great reading as before the speech. Iperivelepto – “Mονη τη̃ς περίβλέπτο” – was built by Romanus Argyrus (1028–1034) in the name of the Mother of God and renewed by Nikephoros Votoniatus (1078–1081). Du Cange. Cpl. chr. IV. 94. We have listed only a very small number of lists of this kind and were mainly referring to the characteristics of the statutes of the 3rd edition. For an even less complete list, see Arch. Serg. Hagiology I. 137. Arch. Leon. About Slavic translations of the charter. Readings General I. and Trees. 1867. 2. In the last article, Synodal Charter No. 331/387 of a different edition is mistakenly shown between the lists of the Church Eye. “And at the meal it is natural to be according to the communal tradition and the charter of the holy fathers and according to the custom of this country, which is found here... just as the divine rules command and the charter says “the eye of the church.” Statutory gram. Novgorod Archbishop Macarius Dukhovsky Monastery A.I. No. 292. For a list of chapters, see Description. S. B. III 291–297. The first 16 chapters contain the general order of service and explanatory articles for it; from 17 to 40 hl. inclusively there are Markov's chapters as part of the second part of 22 chapters, 41–44 articles of disciplinary-liturgical content, taken from nowhere and never seen before, 45–67 articles from 1 word of the tacticon of Nikon the Montenegrin. In the charter of the Public Library (No. 25), compared with the synodal one, there is a slight difference in the count of chapters. Markov's chapters extend from 18 to 40 inclusive, chapters of unknown origin 41–44, the article on lighting candles is omitted, articles from Nikon Montenegrin from the 45th chapter are interrupted at the 52nd chapter; the rest is lost. The table of contents is interrupted at chapter 50 due to the loss of the ending. At the end of the manuscript (fol. 134 vol.) there is a book of hours (about the book of hours, see our work. Metropolitan of Cyprus, p. 82). In general, the charter is poorly preserved: it lacks the final part of the monthly book and many leaves in the triode part, so it becomes impossible to determine the number of Slavic memories from this list. An indication of the source of these articles is made in the description of the manuscripts of S. B. III. 295–297. See Description, manuscript. Tolstoy's gr., which also includes a paleographic photograph from the recording. See Sreznev. Monuments of Russian writing under 1397 cap. 129 List of Slavic (Syn. bib.) lists of Nikon’s works and their description in the Description. hands Synod. bib. II, 3. 1–52. For other features, see Description. R.S.B. III. 299–100. No. 288 also consists of 125 chapters, but Markov’s chapters are assigned to the end of the type after the triode part; In addition, there are additions of Russian content. Also in the synodal charter No. 388–336. In the charter from the collection. Undolsky (No. 116) Markov's chapters, numbering 81, precede the general part. We have not seen this article in the Greek types, but it is quite remarkable, as the first definite indication of the time and what kind of fast they began to keep on this day. No. 392 Synod. and 117 Undolsky do not have a common part; No. 396 Synodal and Trinity Lavra, No. 246 do not have any and consist of additional articles; No. 290 of the Typographical Library contains only the triode part and many additional ones. Synod. Charter No. 383–328 l. 37–40. Charter Imp. Public Bible l. 136. The priest begins the Easter Matins with the verses: Confess to the Lord that this is good, the Lord has made this day, make it a holiday among those who overshadow. See stud. triode. But in the service according to the triodion of the same type, Easter Matins is recorded in accordance with the Jerusalem Rule. This means that Markov’s chapters retained the most ancient presentation, in relation to the studio charter. In the same charter, the celebration of the presanctified liturgy until Wednesday of the first week of Lent is allowed at the request of the ktitor’s regulations (fol. 170 vol.). In the six-day Synod. bib. No. 431–325 XIV century. the service of Easter Matins, Hours, Vespers and Compline is imposed according to the Studite Rule, but all other sequences are in accordance with the Jerusalem Rule (Detailed Description. S.B. III. 545–547). Charter No. 385–332 indicates the custom of the Studite monastery to begin the Lenten Vespers at sunset, contrary to the Jerusalem custom of ending it before dusk (fol. 150 vol.). This attitude to the matter is expressed in the preface to the canon from the Bible. Trinity Lavra, written by the famous collaborator of Archimandrite Dionysius and then the enquirer, Elder Arseny Glukhim, 1616. “The scriptures are from different lists,” he says, trying to find the right ones, and found in the lists of them many uncorrected... And what was possible for my poor mind, I corrected this, and what was impossible, I left this, and the one who has a greater mind we will be corrected by those who are not corrected and those who are insufficient will be filled. But what I wrote, and if anything is found in them that does not agree with the reason of truth, and I ask for forgiveness for this. And whoever has this to prescribe and does not, let him not prescribe this way, nor sing it, but let him write and sing what is true, which is pleasing to God and beneficial to the soul, because I want it this way. And not only what is written here, but also what is written and verbed, and if anything is found in you that is not pleasing to God and is not useful to the soul for the sake of my foolishness and ignorance, and for these I pray that no one does such things, but let him do the best, which is pleasing to God and useful to the soul” (Description of the Trinity Lavra, No. 281 p. 56). There is a similar preface in canon No. 283, written by Arseny, at the behest of Archimandrite Dionysius. It is remarkable that the same preface is read in the Trinity Manuscript, which contains the lives of the saints of the 16th century (according to the definition of the Description). The manuscript bears traces of the reign and contains references to the best texts of the lives. Wasn’t this manuscript written and edited by Arseny? (ibid. no. 684). Several such orders are given in the charter, from the Undolsky collection, No. 118. These are orders of the Novgorod archbishops Leonid and Pimen. Originally from Ustyug. His father, Tikhon, was a monk of the Trinity Lavra. In the synodikon of the Trinity Lavra (No. 2) under the year 7103–1595, Tikhon of Ustyuzhan is recorded as the father of Loggin of the Ustyuzhan head (Description of manuscripts Tr. bib. No. 428). Among the Lavra manuscripts there is a musical sticherarion (No. 428), written in the Chudov Monastery by the hand of the many-sinful, inexcusable servant of God, cleric Loggin. This suggests that this book was not written by Loggin at the time when he lived in the Chudov Monastery as a surveyor? A. A E. No. 228. In the inventory of the house treasury of Patr. Philaret noted that “that charter ordered the sovereign patriarch to burn for the fact that those books were printed without a blessing, and the Trinity Kryloshanin Loggin the thief and hawkmoth celebrated.” R.I.B III. 902. Metropolitan Poppy. I.R.C.X. 190. The year of death of Loggin and Filaret is determined according to the parchment synodikon Tr. laurels No. 41. See Description. No. 428, No. 382, ​​on Marcellus ibid. No. 206. What kind of people were who were in charge of the then right and belonged to Loggin’s circle, Arseny gives a characteristic review in his letter to Saltykov, “those people who brought up heresy against us, they themselves barely know the alphabet, otherwise I know that they don’t know what letters are vowels, consonants and double-vowels in the alphabet... They never had sacred philosophy in their hands, and whoever didn’t study it easily can make mistakes not only in divine scriptures, but also in earthly affairs, even if he was naturally witty. Those who are not experienced look only at the lines and literal speech and reason: this is so; It turns out that this is not the case at all. They read the divine scriptures in ink, but do not try to understand the meaning of the scriptures.” Here is a living portrait of the scribes of that time, in whose hands was the printed one on the right. These were scribes, strong in their knowledge of the letter, but very limited when it came to the meaning and spirit of what was written. Poppy. I. R. Ts. X, 189. The following articles can be excluded, and indeed were subsequently excluded: 1) preface to the typical text of St. John Chrysostom. The church typology itself is not spoken of here, but several aphorisms are expressed about the need for monastic governance. 2) About the number of brethren in monasteries (as an appendix to the type). 3) From the rules of St. Father, and from the traditions of the apostles, every Christian has to fast (see explanation below). 4) Rule about renounced books. 5) Extract from the studio. Charter (on the work of a housekeeper or cellarer, on the hospital and hospitality). It would be much more convenient to place articles from the everyday books and statutes of the cathedrals separately, as a local feature of the rite, and not to mix them with homogeneous articles from the general statute, and even less to merge them with the latter and present them interspersed. Undolsky (Sl. Russian Bible No. 345) shows a charter printed in Moscow in 1631. There was no such edition, and Undolsky mixed up the edition of 1633, which was started in 7139 (1631) and completed in 7142 (1633). See the preface to the charter of 1633. This probably also explains the incorrect designation of the year of publication of the statutes according to the inventory of the Assumption Cathedral, where the statutes of the following publications appear: 139 (=1633), 148 (=1641), 149 (=1642). R. East. Bible Vol. III. 730. Obviously, the years of publication are mixed here with the years of printing. Undolsky lists this charter as published in 1633 (No. 376) and comes out in such a way that in 1633 there were two editions. But in the afterword the year of publication is directly indicated: “it happened in the summer of September 7142 on the 30th day of the 21st year (that is, the reign of Mikhail Feodorovich) and in the 15th year of the patriarchate.” The Epiphany Abbot Ilya was given the sovereign's salary in tetratech (statute of 1633) without money. Hegumen Ilya took the book and put his hand to it (Exp. book No. 14 l. 120 vol.). In addition, in the expenditure books of the State Palace Order, mention is made of the sovereign's salary to him in damask and martens in 7130, 7135, 7137, 7140, for the fact that he sat at the book desk for printed information, or simply “for book information.” (Read. General. Ist. and Others, 1882, part 2. See our article: how we edited church books. Approx. to the Creation. St. Ot. 1883, book 3). The Church of the Holy Myrrh-Bearing Women was located on the St. Nicholas sacrum near the printing yard, which was part of the parish of this church (Rum. Ancient. Building. Printing Yard. Works of M.A. General. II. 1. Note 20). You might be interested in: