On the Church Use of the Easter Enneakedekaetirida of Anatoly of Laodicea

Regarding the book of St. Dimitry Lebedev: “From the history of ancient Easter cycles” 1. 19-year cycle of Anatoly of Laodicea. “Chronology is essentially a science and an art to such an extent that there are few hunters in this area, and no more competent people” 1. Priest D. A. Lebedev 2 undoubtedly belongs to the closest circle of learned specialists in the field of chronology and Easter. His book on the Easter enneakedekaetiride 3 of Anatolius of Laodicea 4 speaks about this quite convincingly. The question he took for his research is something only an outstanding scientist can handle. We do not have the work of Anatoly, in which he set out the foundations of his 19-year Easter table. Only Eusebius of Caesarea preserved for us a relatively small fragment of Ἐκ τῶν περὶ τοῦ Πάσχα Ἀνατολίου καν ό νων, and from this passage only the initial lines are important. Ἔ χει τοίνυν ἐν τῷ πρ ώ τ ῳ ἔτει τὴν νουμηνίαν τοῦ πρ ώ του μην ό ς, ἥ τις ἁ πάσης ἐστὶν ἀρχὴ τῆς ἐννεακαιδεκαετηίδος, τὴν κατ ᾽ Αἰγυπτίους μὲν Φαμεν ὼ θ κς ´, κατὰ δὲ τούς Μακεδόνων μῆνας Δύστρον κβ ´, ὡ ς δ ᾽ ἂ ν εἴποιεν ῾ Ρωμαῖοι, πρὸ ια ´ Καλανδῶν ᾽ Απριλίων. Εὑρίσκεται δὲ ὁ ἥ λιος ἐν τ ῇ προκειμέν ῳ Φαμεν ὼ θ κς ´ οὐ μόνον ἐπιβὰς τοῦ πρώτου τμήματος , ἀλλ ᾽ ἤ δη καὶ τετάρτην ἡμέραν ἐν αὐτῷ διαπορευόμενος. “So, in the first year, the new moon of the first month, which serves as the beginning of the entire 19-year period, will be in Egyptian on the 26th of Famenos, in Macedonian months on the 22nd of Distra, and as the Romans would say - on the 11th day before the April calendars 5. On the said 26th day of Famenos, the sun is found not only entering the first constellation, but already completing its fourth day in it” 6. Based on these chronological and astronomical data, it is necessary to determine the 1st year of the Easter table of Anatolia, the day of the vernal equinox according to Anatolia, the location of the embolismic 7 years in the cycle of Anatolia and restore his entire Easter table. The task is no less, and rather even more difficult, than the task of an anatomist who wants to describe the entire skeleton of an antediluvian animal, one bone at a time. It is quite understandable that very few chronologists and Paschalists have dared to undertake such a complex undertaking as the reconstruction of the Anatolian enneacadekaetirida. During, for example, the entire 19th century, no one gave such a reconstruction. Only prof. was involved in the reconstruction work. V.V. Bolotov, who, however, did not publish the results of his work. Only among his posthumous papers was preserved an octam of paper with the experience of reconstructing the Anatolian cycle. This ocmushka, completely incomprehensible to the uninitiated, was printed with explanations only last year (1915) by the same father D. A. Lebedev 9 . Only the exceptional and versatile knowledge of Father D. A. Lebedev in matters of technical chronology and Easter and even astronomy (with which technical chronology is closely connected) allowed him to come forward with his independent experience in the reconstruction of the Anatolian Enneakedekaetirida. With the broad and deep argumentation with which Father D. A. Lebedev substantiates each of his positions, his experience has grown into a whole extensive book. The work of Father D. A. Lebedev is the only study on the globe dedicated specifically to Anatolian enneacadekaetirida. There has never been such a study, and it’s safe to say there won’t be for a long time. As a result of the research of Father D. A. Lebedev, a number of theses were obtained that constitute an undoubted scientific acquisition. These are these theses. 1) The 19-year cycle of Anatoly of Laodicea was not the oldest of the Christian 19-year cycles: it was preceded by the Syrian “lunar” circle, which was held by the protopaschites around 325 10. 2) The first year of the 19-year cycle of Anatolia corresponds to the 12th year of the Alexandrian 19-year circle or the 9th year of the Syrian “lunar” circle. 3) The Easter table of Anatolia began with 277 AD, not with 258 (not with 281 and not with 285), and hardly embraced 95 years. 4) For the day of the vernal equinox, Anatoly took 23 θαμεν ὼ θ, that is, March 19 (not March 21, and not 22, and not 18). 5) The 19-year cycle of Anatolia had a structure similar to the structure of the Alexandrian 19-year and Syrian lunar cycles: it broke up into the ogdoad and endacade 11, and the embolismic years in it were: 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17 and 19 years. 6) The earliest Easter border for Anatoly was - in the 16th year of the cycle - on March 20 (24 Θαμεν ὼ θ), the latest - in the 8th year of the cycle - on April 17 (22 Θαμεν ὼ θ), the latest Easter, therefore, on April 24 (29 Θαμεν ὼ θ ), the earliest is on March 21 (25 Θαμεν ὼ θ ). 7) By 325, the Anatolian cycle had not disappeared without a trace, and in the most important cases (as in 326, 333, 346 and 349), the Alexandrian popes themselves may have made inquiries in the Anatolian table. The main and most important theses of the 4th and 5th. If, when establishing the 4th thesis, Father D. A. Lebedev had predecessors, then the 5th thesis is his indisputable property and the new thing that he brings from himself to the scientific treasury. It is not in vain that Father D. A. Lebedev devotes up to a hundred pages of his book to the substantiation of this thesis: in addition to the 3rd chapter of the study, there are two more special appendices: A. Embolismic years in the cycles of Meton and Calippus 12 and D. On the question of the origin of the 19-year cycle of Meton. Here the author delves into Greek chronology, and he comes up with a very significant coincidence: three Christian 19-year cycles had the same structure with the same arrangement of embolismic years - Alexandrian, lunar Syrian and Anatoliev according to the reconstruction of Father D. A. Lebedev. This coincidence is not accidental: the inventor of the 19-year lunar cycle among the Greeks, the Athenian astronomer Meton, most likely accepted the same number of years as embolismic ones. But this coincidence is obtained only with the reconstruction of the Anatolian enneacadekaetirida, which was given by Father D. A. Lebedev. And in this fact, Father D. A. Lebedev rightly sees the most compelling argument [in favor of] the correctness of his reconstruction and, at the same time, the correctness of the assumption that Anatoly took March 19 as the day of the vernal equinox. Thus, the main theses of Father D. A. Lebedev are argued in great detail and firmly established. But our attention is drawn to a secondary thesis, namely the last one. Already in the very formulation of this thesis, an instability inappropriate for the thesis is noticeable. “...In the most important cases (as in 326, 333, 346 and 349), the Alexandrian popes themselves may have made inquiries in the Anatolian table.” Maybe... You never know what could happen! The realm of possibility is limitless. If it can be, then this is no longer a position, but an assumption, not a thesis, but only a hypothesis. Father D. A. Lebedev tries to confirm his assumption with some considerations, but these considerations, upon closer examination, turn out to be completely unconvincing, so the author’s assumption does not receive any scientifically based probability. We will move on to consider the argumentation of the last thesis (unfairly bearing its name). Father D. A. Lebedev devotes the 4th section of his book to the substantiation of his last (assumption). First of all, it should be noted that this section has a title that is completely inappropriate for its content: “In what years did Easter according to Anatolia not coincide with Alexandria?” But this question is fully answered only by the first page of the department, the lower half of which is occupied by a table. From the next page and almost to the end of the section, the question of the ecclesiastical use of the Anatolian cycle is discussed. Father D. A. Lebedev begins his reasoning on this issue with an unsupported assumption. “We must first of all recognize it as highly probable (?) that the Anatolian cycle was introduced by him in his Laodicean Church and, perhaps (!), was maintained in it for some time under his successors.” But instead of proving such an interesting “high probability,” the author writes: “But history has not preserved for us absolutely not a single fact from the life of the Laodicean Church, for the clarification of which the question of when exactly in such and such a year the Laodiceans celebrated Easter would be of interest, or such a fact that would itself be significant for the question of what lunar cycle the Laodiceans followed.” At the bottom of the same page, the above-stated and unproven assumption about the high (!) probability of the church use of the Anatolian cycle in Laodicea turns from the author into an almost indisputable church-historical fact. “But even if,” writes Father D. A. Lebedev, “not a single Local Church in the East, with the exception of the Laodicean (!), introduced the Anatolian cycle, it still remains undoubted (!) that as a literary work Κανόνες περὶ τοῦ πάσχα of Anatolia was quite widespread in the East.” It seems that, in the opinion of Father D. A. Lebedev, the Anatolian cycle was positively introduced in Laodicea and in this respect Laodicea was an exception among other Local Churches of the East. The “undoubted” spread of Anatoly’s canons in the East is also the assumption of Father D. A. Lebedev, the scientific basis of which is obviously the secret of the author. However, in judgments about the Anatoly cycle, Father D.A. is here. Lebedev is still modest: in the 3rd chapter of his work, he admits that Anatoly’s cycle was at one time almost accepted even in Alexandria itself. “It is possible,” writes Father D. A. Lebedev, “that the technical shortcoming of the Anatolian cycle was one of the reasons why his cycle did not survive (!) in Alexandria and was replaced (!!) by a “19-year” cycle dedicated to the era of Diocletian 13.” “It is possible that one of the reasons for replacing (!) the Anatolian cycle with the Alexandrian one was the “protopaschytic” nature of this cycle. It turns out that the Anatolian cycle was adopted in Alexandria, and then, when its shortcomings were discovered, it was replaced by the Alexandrian one. It goes without saying that there are no grounds for such decisive assumptions. Some of the scientists could talk about the church use of the Anatolian cycle, and specifically in the Armenian Church. According to these scientists, the Anatolian enneakedekateirida formed the basis of the Armenian Easter, since the “bicentennial canon” of Andrew is dependent on the Anatolian cycle. This opinion was expressed by E. Dulaurier 14, A. von Gutschmid 15, the same opinion was held, as can be seen from his papers, by Prof. V.V. Bolotov 16, although towards the end of his life he may have changed his opinion 17. Father D. A. Lebedev does not hold this view. He writes: “The Armenian Easter table of Andrew for the years 353–552, the first year of which coincided with the first year of the Anatolian Enneacadekaetirida, hardly represented a list of Easters according to the Anatolian cycle. ...The Syro-Persian-Armenian lunar cycle could have arisen apart from any memory of the Anatolian cycle.” True, in his later article about the Anatoly cycle according to V.V. Bolotov, Father D.A. Lebedev writes differently: “The dependence of the Armenian Easter table of Andrei on the table of Anatoly now seems to me not only possible, but also very probable” 18. However, we are referring to his book on the Anatolian cycle, where he does not write about Anatolian influence on the Armenian Easter. Consequently, for Father D. A. Lebedev, the Armenian Paschal does not speak of the church use (although not direct) of Anatolia’s enneakedekateirida. Father D. A. Lebedev in his “thesis” suggests the influence of Anatolia’s Enneacadekaetirida on the celebration of Easter in the 4th century in Alexandria itself. He poses the question: the Alexandrian Church itself, even after the invention of the Alexandrian 19-year cycle, in certain cases (when the day of Easter seemed controversial, that is, when the Alexandrian Paschalia diverged from the Roman one), did not, among other things, make inquiries with the Anatolian Easter table? Father D. A. Lebedev focuses his attention mainly on the celebration of Easter in 326, 346 and 349 and finds it possible to make the assumption that in these years in Alexandria they coped with the table of Anatolia. The author's reasoning on this subject seems to us tendentious, not entirely logical and extremely unconvincing. First of all. Science does not know on what day the Romans and Alexandrians celebrated Easter in 326: the Easter chronograph table of 354 for the year 326 shows the date: “III idus apr.”, that is, April 11, and this is impossible, because April 11, 326 was Monday. This means there is an error in the manuscript. But how can I fix it? Some (Bucherius and Mommsen) correct it as follows: “IIII idus apr.”, that is, April 10. April 10th should be Easter in the year 326 and according to Anatoly. But in manuscripts “ides” are often confused with “nones” 19, and therefore other scholars (Van der Hagen and Krush) suggest reading: “III non. apr.”, that is, April 3, on which day Easter was supposed to be celebrated in 326 according to the Alexandrian Paschal. It is clear that in this state of affairs it is hardly worth talking about whether or not the Anatolian Table was coped with in Alexandria in 326. What is Father D. A. Lebedev doing? His reasoning is remarkable in logical terms. He writes: “If we assume (?) that the Alexandrian Church in 326 even only coped with Anatoly’s Easter table along with the Alexandrian 19-year cycle, [then] even then it seems very possible (?) that the question of Easter of 326 in Alexandria was decided in favor of Anatoly, against the Alexandrian Easter.” In our opinion, it is precisely such reasoning that is called in logic “circulus vitiosus in demonstrando” 20 (vicious circle - Ed.). In fact, Father D. A. Lebedev wondered about the influence of the Anatolian cycle on the celebration of Easter in Alexandria, but here, instead of substantiating this supposed influence, the already tacit influence proves that Easter of 326 was celebrated in Alexandria not on April 3, as was necessary according to the Alexandrian Easter, but on April 10. In essence, the reasoning of Father D. A. Lebedev is as follows. Easter of 326 in Alexandria was celebrated either on April 3 or April 10. Since this year in Alexandria they were coping with the Anatolian cycle, it should be accepted that Easter was celebrated on April 10th. And if Easter was celebrated on April 10, then this means that in 326 the celebration of Easter was influenced by the Anatolian cycle. Quod erat demonstrandum! 21 (which was what needed to be proven. – Ed.) Circulus is absolutely correct! Meanwhile, Father D. A. Lebedev is inclined to attach great importance to his reasoning. In an article about the Anatoly cycle according to V.V. Bolotov, he writes: “V.V. Bolotov’s reconstruction also has the disadvantage in comparison with mine that in this form the Anatoly cycle - almost identical to the Alexandrian one - loses all significance for the question of Easter 326 and 346. Regarding Easter of 326, we do not even know whether in this case the Alexandrian Church deviated from the cycle, whether it celebrated this Easter on April 3 or 10. And yet, the very possibility of deviations from the Alexandrian cycle in the days of Athanasius the Great is most simply (???) explained by the assumption that although this cycle at that time already existed as the norm of the Alexandrian Paschal, next to it the Alexandrian popes found it unnecessary (?) to cope with other cycles, like the Anatolian cycle” 22. Father D.A. is here. Lebedev even makes his, as we have seen, hanging in the air assumption about the influence of the Anatolian cycle on the day of Alexandrian Easter in 326, one of the arguments against the reconstruction of the Anatolian cycle, which belongs to the great scientist. But let’s assume that Easter of 326 was actually celebrated in Alexandria on April 10th. Does this mean that in this case the Alexandrians were influenced by the Anatolian cycle and influenced so much that for the sake of it they deviated from their own Easter cycle? No, perhaps a more satisfactory other solution to the question of why in 326 the Alexandrians celebrated Easter on April 10th. Let's give the floor to Father D. A. Lebedev himself. “The fact is that astronomical data (and they were consulted in Alexandria, as shown by the dates of the age of the moon on Easter day in κεφάλαια) in 326 were decisively in favor of April 10, against 3.” Astronomy, of course, was more convincing for the Alexandrians than the Anatolian cycle, which is completely unknown, even whether it was known in Alexandria. In addition, such a scientist as E. Schwartz (for whom Easter 326 according to the Anatolian cycle was also April 10), considering the day of Easter 326 in Alexandria on April 10, does not find it necessary to assume any influence of the Anatolian cycle to explain the deviation of the Alexandrians from their Easter. Easter of 326 in Alexandria, according to E. Schwartz, was appointed according to Western Easter principles: the Alexandrian bishop simply yielded to the Roman one, as happened in other years of the same 4th century. Father D. A. Lebedev places his greatest hopes in proving his (assumption) on Easter in the years 346 and 349, when Easter, appointed by Athanasius the Great, coincided with Easter according to the Anatolian cycle. However, even in this case, Father D. A. Lebedev himself deprives his assumption of any convincingness, since he explains why in 346 and 349 Athanasius retreated from the Alexandrian Easter. “I think astronomical data had a decisive (NВ!) significance in the years 346 and 349. But probably (?), a reference was also made to Anatoly’s table. The fact that in the Easter table compiled by an Alexandrian scientist, and, moreover, an Orthodox bishop, Easter was appointed for these two years in accordance with Western tables, could (?) be one of the very compelling reasons for Athanasius the Great to yield in this case to the Western ones. The authority of Anatolia could (?) have been especially important (?) in the question of Easter in 349, when, in a concession to the Westerners with their imaginary “tradition from the Apostle Peter,” they had to set Easter a whole month earlier than it should have been according to the Alexandrian 19-year cycle, and at the same time as the Syrian protopaschites.” If astronomical data were of decisive importance, then the reference to the Anatolian cycle suggested by Father D. A. Lebedev is, of course, unnecessary. Moreover, Athanasius the Great in 346 and 349 deviated from the Alexandrian Paschal not for the sake of Anatoly, but for the sake of the Western Church. Father D. A. Lebedev himself writes: “Undoubtedly, in both cases, at the Sardician Council of 342–343, a concession was made to the Westerners, for whom in 346 March 23 was unacceptable as the day of Easter, either because it was the 15th day of the moon, or - according to the most ancient Supputatio 23 - as a day that fell before the spring equinox on March 25; and April 23, 349 - as the day falling after Natalis Urbis Romae (April 21) 24". However, the situation is even worse for Father D. A. Lebedev, if we take into account the very important data contained in the κεφάλαια Easter messages of Athanasius the Great. Unfortunately, for some reason Father D. A. Lebedev did not provide this data here in full. Under the year 343, we read in κεφάλαια about the Council in Sardik: “This year there was a Council in Sardik. In Sardica they came to an agreement regarding Easter and made a decree for fifty years, according to which, according to custom, the Romans and Alexandrians would proclaim everywhere (the day of Easter)” 25 . So, at the Council in Sardica, an agreement was made on the time of celebrating Easter over the next fifty years. The resolution of the Council was, of course, written down and a copy was undoubtedly kept in Alexandria. The question arises: why was it necessary, after this council resolution, to deal with the Anatolian cycle in 346 and 349? It was enough just to look at the table brought from Sardica. But Father D. A. Lebedev precisely suggests that in some of the most important cases the Alexandrian popes themselves coped with the Anatoly cycle. However, this is D.A.’s father. Lebedev says in his last “thesis,” but in the book he expresses a slightly different assumption - that Athanasius coped with the Anatoly cycle and this was only one of the compelling reasons to yield to the Western ones at the Sardician Council. After the Council of Sardica, we repeat, all kinds of information were already unnecessary. As we have seen, Father D. A. Lebedev is inclined to attribute especially important significance to Easter of 349, which was scheduled a whole month earlier than it should have been according to the Alexandrian Easter. But here, too, there is no need to assume any reference to the Anatoly cycle. The reason for setting Easter 349 on March 26 (in Roman, according to Anatolius), and not on April 23 (in Alexandrian) is indicated quite clearly in κεφάλαια. “The Romans objected to this, saying that they have a tradition from the Apostle Peter - not to cross 26 farmufa 26, and also 30 phamenophos” 27. Thus, in 349 everything was determined by the inflexible demand of the Romans, which was noted especially for 349 in κεφάλαια. It was not in vain that such a scientist as V.V. Bolotov considered citing the demands of Rome sufficient to explain the deviation from the Alexandrian Easter. “The Roman Church,” he writes, “showed amazing tenacity, and before its strange Paschalistic demands, Athanasius the Great himself was forced to retreat, having appointed the day of Easter in 346 and 349 [on] March 30, resp. March 26, not March 23, resp. April 23, as it should be according to the Alexandrian Easter” 28. Thus, Father D. A. Lebedev’s attempt to find the influence of the Anatolian cycle in the deviations of church practice from the Alexandrian Paschal cannot be considered successful, and his assumption remains completely unfounded. When an astronomer noticed deviations from the norm in the movement of one of the planets, he could assume that it was influenced by another planet, and this assumption was brilliantly confirmed 29. But the assumption of Father D. A. Lebedev is not at all necessary, since the deviations of church practice from the Alexandrian Easter are completely explained by two important reasons: astronomical considerations and the insistence of the Roman Church in its demands regarding the time of celebrating Easter. Reasoning about the possibility of the influence of the Anatolian cycle on the Easter practice of Alexandria would have been convincing only if Father D. A. Lebedev had pointed out the fact that the Alexandrian Church retreated from its Paschal in the direction of the Anatolian cycle alone. But there was no such case. On the contrary, if the Anatolian cycle came with an original Easter date, then it had no influence on Alexandrian church practice. This was the case in 330, when Easter was celebrated not on March 22, as suggested by the Anatolian cycle, but on April 19, according to the Alexandrian Paschal and Supputatio Romana. The same thing happened in 368 and 370, when (actually in 370) Anatoly was alone with his Easter date: Alexandria celebrated according to its own Easter and in agreement with Rome, although in 368 the Supputatio Romana allowed Anatolia’s date. What do we see? We see that Alexandria deviated from its Paschalia when Rome demanded it and when this demand met the astronomical considerations of the Alexandrians. Where is the place for the influence of Anatolia's enneacadekaetirida, and is there any reason to assume that it was at least dealt with? Easter practice. The 4th century shows that for those who defined it, the Anatolian enneakedekateirida did not seem to exist, and therefore there is no need to talk about its ecclesiastical use. In the “thesis” of Father D. A. Lebedev being analyzed (7), in brackets among the years 326, 346 and 349 there is also 333. We do not understand at all why this year fell into the wrong neighborhood. This year, Easter both according to Anatolia and the Alexandrian Paschal fell on April 22, but Easter was celebrated this year in both Rome and Alexandria on April 15, because astronomy was decidedly in favor of April 15 and the Westerners may have refused to celebrate Easter on April 22. What is Anatoly's influence here? Is it that its date (if it was known) remained on paper, and Roman Easter prevailed in church life? What does the certificate with the Anatoly cycle have to do with it? However, in his book, Father D. A. Lebedev said something different about the year 333 than in the “thesis”: “The year 333 cannot serve as an objection to the assumption that in Alexandria under Athanasius the Great, in certain cases, inquiries were also made with the table of Anatoly,” and three pages later we read that in this very year 333, perhaps, the Pope of Alexandria made inquiries of the table of Anatoly! So, having analyzed all the arguments of the seventh (preposition) of the work of Father D. A. Lebedev, we involuntarily come to the conclusion that all his arguments do not at all confirm his assumptions and his assumption remains a pure “maybe”, without any addition of any share of scientific probability. It is hardly necessary to make unsupported assumptions: one “maybe” will be with equal right opposed by another “maybe”, completely opposite to the first. The scientific value of such “maybes” be" hardly much above zero. We do not want to humiliate Anatolyeva's enneakedekaetirida. We only believe that Father D. A. Lebedev was unable to prove its ecclesiastical use in any way. It is impossible to speak about the ecclesiastical use of the Easter enneakedekateirida of Anatoly of Laodicea from a strictly scientific point of view, simply because nothing is known about its use from church historical sources. In our opinion, the question about the ecclesiastical use of Anatoly’s enneacadekaetirida can only be answered with the word: ignoramus. Maybe not ignorabimus, but now, undoubtedly, ignoramus 30. I think one should answer this way, remembering the good advice of the blessed one. Augustine: Melius est nescrire, quam errare. Mamulus, let's say with Tertullian, minus sapere, quam contra! 31 But if the Easter enneakedekateirida of Anatolia did not have any ecclesiastical significance, if it did not influence either the church Paschal or the Easter practice of the 4th century, then can its reconstruction have a fruitful scientific significance? The book by Father D. A. Lebedev is an extremely spectacular phenomenon. It is very valuable for many side thoughts, information and research, but its main effective conclusion - the reconstruction of Anatolius' Easter enneakedekateirida, which had no ecclesiastical significance - is not just a very curious, but not very necessary footnote to the six incomprehensible lines of Eusebius's Church History? Prof. V.V. Bolotov. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church. I. St. Petersburg, 1907. P. 66. D.A. Lebedev († after 1924), archpriest, prof. MDA, participant of the All-Russian Church Council of 1917–1918, author of the books “Calendar and Paschal”, “On the History of Time Calculation” and others on the calendar issue. – Approx. ed. Enneakedekateirida (nineteen-year) is one of the options for coordinating the lunar and solar cycles, in which an additional (embolismic) lunar month is inserted 7 times to harmonize the cycles of the lunar and solar calendars over 19 lunar years. – Approx. ed. Anatoly, bishop Laodicean († c. 282). Born in Alexandria, Egypt, he received a comprehensive education and taught Aristotelian philosophy. Around 262–263 Due to political unrest, he left Egypt and arrived in Caesarea in Cappadocia, where he was ordained bishop. Since 268, Bishop of Laodicea in Syria. Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea mentions the “Canons of Easter” and 10 books of “Introduction to Arithmetic”. – Approx. ed. Famenothe is the seventh month of the Alexandrian calendar, the first day of which corresponds to February 25 (or February 26 in a leap year) of the Julian calendar, distr is the name of the month in the Macedonian calendar, approximately corresponding to modern February, kalends is the first day of each month in the Roman calendar. – Approx. ed. Eusebius. Historia ecclesiastica. VII, 32,14–15. An embolismic year is a year of the lunisolar calendar containing 13 months. – Approx. ed. We are talking about the French zoologist Georges Cuvier (1769–1823), the author of the law of correlation, according to which the parts of an organism represent an integral system, each organ of which corresponds to other organs in structure and function. Based on the principles of this law, he developed a method for reconstructing fossil forms from the few surviving skeletal fragments. However, Cuvier gave correlations a static character, which in a number of cases led him to erroneous conclusions. – Approx. ed. Cycle of Anatoly of Laodicea according to V.V. Bolotov. Byzantine Temporary. – T. 19. P. 188–223. Protopaschists were those who celebrated Easter “together with the Jews,” i.e. in one day. Such disagreements in determining the day of Easter celebration occurred due to the discrepancy between the embolismic year of the enneacadekaetirida and the simple year of the lunar cycle. The decision of the First Ecumenical Council (325) and the first rule of the Council of Antioch (c. 333) were directed against the proto-Paschists. – Approx. ed. Ogdoad and Endecad - eight-year-old and eleven-year-old. Their combination forms a nineteen-year cycle. – Approx. ed. Meton is an Athenian astronomer (c. 500 BC), who proposed a nineteen-year cycle, Calippus is a Greek astronomer (330 BC). – Approx. ed. During the first year of the cycle, the Alexandrian Church adopted the year 285, the so-called. the era of Diocletian (Roman emperor 284–305), when the Easter new moon fell on March 23 and the first new moon of the year on January 23. The year of the Diocletian era began on August 29 or 30. Currently used in the Coptic Church. – Approx. ed. Recher sur la chronologie armenienne technique et historique. T. 1. Paris, 1859. Kleine Schriften / Herausgeg. von Ruhl. III. S. 353–354. See about this in detail: St. D. A. Lebedev. Cycle of Anatoly of Laodicea according to V.V. Bolotov. pp. 192–193, 214–221. Right there. P. 197. In “Lectures”, outlining the history of church timekeeping among the Armenians, V.V. Bolotov does not talk about the dependence of Andrei’s table on Anatoly’s cycle. I. S. 99–100. Priest D. A. Lebedev. Cycle of Anatoly of Laodicea according to V.V. Bolotov. P. 200. The Ides were the 15th days of March, May, July, October and the 13th days in the remaining months of the Roman calendar. Nones (Latin Nonae, from nonus – ninth, i.e. the ninth day before the Ides) in the Roman calendar are the 7th day of March, May, July, October and the 5th day of the remaining months. Nones served to count days within a month. The counting of days in the Roman calendar was carried out in the following order: first from the Kalends to the Nons, then from the Ides to the Nons, and from the Kalends of the next month to the Ides, i.e. as if in reverse order. – Approx. ed. Circulus vitiosus in demonstrando (lat.) – a vicious circle. – Approx. ed. Quod erat demonstrandum (lat.) – which was what needed to be proven. – Approx. ed. Priest D. A. Lebedev. Cycle of Anatoly of Laodicea according to V.V. Bolotov. P. 205. Romana Supputatio is a cycle of Easter celebrations from 213 to 312, compiled in Rome. – Approx. ed. Natalis Urbis Romae (parilium) is the holiday of the founding of Rome (IX day before the Kalends of May, April 21). – Approx. ed. Father D. A. Lebedev cites this evidence of κεφάλαια in the 19th note on p. 160: “See κεφάλαιον for this year by E. Schwartz. Zur Geschichte des Athanasius. Mittheilung II, in Nachrichten der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, 1904. Hefr 4. S. 379: ᾽ Εν Σερδικ ῇ συμφνίας ????? τούς Αλεξανδρέους. Larsow (Die Fest-Briefe des h.Athanasius. Leipzig - Göttingen, 1852. S. 31) conveys this important news in a distorted form. Instead of ἐξέδωσαν πίνακα he has: Man bestimmte einen Abschnitt von fünfzig Jahren! (Determined at age 50. – Ed.). So it is as if we are not talking about a table, but only about an oral agreement or only about negotiations; and then the words κατὰ τὸ ἔτος are conveyed through “nach dem Brauch“ (according to custom. – Editor’s note).” There are enough inconsistencies in this note. Father D. A. Lebedev writes as if Larsow translated κεφάλαια into German from Greek, and not from Syriac. True, its translation from Syriac, according to E. Schwartz, represents one of the specimina ignoranriae (Zur Geschichte des Athanasius. I. Nachrichten. 1904. Heft 4. S. 344. Anm. 2); however, in this case, he hardly distorts the important news of Athanasius as much as Father D. A. Lebedev presents. The corresponding Syriac text from κεφάλαια under 343 reads: בסחרריסקי מטל פעחא שלמותא חוח. Please contact us ואלחבסאגרראי (The festal letters of Athanasius, discovered in an ancient syriac version, and edited by William Cureton. London, 1848. P. (5). Larsow translates this text quite accurately: “In Sardica fand in Betreff des Osterfestes Uebereinstimmug statt. Man bestimmte einen Abschnitt von fünfzig Jahren, nach welchem Römer und Alexandriner überall den Ostersonntag nach dem Brauch anzeigten.” (Die Fest-Briefe des Heiligen Athanasius, Bischof von Alexandria. S. 31) W. Cureton himself translated in approximately the same way: “There was an agreement made in Sardica respecting Easter, and they consented to a decision for fifty years, which, according to custom, the Romans and Alexandrians announce in every place". (celebration) according to custom." (Works of Athanasius the Great. 2nd ed. Part 3. Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius. 1903. P. 382). E. Schwartz adheres to the belief that Syriac texts translated from Greek should not be translated into new languages, but back into Greek (Op. cit. S. 334. Amn. 2); E. Schwartz realizes his conviction by translating part of κεφάλαιον into Greek. One might think that E. Schwartz’s translation is not alien to the interpretative tendency. So he renders the Syriac word אשלמו through ἐξέδωσαν, and פסקא through πίνακα, further expressing on some grounds the assumption even that das in der Hs. die Ostertafel erhalten ist, welche die orientalischen Bischöfe 342 zu Sardica festsetzen (Ibid. S. 379) (that the Easter table was preserved, which the Asian bishops approved in 342 in Sardica. - Ed.). Schwartz's work is not a translation in the proper sense, but a reconstruction of the original Greek text. It is completely in vain that Father D. A. Lebedev sees in Larsow’s words: “Man bestimmte einen Abschnitt von rünfzig Jahren” - he sees only an oral agreement or only negotiations. The oral agreement for fifty years (343–392?) was undoubtedly written down, and this very recording was the Easter table for fifty years. The Syriac text speaks about the definition itself, and the Greek reverse translation by E. Schwartz speaks about the table that should have been obtained in the recording of the conciliar acts. And what Father D. A. Lebedev says about the translation of the words κατὰ τὸ ἔτος is not Larsow’s mistake, but a mistake (misprint?) of Father D. A. Lebedev himself in E. Schwartz’s book in the indicated place, in full accordance with the Syriac ראיך עירא stands κατὰ τὸ ἔθος, and not κατὰ τὸ ἔτος, as Father D.A. writes. Lebedev, erecting a complete lie against Larsow, as if he was distorting with his translation important news from κεφάλαια. Farmuf is the eighth month of the Alexandrian lunar calendar, the 1st of which corresponds to March 27 of the Julian calendar. – Approx. ed. Works of Athanasius the Great. Part 3. P. 384. Report by V.V. Bolotov at a meeting of the commission on the issue of calendar reform in Russia on May 31, 1899. Appendix V to the journals of the meeting of the Commission on the issue of calendar reform. P. 43. We are talking about the discovery of Neptune, the eighth planet of the solar system. While studying the movement of planets in 1783, Academician of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences A.I. Leskel discovered irregularities in their movement and suggested that they were caused by the existence of another unknown planet. Those who continued these studies in the first half. XIX century Independently of each other, the Englishman J. Adams and the Frenchman W. Le Verrier calculated the elements of the orbit of the new planet. Le Verrier reported this to the Berlin Astronomical Observatory. The calculations were so accurate that the planet was discovered by A. Galle on the first evening after receiving the letter on September 23. 1846 – Approx. ed. ignoramus – we don’t know; ignorabimus - we will not know (lat.). Melius est nescrire, quam errare. Malumus minus sapere, quam contra – It is better not to know than to be mistaken. We prefer to know less than vice versa (lat.). You might be interested in: