The history of the canonization of saints in the Russian Church

Introduction containing references Extensive in essays: The concept of canonization and the word: canonization On the canonization of saints in the Greek Church: Summoned to write the proposed study by certain accidental circumstances, I had to write it for a period of time that was constrained and limited in the study of the subject. Having done an urgent matter, I did not want to part with the subject and immediately after the publication of Study 1 I resumed my studies with the aim of further studying it. Thus, I am publishing this second edition of the study as a revised and expanded edition, if possible. Having never had any deliberate intention to write about the canonization of saints, now, in the end, I am glad that I was forced to write by accidental circumstances, for the desirability and usefulness of a scientific work such as the one I present, even if the work was far from perfect, cannot be doubted. We compiled our research partly directly on the basis of primary sources, which are the ancient lives of saints 2, legends and records about them, as well as certain official acts related to them, partly through the mediation and help of so-called second hands, which in this case consist of new, lengthy and short, biographies of saints and new scientific studies about them. Indicating the primary sources that we use, as far as we use them, in the appropriate places, we will list here the latest printed literature that we had at our disposal. A critical study of the lives of Russian saints is the work of V. O. Klyuchevsky. Old Russian lives of saints as a historical source. Moscow, 1871 3. A bibliographic indication of manuscripts from various libraries containing the lives of Russian saints, or a bibliographic indication of lists of lives, is in the book by Mr. N. Barsukov: Sources of Russian hagiography. St. Petersburg, 1882. The biographies of Russian saints, compiled on the basis of their ancient lives and other sources, contain: An experience of a historical dictionary about all the holy men who were glorified by their holy, immaculate lives in the true Orthodox Greek-Russian faith. Moscow, 1784. The author of the dictionary, who identified himself with only two letters: S.S. is Sergei Petrovich Sokovnin, retired major, Kolyazin landowner, see Metropolitan. Evgeniya Dictionary of Russian secular writers, words. Sokovnin. Historical dictionary about saints glorified in the Russian church, and about some ascetics of piety locally revered. First edition: St. Petersburg, 1836; second edition: St. Petersburg, 1862. We don’t know who the author of the dictionary is, but it was presented in 1833 to the St. Petersburg spiritual censorship by the state councilor Prince Ernstov and the collegiate councilor Yakovlev, see Additional volume of opinions and reviews of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, St. Petersburg, 1887, p. 586, no. 166 (here is the history of the book’s printing). The book is a verbal description of Russian saints, (which) was supplemented with biographical information by Count M.V. Tolstoy, published in the 4th book of Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities for 1887. “The Book of the Verb” is a topographical list of Russian saints, compiled in the 17th century, but gr. Tolstoy, in his addition of biographical information to the list, reports these latter so extensively and completely that in his publication it represents a real dictionary about saints, similar to the two previous dictionaries. Lives of the saints of the Russian Church, also Iveron and Slavic, and locally revered ascetics of piety. A. N. Muravyova. In 12 monthly volumes, St. Petersburg, 1855–1858 4. Russian saints revered by the entire church or locally. Experience describing their lives. Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov. First edition in 12 monthly books: Chernigov, 1861–1865. The second, as it seems, incomplete, edition: Chernigov, 1865. The third, posthumous († August 9, 1866), edition, in three four-month sections: St. Petersburg, 1882 5. Months of Saints, by the entire Russian Church or locally revered, and an index of festivities in honor of the icons of the Mother of God and St. saints of God in our fatherland. Demetrius, Bishop of Podolsk, now Archbishop of Tver. First edition in four three-month issues, with issue IV in two departments, Tambov - Voronezh, 1878–1883. The second edition was published in 11 monthly issues, i.e. from September, which the author begins, to July inclusive, Kamenets-Podolsk - Tver, 1893–1901. More precisely, the Monthly Rev. Demetrius occupies the middle between works containing lengthy and short biographies 6 . Books and articles about saints of individual localities 7 Arkhangelsk Patericon. Historical essays about the life and exploits of Russian saints and some men of blessed memory who labored within the Arkhangelsk diocese. Hieromonk Nicodemus. St. Petersburg, 1901. Brief information about St. saints of God and locally revered ascetics of piety, of whom St. the relics rest in the churches of the Vladimir diocese. Essay by Master Hieromonk Joasaph. Vladimir, 1860. Church-historical description of Vladimir monuments. Toro of Hieromonk Joasaph. Vladimir, 1857 (talks about the saints whose relics rest in the churches of the city of Vladimir). Ancient monuments in Vladimir Klyazemsky. Cathedrals: Assumption Cathedral and former courtier V.K. Vsevolod-Dmitrievsky. Essay by V. Dobrokhotov. Moscow, 1849 (talking about the saints whose relics rest in the Assumption Cathedral). The current Vladimir province includes the Suzdal region. Especially about the Suzdal saints - in the “Historical collection about the God-saved city of Suzdal,” which belongs to the keymaster of the Suzdal Cathedral of the mid-18th century, Anania Fedorov, and which is published in the XXII book of the Temporary Society of History and Antiquities, p. 117 sqq. Topographical list of the holy Vologda wonderworkers with their place of residence, or the location of their holy relics, compiled by Metropolitan. Eugene when he was Bishop of Vologda (1808–1813) and published in the 1st No. of Addendums to the Vologda Diocesan Gazette for 1864 (reprinted in Veryuzhsky’s book, about which is now below, pp. 8–16). Lives of the holy saints of God within the Vologda region; dioceses of the deceased, glorified by the church and locally revered. Compiled by Vladimir Mordvinov. Moscow, 1879. Historical tales about the lives of the saints who labored in the Vologda diocese, glorified by the entire church and locally revered. Priest Io. Veryuzhsky 8. Vologda, 1880 (the book is generally good, and for the province, one might say, very good). Saints of the Vologda region, research by Konoplev, published in Book IV. Readings in General East. and Ancient for the year 1895. Sketches from the history of the Orthodox Church and ancient piety in Volyn, set out in the biographies of the Volyn saints and other Orthodox saints who took a close part in the historical destinies of the Volyn land. Priest A. Chojnacki. Zhitomir, 1878. Orthodoxy in the west of Russia in its closest representatives or Patericon of Volyn-Pochaev. The same priest (archpriest when printing the book) Chojnacki. Moscow, 1888. A brief historical description of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, belonging to Metropolitan. Samuil Mislavsky. First edition: Kyiv 1795; fifth edition: Kiev, 1817. Description of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra with the addition of various letters and extracts explaining it, as well as plans of the Lavra and both caves, belonging to Metropolitan. Evgeniy. First edition: Kyiv, 1826; third edition: Kiev, 1847. Holy saints of God and ascetics of Kostroma, their life, exploits, death and miracles. Kostroma. 1879. Unknown author. A historical description of the Novgorod shrine, which consists of the St. Sophia Cathedral, churches and surrounding monasteries, with a brief legend about the holy wonderworkers, ancient icons and memorable things stored in the sacristy of the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral. A. Pavlova. St. Petersburg, 1847. Archaeological description of church antiquities in Novgorod and its environs. Archimandrite (who died in the rank of archbishop) Macarius. Two volumes. Moscow, 1860 (talks about the saints whose relics rest in the churches and monasteries of Novgorod). Historical information about the holy saints of God, who rest openly and secretly in the St. Sophia Cathedral, in the Novgorod churches and surrounding monasteries, and about the ancient saints. icons glorified by miracles. Priest I. Tikhomirov. Novgorod, 1861 (constituting an appendix to the Legend of the Novgorod miraculous holy icon of the Sign of the Mother of God). Novgorod month book. Gr. M. V. Tolstova. Moscow, 1862 (constituting an appendix to the Index of Veliky Novgorod). Months (saints) of the Novgorod saints of God, openly and secretly resting in cathedrals, churches, chapels and monasteries not only of Novgorod and its immediate environs, but also of the entire Novgorod diocese, with historical, chronological and geographical information about the places of their repose, and an Index of miraculous holy icons... Compiled by the Novgorod Cathedral of St. Sophia cathedral priest Gabriel Krasnyansky. Novgorod, 1876. Venerable Obonezh hermits: materials for the history of colonization and culture of the Obonezh region. Article by E.V. Barsov in the Olonets Provincial Gazette of 1867, 9, 10, 28, 35 and 40. Ascetics and monasteries of the Far North. An essay by K. Dokuchaev-Baskov, originally published in Christian Reading and published as a separate book in 1891. V. History of the Principality of Pskov by Eugene, part III (Kyiv, 1831), pp. 74–81, contains: Chronological list of Pskov saints of God, revered in Pskov from ancient times, some of whom are included by the Russian Church and in church monthly books, others are commemorated only in churches at their tombs, and others are included only in Pskov church synodics. Tales of some Siberian ascetics of piety. Archpriest M. Putintsev. Moscow, 1889. Historical and statistical description of the Smolensk diocese. St. Petersburg, 1864. Unknown author (about the saints of the diocese - p. 279 sqq). Solovetsky Patericon. St. Petersburg, 1873. Unknown author. A correct and brief calculation of the venerable fathers of Solovetsky, who shone through fasting and virtuous deeds, and historical information about their church veneration. Jerome. Nicodemus. St. Petersburg, 1900. Biographies of the saints of God who lived within the current Yaroslavl diocese. Gr. M. V. Tolstova. Yaroslavl, 1885. List of saints of God and other persons who labored within the Yaroslavl diocese and mentioned in various printed and handwritten calendars and historical indexes, priest K. Yaroslavsky, printed in the 20th, 22nd and 23rd issues of the Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette for the year 1887. Partly biographical information about Russian saints, partly information that is very important for us in our study about churches and about chapels in churches dedicated to Russian saints, is found in the History of the Russian Hierarchy, belonging to the prefect and rector of the Novgorod Seminary, who was then the chairman of the Moscow spiritual censorship and the bishop of Staraya Rus and Penza, Ambrose of Ornatsky (and for a more or less significant part to his unofficial collaborator, Metropolitan of Kyiv Evgeniy Bolkhovitinov. The history of the hierarchy consists of six parts. The 1st part, printed for the first time at the Moscow Synodal Printing House in 1807 and literally reprinted there in 1822, contains: a general overview of the beginning, continuation and present (for the author) state of the Russian hierarchy and private information about all dioceses, present and former, with catalogs of bishops; about councils related to the hierarchy of the Russian Church; about holy men who became famous in the Russian Church; about the advantages in vestments, sacred rites and other cases of clergy; about Russian theological schools. Parts 2-6, printed in the same Moscow Synodal Printing House, in continuation of 1810–1815, contain a description of Russian monasteries, namely in the 2nd part: the laurel and stauropegial monasteries; in other parts: all other monasteries in alphabetical order). For the second of the now indicated purposes, the book of Alexander Ratshin serves to some extent: A complete collection of historical information about all the ancient and currently existing monasteries and notable churches in Russia. Moscow, 1852. For general information on hagiology or science, teaching, about saints, the book of Rev. Sergius, Archbishop of Vladimir: Complete monthbook of the East, consisting of two volumes, of which the first bears the private name: Eastern Hagiology, and the second - the Holy East. First edition: Moscow, 1875–1876; second edition: Vladimir, 1901. The Greek books to which we deliberately refer in speeches about the canonization of saints in the Greek Church are: lives of the saints of the twelve months of the year), which is a prologue read at the all-night vigil, according to the 6th song of the canon, processed from ancient prologues by the famous extraordinary book-lover, a monk of one of the Athos monasteries, or, as he is usually called, the Holy Mountainer Nicodemus (b. ca. 1748, † 1809), first published in Venice in 1819. We have in our hands the third, Athens, edition of 1868 and call the book in Russian Synaxarist, and νέα καὶ βίους ὁσίων (New Meadow, embracing ancient and new martyrdoms and the lives of the saints), containing mainly services to new martyrs and new ascetics with legends about the first and with the lives of the second, compiled by Macarius Notara, Metropolitan of Corinth († 1805), supplemented by Athanasius Parian († 1813) and Nikephoros of Chios (a contemporary of Macarius and Athanasius, who died unknown when) and printed for the first time in Venice in the same year 1819. We have at hand the second, Athens, edition of 1873 and call the book in Russian (more precisely: in half-Russian) the New Limonar. Canonization is the recognition by the Church of any deceased devotee of piety as one of its saints. The word canonization is Latin - canonizatio (canonisatio), and was borrowed into our scientific and theological language from the Western scientific and theological language. Having been derived from the Greek word κανών taken into Latin in the meaning of the latter: list, catalog 9, it means the inclusion of some deceased ascetic of piety in the list, in the catalog of saints. The formation or formation by Western theologians of the word canonizatio, which means inclusion in a list, in a catalog, as a name, for the act of canonization, is explained by the local rite or ritual of this veneration. In the Latin Church, the rite of canonization ends with the solemn proclamation of the pope from his throne: “we decree and determine that blessed No. 10 is a saint, and we inscribe him in the catalog of saints, so that on the day of his repose he will be zealously glorified by the whole church.”... 11 The Greeks do not have a special word corresponding to the Latin canonizatio, and they have no word for canonization. says: κατάταξις εἰς τὸν χορὸν τῶν ἁ γίων, κατατάττειν εἰς τὸν χορὸν τῶν ἁ γίων (containment, inclusion in the list of saints, counting among the saints) 12. The Russian Church borrowed the canonization of saints from the Greek Church. Therefore, prefacing speeches on the canonization of saints in the Russian Church with a natural introduction to them, we will first say briefly about the canonization of saints in the Greek Church, and namely, dividing the speech into two halves, especially about it in the ancient Greek Church and especially in the later one. We have almost no positive information about the canonization of saints in the ancient Greek Church. The ancient Greek Church, as well as the later one, had to recognize certain deceased people as saints on some basis. In relation to the reasons which guided the ancient Greek Church in recognizing deceased people as saints, these latter must be divided into three categories or three classes. Firstly, there were certain classes of the deceased, the individuals belonging to which were all recognized by the church as saints, based, as one must assume, on the belief that only holy people could belong to these classes, so that their membership in the classes served as evidence of their holiness. These were the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets and the New Testament apostles (not to mention those standing outside the classes - the Mother of God and more in those born of women, John the Baptist), regarding whom the church believed that they were honored to be patriarchs, prophets and apostles because they were holy people. Secondly, there was a class of the deceased, which gradually, over a certain period of time, was formed from people who accomplished such a feat, which, according to the belief of the church, alone gave the person who performed it the crown of holiness. These are the martyrs who, according to the belief of the church, as it sings in the troparion to them, in their suffering acquired crowns of incorruption. The third category consisted of saints, regarding whom it is necessary to think that the church recognized them as saints not because they belonged to a certain class, but because personally one or another of them was considered worthy of this recognition. These are the saints from the ascetics (ascetics). Behind this there still remains a class of saints from hierarchs or saints. Regarding the saints of this last class, it is most likely to be accepted that, in relation to canonization, they initially belonged to one category indicated above, and then were ranked as another, namely, that at first they belonged to the first category, and then were ranked as the last. Regarding the veneration of martyrs by saints, there is positive news that in the first quarter of the 2nd century it was already an accepted practice 13 . Consequently, its beginning with all probability must be attributed to the last quarter of the 1st century or to the time immediately following the first persecution of Christians by Nero. Since out of the 12 apostles, 11, with the exception of St. John the Theologian died as martyrs, then in any case the veneration of the apostles as martyrs should have begun very early. Ev. John the Theologian died a natural death around the year 110, and in all probability one must think that he began to be venerated as a saint immediately after his death, so that the veneration of the apostles, as such, if it did not begin earlier, began with the establishment of his veneration. About the beginning of the veneration of the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets, we can only say that in the second half of the 1st century it already existed in the church 14. Confessors, in all likelihood, were divided into two classes: those who died soon after the suffering they endured were counted among the martyrs; those who lived more or less long after them were brought under the same rule or the same condition with the ascetics regarding canonization, which is now being discussed. In any case, we have evidence belonging to St. Cyprian of Carthage, on the one hand, that confessors were counted among the martyrs, on the other hand, that there were confessors who could not be counted among the martyrs or, which is also the same, among the saints. About the first class confessors of St. Cyprian writes in one of his letters to the Carthaginian clergy: dies eorum, quibus excedunt, annotate, ut commemorationes eorum inter memorias martyrum celebrare possimus, - in Patrol. Minya, t. IV, col. 328 (Epist. ΧΧΧ VII, § II). As for the confessors of the second class, more than once in his writings St. Cyprian expresses sorrow that some of them lead a reprehensible life - ibid. coll. 234 (Epist. V, ad presbyteros et diaconos, § III), 237–238 (Epist. VI, ad Rogatianum presbyterum et caeteros confessores, § IV-V), 516 (Liber de imitate Ecclesiae, n. XX-XXI). Regarding the ascetics, it is necessary to assume that from ancient times the church began to recognize one or the other among them as saints on the same basis on which it recognized them in later times and on which it recognizes them to this day, namely, on the basis of the supernatural testimony of God himself about them, who honored one or the other among them with the gift of miracles either during life or after death. Without assuming this, the only solid and independent of human predilections, basis, we would have to think that arbitrariness reigned in the recognition of ascetics as saints in ancient times, which, of course, is impossible to think. Reading the lives of the ancient ascetics who were canonized by the church, we find almost no one among them who did not possess the gift of miracles during their lifetime: and this common attribute of the gift of miracles to the ascetics who were canonized by the church as saints gives every reason to assume that this particular gift was the reason for their canonization. In later times, this was undoubtedly so, for our Russian Church took the indicated rule for the canonization of ascetics from the later Greek Church, and about it itself the echo is known in a positive way: but it is much more likely to assume that the rule existed in the Greek Church from the most ancient times and from the very beginning, than that it was established in it sometime in later times, for to the question: why the rule, which was the only protection from human arbitrariness in Such an important matter as the proclamation of saints was not decreed in the ancient church, we will find it difficult to give any answer. Regarding hierarchs or saints, as we said, it should be accepted with great probability that initially they were canonized as saints or canonized in the same way as martyrs, that is, eo ipso or by the very fact that they were saints, and that then they began to be canonized in the same way as ascetics or through the application to them of the same requirement that was applied to the latter from ancient times. Turning to the Greek calendar adopted by us, we find that the Patriarchs of Constantinople, starting with Mitrophan, the first Byzantine bishop, who occupied the see during the years 315-325, and up to Eustathius, who occupied the see from 1019 to 1025, almost all are canonized, with the exception of those in between who were heretics, some from those among them who did not sit until death in the pulpit, but during their lifetime left it or were removed from it, and finally - those among them who were known to have lived a vicious life 15. Based on this example of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, it can be assumed with considerable probability that in the indicated ancient time, private churches, which are the essence of the bishopric, counted among their local saints all their Orthodox and unblemished bishops, based on the belief that bishops, as called intercessors for people before God in this life, remain such in the afterlife. The assumption is confirmed by Sozomen, who says that in private churches or bishoprics festivities were held for local martyrs and the memory of their former priests, that is, hierarchs or saints 16. It is equally confirmed by the Carthaginian calendar, dating back to the 5th century, which is inscribed: “Here are the birthdays of (spiritual, i.e., repose) martyrs and (days of) repose of bishops, whose annual commemoration is celebrated by the Church of Carthage 17 . Finally, in favor of the assumption, the words of Simeon of Thessaloniki can be cited, who says that in Constantinople, in the greatest church of the apostles, from ancient times the bishops were placed inside the altar, as well as the relics of the saints, for the sake of the grace of the divine priesthood 18. A new period in the history of the canonization of hierarchs or saints should be considered from the second quarter of the 11th century, for starting from this second Thursday of the 11th century we find only very few patriarchs of Constantinople among the saints, which most likely must be explained by the fact that starting from the second Thursday of the 11th century, the same requirement began to be applied to the patriarchs themselves, as well as to all bishops in general, for canonization as saints. ascetics, i.e. glorification by miracles. The reason for the sudden, so to speak, incomparably greater severity than before may also be indicated. Until the 11th century in the Greek Church, only a very few of the ranks of saints were the general saints of the entire church, who were celebrated everywhere in the church or in the empire, while most of the saints still remained local saints of private churches in the sense of dioceses, so that each private church in the sense of a diocese celebrated only its local saints with a very small addition of general or church-wide saints. With such a limitation of dioceses in relation to the saints from the list of saints, it was natural that each diocese would strive to make the list of saints as numerous as possible by counting as many of its deceased bishops as possible. But in the 11th century, the transformation of the ranks of saints from local saints into general ones followed, as a result of which each private church began to have a very large number of them. This could be the reason that from then on the saints began to be canonized or canonized in a completely new way 19 . In addition to the indicated classes of saints, there is also a class of kings and queens. Some and others, divided into two halves, were canonized either for their services to the church or for their personal virtuous lives. As for services to the church, there was no standard for assessing them that would determine this or that merit with mathematical and indisputable accuracy for everyone. Therefore, it should be thought that here the decisive vote belonged either to the opinion of some representatives of the church, who canonized certain persons from the class of kings and queens for services to the church, or to the opinion of representatives of the church and, together, the public and people. For a private virtuous life, persons belonging to the class of kings and queens were to be considered saints on a common basis, so to speak, that is, on the basis of their glorification from God with the gift of miracles. Whether this was so in all particular cases, we cannot say for lack of evidence. But we have evidence from one particular case that this was exactly the case. Shortly after her death, Empress Feofaniya (Feofano), the first wife of the emperor, was canonized. Leo the Wise, who died in 894, and the successor of George Amartol testifies that not many days after her death God revealed her as a wonderworker 20. We said above about the transformation of saints in the 11th century from local saints into general ones. This transformation followed with all the other saints, and we must talk about it. Initially, the general celebrations of the entire Greek Church, as well as the entire Church of the Universal Church, were only holidays in honor of the Savior and the Mother of God (of which there were initially very few and which, in their current number, appeared only gradually). And the celebrations of all the classes of saints we have now indicated were originally local holidays of private churches, meaning by private churches of the bishopric, and became general holidays of the entire Greek Church only over time, and some became such general holidays comparatively very early, others comparatively very late. Initially, each private church in the sense of episcopacy celebrated its apostle or its apostles, if it was of apostolic origin, and even more so, if an apostle died within its borders and it kept his remains, its martyrs, its hierarchs or saints, and its ascetics. It goes without saying that it was not forbidden to celebrate the saints of others or the saints of other bishops, but this was not at all obligatory 21 . The unification or generalization proceeded in such a way that at first some of the most famous saints became more or less common saints of the entire church - that then entire classes of them were recognized as universally revered, and that finally all of their classes became universally revered. The Feast of All Martyrs (the current Feast of All Saints a week after Pentecost) already existed in the time of Chrysostom 22. From this it is more likely to be concluded that in the time of Chrysostom it was already recognized as a general church celebration of all martyrs in different places 23. And since the apostles constitute the rank of saints, the highest rank of martyrs, it is necessary to think that they began to be celebrated throughout the Greek Church either earlier or, in any case, no later than the martyrs (Constantine the Great built a church in Constantinople in honor of the 12 apostles - the famous church of the apostles, which had to serve and served as a tomb for emperors and patriarchs). After the apostles and martyrs, it was not long before general veneration was extended to saints and saints. There is a short story by the emperor. Leo the Wise, who occupied the throne from the year 886 to the year 911, which commands that, together with the faces of the apostles and martyrs, the seven most famous saints from the list of saints should be celebrated throughout the Greek Church: Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and Epiphanius of Cyprus 24. There is no doubt that now the named most famous saints in the time of Leo were celebrated not only in their private churches, but more or less widely and outside the latter; however, the emperor's decree indicates that not yet in the entire Greek Church in the exact sense of the word 25. Moreover, the decree clearly testifies that the faces or classes of saints and saints remained, even before Leo, as they remained in the future, locally revered 26. Began from the time of the emperor. Leo, a century after Leo, greatly contributed to the spread of universal veneration among the saints, and after him, probably, among the reverends, in reaching its limit or the end of the empire. Basil the Bulgarian Slayer, who occupied the throne from 975 to 1025, who published an illustrated or decorated prologue containing short lives of saints of all classes, revered in all private Greek churches or in the entire Greek Church taken as one common whole (Menologium Graecorum, Basilii Porphyrogeniti imperatoris jussu editum) 27. However, even at the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th century, this spread of universal veneration to our two classes of saints was not yet completely complete 28. If our assumption is correct that initially the majority of local saints were venerated as saints in the bishoprics, then not all of them became generally venerated (and there would have been an extraordinary number of them), but by choice only the most noble among them. In the same way, regarding the ascetics, one must think that not all who were honored in local churches became generally revered, but only the most famous of them. In the West, before the time of Charlemagne, as can be seen from some of his capitularies, it happened that saints were venerated (that is, the dead were venerated as saints) without approbation or without canonization of local bishops, see Alzog in the Handbuch d.Universal-Kirchengeschichte, § 201, 8th ed. V. I, S. 521–522. It is possible that this also happened in the East, although given the extremely small space of the Greek dioceses this could have happened here less often than there. – At the end of the 13th - beginning of the 14th century, canonizations among the Greeks, and precisely, as one must think, only general, but not private, were carried out with the permission of the emperors, see A.P. Lebedev in Essays on the history of the Byzantine-Eastern Church from the end of the 11th to the half of the 15th century, p. 379 (in the legend of St. Hilarion, Bishop of Meglin, which is placed in the Nikon Chronicle under 1114, - vol. II p. 50, it is said that the honest relics were removed from the earth by the “royal and bishop’s court”, see also the Royal Chronicler, p. 4). We have almost absolutely no historical information about the canonization of saints in the ancient Greek Church. Not only has not a single authentic act of canonization reached us, if such acts existed, but not a single third-party record is known that directly speaks of the same thing. Those or other deceased people were recognized as saints by private churches that were within the boundaries of bishoprics or consisted of these latter. Representatives of private churches in the sense of bishops were bishops with their colleges of clergy or officials. Consequently, the bishops with their colleges of clergy had the right of canonization. But it should, or at least is very probable, to think that the bishops performed canonizations not without the knowledge and consent of their metropolitans with the councils of bishops of the metropolis. The 34th Apostolic Canon and the 9th Canon of the Council of Antioch prescribe that bishops should not do anything important without the judgment of the first among them in the region or the metropolitan and without the judgment of the council of all bishops of the region. But canonization or canonization, of course, were important matters. Then, one cannot fail to note the characteristic fact that sometimes in the matter of canonizations the laity forcibly influenced the will of the bishops, namely, that sometimes the laity, even during the life of the ascetics, firmly decided their future rank as saints and, as evidence of such their decision, even during the life of the ascetics, they built churches that were dedicated to their future names 29 . However, in order to explain the strangeness in this characteristic, it should be said that the laity sometimes predetermined only such future canonizations of ascetics, which in fact should have taken place, since they predetermined them on the basis that the ascetics, during their lifetime, were awarded the exceptional gift of miracles 30 . By what rite the celebration of the canonization of saints was carried out in the ancient Greek Church, if only there was a certain rite of canonization, we do not know at all. The very same canonization in relation to each newly recognized saint consisted in the fact that an annual celebration of his memory was appointed on the day of his death (or on another day of special significance for him), for which purpose his name was included in the calendar or calendar of the diocese, and that his name was added to the names of other saints of the diocese for daily proclamation at the liturgy after the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist, for which goals fit into the so-called church diptych. The month book or calendar, usually called the calendar in our country, is a monthly and daily record or list of the names of saints, which are celebrated by the church, compiled for the purpose of knowing and remembering which day to celebrate which saint 31. While the number of saints in private churches, which are the essence of the bishopric, was not large, they did not need monthly books, because even without records it was possible to remember on what day to celebrate which saint 32. But when the number of saints more or less increased, then months were needed. These month books, which were in the churches themselves, should be distinguished from the month books that were written with the liturgical books. They consisted of records or paintings of those saints who were actually celebrated by some church, while in the monthly books with the books the scribes of the latter could also include such saints who were not celebrated, but whom they, the scribes, found worthy of celebration. In general, the month books that were inscribed with the books did not represent reality in relation to the saints recorded in them, like the month books that were in the churches themselves, but something more or less arbitrary. The diptych, the Greek name of which in Russian can be translated by the word: folding or folding, was a special type of book, which in its general pre-Christian use corresponded to our notebooks 33 and which in Christian worship began to be used as a memorial, in which the names of saints and the names of the living and the dead were written down for the commemoration of the first and second with the third at the liturgy after the sacrament was performed. Eucharists, when even today saints are remembered (not by name, but by class) and when diptychs of the dead and the living are supposed to be commemorated. In ancient times, while the number of saints in each private church was not large, the saints were commemorated not namelessly, only by class, as now, but all by name 34 . In the altars of the Old Ladoga St. George Church and the Novgorod Spaso-Nereditsky Church, the names of several dead were scratched on the walls, see East. Jer. IV, 137 fin. and Russian antiquities of Tolstov and Kondakov, vol. VI, p. 131 beginning... It is very likely that these are records of the names of the dead who were to be commemorated, representing a kind of diptychs... We turn to the canonization of saints in the later Greek Church. In the later Greek Church there are two classes of saints: martyrs and ascetics. Under the rule of the Turks, the Greeks had a considerable number of martyrs who appeared in such a way that people, inspired by exceptional zeal for their Christian faith, boldly came out to publicly denounce and shame Mohammedanism, and that these people were subjected to one or another death penalty by the Turkish government for this. The later Greek Church looked and looks at its new martyrs in exactly the same way as the ancient Greek Church looked at its original martyrs, i.e., it recognized and recognizes them as saints eo ipso or for martyrdom itself, without demanding from them, which is a necessary condition in relation to saints of another class, glorification with the gift of miracles, although in fact this latter mostly took place. But not all new martyrs are officially canonized for obligatory celebration, and there are some among them - and, it seems, not a very small number - whose veneration is left to the private zeal of those who wish 35. As for the ascetics of saints and monastics, glorification from God with the gift of miracles was and is recognized as a necessary condition for one of them to be considered a saint or for canonization. True, we do not know general evidence regarding this in very recent times, but we know such evidence for the second half of the 17th century, 37 and there is no reason to believe that since that time there has been a change in the sense of a weakening of the requirement. But if this is so, then the evidence known to us from the second half of the 17th century assures us that in this second half of the Χ 5th ΙΙ century, not only glorification from God with the gift of miracles, but also the incorruption of the body or a sign from the bones, consisting of their special fragrance, was certainly required for canonization or canonization. The writer of the second half of the 17th century that we are talking about is Patriarch Nektarios of Jerusalem, who died in 1680, from whom speeches on the canonization of saints are read in the work: ησις, printed in Iasi, in Moldavia, two years after his death in 1682. Nektary writes: “Three things are recognized as evidence of true holiness in people: 1) impeccable Orthodoxy, 2) the fulfillment of all virtues, followed by confrontation for the faith even to the point of bloodshed, and finally 3) God’s manifestation of supernatural signs and wonders” 38 . Then, regarding signs and wonders, Nektarios says that in former times, when people were more conscientious, miracles alone were enough, but that now, that is, in his patriarchal time, when they fake miracles and create the virtuous life of the dead, in addition, signs are also very much required - the incorruption of bodies or the fragrant smell from bones 39 . However, with a high probability one should think that Nektarios declares as a general indispensable requirement what in fact only happened for the most part. In relation to the undoubtedly universally obligatory requirement of glorification from God with the gift of miracles, Athos is almost an exception, and precisely in the sense that here the ascetics are canonized by one sign of the fragrance from the bones. At least, the Patericon of Athos tells that in the Vatopedi monastery, during the repair of the tomb in 1841, the bones of an unknown ascetic were found, from which a heavenly aroma emanated, and that the Vatopedi people, having named the ascetic Evdokim, established a celebration of the discovery of his relics 40 . And in the same way, our Barsky says that on Athos the bones of dead brothers are dug up three or four years after burial and placed in the kimitirium, “and in due course, if God wants to glorify anyone virtuous, he will show a certain fragrance on them and it will happen to many” 41 . In ancient times, canonization for local celebrations in dioceses belonged to local bishops or diocesan bishops, and was carried out by them, as one might think, with the consent of the metropolitan and the council of bishops of the metropolis. In later times, the right of canonization for local celebration in metropolitan areas belonged and belongs to the metropolitans, but to whom the right to local celebration in bishops belonged and belongs - whether to local bishops or to the same metropolitans, due to the lack of positive information, we cannot say. In the realm of assumptions, it seems most likely to think that local bishops, for here in Russia, as we will see below, both in principle and in practice, the right of bishops is recognized to perform, with the permission of the Holy Synod, canonizations for local celebrations in dioceses. For the general celebration throughout the Greek Church, the Patriarch of Constantinople with the council of bishops located with him 42 canonizes. It is as if Athos represents an exception here too, canonizing its ascetics for a local celebration on their mountain by their own authority or the brotherhoods of individual monasteries or their entire community, expressed through a council of protates 43 . As for the preliminary inquiry about the reliability of miracles performed at the tomb or from the relics of any ascetic, on the basis of which the question of his canonization or canonization is raised and on the basis of which the latter is performed: then regarding this we know two testimonies. Patriarch John Kalek in a letter to our Russian Metropolitan Theognostus orders that the latter canonize his predecessor Metropolitan Peter, having received firm and undoubted certification of him as a miracle worker: πληροφορίαν λαβ ὼ ν βεβαίαν καὶ ἀναμφίλεκτσν. Another testimony belongs to Patriarch Nektarios of Jerusalem. Nektary says that he heard from one hieromonk, that when the hieromonk was a youth, he heard from another hieromonk, who lived 120 years, that when this latter was a youth, he remembers that the descendants of the relatives of Mark of Ephesus celebrated an annual holiday commemoration in Galata (Constantinople) in honor of Mark, and adds: “if this happened in Constantinople, then it necessarily follows that according to the verdict conciliar, for we do not like to introduce such news without the greatest conciliar care and inquiry” 44. We came across a story about the canonization of a new Greek saint, which describes to some extent the rite of canonization and indicates the custom of dividing the relics into private hands. This is the story of the canonization for the local celebration of Ignatius, Archbishop of Methymno, on the island of Mytilene, ancient Lesbos, who lived in the 16th century (celebrated on the 14th of October). In the praise to the saint, laid down according to the 6th song of the service to him, it reads: Patriarch Sylvester of Alexandria (1566–1590), returning from Constantinople to Alexandria, stopped by the island of Mytileva, wanting to see his friend Archbishop Ignatius of Methymna, but did not find him alive: “he goes to his tomb, lifts the stone lying on it and finds the saint exuding myrrh and sanctified; the patriarch takes parts of them (sacred relics), the spiritual children of the saint take his sacred head and other parts of the sacred relics; cover the coffin, perform the divine and sacred liturgy; there is consolation for the brethren, everyone rejoices spiritually, and finally, by standing all night, they glorify God, who most gloriously glorifies those who glorify Him.” Service to Ignatius ἀρχιεπισκόπου Μηθύμνης , τυῦ νέου καὶ θαυματούργου , συντεθεῖσα παρὰ Ἀθανασίου τοῦ ἐκ Ραιδεστοῦ, printed in Constantinople, in 1805, is in the library of the Moscow Theological Academy. Since the island of Mytilene is under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople, then regarding the Patriarch of Alexandria, in all likelihood, one should think that he did not establish the celebration himself, but only prompted the Archbishop of Methymna to establish it. There is no rite of sainthood or canonization similar to the rite of the Latin Church in the Greek Church. A solemn service is performed in honor of the newly recognized saint, and this constitutes his canonization, which is followed by an annual celebration of his memory on the appointed day or days. Connected with the veneration of saints is the veneration of their bodily remains or relics, which remains for us to talk about. Christians began to gather annually at the tombs of the martyrs on the days of their death to solemnly celebrate these days, if not from the very beginning of the martyrdom, then at least from the first quarter of the 2nd century 45 . But from what time they began to venerate the relics of martyrs and other saints, as sacred remains or as shrines, it is impossible to indicate the exact time. Evagrius assures that the sacred tombs of saints have become the subject of honor since the time of the emperor. Theodosius the Younger transferred the relics of Ignatius the God-Bearer from the outskirts of Antioch to the city of Antioch itself, which was in the year 438 46. But he is not telling the truth. Already an emperor. Constantius, son of Constantine the Great, transferred to Constantinople and placed in the church of the apostles the relics of the apostles Andrew, Luke and Timothy - the last in the year 356, the first two in the year 357, and Athanasius the Great († 373) in the life of Anthony the Great 47 († 356) speaks of extraordinary respect Egyptians to the remains of the martyrs 48. As for the questions: when and how did the custom begin to dig up the relics of saints, and namely, initially martyrs, from the ground and transfer them from the places of their burial of country cemetery churches to the cities themselves, to the parish churches of the latter: then the first question should be answered that the custom began, as the above example of transferring the relics of the apostles now shows, no later than the beginning of the second half of the 4th century, but that it became a custom recognized in the half of the 5th century century. After the indicated example of the transfer of the relics of the apostles, we know the evidence: Basil the Great († 379) about the relics of the martyr Julitta carried out of the ground 49; Gregory the Theologian († between 389–391) in general about the relics of saints brought from the ground 50; John Chrysostom († 407) about the transfer of the relics of unknown martyrs from St. Constantinople. Sofia to one country church 51: but at the same time we know the imperial decree. Theodosius the Great from the year 386, which prohibited digging up the bodies of martyrs from the ground and transferring them to other places 52. After this decree, a new imperial decree authorizing the transfer of the relics of martyrs, with the consent of bishops, to sacred buildings or churches (but not to any places designated for public amusement or for public needs) belongs to Leo the Great, who occupied the throne from the year 457 to the year 47453. To another question: how or where did the custom of digging up the relics of saints from the ground begin, we can only answer with an assumption. Athanasius the Great, speaking about the extraordinary respect the Egyptians had for the remains of the martyrs, reports that they did not bury these remains in the ground, but kept them in their homes (ἔνδον παρ ’ ἐαυτοῖς): perhaps the customs of the Egyptians became a general custom, only with its amendment, so that to store the relics of saints mainly not in houses, but in churches 54. From the fact that the relics of saints began to be dug up and worn out of the ground only long after the veneration of saints began in the church, it naturally follows that the presence of relics was not at all recognized as a necessary condition for the canonization of the dead. More or less, the relics of many saints were not preserved, but their bodies were subject to decay like the bodies of ordinary people (as, according to the clear testimony of the apostle, the body of the greatest of the saints of the Old Testament - King David saw decay, ε ἶ δε διαφθοράν: Acts 13:36). In general, according to the inscrutable destinies of God, the bodily remains of some saints are glorified by incorruption in the form of relics, while others are not 55. As for the relics that have survived from a significant part of the ancient saints: some of them were whole bodies or bones with flesh, while others were bones naked from the body. The relics of later Greek saints, as well as the ancient ones, are either whole bodies or just bones 56. Many relics of saints exuded myrrh 57 . The ancient Greeks were distinguished in their veneration of relics by the fact that they tried to acquire as many pieces of different relics as possible for their churches and for themselves, as a result of which they almost never had entire relics, but only parts and particles of them, scattered to different and many places 58 . In churches, the relics were placed by the Greeks mostly under the floor of the altars, under St. a meal, in tombs or cimitirias deliberately arranged for this purpose, sometimes in the vestibules of churches, and sometimes in the churches themselves at their entrance doors 59 . The relics were carried by the Greeks during religious processions and on holidays at the great exit of the liturgy, and were placed on sick people 60. In the “Theological Bulletin” published at the Moscow Theological Academy, in the June - September book of the magazine for 1894. Not all are ancient, many are only old, but we use this term conditionally, to distinguish the original lives (which again is also not entirely accurate, because some lives are not the original) from the newest biographies. Together with the work of V. O. Klyuchevsky, the following can be named: 1) a study of the late I. S. Nekrasov: “The Origin of National Literature in Northern Rus',” in the only printed first part of which, Odessa, 1870, “On the primary editions of the biographies of the ascetics of Northern Rus' in the 15th, Χ V Ι, 17th centuries”; 2) research by Iv. Yakhontova. "The Lives of St. Northern Russian ascetics of the Pomeranian region, as a historical source." Kazan, 1882 (a private analysis of 16 lives is followed by very extensive general critical conclusions. - pp. 203–333). To the said work by V. O. Klyuchevsky, which is a critical study of the lives of people, with complementary works by I. S. Nekrasov and Mr. Yakhontov, the work of Mr. Ars, published in Warsaw in the current year 1902, should be added. Kadlubovsky: Essays on the history of ancient Russian literature, lives of saints (IX 389 pp.). We saw the first, September, book, printed in 1859; but we don’t know whether the second edition was fully printed. Ikonnikov in his Experience of Historiographies, if he is not mistaken, points to the complete edition of 1865–1868, page 665. Biographer Rev. Philaret and the bibliographer of his works S. O. Khoroshunov presents the case of the first two editions of Russian Saints, if only we well understand his not entirely intelligible speech, in such a way that the first edition consisted of nine months, January-September, printed in separate monthly books during the years 1861-1865, and that the second edition consisted of the months September-December, printed in in the form of one four-month 3rd, separation in 1865, see in volume XXXII (1881) of Russian Antiquity his article: Filaret Gumilyovsky, Archbishop of Chernigov (printed by mistake: Kharkovsky), - page 811 fin. – The work of Filaretov’s predecessor A.N. Muravyov, of course, is far from without shortcomings; but since he, Filaret, was distinguished by that not particularly commendable, or better yet, very uncommendable, character trait, that in his opinion, everyone before him and at the same time with him who worked in the same field with him did not do anything, but only spoiled it, and since Muravyov also had that special guilt before him that he warned him, he spoke of the Lives of the Saints of the Russian Church A. N. with the greatest harshness, as not only worthless work, but simply shameful, see in Volume IV of the Collection of Opinions and Reviews of Metropolitan. Filaret's letters to Muravyov and our Chernigov Filaret. – pp. 149 and 176, Nos. 449 and 455, also the latter’s letter to A.V. Gorsky in his Letters to A.V-ch, published in Moscow, in 1885, No. 130, p. 290. They are not devoid of some scientific significance, although they do not purport to be scientific with their deliberate goal: Brief biographies of Russian saints, compiled by Archimandrite. Ignatius. Two volumes, St. Petersburg.. 1875, and the Lives of saints revered by the Orthodox Russian Church, as well as revered by the Greek Church, South Slavic, Georgian and locally revered in Russia. Work by D. Protopopov, in 12 books, Moscow. 1884–1885. By giving this index of literature about the saints of individual localities, we do not at all pretend to be complete (and in cases of need and desire to know the literature about any individual saint or ascetic, we recommend that you consult the Monthly Book of Venerable Demetrius, who collected this most important literature with deliberate diligence). O. Veryuzhsky has his last name from the village of Veryuzhsky: he writes the village of Veryuzhskoye, as it should, with the letter e, and for some reason and for some reason, with the letter e. Finding the fantasy of Fr. Veryuzhsky is strange, we nevertheless preserve his own spelling in the spelling of his surname. The word κανών, after its main meanings: literal - rule, plumb line, and figurative - rule, law, which has many derivative meanings, was and is used in the meaning of a list, catalog (accepted, known) specifically about the books of the Holy Scriptures and in application to the clergy or clergy, i.e. the clergy or clergy. “Canon” of the books of Holy Scripture means a list, a catalog of the books of Holy Scripture. In ancient times, priests and clergy were called canons, οἱ κανονικοί, - Basil the Great. Ave. 6, listed in the canon, ἐν τῷ κανόνι ἐξεταζόμενοι, - 1st Esc. personal prr. 16 and 17, by the people of the canon, οἱ τοῦ κανόνος, - 4th Esc. personal Ave. 2 and Antioch. personal prr. 2 and 11. This means that they constituted a special corporation of people who were listed in the church lists (The expression of the 1st ecumenical assembly ἐν τῷ κανόνι of the 6th ecumenical assembly, - pr. 5, is replaced by the expression: ἐν ἱερατικῷ καταλόγ ῳ). In the Latin Church there are two categories of saints: blessed, obligatorily revered only locally in some country or region (beatificatio), and saints in the proper sense, canonized from the regional ones and obligatorily revered everywhere, throughout the church. Beatum N sanctum esse decernimus et definimus ipsumque sanctorum catalogo adseribimus, ut ab universali ecclesia in die obitus sui de vote celebretur.-The word canonizatio is also derived from the word canon in another meaning of this latter, namely, in the meaning of a part of the liturgy. In the Roman Catholic liturgy it is called a canon, - canon missae, the act of consecrating the holy gifts with the prayers preceding and following it in the number of six (corresponding to the part of our liturgy from the prayer of the priest: “With these blessed powers we too,” following the chant: “Holy, holy, holy,” to “Our Father”). In ancient times, when each private church revered only its local saints, as discussed below, all these saints were commemorated at the liturgy in that part of it, which the Latins call the canon: therefore, those who derive the word canonizatio from the word canon in the sense of a part of the liturgy understand it as the inclusion of some devotee of piety in the canon of the liturgy. But the word canonizatio seems to have appeared after the cessation of the custom of commemorating all the saints in the canon of the liturgy. The verb κανονίζειν, which actually means: to affirm, to determine; punish, correct; in modern Greek: to regulate, to organize, was and is sometimes used in the sense of: to canonize or canonize. We found its use in this last sense in the 17th century writer, Nektarios, Patriarch of Jerusalem (in Ἀντίρρησις 'e, p. 192. § 14: Ζητοῦμεν ἐν τοῖς κανονισθεῖσιν ἁ γίοις τὴν τῶν σημείων ἐπίδειξιν) and from the new writer Β. Chiota (Ἱ στορία τῆς Ἑ πτανὴσου, μέρος ἁ, ἐν Κερκύρ ᾳ, 1863, pp. 156 and 157 of the first account: ἐκανόνισεν αὐτὸν ἄγιον ... ἐκανοσίσθη δὲ ἅ γιος ...). But the nouns: κανόνισμα and κανονισμός are not used in the sense of sainthood or canonization. – For the Latin rites of veneration of the blessed and saints, see Fr. T. Seredinsky in the essay: On the worship of the Western Church, article 2. page 57 fin. sqq. The liturgical Latin book in which these rites are found is Ceremoniale Romanum. In the Slavic translation of the book of Patr. Nectarius, belonging to Fyodor Polikarpov, the word: κανσνισθεῖσιν is translated by the word: canonized: “we are looking for canonized saints,” - synodal. RKP. No. 346, l. 1065 (at Gorsk. and Nevostr. No. 310, p. 524). The news is found in modern acts of the martyrdom of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, who suffered under the emperor Trajan, in the 107th or 115–116th year. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who died in the year 386, says in the 5th secrecy word that after the spiritual sacrifice of the Eucharist, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles and martyrs are remembered at the liturgy, so that God, through their prayers and betrayal, would accept our petition. The Old Testament saints are celebrated by the church in two ways: firstly, all of them have a common celebration of the week of the forefathers and fathers before the Nativity of Christ; secondly, some of the famous people are also given special days of celebration (Abraham and Lot, Job, Moses, Joshua, Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, Anna, the mother of Samuel the prophet. Samuel the prophet, King David, the prophet Joad, the accuser of Jeroboam, the prophets Elijah and Elisha, all 10 prophets, who left the scriptures to the three youths and the Maccabees, - Monthly Vershinsk, p. 302). Regarding celebrations, we can tell everyone that in the Penology of Emperor Basil of the late 10th and early 11th centuries, only one week before the Nativity of Christ was prescribed for the celebration of the Old Testament saints and that these celebrated saints are only Abraham. Isaac and Jacob: the week between the 16th and 17th December is inscribed: Ἐν ἡμέρ ᾳ Κυριακ ῇ, ὂ τε λάχη μνήμη τῶν ἁ γίων πατέρων Ἀβοαὰμ, Ισαάκ καὶ Ἰ ακώβ, i.e. on a weekday (Sunday)? when the memory of the holy fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob occurs: the text about the week also speaks only about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In relation to individual celebrations laid down on special days of the year, it remains puzzling to us why celebrations are laid down on certain days when the day of death of not a single saint is unknown. If we do not assume that celebrations are scheduled on the days of the discovery of relics (and such a discovery of relics, with the exception, of course, of the relics of the prophet Elijah, can be assumed), then we are not able to answer the interrogation (it is positively known about the discovery of the relics of the prophets Isaiah and Zechariah - about the first Menology of Emperor Basil on May 9, about the second - Sozomen in Church History, book IX. ch. 17, Nicodemus and Gamaliel with his son Abib, see The Monthly Book of Vershinsky under August 2 and the Synaxarist of Nicodemus under the same month and date; it speaks of the existence of the relics of: Patriarch Joseph, the prophets Samuel and Daniel and nameless many prophets, the mother of the Maccabees Solomonia and the Maccabees themselves, Zechariah, the father of the Baptist. Bethlehem babies beaten by Herod. Simeon the God-Receiver, see Clironicon Paschale under the year 415, in Patrol. Minya t. 92. col. 788, Homily of John Chrysostom on the Saints Maccabees, ibid. t. 50.eoi. 617, Travel of Novgorod Archbishop Anthony to Constantinople according to the publication of Savvaitov coll. 108, 135. 152 and 100, and in the same edition by Savvaitov, – col. 135, extract from Codin, Ducange Constantinop. Christ. Lib. IV. 109, Synaxarist of Nicodemus under 1st Augustus). – Gregory the Theologian in his homily on the Maccabees says that the feast of these saints was not yet celebrated by many in his time μὲν τιμομἐνων , ὃ τι μὴ μετὰ Χριστὸν ἡ ἄθλησις ), - in Patrol. Minya t. 35, col. 912. On this basis, one should think that other Old Testament celebrations were not immediately accepted by the entire church, but were gradually introduced into it. And the first private churches from which the celebrations began can most likely be considered - for all the Old Testament saints, with the exception of the Maccabees, the Church of Jerusalem, as the church of their earthly fatherland, and for the Maccabees, the Church of Antioch. since Antioch was the place of their martyrdom (the Western Church did not at all accept celebrations of the Old Testament righteous: Seredinsk. On the worship of the Western Church, art. 2. p. 65 sub fin.). See Appendix I below between the Greek appendices. Hist. Eccl. lib. II, 3: καὶ μνείας μαρτύρων γενομένων ἱερέων. Hic continentur dies natalitiorum Martyrum et depositiones Episcoporum, quos Ecclesia Carthageuis anniversaria celebrant (the not entirely correct inscription should be read: Hic continentur dies natalitiorum Martyrum et depositiones Episcoporum, quorum Ecclesia Carthageuis anniversaria celebrat). The calendar is printed in the publication Vetera Analecta. – according to the Parisian nova editio of 1723. 163. Ἐν μὲν τ ῇ Κωνσταντίνου ἐν τῷ τῶν ἁ γιων Ἀποστόλων μεγίστ ῳ σηκῷ οἱ μὲν ἀρχιερεῖς ἐνδον τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου ἐξ ἀρχῆς κατετίθεντο, ὡ ς καὶ τὰ λείψανα ἁ γίων, διὰ τὴν τῆς θείας ἱερωσόνης χάριν. De ordine sepulturae,cap. 364, y Minya in Patrol. t. 155, col. 677. – Sozomen, using the expression about celebrations for martyrs: πανηγύρεις, - festivals, and about celebrations for hierarchs: μνείαι, memory, makes it known that the last celebrations were lower than the first. It could be in relation to the saints that the matter began with their annual solemn commemoration and that after one or another number of years of fervent prayer for them they were recognized as prayer books for themselves and that the days of their annual memory were thus converted from days of prayer for them to days of prayer to them. Not regarding the saints, but regarding the kings, we positively know that some of them, before becoming real, canonized, saints, at one time or another were revered dead, for whom deliberate prayers were offered to God on the days of their remembrances (deaths). From the words of St. John Chrysostom on the day of King Theodosius, ἐν τ ῇ ἡμερα Θεοδοσίου Βασιλέως , - Patr. Minya t. 63, col. 491, it is clear that such a revered deceased during the time of Chrysostom (398404) was Emperor Theodosius the Great († 395). From the Constantinople calendar of the 8th-9th centuries, printed by Morcelli, it is clear that in the 8th-9th centuries such revered dead were Justinian and Theodora (see under the 14th of November, under which their names are written without the gospel assigned to them, what would have happened if they were recorded as saints, cfr about the funeral service for them in the first part of Volume I of the Description (Greek) liturgical manuscripts of A. A. Dmitrievsky, p. 156, and the words of the successor of the chronograph Amartolov under the year 860, that μνήμη αὐτοῦ (Justinian) νῦν οὐκ ἔστιν, - according to ed. Muralta r. 735, in the Slavic translation read in the Nikon Chronicle under the year 869, I, 17); the celebration of their memory as saints, according to Nicephorus Callistus, was established during the time of the emperor. Alexei Komnenos (1081–1118) Patr. John Hieromninon (Agapitus, 1111–1134), see Morcelli and ibid., I, 228. – In the Roman Church in the 9th century, the example of a revered deceased was, among other things, Constantine the philosopher, our first Slavic teacher. According to the testimony of his so-called Pannonian life, at his tomb, reported in the Roman Church of St. Clement, immediately after the burial, many miracles began to be performed, “even the Romans had seen,” says the life, having venerated his shrine and honor, and having painted his icon over his tomb, day and night began to shine over him, praising God, glorifying the same as he is glorified.” The Patriarchs of Constantinople of the indicated ancient times are almost all found in the current Greek calendar, but all or almost all the patriarchs of other departments and bishops of any departments are not in the calendar. This should be understood in such a way that when the individual calendars of each private church in the sense of the episcopate were replaced by the general calendars of the entire Greek Church, about which is now below, then the Patriarchs of Constantinople entered into the general calendars, having been recognized as general church saints, including the full number in which they were in the private Constantinople calendars, and the patriarchs of other sees and bishops entered them only by a very limited choice, in which the standard served as, with on the one hand - greater or lesser general church celebrity, and on the other hand - greater or lesser glory of personal holiness. Ἣ ν o ὐ μετὰ πολλάς ἡμέρας ἀνέδειξεν ὁ Θεὸς θαυματούργον , – Amartol according to ed. Muralta r. 776 beginning For a list of kings and queens canonized, see Greek Appendix II. And the injunction of the Council of Carthage to commemorate the martyrs only in those places, “if somewhere there is either the body (of the martyr), or some part of the relics, or, according to a legend from faithful ancient times, their (the martyrs’) dwelling, or acquisition, or place of suffering,” etc. 94, does not mean to prohibit the celebration of other martyrs, but to prohibit the erection of altars to one’s own martyrs in the fields and cities of dreams and vain revelations. A word of praise from Chrysostom to all the saints who suffered throughout the world in Patrol. Minya t. 50 (Monfokonov editions Tomi secundi pars posterior), col. 705–706. And if Sozomen, who wrote after Chrysostom, says that bishoprics have their own feasts of martyrs and their own commemorations of priests (hierarchs), Church. East. book U, ch. 3: then it can be understood in such a way that they continued to celebrate their martyrs and hierarchs with greater solemnity than those of others. Novella in Ius Graeco-Romanum Tzahariya III, 184, and in the Patrology of Min, t. 107, col. 600; with Russian translation in my History of the Russian Church, I, 2, 428. Imperial Leo intended to build a church in honor of his wife Theophania during her lifetime, and was only prevented from fulfilling his intention by Theophania herself. see P. A. Syrku in the preface to the service of Feofania, which he printed, belonging to the Patriarch of Ternovsky Euthymius (“Euphemia of the Patriarch of Ternovsky service to the Venerable Queen Theophania. Reported by P. A. Syrku. St. Petersburg, 1900.” - In Russia, we cannot get to the point of building churches in honor of living people considered saints, because this will not happen is allowed, but it has already reached the point that akathists are being composed in honor of such living people: in the present year 1902, one peasant of the Kostroma province composed an akathist to Fr. John Sergiev of Kronstadt, entitled: “Akathist to the great companion John Ilyich Sergiev, glorified in the Trinity.” Akathist, with appropriately severe condemnation of his madness, from the 22nd day of May). There is a word imperial. Leo πάντας, i.e. on the week of Pentecost, in honor of all saints everywhere - on Patrol. Minya t. 107, col. 172. But the word is not in praise of all saints of all their ranks, but in praise of all martyrs, as can be seen, in addition to its content, and from its very title, in which, after the above words, it reads: ὅ τε τὸν ἀλάστορα τοῦ γένους ? t. e. since with their exploits (implied: martyrdom) they overthrew the enemy of the (human) race, and the universal church honors them. See about him in the Complete Monthly Book of the East, Rev., I, 217 pp. 1st ed. and 278 pp. 2nd edition... In the prologue, the emperor Basil, containing the lives of saints of all classes of the entire Greek Church, are dedicated to the memory of saints on all days of the year. But we have evidence from the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th century that even then there were still days without the memory of saints. Chartophylax of the Patriarchate of Constantinople Peter, who lived under the emperor. Alexei Komnenos (1081–1118) and who wrote answers to unknown questions, among other things it reads: “Question: Is it appropriate to celebrate the liturgy with one prosphora? Answer: if there is no memory of a saint or (commemoration of) a dead person, then there is no obstacle”, in Rally and P. V, 369. Imperial Marcian (450–457) built a church in honor of St. Vassian during the latter’s lifetime, see Nicodemus’s Synactarist under October 10th; in honor of Rev. Marcian of Cyrus, several churches were built during his lifetime - Theodoret Φιλοθεος Ιστορία, ch. 3, Ming's t. 92, col. 1336 fin. (in our calendar the first is under the same October 10th, the second is under the 18th of January and the 2nd of November). They point out one example of a very disgraceful abuse of canonization on the part of the emperors, namely, that Basil the Macedonian built a church in honor of his firstborn son Constantine, whose unexpected death (in 879) caused him the greatest sorrow. But in fact, Basil the Macedonian built the church not in honor of his son, but in the name of his angel - St. Constantine the Great, see the successor of Amartol according to the publication of this latter by Muralt r. 762 sub fin., also in our Nikonovsk. Years. – I, 20 fin., equal to the extract from the chronicler in the 48th word of Pandekt Nikon of Montenegro, – Pochaevsk. ed. l. 331 rev. beginning (a church was built in a country palace near the “Life-Giving Spring” - ἐντο ᾶ ς καλουμέναις Πηγαῖς, see Constantine Porphyrogenitus Historiam de vita Basili, cap. XC, in Scriptores post Theophanem p. 207 fin.). The name of the monthly calendar is a literal translation of the Greek name of the calendar: μηνολόγιον, which does not literally mean: monthly, monthly schedule, calculation (in this case, precisely the schedule). The name: calendar is Latin and comes from the word: calendae, as the Romans called the first day of each month (and the name of the first day of each month: calendae, comes from the verb: calo, calare, which is identical with the Greek καλέω and means: to convene; the name came from this or in such a way that among the Romans, until calendars began to be published among them, on the first day of each month the people were convened for a meeting at which he was informed of the necessary calendar information regarding the coming month, i.e., that in the coming month on such and such days such and such will happen. The Slavic name: svyatki is the same as the Old Russian name: svyatki; the singular number is: holy, as in the words svyatki: svyatok, and means: holy, which, depending on the use, means either holy people, or holy days, holidays; in our case we mean holy people, i.e. the word: saints means a monthly list of saints. Or, by correcting two services, diptychs could serve for this purpose, in which it was only necessary to put the months and dates of their annual celebration against the names of the saints. The word Δίπτυχος from πτύσσω - fold, make folds, most precisely means: double fold, i.e., a fold consisting of two planks. Diptychs consisted of two wooden, metal or ivory tablets, which on one of their long sides were connected to each other by rings or hinges, the outer sides of which were decorated with carvings and the inner sides, made smooth, were rubbed with wax in order to write on them. If two tablets were not enough for writing, then parchment sheets were inserted between them, and then the diptychs, depending on the number of inserted sheets, with the most precise designation were called triptychs, tetraptychs, pentaptychs, etc., with the most imprecise designation they also retained the title of diptychs or were called by the general name of polyptychs. The consular diptychs, about which one encounters incorrect statements, were not diptychs in general, but a type of diptychs. Consuls and other dignitaries of the Romans, upon taking office, were in the habit of sending to their acquaintances as gifts and distributing to the people diptychs decorated with their images, under which their names were carved: these were consular diptychs. The contents of the diptychs were: the names of saints (all of each diocese), the names of the dead and the names of the living. The names of the dead and the living were divided into two classes: those inscribed in diptychs forever, for the eternal commemoration of the dead and for the lifelong commemoration of the living, and those that changed each service or generally according to services. The first class of names consisted of: the names of bishops and of the laity the names of people who for some reason received the right to eternal or lifelong commemoration: the second class of names consisted of the names of people who made an “offering” for a certain service or who generally ordered to remember themselves and their relatives at certain services. The recording in the diptychs of the names of deceased bishops, depending on the difference in the departments, was different: in the diptychs of bishops the names of all were recorded bishops of the see (see the acts of the 5th ecumenical council, Russian translation vol. V. pp. 197–217, Seiner Thesaur. Ecoles, under the words Δίπτυχα and Ducange Glossarium Latinitatis under the words Diptycha Episcoporum, col. 1513) and all the metropolitans of the metropolis, which was under the jurisdiction of the bishopric (see Russian bishops' service books in the Description of manuscripts of the Synodal Library of Gorsky and Nevostruev - No. 370, l. 10, p. 114, and No. 377. l. 226 vol., p. 224); in the diptychs of the metropolises - the names of all the metropolitans and all the patriarchs of the patriarchate to which the metropolis was subordinate; in the diptychs of the patriarchate - the names of the patriarchs of all patriarchies (and in addition all ecumenical councils). The names of living bishops were recorded: in the diptychs of bishops: bishop, metropolitan and patriarch; in the diptychs of metropolises: metropolitan and patriarch; in the diptychs of the patriarchy: its patriarch and the patriarchs of all departments (see Double personal prr. 14 and 15. in Switzer in Thesaur. Ecoles, under the words Δίπτυχα and in the edition of A. A. Dmitrievsky: Divine services of Passion and Easter weeks in Holy Jerusalem of the 9th-10th centuries. p. 277–279). Since, as time passed, the number of names recorded in diptychs became very large, in later times they were not two tablets, like classical diptychs, but entire notebooks, see the acts of the 5th century. Cathedral in the 5th volume of Russian. translation Acts of the Councils, page 197. – Among the Greeks, memorials submitted for proskomedia are still called diptychs. Our Russian name for commemorations by synodics was taken from the synodik of the week of Orthodoxy (the name “synodik” was turned into senanik; from “senanik” the common people made, in at least some places, “tsenavnik”, “tsennik”). – The following should be said about the relationship of diptychs to calendars. While each private church celebrated only its local saints: then, if there were few saints in the church, so that without a record it was possible to remember: which saint should be celebrated on what day, there was no calendar in the church, but there was one diptych, and if there were many saints, so without a record it was impossible to remember: when to celebrate whom, the calendar was a list parallel to the diptych and identical with it in content, but with a different arrangement of the saints, namely - while in the diptych the saints were recorded by class (or, perhaps, by degree of importance), in the calendar they were recorded by month and day. In the second case, if the calendar appeared or was started later than the diptych, which, of course, happened for the most part, then it is clear that the names of the saints that were in the diptych were transferred to the calendar. When private churches, in addition to their local saints, began to celebrate foreign saints, the names of the latter, of course, began to be included in calendars, but whether they were included in diptychs, we cannot say anything. If they were included, then at least in all of them, but only the most famous ones (as nowadays in all churches only the most famous saints are commemorated at proskomedia). Regarding the name of the commemorations by synodics, we must make an amendment: we must think that the commemorations received the name Synodics not from the Synodic of the Week of Orthodoxy, but from the lithium synodics, about which see below. Among the new Greek martyrs there are a sufficient number of those who came out to disgrace Mohammedanism in order to atone for the sin of their previous apostasy to it, that is, who fell away from Christianity into Mohammedanism, and then repented - returned to Christianity, and sought to atone for the sin of apostasy through martyrdom. And the Greek Church always recognized these martyrs as saints eo ipso, that is, for the death of martyrdom itself. But there were certain people among the Greeks who doubted the holiness of these martyrs. At the beginning of this century, on the island of Chios, over the death of one such martyr, a whole schism arose between those who recognized and did not recognize the martyr as a saint. Then the matter was brought to the attention of the Patriarch of Constantinople Gregory V (a famous martyr who suffered in 1821). The Patriarch and the Council of Bishops solemnly confirmed the generally accepted opinion of these martyrs as perfect martyrs, see. an extract from the treatise on these martyrs, belonging to Nicodemus the Holy Mountain in the preface to the New Limonar, as well as the treatise about them by Athanasius of Paria, placed in the same place. The last writer also has a treatise: ὡ ς τοιοῦτοι καὶ ἄνευ κανονικῆς διαγνώσεως τῆς μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας, i.e. That the new martyrs are saints and should be revered as such even without the canonical inquiry of the great church, see usata in Νεοελλην. Φιλολογ. page 642 beginning – That quite a few of the new Greek martyrs are not officially canonized and are revered by private zealots, this is made clear by Nikephoros of Chios, who compiled “an unnamed general succession to every new martyr” and who, in explaining the desirability of such a succession, says: “Since most of the new martyrs do not have a celebratory succession, and yet many wish - one to celebrate his compatriot, another to his acquaintance, and another to one who who helped him in some need, so I composed a nameless sequence, common to every new martyr, and let anyone who wishes sing to the one for whom he has zeal,” see the preface to the New Limonar, p. 8 note. (the very sequence - ibid. p. 12). Containing evidence of this: a letter from Patr. John XIV of Constantinople, Cripples, to our Russian Metropolitan Theognostus about the canonization of St. Metropolitan Peter, excerpt from the laudatory words of Patr. Philotheus to Gregory Palamas, two conciliar letters from Patr. Kirill Lukaris and the conciliar charter of Patr. Gabriel III, see appendices. Then - the certificate of the patrons. Jerusalem Nektarios, which we now present in the text (and the Greek original of which see also in the appendices). Certificate of Patr. Nectarius, which is now in the text. Page 192, § 13, and 193, § 3. Athonite Patericon or biographies of saints who became famous in the holy Mount Athos, St. Petersburg. 1860, – part 2, pp. 498–505 (“The Finding of the Holy Relics of Our Venerable Father Evdokim of Vatopedi, Commemorated on October 5th”). Editions of 1800, p. 534 (“Athos Monasteries, Lavra of St. Athanasius, Cemetery”). On the right of metropolitans to canonize for local celebrations in metropolitan areas, see the letter of Patr. John Kaleki to our Metropolitan Theognostos, in which a clear allusion is made to this right, and an extract from the laudatory words of Patr. Philotheus to Gregory Palamas, which directly speaks of this right. Then, we know cases of canonization by the Patriarch of Constantinople for the general celebration of saints who, for the local celebration, were canonized not by him, but either by metropolitans or bishops. These cases: canonization in 1622 of Patr. Kirill Lukaris Rev. Gerasim of Chios, who died in 1079 and was canonized for local celebration three years after his death, and canonization in 1703 by Patr. Gabriel III of Bishop Dionysius of Aegia, who died in 1624 and was canonized for local celebration a short time after his death. On the canonization of the second: for local celebration - in New Limonar, pp. 468–469. to the general celebration by the patriarch - In the work of P. Χιωτου Ιστορία τῆς Επτάνησου, μέρος ά, page of the first account 156. In the New Limonar, most of the legends about the new martyrs and the lives of the new ascetics do not say at all about who established the celebrations or performed the canonizations. In four cases, local bishops are directly named as the institutes of celebrations - pp. 198, 285, 324 and 368; but all of them were metropolitans (Prussian or Brussian, Rhodes, Chios and the so-called Philadelphian, who had a stay in Venice). The question regarding the right of bishops to canonize saints, perhaps, would have been resolved for us by another collection of the lives of new saints, namely, compiled by the Holy Mountain Saint Nicodemus and bearing the name Νέον Ἐκλὀγιον (printed in Venice, 1803), but, unfortunately, we did not have it in our hands (having, in greater or lesser replacement, a very significant collection separately printed services to Greek saints with short or lengthy lives of them, recently donated to the library of the Moscow Theological Academy by Rev. Nikander, Bishop of Simbirsk). – In New Limonar we find four cases in which they seem to be the founders of the celebrations: in one, the monks of the monastery themselves. – page 468 fin., in two the people themselves. - pp. 157 and 346. and in one an individual private person, - p. 284. But either this should be understood in such a way that the monks, the people and the private individual were only the initiators in raising the issue of establishing celebrations, or in two cases out of four in which martyrs are spoken of, one should understand that private zeal for the martyrs, about which Nikephoros of Chios speaks, above p. 27 note. 1. – The Patriarch of Constantinople canonizes for general celebration throughout the Greek Church, see the letters of the patriarch. Kirill Lukaris in the appendices, but about other patriarchs - whether they are also canonized for a general celebration in the entire church or only for celebration in their patriarchates, since you are not aware of examples of canonizations performed by them, we cannot say anything. We, as it turns out, misunderstood the not entirely definite speeches of the New Limonar and Chiot about Dionysius, Archbishop of Egin: the first understands the beginning of the veneration of his memory, and the second - his canonization for local celebration (see Greek Appendix VII. Or maybe it was so that Dionysius was canonized for local celebration twice: soon after his death by the Archbishop of Cephalonia himself and in 1703 for the second time and confirmed by the Patriarch of Constantinople?). At least in the above story about the establishment by the Vatopedians of the celebration of the discovery of the relics of St. Evdokim, the situation seems to be that they acted completely independently, although one unplaced bishop who lived on Athos participated in the establishment of the festival. Likewise, in the biography of Saint Nicodemus, it is spoken of the establishment on Athos of a common celebration for all Saints of Saints, as if it had been established by the independent verdict of the Athonite fathers - in the preface. to the Synaxarist p. 12, col, 1 fin. Page 185 fin. See also the patriarchal letters in the appendices to the book. News of the celebration of the memory of Ignatius the God-Bearer, which began immediately after his martyrdom in the year 107 or in the year 115–116. Church East. book I, ch. 16. What we indicate from the Athanasian Life of Anthony the Great is read in the 20th chapter of the Life (St. Anthony regarded the custom of the Egyptians not to bury the bodies of martyrs, but to keep them in their homes, with decisive disapproval, and the tone of St. Athanasius’s speech suggests that he himself regarded the custom with the same disapproval). The bodies and generally the remains of the martyrs were buried in common Christian cemeteries, which were usually outside the cities, on the outskirts, since the Romans did not allow cemeteries in the cities themselves. Over the bodies and remains of the martyrs, churches and churches (μαρτύρια, memoriae martyrum) were erected in cemeteries, which later served as tombs for those who wished to lie near the martyrs (for an indication of the latter, see the book of St. Chrysostom - praise to the Great Martyr Drosida and to the Ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ, said in the martyrdom church Romanisiya, - in Patrol. Minya t. 50. col. 443, 683 and 685. τοῖς συλλεγομένοις κέρδος οὐ μικρὸν , μάλιστα δὲ ἀπάντων ? ἀ ν ἴδ ῃ λάρνακας καὶ μνήματα καὶ θὴκας ὁρ ᾶ τῶν κατοιχομένων . – Kimitiriy, κοιμητήριον, as the cemetery churches of martyrs are sometimes called, is the proper name of the cemeteries, in literal Russian translation meaning: tomb (tomb), from κοιμάομαι, sleep (implied in this case: eternal sleep). Then kimitiria are tents in cemeteries for the coffins of the dead and crypts for them under churches. The Greek passage from Chrysostom (Min col. 685 sub fin.) was printed with three typos in punctuation and one typo in the spelling of the word, namely, the comma after the words παρέχει and τις should be destroyed, a colon should be placed after the word τοῦτο and the word ἴδη readable: ῖδῃ. In Russian; Each of the martyr's churches brings considerable benefit to those who gather (in them), most of all because as soon as someone enters the vestibule (of the church) a multitude of coffins immediately appears to his gaze from everywhere, and wherever (he) looks, (everywhere) he sees (he) tombs and monuments and shrines of the deceased... Conversation in memory of the martyr Julitta, Russian. translation 3rd ed. Part IV, p. 64 (Basily the Great speaks of the intactness of the martyr’s body, which makes it clear that it was carried out of the ground, for otherwise he could not have known that it was intact). In his first accusatory word against Julian, Gregory B. speaks about the believers touching the bodies of saints - Russian. translation Part 1, ed. 3 p. 101: passages given in the Longer Catechism, in the section on the ninth term. The word, when the queen came to the great church in the middle of the night and from there took the relics of the martyrs, etc., to Patrol. Minya t. 63, col. 467. Cod. Theodos. Lib. IX. Tit. XVIII. 1. 7: Humatum corpus nemo ad alterum locum transferat; nemo martyrem distrahat, nemo mercetur. Habeant vero in potestate, si quolibet in loco sanctorum est aliquis conditus. pro ejus veneratione, quod martyrium vocandum sit, addant, quod voluerint fabricarum. – Vasily Vel. in one of his letters he makes it known that the custom of digging up the relics of martyrs from the ground in his time was still not widespread, for in response to the request of one bishop to send the relics to the newly created church, he replied that he would send “if he had the opportunity to find the relics,” - Russian. translation Part VI, 3rd ed. p. 125. John Chrysostom repeatedly makes it known in his words that the relics of the martyrs were mostly in the ground, in the places of their burial - suburban cemetery churches: in Patrol. Minya t. 50, coll. 441–42. 515, 551, 595–96, 647, 649, 664, G72–73, 680, 725. Cod. Justinian. Lib. I, Tit. III. 1. 26: De reliquiis sanctorum; Basilic. Lib. I, Tit. I, X. – In the West there was no custom at all to dig up the relics of saints from the ground, as can be seen from the letter of Pope Gregory the Great († 604) to the Empress Constance or Constantine, the wife of the emperor. Mauritius, at least until the beginning of the 7th century. In response to the empress’s request to send her a chapter or other part of the relics of St. Paul's dad writes to her: In Romanis vel totius Occidentis partibus omnino intolerabile est atque sacrilegum, si sanctorum corpora tangere quisquam fortasse voluerit. Quod si praesumpserit, certum est, quia haec temeritas impunita nullo modo remanebit. Pro qua re de Graecorum consuetudine, qui ossa levare sanctorum se asserunt, vehementer et vix credimus.., – in Patrol. Minya t. 77, col. 702. In Thessalonica, which before the iconoclastic times was drawn to the West, like this last body of martyrs for a long time, at least until the times of the emperors. Mauritius (582–602), were not removed from the land, as can be seen from the legends about St. Demetrius of Thessalonica, see Patrol. Minya t. 116, col. 1240, § 49. This is precisely how our famous writer of the second half of the 6th century Zinovy Otensky understands the matter, - The truth of the testimony of Kazansk. ed. page 493. About the incomprehensibility of God’s destinies in this case, see our Russian teachers: Feofan Prokopovich in his discussion about the incorruption of the relics of the saints of God, who rest incorruptibly in the Kyiv caves, which was published in its entirety in Moscow in 1786 and 1799, and in an abbreviation it was printed and is still staggering in Kyiv; Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, in the Sermon on the Incorruption of Holy Relics, in memory of St. Sergius, spoken in the Lavra on September 25, 1821, and Fr. John Sergiev of Kronstadt in the article: “Thoughts on the worship of the Orthodox Church,” a component of the Complete Works, vol. VI, – ed. 1, St. Petersburg 1894. p. 21 beginning. (If the relics of almost all the ancient Greek saints are currently known, then one must keep in mind that, according to evidence beyond doubt, the forgery of relics flourished among the Greeks until not very long ago). If we give faith to what Anthony of Novgorod says about the relics of Spyridon of Trimifunt (and there are no grounds or motives for not giving faith), - col. 112 (122): then it will follow that the current relics of Spyridon are very suspicious, for Anthony is not talking about the whole body, what are the current relics, but about the pope, hand and relics, that is, bones, located in two different churches (in the palace Image Chamber of our sovereigns there was part of the relics of Spyridon of Trimifuntsky under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, about which in the inventory of the chamber reads: “the relics of Spyridon of Trimythia, covered with silver on both ends,” see the inventory of the chamber in the III History and Ancient. Let us present evidence of the relics of saints both as bones and as whole bodies. Blazh. Jerome, in an essay against Vigilantius, a famous Protestant of the second half of the 4th century, speaks of the relics of St. Peter and Paul as bones (ossa venerandä based on the above testimony of Gregory the Great, that in the West until the 7th century the relics of saints were not dug up at all, Jerome’s words should be understood not about what was positively known to him, but about what opinion there was, what was generally accepted). The story of the discovery of the relics of the first martyr Stephen says that his whole body turned to dust, therefore the relics were bones, - Tales of the Christian Martyrs, Russian translation of the Kazan Academy, vol. 1, pp. 227–228. The relics of the above-mentioned apostles Andrew, Luke and Timothy, transferred to Constantinople, were bones, for they were kept in small boxes, which the patriarch kept on his knees in solemn processions, while riding a chariot, see Ducange Constantinop. Christ., lib. IV, p. 107. Relics of the Old Testament Patriarch Joseph and Zechariah, father of the Baptist. transferred to Constantinople in the year 415, there were bones, for they were placed in the same small boxes as the previous ones, as can be seen from the history of their introduction to Constantinople - Chronicon Paschale under the year 415, in Patrol. Minya t. 92. col. 788. About the relics of the prophet Samuel, brought to Constantinople by the emperor. Arkady (395–40S), bl. Jerome speaks of bones (ossa beati Samuelis), in the aforementioned essay against Vigilantius. Sozomen speaks of the relics of forty martyrs - book. IX, ch. 2, and Evagrius - about the relics of Simeon the Stylite, - book. I, ch. 13, how about bones. The verse prologue speaks of the relics of the unmercenaries Cyrus and John as bones: Ὀστ ᾶ φανέντα μαρτύρων ἁ ναργύρων, see in the Synaxarist of Nicodemus under June 28th. About the relics of Philotheus the Wonderworker (it is unknown when he lived no later than the 10th century), - Rev. Sergius, the Complete Months of the East II, September 15, Menology of Emperor Basil, speaks of bones: καὶ ταφεὶς βρύει παραδόξως ἐκ τῶν τιμίων ὀστέων αὐτοῦ ἐλαιον μέχρι τῆς σήμερον, - under the 15th of September, speaking generally about. relics of the martyrs, speaks of them as bones (a place from Vasily V., not found by us ourselves, see. by Stefan Yavorsky in the Stone of Faith, parts of the 1st dogma on the relics of saints). John Chrysostom, in his general speeches about the relics of saints, repeatedly calls them bones (ὀστέα, ὀστᾶ) or bones that accompany dust (τέφρα, κόνις) from decomposed bodies (for an extract of passages from John Chrysostom, see at the end of the book, in applications). Pope Gregory the Great, in the above words of his letter to Empress Constance, speaks of the relics of saints as bones. In the confession of faith of one unknown Greek of the end of the 8th - beginning of the 9th century we read: “we give honor and worship to the holy relics of the martyrs and all saints, for although they are apparently bare bones ( εἰ γὰρ καὶ ὀστ ᾶ γυμν ᾶ δοκεῖ ε ἶ ναι), but exude healing - in Patrol. Minya t. 98, col. 1236. Patriarch Germanus I of Constantinople (715–730. † 740), making it known that many of the relics of the saints were individual bones, says in the work περὶ αἱρἐσεων καὶ συνόδων that the relics of the glorious martyrs, collected by the teachers of the church and placed in heaps (piles) in honest arks ( ἐν τιμίοις κιβωρίοις σωρηδὸν ἐντεθἐντα ), having been thrown out of the latter by the iconoclasts, they were destroyed by fire - in Patrol. Minya t. 98, col. 80. As for the evidence about the relics of saints as whole bodies, we can point out the following: Basil the Great speaks of the intact body of the martyr Julitta, - Russian. translation 3rd ed. Part Ι V, p. 64. Sozomen claims that the relics of the prophet Zechariah were found in the form of a whole undestroyed body - book. IX, ch. 17. Compiler of the life of the holy martyr Autonomus (who suffered under Diocletian, commemorated on September 12), who lived under the emperor. Justina (518–527), speaks of the relics of this holy martyr as of a completely incorruptible body in his time, see Rev. Sergius in the Complete Monthly Book of the East, vol. II, notes for the 12th of September, also in Vershinsky in the Monthly Word under the 12th of September. Nicephorus the Confessor speaks generally about saints in the body (ἐν σώματι ἅ γιοι), and the expression: “in the body” seems to be understood about more or less whole bodies - in Ralli and Π. Ι V, 431. Menology imp. Vasily does not quite clearly speak about the relics of the Great Martyr Euphemia (located in Chalcedon) as if about a whole body - in recollection of the miracle that occurred from the relics on July 11 (see Amartol under the year 716, according to the ed. Muralta p. 654). Our Anthony of Novgorod, if we rely on the accuracy of his testimony, speaks of some of the relics he saw in Constantinople as whole bodies (using the expression that a saint or saint “lies in the body”) coll. 97, 129–30, 145, 172, 180. As for the relics of the new Greek saints, on Athos the relics of the saints there are exclusively bones (and the Athos people explain the absence of their relics in the form of whole bodies by the fact that they do not need supernatural means to maintain their faith, what is the incorruption of bodies, see Letters of the Holy Mountain, part I. letter 9, 2nd ed. 1850 pp. 107–108); in other places in Greece, partly whole bodies, partly bones. Examples of both the first and second are indicated in the Synaxarist of Nicodemus and in the New Limonar (examples of the first in Nicodemus: under the 27th of September, the 14th and 20th of October, the 4th of November, the 5th and 17th of December, the 13th of March, the 5th of April, the 23rd of July and the 3rd Augusta; in New Limonar: pp. 49, 346, 368, 468 and 491). On the difference between relics preserved in the form of whole bodies and undestroyed bodies that belong to people who died under an oath, see Nicodemus in Pidalion, in the note to the 7th rule of Gregory of Nyssa, ed. 1864 p. 662: the first are beautiful, fragrant and withered or withered, εἰσιν ἐξηραμμένα; the second are ugly, fetid and swollen like drums, ε ἶ ναι ῳ ουσκωμένα ὡ ς τύμπανα, also see in the New Tablet of the Archbishop. Benjamin, parts of the fourth chapter. XXI. § 4. edition of Korablev and Siryakov 1857 pp. 119–120). And when Anthony of Novgorod speaks about bones, he uses the expression: relics, so that his word: relics is equivalent to the word: bones (for example. about the remains of the Maccabees, he says that in one church in Constantinople lie their “heads and relics”: but Chrysostom also speaks of their remains as broken, about bones eaten away by time - τὰ χρόν ῳ δαπανηθέντα ὀστ ᾶ; about the remains of St. Spyridon, he says that in one monastery there is its head, and in another the hand and relics, and about the remains of St. Diya says that in the unnamed monastery there is his “head and relics”: if the relics are separate from the head, then it is obvious that these are bones. In general, Anthony’s expression: “relics” is the opposite of the expression: “lies in the body,” and since by the second expression he means more or less whole bodies, the first expression cannot be understood otherwise than about bones). – Paul of Aleppo, in his Description of the journey of Patriarch Macarius of Antioch to Russia, says that in the Patriarchal Church of Constantinople they were shown the incorruptible relics of Queen Theophany, Solomonia, the mother of the Maccabees, and the martyr Euphemia (the latter without a head), see Russian translation in Reading. General East. and Ancient, 1896 book. IV, p. 20 beginning (And in the Synaxarist of Nicodemus, under the 16th of December, in a note to the story of St. Theophania, it is said that even now her relics are found incorrupt in the Patriarchate of Constantinople. But since the Bulgarians and Serbs claim that the relics of Theophania, taken from Constantinople, were first with the first of them for some time, and then with the second: then one must think that the relics returned to Constantinople again, or to see here one of those puzzling cases that are not unusual in relation to relics...). Sozomen speaks of peace from the relics of forty martyrs - book. IX, ch. 2, Amartol speaks of peace from the relics of the Great Martyr Euphemia, - according to ed. Muralta r. 654. In Menology imperial. Basil speaks of peace from the relics of Philotheus the Wonderworker, whose memory is on September 15th. In Ducange's Glossarium Graecitatis, under the word: Μύρον, and also in the Glossarium Latinitatis, under the word Manna, many examples of myrrh-streaming relics are indicated. St. John of Damascus in his Exact Exposition of the Faith, - book. IV, ch. 15 (88), and Simeon of Thessalonica in the Conversation against Heresies (in Patrol. Minya t. 155, col. 61) generally speak about the flow of the world with the relics of saints (Nicetas Choniates speaks of the extraordinary abundance of the world that flowed from the relics of the great martyr Demetrius of Thessalonica - the reign of Andronikos Komnenos, book 1, chapter 9. Russian translation vol. I. p. 388). – In Menology imp. Basil says about the head of the martyr Anthimus of Nicomedia that she is τριχῶν παράδοξον ἐκφυσιν, that is, works many other miracles, as well as the glorious (wonderful) hair loss (hair grew on the head, was cut off, again with growths, etc.), - on September 3rd. Nicodemus in the Synaxarist reports about the relics of one saint that the hair on their heads was trimmed every year and the nails on their hands and feet were cut, and about the relics of one bishop that every year on the day of Pentecost they were taken out of the shrine and first placed at St. throne (they were assigned to it), and then for the entire time of the liturgy they annoyed the sacred co-throne - on Aug. 3. and 5 Dec. See Theodoret of Cyrus's work: Ελληνικων παθηματων θεραπευτικη, word 8, in Patrol. Minya t. 83,col. 1008 and his own work Φιλόθεος Ιστορία, ch. 21, in Patrol. Minya and. 82, col. 1449 ( ? ἀλλὰ πόλεις καὶ κῶμαι ταῦτα διανειμάμεναι , σωτῆράς καὶ ψυχών ?? καὶ φύλακας, the courageous souls of the victorious hover in heaven, as for the bodies, one coffin does not hide the body of each, but cities and villages, dividing the latter (bodies) among themselves, call (them) saviors and doctors of soul and body and honor (them) as protectors and guardians): Chronieon Paschale under the year 362, in Patrol. Minya t. 92, col. 740 (the relics of John the Baptist, dug out of the ground in Sebaste and the remains of Bishop Patrophilus [the Arian saint], dug in Scythopolis, were plundered - διεσκορπίσθησαν). The body of the Patriarch of Constantinople Eutyches († 582) was almost plundered when it was carried to the church of the apostles for burial, see Ducange in Consantinop. Christ. Lib. IV, p. 111. Examples are indicated that residents of surrounding villages gathered to visit the dying ascetic in order to be able to plunder his body immediately after he gave up the ghost - see Nicodemus in the Synaxarist under November 26; imperial Theodosius the Great issued a decree in 386 that the relics of martyrs should not be stolen or traded - see above on page 33 note. 2. There are known cases of theft of the relics of saints in modern times, see for example. in New Limonar p. 141 (as well as cases of peaceful or non-violent division of relics into parts. - Athos. Patericon, part II. p. 38. 87 and 413. - Currently, each Athos monastery has up to fifteen, if not much more, parts and particles of different relics of saints, and that in the former Constantinople the relics of some saints were in parts in different churches and monasteries, see our pilgrims, Archbishop Anthony and others, and it is also known that the Greeks transferred a great many particles of the relics of various saints to us in Russia). The zeal of the Greeks for the veneration of relics was sometimes the reason that, after the death of some famous ascetic, quarrels and fights and real battles for the possession of his body took place between the inhabitants of the villages neighboring the place of his asceticism, see John Cassian Collationes patrum, collat. VI, cap. 1. to Patrol. Minya t. 49, col. 645, Theodorit Φίλοθεόν Ιστορίαν, ch. 2, 15 and 21, to Patrol. Minya t. 82, coll. 1336 fin., 1416 fin. and 1436 sub fin., and in Nicodemus in the Synaxarist under the 9th of October about Rev. Andronicus of Antioch. – The inclination of the Greeks to acquire the largest possible number of parts and particles from the relics of various saints had the consequence that they had counterfeiters of relics and dealers in counterfeit relics: Pope Gregory the Great, in the above-mentioned letter to Empress Constance, reports that Greek monks were detained in Rome, who were tearing out the bones of the dead in the cemetery of the Church of St. Paul, outside the city, and who, during interrogation, admitted that they had the intention of passing off the bones in their home as the relics of saints (Blessed Augustine in his work De opere monachorum, cap. 28, speaks of wandering Western monks, most likely attributable to the same monks and Eastern ones that alii between them membra martyrum, si tamen martyrum, venditant). And that in later times the Greeks were very involved in forging relics, this is a well-known fact, fully recognized by the Greek writers themselves (see, for example, the Confession of Faith of Mitrofan Kritopoulos, chapter 16, beginning). Relics of the Apostles Andrew. Luke and Timothy were laid in Constantinople, in the Church of the Apostles, τραπἐζης ), - Easter chronicle under the year 350 and Menologium imp. Vasily on November 30th; Our Anthony of Novgorod in his Travels, as far as he indicates the location of the relics, mostly indicates them under the altar and under St. meal, – coll. 97, 110, 120. 136; in general about the placement of the relics of saints under St. meal, see above on page 17 of Simeon of Thessaloniki and Nicodemus in the Synaxarist under November 12th. On the placement of the relics of saints in the vestibules of churches, see Balsamon in the interpretation of the 2nd rule of Dionysius of Alexandria, - in Rally and P. IV, 8; individual cases are indicated by Anthony of Novgorod. – col. 157–158, and by Nicodemus in the Synaxarist under the 27th of September; The relics of the Great Martyr Demetrius of Thessaloniki are located in the vestibule of his former temple, which is now a mosque. Cases of finding relics in the churches themselves, at the front and back doors, Anthony points out - coll. 146 and 147. – The relics of John Chrysostom and Gregory the Theologian, representing, as it seems, an exception, were not under the floor of the altar of the Constantinople Church of the Holy Apostles, but in the altar itself (news about the relics of Chrysostom and Gregory the Theologian disagree among themselves: some say that the relics were in the altar, others - that under the altar, but that they were precisely in the altar, Constantia Porphyrogenitus speaks about this quite clearly in the book De caeremoniis). - According to the testimony of Archbishop Anthony with our other pilgrims - Stefan Novgorod (in Sugar. in Legends of the Russian Nar. vol. II, book VIII, end of the “Wanderer”) and Deacon Ignatius (ibid. p. 101) the relics of the saints were kept by the Greeks in closed and even sealed arks (if not mainly, then partly, as is likely to be thought, to prevent abduction, of which there were cases) and in ordinary times were available for kissing by some rich people (implied - for a special fee), and were offered to the whole people for kissing only on the days of memory of saints and on church feasts of churches, and if there were no whole bodies, and bones, were placed on tables or on the altar barrier (“the relics of St. Ivan Chrysostom and the relics of St. Gregory the Theologian, says Deacon Ignatius, are sealed in stone arks”: “and in Constantinople,” says Stefan Novgorod, “sparingly or wretchedly she cannot see or kiss a single saint, except on the feast of which saint will be, and then see and kiss”; in Constantinople, says Anthony of Novgorod, “there is a monastery of the holy prophet Elijah and in it there is a church, and in it there are many relics of saints, and for the holiday they set up tables throughout the church and place the relics of saints on them”). As for the altar barrier, it is obvious that Anthony of Novgorod means the temporary placement of the relics of saints on it when he says that in the church of the apostles “on the altar barrier of the saints.” On the carrying of the relics of saints in religious processions among the Greeks, see Ducange Constantinop. Christ., Lib. IV, p. 107, and Simeon of Thessalonica De sacra precatione cap. 353, – in Patr. Minya t. 155, col. 656. Anthony of Novgorod speaks about the carrying of relics at the great exit of the liturgy and about placing them on sick people, -coll. 145, 172 and 180. You might be interested in: