Дополнения и поправки

Bulgarian official acts that have survived or have been discovered to this day There are so few Bulgarian official acts, by which we mean the actual chrysobulos and charters of the kings, that have survived to this day, or at least so few have been openly discovered to this day, that all of them can be named one after the other. The chrysovules and charters, printed in full, are as follows: 1. John Asenya 2nd charter given to Ragusian merchants, without year, in Monumenta Serbica Myaklosic r. 2 and in Safarik’s Monuments of Writing of the Southern Slavs, p. 2 (Miklosic and Safarik unfairly appropriate it to Asenya the 1st). 2. Michael Asen's treaty letter with the Raguzhans against the Serbian king Stefan Urosh, 1253 June 15, in Miklosic ibid. r. 35 m near Safarik in Monuments p. 16. 3. Konstantin Asenya (Tikha or Tekh) christened the church to the great martyr. George on Virpin premo Skopiya, without a year, in Safarik's Monuments of Writing of the Southern Slavs p. 23, extracted from Grigorovich in Putesh. page 38. 4. John Shishman christened the Rila monastery, 1379, in Glasnik VII, 184. Known only by indication: 11. John Kaliman (or Kaliyan) Asenya chrysed to the Athos Zograf monastery, 1192, in Miller in Verzeichniss der in den Athosklöstern aufbewahrten Urkunden, printed in Vol. I of Miklosic's Slawische Bibliothek; in all likelihood, fake, see Grigorovich Putesh; page 71. 2. John Alexander was chrysed at the Zografsky Monastery, 1342, in Miller ibid., - in Grigorovich Putesh. page 71 fin. Of course, it's probably him. 3. He was christened at the monastery of St. Nicholas in a place called Orekhov (on Athos, near Protat), 1347, December 1, in Miller ibid., in Grigorovich Putesh. page 39. 4. He was christened to the Rila Monastery, unknown year, by Grigorovich Putesh. pp. 150 and 155 fin. 5. Ioann Shishman made a chrism about the village of Vitosh, donated to the Church of the Mother of God of Vitosh, without a year (Grigor. Putesh. p. 73). G. Grigorovich during his trip to Athos did not have the opportunity to see the Protata archive (Travel, p. 30 beginning), but Patriarch Euthymius of Ternovo in the life of Paraskeva of Ternovskaya, having spoken about the large number of dioceses of the Bulgarian Patriarchate under John Asen 2, refers the reader to his glorious chrysobuls, which are located “in the glorious monastery of the holy mountain of Protata” (Volokol. rkp. No. 629, sheet 162 vol.). (One Bulgarian told us that one or two chrysobulos were published in the Bulgarian magazine “Blgarski knizhitsi”; but at present we have at hand only a few books of this magazine in which there are no chrysovules.) A list of Bulgarian saints with brief information about their lives was compiled by Hieromonk Paisius of Hilendar, about whom see below in the addition to page 175, and placed by him at the end of his “Slavo-Bulgarian History”. The same list, without information about the lives of the saints, is repeated in the book “The Gift Book or Bulgarian History,” published by Budimu, in 1844, pp. 79,364. Since Paisius lists not only those saints who are actually recognized by the Bulgarians, but also those whom he himself for some reason found necessary to include in the list, we cannot say which saints are actually celebrated by the Bulgarian Church and whom only the author himself canonizes. We borrow the saints who were omitted from Paisius or who lived after him from the books: His Eminence Philaret: “Saints of the South Slavs”, Mr. Martynov’s Annus Ecclesiasticus Graeco-Slavicus, from the “Athos Patericon” and from some other sources that we indicate. The days of celebration of the saints, which are not indicated by Paisius, and the years of their death are listed according to the same books (and we do not at all vouch for the years of the ancient saints). For convenience, when making inquiries, we indicate in brackets which saints are in the above-mentioned books of the Most Holy. Filaret and Mr. Martynov. 1) “The first saint, king (sic) Trivelia, named Theoctistus monk.” About this, as we think, mythological saint Paisius writes: “In the summer of 703, shortly after the sixth ecumenical council, he received holy baptism, and the entire Bulgarian people were baptized into his kingdom; that first Bulgarian baptism was at that holy king Trivelia; for a short time, having zeal and zeal for Christ God, he left the kingdom and worldly glory, built himself a great monastery near Ohrid and in that monastery he accepted the monastic order and lived a cruel life and died holy and godly and reposed himself to God in that monastery "(is Paisius confusing Prince Trivelia or Terbel with Prince Telerik, who fled to Constantinople and was baptized there?). 2) “Tsar of Terniv, blessed and memorable Michael or John,” i.e., the baptist of Bulgaria Boris-Mikhail. Paisiy writes among other things: “from him came the tribe and clan of the Bulgarian kings until the last Shishman John; “Everyone signed his name and title, which were from his tribe, first he wrote his name, which was his name, then John, that is, Ioannovich.” We do not know either his life or his service. Commemorated on May 2 (on the day of his death in 907; Filar., March). 3) King David, the elder brother of King Samuel. Paisius reports that, having willingly transferred the rule to his brother, he took on the monastic image and that his incorruptible relics were transferred from Bodena to Ohrid. For the wall image of King David in the church of the Rila Monastery, see Grigorovich in Putesh. page 151. 4) Tsar John-Vladimir, son of Aaron and nephew of Samuel. According to Paisius, who obviously means John Vladislav here and confuses this latter with the not entirely reliable Serbian saint John Vladimir (see in Serbian saints), his relics rest incorruptibly in Elbasan. 5) John the Patriarch of Tern, doubtful, allegedly having been under Tsar Asen the Old or the 1st and crowning him king (maybe he ruled for a very short time at the beginning of the reign of Asen the 1st, the predecessor of Basil the 1st). 6) Theophylact, an interpreter of the Gospels, a famous archbishop of Achrid at the end of the 11th and beginning of the 12th centuries, was not a Bulgarian by birth, but a Greek, about whom above page 42. Paisius includes him among the Bulgarian saints, considering him a Bulgarian and claiming that he “translated many books into the Bulgarian language.” 7) Euthymius, the last Patriarch of Ternovsky (both about this and about the previous one, Paisius has a complete fable). 8) Joachim the 8th, Patriarch of Ternovsky, killed by Tsar Svyatoslav, about whom above page 83. Paisius speaks about this Joachim and the three previous patriarchs, referring to some Helmsman, on the 5th sheet. 9) Clement Archbishop of Ohrid, i.e. the famous Clement of Belitsa, † 916 10) Nahum (in Kings, Ohrid). 11) Erasmus (sic, cfr Grigorovich Travel. p. 120), i.e. Gorazd (in Kingdoms, Ohrid). 12) Angelaria or Angelarius (in Kingdoms, teacher of Ohrid). 13) Savva (in Kingdoms, Bishop of Ohrid). Disciples of Constantine and Methodius, or, counting with the first teachers themselves, the so-called septenarians. The relics of Clement are located in Ahrid, in the church named after him (Grigorovich Putesh. p. 115 fin.). Naum’s coffin is in the monastery named after him, located on the southeastern shore of Lake Ahrid (ibid. p. 127). The relics of Gorazd and Angelarius in Albanian Belgrade or Berat, in the local Metropolitan Church (see Περιγραφὴ τῆς ἰερ ᾶ ς μητροπόλεως Βελεγράδων, Metropolitan Anfima, ἐν Κερκύρ ᾳ, 1868, σελ 112, - and the Gorazda monastery near Berat, which is on the map attached to Grigorovich’s Travels, does not actually exist). We know nothing about the relics of Savva. Commemoration of all the septenarians on July 27, separately Clement on November 25, Nahum on June 20 (Philar., March). 14) Nicholas, Archbishop of Ohrid, allegedly, as it is written in his life (now unknown), installed Hilarion of Meglin as bishop. 15) Hilarion, Bishop of Meglin. In all likelihood, his origin is not Bulgarian, as some people think, but a Greek from Constantinople (of noble origin). If our information is reliable, he was appointed bishop of Neglin around 1134 (see above p. 44) by Archbishop Eustathius of Akhrid (in Euthym. Life), and died after 30 years at the see in 1164 (above ibid.). During his long administration of the Meglin see, he diligently and, according to the biography, successfully fought against the heretics Manichaeans or Bogomils who were in his diocese and with the Armenians 365, so that he finally managed to convert most of both to the church. Patriarch Euthymius in the life of Hilarion adds that “the Armenian heresy (then) could not have fallen away from our pious faith, even if Cyrus Manuel the Greek king had not been strengthened by blessed Hilarion with dogmatic words.” The relics of Hilarion were transferred from Meglin or Moglena to Ternov (and laid here in the monastery of 40 martyrs) by Tsar John Kalyan. Memory October 21. The Life of Hilarion of Meglin, written by Euthymius the Patriarch of Ternovsky, in Volokol. RKPP. Nos. 654 and 655, in Troitsk. Lavsk. RKP. No. 686 (Filar., March.). 16) Nikodim the myrrh-streamer, it is unknown when he labored in the countries of Ohrid (according to the Kingdoms, Prilep); His relics were later transferred to Belgrar in Arnaut, or Albania, where, according to Paisius, they remain incorrupt to this day. About his wall image in the church of the Rila Monastery near Grigorovich Putesh. p. 151 (Eminent Filaret, on July 11, considers our Nicodemus to be one and the same with Nicodemus of Albania, who suffered from the Turks in 1742, which seems to be incorrect). 17) John of Rila, a stern desert dweller, a famous saint of the Bulgarian church and patron of the Bulgarian people 366, who labored during the reign of Tsar Peter. He was born from the village of Skrino, within Sredechsky or Sofia; After the death of his parents, he became a monk and entered the monastery, but after staying in the monastery for a short time, he left it to pursue asceticism in the desert. At first (for quite some time) he labored on one mountain, then for 12 years in one dark, green and gloomy cave, then in the hollow of an oak tree, and finally for seven years on one inaccessible stone cliff, at the foot of which he founded the Rila Monastery, which still exists to this day. He died, as they say, in 946, too 70 years old. His relics, when “a lot of time had passed” after death, were found incorruptible, and were transferred to the city of Sredets or Sofia. From here, during one war, they were kidnapped by the Hungarians and placed in the city of Ostriagom, but in 1187 they were returned to their original place. Tsar John Asen 2nd (with Patriarch Vasily 1st) in 1195 transferred them to Ternov, where they were placed “in the glorious city of Trapezitsi” 367, in a church built in honor of the saint, and in 1469 the monks of the Rila Monastery were again transferred to the Rila Monastery, where they remain to this day. (About the Rylsky monastery, located in the Raslog district, to the north-west of Raslog and to the south-east of Dubnitsa, on the Rilo River, flowing on the left side into Struma or Karasu, see Grigorovich in Travel. p. 148; about the fasting or monastery of John of Ryl, where he labored, ibid. p. 156 beginning) Life of John Rylsky, written by the Patriarch of Ternovsky Euthymius and supplemented by Vladislav the grammarian, published in Glasnik XXII, 265; another life, written by an unknown person and, as it seems, not by a Bulgarian, but by a Greek from Constantinople, during the reign of the Greek emperor. Manuila, in Volokol. RKP. No. 591. 128 (Inscription: “The life and life of our holy father John, the desert dweller of Rylsk, who lay in the table and performed miracles all the days of the Great.” Beginning “The sacred beginning of the story of the desire to compel me”; about the author, see pp. 129, 130 vol. fin.. 138 sqq); a short (prologue) life of John of Rylsk was published in Izvestia Acad. Sciences vol. VIII, p. 150. Memory of August 18 and October 19 (Filar., March.). 20) Joachim of Sarandapor or Osogov. Based on the life of Joachim of Sarandapore, written by an unknown person and published in the article by V. Lamansky “On some manuscripts in Belgrade, Zagreb and Vienna,” attached to Book VI of the Notes of Acad. Sciences, pp. 123, 1864, and in Glasnik XXII, 242; The “quartet” of saints - John of Rylsky, Prokhor of Pshinsky, Gabriel of Lesnovsky and this Joachim of Sarandapore were contemporaries and competitors in the exploits of desert life. Prokhor labored in the deserts of Vranyansky on the Pshina River, which below Spokia flows from the left side into the Vardar (see in Reise von Belgrad nach Salonik Ghana 1st map attached to the 1st edition - in the diocese of Skopje, adds Paisius); Gabriel - in the Lesnovskaya mountain, which is not far from Kratov, in the Ovchepol region, in the Zletov choir (see Danichich Rechnik under the word Lesnovo, Glasn. XSh, 296 and in Lamansky ibid. p. 19, - in the diocese of Istib or Shchib, according to Paisius); Joachim - in the country of Ovchepol, in a place called Sarandapor, in the underwing of Mount Osogovskie, in a stream called Babin Dol, near the Skupitsa River. Commemoration of Gabriel and Prokhor on January 15, Joachim on August 16 (Philar.) A very brief life of Gabriel of Lesnovsky, reporting that his relics after being transferred to the city of Ternov and placed “in the table of the holy apostles”, Lamansky ibid. pp: 120. 21) Ioannikis maiden. The saint is not Bulgarian, but Serbian (see below); according to Paisius, he labored in Mount Devich, on the border of Serbia and Bulgaria, in the diocese of Gracanica, on the White Field, and his relics, exuding myrrh, are in the Devichensky monastery. 22) Theodosius of Ternovsky, who labored in the first half of the 14th century. He was originally from the vicinity of Bdin or Widdin; Having taken monastic vows in the Bdin monastery, Archar moved from here to Ternov, to the monastery so-called Holy Mountain (about which Glas. IX, 253), and from this latter to Cherveny or Rushchuk, to a monastery unknown by name; from Cherven he went to Mount Slivenskaya, to the Epikernev monastery, and from here he moved to the Paraorsky monastery 368 to St. Gregory Sinant (whose life see in the Athos Patericon, part I, p. 348). After the death of Gregory, he again returned to the Sliven Mountain, from where he went to Athos, and then to Thessaloniki and Messembria, to the monastery of Anthony the New. Having then visited Constantinople and again in Slivna, he went to Mount Emon, which lies near Messembria. Forced to leave here because of robbers, he settled with the permission of Tsar John Alexander in a place called Kilfarevo, where he founded his own monastery. After a considerable time, when the Turks captured all of Macedonia and “those below there were left silent,” Theodosius was forced to move, at the direction of Tsar John Alexander, to one very hard and inaccessible cave, 20 distances from Ternov. After three years spent here, he wished to see his friend and fellow student of Gregory the Sinaite, the then Patriarch of Constantinople Callistus; why he went to Constantinople, and here, settled by Callistus in the monastery of St. Mamant, which he built, “stayed for a long time,” and reposed around 1360. Theodosius took a very active part in the affairs of the Bulgarian church, which was then overwhelmed by various heresies. His life, written by the aforementioned Patr. Callistus and very interesting details about heretics, published in the Slavic translation in the General Readings. East. and Ancient, 1860 book. I, dept. III. Repose day is November 27 (for Rev. Philaret on February 17, for Martynov on January 28). 23) Mark, Metropolitan of Preslav. According to Paisius, agreeing with the testimony of Patr. Euthymius (life of Paraskeva of Ternovskaya, Volokol. manuscript No. 629, fol. 163 rev. beginning), he transferred the relics of St. Paraskeva from Epivat to Ternov, next. was under King John Asen 2nd. 24) Kosmas of Zograf, monk of the Athos Zograf Monastery; he asceticised near this monastery in one cave (Paisiy refers to his unknown life). See Athonite Patericon, part I, p. 258 (according to this latter, Cosmas † September 22, 1323). 26) Simon of Petrovsky (according to Tsars.-Kamensky). He labored on Mount Athos in one small stone cave (hence his nickname); supposedly built with the assistance of the Hungarian king; whose daughter he healed, the Athonite monastery of Simo-Petro. According to the Athos Patericon (Part I, p. 248), † 1257 Commemorated December 28. 27) Philotheus of the monastery. He labored unknown when on Mount Athos and allegedly built the Athonite monastery of Philotheus or Filofeevsky; died in an unknown year in Adrianople, where his brother Dionysius was metropolitan (according to the Barsky Putesh., ed. 5th p. 578, lived until 1492). 28) Pimin zographsky. He was from the Sofia diocese; first he got involved on Mount Athos, and then he went to the now named diocese, and since he was an artist, and the Turkish government then allowed the renovation of churches, he restored many churches and monasteries in the mentioned diocese. He reposed in 1610. 29) Mikhail Voin. Paisius reports: “Saint Michael the Warrior, from the village of Potuka (in another list of Potuka, in Tsar. Potok), was in the Sliven bishopric, a Bulgarian by birth, but he fought as a Greek and had a great military rank, and was brave in battle and the Saint killed the terrible serpent with his life, prayer and sword, and Tsar John from Potuka in Ternov to the church of 40 martyrs brought his relics." According to the ancient Bulgarian synaxarium (printed in Izvestia Acad. Nauk VIII, 153), he lived under Prince Boris-Mikhail, the baptist of Bulgaria; serving the Greeks, he took part in a campaign against the Hagarians, which, for the reasons of the Right Reverend Philaret, we do not know how thorough (on November 22), is the same one mentioned in the news of the invasion of the Russians (Askold and Dir) on Constantinople. The relics were transferred from Potuk to Ternov under Tsar Kaloianna and Patriarch Vasily 1st. Memory November 22 (March). 30) Dimitry Basarabovsky or new. His status was that of a layman, his occupation was that of a shepherd. He labored in the wilderness and died in 1685. His relics were transferred from the desert to the village of Basarabovo, near Svishchovo, in the diocese of Ternovo, from which he received the nickname Basarabovo. 31) Zograf martyrs, 25 in number, beaten by the Latins, that is, from the so-called Catellas or Catalans, a crowd of Spanish adventurers who were hired by the Greek emperor in 1302. Andronicus 2 against the Turks, but who then turned against the employers themselves and whose gangs robbed on Athos and besieged the monasteries there, getting to their wealth, in 1308–1310 (see Encyclopedias of Ersch and Gruber, first section vol. 85, p. 379 sqq, Safarik Geschichte der Südslawisch. Literatur III, 116 sqq and in the Serbian Genealogy, in the life of Archbishop Daniel 2nd, according to ed. p. 344 sqq). 32) Sofia Martyrs: George, Nicholas and Ferapont, flogged by the Turks during the reign of Sultan Selim; relics in Sofia. The torment of the first, written by his spiritual father who did not call himself by name, is published in Glasnik XXI, 131; according to this torment, George was from Kratov, suffered in Sofia from the Turks as an 18-year-old youth in the third year of Sultan Selim, in 7 thousand and 23 years or in 1515; service to him there p. 104. Commemoration of February 11 and May 28 (Filar., March, and Prologue. In the collections of manuscripts of Undolsky, No. 563, l. 640 and Tsarsky No. 411, l. 211, there is the torment of this George, written in 1539, by order of the Archbishop of Novgorod (after Metropolitan of Moscow) Macarius, monk and presbyter of the Novgorod bishop's house Ilya, from the words of two Athonite zograf monks who came to Novgorod, in Undolsky ll. 641 and 654 vol.). 33) Angel, the Bitol martyr, from the village of Florina, who suffered from the Turks in 1750. His suffering, according to Paisius, was described in Greek by the then ruler of Bitol. 34) Manasseh (Royal martyr) of Gabrovo. Paisius ends his list with this saint, without providing any biographical information about him. 35) Vassa the martyr, a maiden from the country of Thessaloniki. 37) Euthymius of Serbia. These three saints, omitted from Paisius according to the lists known to us, are, without any biographical information, on the list of the Tsarsal. 38) Prince Boyan. The name of this saint, which means Enrabota or Boin Archbishop. Theophylact, uncle of Boris-Mikhail (above pp. 6 and 21), is recorded in the calendar of the Moskhopol edition of services to the Bulgarian saints (in Martynov on November 28, in the Reverend Philaret on March 28). 39) Tsar Peter, son of Simeon and grandson of Boris-Mikhail 369. Strangely, it is omitted from Paisius and the Tsarsentnik. On a piece of monthly book kept by Grigorovich under an unknown month and date (together with Hippolytus, the Pope, St. Saulir and the Holy Martyr Theophilus) it is written: “on the same day the memory of our reverend father Peter the Tsar of Bulgaria” (see Grigorovich’s book: Articles concerning the ancient Slovenian language, Kazan, 1852, p. 92). In the same way, his name is read in the Bulgarian synaxar of 1330 (under January 30: St. Martyr Hippolytus of the Pope of Rome “and Peter the King of Bulgaria”, see the article by V. Lamansky “On some Slavic manuscripts”, etc., p. 120. The same in Rumyantsev’s South Slavic Prologue of the 14th century, in Vostok. No. 319, p. 449, ch. 30). Fabricius in his Bibliotheca Graeca, edition of Harles VII, 598, based on Montfaucon's Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum MSS. I, 505, reports the strange news that in one Ambrosian Codex of Milan there is an essay by Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria. "Dialogus de rebus naturalibus ad Petrum Bulgariae regem, item vita ejusdem." 40) Nikolai Voin. He is commemorated on October 24 in one of the Charatean Bulgarian Menea (Prologue). According to a short life published in the same Menea (and printed in the Izvestia of Acad. Sciences VIII, 154), he asceticised under the Greek emperor Nikephoros, which probably means Nikephoros Phocas. 41) Luke, nephew of John of Rylsky, the son of his brother, who secretly left home for him and labored with him in the desert (Euphemius’ Life of John of Rylsky, Glas. XXII, 269 sqq. About the fasting woman or monastery of St. Luke, located near the Rylsky monastery, in Grigorovich’s Travels p. 156). 42) Paraskeva Ternovskaya, Paraskeviya, Petka or Friday, Week. Originally from Epivat, in southern Thrace, on the Mediterranean coast; labored through the exploits of virginity and harsh desert life at the end of the 10th or beginning of the 11th century 370. The relics of Paraskeva were transferred from Epivat to Ternov by John Asen 2nd, having purchased them from the Latins, who then owned Constantinople and its environs. After the capture of Ternov by the Turks, they were transferred from it, first briefly to Viddin, and then by the wife of the Serbian prince Lazar to Serbian land. The Life of Paraskeva of Ternovskaya, written at the request of the tsar by Patriarch Euthymius of Ternovo and supplemented (by the news of the transfer of the relics to Serbia) by Gregory Tsamblak, published in Glasnik VIII, 131, in the Volokol manuscripts. librarian No. 629, l. 154, Troitsk. Lavrsk Nos. 630, 755 and 805). 43) Philothea of ​​Ternovskaya, originally from the city of Molyvot in Pamphylia, in Asia Minor; labored as a feat of chastity and desert living at an unknown time. The relics of Philothea were brought to Ternov and placed in the Church of the Mother of God, called “Temnish”, by Tsar John Kaliin. On the transfer of the relics from Ternov to Viddin, see above note. 19. Life of Philothea, written by Patr Euthymius of Ternov, in Lavrsk. Troitsk, director No. 676, l. 745 vol., No. 754, l. 291 rev. and No. 745. About the praiseworthy word of Joasaph of Viddin above in the same place. 44) Philothea of ​​Ardgish in Wallachia, originally from Ternov, allegedly suffered from her father in 1060 (not entirely reliable, Martynov has December 7). 45) Peter of Meglinsky. Grigorovich mentions a church in his honor in Putesh. page 176 beginning 46) Peter of Koritsky or Chernoretsky. He labored in the desert near Prizren during the reign of the Serbian king Stepan Dusan. His life, written by the monk Theodosius, is in one manuscript of the Rila Monastery, and a new copy, taken from this manuscript, is from A.F. Hilferding (from the Reverend Philaret on June 5, from Martynov on November 25). 47) Romil is a desert dweller, originally from Bdin or Viddin, Greek on his father’s side; Bulgarian on his mother’s side, who labored in the middle of the 14th century. Having taken monastic vows in the Ternov monastery, the so-called Holy Mountain, he moved from here to the Paraorsky monastery to Gregory Sinait; then he labored in a place called Mokra, one day from Ternov, again in the Paraor monastery, the Melana monastery, located in the wing of the Holy Mountain, in the city of Avlona (after 1371), and died in Serbia in the monastery of Ravanitsa (extract from his life, written by his disciple Gregory, in Glasnik IX, 253; in Martynov, under 11 January, at Rev. Philaret in the index under November 24). New martyrs suffered by the Turks: 48) Damascene, from the village of Gabrovo in the Ternovo diocese, who suffered in 1771 (in the Athos Patericon, part, 2, p. 193, under January 16; by the Reverend Philaret and Martynov on the same date). 49) John, who suffered in 1784 (in the Patericon of Athos, part 2, p. 215, under March 5; at the Most Rev. Philaret under March 4, at Martynov under March 5). 50) Ignatius, from the village of Eski-Zagra in the diocese of Tern, who suffered from the Turks in 1814 (in the Patericon of Athos, part 2, p. 306, commemorated on October 20 and May 1; by the Reverend Philaret on October 8). 51) Onuphry, from the above-mentioned village of Gabrovo, who suffered in 1818 (in the Athos Patericon, part 2, p. 335, under January 4, by the Reverend Philaret on the same date). 52) Zlata, from the village of Zlativ in the Meglin diocese; probably Bulgarian, as the name itself shows; suffered in 1795 (at the hands of Reverend Philaret on October 18). (In the calendar of the Mstislav Gospel of the late 11th-beginning of the 12th century, under January 8, “the memory of St. Gregory the Bishop of Mysia” is recorded (Izvest. Acad. Sciences IX, 122), it is unknown when he lived, but more likely that even in pre-Bulgarian times. Archbishop Theophylact in the Tiberiupol Martyrs (§ 37) ranks Herman among the Bulgarian saints Kovinitsky, who was from Asia Minor, came to Europe and labored in the Kozinitsky monastery, built by him, near Amphipolis, in southwestern Thrace, during the reign of the Bulgarian prince Boris-Mikhail. Life of Bollandistov, 3 volume, month of May, p. 161 and appendix; 1) John-Vladimir, prince. According to the synaxarion of Serblyak, he was the ruler of Zeta, the son of Petrislav, the grandson of Khvalimir. Having been captured by the Bulgarian Tsar Samuel, he married his daughter Kosara; in 1015 he was treacherously killed by Samuel's nephew Vladislav. Commemoration of May 22 (service and synaxarion in Serblyak; Filar., March, and above here). 2) Stefan Nemanja, monk Simeon. Ancient lives: 1) Stephen the First-Crown, 2) St. Sava, both published in Safarik Monuments; 3) Dometianovo, printed by Mr. Danichich; common praise with St. Sava in Volokol. handwritten No. 620 after the life of Savva, and Undolsky No. 231, fol. 187. Memory 13 February. (service and synaxarion in Serblyak; Filar. March.). 3) Stephen the First-Crown, Simon in monasticism. Ancient life is unknown; memory of September 24 (service, akathist and synaxarion in Serblyak; Filar., March.). 4) Stefan Milutin, Urosh 2nd. Memory of October 30 (service and synaxarion in Serblyak; Filar., March.). 5) Stefan Dečanski, Urosh 3rd. The Life, written by Gregory Tsamblak, was published in the Arkiv of the Saktsinsky book. 4 and in Glasnik book. XI. Commemoration of November 11 (service, akathist and synaxarion in Serblyak; Filar., March). 6) Urosh the young king, son of Stefan Dusan. Life written by Patr. Paisiy, published in the Glasnik book. XXII. Commemoration of December 2 (service and synaxarion in Serblyak; Filar., March). 7) Lazarus the despot. A short story about him by an unknown person in Glasnik XXI, 158. Commemoration of June 15 (service and synaxarion in Serblyak; Filar., March). 8) Stefan new or high, son of the despot Lazarus. Life written by Konstantin Kostenchi, in manuscripts. Commemoration of October 9 (service and synaxarion in Serblyak; Filar., March. - at the first on July 19 9) John the Despot, son of Despot Stefan, son of Yuri Brankovich. Commemoration of December 10 (service and synaxarion in Serblyak; Filar., March., cfr Relations with the East Muravyov I, 18 and 19). 10) Angelina the despot, wife of the despot Stefan, son of Yuri Brankovich, and mother of the previous John. Commemoration on July 30 (in Serblyak there is a service and synaxarium; Filar., March. - at the first on December 10). Archbishops and Patriarchs: 1) Sava the first archbishop. Lives – 1) written by Dometian. 2) written by an unknown person, most likely Dometian’s student Theodore, printed by Mr. Danichich. Commemoration January 14 (service and synaxarion in Serblyak; Filar., March). 2) Arseny Archbishop. Memory of October 28 (service and synaxarion in Serblyak; Filar., March.). 3) Sava 2nd Archbishop. Commemoration on February 8 (in Serblyak there is a service without a synaxar; Filar., March). 4) Eustathius Archbishop. Commemoration on January 4 (in Serblyak there is a service without a synaxar; Filar., March). 5) Nicodemus Archbishop. Commemoration on May 11 (in Serblyak there is a service without a synaxar; Filar.). 6) Daniel 2nd Archbishop. Commemorated December 20 (in Serblyak there is a service without a synaxar; Filar.). 7) Patriarch Ioannikis. Commemoration of September 3 (in Serblyak there is a service without a synaxar; Filar.). 8) Ephraim Patriarch. Commemoration of June 16 (service and synaxarion in Serblyak; Filar., March). 1) Ioanniky maiden, maiden or Chernoretsky. According to the synaxarion of Serblyak, he came from what is now Austrian Dalmatia, and fought the feat of desert life during the reign of Yuri Brankovich. With the assistance of the now-named despot, he built the Devichesky or Maiden's Monastery on the Ibar or Ibra River. Commemorated on December 2 (service and synaxarion in Serblyak; at the Reverend Filar on April 26, at Martynov on November 4). 2) Stefan Shchilyanovich. According to the synaxarion of Serblyak, he served in military rank, first to the Serbian despot shortly before the fall of the Serbian kingdom, then to the Ugric king. “I have always labored in that which is good; alms, cleanliness, prayer, Orthodox faith and unfeigned love for neighbors.” A short story about him was written by Patr. Paisius (Glasnik XXII, 232 notes, for a lengthy life, see Safarik in Geschichte d. Südslaw. Literat. III, 198 beginning. According to Patriarch Paisius, Stefan was called to Hungary from his homeland of Zaholmia by the wife of the despot of Serbo-Hungarian settlers John Brankovich-Elena, who, after the death of her husband, without having male descendants, transferred to him, as a relative of the princely house, despotic dignity. He died, according to the same Paisius, on October 4, 1508, see Czaplovich in Slavonien und zum Theil Croatien, Pesth, 1819, part II, S. 182. Cfr however, Relations between Russia and the East on Church Affairs Muravyov, part I, p. 14 sqq, where in 1509, and it seems earlier, the despot was not Stephen, but Ivaniska of the Latin faith). Commemoration of October 4 (service and synaxarion in Serblyak; Filar., March). 3) Maxim, Metropolitan of Ugrovlahia, a Serb by birth, son of Despot Stephen, grandson of Yuri Brankovich. His short life in Glasnik XI, 123. Commemorated on January 18 (in Serblyak there is a service and synaxarion; March, and higher in our history of the Ugrian church). 4) Vasily Ostrogsky. According to the synaxarion of Serblyak, a native of the Duchess, tonsured of Trebinsk, Metropolitan of Zaholm and Skenderia, who labored unknown when, resting in Ostrog, in Chorna Gora. Commemoration of April 29 (service and synaxarion in Serblyak; according to Martynov, on December 22, he was after the Patriarch of Pek and occupied the see as if in the first half of the 17th century; Filar.). Services to the named twenty-two saints are placed in Serbljak, published in the third edition in Belgrade, in 1861, with the blessing and care of Metropolitan Michael of All Serbia; From this we conclude that all these saints are celebrated by the Serbian Church. In the preface to Serblyak, the publisher says: “in this edition you should also include prayer rules and these holy saints of God: (23) Saint Gregory of the Serbian Archbishop, who was from the roots of the Nemanjic family, whose relics were in the Kumanice monastery on the Lima River 371: (24) Saint and Venerable Stephen, whose relics the Black Mountains of the Metropolitan rest in Piper and (25) the newly-minted Saint Peter: however, nothing can now be gained from them.” To all these saints, Reverend. Filaret also adds: 26) Patriarch Macarius 1st, who lived in the half of the 16th century (towards August 30, II, 77). 27) Patriarch Gabriel Raich, who lived in the half of the 17th century. (under the same number, II, 79). 28) Gregory, a monk of Mount Athos, it is unknown when he labored and built the monastery of Grigoriat (under December 7, cfr Barsky, ed. 5 p. 148). Bulgarian church cathedrals Due to the almost complete lack of sources, we did not want to touch upon the internal history of the Bulgarian church. But now, for some reasons, we decide to write down at least the little that we know. There are currently three known church councils that were in Bulgaria - one that was under Tsar Boris 3rd or Boril, and two under John Alexander. The council that was under Boris took place in 1210 and was convened against the Bogomils. In the so-called synodikon of Boris (printed by Mr. Palauzov in the 21st book of the Temporary General History and Ancient. p. 7) the following is written about him: .... (entry without beginning) “with a spiritual desire, (Tsar Boris) the ambassador was kindled to gather their (Bogomils) brethren throughout his entire region, like some tares into sheaves, and commanded the cathedral to dream. All the bishops who had come together, the priest and the monk and all the bolyars and many many other people, as if the king had led away all those who had come together, Abiy went out with a bright scarlet robe, sitting in what was then the only one from the great churches, and commanded the cathedral here and the presiding here to bring the wicked sowers, and not to those in vain (immediately) forbade, but with the great cunning of those who caught them, they told them to cast off all fear from themselves and boldly speak their blasphemous teaching. They, caught by the king and those like him, told in detail all their slanderous heresy. The king and those like him who were wise asked many questions from the divine scriptures, until they exposed the slanderous wisdom of those. They, like fish standing dumb and standing, bewildered everywhere about the contents of the behu. The pious king, having seen these shamed to the end and fallen and deposed by the devil, but exalted Christ, was filled with joy and commanded them to watch over those like them who were deceived by them. As they saw this, they again flocked to the cathedral church, and those who did not submit to the Orthodox cathedral were given over to various executions and imprisonment. And therefore, the pious Tsar Boris commanded to prescribe (translate) the conciliar from Greek into Bulgarian in his own language, and by his command this holy council was quickly inscribed in Orthodox cathedrals, as if Lent would be read in the first week of the saints, just as the holy fathers from the beginning gave the conciliar and apostolic church, for before his kingdom no one created this Orthodox (i.e., in the first week of Lent) cathedral. This whole thing was created and commanded by the pious Tsar Boris in the summer of 6718, indiction 14, moon 11 years, solar circle 15 years old, month of February 11 on the day of the heels of the damp week." The first council, which took place under Tsar John Alexander, was convened against the same Bogomils. In the life of Theodosius of Ternovsky, who took an active part in denouncing heretics at the council, the following is written about him: “A certain nun named Irina, living in the Solunya, showed herself to live in purity, and did away with all filthiness and impurity, working in secret. Having taken away this multitude from the monks, they began to gather there often. This all-filthy one, having become accustomed to the Masalian heresy, betrayed this secret to everyone like her who came to do evil for the sake of doing it. In the multitude that spread out, many monks were seized from her by the former delusion, and they entered the holy Mount Athos and divided themselves into faces all over the holy mountain, and greatly insulted the existing monasteries there, as they were beggars and petitioners, and if they were found anywhere, they would not have bread, or drink, or firewood, I would cut down olive oil, I found myself outside the monasteries, in abundance, and so on, and even if I thought I was being dirty, I did things. Such heresies spread for a period of three years, or even higher, they are the holy fathers of the mountains, not tolerating those wicked heresies, coupled with many dirty tricks and shamelessness, the council created and exposed those charms and malice, and drove them away in every possible way, and condemned them to final damnation. From these two, a certain one was born into thorns, one was named Lazar, the other was Cyril, nicknamed Bosota, and that one remained a little time, many times was not able to hide his charm, but Lazar began to act like a fool, walking naked in the weight of the city, on the shameful parts of the pumpkin he wore, covering himself with it, a strange and threatening shame for all beholding, and childbirth, their childbirth is given by God to man, the executioner himself. Cyril, the prophesied barefoot, began little by little to reveal his wicked heresy, sometimes blaspheming holy icons, sometimes holy trampling, sometimes an honest and life-giving cross. To this, there is drinking in houses, and various foul foods, sleepy dreams of the vision of God to be more often, wives and husbands of lawful marriage to retreat more often, and many other such things, filth and blasphemy. The attraction of the disciple is similar to evil, the bad Pope Stephen, but remains nothing from the merchant of evil, and the evil heresies are dangerous to the guardian. By this I know that I was the one who was so sick and evil, and then the patriarch stood before the church, a simple man, perplexed from everywhere. Having called upon the divine Theodosius and knowingly created everything, he commanded the gathering to be and the evil to come into torture. The tsar was aware of this former and dangerous notification, but the tsar commanded the council to be, and he sat down with the patriarch, and all the clergy of the church and the sigklit together. And when the sower of filthy heresies arrived, Blessed Theodosius was commanded to make questions to them, and also to answer them. He questioned those, saying: “What is this new and outside the church rite, your teaching, which we hear you more often; They answered, deciding: this is not a new invention, as you say, below outside the church rank, but the words of the Lord are spoken in the Holy Gospel and the Apostolic Commandments, saying to the Lord: Do not do evil things that are perishing, but abiding in eternal life. And again: blessed are the poor in spirit. Therefore, we follow the commandment, we kiss poverty, we pray unceasingly, but we do not rise to our nature, and for this reason we are poor in spirit and blessed by the Lord, and in the same way we go around the whole world, preserving the word of life. The wise one answered against this, saying: I did not tell the Lord about meat and bodily food, but about his divine commandments, but he commanded us to pray and ask for our daily bread at every hour. Likewise, the apostle says: my hand has served me and those who are with me, and do not go around cities and towns, and get drunk and overeat, and call priests and deacons for yourself, and teach without shame, below the ordination of those who have it from the bishop, below the commandment of the teaching. Who commanded you to teach people to retreat from legal marriage, to do less than manual work, and to cut off childbearing; who will teach you, who is the prophet, who is the apostle, who is the gospel book, who is the sleepy dream of creating a vision of God, who is teaching you the divine scripture, who is like a believer in a dream, who is like one who drives away his own shadow, and who tries to steal it; to the Apostle I legitimized and said: marriage is honorable and the bed is undefiled, but God judges the fornicator and the adulterer. And I say to the Lord: even as God has united, let not man separate. You are not of a poor spirit, but of an unclean spirit, you are their treasures and teachers and rulers. Which demon whispered to you with a natural passion to give room; or it is our nature for a slave to be a demon and say: God did not make our nature a slave to be a demon, but freely and autocratically, demons are warriors and opponents, and they fight our nature, and everything is in our will. If we submit to their advice, then we will also be their helpers; if not, they will be put to shame, we will be honored with a great crown, and it is also in our will to either submit or repel. Where do you dare to say that there are two principles, one is good, the other is evil; for they possess the good that is on earth, but they possess the heavenly to the contrary. And if they have this, teach us to say in prayer: Our Father, who is in heaven, thy will be done as it is in heaven and on earth, even as God is the cunning and creator of heaven and earth and all creation. Which demon taught you to trample on holy icons, and the life-giving cross, and other sacred vessels, and also the holy mysteries, like simply partaking of bread, boldly and without fear, but also desecrated Christian food and drink, and when you see, you swear various oaths, without fear and without shame; By the same token, you are truly lawbreakers, criminals of the gospel, troublemakers of the faith, seducers, and flatterers and perjurers, and I also say to the Lord: I tell you, do not swear at all. And when you are denounced as heretics, then you deny the Masalian heresies, and you curse, as if they are evil, and you inform yourself with terrible spells, and remember that you can’t sin in any way, for the sake of the fear that is due to you, and every time you take some kind of joy, again, like a psycho for your vomit, your vile faith, come back. This and this, similar to the blessed one, I said to Theodosius, they stood still, as if they were voiceless. The king, seeing them completely put to shame, rejoiced greatly and the whole pious council rejoiced greatly, and was magnified, as if he had said according to what is written: the house of David, the house of Saul was humbled, and as if the lie had been exposed by the truth, and the great evil ones were struck with cold. Lazarus, having understood the deceptions, came to repentance and even remained to the end. The nasty barefoot and the disciple of the same wisdom, Stefan, became petrified. For this reason, the most pious king, having seen those sophisticates, burned their faces with burning glands and commanded them to create them from their borders. Sitsa has already completed the cathedral and accepted the bright feats, all of them in their own way" (in Readings. General History and Ancient. 1860, book I, l. 5 ver. - 6 rev.). Another council, which took place under the same John Alexander, was against the Jews or Jews, who, taking advantage of the fact that the then queen of Bulgaria, the second wife of John Alexander, was from a Jewish family 372, openly dared to blaspheme Christianity. This council is recorded in the same life of Theodosius of Ternivsky. According to the printed list of the life, the year of the council is 1360; but this is not true - it was unknown when before 1356 (see above p. 85 fin.). In the life it reads: “The evil and ungrateful race of the Jews sometimes moved against the creator and God, first because the opponents of God appeared, the prophets killed preaching about the coming of the son of God, and then rose up against the Savior himself, and even staggered to the cross and death, and by the same token God took away their property from them, and to the plunder of the Roman language of those betrayed, from there and scattered throughout the entire universe, and so they will remain until the end of the age, having eternal reproach. They are petrified and do not understand the one who said: as if I swore in my anger, even if they enter my peace, they still touch, daring to blaspheme the icons of our Lord Jesus Christ, and his most pure mother, the Most Holy Theotokos. And not just the honest icons are blasphemed, but also the divine churches and the sacrifices offered in them are shamelessly blasphemous and humiliating, and many other whore-talking things that are untrue to the scriptures, also dishonoring priests, swearing at monks, and other unplaceable activities. It is the fault of all those who act on the part of the Jews, for their lawless and wicked boldness, for hoping in the queen, who is of that lineage and reigning, but sinned in their undertaking. For I am pious and Orthodox; I do not at all accept anyone blaspheming the Orthodox faith, but I also have pure faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in His Most Pure Mother, and in all the saints, building monasteries and churches for the glory of God. This is why, as if he had heard the zealot of piety, blessed Theodosius, Abiye went to the king, and when he saw the king, he called him to himself alone, and all the lawless Jewish undertakings were told in detail, and how the Jews rushed to the colic of anger, and only in jealousy did the king move, no less put it aside, but soon command the assembly, being extremely ashamed of the husband’s virtue, and sweetly accepting what he said from him, and in everything trying to be an imitator of his jealousy. It’s not just that the good zealot is pleased with these, but also the queen, who is similar to divine zeal, and the patriarch. And therefore, by royal command, the cathedral met. Then the presiding princess with his sons, Shishman, I say, and Asenem, in the new chamber built from him, to this and Patriarch Kvr Theodosius, the same most sacred Metropolitan of Great Preslav, Dorotheus Protofron, Zechariah Metropolitan of Drester, Lazarus Metropolitan of Ovchapol, Parthenius of Lovchansky, Manuel Metropolitan Philinopolis, Leonty Metropolitan of Medieval, James of Madita widow (sic), Dorotheos Bishop, St. John the Archimandrite of the Great Lavra of the Holy 4 Martyrs, and those who came from the desert with Blessed Theodosius, the virtuous elders and all the divine fulfillment of virtues, these Byahu: Hieromonk Savva, Hieromonk Timothy, Hieromonk Dionysius, and many other monks from equal monasteries. And she preached the Orthodox faith with a bright voice, like the only begotten word of God, receiving our flesh from the virgin blood of the Mother of God, and this God is perfect, man was perfect, for our salvation, as if anyone does not worship the incarnate God of Christ and that Mother of God, written on the icon according to humanity, let him be cursed and let him be condemned with the infidels. And not just about the Jewish heresies, who philosophize evil, is cursed, but also the nasty and godless Bogomil, that is, the Masalian, heresy, and also another newly-minted heresy, the Varlaam and Akindinian heresy, and that ministers and representatives are cursed, and drive away far from their borders, having condemned, as from here the Bulgarians The land of such unclean tares can be built more cleanly, but it is more pious than faith that it shines more purely than the rays of the sun. The blessed Tsar John Alexander commanded that the predicted blasphemers of the Jews, according to the law, should be condemned to death with all kinds of dangerous torture and condemned to death, otherwise, being a humane being, put this death on the stomach and condemn them to death, and condemn them to death, as if they, too, would be punished for not blaspheming. By the will of the royal and patriarchal and the entire council, a scroll was quickly written, as a notification and confirmation to the rest of the clan, who later wanted to be, as if it were not because of some guilt that the Jews dared to dare to strive for our true and pious faith, but as if from God in enslavement by all the tongue they are betrayed, here and let them remain, like slaves, and not as rulers, the Lord has struck those enemies back, and given them eternal reproach. So the cathedral was settled in a bright place, and having set a bright victory, the scroll was quickly signed with scarlet and royal writings, and sealed with the royal seal in the summer of 6868.” (ibid.l. 7 vol. –8 vol.). Some of the internal life of the ancient Serbian and Bulgarian Orthodox churches In the Law Book of Tsar Stefan Dusan, which was originally published in 1349 and was then supplemented by him, the following articles related to the church and clergy are read (which we present according to the edition of the Law Book in Safarik's Monuments of Writing of the South Slavs and translated from Serbian into Russian) 373. 1. First of all (let's say) about Christianity. In this way, let Christianity be purified: let rulers (boyars and officials) and other people not marry without being blessed by their bishop or confessors. 2. And no marriage can happen without a wedding; if it happens without the blessing and without the request of the church, let them be separated. 3. As for spiritual duties, let every person have obedience and obedience to his bishop; If anyone turns out to have sinned before the church or to have violated anything from this law, either willingly or unwillingly, then let him submit and correct the church; If he listens and stays from the church and does not want to correct the commands of the church, then after that he will be excommunicated from the church. 4. And let the saints not curse Christians for spiritual sins, but let them send them twice or three times to the one who has sinned and let them convict him; and if he does not listen and does not want to correct himself according to spiritual exhortation, then let him excommunicate. 5. As for the Latin heresy, let the Christians who were seduced into Azimism return again to Christianity; If anyone does not listen and return to Christianity, then let him be punished according to the law of the holy fathers. 6. And may the great church (i.e., the patriarchy) install archpriests in all large villages 374, may they return Christians from the Latin heresy, teaching them spiritual instructions, and may everyone return to Christianity. 7. And a Latin priest, if he turns out to have seduced a Christian into the Latin faith, may he anoint himself according to the “legalist” of the holy fathers. 8. And if he turns out to be a half-believer who has married a Christian, if he wants, then let him be baptized into Christianity, and if he is not baptized, then let his wife and children rebel and let him give them a part of his entire estate, and let him be expelled. 9 . And whoever turns out to be some kind of heretic living with Christians, let him be branded (with an iron) on his face and let him be driven out; and if anyone begins to conceal it, then let him too be branded. 10. And let the saints appoint spiritual fathers in all parishes, in cities and villages, and let only those spiritual fathers be spiritual fathers who have received the blessing for clergy-knitting and deciding from their bishops, and let everyone listen to them, according to church law; and those confessors who are not appointed as confessors, let them be expelled and let the church deal with them according to the law (the reader, of course, knows that in Greece and among the southern Slavs, to this day, the position of confessor is separate from the position of parish priest, and that the first is appointed to one or another number of parishes by special capable persons, predominantly and almost exclusively from hieromonks). 11. And let the laity not judge spiritual matters; if one of the laity turns out to judge a church case, then pay (a fine) 300 perper 375; Only the church can judge. 12. Let metropolitans and bishops and abbots not be appointed for compensation; and henceforth, whoever appoints either a metropolitan or a bishop or an abbot for a reward, let him be cursed and anathema; and if anyone turns out to have appointed someone for a bribe, then let both be deposed - both the one who appointed and the one appointed. 13. Let abbots not resign from the church without reason. 14. Let good and skillful people be appointed abbots in monasteries who want to be builders of the house of God. 15. Let abbots live in monasteries (cinnovias) according to the law, having council with the elders. 16. And for every thousand houses (parishes), let 50 monks eat in the monasteries 376. 17. Let monks and nuns who take monastic vows and then live in their homes be expelled (from their homes) and live in monasteries. 18. And local native monks, from the estate of the same church 377, should not live in (their) monastery, but should go to other monasteries and let some kind of service be given to them; This is decreed about them because, living in a monastery, they are the cause of much evil, for not everyone can resist giving something to one of their relatives and friends; and also the temptation for the brethren is very great, for they call others into the monasteries - guests and strangers - therefore this is what is decreed about them. If one of them is in the monastery, then let him not be constrained in anything (but he has the right) to take whatever he wants (from his estate) and give it wherever he wants. 19. A monk who throws off his robe and is kept in prison until he turns to repentance and obedience, 20. And people who, with sorcery, remove (the bodies of the dead) from coffins, and then burn them, then let the village pay the “enmity” (fine) where this happens. And if a priest takes part in this, then let him be ejected from the priesthood. 21. And whoever sells a Christian to another faith, let his hand be cut off and his tongue cut out. 22. The people of power (official people), who live in church villages and pasture lands, should each be subject to the authority of his master. 23. Let the churches not know “diarrhea,” except when the king comes, then they see him off. 24. If someone turns out to have taken a bribe from the “owner” of the church, then let him crumble. 25. Let the lord king and patriarch and logothete 378 possess the churches, and no one else. 26. All the churches that are found in the land of my kingdom, my kingdom freed from all “works” (rents and duties) small and great. 27. Let the royal churches not be attributed to the great churches (let them not be subsumed under the great churches). 28. And in all churches let the poor be supported, as written by the ktitors 379; If any of the metropolitans or abbots does not feed them, then let him be deposed. 29. And let the monks not live outside the monastery. 30. And from now on, let no one tear out a single hair of a monk or a church person, and whoever does this during my life and after the death of my kingdom, let him not be blessed; but if anyone has offended anyone, let him seek justice and righteousness according to the law; if he offends him without trial, let him pay sevenfold. 31. Priests who are votchinniki (those who have their own votchinas, sub. baschinniks) may own their votchinas and may they (they are votchinas) be free (from quitrents); and other priests who do not have their own estates, let three legal fields be given (to them) and let the priest’s skufia (that is, the priest himself, vile, kapa) be free (from taxes). And if he takes (land from the church) more (as required by law), then from this excess land, let him work (pay rent) to the church according to the law. 32. The priest, no matter what, does not leave his master anywhere; If the master does not support him according to the law, then let him report to his bishop, and the bishop will tell that gentleman to support the priest according to the law. And if the master does not listen to the bishop, then the priest is free and can go wherever he wants. If the priest is a patrimonial owner, then the master does not have the right to expel him (from his fiefdom), but only he is free. 33. The church people (if we are not mistaken - tenants), who hold church villages and church land, dispersed the church peasants or Vlachs 380 - those who dispersed the peasants, let them contact and let us take the land from them and let the church hold it (the land itself) until the peasants who were dispersed return. 34. Let church people be judged in every matter before their metropolitans and before their bishops and abbots. And if both people are of the same church, let them be judged before their own church; and if there are two people judging from two churches, then let both churches judge them. 35. Let church villages and church people not go to the corvée work of my kingdom - neither to mow hay, nor to weed, nor to harvest grapes, nor to do any work, no matter how small or great; My kingdom has freed (them) from all work, only let the churches work; and whoever turns out to have expelled the monastery peasants to corvee and disobeyed the royal law, may that ruler be stretched and punished. 36. And I handed over my kingdom to the abbots of the church, so that they might have all the property of the monastery - horses and sheep and everything else; Let them be free in everything, as is proper according to custom and truth, and as is written in the chrysobulos of the holy ktitors. 37. And let the law of Cenobium be established in the churches for the monks in the monasteries, according to what kind of monastery it is. 38. And let not exarchs be from the laity, and let metropolitans not send them to priests; but let the metropolitans send monks to each other as priests, let them correct spiritual affairs and take church rent from (those) priests who have estates. 39. And all the chrysobuls and prostagmas (προςάγματα), what my kingdom gave to whom and what it wants to give to whom - and let those votchinas be firm, like the first faithful kings, and let them (the votchinniki) or the church be free to give or give for a soul or sell to someone. 43. And the rulers and other people who have patrimony churches in their patrimony - may neither the lord tsar, nor the patriarch, nor any other saint be free to assign those churches to the large church, but may the patrimonial owner be free to install his own monk and may he bring him to the saint, so that the saint in whose diocese will bless him, and may the saint be in charge of spiritual affairs in that church. 44. And the ruler who assigns his church to another church, may no longer possess that church. (The same is repeated in § 192.) 53. Estate (land received from the king for temporary use) 381 no one can buy or sell unless he has an estate. No one has the right to give local land to the church; if he gives it away, then the donation is not firmly (not recognized). 55. Let the orphan sorcerer be free (from taxes), just like the priest. 67. If the churches have a court case with someone and the person suing issues a royal letter of complaint (in the vile “book of mercy”), then that letter will not have any force, but will be judged according to church and royal law and reported to the king. 72. “And whoever speaks a woman’s speech,” if there is a ruler, let him pay 100 perper, and if there is a tax-paying person (in a mean, sebr), let him pay 12 perper and let him be beaten with a stick (Raich and others translate: “whoever speaks evil and indifferent speech”; the word remains not entirely explainable, see Danichich in Rechnik under the word babunsky). 82. If anyone dishonors a saint or a monk or a priest, he pays 100 perpera. 83. Whoever kills a saint or a monk or a priest shall be put to death and hanged. 98. Whichever person escapes from prison, then with what he comes to the court of the kings - whether it be a person of the kings, or a church person, or a ruler - with that let him be free; and if he ran away from a “togai man” 382, ​​then let him be returned to the one from whom he ran away. 99. A prisoner who is kept in a church yard but escapes to the Tsar's quarters is free, and a prisoner who escapes to the patriarch's courtyard is free. 111. Whoever robs a church in war shall be put to death or hanged. 120. The royal command: no one accepts anyone, neither the king, nor the queen, nor the church, nor the ruler, nor anyone else, without the king’s letter; otherwise let him be punished as a traitor. 127. And if someone accuses someone in court of robbery or theft, and there are no witnesses, then he will justify himself with iron, as the king ordered, let him be taken from the fire at the church gates and laid on the holy table. 131. If the magician and the poisoner are exposed, they will be punished according to the law of the holy fathers. 132. And from now on, stallions and horses are not given to churches and church villages for food. 153. People who have their own patrimonial land and grapes and purchased goods are free to give away their grapes and patrimonial land as a dowry (for their daughter) or write it down to the church. 167. If any accomplice (sorcerer, and does harm to someone) turns out to be guilty of connivance, deceit, and imposition (monkey), then let him be punished as a thief and a robber. 173. Let all the cities of the king's land live according to the laws in everything, as was the case under the first kings; and if they have a trial, let them be judged before the city leaders and before the church choir; If anyone from the volost has a dispute with a city dweller, he must sue before the city authorities and before the church choir according to the law. 195. As for globa 383 on church people, when they are tried before the church and before the city commander (cephalus), let the church take the globa that is awarded, as it is written in the Chrysovuli, and let the globa be taken on church people, as the Lord Tsar legitimized by his law in the state, and let the church people appoint globars, who will collect the globa and give it to the church, and the king and the city the chiefs (kephalia) do not take anything. 196. And let the saints and abbots not take bribes from their people; and if he is convicted of what he took, he will be deposed. And if the “church owner” is exposed for taking a bribe, let him be punished with trade execution (yes, behold, let him be stretched), and if a monk who takes a bribe, let him be beaten and driven out. 197. And let no wives sit in church, except for the queen and her eldest daughter-in-law (heiress). 198. And without the blessing of the saints, let neither men nor wives be tonsured (into monasticism). Church law must be binding for every person. According to the publication of the Lawyer Raichev (History of the Slavic peoples, part IV, appendix III, 2nd ed. pp. 254–84), some more articles related to church affairs are read (22, 93, 96, 97, 100, 101); but since they are not in the editions of Safarikov and Mikloshichev, we believe that in Raich the original text of the Lawyer is mixed with later inserts. In the acts printed in Miklošić's Monumenta Serbica, among the highest church officials there is a mention of the "archpriest of the court". In the charter of Stephen the First-Crown, given to the Zhichsky monastery, it reads: “what comes from the kingship of this church, this and the dumb archpriest of the noble nobility of the region, but what comes from either the priests or from the vlakhs or the land of the priest's bir, what comes from the priests, half of this uzima tsrkvi.... whoever applied to the tsar’s salvation of ours, I don’t have the archpriest of the Dvorsk Nikore region, but what comes from the priests or from the Vlachs or the countrymen, what is the priest’s bir, what is the land on the people, and behold, I will put everything on this tsrkvi, and the hoarfrost of the piskupyam ke su reached zhupa, yes uzima archpriest dvorski half biri popovske, and here e vrikhovina priest, but odga not uzemle archpriest honors, not all that squeak and uzemle (p. 13); and this 4 zhupe: Elshanitsa, Pnuka, both Ibra od izprva not ulazil archpriest, and even yes su ot archpriest freely and 4 na-mastiri Kraljevsci: Sveta Mother of God of Studenička, and Sveta Georgie at Rasse and Svetogorsk monastery and Sveta Mother of God of Hradčska” (p. 14). Among the officials of the Serbian archbishop his “youths” are mentioned. In the charter of St. Sava to the monastery of St. Nicholas of Vraninsky in 1233 it reads: “and some ace sat in that place, but there was no region over them, neither a nobleman nor an archbishop nor his youth” (ibid. p. 18 fin.). Marriage matters are partly subject to the jurisdiction of bishops. In the letter of Stephen the First-Crown to the above-mentioned Zhichsky monastery it is written: “let the luminaries and the ruling prohibition prohibit them with divine prohibitions (sic), let no one leave this divine law (let him not dissolve a marriage) except the word of an adulterer, and let that truth be tested by reasoning against the ruler and warriors, and put on them the disobedient rulers, and they are squalid, on them I’ll put two wills each, then where they find the archbishopric, ke su under the region of the archbishopric, and put the archbishopric under the region, and under the region and the episcopate, if they find the same, then the winter of the episcopacy one day will, and others and uzima are dominant; If anyone transgresses a svatvitsa (relative) in her life, if she is a ruler or a warrior, let her disobey her ruler according to the will of the 2nd; If there are some who are poor, then let the luminary take away half of them, and such and so let them loose from the wicked or from the matchmakers” 384 (ibid. p. 15). Between the taxes of the lower clergy to the bishops, “bir” and “verkhovina” are mentioned. In the charter of Stefan Dechansky to the Dechansky monastery in 1330, it is written: “to the priest (of the villages granted to the monastery) I give Vrkhovina, as you were given by Piskun, here (for) buy the kingdom of Mi Tuzi Vrkhovina from Piskun Hvostnskog" (ibid. p. 98) (for other extracts, see above in "archpriest of the court"). Between the collections of the lower clergy from the laity, the same “bir” is mentioned. In Dushan’s chrysovule to the monastery of the archangels Michael and Gabriel it is read: “and may I give (the peasants of the monastery villages bir spiritual on odritsom (from the crown?) Lukno zhita will two dinars" (Glasn. XV, 305). To ensure the maintenance of churches and monasteries, the princes granted them: 1) trading in different places. In the chrisovule of Stefan Dušan to the Chrusia monastery, near Hilendar, it is written: “apply the kingdom to me trg at Lipljana, so that the light of the mother is divine” (Monumenta Serbica p. 122). In the chrysobul of his own Church of the Mother of God of Treskavitskaya: “apply the kingdom of the Most Holy Theotokos of Treskavskaya from the trga of Prilepskog and uzimat third del wine of the world of the Church in the name of the kingdom of the mid... yes uzima honorable monastery vsako godishe from the trga of Prilepskog for 100 perper enlighten the gift of the above scripture” (Glasn. XIII. 376; for more extracts, see Danichich in Rechnik under the word trg). 2) Court fines from church-owned peasants; in the last of the above-mentioned chrysobulos it reads: “do all this to the people of the Church, murder and dissolution and maiden robbery and hand and disobedience and prestition, everything is also sacred (ibid. p. 376 fin.). 3) They freed church and monastery peasants from state taxes and duties. Stefan Dusan in his Lawyer made this benefit general for all churches and monasteries, but the peasants of individual monasteries and churches were exempted before him (see Miklosic's Monumenta Serbica pp. 27, 61, 63 and others; state taxes and duties or small and large works are called: priselitsa, dymnina, bir, juice, poklisar, psar, pozob, diarrhea, pomister, grass, gradazh, building of a city, cauldron (Glasn. XXIV, 240), harvest, haymaking, zhirovna, falconer, surcharge zhupska (ibid. 246 fin.), town control, oranje, vrshitba, grape work, wire (ibid. 252 beginning), desetok zhipnaya and wine and bee, sheep, nametok, enmity (ibid. 271 beginning), beagle, cart, gragya, military, setup, herakarism, trapping, podhiegoneniya, sysad, pritrazhitsa 385 (ibid. 275). Regarding the children of priests and candidates for the priesthood, in one of the chrisovules of Stefan Dečansky, it is decreed: “The priest’s sons who study the book, let them stand with their father on their lot, if (and if) they do not study the book, but they are still a meropkh (peasant); and yes, behold, from pop stavii” (Monumen. Serb. p. 98 fin.). As we said above, our information about the internal life of the Bulgarian church is extremely scarce. From the letters of Archbishop Theophylact it is revealed that in his time the Bulgarian priests and peasants who belonged to the churches were not exempt from state taxes and duties, and that tax collectors sometimes allowed themselves to oppress the clergy and churches. In a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople, he writes: “here (in Bulgaria) grave deeds are being committed (and we are oppressed) by cruel guards - clergy are stripped and shaken by the chest, peasants are counted in the most careful manner, lands are measured with the feet of fleas, so that it will actually grow thorns and thistles for us; and everything is examined and weighed, so that this foolishness comes to the measurement of flesh and bones "... (ed Finetti IV, in Patrol. Minya (t. 126, p. 316). In a letter to the bishop of Viddinsky, consoling the latter, he writes: "Do you have harsh tax collectors? But they are no more severe than those in these countries and who take one out of five children and take them into slavery, as if they belonged to those cattle from whom tithes are collected (ed Finetti XVI, in Minh ibid. p. 337). In a letter to the panipersevast Bryennius, the emperor’s son-in-law, complaining about the tax collector, he writes: “I especially pray for your kingdom, not asking for anything new and unusual to the holy and divine soul of the emperor, but only that what is observed in relation to everyone and always is observed in relation to me. He (the tax collector) says that it is not a particularly important matter if the clergy are forced to provide income to the treasury. (But) I am not obliged to this, firstly, because the treasury was not used by the clergy before us, but that everyone, being exempt from taxes for a pair of oxen, paid the treasury only if he had more than a pair; then, that before this, the clergy were exempt from tithing on all animals. And this may not be considered by some ignorant judge to be theft from the treasury; on the contrary, this was determined by the royal generosity, which was abundantly enjoyed by those who received it. Nowadays, this generosity has had a limit and an end, and they even find it blessed to demand more than a certain amount into the treasury, and a certain allowance has been added to what is due. Thirdly, if there is anything worthy of tears, it is that many not only do not enjoy freedom from taxes on one pair of oxen and are not only not exempt, as defined from tithes on animals, but that during the census they had an increase in the number of pairs (of oxen) and the number of cattle, so that they not only did not remain free, as they had the right, but also had to pay excess. Likewise, they suffered in the most unlawful manner in other things. For the clerics pay twice as much for the mills as the laity, and for the so-called plows in the Bulgarian language (στρούγαις - in Greek you can call them ditches), which provide fishing, the clerics pay much more than other people. And he, faithful and pious, came up with this idea in order to increase the taxes collected from the clergy to the treasury and to slander me, as if I, being ungrateful and insatiable, had caused this damage to my benefactor and patron (i.e., the emperor). I will say the same about the taxes that he demanded from the church people, for these too were taxed in the most unlawful manner, being monks and sacred eunuchs; also some laymen, of whom I think there are no more than five in number and who all do not benefit from society (that is, from public lands, landowners), how was it found legal to impose taxes on them? Even the emperor has no right to do this. He robbed me in such a magnificent manner that I am not ashamed of the gravity of my rank, for he demanded everything for the mills that had previously been freed from payment and took from me twice as much as from the Bulgarians. And for a certain lake, which provides an insignificant fish catch, he forced a sum of thirty-eight coins to be paid, while the fish obtained from it cost no more than one diovol, and then all the others paid for similar places one diovol. And one more thing: animals belonging to the church, large and small, are free (from taxes) by royal gift; these same people took tithes from them,” etc. (ed. Meursio XLI, in Min 448). In a letter to Tornosopul, the chief of Skopia, he writes: “and the priests in the town did not receive any freedom or relief either from standing 386 or from taxes in bread, and this while Chrysobulus (imperial) commands them to be free from low public services.... it is unworthy to equate sacred persons with the common people (ed. Lamio XIII, in Min ibid. p. 525; read also Meursio LXX, in Minh p. 489). In the Bulgarian synodikon, which dates back to the time of Boris the 3rd, whom we have mentioned many times above, it is said about John Asen 2nd or the Great that he “bestowed many gifts on all the holy and divine churches and declared freedom upon them.” From this it follows that the Bulgarian clergy was completely freed from state taxes and duties only under the now-named sovereign. Regarding taxes from the laity to the bishops, Archbishop Theophylact makes it known that in Bulgaria, as in Greece, there was a tax called κανονικὸν or καπνικὸν, i.e. smoke. At the same time, he makes it known that in his time an imperial chrisovul was issued, who was ordered to pay this tax to the bishops along with other peasants and the peasants, so to speak, appanage or royal (τα δεσποτικὰ κτ ή ματα, ed. Lamo V, in Min ibid. p. 512). Just as in Serbia, monastery peasants were exempted in Bulgaria from state taxes and duties. In the chrisovule of John Shishman to the Rila Monastery it is written: “to forgive and liberate the kingdom with me, all the people and villages of all that monastery of the kingdom with us will cleanse and brighten with forgiveness, and they should not dare to amuse (inflict burdens and violence) on those who are sevasti and prahtori (tax collectors), and primikyuri, nalagatori and judge, then ni perpirake, neither zhntare, nor vinara, nor desetkara bees and pigs and sheep, nor apodochatori nor these nor strator nor senari, nor mitati, nor kraguyar, nor pesaats, nor gradar, nor varnichy, nor pobirchie and nakhodnitsy, nor yin none from all bolyar and worker of the kingdom of my great and small, who are the essence of all times for all kinds given and the works of my kingdom” (Vol. VII, 186). Brief outline of the state and ecclesiastical history of the Croats or Croats Croats or Croats, as we said above, are very close relatives with the Serbs, the same with them as we Great Russians are with Little Russians or Belarusians. Initially, the Croats lived in the same place as the Serbs, namely, according to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, on the other side of Bagivaria, where the White Croats remained in his time, on the other side of Frankia, near Turkey or Hungary, in the neighborhood of unbaptized Serbs (De administr. imper. p. 31, ed. Bonn. pp. 143 fin. and 148 beg.), i.e. in the present - western Galicia, Lesser Poland and partly Silesia and upper Hungary (cfr above, in Serbian state history). Some of the Croats, probably avoiding the oppression of the Franks, under whose power they were (ibid. p. 144), under the leadership of five princes of the brothers, left their original place of residence and occupied one half of Illyricum and Pannonia in present-day Hungary, and the other ancient Dalmatia or the current regions of the Austrian Empire - Dalmatia, with the exception of several coastal cities and several coastal islands, Croatia or Croatia, Slavonia and the western part of the present Turkish region of Bosnia along the Vrbas or Verbas river. The second half of the Croats, having now found the aforementioned regions in the power of the Avars, who took them away from the Greeks, partly beat them, partly subjugated them to their power, so that the remnants of the Avars remained in Croatia even during the time of Constantine Porphyrogenitus (ibid. p. 144, and were ruled by a special ban ibid. 145) 387. This was during the time of the empire. Heraclius, shortly before the arrival of the Serbs, relatives of the Croats, to the present territory (ibid. p. 148). As for the Illyrian-Pannonian Croats, during the short existence of their state they had their own prince, special from the Dalmatian Croats, who “for the sake of friendship sent” with this latter (ibid. p. 144), and then at the end of the 9th century. were conquered by the Hungarians 388; The history of the Dalmatians, or actually the so-called Croats, is as follows. The country was divided into 11 counties (ξουπανίας, ibid. p. 145) or small appanage principalities and had one supreme prince. 1) The first such prince was someone, probably the eldest, named Kluk, of the five brothers princes mentioned above. 2) The second prince was Porin or Porga, the son of an unknown exact name of the first prince (ibid. p. 145 and 148); at this Porin, the Croats, driven out of patience by the violence of the Franks, under whose rule they were in their original homeland, raised a war against them, and after a seven-year fierce struggle they defeated and expelled them (ibid. 144) 389; under the same prince, the Croats adopted Christianity, having been baptized by priests sent by order of the emperor. Heraclius from Rome, and having received his bishop from the pope (ibid. p. 148, - according to the Bonsky edition of Constantine Porphyry. stands: ἀρχιεπίσκοπον καὶ ἐπίσκοπον, but ἀρχιεπίσκοπον, no doubt, there is an insertion). The next series of sovereigns that is currently known is the following. 3) Terpimir I, who was a little time after the baptism of the Croats (ibid. p. 139 fin. μετὰ χρ ό νους πολλούς is read by mistake instead of μετὰ χρ ό νους οὐ πολλούς); with him, St. Martin came to Croatia to establish Christianity and Christian morals ibid. - about this Martin, an abbot sent by Pope John IV (640-642) to Croatia for the redemption of prisoners, see Anastasius the librarian in Historia de visit Romanorum Pontificum, in Patrol, Minya t.128, p. 717). 4) Son of Terpimir Krasimer I (Const. Porfirog. ibid. 150 beginning). 5) Miroslav, son of Krasimer. who ruled for four years and was killed by Ban Privunia (ibid. p. 151). 6) Mislav or Moislav, mentioned before 837 (in the charter of Battian in Leges ecclesiasticae regni Hungariae t. II, r. 40 beginning and 41 beginning, Shafar. Ancient. II, 2, 16). 7) Terpimir II, mentioned under 837 (in Battian ibid. t. II, p. 38, in Kalendaria Assemani IV, 298, under him Croatia was divided into five counties). 8) Domogoy or Demogoy, it is unknown how long he ruled ahead of the next and is mentioned in the chronicle of Dandul (Assemani Kalendaria IV, 309 fin. and 311). 9) Sedeslav or Sdeslav, who expelled the sons of Demogoy and took the throne with the help of the Greek emperor Basil the Macedonian around 878; he was killed next to him in May 879 (Assem. Kalend. ibid., Shafar. Ancient. II, 2, 17 beginning and 18). From the time of settlement on their present territory to the immediate predecessors of the Pmper. Basil, the Croats recognized the supreme power of the Greeks; under the now-named weak predecessors of Basil, they broke away from the power of the Greeks and became independent from anyone; but upon the accession of the now-named emperor to the throne, they again found it more advantageous to be under the authority and patronage of the Byzantine sovereigns, which is why, under this prince Sedeslav, they returned to them again (Const. Porphyrog. in Vita Basilii, which in Scriptores post Theophanem, ed. Paris. § LII, p. 178 and vv De administr. imper. p. 29, r. 128 fin. sqq, Shafar. II, 2, 17 and above in the history of the Serbs) 390. 10) Branimir, who killed the previous one in May 879 (Shafar. ibid.), immediately upon his accession to the throne found it necessary to secede from the Greeks and surrender under the protection of the pope (see Battian ibid. II, 42 - the letter of the pope to electo Nonensi Theodosius, and in Patrol. Minya t. 126, p. 841 sqq and 918 – letters of Pope John VIII to Bravimir (two) and Ad sacerdotes et populos Branimiro subjectos, Assem. IV, 314, Ancient II, 2, 17 sqq). 11) Muntimir (the youngest son of Branimir), mentioned under 892 (in Battian ibid. t. II, p. 45, Shafar. Ancient. II, 2.19). 12) Krasimer or Kresimir II (eldest son of Branimir), who took the throne around 900 and died in 912 (doubtful, Shafar. ibid. p. 20). 13) Tamislav, who received the title of king from the pope, mentioned around 925 (Battian ibid. t. I, pp. 329 and 335). 14) Kresimir III (ibid. t. II, p. 79). 15) Derzhislav, the youngest son of Kresimir III, who reigned from 990 to 1000 (Shafar. ibid. p. 21). 16) Stefan, probably the eldest son of Kresimir III (in Battian ibid. t.I, p. 409, (t. II, 76 and 79; Shafar. ibid. p. 23 incorrect). 17) Kresimir IV, son of Stefan and grandson of Kresimir III, mentioned under 1059-1069 (in Battian ibid. (t. I, p. 409, t. II, pp. 75 and 79). 18) Slavisha, who ascended the throne in 1074 and reigned for a short time (Shafar. ibid. p. 26). 19) Zvenimir-Dimitri, mentioned under the years 1076–1086 (Battian ibid. t.I, p. 430, t. II, p. 80 and 89). 20) Stefan II, the last Croatian sovereign, who ruled for about 3 years and died around 1090 (Shafar. Ancient II, 2, 26 fin.). In 1091, the Hungarian king Vladislav, summoned by the Croats themselves, subjugated them to his power; after the death of Vladislav (in 1095), the Croats rebelled, but Vladislav's successor Koloman again subjugated them, and from 1102, when he was crowned with the Croatian royal crown, their country forever became a Hungarian province (Shafar. Ancient. II, 2, 27 sqq, in Fessler in Geschichte von Ungarn vol. I, ed. 2, SS. 179, 194 and 203). Where the capital of the Croatian princes and kings was remains unknown. Their charters were written in different cities - Bigac, Belgrade, Nona, Novograd, Tohin, Knin, Sibenik and others (Shafar.ibid. p. 36 fin.; under 1069 the capital is called Nona, in Battian t. II, p. 79, - in nostro Nonensi coenaculo residens). The Croatian sovereigns were buried in Salona, ​​in the church of St. Stephen (Battian ibid. II, 89 fin.). We said above that the Croats occupied what is now Dalmatia, with the exception of a few coastal cities and coastal islands. These last ones, left to the Greeks, were: cities - Spalatto (ἡ Ασπάλαθος), Trau or Trogir (Τετραγούριν), Zara or Zader (τὰ Διάδωρα), islands - Osero (Ὄ ψαρα), Arbe (Ἄ ρβη), Vegla or Kerk (Βέκλα), (Const. Porfirog. De administr. imper. p. 30, ed. Bonn. r. 146 fin., r. 128 beginning, cfr ibid. r. 137 sqq). The population of these cities and islands, being Romano-Italian in origin, i.e. That is, consisting of Italian colonists brought out by the Roman emperors and especially Diocletian (ibid. sar. 29, pp. 125 and 128 beginning), it constituted a special small community, which was governed by a strategist sent from Constantinople (Const. Porfirog. pp. 146 fin.). Under the weak predecessors of Basil the Macedonian, these cities and islands (together with the Croats) broke away from the power of the Greeks and became completely independent (Const. Porfirog. ibid. pp. 128 and 129 fin. - τὰ τῆς Δελματίας κάστρα these are of course); but under this last emperor, asking and receiving help from him against the Saracens (ibid. p. 129 fin. sqq), they returned again to the supreme authority of the empire. At the end of the 9th century, according to Safarik, the Croats subjugated them to their power (Ant. II, 2, 6 beg. and 23 beg.), but this seems to be unfair; at least the church acts of the 10th century suggest the opposite, and it is more likely that they continued to be dependent on the Greeks, or, having again become independent from anyone, were governed by their doges (cfr Shafar. ibid. p. 16 beginning): What is certain is that from the time of the imperial. Basil and with his permission, these cities and islands, for the unhindered right to use land located within the boundaries of the Croatian possessions, began to pay the Croats the tribute that they had previously paid to the Greeks (Const. Porfirog. ibid. p. 30, p. 146 fin. sqq). At the end of the 10th century they were conquered by the Venetian Doge Peter Urseol (Shafar. ibid. p. 22 fin.), after which, having been repeatedly contested and taken away from the Venetians by the Hungarians, they eventually remained with the republic, under which they continued to belong until its fall at the beginning of this century (see Kalendaria Assemani IV, 345 and Dalmatien und Montenegro nach Wilkinsohn bearbeitet Lindau, Leipzig, 1849, part 2, chapter 10). The Croats accepted the Christian faith for the first time (at the same time as the Serbs) under the same emperor. Heraclius, under whom they settled in their current place of residence, and were baptized by priests who, by order of the emperor, were sent to them from Rome (Const. Porfirog. De administr. imper. p. 31, p. 148 fin.). But this baptism was not yet final, and for the second time and completely they were baptized in the second half of the 9th century under Emperor Basil the Macedonian. Having previously overthrown the yoke of the Greeks, and under the emperor. Vasily, having again voluntarily returned to their rule, the Croats (together with the Serbs) wanted to seal this restoration of the state union through the final adoption of Christianity. Therefore, they sent (together with the Serbs) to the imperial. Basil received an embassy, with which they asked to send priests to them who would baptize both those who remained pagans from the very beginning, and those who fell away from Christianity to him shortly before, during the time of autocracy - which request the emperor fulfilled with great readiness, sending them priests from Constantinople (Const. Porfirog. in De administr. imper. p. 29, p. 128 fin. sqq and in Vita Basilii, which in Scriptores post Theophan., ed. p. 178, § LII and above in the history of the Serbian church. Thus, for the second time and finally, the Croats were baptized according to the Eastern rite by priests who came not from Rome, but from Greece. But their country was so close to Rome and from Italy, and so was drawn, by its position, into the union. states that recognized the power of the Holy Roman seat, which could not remain Orthodox for long and, willy-nilly, had to become Catholic under Prince Sedeslav, under whom the second baptism took place and who took the throne, as we said, with the help of the emperor. Basil, the Croats remained Orthodox; but immediately upon the accession of Sedeslav’s successor, Branimir, to the throne in 879, they saw themselves forced to surrender under the protection of the pope (see above), and since then their country has remained Catholic forever. We said above that the Croats, after their first baptism under the emperor. Heraclius was given one special bishop for the whole country. Whether the bishop's chair continued to exist continuously from then on until the second baptism, or whether during the time of autocracy, when the Croats began to fall away from Christianity, the bishop was also expelled, remains unknown; more likely, it seems, the latter (under the charter of Terpimir of 837, signed by all the highest dignitaries of the state, there are signatures of two presbyters (court) chaplains, but there is no signature of a single bishop; Battian II, 441, cfr, however, ibid. p. 42, where under 879 about the predecessors of the then Croatian bishop). The following is known regarding the Croatian bishops or the highest church administration among the Croats after the second baptism. During the second half of the 9th and the first half of the 10th century, they had one bishop for the whole country, whom they received, if not immediately after baptism, then in any case no later than 879 (see the charter of Pope John VIII from this year to Theodosius electo Nonensi, i.e. to the candidate chosen for bishop of Nonos, in Battian II, 42, letter from Pope John to Branimir in Patr. Minya t. 125, r. 918, acts of the Spalattian or Spletian council, which was around 925, in Battian 1, 330 sqq, charter of Pope Leo VI ibid. I, 343 and record of the council of 1075 ibid. I, 430). This bishop is not entirely clearly called in the acts as both Nonian and Skardonian, i.e., he probably had a see in both cities at the same time (Battian ibid.). Since 1059, another bishop is mentioned, the so-called Croatian one, about which Thomas the Deacon of Splet writes: “voluerunt Croatorum reges quasi specialem habere Pontificem, petieruntque ab Archiepiscopo Spalatensi et fecerunt Episcopum, qui Croatensis appellabatur, posueruntque sedem ejus in campo in ecclesia Sanctae Mariae Virginis juxta castrum Tiniense; hic multas optinuit parochias habuitque praedia et possessiones per totum pene regnum Croatiae, quia regalis erat episcopus et regis curiam sequebatur, etc. (in Battian I, 400). Finally, since 1066, a third bishop is mentioned - Belgrade (ibid. I, 409). This number of three bishops, as far as we know, remained until the Croats came under the rule of the Hungarians (or at least until 1076, see ibid. I, 430 and 433) 391 . One bishop and then three Croatian bishops were dependent on the metropolitan of Spalata or Splet; under 837, Prince Terpimir recognizes that the metropolis of Spalata is metropolis usque ripam Danubii et pene totum regnum Croatiae (ibid. II, 39), and all currently known acts testify to the preceding and subsequent times. In the first half of the 10th century, Bishop Gregory of Nonsk made an attempt to resign from the authority of the Metropolitan of Spalatta and proclaim himself Metropolitan of Croatia (ibid. I, 330; acts of the council of 928, also ibid. I, 343 and 430), but the attempt met with decisive opposition from the pope (ibid.) and was not successful. The Croats, being in close proximity to Kocelova Pannonia, and, as we think, being of exactly the same origin as the local Slavs, borrowed from the latter the Slavic Orthodox liturgy, translated by Constantine and Methodius, in all likelihood, during the life of the last of the first teachers. Be that as it may, only before 925 in Croatia there were Slavic liturgical books and (doctrina Methodii, alia, as Pope John X says, from the teachings of the Roman Church and which in sacris voluminibus non reperitur (epistle of Pope John X to John 3rd, Archbishop of Spalatta, in Battian ibid. I. 334 and in Ginzel in the book Geschichte der Slawenapostel, Cyrill und Method, Leitmeritz, 1757, Codex p. 75. Having been strictly prohibited by order of the pope at the council that took place around this year in Spalatto (in Battian ibid. I, 330 sqq and in Hinzel ibid. p. 78), Slavic Orthodox worship continued to remain there in subsequent times. At the council of 1063 392, during the reign of Pope Alexander II, the Croatian bishop Cededa was condemned coram suis Gothis (in Battian ibid. I, 408), that is, as subsequent acts explain this, for the fact that he contained gothicas supposedly litteras, and quodam Methodio haeretico perertas. Under the same Pope Alexander, there was another council in Dalmatia in an unknown year, at which it was decided: ut nullus de caetero in lingua slavonica praesumeret divina misteria celebrare, and at which the above judgment about the books of the Methodius was pronounced (Assemani Kalendaria IV, 378 and in Ginzel ibid. p. 89). After these repeated sentences of the pope, the execution of which, of course, was zealously monitored by the Italian Metropolitan of Spalatta 393, the Slavic Orthodox books of Constantine and Methodius were not retained in Croatia, but at least the Slavic language was retained in Croatia. Latin liturgical books were translated into this language and written in a special, so-called Glagolitic script (about the origin of which nothing definite can yet be said). In 1248, the Bishop of Senj reported to Pope Innocent IV that in Slavonia est littera specialis, quam illius terrae clerici se habere a B. Hieronimo asserentes, eam observant in divinis officiis celebrandis, and asked that he too be allowed to perform divine services from the same books; the pope (by letter dated XIV Kal. April 1248) answered: attendentes, quod sermo rei et non res sermoni subjecta, licentiam tibi in illis dumtaxat partibus, ubi de consvetudine observantur, praemissa, dummodo ex ipsius varietate litterae sententia non laedatur, auctoritate praesentium concedimus postulatam (in Rainald in Annall. Eccless. an. 1248, n. 52, in Ginzel ibid. p. 92), and since then Slavic Glagolitic (Catholic rite) worship has remained in Croatia forever, which is partially preserved to this day (about the current state of Glagoliticism among the Croats, which is more and more inferior to the Latin language, see Ginzel ibid. S. 171 sqq and Anhang III). The full title of the very rare book “The Tsarstvennik” is the following: “The Tsarstvennik or the Bulgarian History, learn from where the Bulgarians came from, how they reigned, how they reigned and how they destroyed their kingdom and fell under the yoke, from Mavrobir of the Latin, Baronius, John Zonar, Buefir of the French, Theophanes of the Greek, Saint Evtimy of Ternovsky, Saint Demetrius of Rostov and other chronicles have been collected. First edition. In Budimu, 1840", in 8 pp., pages 80. The author’s name is not present, but according to Aprilov (see his Thoughts for the current Bulgarian teaching, Odessa, 1847, p. 29), he is Mr. Christaki, a teacher at the school in Sishchovo. At the present time we do not have the Tsarstannik at hand and cannot compare him with Paisius, but according to the people who compared him, Mr. Christaki or generally unknown, his author does almost nothing more than repeat and shorten Paisius. When the Armenians settled in Bulgaria remains unknown to us; but about them and attempts to convert them to Orthodoxy before Hilarion’s time are spoken of in the letters of Archbishop Theophylact, ed. Finetti XVIII and XX, ed. Lamio X, from Min in Patrol. t. 126, pp. 345, 353 and 520. “Army villages” near the Pshina River are mentioned in Dushan’s Chrysovule, Glasn. XXIV, 245. On the resettlement of the emperor to Thrace. Constantine Copronymus of the Syrian Monophysites, see Theophanes, ed. Paris. r. 354. About John of Rila, see also Hilferding in the Complete Works, vol. I, p. 121 sqq. Trapezitsa in Ternov was the name of some part of the city, as it seems that in ancient times it was primarily called the city, i.e. the city fortress, cfr Grigorovich Putesh. page 175. Tsaraoria, according to Hieroschemamonk Spiridonius, who rewrote the life of Theodosius, is now called Sakardnu in Turkish, between the Greek and Bulgarian borders, preface. to life in Chiten. General East. and Ancient The service to Tsar Peter is found in another parchment Menaion, kept in the Athos Zagrafsky Monastery and written before 1469 (before the transfer of the relics of John of Rylsk from Ternov to Rylsk monastery, Notes of a devotee of the Holy Mountain p. 332). Paraskeva of Ternovskaya was the sister of Bishop Euthymius of Madita (Euphymius’s Life), and this latter, according to the testimony of Michael Psellus, was shortly before Patr. Constantinople Mikhail Kerullaria; Laquien Oriens I, 1141. This Gregory, who either did not exist at all, or if he existed, was not an archbishop, but one of the Serbian bishops, is mentioned several times in the general service to the “council” of Serbian saints, placed in Serblyak on August 30. I remember there is a little bit about him in some Glasnik book. In the synod of Boris, page 13, it is written about her: “Theodora, more pious than the queen of the great Tsar John Alexander, of Jewish descent, received holy baptism and preserved her pious faith intact, and renovated many churches and erected various monasteries, eternal memory.” In addition to Rajic and Safarik, the Law Book was also published separately by Miklosich under the title: Lex Stephani Dusani Editit fr., Miklosich Fasciculus prior. Vindobonae, 1856. In the vile trgoveh, see Danichich in Rechnik under the word “third”. The Serbian perpera (ὑπερνυρον) according to Danicic (in the dictionary under the word perpera nin.) first corresponded to half a ducat of its time, and then to one third of a ducat. According to Rajic (IV, 284), the then perpera corresponded, in the Serbian and Bulgarian kingdoms, to fifteen aspras of his time. From this rule it follows that in ancient Serbia, monasteries, like parish churches, had their own parishes. In the vile “And kalogeria, koi se su tonsured topitsi, from the metohye theses of the church,” Topik- τοπικὸσ, ejusdem regionis (Danichich in Rechnik under the word Topik). Logofet, Λογοφέτης controller, official monitoring the correct expenditure of funds. His responsibility was probably primarily to count monasteries and churches that owned real estate. In one monument, the church logothete is called the great logothete (Bad. I 156;, from this it should be concluded that he was the main state logothete or that the position of the church logothete was connected with the position of this latter. In Milutin’s chrysovule it is written: “The Lord Elena gave to my mother and wrote down (to one monastery) estates for food for the elderly and for clothing for the blind and lame. (Monum. Serb. Miklos. p. 68). In the chrisovule of Stefan Dečansky to the Dečansky monastery: “and there is a lot of support (give to the monastery), even for the protection and clothing of all the priestly and weak and strange ministers.” (ibid. p. 92). Vlach the peasant, who feeds not from plowing the land, but from maintaining herds, is a shepherd. In the mean: “irony, no one is free to sell or buy.” Safarik (Geschichte d. Südslaw. Liter. III, 162) to explain the word pronia considers it necessary to turn to the ancient German and Gothic languages and generally raise almost all philology to its feet, but meanwhile the matter is very simple: pronia is the Greek κρόνοια, which in medieval Greek means precisely an estate (a thing given in temporary someone's industry). We have not found an explanation anywhere for what “togai” means; but in meaning, it seems to be a heavy worker, that is, a peasant. Author of correspondence from Bosnia, published in the Contemporary Chronicle of the Moscow Vedomost. 1864 No. 39, p. 5, col. 3, incorrectly considering the globe to be a Turkish invention, writes about it: “The name of the globe comes from the Turkish word - fine, execution. This tax existed (in Turkey) not so long ago, but was destroyed. If it happened that someone drowned himself or became a murderer, and if a murdered person was found somewhere, then that entire district was subject to a fine imposed by the Turkish authorities” (cfr River Danichich under the word Globa, according to whose extracts Globa generally means a fine or penalty). By the way, let us cite here the wonderful definition of Stefan Pervovench. regarding marriage matters, read in one of his chrisovuls: -if (a wife) has a demonic spirit, leaving her husband, and if he gets it, let him be punished with gain; If she does not have the income, then she will be punished with her own body, as per her husband’s will. Having ordered her to drive her, if she doesn’t like him to drive her, then she will punish her and sell her when she’s his age” (Monum. Serb. Mikl. R. 15 sub fin.). Priselitsa - the obligation to give an apartment, food and a cart to a passing government official, see Shafar. Geschichte d. Südslaw. Literat. III, 461. Dymnina or dymnitsa, Greek. κακνικὸν, -to submit to the bishops. Bir-submit bishops and priests. Juice is a state tribute of bread, tributum frimentarium, from Danich. in Rechn, under the word juice. Pozob – frumentum exercitui providendum, Danich. ibid. under the next beat me. Diarrhea, wire, cart - underwater duty, ibid. Travina - the obligation to mow the royal meadows and tax the state for the use of the meadows; gradezh - the obligation to help the king build something; city ​​building - the construction of cities or city fortresses; urban observance is the duty to protect city fortresses. Harvest, haymaking, oranje, harvesting, grape work - the duty of reaping, mowing, harvesting, threshing, processing grapes for the king. Poklisar - the duty of feeding and accompanying the traveling royal ambassador; huntsman, falconer - the duty to feed the royal huntsman and falconer. Tens – tithe; ovche - to serve from the sheep. Zhirovina - to pay for the right to fatten pigs with acorns in the royal forests. Other types of taxes remain unexplained. In gr. καὶ εἰς παραμονὰς ἔλκονται παραμονὴ - some kind of duty of the peasants to the landowner (mainly monastic peasants to the monastery); but which one we cannot say at present. Safarik considers the current so-called Morlaks to be the descendants of the ancient Avars, Ancient. II, 2, 3, of which see more details. Dalmatien und Montenegro nach Wilkinsohn bearbeitet von Lindau, Leipzig, 1849, II 250. We think that Safarik, Ancient. II, 2, 3 and 37, speaks incorrectly about the place of the Illyrian-Pannonian Croats. Safarik speaks about the Franks Ancient. II, 2, 9, about St. Martin ibid. 16, etc. – incorrect. The main reason for the return of the Croats under Sedeslav to the supreme power of the Greeks Šafarik believes the introduction of Slavic worship among the Pannonian Slavs and in Moravia (Ancient II, 2, 17). But this is based on absolutely nothing. For Slavic books, the Croats had to turn not to Constantinople, where after Konstantinov’s departure they were cared for even less than in Rome, but to Moravia, which was closer to them, where Methodius the First Teacher lived and worked at that time and where Slavic worship was introduced with the permission of the pope himself. That the Croats did not return for the reason now stated, but namely seeking the patronage of the emperors, which Constantine Porphyrogenitus speaks of, is absolutely clear from the fact that the Italian metropolitan of Salon with his community then left the pope for the Greeks, who, of course, was no longer looking for Slavic worship. The names are known from the bishops of Non (or Skardon): Theodosius, dedicated by the pope in 880, the first after the return of the Croats from the Greeks to the pope (in Battian ibid. 11, 42 and in Patrol Minya t. 126, p. 918), Gregory, mentioned under 928 (in Battian ibid. 342, 430), Formin, mention. under 1075–76 ibid. I, 430 and 433), – Croatian: Rainer, mentioned. under 1059–66 (ibid. 1, 409, II, 77, Anastasius, mentioned min. under 1069 (ibid.. II, 80), Gregory, mentioned under 1075–78 (ibid. I, 430, II, 81). Chededa bishop of an unnamed, but probably Croatian see, mentioned under 1063 (ibid. I, 408), - Belgrade: Dabro, mentioned under 1066–72 (ibid. I, 409–10), Theodosius, mentioned under 1075–76 (ibid. I, 430 and 433), Bon, mentioned under 1103–1109. II. 215 and 223). As for the community of Italian cities and islands independent of the Croats, four dioceses are mentioned in the metropolis of Spalattia under 928: 1) Zar (Jadertina), 2) Arbian (Arbensis), 3) Wegl or Kerk (Veglensis) and 4) Auxerre (Absarensis, in Battian ibid. I, 342); from 1066 a fifth diocese is mentioned - Trogir (Traguriensis, ibid. I, 409, 410 and 433). The year of the council, not indicated in the acts, is found by indicating that one priest condemned at this council was imprisoned for 12 years and was released in 1075, in Battian ibid. I, 408 and 430. However, at the beginning of the 10th century, the Metropolitan of Spalatta was very indifferent to the fact that Slavic worship and the Greek Orthodoxy of Methodius were spreading in Croatia, see the letter of Pope John X to Archbishop John 3rd, which says: fama revelante cognovimus per confinia Parochiae vestrae aliam docrtinam pullulare... vobis tacentibus et consentientibus. You might be interested in: