Review of the book by N. F. Krasnoseltsev “Materials for the history of the rites of the liturgy of St.

See also: Materials for the history of the rites of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom prof. N.F. Krasnoseltsev Prof. This is not the first time that N. F. Krasnoseltsev appears in print with works on the study of the rites of the liturgy and in particular the rite of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. His work in this direction began back in the seventies, when he published an extensive article “On the interpretative works of the fathers and teachers of the Church relating to the study of Orthodox worship” (Right. Sobesedn. 1878), which appeared in the world on the occasion of publication by the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in appendices to an academic journal in 1855–57. collection entitled: “Writings of St. fathers and teachers of the Church relating to the interpretation of Orthodox worship" in three volumes. The said article led the venerable professor to the conviction that the mentioned collection of the St. Petersburg Academy “did not include everything that could and should have been included in it from the writings of the fathers and teachers of the Church regarding the interpretation of worship” (N. Krasnoseltseva. Explanation of the liturgy of Bishop F. Andidsk. K. 1884, p. 4) and prompted him to supplement the collection with independent research and translations of “some works of ancient Greek writers, very important for the interpretation of worship, hitherto unknown to the Russian public” (Ibid.). The fruit of his work in this direction was a brochure in 1884 entitled: “Explanation of the Liturgy, compiled by Theodore, Bishop of Andida (a monument of Byzantine spiritual literature of the 12th century). Kazan". “This interpretation, according to Prof. Krasnoseltsev, is one of the most ancient Greek works of this kind, and is very remarkable, both in its edification and in its special completeness and harmony. It is, moreover, very important from a historical perspective, since it contains many indications that are very valuable for the history of the liturgy and its interpretation” (Ibid.). To the translation of this interpretation in the mentioned brochure, the author added in the preface brief information about its author. The following year, 1885, the author published a major book entitled: “Information on some liturgical manuscripts of the Vatican Library with comments on the composition and features of the liturgical rites contained in them and with appendices. From a report on scientific studies abroad in 1882, Kazan,” in which “he published, as Mr. Krasnoseltsev states, quite a significant number of written monuments relating to the history of the liturgy of the Orthodox Church and mainly the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom" (p. 3). In this book he contains a) “interpretation of the liturgy with the name of St. Basil the Great in the collection of the XIV-XV centuries,” b) “interpretation of the liturgy without a name in the collection of the XV century,” c) “interpretation of St. John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople”, d) “interpretation of Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem”, e) “interpretation of Herman, Patriarch of Constantinople”, f) extensive treatise: “description of Western and Russian lists, published and not published; remarks about their features, conclusions in relation to the question of the original edition of the liturgy of St. Chrysostom; a note on the peculiarities of the Alexandrian lists of the liturgy of Chrysostom” and g) several lists of Greek and South Slavic rites of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. But even after the publication of the mentioned book, “we,” states Prof. Krasnoseltsev, did not cease to diligently search for and collect new monuments related to the same subject in Russian and foreign libraries. The result was that a considerable number of new monuments of the same kind had again accumulated in our hands, some very little known, some completely unknown, but no less important and useful for the history of the liturgy than those published in the named book. These latest, that is, already published, monuments relate primarily to that very ancient period when there were no complete and detailed statutes of the liturgy and short editions were in circulation, consisting almost only of prayers with a very small number of statutory instructions or rubrics. The same monuments that we have at hand and are publishing now belong to a later period, but for clarifying the features of the text of the modern rites of the liturgy, it is much more important, namely to the period when detailed statutes of the liturgy began to be drawn up and when that generally widespread statute (διάταξις) appeared, which, having complicated the ancient short editions, determined that type of liturgical order that soon became widespread and is still used today. This charter is attributed to the Patriarch of Constantinople Philotheus” (pp. 3–4). The first issue of “materials” we are reviewing includes: a) the rite of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, published according to a modern manuscript from the Panteleimon Monastery and according to our copy from a parchment scroll of 1306 of the Esphigmen Athonite Library, which in turn is a copy from an older manuscript written during the reign of the Byzantine emperor Andronikos II (from 1281 to 1332) (p. 8); b) the order of the liturgy according to the manuscript of the synodal library of the XIII-XIV centuries. No. 381 (p. 18), previously published in abbreviation by Prof. Moscow Theological Academy by I. D. Mansvetov in his famous book: “Metropolitan Cyprian in his liturgical activity.” M. 1882 (pp. II-V); c) the order of the liturgy according to our list from a manuscript of the 14th century. Vatopedi library, with variants based on manuscripts from the Panteleimon Monastery of the 16th century. “and with a not entirely accurate” ancient Slavic-Russian translation from the Service Book of Metropolitan Cyprian, stored in the Moscow Synodal Library; d) the order of the liturgy according to a manuscript of the 15th (16th?) century of the Jerusalem Patriarchal Library with additions according to the list of X. L. Loparev from an excerpt from the same manuscript, but stored in the St. Petersburg public library and e) the order of the liturgy according to the list of prof. Stornoilo from the Vatican Library manuscript No. 573 of the 14th-15th centuries. Thus, from the five indicated lists of the rites of the liturgy of St. There are only two John Chrysostom, namely: the Esphigmenian and the Synodal can be attributed to the XIII century, i.e., to the time of the pre-patriarchy of Philotheus, and we agree to look at these lists as “the material that Philotheus used” (p. 4), when compiling his διάταξις, especially since both named lists of the origin of Constantinople patriarchy. In both of these lists the names of Byzantine emperors and empresses and Byzantine patriarchs are commemorated in litanies (pp. 8, 18). The Vatopedi list, together with Mr. Krasnoseltsev, can be recognized as “undoubtedly contemporary with Filotheus and containing an edition of the charter, if not the original, then one of the original” (p. 34). But as for the other two lists, they are not in any connection with the previous ones and represent a completely separate independent edition of the rites of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. About the first of these lists in Jerusalem, Mr. Krasnoseltsev himself notes that “it is completely free from the influence of the Philothean Charter” (p. 82), and about the Second Vatican he writes the following: “it is completely independent from the Rule of Philotheus and was probably used in an area where the influence of Philotheus’ Rule in the 15th century. has not yet penetrated” (p. 95). True, he thinks to attribute the Jerusalem list “to the number of statutes that preceded Philotheus” (p. 82), but this opinion of his has no solid positive foundation. Consequently, the published issue of “materials” can hardly be considered satisfactory for its purpose. It contains two lists prior to the Philotheus edition of the rite of the liturgy and one contemporary to Patriarch Philotheus, but there is not a single list with the name of this patriarch. A future researcher of the historical fate of the rite of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, having at hand a real edition of “materials”, is deprived of any opportunity to determine the relationship of the lists of the order of the liturgy before Philotheev’s and contemporary to this patriarch to those that are inscribed with the name of Patriarch Philotheus and are very often found in manuscripts of Western and Eastern libraries, and at the same time to find “the true form of this original text,” which, according to Mr. Krasnoseltsev, is “important in many respects” (p. 30). At the same time, bearing in mind that the study of these lists of the order of the liturgy of the Filofeevsky edition “no one has yet been engaged in for the indicated purpose” (p. 31), we think that several more or less characteristic lists of the present edition should be included in this issue, so that by studying and comparing these texts with the published ones it would be possible to more accurately determine the unknown to us “original text” of the Patriarch's διάταξις Filofeya. But a researcher can hardly rest on this, especially one who wants to visually present to his readers in his monuments “the continuity of tradition in the history of the liturgy and the genealogy of its modern text” (p. 4). It is absolutely fair to “determine the true form of the original text” of Patriarch Philotheus’ διάταξις “important in many respects,” but this is only one question in the history of our rite of liturgy, which did not preserve its original text unchanged to this day, but then continued to develop and be complicated by new features, ritual actions and even new prayers, which were unknown to the text of the liturgy before the Philotheus redaction. “The genealogy of the modern text of the liturgy,” which Mr. Krasnoseltsev talks about, itself presupposes the existence of many other lists of the rite of the liturgy of the new edition after Filofeevskaya. And we really see that from the middle of the 15th century in Greek liturgical monuments the rite of the liturgy appears in a new edition, signed as follows: “Ἀρχὴ σύν Θεῷ ἁ γί ῳ τοῦ διακονικοῦ.” Αὕ τη ἡ τάξις γίνεται ἐν τῇ σεβασμί ᾳ λαύρ ᾳ ἐν τῷ ἁ γι ῳ e.g. Beginning with the God of the Deacon. This rite is performed in the sacred monastery (i.e., St. Athanasius) in the holy Mount Athos, because there is a real deaconnik there” (RKP. Syn. Bible No. 986), which was soon transferred to our Slavic-Russian service books and gave rise to a new edition of the rite of the liturgy, characterized by the appearance in our proskomedia of the so-called seven-prosphoria. At the end of the 16th century, and especially in the 17th century, from the time of the printing of the Service Book, this edition of the rite of the liturgy became dominant among us, temporarily replacing all other editions, and this position remained with it until the publication of the Service Book in 1655, when it was recognized by Patriarch Nikon as unfit for use in church and liturgical practice. These are the later lists of the order of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which are very important “for the continuity of tradition in the history of the liturgy and the genealogy of its modern text,” we do not find in the first issue of “materials” that we are examining. We do not find here such lists of the rites of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, like, for example, the list of the 16th century known to us. in the manuscript of the Kutlumush library No. 341, inscribed as follows: “Ἡ θέια λειτουργία τοῦ ἁ γίοῦ Ἰ ωάννου Χρυσοστόμου. Ἕ ρμηνεία εἰς τούς ἀμαθεῖς τῆς θείας λειτουργίας, i.e. Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Interpretation of the Divine Liturgy for (priests) the ignorant.” These lists of interpretative liturgies, or rather detailed statements of ritual actions, appeared in the monuments because new, inexperienced priests, having in their hands liturgical ilitariums consisting of only prayers, found it difficult to perform the rites of the liturgy and allowed arbitrariness and their own “speculation” in the rituals, which subsequently gave rise to a remarkable variety of lists of liturgical rites. We think that this kind of liturgical lists and personal “conjectures” of “ignorant” priests during divine services brought to life the liturgical works of the Patriarch of Constantinople Philotheus (1354–1376), who, with the publication of his διάταξις, wanted once and for all to put a limit to the existing arbitrariness in liturgical practice regarding ritual actions, to withdraw from use similar interpretations of “εἰς τούς ἀμαθεῖς” and establish uniformity in the performance of the liturgy for all priests. In view of all this, it seems to us that the venerable publisher of the “first issue of materials” is somewhat prematurely flattering himself with the hope that, on the basis of the lists of rites he is now publishing, “the continuity of tradition in the history of the liturgy and the genealogy of its modern text will thus be presented to some extent visually” (p. 4). His goal will be fully achieved, as we believe, but only if he, with his characteristic energy and “with the same zeal,” continues his work as a “searcher and collector in Russian, and (especially) in foreign libraries, new monuments related to the same subject” (p. 3) and to this first issue of “materials” he adds two, and perhaps more new issues. The manuscripts of foreign libraries from this side have been little examined and one can hope that the venerable publisher will reap a bountiful harvest from them and reward himself for his work with the grateful gratitude of people of science and co-workers in the same field. But even in the present case, if we ignore the hardly realized hopes of the publisher and his broad tasks and look at this issue as a collection of only “materials for the history of the rites of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom,” as the title of this issue says, its appearance cannot but be welcomed with the liveliest joy and deep gratitude for the work. With this release of “materials” prof. Krasnoseltsev not only made a solid contribution to liturgical science and specifically to the history of the development of its primary sources, but at the same time provides an excellent weapon in the hands of our shepherds in their fight against schismatics. He will satisfy this last urgent need of our time the sooner the shorter the time of appearance of the second edition he promised, in which he intends to place the most ancient Slavic rites of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. “Following the Greek texts, we place,” writes Prof. Krasnoseltsev, Slavic texts of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom: first of all, the text, if not the original, then the oldest, according to several ancient manuscripts of the Synodal, printing and Sofia libraries, and then the Slavic text according to the Philothean Rule, indicating later additions and amendments that gave this text a modern look” (p. 4). Scientifically published Greek and Slavic rites of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom most clearly explains both for our missionary shepherds and for lovers of the old rite both the sources and the reason for the diversity of this rite, as well as the circumstance of how there was a significant difference between our modern rite of the liturgy and the one that was in our old printed service books and which is now held by adherents of antiquity. Having in mind the publication of the promised second issue, we wish, in the interests of the publisher himself, firstly, that the Slavic rites of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom were published in Cyrillic, and secondly, so that he tried to avoid the mass of proofreading errors that plagued his real first edition. You might be interested in: