Typical of the Church of St. Sophia in Constantinople (IX century)

One of the most curious, but at the same time one of the most difficult subjects to study in the field of Byzantine studies are the numerous details of Byzantine life, public and private, religious and civil - various customs, rituals, ceremonies with which the life of the Byzantines was so rich, and which were so readily adopted by the peoples subject to the influence of Byzantine culture. The difficulty of the study here is due, on the one hand, to the very essence of the subject, since it requires special attention to the smallest and most difficult to imagine details. On the other hand, it depends on the scatteredness, fragmentation, incompleteness and scarcity of sources. In terms of sources, only one part of this subject, namely: the Byzantine court ceremonies, appears to be in a more advantageous position, since for its study there are monuments that are distinguished by comparative completeness and integrity and provide rich material. This is the work of Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De Cerimoniis aulae byzantinae and another later work of Kodin Kuropalota of the same content: De officiis curiae et ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae. With the help of these monuments, it is possible to present the Byzantine court ceremonial in some detail. But it cannot be said that they could completely satisfy the researcher and give him everything he would want and need. Scientists who studied and commented on these monuments constantly felt the need to verify them with other monuments and news of the most diverse nature. In particular, anyone who is familiar with the book: De Cerimoniis by Constantine cannot help but know that the court ceremonies described in his book are most closely connected and, so to speak, intertwined with church ceremonies and that much concerning the church side of court ceremonies, the author leaves without description, considering it as if unnecessary in view of the existence of special descriptions of this side of the Byzantine rite 1 . Hence the natural need to check and supplement the description of court ceremonies by comparing them with church ceremonies. This need was constantly felt by all commentators, from the first Reiske to the last professor D. O. Belyaev, who several years ago undertook a detailed study of the book of Constantine Porphyrogenitus and recently published the first edition of his work 2 . It would seem that there is nothing easier to satisfy this need, since on the one hand, this can apparently be served by the ceremonial of our modern worship, which undoubtedly retained the main features and features of Byzantine worship, and on the other hand, some genuine monuments of ancient Greek worship, preserved in manuscripts and privately published. But in reality this is not the case. In fact, there is an unexpected difficulty here. Modern Orthodox worship, although it has indeed retained the main features of the Byzantine, but at the same time, over time, it has absorbed many new features, and in some places the old ones have either completely disappeared, or have been so combined with new ones that at present it is very difficult to distinguish them. As a result, the church ceremony of the present time in relation to the court ceremony of the 10th century. there is an incommensurable phenomenon and therefore of little use for explaining the details of this latter. As for the authentic documents of Orthodox Byzantine worship of the 9th-10th centuries, they are extremely scarce and fragmentary, and, moreover, for the most part they relate not to the ceremonial side, but to the euchological and minological or calendar. These are texts of liturgical and other prayers, or calendars and minologies indicating the Gospel and Apostolic readings with a very small number of brief descriptions of only some ceremonies. Being heterogeneous and varied in their content, they moreover do not have strictly defined dates, which of course significantly reduces their value. The scarcity of authentic documents for the history of Byzantine liturgical ceremonial in general is so great that when several years ago one of our learned liturgists-archaeologists, the late professor of the Moscow Theological Academy I.D. Mansvetov, in his book on the Church Charter 3, decided to make an attempt to make a general outline of the ceremonies of Byzantine worship in Constantinople in the Great Church, he was forced to put at the head of all his meager sources the same court ceremonies of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, for the explanation of which the study of church liturgical ceremonies is so necessary. From this we can understand that having at hand an authentic document containing a complete description of Byzantine church ceremonies of the 9th or 10th century is very important not only in the interests of interpreting court ceremonies, but also completely independently of this, in the interests of ecclesiastical-archaeological and historical-liturgical, and, moreover, in this latter respect much more than in the first. It seems that in the near future a monument of this kind will indeed be available for general research, namely: a complete description of the ceremonial of the patriarchal service in the Church of St. Sophia in Constantinople, 9th century. In the summer of the year before last, while living on Athos and searching for supporting documents to support my thoughts aimed at explaining some ancient liturgical ceremonies of our Orthodox Church, I, knowing about the existence of a rich library on the island of Patmos, but not being able to get there, asked the venerable librarian of the Athos-Panteleimon Library, Fr. Matthew to make the inquiries I need through St. who lives there in the monastery. John the theologian in retirement, Metropolitan Amphilochius of Pilus, who maintains a very friendly disposition towards the Russian monastery of St. Panteleimon. At the same time, according to a short handwritten catalog available in the library of the Panteleimon Monastery (there was no printed catalog at that time), those manuscripts were also indicated that, by assumption, could provide the information I needed. The Right Reverend Metropolitan, after some time, replied that he did not find what I was looking for and wishing for in the manuscripts I indicated, but that he found much similar to it in one of the glassine typics of the Patmos Library, that this ancient type, compared with the later ones, has a special composition and differs from them in that it contains a very detailed description of many litias performed in Constantinople on various occasions, and other rites of the Great Church, i.e. e St. Sofia. Having received this news, I immediately pointed out the importance of the monument described by the Metropolitan and recommended Fr. Matthew should take care of acquiring a complete copy from it, or, if this is very difficult, then at least an abbreviated one, with an extract of all the places related to the description of local Constantinople liturgical rites. Soon a copy of this last type was made and in the summer of last 1891 it was in my hands. Having carefully studied it, I came to the conviction that the monument is of even greater importance than might have been expected; and one could not help but regret that what lay before one’s eyes was not a complete and accurate copy of it, but only excerpts and extracts, admittedly sufficient to determine the general character and significance of the monument, but not sufficient for a final judgment about it. Meanwhile, Al., associate professor of the Kyiv Theological Academy, who lived with me on Mount Athos. Ao. Dmitrievsky, who undertook on behalf of and at the expense of St. The Synod for the publication of ancient church typicals and other liturgical monuments, for its part, became so interested in the newly discovered type that it considered it necessary to personally go to Fr. Patmos and fill in all the gaps left by Metropolitan Amphilochius in his copy. Recently, our venerable colleague made sure to inform us of all these additions for a preliminary examination, so that at present we have at hand the monument in a complete copy and can judge it with a calmer conscience. What kind of monument is this? We find an external description of it in the recently published catalog of the Patmos Library of the city of Sakkelion, librarian (now deceased) of the Athos University Library under No. 266 in the typography department 4. This is a glassine manuscript in the 4th lobe of a sheet, written by an illiterate scribe around the tenth century τὰετηρίδα ). At the beginning and at the end one sheet is missing; There are still two sheets of paper missing in the middle of (probably) the first notebook. The manuscript contains 241 pages in total and consists of two parts. The first part, due to the loss of a leaf at the beginning, does not have a title, but by analogy with the title of the second part and with the titles of other similar monuments it was probably this: ἐκκλησίας, ἀναγνώσεων, πράξεων ... and so on. as in the title of the second part... Or: ἀρχόμενον ἀπό μηνὸς Σεπτεμβρίου ἕ ως μηνὸς Αὐγούστοῦ ἔχον πάσαν ὰκολουθίαν 5. It contains a statement of memories and order of church services for each day of the year according to the numbers of months. The second part (φ. 186 β.) is entitled as follows: ἀναγνώσεων, πράξεων, ἀποστόλων, ἐυαγγελίων, προφητειῶν καὶ ἐκάστῆς ἀκολουθίας ἀπὸ τῆς κυριακῆς πρὸ τῆς ἀποκρέω μέχρι τῆς ἁ γίας Ν ´ ἐπιδημίας τοῦ ἁ γίου Πνεύματος . This part contains a description of the features of church services located according to the weeks of the Easter, or so-called triode, circle, starting with the week of the Publican and the Pharisee. Thus, in this manuscript we have a description of the full range of church services performed in the church of St. Sofia IX-X centuries. As for the general title: τυπικὸν, in all likelihood it was not in the manuscript at all. The title of the first part was also the general title. Let us also note that the title could have been something like this: Συναξάριον .,. ’ αρχόμενον ... Nikon Montenegrin, writer of the 11th century. in his pandects, preserved only in the Slavic translation, he quite often refers to the Charter of the Great Church, and denotes it with the word: “Conciliar”, i.e. Συναξάριον 6. Determining the age of the manuscript in the 10th century, Sakkelion was guided only by paleographic experience, without turning to the analysis of the text and the chronological data that it contains. Meanwhile, such an analysis is very important for determining the dignity and significance of our monument. While generally confirming the date given by Sakkelion, he gives us some very valuable and interesting details regarding the original origin of the monument and its history. Here are the most important instructions and data in this regard: 1) Under December 16 it is written: ἄθλησις ... καὶ τοῦ ἁ γίου μάρτυρας Βάκχου τοῦ ματυρήσαντος ἐν τοῖς χρόνοις ἡμών ἐν ΙΙαλεστίν ῃ ἐπί Εἰρήνης καὶ Κωνστὰντίνου ὀρθοδόξων καὶ φυλοχρίστῶν βασι λέων, i.e. “suffering... and the holy martyr Bacchus, who suffered in our times under Irene and Constantine, the Orthodox and Christ-loving kings.” According to the Synaxarist, the torment of Bacchus dates back to 780. 7 The words: “in our times” in this case cannot, however, be taken too literally, that is, in the sense that the charter was drawn up during the life of Empress Irene at the end of the 8th century. In the same manuscript, under August 7, it is written: τῆς ῾ Αγίοις Αποστόλοις Εἰρήνης - memory in piety of our former queen in the Holy Apostles (i.e., the church of the Holy Apostles buried) Irina. Under August 9, Irina was again recorded under the name: new next to Patriarch Constantine - μνήμη τοῦ ἐν ἁ γίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ ἀρχιεπισκόπου γενομἐνου τὰύτῆς τῆς θεοφυλάκτοῦ καὶ βασιλίδος πόλεως Κωνστὰντίνου καὶ Εἰρήνης νέας ἐν τοῖς ῾ Αγίοις Αποστόλοις. Irina died in 802. Consequently, the charter was drawn up later than this time. Next: 2) Under July 26 it is written: τ ῇ αὐτ ῇ ἡμέρ ᾳ ἐγἐνετο ὁ πόλεμως εἰς Βουλγαρίαν καὶ ὁ θάνατος Νικηφόρου τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ ἄλλων πολλῶν, ἰνδ. δ᾿ἡμ. ζ᾿ – on the same day there was a war in Bulgaria and the death of Tsar Nicephorus and many others indict 4 on the 7th day. This event took place in 811. It was very sad for Byzantium, but by no means of the kind that should be included in the number of church memories. It is not found in any of the other very numerous Constantinople month books. This time, this could only happen under the condition that the compiler was a contemporary of the event and made the entry under a completely fresh impression, being very struck by the bitter fate of the king and his army. 3) To these two indications of the contemporary life of the compiler of the event, one more, less clear one can be added, namely: Under October 20, the memory of τῶν ἁ γίων νεοφανῶν μαρ τύρων Ἀνδρεος is listed, Στεφάνος, Παύλος, Πέτρος καὶ τῆς συνοδίας αὐτῶν. The suffering of these martyrs occurred in 767 under Constantine Copronymus 8 . The name “newly appeared” could only be given to these martyrs by a contemporary. – From a comparison of the given chronological data, it is clear that the compiler of the charter mentions the events of 767, 780, 802 and 811 as contemporary, and that, therefore, he lived in the second half of the 5th century. and in the first quarter of IX. In the first quarter of the 9th century. (hardly later) and the Charter we are considering was drawn up by him, or at least thoroughly edited. But next to these clear indications for the first quarter of the 9th century. how, at the time of drawing up the Charter, we find in its text other instructions that do not reconcile with the date now deduced. So we find here memories dating back to the half and even the end of the 9th century. for example, Fyodor Savvait † 840 Dec, 27, Euthymius of Sardinia † 840 Dec, 26, Evdokim of Constantinople nobleman † 842 Jul. 31, Michael Sinkella † 843 Dec. 20, Theophanes of Nicaea † 847 Oct. 11, Syrian Martyrs † 847, Feb. 6, Third Finding of the Head of John the Baptist - 867, May 25, Patriarch Methodius † 846 June 18, Patriarch Ignatius † 878 Oct. 23. The memory of Patriarch Ignatius is the latest of those we found in the monument. It is so far removed from the memory of the martyr Bacchus and the times of Irene that it cannot belong to the same hand. Memories from the half of the 9th century can also hardly belong to the first hand. It is necessary to assume another later hand, which the Charter, edited at the beginning of the 9th century, corrected or supplemented at the end of the same century. A later term can hardly be tolerated. The absence of memories not only of the 10th century, but even of the end of the 9th century, such as, for example, the memory of the patriarchs Photius † 891 February 6, Stephen † 893 May 17 and August 25. and Anthony † 895 February 12, very often found in monuments of the 10th and 11th centuries, gives us the opportunity to assert with complete certainty that our Charter at the end of the 9th century. received its present form and that in this Charter we have a monument to church practice from the time of Patriarch Photius - an era contemporary with the transition of Greek worship to Slavic soil and therefore the most interesting for us. We found only two indications in the text of the monument that, with a superficial glance at them, could serve as a reason for deducing a later date for its final formation. But upon careful examination of these instructions, it turns out that they cannot have such a meaning at all, or, at least, are very dark and doubtful. These are the instructions: 1) Under May 19, the following dates are indicated: Βούλου. According to the general opinion of researchers of Christian Byzantine antiquities, for example, Dukanja 9 and Byzantium 10, the church in the name of all saints was built by Emperor Leo the Wise at the beginning of the 10th century. regarding the death of his wife Feofaniya 11). Until now, nothing was known about the existence of other churches in honor of all saints in Constantinople. However, is this the same church, of course? Hardly. The church built by Leo is called: ναὸς and it is said about it that it was extensive and magnificent 12 - this one is simply called: εὐκτήριον, i.e., prayer house. Further: the location of the church built by Leo is determined by its proximity to the church of St. Apostles - πλησίον τοῦ ναοῦ τῶν Ἀποστόλων 13 . Here we have some kind of incomprehensible definition of place (’ἕ ν Βούλου), or in any case one that is not found anywhere in ancient monuments. Hence the thought involuntarily arises that there is of course a different church here, and not the one built by Leo. The same idea is brought to light by comparing the indicated place in the Charter with another, which describes the ceremony of celebrating the memory of all saints in the first week after Pentecost. According to the rules of the Charter we are examining, such holidays are usually celebrated in those churches to which they are closest. In these cases, the Charter usually notes that the service on this day is performed in a church dedicated to the holiday, and that the patriarch serves in it. – Λειτοῦργεῖ ἐκεῖ ὁ πατριάρχης , or: συναγό μεθα ἐν εἰρημἐν ῃ συνάξει τὴν θείαν λειτοῦργίαν ἐκεῖσε ἐπιτελοῦντες and similar expressions are constantly found in the Charter in the indicated cases. But in this case there is nothing like that. Divine services are prescribed to be performed in the Great Church, that is, in St. Sophia, which could hardly have happened if at the time the Charter was drawn up there had already been a magnificent church in honor of all the saints. From here it is necessary to draw the conclusion that the indicated place speaks of some other church in honor of all saints, or better of a chapel, which could be located inside the church of St. Sofia or in direct connection with him. 2) The second indication of a later date is remarkable, among other things, in that it characterizes the method of later processing of our monument. Under January 9th, it is written here: σεἰςμοῦ ἐπὶ Δεκίου καὶ Ὀυαλεριάνου βασιλέων. When carefully reading this passage, which at first glance does not represent anything special, one cannot help but notice some ambiguity and discord. Where should the names of kings Decius and Valerian be placed? To the martyrdom of Polyeuctus, or to an earthquake, or to both? But they cannot be attributed to an earthquake, since there was no such earthquake and it is not mentioned anywhere in the ancient church calendars, but they should be attributed to Polyeuctus, since the martyrdom of Polyeuctus actually took place under Decius and Valerian. How did the earthquake get here and what kind of earthquake? It is obvious that in the ancient original, from which the illiterate scribe made his copy, the words: καὶ τοῦ μεγάλου σεἰςμοῦ stood as a later addition on the field. The scribe placed them in the text, but did not clearly understand where they should be placed and thus discovered their later origin. The original from which the copy was made was obviously written earlier than the event mentioned in the later addition. When does this event date back to? Ancient Minology and Synaxari 14, starting from the 11th century. On January 9 or 10, the earthquake that occurred in 1011 under Emperor Vasily the Bulgarian Slayer is celebrated. This earthquake really happened in January, although it is not known what date, 15th. If this is an earthquake in the indicated place, then the period of corrections and additions to our monument will need to be continued at least until the first quarter of the 11th century. But there is no need for this. It is much more reasonable to understand here the earthquake that occurred under Basil the Macedonian in 869, precisely on January 9 on St. Polyeuctus, which damaged the dome of the Church of St. Our Lady of Sigma 16. The memory of this earthquake in later monuments was obviously obscured by a more recent memory of another later one, which occurred in the same month and around the same date. If in this case we must understand (which we have no doubt) the earthquake of 869, then there is no doubt that the original of the Patmos copy was written earlier than this time. At the same time, it is discovered that the corrections or additions made at the end of the 9th century. in the 10th century edition took place in the margins of the manuscript and did not concern its original text and content. This conclusion is led not only by the aforementioned inept insertion about the earthquake, but also by the way other later memories are placed in it. Ancient memories are accompanied by more or less detailed statutory instructions on the features of the church service established for them; new memories, for example, Patriarch Ignatius, are not accompanied by such instructions and stand as if alone among other memories. We dwelled, perhaps in too much detail, on the question of the time of origin of our monument, but we considered this positively necessary in view of the urgent need to define as clearly as possible and establish as firmly as possible the true meaning of the monument. However, we limited ourselves to analyzing only the most important and clearest instructions; many others, less clear, but, given the existence of the first, very important and characteristic, have been left by us for now and will, if possible, be analyzed further, when analyzing the very content of the monument. From our analysis, it seems to us, it is clear 1) that we are dealing with a monument more ancient than the Ceremonies of Constantine, which of course there is no need to regret even then, if we keep in mind solely the interest of a better understanding of the Ceremonies. In any case, from comparison with a more ancient monument, the understanding of the Ceremonies will gain, and a lot. 2) Further, from our analysis it is clear that our monument is not the work of one person and that the process of its formation, based on very clear signs contained in the text, can be extended over at least a century. In the text one can notice at least two layers or two hands: one from the beginning and the other from the end of the 9th century. But should we end our consideration of the question of the time and method of origin of our monument? In essence, we have defined only the last boundary, i.e., the period of its final formation, but have not said anything about the first. If this monument is not the work of one person and contains additions made at different times, then why not consider the mentions of Irina and the war with the Bulgarians to be the same additions, and not attribute the origin of the monument to an even more ancient time? Indeed, it is quite possible to think that at least the foundation in this monument is of more significant antiquity. This leads us to consider the original origin of church writing monuments of this kind in general, and in particular the monument we are examining, which in essence is nothing more than a church charter or typology of a very ancient composition. – The Church Charter or Typical that currently exists is a very complex book. This is an index of all possible features that come into the ordinary rite of worship from the addition of a church-historical element to it on every day of the year. This book is not the work of one time or person. It has a very long history. Many famous people, and even more unknown ones, had a hand in its processing. Scientists studying the history of this book were naturally primarily interested in the question of when this book first appeared in church practice and what its composition was like when it first appeared, what type of prototype it was, which served as the first basis for further development and complications. Until now, the answer to this question has been quite difficult. The mentioned scientists, for example, Mansvetov, were inclined to the opinion that the basis was the wills of some of the most famous ancient monasteries, such as St. Savva the Sanctified, Athanasius of Athos, or the so-called ktitor monastery charters. This opinion has no solid foundation. A detailed analysis of our monument can clearly show that the indexes of the church Gospel and Apostolic readings served as such a basis, and that consequently the monastery regulations constitute not a basic element, but a complicating one. In our monument this basic element still stands so independently that it clearly stands out as such. The indication of readings is a constant and unchanging element here: it is present in every service, no matter how short it may be, even in the absence of any other instructions. In fact, it could hardly have been otherwise. We said that the type is an index of the features that come into the daily ordinary divine service from the addition of a church-historical element to it. These features arose very early and multiplied gradually over a long period of time. At the beginning, the service of one day was no different from the service of another day. But then some days of the year and, above all, Sundays and days marked by memories of the most important events in the life of I. Christ, which are: birth, death, resurrection, stood out from among other days as special days, calling for the introduction of certain features into worship. These features initially consisted almost exclusively, or at least mainly, in the fact that for these days special passages suitable for recollection were selected from the sacred books of the Old and New Testaments. So on the Nativity of Christ they read about the Nativity, on the Resurrection about the resurrection. Over time, the number of days devoted to church-historical memories began to increase rapidly. In addition to the commemoration of events from Gospel history, the so-called birthdays of martyrs, etc. were added. For these days, they also tried to select appropriate readings for the occasion, which in turn were supposed to provide a decent topic for teaching. At the same time, there was a natural need for indications of what and when to read. The most ancient of such indexes can be considered the so-called Easter circle of Hippolytus, preserved in the famous pulpit of Hippolytus in the Lateran Museum in Rome 17, and then the so-called Comes - an index of readings dating back to the end of the 8th century. and attributed to Blessed Jerome 18. Later, these indexes constituted, as it were, a necessary addition to the Gospels and the Apostles used during divine services. Sometimes they were very brief, and sometimes quite detailed and thorough and bore special titles: Κανονάριον or Συναξάριον. The oldest of such indicators can be considered: calendar ( ἐνιαυτοῦ ὅ λου), published by Morcelli from the manuscript of Cardinal Albani in 1788 19), calendar or synaxarion (συναξάριον ἐρχόμενον ἀπὸ μηνὸς σεβτεβρίου μέχρι μηνὸς αὐγούστοῦ ) according to two manuscripts of the Paris Library, published by Scholz in 1823 20 and canoner according to two manuscripts of the Sinai Library, published by Archimandrite Antonin in 1874 21 The index, published and commented by Morcelli, contains the commemorations of saints only for 143 days of the year and for each commemoration the beginning and end of the apostolic and gospel readings, and for some of the most outstanding ones, and some statutory remarks, for example, about the memorial services for the Annunciation, the Dormition and in memory of Chrysostom on November 11, about the paramons for Christmas and Epiphany. The index of the 10th century, published by Scholz, contains monthly memorials for all days of the year, apostolic and gospel readings for the most important of them, and, in addition, also statutory notes. In the Sinai canon (IX-X centuries), we see even more such comments, and very detailed ones, and the canon itself, as well as the charter we are examining, is divided into two parts, embracing both the monthly and triode circles. Then, as for later times, from the 11th – 12th centuries. Many indexes of this kind have come down to us with a more or less abundant number of statutory notes on the performance of church services on certain days of the year. All of them usually form an appendix to the service Gospels and the Apostles. Arch. Sergius in his Monthly Book lists more than 20 Greek words alone. Of those described in more or less detail, one can point to the Gospel and the Apostle of the 11th century, described by Ivanov in the Proceedings of the Imperial Archaeological Society 22 and the Apostle of the Library of the Moscow Academy 23, described by Mansvetov. Such indexes, over time and in different places, complicated by more or less abundant statutory comments on the performance of church services, formed the basis of the original typicon, which then gradually began to incorporate other related elements for replenishment from the instructions of monastery ktitors, from euchologies, menaia, etc. until a type was developed that was very close to the typicon that became commonly used. In some ancient monuments one can still very clearly observe traces of the genesis we have outlined. In this regard, we consider especially important the type of the Constantinople Monastery of the Mother of God-Evergetis of the 12th century, which we saw in the library of the University of Athos in 1887 and was briefly described at the same time. It consists of three parts: minological, triode and ktitor. The last part is a separate application, has a prologue and an epilogue. The general title of the typikon is remarkable, indicating the connection of typikons with synaxars - indexes. This is the title: ἀκολουθίας τῆς εὐαγοῦς μονῆς τῆς ὑπεραγίας Θεοτόκου τῆς εὐεργετίδος. ἀρχόμενον ἀπὸ μηνὸς Σεπτεμβρίου περιέχον π ᾶ σαν ἀκολουθίτὰν μέχρι συμπληρώσεων Αὐγούστοῦ , ὡ σαύτως καὶ τῆς ἁ γίας τεσσαρακοσ τῆς ἀπὸ τῆς κυριακῆς τοῦ τελώνου καὶ τοῦ φαρισέου μεχρὶ τῶν ἁ γίων πάντῶν 24 Name: Συναξάριον also bears the Charter of the Kazulyan monastery of 1205, now kept in Barberina library in Rome: μέχρι τῶν ἁ γίων πάντῶν 25 The monument we are examining should be considered as a representative of one of the very first stages in the process of formation of the type that we have outlined. It is based on an index of the kind described above. This index is distributed using very simple techniques, both in the calendar and especially in the liturgical part. In the calendar part, the most remarkable memories are supplemented with brief biographical and historical information, sometimes very interesting. It is remarkable that they stand in very close dependence on the most ancient hagiological monument of Byzantium, on the minology of Basil, or, more accurately, on a more ancient source common to both monuments. This feature is found only in this monument and has little liturgical significance. More important for us are the liturgical additions. They consist in the fact that to the index of readings from the books of the Old and New Testaments there is added an index of prokeimns, hallelujah verses, antiphons, cyenonics and the text of troparions in honor of some saints and sacred events. On holidays there is a fairly detailed description of the lithiums, which in Constantinople constituted one of the main and most prominent features of the holiday service. At the same time, the places where these litias were to be performed, the churches, where they began and where they ended, etc. are indicated. Thus, in general, a consistent and relatively complete description of all the features of worship in Constantinople for each day of the year is given. From this it is clear what importance this monument must have, especially for church archaeology. Anyone who would want to consistently and thoroughly describe the entirety of Byzantine church rituals of the 9th century, to paint a complete picture of it, would do best if they based it on this monument, which can undoubtedly provide a reliable and solid outline for such a picture. With the existence of this monument, researchers can no longer complain that the documents do not have a single reliable basis for designating the eras of the general development of the Byzantine rite, that some rituals are reported in documents of one century, and about others in documents of other centuries, much later, etc. It is true that not everything in our monument is described with the desired detail, but what is more important for us is that it gives a complete picture of the entire set of rituals of one, strictly defined, and, moreover, extremely important moment in Byzantine history. At the present time, we do not find it convenient to use our monument in the indicated sense and have no intention of presenting with its help a complete and detailed picture of Byzantine church rituals of the 9th century. We will try to present here only a general plan, indicating the most remarkable details contained in the monument. In a word, let us make a general brief analysis of the liturgical material contained in it. When analyzing church rituals, three sides can be distinguished in them: 1) the topographical side - these are the places where the ritual is performed, mainly, of course, churches and various parts of churches; 2) historical - these are the cases that cause the performance of a particular rite, and the time of its performance and 3) ceremonial in the proper sense - this is the very order of the rite and its setting, with attention drawn to the persons taking part in the rite and the sacred objects used. It is under these three headings that we intend to consider the liturgical material contained in the monument we are interpreting. I. Topographic element. The place of various church ceremonies and services in Constantinople of the 9th century. there were mainly churches or various parts of them, but sometimes, and even often, these ceremonies came out of the interior of the churches into the fresh air - ἐν τῷ ἐξαέρ ῳ, ἐν τῷ φόρ ῳ, ἐν τῷ κάμπ ῳ. The churches mentioned one way or another, some more often than others less frequently, are the following: 1) First of all, the church of St. Sofia. This church, as is known, was the main shrine and the main attraction of Constantinople. Surrounded on all sides by public buildings, royal palaces and less significant churches, it represented the center not only of the religious cult of the Byzantines, but also of their social and state life. Not only were services performed here and sermons were preached, but sometimes state and church coups took place. The Church of St. seems to be just such a central point in church-ritual terms. Sofia in our monument. According to the instructions of this monument, all solemn holiday litias began here and ended here. But as for the details of the topography of this famous church, about which so much has been written and which in topographical terms still represents a lot of uncertainty, we do not find anything new about this here. True, when describing various rituals, various parts of the church are mentioned: θυσιαστήριον, σύνθρονον, σολεὰ, ἀμβῶν, ναρθήξ, βαπτῆςτήριον and even ἐξάερον, but nothing topographically noteworthy is reported. Then, most often there are references to the churches of the Mother of God: 2) Blachernae and 3) Chalcopratia. At the same time, in both the one and the other, ἡ άγια σορός constantly attracts special attention. This name was given to the arks in which the robe of the Mother of God in Blachernae and the belt of the Mother of God in Chalcopratia were kept, and sometimes the chapels in which these arks were located. It is clear from everything that during the operation of the charter we are examining in Constantinople, this shrine was held in special reverence, which is fully confirmed by both historical evidence and the charter itself. The drafter of the charter, no doubt keeping this circumstance in mind, considered it necessary to place under July 2 a legend about the origin of this shrine. This legend is almost literally in agreement with the oldest of the legends about this subject, available in Vasily’s minology. It dates the appearance of this shrine in Constantinople to the reign of Leo the Great, who built a church in Blachernae to house it. At the conclusion of his story, the author calls this shrine a repository or talisman of the city and a treasury of healings (φυλακτήριον τῆς πόλεως καὶ θησαύριμα ἰαμάτῶν). This view of this shrine was dominant in Byzantium - this city of the Mother of God throughout the Middle Ages. During great public disasters and enemy invasions, this shrine was carried in processions along the streets and walls of the city. In general, most of the Constantinople processions, having as their starting point St. Sophia, in the neighborhood of which was the Chalcopratian ἡἅ για σορὸς, they were heading, as it were, towards their goal to the Blachernae σορδς and were dedicated to honoring the Mother of God. Apparently, not a single church hymn was heard on the streets of the city during the litia as often as the following one, dedicated as much to the Mother of God as to the city she patronized, a national Byzantine hymn - Ἡ πόλις σοῦ Θεοτόκε ἡ ἐν σοί βασιλεύουσα μεγάλων λυτρωθεῖσα διὰ σοῦ περιστάσεων σέ ὕ μνον εὐρωστίας προβάλλετὰι τὴν ἁ γίαν σοῦ ᾠ δὴν φθεγγομἐνη ὅ τι ἐποίησέ μοι μεγαλεία ὁ δυνατὸς καὶ μόνος πολυέλεος – i.e. “Your city, Mother of God, reigning in you, many times liberated thanks to your intercession, brings you a hymn of strength, imitating your holy song: my soul magnifies the Lord, for the mighty one has done me greatness, one who is abundantly merciful." This unusually lively honoring of the Mother of God as the patroness of the city was also manifested in the fact that there were especially many churches in her honor in Constantinople. In addition to Blachernae and Chalkoprates, the Charter we are examining indicates 12 more such churches, and this, of course, is not all of those that existed there in the 9th century. Here is a list of all the churches mentioned in our monument with brief indications of sources in which one can find more or less detailed information about them 26 Paepati, Βυζαντίναι μελεται, 5) Nicodemus, Συναξαριστής, b) Sergius, Complete month elephant of the East. Unger, Quellen der. Byzantinische Kunstgeschichte. Wien. 1878. The first two are especially important. No information was found about some churches. The spelling is taken from the copy of Metropolitan Amphilochius. . We single out the Churches of Our Lady into a special group, and then list the remaining churches and chapels, indicating the month and date under which they are mentioned in the text of our monument. 4) Church of Our Lady εἰς τὰ Διακονήσης. March. 25, May 14, June 28. See Duc. L.IV. 87. Βυζ. I. 155. 5) – πλησίον τῆς μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας Oct. 23 Duc. L.IV. 93 6) – ἐν τῷ Ἐξακιωνί ῳ (Genv. 26). Σ. Βυζ. I. 158. 7) – ἐν Γιοργιαναῖς (Av. 3) Σ. Βυζ. I. 300, 8) – ἐν Βιγλεντίαις (Αβ. 2). Σ. Βυζ. I. 418 Duc. IV. 96. 9) – τῶν Κουράτορος. (Dec 1) Duc. IV. 86. 10) – πλησίον τοῦ Ξηρολο᾿φου. ( Αβ . 16) Σ . Βυζ. I. 286. 11) – ἐν τῷ Σοσθενί ῳ τοῦ πηγαδίου (Iu η. 8) Unger. 122. 123. 12) – ἐν τοῖς Κύρου (Oct. 1) Duc. IV. 87. 13) – ἐν τῷ Κοσμεδί ῳ (Sept. 20). Unger. 235. 244. 14) – πέραν ἐν τοῖς Μαρινακίου (Αβ. 8, June 15). Duc. IV. 184. 15) – Θεοτόκου ναὸς ὁ ἐπιλεγόμενος τὴν Νέαν Ἱ ερουσαλὴμ πλησίον τῆς Χρύσης Πόρτῆς (Αβγ. 16) Σ. Βυζ. I. 330. 305. In addition to churches in honor of the Mother of God, our Typica mentions many churches in honor of other saints. Most of them are already known to archaeologists, but there are also unknown ones, or known under other names. We list everything, grouping them by location if possible. 16) – Τοῦ ἁ γίου Πέτρου συγκειμἐνου τ ῇ Μεγάλ ῃ ἐκκλησί ᾳ (Gen. 16, Απρ. 25) Βυζ. I. 495. 17) – Ἰ ωάννου Θεολόγου ἐν τῷ ἁ γίῷ αὐτοῦ ἀποστολί ῳ τῷ ὄντι πλησίον τῆς Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας (Sept. 26). 18) – τοῦ ἁ γίου ἀποστόλου Ἰ ακόβου τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ τοῦ Κυ ρίου καὶ ... ἁ γί ῳ ἀυτού ἀποστολι ῳ, τῷ ὄντι ἔνδον τοῦ σεβασμίου οἴκου (Oct. 23) Duc. IV. 112. 19) – εὐκτήρια τοῦ Πατριαρχίου (Oct. 31). Βυζ. I. 517. 570. III. 309.533. 20) – τῶν ἁ γίων ἀρχαγγέλων Μιχαὴλ καὶ Γαβριὴλ , ἐν τ ῳ ἁ γίῷ αὐτῶν οἴκ ῳ τῷ ὄντι ἐν τῷ N έ ῳ Παλατί ῳ ( δ ’ μετὰ Ν ’) Σ . Βυζ, I. 215. 244. 363. 21) – τοῦ ἁ γίου Θουθαὴλ πλησίον τοῦ Παλατίου (Aug. 5). 22) – τοῦ ἁ γίου άπ. (June 19), 23) – τοῦ ἁ γίου πρωτομάρτυρος Στεφάνου ἐν τῷ Ζευγματι πλησίον Κωνστὰντιαναῖς (Αβγ. 2, Dec. 27) Duc. IV. 138. 24) – τοῦ ἁ γίου Ζαχαρίου ἐν τῶ Παραδεἰςί ῳ (Oct. 28) Βυζ . 192.250. 25) – τοῦ ἁ γίου Ανδρέου Στρατιλάτοῦ ἐν τῶ Τρικόγχ ῳ πλησίον τοῦ Καπιτολίου (Aug. 10). 26) – τῶν ἁ γίων Πέτρου καὶ Παύλου ( ἀποστολίον ) ἐν τῷ Τρικόγχ ῳ (Nov. 6) Βυζ. I. 218. 27) – τοῦ ὁσ ί ου Σαμψ ὼ ν τοῦ ξενοδόχου ἐν τῷ μεγάλῷ αὐτοῦ ξενῶνι (June 27) Duc. IV. 164, Βυζ. I. 519. 28) – τῶν ἁ γ ί ων μ μαρτύρων πλησίον τοῦ χάλκου τετραπύλου . (March 9. Dec. 30) Duc. Ι V. 134. Βυζ. I. 422. 29) – Θεοφύλου διακόνου ἐν τῷ οἴκ ῳ τῶν ἁ γ ί ων μ᾿ μαρτύρων . (Sep. 30). 30) – τῶν ἁ γ ί ων μαρτύρων Κυντιανοῦ , Δάδα , Μαξίμου ἐν Βιγλεντίαις (June 28, Aug. 1) Βυζ. I. 418, 422. Συναξ. III. 213. 31) – τῶν ἁ γ ί ων Ἀποστόλων (Mar. 25, Aug. 7, 9) Βυζ. I. 391. II. 259.Duc. IV. 105. 32) – τῶν ἁ γ ί ων ἀποστόλων Πέτρου καὶ Παύλου ἐν τῷ ὀρφανοτροφί ῳ (June 29. Oct. 29) Duc. Ι V. 114. 165. Βυζ. I. 149. 33) – τῶν ἁ γ ί ων μαρτ. ?? γιον Πέτρον (Nov. 16), 34) – τῆς ἁ γ ί ας μάρτυρος Μελιτήνης ... ἐν τῷ Πετρ ίῳ (Sept. 16) Βυζ . I, 563. 35) – τῶν ἁ γ ί ων μαρτ. (Mar. 12). 36) – τῆς ἁ γ ί ας Εἰρήνης πέραν Ἰ ουστιαναῖς (Aug. 8) Βυζ. II. 34. Συναξ. III. 229. 37) – τῆς ἁ γ ί ας Εἰρήνης ἀρχαίας καὶ νέας (Απρ, 27) Duc. Ι V. 147. 38) – τῶν ἁ γ ί ων Τρύφωνος καὶ Χριστόφορου πλησίον τῆς ἁ γ ί ας Ειρήνης ἀρχαίας καὶ νέας (Dec. 1). 39) – τῶν ἁ γ ί ων Σέργιου καὶ Βάκχου πλησίον τοῦ αετοῦ γιστέρνης (Nov. 29) Duc. Ι V. 135. 40) – τοῦ ἁ γίου Λαυρἐντιου (July 2). Duc. IV. 127. 41) – τοῦ ἁ γίου Στεφάνου ἐν τῷ ἁ γί ῳ Λαυρεντί ῳ ( δ ’ διακαὶνησήμβ ). 42) – τῆς ἁ γ ί ας Ευφημίας ἐν Δεξιωκρατιαναῖς πλη σίον τοῦ ἁ γίοῦ Λαυρἐντιου (May 30). Duc. II. 171.IV. 146. 43) – τοῦ ἁ γίου Γεωργίου ἐν τῷ Κυπαρισί ῳ. (Mark 24). ΙΙασπ. 387. 44) – τοῦ ὁσ ί ου ... Θεοδοσίου τοῦ κοινοβιάρχου πλησίον τοῦ Τὰύρου . (Jan. 11). 45) τοῦ ἁ γίου Ἀνδρέου ἐν τῷ Τρίτ ῳ ( δ ’ Διακαὶν .) Βυζ . I. 419. 355. Duc. IV. 112. 46) – τοῦ ἁ γίου Θεοδοσ ί ου ἐν τῷ Ρησί ῳ (June 26). 47) – τῶν ἁ γ ί ων μαρτ. Ἀρχίππου. Φιλήμονος πέραν ἐν τῷ ΙΙτωχί ῳ (July 6). 48) – τοῦ ἁ γίου Ἰ ωάννου ἐν τοῖς Σπαρακίου (σαββ, τῆς Διακαὶν.) 49) – τοῦ ἁ γίου Θεοδώρου ἐν τῷ Σπαρακί ῳ (May 5. Κυρ . β ’ μετὰ Ν ’- λεγόμενος ῾P οδισμὸς ) Duc. IV. 139. 50) – Ἐυκτήριον Ἀββακύρου ἐν τῷ Σπαρακί ῳ (Nov. 12). 51) – τῶν ἁ γ ί ων, ἀναργύρων ἐν τοῖς Δαρείου (Aug. 11 – ἐν τῷ ἐξαέρ ῳ οἴκῳ τῶν) 52) – τῶν ἁ γ ί ων μαρτ. (Feb. 6). Duc. IV. 128. 53) – Ἐυκτήριον τῶν ἁ γ ί ων πάντῶν ἐν Βούλου (May 19). 54) – τῶν ἁ γ ί ων μαρτ. Θύρσου, Λευκίου, Κορνάτοῦ καὶ τῆς συνοδίας αὐτῶν πλησίον Ἐλενιανῶν (Aug. 16, Dec. 14). Duc. IV. 140. Βυζ. I. 302. 55) – τῶν ἁ γ ί ων μαρτ. Φηλήμονος καὶ Ἀπολλων ί ου καὶ τῶν μετ ’ αὐτῶν πλησίον Ἐλενιανῶν (Dec. 14). 56) – τοῦ ὁσ ί ου Ἐυδοκίμου τοῦ ἐν τῷ Ἐξακιονί ῳ (July 31). Duc. II. 171. 57) – τοῦ Ἀρχ. Μιχαὴλ ἐν τῷ Σοσθενί ῳ (June 9). 58) – τοῦ ἁ γίου Ἰ ωάννου Θεολόγου ἔνδον τοῦ σεπτοῦ οἴκου τῆς παναγίας Θεοτόκου ἐν τοῖς Μαρινακίου. (Αβγ. 8). Duc. IV. 184. Συναξ, III. 229. 59) – τοῦ ἁ γίου μ . Μωκίου. (May 11). Duc. IV. 129. 60) – τοῦ ἁ γίου Σαβίνου ἐπισκόπου ἐν τῷ ἁ γί ῳ Μωκί ῳ (Oct. 15). 61) – τοῦ ἁ γίου Ἐυλογίου ξενοδόχου ἐν τῷ ἁ γί ῳ Μωκί ῳ (Mar. 27). 62) – τοῦ ἁ γίου ῾ Ρωμάνου (Nov. 18) Duc, IV. 135. 63) – τῶν ἁ γ ί ων μαρτ. (Sept. 4). 64) – τῶν ἁ γ ί ων μαρτ. Καλλινήκου. (Sep. 18). Duc. IV. 121. 65) – τοῦ ἁ γίου μαρτ. Χριστοφόρου ἐν τῇ οἴκία τῶν Προμούντῶν . (Dec. 16). Συναξ. I. 367.– πλη σίον τοῦ ἁ γίοῦ Πολυεύκτοῦ, Duc. IV. 121, 186. 66) – τῶν ἁ γ ί ων μαρτ. (July 30). 67) – τῶν ἁ γ ί ων Μάμαν , Φιλίπου καὶ Θεοδώρου ἐν τ ῇ Ξηρωκέρκ ῳ (Sept. 2). Duc. IV. 185. Βυζ. I. 597, 599. 68) – τῆς ἁ γίας Ἄ ννης (Oct. 9). Duc. IV. 143. 69) – τοῦ ὁσ ί ου Βασσιάνου πλησίον τῆς ἁ γίας Ἄ ννης (Oct. 9). Duc. IV. 120. 70) – τῶν ἁ γ ί ων Τρίφονος. Τροφήμου καὶ Δορυμεδόντος πλησίον τῆς ἁ γίας ’A ννης ἐν τῷ Δευτέρω (Sep. 29). Duc. 140 εἰς τὰ εὐβούλου. 71) – τοῦ ἁ γίου μάρτυρος Χαρίτῶνος ἐν τῷ Δευτέρ ῳ (Sept. 9). 72) – τῶν ἁ γ ί ων μαρτ. ???????? (Sept. 17). Duc. Ι V. 121. 73) – τῶν ἁ γ ί ων Ζωῆς καὶ Ἑ σπέρου ἐν τῷ Δευτέρφ . (Αβ. 9) Duc. IV. 126. Βυζ. I. 344. 74) - Θεσσαλονήκεως π ό λεως ἐν τῷ Δευτέρ ῳ. (Oct. 26) Duc. Ι V. 122. 75) – τῶν ἁ γ ί ων μαρτ. ?? τοῦ Δευτέρου. (Oct. 17). 76) – τῶν ἁ γ ί ων Βενιαμὴν καὶ Μηναίου πλησίον τοῦ Πα λατιού τοῦ Ἑ βδ ό μου (July 30) Duc. Ι V. 120. 77) – τῶν ἁ γ ί ων μάρτ. Μην ᾶ καὶ Μηναίου ἐν τῷ Ἑ βδόμ ῳ (Αβγ. 1, Oct. 29). Duc. IV. 129. 78) – Προφητεῖον τοῦ Προδρόμου πλησίον τοῦ Ἑ βδ ό μου (June 5). Duc. IV. 100. Βυζ. I. 357. 79) – τοῦ ἁ γίου Δομετίου πέραν ἐν Συβαῖς ( Κυρ . δ ἐβδομ . τῶν νυστειῶν ). Βυζ. II. 58. Serg. II· 194. 178. 80) – τοῦ ἁ γίου Ζηνοβίου ἐν Συβαῖς ( Κυρ . ε εβδ . τῶν νηστειῶν ). 81) – τοῦ ἁ γίου Ἀκακίου ἐν τῷ Ἑ πασκάλ ῳ (Αβγ. 30). Duc. Ι V. 118. 82 - Αβ.5). 83) – τῆς ἁ γίας Θεοδότης ἐν τῷ Κάμπ ῳ (July 29). 84) – τοῦ ἁ γίου Βικεντίου ἐν τῷ Κάμπ ῳ (Αβ. 6). 85) – τοῦ ἁ γίου προφ. Ζαχαρίου ἐν τῷ Κατὰβόλ ῳ (Sep. 5). Duc. Gloss. ἐν τῷ καταβολί ῳ εἰς τὴν Ἡ ρακλίου μονὴν (Cedrin). 86) – τοῦ ἁ γίου Κολλιστράτοῦ (July 18). Duc. Ι V. 87) – ἐγκα ί νια τῶν Πορτασίου (Nov. 9), Wed. Duc.II. 177. 88) – τοῦ ἁ γίου Συμε ὼ ν τοῦ στυλίτου ἐπέκεινα τοῦ Ἀνάπλου καὶ τὰ ἐγκα ί νια τοῦ Ἀρχάγγελου Γαβριὴλ (July 26). Thus, we have in our list about 90 churches and chapels mentioned, more or less clearly, in our monument. It is true that some of them should not be considered special churches, but only chapels, and some inspire great doubt due to the unclearness of their designation, and therefore, perhaps, could have been omitted, but this would hardly have shortened our list much, and the fact of the extraordinary abundance of topographical indications contained in our monument would not have been shaken at all. We must note that our list does not yet completely exhaust the abundance of these indications. We have omitted some of these instructions due to their unreadability. So, for example, under September 6 there is an indication of the cathedral (σύναξις) of the Archangel ἐν Ἀ ... What this Ἀ means cannot now be determined, since the next sheet is lost. Maybe this A should be read Ἀνάπλ ῳ; then this will be an indication of the well-known Church of Constantinople - or maybe otherwise. We have also omitted the few passing references to monasteries found here, for example, monasteries: τῆς Χῶρας (May 12) and Χεινολάκου (Jan. 14). From this it is clear that if the monument was in better service, our list could be longer. But even in its present form, in our opinion, it is not without significance. It is very important that it states the simultaneous existence in Constantinople of a very significant number of churches in a certain, strictly defined era, i.e. at the end of the 9th century. Until now, not a single monument has been encountered, with the possible exception of the Menaion and Synaxarea, which, however, are mostly of late and multi-temporal origin, where ecclesiastical topographical indications were so abundant. In the lists compiled by new researchers, for example, Ducange, many more churches are indicated, but these lists were compiled on the basis of sources from different times and refer to the entire Byzantine period until the half of the 15th century. 27 Further, by comparing our list with the list and instructions of Ducange, as well as with the instructions of Scarlat Byzantius and Paspati, it turns out that although most of the churches indicated in it are known, there are also those that 1) are not known to the indicated researchers, or 2) although they are known, but under other names and are not interpreted by them entirely in accordance with reality. In general, it seems quite remarkable and important that our monument regarding some churches gives new topographical indications, which, with a careful study of them, could perhaps to some extent correct or clarify the previously available information. We will dwell only on some of these new topographical indications, which seemed to us more interesting and worthy of attention than others. 1. Under August 16, in our monument we find, in accordance with other month-books, the memory of the martyr Diomede (with a brief message about him), and then “the memory of the fear that was in the new Jerusalem near the Golden Gate” - μνήμη φόβου, τοῦ ἐν τ ῇ Νέ ᾳ Ἱ ερουσαλὴμ πλησίον τῆς Χρυσής Πόρτης . The following describes the cast that was performed on this occasion, and the name New Jerusalem is explained. Litia, leaves the Great Church for the forum, and then heads to the Golden Gate and, having passed through them, enters the honorable church of the All-Holy Mother of God, called New Jerusalem - ἀπερχόμενα ἐν τῷ σεπτῷ ναῷ τῆς παναγίας Θεοτόκου, τῷ ἐπιλεγομἐν ῳ τὴν Νέαν Ἱ ερου σαλὴμ. So, the New Jerusalem was the name of the church dedicated to the Mother of God, located outside the city walls behind the Golden Gate. What kind of church is this? Scarlat Byzantium, citing the testimony of Theophanes (λιτὰς ἐξέβαλλεν εἰς Ἱ ερου σαλὴμ, τουτέστιν εἰς τὸν ἅ γιον Διομήδην), to say that the church of St. was called Jerusalem. Diomede, originally dedicated to the name of the prophet Elijah and built by Constantine the Great 28. Ducange, calling the church St. Diomede monastery, brings together ancient evidence about it, but its location is determined incorrectly and only indirectly, placing it in the list of urban churches, not suburban ones 29 . Ducange also mentions the monastery called Jerusalem, but in a different place, as a special monastery. He reports only two very dark news about him and places him also in the city 30. Thus, neither Ducange nor Byzantium mentions anything about the Mother of God and there is no evidence to identify any church of Our Lady located outside the Golden Gate with Jerusalem. Theophan's testimony identifies Jerusalem with St. Diomede, but says nothing about Our Lady. Saint Nicodemus in his Synaxarist, compiled on the basis of ancient Athonite manuscripts, on the contrary, does not say anything about Jerusalem, but deprives the church of Diomede of any independence and identifies it with some kind of church of the Mother of God. He says that the church of Diomede was located inside the church of the Mother of God, that is, it was its side church 31. But what kind of church should we mean here? It must be outside the city wall near the Golden Gate, since the Church of Diomede was undoubtedly outside the Golden Gate. There is quite reliable evidence of this. Thus, in one of the oldest liturgical monuments, in the so-called Cryptoferratian Euchologia of Vessarion of the 12th century, many parts of which were published by Gohar, the rite of the litia, which apparently took place on August 16, was preserved, and in it there is a prayer inscribed in this way: εὐχὴ, λεγομένη ἐν λιτ ῇ γινόμεν ῃ διὰ φόβον εἰς τὸν κάμπον εἰς τὸν ἅ γιον Διομήδην ἐξώπορτα καὶ εἰς τὴν παλαιὰν πέτραν 32 . This is also confirmed by the ancient Slavic prologues according to the edition of Vasily’s monthly book. In them, the location of the Church of Diomede is also indicated behind the Golden Gate near them 33). As for the churches of Our Lady, located behind the Golden Gate, near them, there is no clear evidence of this. Perhaps the closest to the Golden Gate, between these latter and the Sillivrian Gate, also called the Gate of the Source, was the Church of Our Lady of the Picturesque Source (τῆς ζωοδόχου πηγῆς), very famous in Byzantium already from the 5th-6th centuries, but not mentioned in our monument under this name. Shouldn't the name: New Jerusalem be attributed to this particular church? Ducange and Byzantium report quite detailed news about him 34. Even more detailed information about this church can be found in a special monograph about it by a certain priest Eugene 35. But however, nowhere do we find news that this church was ever called the New Jerusalem. Nevertheless, we consider this more than likely; and if there is no basis for this in the indicated studies, then this is explained by the scarcity of their sources. The new source we are considering gives some reasons for this. The Litiya, held on August 16 in New Jerusalem, coincided with the feast of St. Diomede, perhaps not entirely by accident. There is reason to think that the memory of St. Diomede in ancient times did not fall on this date, but on the 19th of August and was therefore moved to the 16th on a special occasion, perhaps on the occasion of the litiya in his church. But even on the 19th, the mention of his suffering remained not destroyed. This mention is read under this number with a significant addition: τοῦ ἁ γίου Διομήδους εἰς λευκὸν ποταμόν - St. Diomede on the White River. In another, also very ancient, monument of the 10th-11th centuries, in the so-called Sirmundian or Claromontantian Prologue or Synaxarion under August 19, we also find the memory of St. Diomede with the addition: “the cathedral in the church of Our Lady of Jerusalem” 36. So, the feast of St. Diomede and the Church of Our Lady of Jerusalem are strangely combined here too. It seems to us that this combination cannot be explained by anything other than the fact that both of these churches were one, as we see in Nicodemus’ Sinsksarist. Moreover, the addition to the name of Diomede under August 19: εἰς λευκόν ποταμόν apparently contains a hint of the same location of both churches. The words: εἰς λευκόν ποταμόν remind us of the expressions of Procopius, who, describing the area where Justinian built the Church of the Life-Giving Spring, says that there is a spring pouring out γαλινὸν τὸ ὕ δωρ καὶ πότιμον 37 ). But why were the Church of Our Lady at the Spring and the Church of Diomede located in it called New Jerusalem? Scarlat Byzantius 38 says that the Church of Diomede was called so because it was the meeting place of the Jerusalem Patriarchate, but this is hardly fair; evidence, at least not provided by Byzantium. It seems to us that the best answer to this question can be found in the ancient legend about the icon of the Mother of God of Jerusalem, given, by the way, by the arch. Sergius in his Monthly Book and borrowed from the book: “Glory to the Most Holy. Mother of God" 39. This legend, although later, is undoubtedly of Greek origin, is based on ancient legends. "In 453 - this legend says - this icon was brought from Jerusalem to Constantinople and stood in the Church of the Mother of God, called Pygia, then it was placed in the Blachernae Church and became famous for many miracles. In 898, due to the Russian invasion of Constantinople, it was brought to Kherson. Vladimir, having been baptized in Kherson, took this icon with him,” etc. In this legend, the beginning of which was undoubtedly borrowed from a Greek source, anachronism is important for us. The icon was brought to Constantinople in 453 under Marcian and Pulcheria and placed in the Church of Our Lady at the Source. Meanwhile, this church was built later: according to some by Leo Makellus, and according to others by Justinian. If we prefer to consider Leo 40 as the first builder, then the anachronism will remain. Obviously, by the Church of Our Lady at the Source we must mean the previously built Church of Diomede on the Light River, and not this church. The compiler of the tale knew the legend about the presence of the icon of the Mother of God of Jerusalem here from the very beginning of its appearance in Constantinople, but did not know the time of origin of the church. Based on all that has been said, the matter, in our opinion, can be presented as follows: New Jerusalem, initially from the half of the 5th century. that is, from the time the icon of the Mother of God of Jerusalem was brought to Constantinople, the church of St. Diomede on the bright river where this icon was placed. Then, the Church of the Mother of God was built right there, where the icon was transferred. Both of these churches were in such close connection with each other that the celebration of the memory of St. Martyr Diomede was called a cathedral or meeting in the church of the Most Holy Theotokos of Jerusalem. Over time, when the icon of the Mother of God of Jerusalem was transferred from here to another place, the name Jerusalem was little by little forgotten. Our monument thus reflects the most ancient designation. It is worth adding to this that the lithium of August 16 existed in later times, but it was designated not to the New Jerusalem, but to the church of Our Lady of the Life-Giving Source 41. 2) Under October 23, the church in the name of the Apostle James (Ἀποοτολεῖον) is indicated, located inside the Church of the All-Holy Mother of God near the Great Church - ἔνδον τοῦ σεβασμίου ὄικού τῆς παναγίας Θεοτόκου πλησίον τῆς ἁ γίας Μεγά λης Ἐκκλησίας What kind of church of Our Lady is here, of course? Ducange in his lists presents three churches, the location of which is said to be πλησίον τῆς Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας 42: 1) the church of Our Lady of Chalcopratia, which Theophanes says that it πλησιάζουσα τῇ Μεγάλ ῃ Ἐκκλησ ίᾳ. According to Theophanes and Kedrin, it was built by Theodosius the Younger. 2) The church built by Verina, the wife of Leo the Great, is also a church, as can be seen from the third Justinian novel. There was a church or chapel of St. ap. Jacob; in it rested the relics of St. Simeon the Receiver of God and, therefore, this is the same church that is mentioned in our monument on October 23. 3) Church of the Virgin Mary ἐν ὸυρανοῖς, about which Anonymous-Kodin says that its builder was a certain Rodon, one of the 12 senators transferred from Rome to Constantinople by Constantine the Great. Regarding the location of this church in one of the church Mineas, quoted by Ducange, it is noted that it stood, like the first two, πλησίον τῆς Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας. Thus, in Ducange’s list we have three churches of the Virgin, the location of which is designated the same - πλησίον τῆς Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας. The difference between them is that the foundation of each of them is attributed to different persons. But it is quite possible to assume that these different persons who lived at different times (Justinian, Theophan, Kodin), speaking about the same church, could have different information about it. This can be positively stated, at least, about the first two of the churches listed by Ducange: Our Lady of Chalcopratia and Our Lady with the Chapel of St. Jacob. Ducange himself, speaking about the church of St. Jacob, expresses the assumption that the church of the Mother of God, with which the church of the ap. was in close connection. James, there is no other church than the Mother of God of Chalcopratia 43. Byzantium claims the same thing 44. And in general, after hearing various news about the mentioned churches, it is not very difficult to be convinced of this; so we might not dwell on this issue if in the monument we are examining there was not very clear evidence that eliminates all doubts and perplexities. The above designation of the location of the Church of Jacob is found in our Charter when describing the service on the day of his memory, October 23. But in another place of the same Charter it is necessary to commemorate St. Jacob back on Saturday in the first week after Easter - σαββάτ ῳ μετὰ τὴν Διακαινήσιμον. Here, when setting out the charter of the service for this day, the church in which the chapel was located. Jacob, is already directly called Chalcopratian - ἐν δε τῶν Χαλκοπρατείων (sic.). On this day, Matins was performed in the Church of the Mother of God of Chalcopratia, and to serve the liturgy they moved to the chapel of St. Jacob - ἐισερχόμεθα ἐν τῶ ἀυτοῦ εὐκτηρί ῳ. From here it is clear that the churches: Chalcoprakian and another nameless one, designated in Ducange’s list as special churches, Nos. 9 and 11, are one and the same church. As for the third church No. 28 ἐν οὐρανοῖς, designated in the same way as the first πλησίον τῆς Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας, it is hardly possible to identify it with Chalcopratian, but about It should be noted that its very existence is quite problematic. Ducange gives only two testimonies about her (there are no more): one from Anonymous-Codin, and the other from Menaia. But in Kodin this church is not even called a church; it only says: ἔστι δε τῆς Μαμένης 45. As for the testimony of the Menaion, in the corresponding place of the Nicodemus Synaxarist under December 9 it is transmitted as follows: ἐν τοῖς Εὐοράνοις παρὰ τὴν ἁ γιωτάτην Μεγάλην Ἐκκλησίαν 46. Both in the Menaion and in the Synaxarist, the celebration of the Feast of the Conception of the Mother of God and the memory of the righteous Joachim and Anna on December 9 is timed to coincide with this church, but in the Charter we are examining, so rich in topographical indications, there is no such indication under this date, but only a reference is made to September 9 - the memory of Joachim and Anna; but there is no such indication there either. In another place, when describing the celebration of the memory of Joachim and Anna on Saturday of the first week after Pentecost, the service is prescribed to be performed ἐν τῷ ἐξαέρ ῳ Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας. 3) This expression: ἐν τῷ ἐξαέρ ῳ in itself is very clear, but it is not clear in connection with the description of the church rite, and therefore it is worth making a note about it. The church is, without any doubt, nothing more than the courtyard of the church of St. Sofia. Describing the service of Saturday of the first week after Pentecost, our Rule says: Δεσποίνης ἡμοτόκου καὶ ἀειπαρθένου καὶ τῶν ἁ γίων Ἰ ωακήμ καὶ Ἄ ννης. Συναγόμενα δὲ ἐν τῷ ἐξαέρ ῳ ταύτης Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας . Καὶ έις τὸν Ν᾿ λέγομεν τροπάρ. ἧχ. βαρύς Χαῖρε κεχαριτωμἐνη ... κ . τ. λ. Next, the features of the celebration of the liturgy are indicated: the prokeimenon, the conception of the Apostle, the hallelujah verse, the conception of the Gospel, the cynicism or the sacramental verse. And then: o ἀπόστολος πρὸς Ῥ ωμαίους κ . τ. λ. the features of the celebration of the liturgy are again described. Thus, on this day, worship simultaneously took place, according to the instructions of the Charter, both in the Great Church and in its courtyard - ἐν τῷ ἐξαέρ ῳ. The liturgy regarding the celebration seems to be performed in an unconsecrated and unsuited place, in the courtyard, which cannot be allowed. In explanation of this it is hardly possible to imagine anything other than the assumption that in the courtyard of St. Sophia, probably in one of the porticoes of this courtyard, there was a small church or altar in honor of the Mother of God, Joachim and Anna, where the described service was performed. (Isn’t this the church ἐν οὐρανοῖς?). There is another hint about the existence of such churches or chapels in the Charter we are examining. Under August 11, the memory of the martyrs Zenon, Macarius, Neophytos, Gaia and Guyana, Markius and Macarius is recorded here. ἐν τοῖς Δαρείου. Here we already have ὁ ἐξαέρος ὄικός (church located in the courtyard?), which is more definite. Maybe here we should read not just ἐν ἐξαέρ ῳ, but ἐξαέρ ῳ ὄικ ῳ? However, there is some possibility of understanding this expression in a slightly different way: you just need to take the word ἐξάερον in a broader sense. It is known that some writers under the courtyard of St. Sophia mean something more extensive - and the Augusteon Square itself, adjacent to it, is interpreted as part of the courtyard of St. Sofia. This is what Zonara calls Augusteon: προαύλιον τοῦ μεγάλου ναοῦ 47. With this assumption, on the indicated day the place of worship in honor of the Mother of God and her parents could be considered another church in honor of the Mother of God from those adjacent to the Augusteon. 4) Under September 5, in our Charter it is noted: Προδρόμου Ἰ ωάννου ἐν τῷ Κατὰβόλ ῳ, and on October 28: ἐγκαίνια τοῦ ἁ γίου Ζαχαρίου ἐν τῷ Παραδειςί ῳ. Thus, we have an indication of the existence in Constantinople of two churches in honor of Zechariah. Both of them can be considered hitherto unknown. As for their location, the indications of it in our monument are obviously very unclear. Based on the above text about the first of these churches, one can think that it was somewhere on the descent to the sea. Ducange in his Constant, Christiana does not mention such a locality, but in his Glossary he cites one passage from Codin, which we mentioned above 48, about the monastery built by Heraclius ἐν τῷ Καταβολί ῳ. Probably in this monastery there was a church in honor of St. Zechariah. As for the second church in honor of Zechariah, several, more or less probable, assumptions can be made about its location. Ducange notes only one church with the name of Zechariah, calling it a monastery and placing it among the suburban churches - in suburbano, quod theatrum dicebatur 49. If the suburban gardens in Constantinople were ever called paradises, then one might consider it probable that ἐν τῷ Παραδέιςω means exactly that, but such an interpretation, given the possibility of other, more substantiated ones, is very difficult to accept. There are facts for other explanations. In the monthly book attached to the Ostromir Gospel, on October 17, the feast of Our Lady in Paradise is celebrated (obviously the translation is ἐν τῷ Παραδέιςω). The same feast of the Mother of God in Paradise is noted in the monthly book of the Ohrid Gospel on November 9. On the 9th of November, this holiday was celebrated in the Greek Sirmund or Claromontant Synaxar, and the location was defined more precisely - “at St. Mokia" 50. So, if you believe this explanation, then the area: παραδέισιον was near the church of St. Mokia may have formed the perivol or atrium of this church, since church courtyards were sometimes called paradises in ancient times 51. This explanation, however, needs to be verified by evidence from other types of monuments, but now it seems doubtful, since there is only one, perhaps random, evidence in its favor. The third explanation seems to us to be the best. Ducange, in an article about the church of Zechariah, cites one remark from the Greek Menaion about the church of Zechariah, which was in the courtyard - ἐν τῷ ἁ γί ῳ Ζαχαρί ῳ τῆς ἀτρώας , but treats it with great distrust, suspecting an error 52. But Scarlat Byzantius 53, without doubting him, asserts that the ἀτρώα or ἀτραία mentioned in the Menaion are nothing more than the ἐξάερον or open courtyard of the twelve accubites in the Great Palace and that this was ἐυχτήριον τοῦ προφήτοῦ Ζαχαρίου. If not in detail, then in general this explanation can be considered very probable. The Grand Palace did have open areas, sometimes very extensive, and some of them were called paradises. So, for example, according to the testimony of the monk George, in the so-called Apse Theoktistos, the chief minister or temporary worker during the joint administration of Theodora and Michael III, built buildings, baths and planted a garden (παράδειςον) so that the garden would be near the palace itself 54. According to the testimony of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, adjacent to the eastern side of Justinian’s triclinum was a μεσοκήπιον, that is, also a garden, which also adjoined the New Church and was especially famous as Paradise and Eden. The same Constantine, in the biography of Emperor Basil, his grandfather, says that he ... ὅ ν ἀπὸ τῆς θέσεως μεσοκήπιον ὀνομάζειν ἐιώθαμεν 55. It is very likely that in this or another similar palace paradise there was a church or chapel of St. Zechariah. If so, then it was one of the palace chapels, of which there were quite a few. 5) Of course, it would be very important for us if our monument told us more information about the palace churches and chapels, which played a very significant role in the palace ceremonies, but unfortunately it gives us too little on this score. With the exception of the rather dubious, nevertheless, Zechariah and Stephen ἐν Κωνσταντιαν ᾶ ις, we have only two more indications: one to the new palace in general, as a place for a church ceremony, and the other to the Church of the Archangel Michael ἐν τῷ νέ ῳ παλατί ῳ. In the first case, the patriarch performed the service ἐν τῷ νέ ῳ παλατί ῳ October 7 in memory of the earthquake (τῆ αὐτ ῇ ἡμέρ ᾳ μνήμη τοῦ σειςμού, ἐν τῷ νέ ῳ παλατί ῳ. λειτουργεῖ ἐκεῖ ὁ πατριάρχης; worship services). It is not indicated in which particular church of the Palace the service was held, but probably in one of the main ones. As for the earthquake, in all likelihood this should mean the earthquake of 558, which began on October 6 and then resumed on October 26 56 . During this earthquake, some of the palace buildings were also damaged. This can explain why the service was ordered to be performed in the Palace, and not in any of the country churches, as was usually the case in other similar cases. In the second case, it is indicated to hold a “council” of the holy archangels Michael and Gabriel on Wednesday of the first week after Pentecost. “We gather,” says the Charter, “in their holy house, located at the New Palace - ἐν τῷ νέ ῳ παλατί ῳ. The service begins in the Great Church and then with the litia they go to the Palace, to the mentioned church, where the liturgy is celebrated. In our opinion, it is difficult to determine exactly which church it was. Apparently, this should be the so-called New Great Church, built by Basil the Macedonian and played a very prominent role in the palace ceremonies, but it is strange that the Charter does not call it by the usual rather popular name and then, under May 1, does not mention the feast of its renewal, while it mentions the feasts of the renewal of many other minor and little-known churches. Doesn't this mean that our Charter was drawn up even before the consecration of this church and that in this place we should mean not this church, but another that existed in the Palace earlier. 6) We find a very curious, although obscure, but apparently very important topographical indication in the description of the celebration of the renovation of the Chalcopratian church on December 18. First, it speaks of the evening service on the eve of the celebration, then of Matins, which took place in the pulpit of the Great Church, and finally of the litany and liturgy. “About the 3rd hour (i.e., after Matins),” the Rule says, “the lithium comes from the Great Church and the singers begin: “Rejoice, blessed Mother of God,” and so on. and the patriarch descends - Μήλην εἰς τὰ Χαλκοπρατεῖα καὶ εἰςέρχεται εἰς τὸν νάρθηκα , καὶ μετὰ τὴν συμπλήρωσιν τοῦ ψαλλόμενου τροπαρίου ἄρχεται τὰ ὀρφανά τ ό Ἂ ρατε πύλας οἱ ἄρχοντες ὑμῶν , καὶ ἀνοίγετὰι ἡ ἐκκλησία. καὶ δοξάζουσιν οἱ ψάλται . Here we are dealing with a special case. Usually, all other litias begin after the patriarch has already arrived in the Great Church, from where he proceeds along with the litia to the appointed place; but in this case the situation is completely different. The Patriarch does not come to the Great Church in the morning, and the litia, starting here, goes to the Chalcopratian church without him; He then joins her in the narfik of this church, where he comes not from the Great Church, but from some other place, going through Molivurg and Milius. Here the term μολυβουργός seems incomprehensible, which we do not find among Byzantologists. Judging by the word production, it was some kind of building or part of a building, for the decoration or arrangement of which lead was used in abundance; and judging by the fact that the patriarch did not go to the Great Church on the morning of the feast of the renewal of the Chalcopratian church and therefore remained in his room in the patriarchate until leaving, it must be thought that Molivurg was part of the patriarchate or an extension to it from Milia. This fits quite well with what we know about the patriarchy. It was to some extent part of the complex of buildings of the Great Palace and consisted of several very extensive triclines. One of these triclini, the most important, called Θωμαϊτης, had its façade facing the square of Augusteon and Milium, 57 so that when the patriarch wanted to go from his premises to Milium, he naturally had to pass through Θωμαϊτης. As for the name: Molivurg, in application to the Patriarchate, it seems that the news of Nikita of Paphlagon about the remarkable lead roofing of the Patriarchate can serve to explain it. In 869, during a terrible hurricane that hit Constantinople, this roof was demolished and the historian considered it necessary to mention this 58. Another topographical indication, located in the given place and relating to the Chalcopratian church, is also very important. The question of the position of this church was very seriously confused by Labarthe and Paspati, who placed it near the south-eastern corner of the church of St. Sofia. Prof. D. Ya. Belyaev, in his article posted above 59, based on the rituals of Constantine Porphyrogenitus and other documents, unraveled this confusion and resolved the issue differently. The Church of the Chalcopratian Mother of God was located on the opposite side “between the Fort of Constantine and the Augusteon, moreover, closer to the first square than to the second.” This situation is confirmed by our monument. According to his testimony, from the Patriarchate to Chalcopratia it was necessary to go through Milia, which would not have been necessary if this church was at the south-eastern corner of St. Sofia. In particular, with regard to the greater proximity of Chalcopratia to Milius, this closeness is fully confirmed, even apparently to a greater extent than what D. Ya. Belyaev thinks: from Milius or Augusteon one could directly get to Chalcopratia without going to the fort of Constantine. And if litias from the Great Church to Chalcopratia sometimes (but not always) came to the fores of Constantine, then this was done only for the sake of greater solemnity. In order to get from the fora to Chalcopratia, lithium had to go back. The description of the Annunciation rite, available in our monument, presents several cases of litia from the Great Church to Chalcopratia on different days. If the Annunciation happens on Thursday of Holy Week, then ?? ῳ καὶ ὑποστρέφει εἰς τὰ Χαλκοπρατεῖα, and if the Annunciation happens on Holy Saturday, then ἐξερχομένης τῆς λιτῆς ἐκ τῆς Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας εὐθύς ἀνέρχετὰι εἰς τὰ Χαλκοπρατεῖα. Let's move on to the local historical element in the content of our monument. II. Local historical element. By local historical element we mean those reasons for performing various church rites that were exposed by the local history of the city and the church. Such occasions are shown in greater or lesser numbers in the calendars of other local churches, but nowhere are they found in such large numbers as in the Constantinople calendar, despite the fact that this calendar is consolidated and compiled with the expectation of general church use. It brings together the memories of all church regions and indicates the saints of Persia and Egypt and Syria and Palestine and Rome and even Armenia. The memories of the saints of Constantinople take up relatively little space, but a lot of space is occupied by memories related to the history of the city - this eye of the universe - and its monuments. The city seems to be the object of some kind of special cult. Events that contributed to or threatened its growth and prosperity are celebrated as occasions for church celebrations, accompanied by various appropriate features in the ritual, features, however, rather monotonous. We will list here, if possible, all of the local festivals available in our Charter, indicating the main features of the ritual assigned to them. 1. Γενέθλιαν τῆς πόλεως. In all fairness, the first place should be given to the holiday in memory of the founding of the city, May 11, the day of the martyrdom of St. Mokia. The origin of this festival is contemporary with the event in whose memory it was established. According to legend, recorded by many Byzantine writers, 60 Constantine, having built the city, did not want to leave the memory of this event, the importance of which no one knew better than him, without consecration and perpetuation. Following partly classical customs, he celebrated it by establishing games in the hippodrome, but there was no doubt a Christian-church celebration. It is impossible to describe exactly what it consisted of, since the news of ancient writers disagrees about this subject. Ducange, having pointed out this disagreement, thinks to supplement it with a description of the rites of consecration of the city of Leonina by Pope Leo IV, but it is unlikely that this later description, preserved by Anastasius the librarian, can give an idea of ​​rites of this kind observed in the 25th century. in the East 61. In all likelihood, the church rites performed during the first renewal of the city under Constantine and then observed annually according to legend, were much closer in nature and composition to the rites described in our monument than to the rites indicated by Anastasius the librarian. According to the description of our monument, the celebration began the day before, as was the custom for the largest church holidays, and from the very beginning the patriarch took part in it 62, “At the evening (εἰς τὴν παραμονὴν) the patriarch comes down and makes an entrance and after three small antiphons there are three readings (all three from Isaiah). The singers on the pulpit sing the troparion, tone 4: City of the Virgin Mary, etc. (ὡ ς ὁ τύ πος ἔχει), and after this the archdeacon says: Wisdom and the all-night vigil (παννυχίς) according to the order. We perform Matins on the ambo and on the 50th (psalm) we say the previously written troparion. And about the 1st hour the patriarch comes down and enters through the side doors (διὰ τῆς πλαγίας) into the altar and there is a prayer of the Trisagion, and the singers begin the pre-written troparion, and the lithium ascends to the for, and the singers glorify.” This is followed by three antiphons with the usual refrains: the Prayers of the Virgin Mary and Hallelujah. Next is the prayer of the patriarch, peace to all, and reading from the book of the Acts of the Apostles and from the Gospel. Then the Deacon says a special litany (τὸ μέγα Κύριε ἐλέησον), “and again the singers of the litany begin by singing the troparion: Our city, Lord, as the eye of the universe, free from all your righteous rebuke and adorn it in every possible way with the scepters of the kingdom, giving it through the Mother of God the barbarians deposition and misfortune driving away.” Upon the return of the litiya and upon entering the church, the singers praise. There are no antiphons, but immediately the trisagion, the prokeimenon: The righteous shall rejoice in the Lord. Next, for the liturgy, the apostle (from Acts), the Gospel (from John, ch. 125– κεφ ρκε᾿) and the cynic are indicated: Praise the Lord. This ends the description of the celebration, which obviously had a completely ecclesiastical character. 2. Feasts of church renewal (ἐγκαὶνια). The holidays of church renewal had a similar character. These holidays have a more ancient origin in the church and were widespread already at the beginning of the 4th century. Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History and Life of Constantine 63, speaks of them with delight and considerable detail. Ambrose of Milan speaks of these holidays as those that originate from a very ancient and universally accepted custom (ex antiquissima et ubique recepta consuetudine) 64. According to some, the church festival in honor of the construction of the city under Constantine was nothing more than a celebration of the renewal of many churches that began with the beginning of the city 65. One cannot but agree, of course, that these holidays of renewal greatly contributed to the solemnity of the general holiday, but they could hardly exclude it. These holidays in Constantinople were very numerous, since the churches were also very numerous, each of which had to have its own such holiday. In our Charter, these holidays are indicated very often, but in terms of ritual, only a few are described, which were celebrated in the most famous churches, namely in St. Sofia and Khalkopratia. Particularly solemn, as one would expect, was the celebration of the renewal of the Great Church or St. Sofia, which took place on December 23. “About 3 o’clock,” the Charter says, “the Patriarch comes down and enters the altar through the side doors and prays the Trisagion, and the singers on the pulpit begin the troparion: Thy city to the Mother of God, etc. (see above), and when the litiya leaves the church, the church is immediately locked (ἀσφαλίζεται) and the litiya ascends to the forum and the singers glorify the same troparion. And the deacon - great Lord have mercy, and the troparion begins again: “Our city, Lord,” and so on. (see above). And when the lithium reaches the narfik closest to the great gate, at the end of the troparion the patriarch blesses and the singers begin (τὰ ὀρφανά): Take the gates, your princes... and the lithium enters and immediately the prayer of the Trisagion begins.” The following are indicated: prokeimenon, apostle, hallelujah, gospel and cynonite, or sacramental verse. Instead of the dismissal of the ligurgy, which consisted of the Deacon’s exclamation: Let us depart in peace, the people are called to attention with the exclamation: Wisdom. “And the all-night vigil takes place according to order.” Next, a note is made on how to send the service on the eve of the update, if this eve falls on Saturday or Sunday. As a feature, three readings from the Old Testament are pointed out, namely from: 3rd book. Kings and from the book of Proverbs (2 readings). What follows is prescribed to be done in the same way as on the eternity of the renovation of the Chalcopratian church. – There is some kind of confusion in this description, resulting either from an omission or from an arbitrary rearrangement of parts. If we compare this description with descriptions of the same holiday in other Byzantine monuments, for example, in the Greek Apostle of the 11th century. Moscow spirit library. Academy 66 and in another Greek Apostle, also in the 11th century. Baptist Church of the city of Kerch 67, as well as with the description of the feast of the renewal of the Khalkopratey Mother of God, placed in our monument above, under December 18, it turns out that the feast of the renewal of the Great Church was supposed to begin and began on December 22. in the evening or even in the morning. According to the testimony of the mentioned Apostles, the celebration began on the morning of December 22. and consisted of morning worship, litia for the for, opening of the church and liturgy. This whole celebration was called the “opening of the Great Church.” About the holiday of December 23, called, as in our Charter, the renewal of the Great Church, it is only noted that instead of the Cherubic song at the liturgy on this day, “Let all flesh be silent” is sung. It is very natural that the description contained in the mentioned Apostles presents us with the rite in a later, more developed and complicated form, but the main and essential features of the ancient rite are undoubtedly retained in it 68. At the same time, if we take into account even the only data that is available in our monument, namely in the description of the renovation of the Chalcopratian church and in additional comments about the celebration of the feast on Saturday or Sunday, and then we must come to the conclusion that the celebration began on the evening of December 22 and that, therefore, in the text of the description there is at least ambiguity and confusion. The description begins with a statement of the order of the litia, performed in the morning before the litury, and then the liturgy. After the liturgy, it is ordered to directly celebrate the all-night vigil, which is very strange, and then a remark is made about the peculiarities of the evening service on the eve of the holiday. Apparently the section on the all-night vigil (παννυχὶς) and the evening service the day before (παραμονὴ) is an excerpt from the service charter for the evening of the 22nd, due to some misunderstanding, moved by the scribe to another place, and omissions were also made. So, after Σοφία, pronounced by the deacon instead of the holiday of the liturgy: Ἐν εἰρήν ῃ προέλθωμεν, there should be something else, and not immediately the all-night vigil (παννυχὶς), for example. (by analogy with other places of the Charter and if here we mean the all-night vigil on the eve of the 24th), some kind of προανα᾿γνωσις, consisting of the reading of teachings and passages of St. Scriptures ἑως τῆς παννυχίδος. It should be noted that such irregularities in the text of our Charter are not uncommon, which in some places makes it extremely difficult to understand, especially in liturgical terms. – The description of the holiday of the renewal of the Chalcopratian church is presented in a more understandable way. First, the evening service the day before is described - ἑσπέρας εἰς τὴν παραμονὴν - with the same readings from Kings and the book of Proverbs, as on the feast of the renewal of St. Sofia. At the end of it: Σοφία, καὶ ἀνέρχετὰι προανάγνωσις καὶ γίνετὰι ἡ παννυχις κατὰ τάξιν. Next, we talk about Matins and the litia we mentioned above from the Great Church directly to Chalcopratia, where the patriarch comes through Molivurg and Milius. In the narfik of the church τὰ ὁρφανά they proclaim: Take the gates of your princes καὶ ἀνοίγεται ἡ ἐκκλησία. This is followed by a liturgy without antiphons, beginning directly with the Trisagion. For the liturgy, the following are indicated: prokeimenon, apostle, gospel and cinenon. In addition to the renovation of the Church of the Mother of God, the renovation of the chapel of St. James, but there is no service charter for this day in our monument, just as there is none for the other numerous holidays of renewal. This is no doubt because the ritual was essentially the same everywhere. Its main feature was the litia, combined with the rite of closing and then opening the church, a rite taken from the rite of consecrating churches. This is what mainly distinguished the ancient Byzantine holidays of renewal from our church holidays. The feast of the renewal of the Church of the Blachernae Mother of God is mentioned in our Charter on July 31, but no description of the service is given. 3. Lithiums in memory of deliverance from earthquakes. The celebrations described above were based on a fact from the history of the origin of the city and its numerous monuments, which were the pride of the Byzantines and cost enormous labor and expense. Naturally, any danger of the destruction of these monuments should have seemed very terrible and bitter to the residents of Constantinople, especially since it should always have been accompanied by no less danger for the well-being and life of themselves. Such a danger was especially posed by earthquakes, which in Constantinople were, although not frequent, sometimes very long-lasting and extremely devastating: churches, monuments and even city walls fell and were destroyed. The population, distraught with horror, in order not to die under the ruins, usually fled in these cases out of the city - ἕ ν κάμ, πφ, and there they tried to appease God with constant tearful prayers and lithiums. Byzantine chroniclers carefully recorded memories of disasters of this kind in their chronicles; The compilers of church calendars did the same. The Byzantines especially remembered the earthquake that took place under Theodosius in 447 on September 25, marked by the fact that during it, when the people were praying in the field, one youth, who found himself in the air, heard the singing of the trisagion song and thus finally resolved the controversial question for that time about the correct formula of this hymn. The memory of this earthquake, together with an indication of the lithium ἐν κάμπφ, is constantly found in ancient and new Byzantine monthly books, and therefore it can be noted as something unusual that in the calendar of our monument on September 25 there is no mention of any earthquake. But instead, this monument records several earthquakes that are less known, but for the compiler were more interesting due to their proximity to his time. This is especially the case with the earthquake that occurred under Leo the Isaurian on October 25, 741. This earthquake is recorded in our monument in detail with a precise date: ? . Σσμθ᾿. ἔτη τοῦ κόσμου, ἰνδηκτ. θ᾿ ἐπί Λέοντος τοῦ Ἰ σάυρου. In addition to this earthquake, a fairly significant number of others are indicated without a date, but sometimes with a designation of the place most affected. Thus, under January 26, the earthquake ἐν τῷ Ἑ ξακιονί ῳ is indicated, by which one can mean the earthquake under Theodosius the Younger, which began on September 25 and lasted more than three months 69. The following earthquakes are listed: on January 9 (869), on March 17 (under Constantine), 70 on the Monday after Pentecost (probably at the beginning of July 555), on August 16 (554), on October 7 (557) and on December 14 (558). Church festivities in memory of deliverance from all these earthquakes were in general completely the same and differed from each other and from the usual liturgy, which, starting in the Great Church, were sent to the Forum, and then to different places, probably taking into account where the earthquake was most felt at the time. So on January 26, the lithium from the forum was sent to the Church of the Virgin Mary, where the liturgy was celebrated; October 26 to the Church of the Virgin Mary of Blachernae; there on Pentecost Monday; December 14 to St. Firs; August 16 through the Golden Gate to the Church of the Virgin Mary, called New Jerusalem; On October 7, the service took place ἐν τῷ νέ ῳ παλατί ῳ. As for the composition of lithiums on the occasion of earthquakes, it is the same as the other lithiums we described above: the difference is in the texts of the troparion, sung during the procession, prayers and readings. Here is a description of the ritual for October 26, characterized by the greatest harmony and serviceability. “Early in the morning we gather in the Most Holy Great Church and, having thus performed the litia, we go to the forum; We perform the usual prayers there, and after this litia we go to the venerable church of our holy, immaculate lady Theotokos, located in Blachernae, performing the divine liturgy and sacramental rites there.” This is the general course of the celebration. The following are the details of the litiya. “About the first hour, the patriarch comes down and enters through the side doors into the altar and there is a prayer of the Trisagion, and the singers on the pulpit begin this litiya. Troparion 4th side voice in Blachernae the same troparion; There are no antiphons, but immediately the Trisagion.” Next are the usual instructions for the prokeimenon, the apostle, the Gospel and the cinen for the liturgy. We also see in other lithiums in the days of remembrance of earthquakes, with some exceptions, for example. On August 16, when the memory of the earthquake was combined with the memory of the invasion of the barbarians, and on December 14, when instead of the above-mentioned troparion, another one was supposed to be sung: προσπίπτομεν, ἐλέησον ἡμ ᾶ ς. 4. Lithiums in memory of deliverance from the barbarians. Our monument notes four facts about the deliverance of Tsaryagrad from the barbarian invasion. 1) August 7 τῆς πανα γίας Θεοτόκου ἐβυθ ί σθησαν ἐν τῷ λάκκ ῳ. This, according to minologists, is the invasion of the Persians and Avars in 626 under Emperor Heraclius. The memory of this invasion is indicated to be celebrated with a lithium at Blachernae, but there is no description of the lithium. 2) August 16 - διὰ τὴν κατὰλυσιν τῶν ἀθέων Ἀγαρινών - litia is prescribed in the forum and from there beyond the Golden Gate to New Jerusalem; We have already mentioned this lithium several times. It differs from others in the text of the troparions assigned for singing: Εὐλογητὸς ε ἶ, Χριστὲ ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, ὅ τι ἐθαυμάστωσας τὸ ἔλεός σου ἐν τ ῇ πόλει τῆς ἀχράντου σου μητρὸς ... and Τεῖχος ἀκαταμάχητον ἡμῶν τῶν χριστιανῶν ... The invasion remembered on this day is the invasion of the Saracens under Leo the Isaurian in 716 3) June 5 ἡ ἔλευσις τῶν βαρβάρων . The celebration on this day took place with special solemnity: there was a litiya ἐν κάμπ ῳ. In the evening the patriarch was informed about this and the next day, i.e. June 5, during the singing of the first antiphon of Matins, he went to the Great Church. At the end of the antiphon there was the prayer of the Trisagion. “And the singers on the pulpit begin the troparion, secondary voice 4th Ἀνυμνοῦμεν σε, Χριστὲ ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, ὅ τι εἰσ ή κουσας τῆς τεκούσης σε παρθένου μητρός, καὶ διεφύλαξας τὴν εἰς σὲ καταφεύγουσαν, κατὰ τὸ μέγα σου ἔλεος. And in the forum they say words, and the deacon says: Great Lord, have mercy, and again the singers begin the same troparion, and in the Golden Gate to praise.” Then - prokeimenon, apostle, hallelujah, gospel. It is noted about the Gospel that the patriarch reads it “and the order is as it was written before” (ἡ τάξις ὡ ς προγέγραπται) - where is unknown. – At the end of the Gospel, the deacon exclaims: Let us hear. We inform your love that, according to accepted custom, we who have gathered are going to the profition (ἐν τῷ Προφητεί ῳ) of the Forerunner, located near Eudom, to celebrate the Divine Liturgy there. Let's all go together" (πάντες συνδράμωμεν). Next, the Deacon proclaims the great Lord have mercy καὶ ευθυς συναπτή. In the church of St. John the Baptist's liturgy begins with antiphons (3 ant.). Next is an indication of the prokeimenon, the apostle, the Gospel and the cynic. What invasion was the reason for this holiday? Our learned researchers: Filaret of Chernigov, Porfiry Chigirinsky 71 and Sergius 72 are inclined to think that here of course there is an invasion of the Russians under Askold and Dir in 864. Rev. Porfiry tries to prove this with chronological calculations and the text of the readings from St. writings and excerpts from the conversations of Φο tiya on the Rossov invasion, but all this comes out rather unconvincingly. More accurately, it seems to us, we mean here the invasion of the Saracens and other barbarians, who for 7 years besieged Constantinople under Constantine Pogonatus (668–685), by the way, and in view of the fact that there is a hint of the invasion of the Russians in another place in our monument, namely: 4) June 25 - τῶν Σαρακινῶν καὶ τῶν Ῥ ούν ἡ ἔλευσις . Although the word: Ῥ ούν can hardly be explained grammatically and philologically, it is nevertheless quite possible to recognize in it an indication of the Russes, especially in view of the admitted illiteracy of the scribe of the manuscript. In all likelihood, this scribe either did not properly understand the manuscript from which he copied, or made a mistake by writing instead of σ - ν. The original probably contained either Ρως or Ρους - and then this was undoubtedly an indication of the Russes. This guess is confirmed to some extent by the rituals included in the church service for this day, to a much greater extent than the rituals of June 5th. On June 5, the starting point of the litiya is the Church of John the Baptist in Eudoma (ἐν τῷ Ἑ βδ ό μ ῳ), and on the 25th - the Church of the Virgin Mary in Blachernae. From the conversations of Φο tiy, a contemporary of the event, it is known that during the Russian siege of Constantinople, the clothes of the Mother of God 73 were worn along the walls of the city, which, as can be seen from the legend placed in our monument, was kept in Blachernae. Hence, it seems quite appropriate, while celebrating the Remembrance of this siege, to go with the litia to Blachernae, and not to another place. As for the Saracens mentioned next to the Russians, this may be a hint that, according to the testimony of the same Photius 74, at the beginning of the siege, Emperor Michael was not at home and that he was on a campaign against the Saracens, from whom he also managed to get rid of. Regarding the order of the celebration of June 25, it must be said that it is not as solemn as the 5th, but basically the same. The troparion at the litia is the same, and even a reference is made to the 5th of June, the gospel laid down is the same, but the apostle is different. (To Ephesians. Brethren, God is rich in mercy, and the gospel of the storm at sea from Matthew). 5. In memory of persons who became famous for the organization of religious and civil life in Constantinople. Memories, or holidays, in memory of such persons occupy a very prominent place in our monument; such persons were mainly some of the kings and patriarchs. There are relatively few royal memories. They are as follows: 1) May 21 - “the holy kings Constantine and Helen; 2) January 14 – “Lion the Great King”; 3) Sunday of raw food week - “in the piety of the reigning kings Marcian and Pulcheria; 4) Aug. 13 – “in the piety of the remaining Queen Evdokia”; 5) 14 Nov. - Justinian and Theodora; 6) 7 and 9 Av. – “in the piety of the remaining Queen Irene.” Despite the fact that, except for Constantine and Helena, none of the kings and queens are called saints, some of them are nevertheless entitled to troparions glorifying their merits in favor of Orthodoxy - and this is obviously the reason for including their commemorations among church celebrations. Thus, in the troparion in memory of Justinian and Theodora, we read that they shone with the deeds of Orthodoxy and extinguished all slander ( σβέσαντες κακοδοξίαν) and in the troparion in memory of Marcian and Pulcheria - that they, the zealots of Orthodoxy (ζηλωταὶ ὀρθοδοξίας), happily overthrew Dioscorus and those who were like-minded with him Nestoria. Incomparably more than the memories of the patriarchs. We have counted 34 names and present them here in chronological order, indicating the dates of the month under which they occur and the approximate year of death. 1) Mitrofan (4 June † 325) 2), Alexander (20 November 340), 3) Paul the Confessor (6 November 350), 4) Macedonius (25 April 360) 5) Gregory Nazianzen (25 Jan 381) 6) Nektarios (11 Oct. 397) Flavian (Week of the Raw Food. 449), 14) Anatoly (November 20 and July 3, 458), 15) Gennady (November 20, 471), 16) Epiphanius (Aug. 23, June 5, 535), 17) Mina (Aug. 25, 552), 18) John Scholasticus (Aug. 25, 552), 18) John Scholasticus (Aug. 25, 552). 577), 19) Eutyches (April 6, 582), 20) John the Faster (Sept. 2, 595), 21) Cyriacus (March 6, 606), 22) Soma (November 14, 610), 23) Thomas II (March 24, 669), 24) Constantine (Aug. 9, 676), 25) Theodore (28 Dec. 676 and 686), 26) Theorius (Aug. 18, 683), 27) Paul the new (Sept. 2, 693), 28) Callinicus (Aug. 25, 705), 29) John V Ι (Aug. 18, 715), 30) Germanus (May 12, 730), 31) Tarasius (Feb. 25, 806), 32) Nikephoros (June 2, 815); 33) Methodius (June 14, 846), 34) Ignatius (Oct. 23, 877). Many of these patriarchs are given special services with troparions dedicated to the glorification of their merits for the church and the defense of Orthodoxy; about some there are biographical notes, sometimes very brief, for example, about John the Faster and John Chrysostom, and sometimes quite extensive, for example, about Herman; some are simply characterized by not many, but expressive epithets, for example, τοῦ ἐν ἁ γίοις πατρός ἡμῶν καὶ ὁμολογητοῦ Μεθοδίου πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπό λεως , τοῦ τὴν ὀρθοδοξίαν ἀνεγείραντος, καὶ τὴν πλα᾿νην ἀποδιόξαντος. As for other saints who devoted their activities to the building of the Church of Constantinople, quite a few of them are indicated in our monument, for example, Roman the Sweet Singer, Theodore the Studite, Maximus the Confessor, Michael Sincellus, Evdokim and many others. others. Some of them also have biographical notes. It must be said about these biographical notes that, taken separately, they do not represent anything special in the sense of news of the facts they report: almost everything that we find in them, we can also find in the Synaxarist of Nicodemus, or the Minology of Basil; but, taken together, they can characterize to some extent the height of development and the nature of the mood of the compiler of the Charter - a Byzantine of the 8th-9th centuries. Considering them from this point of view, we find a curious duality in them. On the one hand, the author recommends himself as a rather gullible person, fond of apocryphal and other legends of very dark origin, and on the other hand, he shows extraordinary respect for all kinds of knowledge, scholarship and poetry. It is remarkable that, speaking about saints who left behind various kinds of works or who became famous for their learning or poetic gift, he carefully notes this in his biographies. Thus, speaking about Roman the Sweet Singer (Oct. 1), he did not fail to report that this saint, who settled in Constantinople under Anastasia and served in the Church of the Mother of God ἐν τοῖις Κύρου, received from the Mother of God the gift of composing kontakia (χάρισμα ἔλαβεν) and that the number of kontakia composed by him extends to 1000 (περὶ τὰ χίλια). Speaking about the Monk Mark the monk (March 5), he lists almost all of his works, even by name. Speaking about Patriarch Herman (May 12), he persistently points out the fact that this patriarch was a poet and compiled tropologies for all holidays and for many saints, full of God's grace and knowledge, and extraordinary sweetness (εὐφυής ὢ ν καὶ ἁ σματικός. ἐποίησεν τροπολογία εἰς τε πάσας ἑορτάς καὶ εἰς ἁ γ ί ους πλείστους πλήρη χάριτος θεοῦ καὶ γνώ – σεως ὄντα , ἅ τινα τῷ τῆς καρδίας αἰσθητήρια ). Sometimes he expresses extraordinary respect and love also for classical learning, literature and poetry. Thus, speaking about the Martyr Catherine of Alexandria (November 25), he almost enthusiastically describes her deep knowledge of classical literature, poetry, and philosophy. Α ὕ τη π ᾶ σαν παιδείαν ἑλληνικήν καὶ ῥ ωμαϊκὴν ἀκριβῶς ἐγγυμνασθεῖσα , φημῖ δὴ Ὁ μ ή ρου σοφοῦ καὶ Βηργιλίου τοῦ Ῥ ?? Ἀριστοτέλους καὶ Πλάτωνος, Φιλιστίωνος καὶ εὐσεβέων φιλο ?? ?? ... τούς ὁρῶντας αὐτήν , ἀλλὰ καὶ τούς ἀκούοντας τὴν φήμην τῆς παιδείας καὶ τῆς σοφίας αὐτῆς . (Compare Συνα ξαριστὴς I. 296). 6. Celebrations in honor of ecumenical councils. Listing above the kings and patriarchs mentioned in the monthly text of our Charter, we noticed that the listed persons are glorified mainly for their zeal for the defense of Orthodoxy against heresies. Looking more carefully at the list of patriarchs, one can notice that they appear in the monthly calendar, as it were, in series according to their proximity to the fight against this or that heresy and according to their participation in this struggle, which took place mainly through one or another ecumenical council. Ecumenical councils, in addition to their general church significance for the Church of Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire, undoubtedly had their own special local significance, since the heresies against which the councils fought appeared in the east and threatened, first of all, Greek Byzantine Orthodoxy, and then the Byzantine state, and the latter no less than the first, since they supported the separatist aspirations of nationalities, inhabited the outskirts of the empire and thus threatened its integrity. It is not surprising, therefore, that in Constantinople both the spiritual and secular authorities, and even the people, always followed the activities of the councils with the most lively participation, as if they were their own personal business. The councils met for the most part either in Constantinople itself (3 councils) or in the places closest to it: in Chalcedon (one) and in Nicaea (two); only the third ecumenical council met in a city more distant from the capital, in Ephesus, perhaps because the subject of its discussions was too close to the population of Constantinople: it was the dignity of the Mother of God - the patroness of the city. But for that reason, the Constantinople people, apparently, did not consider him one of their own. Our Charter does not allow for the memory of only this council, while all others are remembered. The decisions of the councils were carried out by the emperors and made known to the people. In Constantinople, on the Augusteon Square in the so-called Milie, cathedrals were even depicted in paintings for general edification and information 75 . Based on what has been said, holidays in honor of ecumenical councils can be considered as those that appeared in the Charter in response to local needs and sentiments, if not exclusively, then to a significant extent. We said that our monument commemorates six cathedrals, all except the third. The first is remembered on the seventh Sunday after Easter, i.e. the last before Pentecost, the second on August 3, the fourth on July 16, the fifth on the first Sunday after the fourth, the sixth on September 15 and the seventh on October 11. Their celebration was, in all likelihood, the same in composition for everyone; however, in the Charter the celebration of some is set out in more detail than others, which seems to indicate the greater solemnity of their celebration. More solemn, apparently, were the festivities in honor of the first, and partly the fourth and fifth councils. As for major holidays, for the first cathedral there is a παραμονὴ, that is, a divine service in honor of the cathedral on the evening before the holiday. This service began with Vespers with antiphons and the reading of three passages from the books of the Old Testament or the so-called proverbs today. At the end of Vespers, “the archdeacon says: Wisdom is the reading (προανάγνωσις) until the all-night vigil, and then there is the all-night vigil according to the rite.” On the morning of the very day of the holiday, Matins is performed in the pulpit, and after Matins the proclamations of the holy councils are read - ί ων συνόδων, that is, probably eternal memory to the fathers of the councils and anathema to heretics. Then followed the liturgy with special antiphons and readings from the Apostle and the Gospel, adapted to the occasion. The charter of the service of the fourth and fifth councils is described similar to the charter of the first, but shorter. The difference is that there are special troparia in memory of these councils and the reading of the cathedral definition at the liturgy after the Trisagion - καὶ μετὰ τὸ τρισάγιον ἀναγινώσκετὰι ὁ ὅ ρος. In memory of the second and sixth councils, no charter of service is set forth; there is no mention of reading ὁ ὅ ρος. The Seventh Council is also only mentioned, but with an indication of the reading of the conciliar definition - συνόδου τῆς ἐν Νικαί ᾳ τὸ δεύτερον. The Week of Orthodoxy is not mentioned at all. This fact is worth paying attention to, since it concerns the history of one of the most popular Byzantine holidays, namely the holiday in honor of the triumph of Orthodoxy in 842. The Charter we are examining, as stated above, was compiled at the beginning of the 9th century. The fact that it is silent about the Orthodox holiday agrees with this. But at the same time, there is no doubt that this Charter was again edited at the end of the 9th century, after the death of Patriarch Ignatius in 878, and significant additions were made to it in memory. How can we explain that these additions did not include the memory of the Orthodox holiday on Sunday of the first week of Lent? It seems to us that this can only be explained by the fact that at the end of the 9th century. and even in X, such a holiday did not exist in Byzantium at all, or at least it existed in a different form. Taking into account the method described above for celebrating the memory of the first ecumenical council, one can think that this particular holiday was the holiday of Orthodoxy in the 9th century. 76, since it differed from others in its greater solemnity and in that the προσφωνητικοί were read not of this one council, but of councils in general, that is, all, therefore the seventh. The timing of the Orthodox holiday to coincide with the first week of Lent happened much later, after many hesitations, not earlier than the end of the 10th century. or even the first half of the 11th century. We find the oldest information about such a date in the book of Constantine Porphyrogenitus De caerimoniis 77. But the charter of the ritual of the week of Orthodoxy, placed here, is of such a kind that it can hardly be considered compiled with this particular day in mind, since there are no hints of fasting services in it. One might think that this charter was originally drawn up for another day that did not fall during Lent. According to the liturgical monuments of the first half of the 11th century. such a day could be the day of remembrance of the seventh ecumenical council on October 11 or the Sunday following it. So in the Gospel we mentioned more than once, described by Ivanov, on October 11 the following remark was made: “The great church commemorates the seventh council on a weekday” 78 . What day of the week is this? Morcelli, referring to the menaion, states that this was the first Sunday after October 11, 79. In the calendar published by Scholz, the holiday in honor of the seventh council, October 11, is directly called the holiday of Orthodoxy - ἡ ὀρθοδοξία 80. In the monthly book of the Apostle of the 11th century, belonging to the library of the Panteleimon Monastery on Athos, regarding the memory of the seventh ecumenical council on October 11, it is said as follows: ῇ ἐπιτελοῦμεν τὴν μνήμην τῆς ζ ´ συνόδου, καταβ. ... and regarding the first week of fasting: εἴτουν τῆς ὀρθοδοξίας, μνήμη (instead of the original: νηστειῶν μνήμη) τῶν ἁ γίων προφητῶν Μωσέως, Ααρὼ ν, Σαμουὴλ καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν, καταβ. ἦχ. β ´ τὴν τῶν ἀληθινῶν δογμάτων, and reference is made to October 11, 81. Here one can see both the fluctuation of church practice regarding the time of celebration of the restoration of Orthodoxy, and the dependence of the celebration of the first week of Lent on October 11 or the Sunday following it. The indication of the first week of Lent here is clearly later than the indication of the Sunday following October 11. As for the time of origin of the main distinctive feature of the celebration, that is, the reading of the Synodik, it is also determined by the half of the 11th century. F. I. Uspensky, in his last work on the Synodik of the Week of Orthodoxy, expresses the idea that Patriarch Mikhail Kirulary took part in the compilation of the Synodik, since the first part of the Synodik is nothing more than the word spoken by Kirulary on the occasion of the holiday of Orthodoxy 82. If so, then it can be considered almost certain that it was to this patriarch that both the establishment of a certain Form of celebrating the memory of the triumph of Orthodoxy and the final timing of this celebration to the first week of Lent belonged. ΙΙΙ. Liturgical element. This element in our monument is, of course, the most abundant and important. It is worth special study, but this is not our task. Such a study is even impossible for us, since it requires numerous comparisons and references with other monuments of the same kind, partly printed, and even more and mainly handwritten, the existence of which we know, but which we do not have at hand. We will limit ourselves to indicating only the characteristic features of the liturgical practice described in our monument. We have already indicated some features of this practice in the analysis of the historical element, but this is far from sufficient for a clear idea of ​​it. The information contained in our monument relates mainly, and even almost exclusively, to holiday services and consists of indicating those modifications to which the usual rite of worship is subjected on each day of the year under the influence of the church calendar. As for ordinary, daily or non-holiday services, its general order seems to be known, and therefore information about it is fragmentary, fleeting and generally scarce. Nevertheless, they are extremely important, especially in the sense that they confirm and combine the information that we have about this subject from other sources. Therefore, we must pay special attention to them. 1) The circle of ordinary daily worship consists of morning and evening worship and liturgy. We will begin with the liturgy, as the central service. The liturgy is distinguished in our monument into two types: the daily (καθημερινὴ) and the presanctified gifts (προηγιασμένων), while the names of the authors of these liturgies are not mentioned and, in particular, no hint is given of the distinction in the liturgical practice of the liturgy of St. Basil from the liturgy of St. Chrysostom, if you do not count as such a hint the indication of singing on some days, instead of the Cherubim, “Let all flesh be silent,” which currently constitutes the difference between the liturgy celebrated on Holy Saturday. Then, as for the very course of the liturgy, our monument mentions the antiphons with which the liturgy began, but which did not constitute its inevitable accessory, for there are sometimes, for example. on holidays, when lithium was supposed to be, there was no - ἀντίφωνα δε οὐ γίνονται. There were different antiphons on different days. Further mention is made of the entrance, the trisagion, the prokeimenon, the reading of the Apostle, the hallelujah with verses, the reading of the Gospel, the Cherubic hymn, which was sung three times on Easter and instead of which on some days it was supposed to be sung: “Let all flesh be silent” or “Thy secret supper” (on Maundy Thursday), the cynic or sacramental verse and the final exclamation: Let us depart in peace, which served as a vacation. There is no mention of prayer behind the pulpit. All this is completely consistent with what we know about the composition of the liturgy in the 8th – 9th centuries. according to other documents, namely according to the most ancient lists of the liturgy, such as, for example. Barberinovsky, Rosansky and Rumyantsevsky or Sevastyanovsky, So, as for the inscription of the names of Sts. Basil and John Chrysostom, then the most ancient lists of the liturgy 83, for example. Sevastyanovsky, show that in ancient times this inscription took place not over the full rite of the liturgy in its entirety, but only over some prayers, namely: over the prayer for the catechumens before the anaphora and over the prayer of the proskomedia after the presentation of the gifts, which was immediately followed by the anaphora or canon of the liturgy. At the same time, the prayers of the liturgy of Chrysostom were not allocated to a special rite, but were added to the prayers of Basil as an option. As for the general inscription over the entire set of prayers, it was simple: Εὐχαὶ or Εὐχαὶ τῆς μυσταγωγίας. This explains why the author of the Rule does not distinguish between the two liturgies. In the same way, the end of the liturgy, indicated by our monument in the form of an exclamation: Ἐν εἰρήν ῃ προέλθωμεν, is completely justified by the ancient lists of the liturgy, for example, the Barberinovsky, where the same exclamation appears at the end. That this exclamation, according to the meaning of the instructions in our monument, is truly final, this is evident from many places, especially from those in which it is indicated immediately after the liturgy to perform some other church service, without dismissing the people. In these cases, the deacon, instead of: ἐν εἰρήν ῃ προέλθωμεν said: Σοφία, and then the indicated rites were performed, after which the vacation was taken. For example, on the eve of Epiphany on January 5th at the end of the liturgies - ἀπολύει τὸν λαὸν , ἀλλ ’ ἀντὶ τοῦ Ἐν εἰρήν ῃ προέλθωμεν δίδοται Σοφια καὶ ἐπιτίθησιν ὁ ἀρχιδιά κονος τὸ ὠ μοφ ό ριον τῷ Ἀρχιεπισκόπ ῳ, ἐμπροσθεν εἰς τὸ ἐσώτερον τῆς ἁ γίας τραπέζης ... The following describes the ritual of blessing the water, which is first blessed in the church, and then in the lutira (λουτὴρ), where they go with the singing of the troparion: The Voice of the Lord on the waters. After this, that is, the rite of blessing, with the singing of the same troparion τὸ Ἐν εἰρήν ῃ προέλθωμεν . Other church services ended with the same exclamation. Less information is given in our monument about the order of performing the Liturgy of the Presanctified. The peculiarity is noticeable here in the fact that it is prescribed to be performed not only on those days on which it is performed now, but also on Wednesday and Friday of cheese week and on Good Friday. The order of morning and evening services is also not set out in our Charter, since it is assumed to be known from other liturgical books. But what was well known in the 9th century seems quite obscure to us. The fact is that the Charter we are examining refers to a special system of church services, which has long gone out of use and is insufficiently explained by the ancient liturgical monuments known today. All the more precious should be the instructions that our monument gives us, although these instructions are rather meager and fragmentary. Of the morning services, our monument indicates two - Matins itself (ὄρθρον) and the so-called τριτοέκτη or τριθέκτη - the combination of the services of the third and sixth hours. Of the components of Matins, our monument mentions: antiphons (3, 4 and even 10), immaculate, (ἀμωμοι) or the verse of the 17th kathisma of the psalter, the entrance from the narfik into the church, the verse of biblical songs and the fiftieth psalm, which coincided with the troparion of the holiday, the singing of Glory to God in the highest concluding it with the Trisagion. The first part of Matins before the entrance was performed in the narfik, and the rest on the pulpit; but sometimes, on major holidays, it was all performed on the pulpit. The tritekti service was guard duty. Of its components, the following are mentioned: three antiphons, troparia, entrance, prokeimenon. The evening service - ἑσπερινὰ - consisted of λυχνικὸν and παννυχίς - vespers and all-night vigil. For Vespers, the following are indicated: the verse of the psalms: Lord incline your ear and the Lord has cried to you, entrance, prokeimenon, special litany (τὸ μέγα Κύριε ἐλέησον), three small antiphons, litany of petition (εὐχή συναπτὴ μετὰ τῶν αἰτ ή ςεων), on holidays, reading proverbs, singing a troparion and selected verses from any psalm with περισσὴ, i.e., intensified repetition of the last verse from glory to now. (See, for example, the rite of Vespers on the eve of the Ascension). Less information is reported about the all-night vigil. It is mostly said about it that it is performed according to order (καὶ λοιπὸν γίνεται ἡ παννυχὶς κατὰ τάξιν). In only one place we find some details, namely: after the presentation of the services of the fifth week of Lent, a remark is made that on one of the Sundays of Great Lent, on whichever the Patriarch orders, on the middle or the next after it, there is an all-night vigil in Blachernae in this way (γίνεται ἡ παννυχὶς ἐν Βλαχερ - ναῖς ο ὔ τως): in the evening two weekly shifts of readers (αἱ δύο ἑβδομάριοι τῶν ἀναγνωστῶν) go to Blachernae, and one of the lines performs vespers and kondakion; the Trinitarian Office and the Midnight Office are performed by local readers ( ( ) Matins is performed by another shift (ἑβδομάς) of readers with the participation of the ascitirius of the Great Church 84. From this it is clear that the all-night vigil, or memorial service, was a complex service; It included, among other things: the singing of kondakari, Trinity songs and the Midnight Office. The only reference to kondakari is here. The canons are not mentioned at all, although at that time they undoubtedly existed, and some of their creators, for example, I. Damascene and Theophanes, recorded in the monthly book. From these meager and unclear indications one can see that we are dealing here with a special system of service, which has long gone out of use and forgotten, namely the so-called “song succession” (ἀσματικὴ ἀκολουθία). This system of service was dominant in the Eastern Church at least until the 13th century. By its nature, it is directly related to ancient Christian worship and, in particular, to the type of worship about which we now have information from the description of a Western traveler to holy places of the 25th century. Sylvia. In all likelihood, this type of church services moved to Constantinople from Jerusalem, directly or through Antioch. In Constantinople, it apparently received a new development and was especially strengthened in the church of St. Sofia, where this was facilitated by a large staff of clergy and singers. Later compilers of statutes and liturgists (for example, Simeon of Thessalonica) considered it as a special feature of the statute of the Great Church 85, but in fact it was more widespread and was considered normal for cathedral and secular churches. At one time, this type of church service was translated into the Slavic language and was adopted by the Slavic Church. In many ancient Slavic manuscripts, more or less significant passages from it are still preserved, for example. “Prayers of the funeral service”, “Prayers of the Third Sixth”, etc. 86, but these are all excerpts. It is very difficult to reconstruct on their basis the entire course and all the features of the ancient song sequence. The Greek materials printed by Gohar 87 are of the same nature. There is truth and a systematic description of the song sequence, compiled by the famous liturgist of the ΧΙ 5th century. Simeon Archbishop of Thessalonica, but it cannot be considered completely satisfactory and reliable. This description was thoroughly examined by Professor Mansvetov in his articles: On the song sequence 88, and it turned out that Simeon had in mind a later form of this sequence, but in some places modified by the influence of the Studio Charter, and that he does not present it entirely in accordance with reality. But also Mr. Mansvetov, noticing the confusion in Simeon, could not untangle it and presented many things, for example, the sequence of the memorial service, in a not entirely correct and even confused form. The reason no doubt lies in the lack of reliable evidence. The indications from our monument, if compared with other ancient indications, could probably be of great help to the future researcher of this important and interesting subject. 2. The festive service, understood in a broad sense as a service adapted to the church memories of each day, constitutes the main content of our monument, but it does not give us much material. This divine service is the same thing, an ordinary daily divine service, modified to suit church memorials. But these changes very rarely concern the order and composition of the service, and mainly consist only of replacing some readings or chants with others. On different days there are different prokeimenons, hallelujah verses, troparia, readings from the Apostle and the Gospel, cynicisms, and all this is very monotonous. We do not need to touch on these monotonous features and will list here only those holidays that in the 9th century. were considered especially important and were singled out from a number of others as highly solemn days, and we will follow the order of the monument itself, i.e., the month and triodion. The charter begins in September and, without a doubt, with the service at the beginning of the indictment, that is, the new summer. But, due to the loss of the first sheet, the most important part of the service for this day is gone. There is only the end of the litany, it is not known where the former was, indicating readings from the Apostle and the Gospel. Next is the liturgy 89. September 8 - the Nativity of the Virgin Mary - is also a holiday and there is a reference to the service on this day in another place in the Charter, but the sheet containing a description of this service has been lost. September 14 - the Exaltation of the Cross - was considered a great holiday. Worship of the cross began on the 10th. But the description of the erection ceremony is also lost. Only the first few words remain, from which it is clear that this ceremony took place at Matins after Glory to God in the highest. October and November do not present anything remarkable, except for several lithiums on the occasion of earthquakes, as mentioned above. In December, in addition to the holidays of the renewal of the Chalcopratian Church and the Great Church, as we have spoken about, the holiday of the Nativity of Christ is celebrated. The rituals of worship for this holiday have some peculiarities and a solemn character, but not so much on the very day of the holiday, but on the eve of it, in the evening, εἰς τὴν παραμονὴν. Beginning with the usual Vespers (ἑσπέρας ἀρχόμεθα τὸ Κλῖνον Κύριε), this service is complicated by the reading of seven proverbs, alternately with the singing of antiphons and troparia, and ends with the celebration of the liturgy, for which the apostle, the gospel and the cynic are indicated. The description with particular insistence points out the difference in the ritual of the so-called department if παραμονὴ happens not on a fast day, but on Saturday or Sunday. In this case, the patriarch should not have sat on the sineron (ἐν τῷ συνθρ ό ν ῳ), but on the left side on a special bench; the Gospel was based on the sinerone. At the end of the description, a new insistent remark is made on this score: ἔστι νηστεία, οὐκ ἔξεστι καθέζεσθαι ἐν τῷ συνθρόν ῳ, ἀλλὰ πλαγίας εἰς ἕ τερον σκάμνον . εἰ δὲ ἐστι νηστεία γίνεται ἡ καθέδρα ἐν τῷ συνθρόν ῳ. At the end of the evening service there is a reading (προανάγνωσις) of the words of St. Gregory the Theologian and other fathers until the all-night vigil. At Matins on the very day of the holiday, three ascitirs sing on the pulpit 18 antiphons σύν τοῦ μεγάλου (?), and at the entrance of the patriarch at the liturgy after the second antiphon ὁ διάκονος προσεκβάλλει τὸ εὐαγγέλιον εἰς τούς μέσους πυλῶνας . January 6 – Baptism of Christ. The service on this holiday is generally very similar to the service on Christmas. At the evening service there was a liturgy, but at the end of it, instead of: Let us depart in peace, the deacon said: Wisdom, and the blessing of the water was performed by the patriarch, first in the church, and then in the lutira. Regarding the rite of the department, here too there is a remark similar to the above. If the vigil takes place on Saturday or Sunday, then two Gospels are brought and one is based on St. meal, and the bishop places the other on the co-altar (εἰς τὸν σύνθρονον). Before the liturgy, on the very day of the holiday, the procession of the newly enlightened is performed according to the order found in the description of the Feast of Pentecost. February 2. Circumcision of the Lord. The holiday was celebrated in the Chalcopratian church, in Blachernae and in the Great Church, and there was a lithium for the forum. March 25. Annunciation to St. Mother of God. The main celebration took place in the Chalkopratian church, where the lithium from the Great Church was sent the night before, and then the usual liturgy (καθημερινὴ) and the all-night vigil according to the rite were performed. On the morning of the day of the holiday, after Matins and the tritect, the prayer of the Trisagion was read, and then the singers began the litany on the pulpit by singing the troparion for the holiday. Litia headed to the forum, and from there back to Chalcopratia, where the patriarch served the liturgy. Since the Feast of the Annunciation could coincide with various days of Holy Week and Easter, when a special divine service was supposed to be held, also of a festive nature, the compiler of the Charter indicates in some detail how this coincidence is reflected in the divine service. Sometimes this service becomes less solemn, and sometimes more solemn. So, if the Annunciation happened on Easter Monday, then the festive litia went to the forum, from the forum to the church of the Mother of God εἰς τοῖς Διακονίσσης, and from there to the church of Sts. Apostles. It seems very interesting, moreover, that the compiler of the Charter foresees the possibility of the Feast of the Annunciation coinciding with Saturday in Easter week. This could only be if Easter could be on March 19th. Is this a personal speculation of the charterer, or is it really in the 9th century. Otherwise they calculated the day of Easter, it’s hard to say. With the method of calculating the day of Easter, which has been accepted in the Orthodox Church since the time of the first ecumenical council, Easter cannot be earlier than March 21, but with the method adopted by the Western Church, Easter is also possible on March 19. July 2. Feast of the placement of the robe of the Mother of God in Blachernae under King Leo. This holiday was celebrated in Blachernae, where the patriarch served. After Matins, the patriarch went to the Church of St. Lawrence and from there went with the litia to the Church of Our Lady of Blachernae to serve the liturgy. August 15. Dormition of St. Mother of God. A legend about the Assumption is given in the Charter, compiled by John, Bishop of Thessalonica. The holiday took place in the Great Church. In the morning before the liturgy there was a litany for the forum. Even more interesting is the description of Lenten and Easter services. The description starts from the week before. meat-empty. Features of the service consisted of the celebration of the Liturgy of the Presanctified, tritekty and requiem services, during which particularly abundant reading from the Old Testament was allowed. From the second week of Lent, according to ancient custom, the preparation of catechumens for Baptism began - ἀναγινώσκεται τὸ προσφωνικὸν τῶν κατηχουμένων. On Lazarus Saturday (τῷ σαββάτ ῳ τῆς Βαιφόρου), after Matins, baptism itself was supposed to be performed (γίνονται λοιπο τὰ βαπτίσματα ). On the week of Vay, matins were performed in the pulpit, and before the liturgy, a lithium from the church of 40 martyrs came to the Great Church. On Holy Thursday, after the tritekty, the bathing of St. meal, and after Vespers the washing of the feet, with the priest and the brethren appearing as the characters ἱερέως ). The washing of the feet was followed by a liturgy with singing, instead of the Cherubim: “Thy secret Supper,” as now. On Great Heel they rely on: the veneration of the spear, in accordance with the testimony of other Byzantine liturgical monuments, the solemn entry of the patriarch at Vespers and the Liturgy of the Presanctified. On Holy Saturday in the morning - again the entrance of the patriarch during the Trisagion for Glory to God in the highest. Readings from the Old Testament followed, along with the great and petitionary litany and dismissal. - “About the sixth hour the king comes and changes his clothes at the holy meal, and after this the patriarch censes and the church opens” ( ἀλλάσσει τὴν ἐνδυτὴν τῆς ἁ γίας τραπέζης μετὰ τοῦτο θυμι ᾷ ὁ πατριάρχης , καὶ ἀνοίγετὰι ἡ ἐκκλησία ). At Vespers, the solemn baptism of the catechumens and their anointing take place. This is already the third term of baptism. However, a case is foreseen when there are no baptized people. Baptism is followed by liturgy. The service for Easter, since there is no canon, is significantly different in nature from the modern one. Matins begins with the antiphons and immaculates, which, according to custom, were sung in the narfik. Then we went inside the church. In the description of the liturgy, attention is drawn to a passage relating to the rite of reading the Gospel, which, unfortunately, is greatly damaged and therefore little understood. After the apostle and hallelujah ἀρχὴν, τὸ γαρ Ῥ ωμαϊκὸν ὁ διά κονος ἀναγινώσκει τὸ Εὐαγγέλων. ?? ? Εἰρήνη π ᾶ σιν. Ἰ κ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰ ωάννην ἁ γίου Εὐαγγελίου τὸ ἀνάγνωμα ἀρχιδιάκονος λέγει Ἐν σοφί ᾳ πρόσχωμεν . ? ἐστ ὼ ς ἐν τῷ ἄμβωνι ἐκφωνεῖ βράζων τὰ λεγόμενο , ἐκ τοῦ πατριάρχου ο ὕ τως Ἐν ἀρχή ἦ ν ὁ λόγως. τελ. διὰ Ἰ ησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο. Obviously, we are talking about the ritual of reading the Gospel in different languages, but on the basis of the passage cited, it is difficult to imagine this ritual with all clarity. The subsequent days of Bright Week were dedicated to festivities in other churches. So on Monday the celebration took place in the Church of St. Apostles, on Tuesday - in Chalcopratia, on Wednesday - in Blachernae, on Thursday and Friday - again in the Great Church. These festivities were distinguished by lithiums and the service of the patriarch. The weeks following Easter were dedicated to various church memories. Thus, in the third week after Easter, the memory of Joseph of Arimathea and Mary Magdalene was celebrated, in the seventh - the memory of the 318 Fathers of Nicaea, etc. The circle of moving holidays consisted of the Ascension and Pentecost. The most noticeable features are found in the Description of the service for the last holiday. After Matins, on this day there was supposed to be a solemn baptism of the catechumens and their anointing with chrism in the baptistery (ἐν τῷ βαπτηρί ῳ), but our Rules say nothing about the subsequent genuflection, usually performed on the day of Pentecost. The next day, Monday after Pentecost, the remembrance of deliverance from some earthquake was celebrated, and the next Sunday was dedicated to the memory of all saints, or ? μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰ ησοῦ Χριστοῦ . The second Sunday after Pentecost is dedicated to the memory of Theodore, called ῥ οδιαμὸς. This is where the manuscript ends. This is, in general terms, its content. We tried to extract from it everything that seemed to us the most remarkable and characteristic, and it seems to us that our extracts are enough to understand the importance of the monument. It remains to be wished that this monument will be published in its entirety and with attention as soon as possible. Then it will be possible for everyone interested in Byzantine antiquities to study it. For our part, we do not lose hope in time to once again return to this monument, which represents quite a significant number of very interesting and important points for research. As a sample, we present here in the original several extracts from the monument we disassembled, based on an abbreviated copy from it belonging to the monastery of St. Panteleimon on Athos. At the same time, we consider it necessary to note that the spelling of the passages we have printed does not fully correspond to the original spelling of the Patmos Manuscript. It was corrected by the copyist, and partly by us, in those places that did not inspire doubt about its meaning. The same passages that inspired such doubts were left as they are read in the copy and in the original. In conclusion, we consider it a pleasant duty to express our deep gratitude to A.A. Dmitrievsky, who gave us the opportunity to familiarize ourselves with the monument in its entirety, and our venerable comrades: A.V. Nikitsky and S.D. Papadimitriou, who helped us in reviewing and correcting the Greek text. Extracts from the statutes of the Church of St. Sophia, According to the manuscript of the Panteleimon Athos Monastery, pp. 2631, 40–46, 117–135, 157–159. [Μὴν Δ ε κ έ μ β р ι о ς ·] ι ή Ἄ θλησις τοῦ ὁσίου Φλώρου ... Καὶ τὰ ἐγκαίνια τῆς Ἁ γίας Θεοτόκου τῶν Χαλκοπρατείων . Ἕ ωθεν μέντοι συντρέχομεν ἐν τ ῇ Ἁ γιωτάτ ῃ Με γάλ ῃ Ἐκκλησία καὶ ο ὕ τω λιτανεύοντες ἀπερχόμεθα ἐν τῇ εἰρημέν ῃ συνάξει. Ἑ σπέρας εἰς τὴν Παραμονὴν κατέρχεται ὁ πατριάρχης , ὡ ς προσύνηθες, καὶ εἰσοδεύει. καὶ μετὰ τὸ προκείμενον καὶ τὰ γ ´ ἀντίφωνα μικρὰ γίνετὰι ?? a´ Βασιλειῶν τρίτης. ... ... τέλος • ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσι χάριν . • ἔτη ζωῆς, οἱ ψάλται ἐν τῷ ἄμβωνι λέγουσι τροπάρ. ἦ χ: βαρύς • Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη Θεοτόκε παρθένε κ. τ. λ. ὡ ς ὁ τύπος ἔχει , καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο λέγει ὁ ἀρχιδιάκονος • Σοφία , καὶ ἀνέρχεται προανάγνωσις καὶ γίνεται ἡ παννυχίς κατὰ τάξιν . Τὸν δὲ ὄρθρον ποιοῦμεν ἐν τῷ ἄμβωνι καὶ εἰς τὸν Ν ´ [ ψαλμὸν ] λέγομεν τροπάριον ἦ χ : δ ´• A ρατε πύλας οἱ ἄρχοντες ὑμῶν καὶ ἐπάρθητε πύλαι αἰώνιοι, καὶ εἰσελεύσετὰι ὁ βασιλεύς τῆς δόξης. καὶ περὶ ὥ ραν γ´ ἐξέρ χετὰι ἡ λιτὴ ἐκ τῆς Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας καὶ ἀρχονται οἱ ψάλται τό • Χαῖρε κεχαριτωμένη Θεοτόκε κ . τ. λ. Καὶ κατέρχεται ὁ πατ ριάρχης διὰ τοῦ Μολυβουργο ὖ εἰς τὴν • καὶ μετὰ τὴν συμπλήρωσιν τοῦ ψαλλομἐνου τροπαρίου ἄρχεται τὰ ὀρφανά τό • Ἄ ρατε πύλας οἱ ἄρχοντες ὑμῶν . καὶ ἀνοίγεται ἡ ἐκκλησία . ? τὸ τρισαγιον. τὸ προκείμενον ἦ χ : δ ´• Τῷ ο ἶ κ ῳ σου πρέπει ἁ γίασμα Κύριε ? Ἐβραίους • Ἀδελφοί, ἅ γιοι κλήσεως ἐπουρανίου. τέλος • ὁ δε τὰ πάντα σκευάσας Θεός . Ἀλληλούια ἦ χ : δ • Οἱ θεμέλιοι αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς ὄρεσι τοῖς ἅ γίοις ... Εὐαγγέλ: κατὰ Ματ θαῖον κεφ. ρξς ´• Τῷ καιρ ῳ ἐκείν ῳ ἐλθ ὼ ν ὁ Ἰ ησοῦς εἰς τὰ μέρη Καισαρίας ... τέλος • οὐ χατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς . Κοινωνικόν • Ἀγαλλι ᾶ στε δίκαιοι ἐν Κυρί ῳ... Κγ ´• Ἄ θλησις τῶν ἅ γιων ι ´ μαρτύρων τῶν ἐν Κρήτ ῃ... καὶ τὰ ἐγκαίνα τῆς Ἁ γιωτάτῆς Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας . Περί ὥ ραν γ ´ κατέρχεται ὁ πατριάρχης καὶ εἰςέρχεται διὰ τῆς ???? καὶ ἄρχονται οἱ ψάλται ἐν τῷ ἄμβωνι . Τροπάρ: ἦ χ: δ. Ἡ πόλις σου Θεοτόκε , ἡ ἐν σοί βασιλεύουσα μεγάλων λυτρωθεῖσα διὰ σου περιστάσεων, σέ ὕ μνον εὐρωστίας προβάλλεται, τὴν ἁ ὅ τι ἐποίησέ μοι μεγαλεῖα ὁ δυνατός καὶ μόνος πολυέλεος . Καὶ ἡνίκα ἐξέλθ ῃ ἡ λιτὴ ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας εὐθέως ἀσφαλί ζεται ἡ ἐκκλησία , καὶ ἀνέρχεται ἡ λιτὴ ἐν τῷ φόρ ῳ• καὶ δοζάζουσιν οἱ ψάλται τὸ αὐτὸ τροπάριον . Καὶ ὁ διάκονος τὸ μέγα Κύριε ἐλέησον • καὶ πάλιν ἄρχεται τροπάρ : ἦ χ : δ • Τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν , Κύριε , ὡ ς τῆς οἰκουμένης ὀφθαλμὸν ἐκ πάσης σου δικαὶας ἀπειλῆς ἐλευθέρωσον καὶ τοῖς σκήπτροις τῆς βασιλείας αὐτῆς διὰ παντὸς κατακόσμησον, βαρβάρων ἀποστροφήν καὶ τῶν κινδύνων ἀπαλλαγὴν διὰ τῆς Θεοτόκου δωρούμενος . Καὶ ὅ τε φθάσ ῃ ἡ λιτὴ εἰς τὸν νάρθηκα πλησίον τῶν μεγάλων πυλῶν μετὰ τὴν συμπλήρωσιν τοῦ τροπαρίου, εὐλογεῖ ὁ ?? ἡ λιτὴ καὶ γίνε ται εὐθύς εὐχή τοῦ τρισαγίου. Προκείμενον ἦ χ : γ ´ • Μέγας ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν καὶ μεγάλη ἡ ἰσχύς αὐτοῦ. στίχ: Αἰνεῖτε τὸν Κύριον, ὅ τι ἀγαθός … ὁ Ἀπόστολος πρὸς Ἑ βραίους, κεφ: ξβ ´ • Ἀδελφοί, τοιοῦτος ἡμῖν ἔπρεπεν ἀρχιερεύς. τέλος • ἣ ν ἔπηξεν ὁ Κύ ριος καὶ οὐκ ἄνθρωπος . Ἀλληλούια ἦ χ : α ´ Μνήσθητι τῆς συ ναγωγῆς σου ἦ ς ἐκτήσω ... Εὐαγγέλ : κατὰ Ἰ ωάννην κεφ : μβ ´• Τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείν ῳ ἐγένετο τὰ ἐγκαίνια ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ... τέλος • ἐγώ καὶ ὁ Πατήρ ἕ ν ἐσμεν . Κοινωνικόν • Ἀγαλλι ᾶ σθε , δίκαιοι ἐν Κυρί ῳ, Καὶ ἀντί τοῦ • Ἐν εἰρήν ῃ προέλθωμεν, ὁ διά κονος • Σοφία, καὶ γίνεται ἡ παννυχις κατὰ τὴν τάξιν. Δεῖ δὲ εἰδέναι, ὅ τι, ἐάν συμβ ῇ ἐν Σαββάτ ῳ ἡ ἕ ν Κυριακ ῇ ? Κλῖνον Κύριε • τὸ τελευταῖον καὶ τὸ • Κύριε ἐκέκραξα καὶ μετὰ τὴν εἴσοδον τοῦ πατριάρχου καὶ τὸ προκείμενον καὶ τὰ γ ´ ἀντίφωνα τὰ μικρά γίνεται ευχὴ συναπτὴ μετὰ τῶν αἰτήςεων καὶ λέγονται ἀναγνώσματὰ γ ´· τὸ α ´ Βασιλειῶν γ ´, τὸ β ´ Παροιμιῶν ?? λοιπὸν ψάλλομεν καθ ὼ ς προεγράφη εἰς τὰς ιη ´ τοῦ αὐτού μηνὸς εἰς τὰ ἐγκαίνια τῶν Χαλκοπρατείων . • Ὁ ? τὰς σάς ... [Μὴν Ἰ αννουάριος ·] έ • Ἄ θλησις τῆς ἁ γίας μάρτυρος Ἀπολλιναρίας. Τ ῇ αὐτ ῇ ἡμέρ ᾳ τοῦ ὁσίου Γρηγορίου τοῦ ἐν τῷ Ἀκρίτ ᾳ καὶ τοῦ ἁ γίου Λουκιανοῦ ἐπισκόπου καὶ Θωμ ᾶ, καὶ ἡ Παραμονὴ τῶν φώτων. Ἑ σπέρας μετὰ τὸ γενέσθαι τὰ γ ´ ἀντίφωνα τὰ μικρὰ , γίνεται ? ὑποτεταγμένα , τὸ α ´• Γενέσεως • Ἐν ἀρχ ῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς , τὸ β ´• τῆς Ἐξόδου • Ε ἶ πε Κύριος πρὸς Μωϋσῆν ..., τὸ γ ´ τῆς Ἐξόδου • Ἐξήρε Μωσῆς τῆς υἱούς ... καὶ λέγουσιν οἱ ψάλται τροπάρ. ἦ χ : β ´• Ἐπεφάνης ἐν τῷ κόσμ ῳ… κ . τ. λ. ὡ ς ὁ τύπος • τοῦτο δὲ λέγουσιν γ ´ καὶ γ ´ στίχ : ἐκ τοῦ ξς ´ ψαλμοῦ. στίχ: Ὁ Θεός, οἰκτιρήσαι ἡμᾶ ς, στίχ: Ἐξομολογείσθωσάν σοι λαοί, ὁ Θεός, στίχ: γ ´• Ἐξομολογησάσθωσάν σοι. καὶ κατὰ στίχ: δέχε ται ὁ λαὸς ἀπὸ τὸ • Φιλάνθρωπε, δόξα σοι. καὶ δοξάζει καὶ λέγει μίαν περισσήν , καὶ ε ἶ θ ’ ο ὕ τως ἀνέρχεται ἀνάγνωσμα δ ´• Ἰ ησοῦ τοῦ Ναυῆ • Ε ἶ πεν ὁ Κύριος πρὸς Ἰ ησοῦν,.. Ἀνάγν; ε ´• Βασιλειῶν δ ´• Ε ἶ πεν Ἠ λίας τῷ Ἐλισεέ , κάθου δή ... Ἀνοίγν : ς ´• Βασιλειῶν δ ´'• ... : ἦ χ : πλ . β ´• Ἀμαρτωλοῖς καὶ τελώναις κ . τ. λ. ὡ ς ὁ τόπος, στίχ: οἱ Ὁ Κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν εὐπρεπ ... στίχ: β ´• Ἐπῆραν οἱ ποτα μοί Κύριε ... στίχ : γ ´• Θαυμαστοὶ οἱ μετεωρισμοὶ τῆς θαλάσσης … καὶ δοξάζει καὶ λέγει Περισσήν ἀνέρχεται ἀνοίγν : ζ ´· Ἡ σαῖου • Τὰδε λέγει Κύριος · λούσασθε ... δεῖ δε εἰδέναι ὅ τι μέχρι τούτου ἀναγινώσκομεν , μὴ εἰςερχομένου τοῦ πατριάρχου ἐκ τοῦ Παλατίου , ἐὰν δὲ εἰσέλθη και ? η ´• Γενέσεως Ἀναβλέψας Ἰ ακώβ ε ἶ δε παρεμβολήν ... Ἀναγν : θ •´· τῆς Ἐξόδου • Κατέβη ἡ θυγάτηρ Φαραῶ , τέλος • ἐκ τοῦ ὕ δατος αὐτὸν ἀνειλόμην. καὶ εὐθύς προκείμ : ἦ χ : βαρύς • Ὁ Θεός τῶν δυνάμεων , ἐπίστρεψον ἡμάς, ... στίχ: Ὁ ποιμαίνων τὸν Ἰ σραήλ πρόσχες. Ἀνάγνωσ : ι ´ Κριτῶν • Ε ἶ πε Γεδε ὼ ν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ... Ἀνάγν : ια ´ Βασιλειῶν γ ´·Ε ἶ πεν Ἠ λίας πρὸς τὸν λαόν ... Ἀνάγν : ιβ ´• Βασιλ : γ ´• Ε ἶ πον οἱ ἄνδρες τῆς πόλεως Ἱεριχώ ... Χρὴ προσθῆσαι τὴν δευτέραν εἴσοδον τοῦ πατριάρχου. καὶ ὅ τε δοθ ῇ και ρός τῶν αντιφώνων , γίνεται εὐχή • λέγοντὰι αντίφωνα γ ´• τό α ´ ψαλμ : κς ´• Βοήθησόν με Κύριε ... τὸ β ´• ψαλμ : κή • Ταῖς πρεσβείαις τῆς Θεοτόκου ... τὸ γ ´• ψαλμ : ριγ ´• Ἀλληλούια τριπλοῦν. Προκείμ : ἦ χ : γ ´• Κύριος φωτισμός μου καὶ ... στίχ : Κύ ριος ὑπερασπιστὴς τῆς ζωῆς μου ... καὶ γίνεται ἡ καθέδρα τῶν ἱερέων . καὶ εἰ μέν ἐστι νηστεία καὶ μέλει γίνεσθαι προσκομιδὴ , εὐθύς ἀναγινώσκεται ὁ Ἀπόστολος πρὸς Κορινθίους ά • Ἀδελφοί, ἐλεύθερος ὤ ν ἐκ πάντων ... Ἀλληλούια ἦ χ: β ´ στίχ: α ´• Ἐξηρεύξατο ἡ καρδία μου ... στίχ : β ´• ἡ γλῶσσά μου κάλαμος γραμματέως ὀξυγράφου . ? ... τέλος • εὐηγγελίζετο τὸν λαόν . Κοινωνικ: Αἰνεῖτε τὸν Κύριον. – ἐν δὲ τῷ τέλει τῆς λειτουργίας ὁ διάκονος οὐκ ἀπολύει τὸν λαόν , ἀλλ ’ ἀντί τοῦ • Ἐν εἰρήν ῃ προέλθωμεν δίδοται • Σοφία , καὶ ἐπιτίθησιν ὁ ἀρχιδιάκονος τὸ ὠ μοφόριον τῷ ἀρχιεπισκόπ ῳ, ἔμπροσθεν εἰς τὸ ἐσώτερον τῆς ἁ γίας τραπέζης , σύν διακόνων μανουαλίων καὶ θυμιατοῦ, καὶ ποιεῖ ὁ ἀρχιδιάκονος εὐχὴν ?? μετὰ τὸ εὐλογήσαι ἄρχονται οἱ ψάλται ἐν τῷ ἄμβωνι τροπ : ἦ χ : πλ ´: δ ´· Φωνὴ Κυρίου ἐπί τῶν ὕ δάτῶν βο ᾷ λέγουσα ... καὶ ψάλλοντες αὐτὸ εἰσερχόμεθα σύν τῷ πατριάρχη εἰς τὸν λουτήρα καὶ ποιεῖ ὁ ἀρχιδιάκονος εὐχὴν συναπτὴν, καὶ ὁ πατριάρχης ποιεῖ τὴν τοῦ ὕ δατος εὐχήν καὶ εὐλογεί τὰ ὕ δατὰ , καὶ εὐθέως γίνονται ἀναγνώσματα γ ´· τὸ α ´· Ἠ σα ΐ ου • Τάδε λέγει Κύριος, εὐφράνθητι, ἔρημος διψῶσα. Ἀνάγνωσμα β ´• Ἠ σα ΐ ου • Τάδε λέγει Κύριος • οἱ διψῶντες ? ἀντλήσατε ὕ δωρ μετ ’ εὐφροσύνης ... Καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ψάλλοντες τὸ αὐτὸ τροπάριον εἰσερχόμεθα εἰς τὸν ναὸν καὶ λέγει ὁ διάκονος τό • ἐν εἰρήν ῃ προέλθωμεν . εἰ δὲ φθάσ ῃ ἐν Σαββάτ ῳ ἢ Κυριακ ῇ ἡ παραμονή , εἰςέρχονται δύο Εὐαγγέλια, καὶ τὸ ἕ ν τίθεται ἐν τῇ ἁ γί ᾳ τραπέζ ῃ, καὶ τὸ ἄλλο τίθησιν ὁ ἀρχιερεύς εἰς τὸ σύνθρονον , καὶ ο ὕ τως γίνεται π ᾶ σα ἡ ἀκολουθία ὡ ς προεγράφη . Ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ τρισάγιου, λέγεται προφητεία Ἠ σα ΐ ου • Τάδε λέγει Κύριος • καιρῷ δεκτῷ ἐπήκουσά σου ... καὶ ο ὕ τως τὸ προκείμενον ἦ : : Κύριος ὑπερασπιστὴς τῆς ζωὴς μου ἀπὸ τίνος δειλ ... ὁ ἀπόστολος καὶ τὸ ἀλλη λού ΐ α . τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. καὶ ἡ εκτενὴς καὶ ο ὕ τω π ᾶ σα ἡ ἀκολουθία τοῦ Ἁ γιασμοῦ, καθ ὼ ς προεγράφη • ἡ δε νηστεία γίνεται τ ῇ παρελθούσ ῃ Παρασκεὐ ῇ... ς ´. Ἡ Βάπτισις τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰ ησοῦ Χριστοῦ . Εἰς τὸν ὄρθρον εἰς τὸν Ν ´ λέγεται τροπάρ : ἦ χ : δ ´• Σήμερον • ?? σαρκί βαπτιζόμενος , Πνεύματος Ἁ γίου ἐδηλοῦτο παρουσία , ἥ ἐκ λαβόντες ἡμῶν, δόξα σοι. Ἡ ἀκολουθία τῶν νεοφώτιστῶν καθὰ προτέτακται εἰς τὴν Ἁ γίαν Ν ´ καὶ λοιπὸν τὰ ἀντίφωνα τῆς λειτουργίας . Τ ῇ Ἁ γί ᾳ Μεγάλ ῃ Ε ´ εἰς τὸν Ν ´ λέγομεν τροπ : ἦ χ : πλ : δ ´· ?? ἵ να τοῦ θανάτου καταργήσ ῃ τὸ κράτος , καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὸ γἐνος τὴν ἀνάστασιν δωρήσηται . Καὶ εἰς τὰ γ ´ ἀντίφωνα τῆς τριθέκτης λέγομεν τροπάριον ἦ χ πλ : β ´• Προσκυνοῦμεν τὴν λόγχην , τὴν νύξασαν τὴν ζωοποιόν πλεὐ ????? δοξάζομεν. Οἱ ψάλται ἀντὶ τοῦ τρισαγίου λέγουσι τροπάρ : ἦ χ : γ ´• Ὁ ῥ απισθείς ὑπέρ γένους ἀνθρώπων καὶ μὴ ὀργιστείς … ὡ ς ὁ τύπος ἔχει. Προκείμενον ά • ψαλμὸς πβ ´ ἦ χος ά • Καὶ γνώτωσαν ὅ τι ὄνομά σοι . . . στίχος • Ὁ Θεός, τίς δμοιωθήσεταί σοι ... Ἀνάγνωσμα Ἰ ερεμίου • ... πλ: δ ´· Ε ὔ ξασθε καὶ ἀπόδοτε. . . στίχος • Γνωστὸς ἐν τ ῇ Ἰ ουδαί ᾳ. ?? κατά παυσις τῆς ἁ γίας τραπέζης . ἐσπέρας • μετὰ τὰ ἐσπερινὰ γίνεται ἡ ἀκολουθία τοῦ Νιπτῆρος, καὶ λέγεται εὐαγγέλ : κατὰ Ἰ ωάννην κεφ : ριβ ´• Πρὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς τοῦ Πάσχα ... καὶ λέγει ἕ ως • οὐχὶ πάντες καθα ροί ἐστε . καὶ εὐθύς ἐξέρχεται ὁ ἱερεύς ἐκ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου καὶ τῶν διακόνων βασταζόντων κηρούς ἔρχονται πρὸς τὸν Νιπτῆρα . Καὶ νιπτομένων τῶν ἀδελφῶν τούς πόδας ὑπὸ τοῦ ἱερέως καὶ τῷ λεντιῳ ἀποσμήχοντος αὐτούς ἀπὸ ἐσχάτοῦ ἕ ως τοῦ πρώτοῦ λέγοντος τροπάρια μετὰ τοῦ ἀμώμου τὰ ὑποτεταγμένα ο ὕ τως • ἦ χ : β ´• Μεγάλης εὐεργεσίας ἀπολαύειν κ . τ. λ. ὡ ς ὁ τύπος. Ἀλλο ἦ χ : πλ : β ´• Ὁ νίψας τούς πόδας τῶν μαθητῶν , καὶ ἡμ ᾶ ς καθάρισον ἐκ τῶν ἀνομιῶν ἡμῶν . Ἀλλο ἦ χ : πλ : δ ´• Ὁ λεντί ῳ ζωσάμενος καὶ νίψας τούς πόδας τῶν μαθητῶν, Χριστέ ὁ Θεός, ἀπόπλυνον ἡμῶν τῆς ψυχής τὸν τοῦ ποιεῖν τὰς ἐντολὰς τῆς σῆς ἀγαθότητος . Καὶ μετὰ τὸ νίψασθαι πάντας εἰςέρχεται εἰς τὸ θυσιαστήριον ὁ ἱερεύς , καὶ λέγει τὰ ἀκόλουθα τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου • Ὅ τε ο ὖ ν ἔνιψε τούς πόδας τῶν μαθητῶν .., τέλος • μακάριοί ἐστε, ἐὰν ποιῆτε αὐτά . καὶ ε ἶ θ ο ὕ τως γίνεται εὐχὴ τῆς εἰσόδου τῆς λειτουργίας, καὶ εἰσοδεύει ὁ πατριάρχης , καὶ μετὰ τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου χωρίς θυμιατού καὶ μανουαλίων, καὶ ἀνέρχεται ἐν τῷ συνθρόν ῳ. Τρισάγιον δὲ οὐ λέγε ται, οὐδκείμενον ψάλλεται, ἀλλ ᾽ εὐθέως – ἀνάγνωσμα α ´ τῆς Ἐξόδου • Ε ἶ πε Κύριος πρὸς Μωσῆν ... ἀνθρώπου πονηρού ... στίχ: Ο ἵ τινες ἐλογίσαντο ἀδικίαν ... Ἀνάγνως β ´• Ἰ ώβ • Ε ἶ πε Κύριος τῷ Ἰ ώβ διὰ λαίλαπος ... προκείμ . β ´ ἦ χ : βαρύς • Ἐξελοῦ με ἐκ τῶν ἐχθρῶν μου , ὁ Θεός ... στίχ : Ῥ ῦσαί με ἐκ τῶν ἐργαζομένων τὴν ... ... ? • Ἀδελφοί, ἐγ ὼ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου ... Ἀλληλούια ἦ χ : πλ : β ´• ... Εὐαγγ : κατὰ Ματθαῖον , κεφ : σοδ ´• Ε ἶ πεν ὁ Κύ ριος τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ μαθηταῖς • οἴδατε ὅ τι μετὰ δύο ἡμέρας ... τέλος • Ποντί ῳ Πιλάτῳ τῷ ἡγεμόνι. Οἱ ψάλται τὸ Μυστικόν ἀντί τὸ • Οἱ τὰ χερουβίμ ... λέγουν • Τοῦ δείπνου σου τοῦ μυστικοῦ σήμερον ... τὸ αὐτό λέγεται καὶ Κοινωνικόν. Τ ῇ Ἁ γί ᾳ Μεγάλ ῃ Παρασκευ ῇ πρω ΐ τὸ τελευταῖον εἰσερχόμεθα ἔσω, καὶ εἰς τὸν Ν ´ λέγομεν τροπάρ: ἦ χ: πλ: δ ´, Σήμερον τοῦ ... τροπάρ : ἦ χ : β ´• Προσκυνοῦμεν τὴν λόγχην τὴν νύξασαν τὴν ζω οποιόν πλευράν ... ( προεγράφη τ ῇ ἁ γί ῳ Ε ´). Καὶ λέγομεν τροπάρ : ἦ χ : α ´• Σταυρωθέντος σου , Χριστέ ... Προκείμ : ἦ χ : δ ´· Ὁ Θεός , εἰς τὴν βοήθειάν μου πρόσχες ... ? Τάδε λέγει Κύριος • λήψομαι τὴν βάβδον μου ... προκείμ • β ´ ἦ χ : πλ : α ´• Σύ, Κύριε, φυλάξαις ἡμ ᾶ ς... στίχ: Σῶσόν με, Κύριε, ὅ τι ἐκλέλοιπεν ὅ σιος ... Ἑ σπέρας • ἡ προανάγνωσις , καὶ τὰ γ ´ ἀντίφωνα , καὶ εἰς τὸ • Κύριε ἐκέκραξα γίνεται εἴσοδος τοῦ πατριάρχου μετὰ τοῦ μεγαλείου χωρὶς θυμιατοῦ καὶ τῶν ´• τῆς Ἐξόδου · Ἐλάλησε Κύριος πρὸς Μωσῆν ἐνώπιος ἐνωπί ῳ... Προκείμ : α ἦ χ : δ ´· Δίκασον, Κύριε, τούς ἀδικοῦντάς με ... Ἡ δὲ εἴσοδος μετὰ θυμιατοῦ καὶ μανουαλίων συν κηρών ιβ ´. Φῶς Χριστοῦ φαίνει πάσιν ... Ἀνάγνωσμα β ´• Ἰ ώβ • Εὐλόγησε Κύριος τὰ ἔσχατα τοῦ Ἰ ώβ μάλλον ... Προκείμενον β ´ ἦ χ : δ ´· Διεμερίσαντο ... Ἀνάγνωσμα γ ´• Ἡ σα ΐ ου • Τάδε λέγει Κύριος • Ἰ δού συνήσει ὁ παῖς μου ... Προκεί μενον γ ´ ἦ χ : πλ : β ´• Ἔ θεντό με ἐν λάκκ ῳ... στίχ : ὁ Θεός τῆς σωτηρίας μου ... ὁ ἀπόστολος πρὸς Κορινθίους • Ἀδελφοί , ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ ... Ἀλληλούια ἦ χ : πλ : α ´ στίχος α ´• Σῶσόν με , ὁ Θεός , ὅ τι εἰσήλθοσαν ὕ δατὰ ... στίχ : β ´• Ὀνειδισμὸν προσεδόκησεν ἡ ψυχή ... Ματθαῖον κεφ : τιζ ´• Τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείν ῳ συμβούλιον ἔλαβον πάντες οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμμα τεῖς ... τέλος • ἀπέναντι τοῦ τάφου, το ´• Κύριε ἐλέησον καὶ τὰ λοιπά τῶν Προηγιασμἐνων , οἱ ψάλται το ´• Νῦν αί δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν ... καὶ τὸ Κοινωνικὸν • Γεύσασθε καὶ ἴδετε. Τῷ ἁ γί ῳ καὶ μεγάλ ῳ Σαββάτ ῳ πρω ΐ τὸ τελευταῖον εἰσερχόμεθα : ἦ χ : βαρύς · Τὸ μνῆμά σου ἐφύλαττον στρατιῶται , οἱ δὲ ἄγγελοι ἀνυμνούντές σε, Χριστέ ὁ Θεός, ἔλεγον • δόξα σοι. Καὶ μετὰ τὸν ὄρθρον εἰς τὸ τρισάγιον τοῦ • Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις ... τῶν ἱερέων. καὶ μετὰ τὸ ἀνελθεῖν αὐτούς ἐν τῷ συνθρόν ῳ, ἀνέρχεται ? ... στιχ : γ ´• Ἡ χείρ σου ἔθνη ἐξωλόθρευσεν ... Ἀνάγνωσμα α ´· Ἰ εζε κιήλ • Ἐγένετο ἐπ ᾽ ἐμὲ χείρ Κυρίου ... Προκείμενον ἦ χ : βαρύς · Ἀνάστηθι, Κύριε ὁ Θεός μου, ὑψωθήτω ἡ χείρ σου ... στίχ: Ἐξομολογήσομαί σοι, Κύριε. Ἀνάγνωσμα α ´ πρὸς Κορινθίους А´• Ἀδελφοί , μικρά ζύμη ὅ λον τὸ ?? ἐξηγόρασεν ,,. τέλος • λάβωμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως ... Ἀλληλούια ἦ χ : δ ´• στίχ : α • ... στίχ : γ ´ Ο ὕ τως ἀπολοῦνται οἱ ἁ μαρτωλοί ... Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαίον κεφ. ?? τῆς κουστωδίας. Ὁ διάκονος τὸ μέγα • Κύριε ἐλεησον , καὶ γίνεται εὐχή συναπτή , καὶ τὰς αἰτήσεις , καὶ τὸ • Ἐν εἰρήν ῃ προέλθωμεν , καὶ ἀπολύει . Περὶ ὥ ραν δὲ ἕ κτην εἰσέρχεται ὁ βασιλεύς , καὶ ἀλλάσσει τὴν ἐνδυτήν τῆς ἅ γιας τραπέζης , καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο θυμι ᾷ ὁ ?? ? τὸ τελευταίον , καὶ τὸ • Κύριε ἐλεησον , καὶ εἰσοδεύει ὁ καὶ μανουαλίων γ ´ • καὶ ἀνέρχονται εἰς τὸν σύνθρονον , καὶ εὐθύς λέγεται προκείμενον: ἦ χ: πλ: δ´. ... πάσα ... στίχ : β ´• Εἴπατε τῷ Θεῷ, ὡ ς φοβερὰ τὰ ἔργα σου ... Ἑ σπέρας ἀνάγνωσμα α ´• Γενέσεως · Ἐν ἀρχ ῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεός ... καὶ μετὰ πρῶτον ἀνάγνωσμα εὐθύς ἀνέρχεται ὁ πατριάρχης εἰς τὸ βαπτιστήριον καὶ βαπτίζει. Ἀνάγνωσις β ´• Ἡ σα ΐ ου • Φωτίζου, φωτίζου, ἡ νέα Ἱ ερουσαλήμ ... Ἀνάγνωσμα ς ´ τῆς Ἐξόδου • Ε ἶ πε Κύριος πρὸς Μωσῆν ὁ μὴν ο ὖ τος ... προκείμενον οἱ • Κύριος φωτισμός μου καὶ σωτήρ μου ... στίχ ἀνάγνωσμα δ ´· Ἰ ων ᾶ• Ἐγένετο λόγος Κυρίου πρὸς Ἰ ωνάν ... ἀνάγνωσμα έ • Ἰ ησοῦ τοῦ Ναυῆ • Παρενέβαλον οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰ σραήλ ἐν ... Σωχώθ ... τέλος • καὶ Μωϋσ ῇ τῷ θεράποντι αὐτοῦ . ὅ ταν εἴπ ῃ ὁ διάκονος • Σοφία , ἐκεῖνος λέγει • ᾠ δή τῆς Ἐξόδου καὶ ἀνέρχεται εὐθύς • Ἄ τῷ ὅ λην ἐν τῷ ἄμβωνι , κατὰ στίχον δεχομένου τοῦ λαοῦ ἀπὸ ἐνάρξεως τοῦ α ´ στίχου • Ἄ ισωμέν τῷ Κυρί ῳ ἐνδ ... καὶ δοξάζει καὶ ´• Σοφονίου • Τάδε λέγει Κύριος ὑπόμεινον με εἰς ἡμέραν ἀναστάσεως .., τέλος καὶ οὐκ ὄψει κακὰ οὐκέχι . Καὶ ἐάν συμβή παρατείναι τὸν πατριάρχην εἰς το βαπτίζειν, ἀπὸ τοῦ ζ ´ ἀναγνώσματος, εὐθύς ἀναγινώσκεται ὁ Δανιήλ, καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο Εὐλογείτε, εἰ δὲ, ὡ ς προείρητὰι, παρατείνει ὁ πατριάρχης βαπτίζων, ἀναγινώσκεται ο ὕ τως. Ἀνάγνωσμα η ´· Βασιλειῶν γ ´· Ἐγένετο ῥ ῆμα Κυρίου πρὸς Ἠ λιοῦ λέγων ... Ἀνάγνωσμα θ ´• Ἠ σα ΐ ου • Ἀγαλλιάσθω ἡ ψυχή μου ἐπί τῷ Κυρί ῳ... Ἀνάγνωσ : ι ´ Γενέσεως • Ὁ Θεὸς ἐπείραζε τὸν Αβραάμ , καὶ ε ἶ πε πρὸς αὐτόν ... Προκείμενον ἦ χ : πλ . β ´• Ὁ Κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν , εὐπρέπειαν ἐνεδύσατο ... στίχ : ἐνεδύσατο ὁ Κύριος δύναμιν ... Ἀνάγνωσμα ια ´· Ἠ σα ΐ ου • Πνεύμα Κυρίου ἐπ ᾿ ἐμέ, ο ὖ ἕ νεκεν ἔχρισέ με ... Ἀνάγνωσμα ιβ ´• Βασιλειῶν δ ´ • ... ... ιδ ´ Ἰ ερεμίου • Τάδε λέγει Κύριος • ἰδού ἡμέραι ἔρχονται . . Ἀνάγνωσμα ιε ´ , Δανιήλ • Ἔ τοῦς ὀκτωκαιδεκάτοῦ Ναβουχοδονόσωρ ὁ βασιλεύς ... τέλος • ἐν τ ῇ καμίν ῳ λέγοντες . Ὁ ψάλτης προκείμενον λέγων ο ὕ τως • Ὑ μνος τῶν τριῶν παίδων , καὶ ἄρχεται • Εὐλογεῖτε πάντα τὰ ἔργα Κυρίου τὸν Κύριον , ὁ λαὸς ἀποκρίνεται Ὑ μ νεῖτε καὶ ὑπερυψοῦτε αὐτόν εἰς τούς αἰῶνας . Καὶ λοιπόν στιχολογεῖ κατὰ στίχον ἕ ως τὸ • Εὐλογοῦμεν Πατέρα ᾽ Yίὸν καὶ Ἅ γιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ μόνον ἕ ως ο ὖ εἰσέλθ ῃ ὁ ?? ψάλλοντες κατέρχονται οἱ ἱερείς ἐκ τοῦ συνθρόνου ἀλλάσσουσι στιχάρια ἄσπρα , τοῦ δὲ πατριάρχου χρίοντος τῷ μύρ ῳ τούς νεοφωτίστους , ὁ πρῶτος πριμικήριος τῶν ψαλτῶν λέγει • Ὅ σοι εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε, ἀλληλούια, στίχ: Ὁ Κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν εὐπρέπειαν. Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε, ἀλληλούια. Καὶ κατὰ στίχον , ἕ ως ο ὖ πληρωμ ῇ ὁ ψαλμός λέγει • Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε, ἀλληλούια. Καὶ ὅ τὰν κινήσ ῃ ὁ πατριάρχης μετὰ τῶν νεοφωτίστῶν, τοῦ ? ἔμπροσθεν αὐτῶν , ψαλμός ἦ χ : βαρύς καὶ λέγει • Μακάριοι , ὦ ν ἀφέθησαν αἱ ἀνομίαι. στίχ: Μακάριος ἀνήρ, ᾦ οὐ μὴ λογίσηται ... ὅ τε δὲ ἔλθ ῃ εἰς ?? ? ἐμοῦ ... ἕ ως · τῆς καρδίας μου . καὶ ὅ τε φθάσωσι πλησίον τοῦ ἄμβωνος , κατέρχεται ὁ ἐν τῷ ἄμβωνι ψάλ τῆς , καὶ δ ψάλλων το • Μακάριοι , ὦ ν ἀφέθησαν αἱ ἀνομίαι , ἀποδύεται τὸ φελώνιον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνέρχεται εἰς τὸν ἄμβωνα αὐτοῦ • ἐφεξής τὸν ψαλμὸν , ἕ ως οὐ δώσ ῃ αὐτ ῳ ὁ διάκονος ἀπὸ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, καὶ μετὰ τὸ εἰσελθεῖν τὸν πατριάρχην εἰς τὸ ἱερατεῖον δίδει εὐλογίαν τῷ ψάλτ ῃ, καὶ λέγει περισσὴν καὶ κατέρχεται ´ εὐχή δὲ ο ὖ γίνεται , ἀντίφωνα οὐ λέγονται • ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ τρισαγίου λέγουν • Ὅ σοι εἰς Χριστὸν , ἐβαπτίσθητε ὐνεδ .... ἀπόστολος πρὸς Ρωμαίους · Ἀδελφοί , ὅ σοι ἐβαπτίσθημεν εἰς : βαρύς · Ἀνάστα , ὁ Θεὸς κρίνων τὴν γῆν ... στίχ : α ´• Ὁ Θεὸς ἔστη ἐν συναγωγή θεῶν ... στίχ: β ´• ἕ ως πότε κρίνετε ἀδικίαν … στίχ: γ ´, ... θονται ἐν τῷ συνθρόν ῳ. Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθ : κεφ : τιβ ´• Ὀψέ σαββάτου τ ῇ ἐπιφωσκούσ ῃ... ψάλται τὸν μυστικόν ὕ μνον • Οἱ τὰ χερουβίμ ... Κοινωνικὸν τὸ μὲν ἀρχαῖον Αἰνείτε ... τὸ δὲ νέον Ἐξηγέρθη ὡ ς ὁ ὑπνών Κύριος, καὶ ἀνέστη σώζων ἡμ ᾶ ς, άλληλούϊα ... χρὴ γινώσκειν ὅ τι, ἐάν οὐκ εἰσι βαπτόσματα, μετὰ τὸ εὐλογητὸν λέγεται τὸ · Ὅ σοι εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε ... Προκείμενον • Μακάριοι, ὦ ν ἀφέθησαν αἱ ἀνομίαι ... στίχ: Μα κάριος ἀνήρ, ᾦ ο ὖ ... Τ ῇ Ἁ γί ᾳ καὶ Μεγάλ ῃ Κυριαχ ῇ τοῦ Πάσχα . Εἰς τὸν ὄρθρον ψάλλομεν ἀντίφωνα δ ´ καὶ εἰς τὸ τελευταῖον τοῦ ἀμώμου λέγομεν κατὰ νάρθηκος τροπάριον ἦ χ : γ ´• ?? τούς ἐν τῷ Ἅ ιδ ῃ μοχλούς καὶ τὰς πύλας συνέτριψας , καὶ δήσας τὸν ἰσχυρὸν, ἠ γέρθης ὡ ς κραταιός, τὰς ψυχὰς ἀφαρπάσας ἐκ ὡ ς πρόβατα, ὁ ἐκ φθορ ᾶ ς ἀναγαγών τὴν ζωὴν ἡμῶν, Χριστέ ὁ Θεός, δόξα σοι. Καὶ εἰσερχόμεθα ἔσω καὶ λέγομεν τὸ Εὐλογη τός . καὶ εἰς τὸν Ν ´ λέγομεν τροπάρ : ἦ χ : γ ´• Σήμερον σωτηρία τῷ ῳ, ᾄ σωμέν τῷ ἀναστάντι ἐκ τάφου ... καὶ μετὰ τὸν ὄρθρον προανάγνωσις ἐκ τοῦ ἀποστόλου. χρὴ γινώσκειν, ὅ τι ἕ ως τῆς Ν ´. ἀπόστολος προαναγινώσκεται. ἀντίφωνα τῆς λειτουργίας • ἀντίφων : α ´ ψαλμ : ξε ´• Ἀλλαλάξατε τῷ Κυρί ῳ πάσα ἡ γῆ. ἀλλάσσουσιν ἁ γίων. ἀντίφων : β ´ ψαλμ : ξς ´, ἦ χ : β ´• Ὁ Θεὸς , οἰκτιρήσαι ἡμ ᾶ ς καὶ εὐλογήσαι ἡμ ᾶ ς ... Σώσον ἡμ ᾶ ς, Yἱὲ Θεοῦ ... καὶ εἰς τὸ. Δόξα • Ὁ μονογενής Γιος καὶ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ... ἀντίφων . γ ´ ψαλμός ξζ ´, ἦ χ : πλ : α ´• Ἀναστήτω ὁ Θεός καὶ ... ... λέγει • ἐν ἐκκλησίαις εὐλογεῖτε τὸν Θεόν , Κύριον ἐκ πηγῶν Ἰ ... αλληλούια ... Τὰ δὲ αὐτά ἀντίφωνα , καὶ τὸ • Ὅ σοι εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε ... καὶ τὸ κοι νωνικόν • Σῶμα Χριστοῦ μεταλάβετε ... μέχρι τοῦ Σαββάτου τῆς Διακαινησίμου οὐτω ψάλλονται , ὡ ς τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς Ἅ γιας Κυρια κής. Προκείμ : ἦ χ : πλ : δ ´• Αὐτή ἡμέρα ἣ ν ἐποίησεν ὁ Κύριος ... στίχ : Ἐξομολογεῖσθε τῷ Κυρί ῳ, ὅ τι ἀγαθός ... στίχ : β ´• Εἰπάτω δή ο ἶ κος Ἰ σραήλ ... Ἀνάγνωσμα Πράξεων • Τὸν μὲν πρώτον λόγον ἐποιησάμην ... ἕ ως ἐσχάτοῦ τῆς γῆς. Ἀλληλούια ἦ χ : δ ´• Σύ , Κύριε , ἀναστὰς οἰκτιρήσης τὴν Σιών . στίχ : β ´• Κύριος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ... ὁ διάκονος τὸ εὐαγγέλ: ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰ ωάννην τὴν ἀρχήν, τὸ γάρ Ῥ ωμαϊκὸν ὁ διάκονος ἀναγινώσκει τὸ εὐαγγέλ : καὶ τοῦ πατριάρχου τὸν πατριάρχ: τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον. καὶ λέγει ὁ πατ ριάρχης • Εἰρήνη π ᾶ σιν . ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰ ωάννην ἀγίου εὐαγγελίου τὸ Ἀνάγνωσμα καὶ ὁ ἀρχιδιάκονος λέγει • Ἐν σοφί ᾳ πρόσχωμεν . [?] ἑστώς ἐν τῷ ἄμβωνι ἐκφωνεῖ κράζων τὰ λεγόμενα ἐκ τοῦ πατριάρχου ο ὕ τως • Ἐν ἀρχ ῇ ἧ ν ὁ λόγος ... τέλος • διὰ Ἰ ησοῦ Χρίστοῦ ἐγένετο ... τὸ Μυστικόν Οἱ τὰ χερουβὶμ μυστικῶς ... Δέον εἰδέναι, ὅ τι γ ´ λέγεται τὸ • Οἱ τὰ χερουβὶμ τῇ ἡμέρ ᾳ ταύτη. Κοινωνικόν • Σῶμα Χριστοῦ μετα λάβετε ... τὸ αὐτὸ δὲ ὅ λην τὴν Διακαινήσιμον ... Ἑ σπέρας δὲ ἐν τῷ λυχνικῷ εἴτε εἰς Μάρτιον μῆνα φθάσ ῃ ἡ Ἁ για Κυριακή, εἴτε εἰς Ἀπρίλιον, ψάλλεται ἀντίφωνα ιβ ´, ἀρχόμενα ἀπὸ τοῦ α ψαλμοῦ . καὶ τ ῇ β ´ τῆς Διακαινησίμου προστίθεμεν ἀντίφωνον α καὶ γίνονται ιγ ´. ἐν δὲ τῷ ὄρθρ ῳ τῆς αὐτῆς β ´ ψάλλονται ἀντίφωνα ζ ´ καὶ λοιπόν ἕ ως τῶν Ἁ γίων πατέρων ε ´ τῆς συνόδου τῶν εὐρεθἐντῶν κατὰ ? [?] εἰς τὸν ὄρθρον • η . ψάλλονται δὲ ἐν τοῖς λυχνικοῖς μέχρι συμπληρώσεως τοῦ Ἀπριλίου μηνός τὰ ιγ ´ ἀντίφωνα. Τ ῇ αὐτ ῇ Μεγάλ ῃ Κυριακ ῇ ἐσπέρας εἰς τὸ λυχνικὸν εἰς το ´ Κύριε ἐκέκραξα λέγεται τροπάριον ἦ χ : β ´• Ἔ νδοξε ἀειπάρθενε Θεοτόκε μήτηρ Χριστοῦ, προσάγαγε τὴν ἡμετέραν προσευχήν τῷ Γί ῳ σου καὶ Θεῷ ἡμῶν. Ἑ σπέρας προκείμενον ἦ χ : βαρύς • Τίς θεός μέγας , ὡ ς ὁ Θεός ἡμῶν ... στίχ : α ´• Καὶ ε ἷ πα • νῦν ἠ ρξάμην ... στίχ : β ´• Ἐμνήσθην τῶν ἔργων Κυρίου. . . στίχ : γ ´• Ἐγνώρισας ἐν τοῖς λαοῖς τὴν δύναμίν σου ... Χρὴ γινώσκειν, ὅ τι μετὰ τὴν συμπλήρωσιν τοῦ λυχνικοῦ, ἀνέρχεται ὁ πατ ριάρχης ἐν τοῖς εὐκτηρίοις τοῦ Πατριαρχείου, καὶ γίνεται ὑπὸ τοῦ διακόνου τὸ μέγα Κύριε ἐλέησον, καὶ ἀναγινώσκει ὁ πατριάρχης τὸ εὐαγγελιον τὸ ἀναστάσιμον τῆς πλευράς, ἕ ως • ἄν τινων κρατῆτε κεκράτηνται. Ἑ σπέρας γίνεται ἡ Παραμονὴ τῆς Ἁ γίας Ν ´ ο ὕ τως ἀρχόμεθα το ´• Κλῖνον , Κύριε , τὸ ο ὗ ς σου • τὸ τελευταίου , καὶ το ´• Κύ ριε ἐκέκραξα καὶ μετὰ τὰ γ ´ ἀντίφωνα τὰ μικρά γίνεται εὐχὴ συναπτὴ μετὰ τῶν αἰτήςεων καὶ λέγεται προκείμενον. Ἀναγνώσ ματὰ γ ´• τὸ α ´ Ἀριθμῶν • Ε ἶ πε Κύριος πρὸς Μωσῆν συνάγαγέ μοι ἑβδομήκοντα ἄνδρας ,,. τὸ β ´• προφήτου Ἰ ωήλ • Τάδε λέγει Κύριος • τὰ τέκνα Σιών , χαίρετε καὶ εὐφραίνεσθε ... τὸ γ´• Ἰ εζε κιήλ • Τάδε λέγει Κύριος • λήψομαι ὑμ ᾶ ς ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν ... τέλος • κ ᾀ γώ ἔσομαι ὑμίν εἰς Θεόν , καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο λέγουν o ἱ ψάλται ἐν τῷ ἄμβωνι τροπάριον ἦ χ : πλ : δ ´· Εὐλογητός ε ἷ, Χριστέ ὁ θεός ἡμῶν ... κ . τ. λ. ὡ ς ὁ τύπος, λέγουσι δὲ αὐτό γ ´. καὶ εκ τοῦ ιη ´ ψαλμοῦ στίχους , καὶ τὴν περισσήν , καὶ λέγει ὁ ἀρχιδιάκονος • Σοφία , καὶ ἀνέρχεται προανάγνωσις ὁ ἀπόστολος ἕ ως τῆς παννυχίδος . καὶ λοιπόν γίνεται ἡ παννυχίς κατὰ τάξιν . ? ἐν τῷ ἄμβωνι , καὶ λέγομεν τὸ • Εὐλογη τός καὶ εἰς τὸν Ν ´. λέγομεν τὸ προγεγραμμἐνον τροπάριον καὶ μετὰ τὸν ὄρθρον ὁ εἰς τὴν Ν ´. Κατέρχεται ὁ πατριάρχης ἐν τῷ βαπτιστηρί ῳ καὶ ποιεῖ τὰ βαπτίσματα. καὶ ὅ τε χρίση τούς νεοφωτίστους τῷ ἁ γί ῳ μύρ ῳ, ἵ σταται ????? ... ? τὸν ψαλμὸν . καὶ ὅ τε ἔλθ ῃ πλησίον τοῦ ἄμβωνος ἀποδύεται τὸ φελώνιον αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀνέρχεται ἐν τῷ ἄμβωνι, στιχολογῶν, ἕ ως ο ὗ λάβ ῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρχιδιακόνου, καὶ λέγει τὴν περισσήν, καὶ κατέρχετὰι , ?? ? τὴν ὁδόν αὐτοῦ χαίρων . καὶ προαναγινώσκονται ἕ ως τῶν ἀντιφώνων, Τὸ α • ψαλμὸς ιη. ? ψαλμός ιθ ´. Σῶσον ἡμ ᾶ ς Yἱὲ Θεού , καὶ εἰς τὸ • Δόξα • Ὁ μονογενὴς Yἱὸς καὶ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ , τὸ γ ´• ψαλμὸς κ ´ καὶ τὸ προγεγραμμένον τροπάριον. ... Προκείμενον ἦ χ: πλ: δ ´• Εἰς π ᾶ σαν τὴν γῆν ... στίχ: Οἱ οὐρανοὶ ... τέλος • τὰ μεγαλεῖα τοῦ Θεοῦ . Ἀλληλούια , ἦ χ : α ´• Τῷ λόγ ῳ Κυρίου οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἐςτερεώθησαν ... Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ἰ ωάννην , κέφ : πθ ´• Τ ῇ ἐσχάτ ῃ ἡμέρ ᾳ... τέλος • ἀλλ ᾿ ἕ ξει τὸ φῶς τῆς ζωῆς . Κοινωνικόν • ἦ χ : πλ : δ ´• Τὸ πνεῦμά σου τὸ ἀγαθόν ... De serimoniis, ed. Migne Patrol. cursus compl. t. 112 p.429, 445 ἐκκλησιαστικης ͂ τάξεως τελουμένης. Byzantina. Essays, materials and notes on Byzantine antiquities. Book I St. Petersburg 1891 Mansvetov. Church Charter, its formation and fate. Moscow 1885 p. 228. Πατμιακὴ βιβλιοθήκη ... ὑπὸ Ἰ ωάννου Σακκελίωνος ... Ἀθήν ῃ σιν . 1890 pp. 136. This is the title of the first part of the Sinai Canonary, 9th-10th centuries, published by Archimandrite Antoninus in the Works of Kyiv. D. Academy 1874 See department. Ott. page 7. Mansvetov. Church Charter, p. 231, note. Pandects Sl. 57 l. 579. See Συναξαριστής of Nicodemus under 15 Dec. vol. I, p. 363. Ed. 1868 See Series, Months of the East part II p. 315 under November 28 Ducang. Constantinopolis Christiana L. IV b. 130, 131. Ἡ Κωνσχανχινούπολις ... ὑπὸ Σκαρλάτου τῆς Βξανχίου. χ. α᾿σ. 406. Αθην. 1851. In minologies of the X-XI centuries. Her memory is due on December 16. Not in our monument. Ε ὖ μεν μεγέθ – ους καί κάλλβς Ιχων . Pachymeres at Ducange los. cit. Σκ. Βυξάντ.Ή. Κωνσταντινούπολις ... I. 406. Banduri. Imper. Orient. t. II, p. 809. Series. Complete months of the East. II. page 9 Ducang. Constant. christ. L. IV r. 96. Muralt. Essai de chronologie byzantine. r. 583. Ibid. r. 451. According to Herman, this earthquake happened earlier: in 861. Migne, Patrol. cursus, s. gr. t. X. s. 875. Nevostruev, Ippolit's Word about the Antichrist. M. 1868. Migne, Patrol. cursus, s. lat. t. XXX p. 489–530. Kalendarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae… cura S. A. Morcelli. Roma. 1788 Vol. I, II. Aig.Scholz. De menologies duobus codicum graecorum bibliothecae regiae Parisiensis. Bonuae 1823. Antonin. Ancient Canoner of the Sinai Library. Proceedings Kyiv. Spirit. Academies 1874. May, June. Izvestia Imper. Russian arch. society 1886 Mansvetov. Charter, pp. 242–249. See about him in Dmitrievsky, Traveling in the East and his scientific results. Kyiv 1890 pp. 54,55. This type will also be included in the collection of types undertaken by the author. See about him in Toscani: Ad typical graecorum animadversiones. Romae. 1857 The sources we use for this are the following: 1) Ducange, Constantinopolis christiana. 2) Scarlat-Byzantium, Ή Κωνσταντινούπολις, 3) Banduri, Imperium orientale, 4 Ducange (Constantin Christ. L. IV) mentions 370 churches in Constantinople with the exception of Galata, and all with Galata 381. Paspati adds to this list 8 more churches and 17 monasteries, so his total number comes out to 392. Σκ. Βυζάντιος. Ἡ Κωνστκντινούπολις. Ἀθην. 1855 I. 330. Ducang. Constantin. Christ. 1V. 123. Συναξάριστης, her. 1868. III. 250 – εἰς τὸν μαρτυρικὸν αὐτοῦ ναὸν , ὁ ὁποῖος εὐρίσκεται ἑντός ? παρὰ τῇ χρυσ ῇ πύλ ῃ. Goar, Εὐχολόγιον, ed. 1647. Parisiis. p. 810. Archim. Sergius, Complete Months of the East. II. 246 С. Византий (Ή Κωνστ . I. 330) утверждает тоже самое, не приводя доказательств, а г. Дестунис (Труды Одесск. Археол. Съезда т. III. ст. 245. Топогр. обозрение сухопутных стен Константинополя), опираясь на некоторые соображения относительно местоположения тюрьмы св. Diomede is very distrustful of his testimony. Но в виду приведенных нами свидетельств едва ли может остаться место недоверчивости. As for the prison of St. Diomede, then she was hardly in the monastery itself. Кажется более вероятным, что она находилась действительно в той башне, на которую указывает Мордтман, и имя св. Diomede served only as an indicator of its location near St. Diomede. Ducang. L. IV 183. Σκ. Βυζαντ. I. 335–339. Εὐγενίου ίερεως, Ἡ ζωδόχος πηγὴ. Αθ · ην . 1887 Sergius, P. Months of the East. I. 240. II. 218. 328 Sirmund's Synaxarion was published only in part in different volumes of the Acta sanctorum. Prokop. Περί κχισμάτων Ιουστινιανού, ed. Bonn. r. 185. Σκ. Βυζ. Ἡ Κωνσταντιν. I. 335. Only Nikephoros Callistus speaks about the construction of the church by Leo. See Ή ζωοδόχος πηγή σ. 35yu‘ Ἡ ζωοδόχος πηγὴ Εὐγενίου σ . 65. Ducang. Constantinop. Christ. L. IV p. 85, 86, 93. Σκ. Βυζαντ. ор. cit. I. 460 Ducang. Const. Chr. IV. 93. Banduri, Imperium Orientale. Paris. 1711. t. I pars 3 р. 5. Συναξαριτὴς. I. σ . 336. Ducang. Const. Christ. L.III. r. 23. Ducang. Const. Christ. IV. 105. Sergius, Complete Months of the East. II. 276. Ducang. Const. Christ. L.III. 20. Σκ. Βυζαντ. I. 192. 220. Belyaev, Byzantina. Vol. I, pp. 96, 162. Σκ. Βυζαντ. Ή Κωνσταντινούπολή . I. 209. Unger, Quellenschriften fur Kunstgeschichte. Wien 1878 р. 95, 96. Codin. De off. ανέρχεται έπΐ το τρίκλινον το λεγόμενον θωμαΐτην ηρόζ τόν Αόγουστεώνα άφορώντα. Evidence collected from Ducange Constant. Christ Lib.. II р. 143, 144. Ibid. Muralt, Essai de chronologr. Byz. r. 451. See above, page 103 Chronicles and book Byzantina vol. I. Ducange at Constant. Christ. brings this news together. See Lib. I, p. 27, 39. Let us note that we present the text of the Charter, both here and in other places, in abbreviated form. Otherwise, we would have to write everything off in a row. In order to give a complete understanding of the true nature of this text, we will at the end attach several extracts from the Charter without abbreviations. Euseb. Vita Constantini, sar. XIII. Ambrosius, Epist ad. Magcellin. Ducang. Const. Christ. L.I.r. 28. Described by Mansvetov in his book: Church Charter, p. 248. Described by Ivanov in the Notes of the Emperor. Archaeological Society and separately. The description of the ritual in the Moscow Apostle is generally sketchy, but in particular it gives interesting additions. After Matins, before the start of the litia, all the lamps in the church are extinguished and then, during the procession, “the candle burners light the lamps from the patriarchal candle and the lamps are handled.” Then lithium is sent to the forum. See Mansvetov, Church. Charter, page 248. Sergius, Full. Months of the East II. Deputy page 32. The earthquake in Exakionia occurred in 865 but in May. To determine the dates of earthquakes, we use Muralt Ezzai de chronographie byz.. and Unger Quellenschriften fur Kunstgeschichte, p. 92–101. Porphyry, Four Discourses of Photius, pp. 62–67. Sergius, Mesyatslov II Deputy. p.159. Porphyry, Four Discourses of Photius, p. 24. Ducang. Constantinopolis Christian. L.I.r. 73. Morcelli Calendarium ecclesiae Constantinopoliticae. Rom. 1787. Vol. II. r. 166. Previously, the same role was apparently performed by the holiday in memory of the 4th Council. See Morcelli, Calendar. Constantinop. Vol. II. r. 165. De caerimoniis, L. I. cap. XXIII. Cp. L. II. e. XI. Morcelli Calendar. Constantinop. V. II. p. 167. Scholz, De menologies, p.7. Journal Min. Nar. Enlightenment 1891 Apr. p. 287. We had the opportunity to analyze these lists in detail and characterize the composition of the Liturgy of the 9th century. based on them in his book: Information on some liturgical manuscripts of the Vatican Library. Appendix I. Kazan 1882 pp. 295 et seq. Another mesga mentions three askitiria (Dec. 25). What kind of ascithiria this is is difficult to understand. Undoubtedly these are monks, but what role did they have among the readers and singers of St. Sofia and for what reason is unknown. Meanwhile, they existed in subsequent times. The next place on the trip, Novgorod, can serve as some explanation. Archbishop Anthony to Constantinople (Savvantov’s ed., p. 76), “and the eunuchs sing about the transfer, and the eunuchs sing first, and then the monk alone sings.” Symeon. Thessalon. De sacra praecatione, ed. Migne Pathol. curs.t. 155. p. 556, 624. According to the testimony of Simeon, the song sequence began to fall out of use in Constantinople from the time of its conquest by the Latins. Description of the manuscript Synod. Library III. 138, 144. Goar. Εὐχολόγιον, pp. 44–46. 55. 56. Recently, new, more reliable materials have been published. G. Dmitrievsky in the Appendices to the Rules of Passion and Easter Weeks published by him in Jerusalem in the 10th century. printed the full rite of τριτοέκτης from a manuscript of the 9th-10th centuries. Sinai Library. Note 39, pp. 253–260. Add. to Creation Father Part 26, pp. 752, 972 et seq. It is remarkable that the new year (νέος έτος) is indicated on September 23, but without any service. You might be interested in: