"Interpretive Service"

and other works related to the explanation of worship in ancient Rus' until the 18th century (bibliographic review). One of the most important features of ancient Russian piety is rightly considered to be its external ritual direction, which manifested itself in special respect and attachment to the external side of religion and, in particular, to liturgical rituals. Religiosity manifested itself in ancient Rus' especially often in the careful performance of church rituals; adherence to rituals sometimes went to extremes; rituals were given dogmatic importance. Book people were especially willing to deal with ritual issues regarding, for example, observing fasts, the way of performing certain ritual actions, etc. In general, interest in ritual in ancient Rus' was very great. But the understanding of the inner meaning and meaning of this ritual, apparently, was not at a high level. There were works devoted to the explanation of liturgical rites in ancient Russian literature and were even quite common reading, but they were not distinguished by high merits. These were almost exclusively translations, albeit of the best ancient Greek interpretations, but the translations were short, fragmentary, not always intelligible and often distorted by arbitrary insertions borrowed from various, sometimes rather murky sources. This was the case at least until the middle of the 17th century, when more complete and accurate interpretations began to appear among us. But no matter how scanty the literature of ancient Russian interpretation of worship is, it can provide quite valuable material for the history of worship in Russia. Currently, these interpretations, both translated and original, are almost completely forgotten and unknown. They are scattered among manuscripts in various libraries and are read by almost no one. In descriptions of manuscripts they are usually only named, without suggesting anything interesting in them. Therefore, more detailed information about these interpretations seems not to be superfluous. The oldest and best source from which our ancestors could borrow concepts about the meaning of liturgical rites were the writings of the ancient Greek fathers, starting with Cyril of Jerusalem and Dionysius the Areopagite, and especially those writings that were specifically written to explain divine services. The works of Cyril of Jerusalem and, among them, his secret teachings, which contain a description and explanation of the rites of baptism, confirmation and liturgy, have been known to us since ancient times. Lists of the Slavic translation of Cyril's teachings have been preserved from the 12th century, such as, for example, Synodal manuscript No. 114. But the translation itself bears traces of ancient times and Bulgarian origin. This translation is also often found in later manuscripts (1). As for the works of Dionysius the Areopagite, and in particular his work “on the church hierarchy,” which contains an explanation of the rites of baptism, liturgy, consecration of the world, ordination, monastic tonsure and burial of the dead, they were translated into Slavic in 1341. Serbian monk Isaiah at the request of Theodosius, Metropolitan of Serbia (2). This translation is really not very intelligible, since in it the original, which is already dark from the literal translation, becomes even darker, but it was still quite common among us and is found in many manuscripts (3). However, both the works of Cyril and the works of Dionysius, although highly valued among us, could only be of secondary importance for explaining the meaning of liturgical rites. In this regard, the works of Maximus the Confessor (7th century) and Herman the Patriarch of Constantinople (8th century), containing an explanation of the liturgy, should have been of much greater importance. Both of these works were known in ancient Rus' from the 11th century, but unfortunately not in full, but only in fragments, with significant abbreviations and changes. An excerpt from the work of Maximus the Confessor: “Occult teaching” can be seen in the famous Svyatoslav collection of 1073 (4). There he is included in the so-called Anastasian answers and is entitled: “The Maxim of the Black Priest, whose image is to tremble with the church.” In later manuscripts it appears quite often and separately from these answers, as an independent article (5). We present here this brief excerpt from the list of the Solovetsky Library of the 15th or 16th century, located in Collection No. 917 l. 113 vol. It reads as follows: “God’s church is the (image) of the rational world, and the sensible man; the parable of the rational world is the sanctuary; and the sensible church, the image of man, is the priesthood of the soul, and the church is the body. a service is being performed in it, the first entry of the saints reveals the first coming, those who come later are a divine desire, according to it it is impossible for everyone to be and live, the holy gospel is a parable for the end of this age and the destruction is simply the first of delusions, the chief of the saints from the throne of tears and the catechumens expulsion indicates the second from heaven the expulsion of Christ the coming and excommunication of saints and sinners and the righteous giving of dignity to each other, the fence of the doors and the holy mysteries, the entrance and the divine kiss and the faithful servant (6) reveals the passing of the sensible, and the rational manifestation of the divine sacrament, and to all of us and to God the future like-mindedness of one mind and love and celebration and thanksgiving about the morals, about them Salvation will be, the tri-holy song will continually add angelic and sacred praise, and in the future age, equal life and harmony of praise will be shared with the heavenly and earthly powers, and the blessed invocation of God and the Father. and the one who is holy and the other voices of the holy mysteries will accept the future, and show sonship to all and over all who are worthy." When comparing this passage with the original work of Maxim, it turns out that it is only a brief excerpt from the last XXIVth, final chapter of this rather extensive work, where the author sets out “to facilitate memory briefly the essence of what was said” in the first XXIII chapters (7). The Slavic translation of Herman’s work: “A consistent presentation of church services and rituals and a mysterious speculation about their meaning” (8) is probably as ancient as the translation of Maxim’s work and just as fragmentary. The oldest monument of this translation is considered to be an article in the Synodal collection of teachings of Constantine No. 163 f. 237, entitled: “The Tale of the Church” and beginning with the words: “The church is a place of prayer, a holy place. church of prayer, church of God." The manuscript in which this article is found dates back to the 13th century, but the translation bears traces of much deeper antiquity. Compared to the original text of Herman’s work, the above article is only an abbreviated excerpt from it with various changes. There are many omissions in it, but there are also additions in places. The additions include: an explanation of monastic robes, lectern, belt, sandals, a detailed description of the sacred rite over the lamb prosphora and cup at the proskomedia and some other explanations. The end of the tale is completely different from what is known in Greek (9). Much closer to the original is the “Interpretation of the Divine Liturgy,” which begins with the words: “antiphons of the souta.” at the holy liturgy, prophetic utterances preaching the coming of God” - an article found in manuscripts quite rarely and, moreover, in manuscripts of relatively late origin (10). This is a translation of quite a significant part of Herman's work. Here is an explanation of the liturgy, beginning with the antiphons and ending with the hymn "The Grace of the World." Compared to the now known original (11), this translation is accurate, but shortened by many very significant omissions. There are, however, several places in it that are not in the currently known text. From which we can conclude that the translation was made from a text somewhat different from the current one (12). So, after the explanation of the Trisagion, it is said here: “and say pepper on the ambo.” taking in the eulogies. bless all angels and man, the one-child and triune deity. as if on behalf of the entire church, to praise and bless. bow with fear. as if we exist as human beings, we are made worthy of the ethereal powers of God who are perishable. the cherubic singing of the trinity brings to the father and son and the holy spirit "(13). A little further after the bishop's explanation of the sign of the people, it is said: "And the hedgehog and your spirit people. Behold, fill the whole world with joy, fill the country of the peasants like us in the beginning, create the undividedness of your love" (14). There are no explanations for this in the current text. In addition, there is a difference in the explanation of the symbols of the evangelists: the symbol of the lion is assigned to John, and the symbol of the eagle is assigned to Mark, who “began his Gospel like an eagle soaring high” (15), whereas in the current text it is the other way around. In addition to the above-mentioned articles, in our manuscripts quite often there is an article entitled: “Interpretation of the Apostles of the Catholic Church,” beginning with the words: “The church is the earthly heaven and church of God. they glorify God in it, as in heaven "(16). It contains an explanation of the church, its various accessories and liturgical things, the altar; antimension, orithon, paten, spoon, censer, pulpit and others. At first, this is also the work of Herman, but in the future it hardly belongs to him. Of the explanations placed here, very few have similarities with Herman’s explanations, namely the explanation censer, pulpit and partly orithon; other explanations are borrowed from other sources, and some are apocryphal in nature. The following is placed after the initial words: "The top of the church is the head of the Lord. The altar is the throne of God. Or the altar is the tomb of the Lord. The table is the chest of the Lord. The indium is the bosom of the virgin (17). The antimension is the title written on the cross. On the priest's crown is the cloth of gold, on which is written the name of I am Liton, which is the shroud of Joseph (18), or when Pilate called the swordsman to the judgment, he cut off his ears from the head of the earth, and said unto him, lord, come here to the judgment. Jesus came down to Pilate, both of them shook the scepter, and bowed to the scepter of Jesus, motionless to anyone. For the sake of this, the entrance and exit with the ripidians are created. at the head of it is the cloud of heaven, which is above the shadow of the first law. The Liar is the holy Mother of God, having received the heavenly bread of Christ in her womb (19). The censer is humanity, and fire is deity, and temian is the holy spirit (20). The lamps are the forerunner. or a spinning copy of the ou breed. The altar is small and both sexes are separated for the sake of the righteous and sinners. The stomits (in other columns) of the altar are the tribes of the Lord. The doors of heaven are like angels. Ambon is a mountain equal to the prophet. When you speak, you will bring a sign on the mountain. there is a holy gospel. The luminaries are both sexes. the angel turned gray at the head and at the foot in the Holy Sepulcher, or the packs of ambon are the stones rolled away from the sepulchre. The deacon on the ambo is an angel, gray-haired on the tomb and preaching the resurrection. Kandila is the warrior guarding the coffin. Pribozhenov exists according to the first law. I stood outside everything until the priest showed up. Christ trembles the head of the church. Shiyu apostles. and the sinuses of evangelism. and the holiday belt. the door to the altar is an image of the Savior" (21). The last three articles we examined clearly show that Herman’s work was known in ancient Rus', but bookish people were not content with the explanations it contained, they reworked it, introduced their own explanations into it, borrowing them from various sources, even apocryphal ones, such as, for example, the explanation of Iliton, compiled on the basis of the acts of Pilate. The tendency towards explanations of the latter kind was very great in ancient Rus'. As a result, at that time interpretations of liturgical rites in which the apocryphal element played the most prominent role were much more common among us. In ancient manuscripts, in addition to the articles already listed, there are two more positively apocryphal ones, namely: a) “St. Gregory the Theologian’s revelation of the holy service, which is the liturgy” (22) and b) “The interpretation of the divine service” (23), beginning with the words: “I say to the priest: bless the master, that is, to the invisible deity.” Both of these articles have almost the same content. The first of them is only a short edition, or better yet, the source of the second. We will present here the text of both of these articles in parallel, since they are quite brief and have not yet been published, and yet they are very interesting. From a comparison of the two articles cited, it is clearly seen that the “Interpretation of the Divine Service” is the same as the “Revelation of the Holy Service,” supplemented mainly by only a short list of liturgical actions omitted in the revelation, and very few brief interpretations. As for these interpretations, they are not in the article mentioned above, entitled: “Interpretation of the Divine Litorgy” and, undoubtedly, constituting an excerpt from the work of Herman, but they still seem to be borrowed from the interpretation of Herman, which in ancient Rus' was known in an edition somewhat different from the current text. Some of the mentioned interpretations are also found in the current text of Herman’s work, only set out in more detail, and some are found in the now famous passage from the work of Sophronius of Jerusalem, which in a significant part is literally similar to Herman’s work and constitutes, as it were, the initial short edition of this latter. This is, for example, the interpretation of the threefold proclamation: “Depart from the catechumen” (30). All the articles we have listed are more or less fragmentary. This is why they are often placed together in manuscripts, one next to the other, as homogeneous articles and one complementing the other (31). In the 15th century some of these articles were completely combined and formed a special article with more complete content. This article is from the 16th century. was extremely common in our writing, was the most well-known and authoritative interpretation and bore different names. In some manuscripts it is inscribed: “The word interpreted (or interpretation) about the saints and about the apostles of the assembled church” (32). In others: “The Interpretation Service of John Chrysostom. sense of sikhiev" (sometimes: isikhiev) (33), or simply: "The service is sensible." She is called by this last name in the decrees of the Stoglavy Council, which refers to her as an authority. “In the divine service of the interpreter - says the 13th chapter of Stoglav - he writes. the altar is the throne of God and the image of the Bethlehem den,” etc. (34). In manuscripts, this explanatory service is found extremely often, especially in helmsmen, missals and various collections. It is clear from everything that this was the main source from which in the 15th and 16th centuries. We obtained information about the meaning and significance of the rites of the liturgy. Sometimes the text of this interpretive service was distributed among the text of the service books themselves, as for example in the Sin manuscript. bib. No. 366 XVI century. (35). In terms of content, the explanatory service, compared with the articles already discussed, is little new. It is divided into several chapters, each of which has a special title, and each has the meaning of an independent article. Logically, it can be divided into three main parts: the first contains an explanation of the church, its components and some liturgical things, the second is a description and explanation of the proskomedia, the third is a description and explanation of the liturgy itself. The first part begins with an explanation of the church, the altar, the altar and the ciborium above the throne, borrowed from Herman's work: "The church is the earthly heaven and the church of God, the bride of Christ. sprinkled with his blood. and cleansing with the water of baptism. and giving birth to everything into sonship. the bride is equipped. with the chrism of the Holy Spirit. according to the prophetic word. pouring out myrrh, with which, like a cry, descending on the head and on the wedding of Aaron. and is more glorious than the tabernacle of Moses. in it the holy apostles founded, and the saints glorified God, as in heaven the altar is the image of the den where Christ was born, and the altar is the image where the evangelist was buried. Jesus laid the den in the stone, and in this he sacrificed his body to the Father, as the lamb was sacrificed in Egypt; The lamb takes away the sins of the world. The altar is the place of the cross. On it flow blood and water. for on our Easter Christ was slain for us, the Lord's table is the Lord's table, of whom Christ made an image at the Last Supper. in the midst of his disciples. and let us receive bread and wine. take, eat, this is my body and my blood. picture this secret meal. The ark over the table will cover the mountain, on which Christ will be crucified. there is a place close to where he was buried. There are also screenshots of the covenant of the Lord. in it God commanded both sexes to be made of two cherubim. An ark is a screenshot. The throne is a holy place at the table, on which the bishop enters and sits down with the celebrants. the image is of the second coming. when the king of all, Christ, will come and sit on the throne. with his apostles he judged Israel and the whole world. Like a prophet, I will sit on the throne judging everyone in the house of David" (36). All these explanations are in the current text of Herman’s work, from where they were obviously borrowed with significant omissions and rearrangements (37). Further explanations of the indium, antimension, and so on constitute the same article that we cited above under the title: “The Interpretation of the Apostles of the Catholic Church.” The second part of the explanatory service consists of an explanation and description of the proskomedia in three sections with special titles. The first is entitled: “On the offering of the Old Law” or “On the offering of the Old Testament” and contains a brief explanation in the educational sense “why God commanded the Jews to bring lambs or goats, or turtle doves, or doves, or wheat grains with wood oil.” This explanation is included in some manuscripts separately, as an independent article (38). The second section, usually inscribed with the words: “The laws have been fulfilled in Christ,” is a continuation of the first and is in direct connection with it. This is a brief interpretation in an educational sense of the provisions of the Law of Moses regarding the Passover supper, the slaughter of the spotless lamb, anointing the thresholds with its blood, not breaking bones, etc. The third section is entitled: “And this is the new Christian law. the prosphyra know the vision. as befits a divine offering. in holy service. about prosphyra and wine." This is mainly a description of the commission of proskomedia. Only at the beginning of it are added a few exegetical remarks borrowed from Herman’s work, namely: “the bread and the cup are in truth, and truly in the likeness of this mystical supper. where Christ accepted bread and a cup of wine. and eat and drink, all of you. Behold, this is my body and my blood, showing that He has made us promise to His death and glory and resurrection: and the wine and water that flowed from his side are the blood and water. as the prophet speaks. He will be given bread and water to drink. and a copy of the place of the perforated Christ on the cross. there is a knife and the lamb is slaughtered" (39). These explanations are literally found in Herman's work, but are placed there in a slightly different order. As for the very description of the proskomedia that follows, it differs somewhat from the description contained in the oldest adaptation of Herman's interpretation, i.e. in the above-mentioned "Tale of the Church" (40), but it is also quite remarkable, as one of the oldest descriptions of this kind. It consists of the following: "And after the endowment, he will bow down before the holy meal with a threshcha and say to the king of heaven. And burn the entire altar, and when he comes to the altar, he will make the cross in the form of a cross, saying. We make a remembrance of the great Lord and Savior of our Jesus Christ. Like at the mystery of his supper. Also put the prosphyra on a plate on the back, and not on the paten. And make the sign of the cross with a knife and he was led to slaughter; even when he cut off the second land, he cut off the sheep and cut off the third land. руку. яко вземлется от земля живот его. и приглашают прочии аминь. таже положить в знак агнець на руце и пререзая о себе глаголеть. закалается и жрется агнец Сын Слово Божие. вземляи грехы всего мира. и приглашают аминь. и полагая агнец на дискосе глаголет. се полагается агнец Сын Слово Божие. вземляи грехи всего мира. и приглашают Amen. Also eat wine in your right hand and water in your left. and he raised up both the mountain and said. union of the Holy Spirit. and invite Amen. and bowing down both pours in the verb. one from the warrior with a copy of his rib pierced. blood and water will come forth. and the form of evidence. for his testimony is certain, Amen. and pointing his finger at the chalice and at the lamb that was presented. and say that three things testify, the spirit is blood and water. and the three are one essence and the verb is Amen. I also take out the prosphira. Lord, accept the offering and sacrifice in honor and glory of our Most Holy Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary. Save our souls through her prayers. and the saint too. and here's to your health. Lord accept this sacrifice of your servant imr. about health and about salvation and forgiveness of sins. also for the sick person. and this is for the resting places. Remember in the Lord the souls of your departed servants. also everything to the end." This description is very similar to those found in ancient handwritten service books (41), but it also has peculiarities, mainly in its last part, which talks about the removal of particles in honor of the Mother of God, saints, etc. In the service books this part is set out in more detail and definitely. It is difficult, however, to decide: the service book served as a source for compiling the description being analyzed, or vice versa. What is certain is that before becoming part of the interpretive service, this “Prosphora Vision” existed as a special independent article. As such an article it appears in many ancient manuscripts (42). The third most important part of the interpretive service is usually inscribed: “Interpretation (or interpretation) of the divine service” and begins: “to the gabbling deacon. Bless the Lord, that is, to the invisible deity Father and Son and Holy Spirit. For this reason the priest will shout against it. blessed is the kingdom "... This interpretation, in its title, in part in its beginning and a significant part of its content, is literally similar to the interpretation that we gave above, but is not the same: it is much more extensive and includes the entirety of it, except for the above interpretation, and other similar articles. Its entire content is logically composed of the following three component elements: a) from a description of the rites of the liturgy, which refers to the celebration of the liturgy by the bishop, b) from the interpretation of these rites, and c) from a detailed explanation of some of the chants included in the liturgy. The description of the rituals or the presentation of the order of performing the liturgy here is much more detailed than those descriptions that are generally found in interpretations of the divine service, and it is also remarkable because it contains references to such rituals that are now out of use. Here are some of the main guidelines. During the reading of the apostle, when the bishop is sitting in the high place, “the elders of the priesthood rise up and bow to the bishop, and the bishop lays his head on his right knee and crosses him. head him three times. then on the right side. The elder Jews will rise up in the same way. but on his left knee. baptize him head bishop "(43). Then the bishop "gives the deacon the crown with his hand. take it from the ark. he bowed down. receive the blessing. cense... Then the deacon takes the holy gospel. and the saint who was with him will soon rise up... then the deacon will sit down (44). When the last alleluia is sung, then the deacon rises with the gospel. goes to the ambon "(45). Further, some features are found in the description of the great entrance and further actions. So after “I Believe”, “When the deacon sings, let us become kind and pray to God. Then the saint will raise the air on his head, and apply it to his eyes and face" (46). After the exclamation: “Woe be your hearts” and “Imam to the Lord,” the bishop exclaims “the praises of the Lord.” to our Lord God. people are promised to send forth grace-filled songs in a worthy and righteous manner. Holy Trinity, grief have the appearance of soul, asking Christ for the dwelling of heavenly Jerusalem "... All these features are also found in some ancient handwritten service books. As for interpretations, they occupy quite a significant place here and are borrowed from various sources. Known under the name of Gregory the Theologian, the “revelation of the divine service” here, as in the above interpretation, is distributed among the corresponding places in the text and in some places has an even more extensive appearance. Then all the other interpretations associated with this revelation in the above article, as well as the interpretations contained in the article beginning: “The antiphons are prophetic utterances,” are placed here almost in full. But besides them, there are quite a lot of interpretations here that are not in the mentioned articles. These new interpretations are partly borrowed from Herman’s work with some abbreviations and rearrangements and can be indicated in his now known text, for example, almost the entire interpretation of actions, starting with the exclamation: “let’s become good” and up to the exclamation: “singing a victory song” (47), partly taken from unknown sources and not always satisfactory. Let's look at some of the latter. Thus, about the deacon’s preliminary reading of the Gospel, it is said: “This is the image, for the Lord first gave the law of Moses to the Jew. Yes, the more first the judgment will be then” (No. 802 l. 8). The following interpretations are also remarkable: “When will the cherubic song come. then the bishop and the saints who are with him wash their hands... similar to Joseph and Nicodemus, he came and asked Pilate for the body of Christ. increased desire. with fear and trembling. also oumysha her own hand. with thyme to many. Created a blog-smelling stench. thus taking down the most pure life-giving body from the cross. knowing that he is truly the Son of God. and others like the deacon burn incense. One by one, the cross of Christ is formed and the passion of Christ is already accepted upon him, doing beautiful things, taking them down from the cross (incense then) and then the angels are a multitude of invisible ones. most pure and life-giving body. go deacon. first. in the transfer with the censer, like Joseph creatively escorting the most pure life-giving body to the tomb... and the honest blood of the future is behind. Most Pure Mother of God. like the kratyr we carry from the angel... and like the saint now, we bear the body of Christ, like Osif. take down the body of Christ from the cross. wrap it in the shroud. from Aramafa. having anointed with myrrh, carried with Nicodemus to the grave, the Holy Mother of God and her beloved disciple walked along them, weeping and weeping motherly. and all strive to weep. In total, the place of crying and sobbing is the song of angels and the prayer of heavenly powers. like the cherubim”... After the transfer of the gifts, “the bishop speaks, bless the sacredness. they also answer. many years, lord. The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the highest will overshadow you. pray for us... and then only the bishop will pray a little. This is what Joseph reveals after his burial, bowing to the most pure tomb. Moreover, there is a life-giving body in it. and grieving and crying at heart. and raised your hand on high, and beat your chest, and sighed greatly. but my soul rejoices. as if you were honored with a great gift from God. and the hedgehog will retreat back to the door of the altar and bow three times, and then say a prayer and bow to the bishop. and so they go to their places, stand and pray. Behold, Joseph went from burial. and found the Most Pure Mother of God and the apostles, mourning and crying. Joseph remembered his words to them. as if on the third day he will rise again. They created the prayer together. and got so tired of it" (48). In all these explanations such details are given about the actions of Joseph and Nicodemus that clearly show that the compiler had in mind some detailed apocryphal story about the burial of Christ. In addition to the explanation of the actions in the interpretive service, there is also an explanation of the text of some chants and prayers, namely: the Cherubic song, the symbol of faith and the Lord's prayer. These explanations are interpolated and are often found in manuscripts separately, as special independent articles (49). The first of them, beginning with the words: “personal service will be told,” is probably of Russian or non-Greek origin, as can be seen from the following interpretation placed in it: “We carry invisibly angelic gifts. sense It’s not so strange to see these terrible gifts. Even the angels are working. take it off by mercy and it will be given to you. for the human race to serve such shrines. “Everything is like a gift in Slowzhbou they bring.” The explanation “I Believe” is also unknown to whom it belongs. It is very brief and begins: “not like many mnyakhou like two in the beginning.” one good. and the second is crafty, evil. and just as good things possess those in heaven, but evil things are earthly, but I am not so, but I believe in one God who rules over all. but the father who judges all." The interpretation of “Our Father”, which begins with the words: “Father, you call God goodness”, in some manuscripts it is inscribed with the name of John Chrysostom, in others with the name of Gregory of Nyssa, but does not belong to either one or the other. This interpretation is very similar to that found in Herman’s works, especially in its last part, as can be seen from the following comparison. Thus, the interpretive service we have considered is a compilation of several separate works, which are combined here almost mechanically, however, on the same basis of Herman’s interpretation. Of all the articles included in its composition, the revelation about the divine service placed above is especially outstanding, which gives the entire interpretation a special mystical and apocryphal character. The compiler obviously attached a rather high value to this mystical contemplation of the liturgy; in conclusion he says: “It is not powerful to say anything else more than words and thoughts. Behold, according to the measure of the gift of Christ, I have received knowledge from the holy scriptures. I told you Tainou. divine works. heavenly wisdom. this one God is the wisdom that exists. kudos to him. honor and power to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and ever. Amen." (50). Apparently, these are the final words of a more complete version of the revelation. That this revelation was introduced into interpretation and occupied such a significant place in it is not surprising. The doctrine of the invisible presence of angelic forces during the celebration of the Eucharist was well known to the ancient Greek interpreters, but, of course, it did not have such a crude form. In Herman's essay this is clearly stated. So, for example, when interpreting the great entrance, it is said here among other things: “At the same time, the intelligent powers and hosts of angels, contemplating His economy completed by Christ through the cross and death... cry out with us invisibly: Alleluia. Mental powers, seeing the cherubic choir coming with honest gifts, i.e. the body of the Lord Jesus, (offered as if) from the cranial place to the tomb, invisibly cry out with us the song: Hallelujah. In another place: “an angel in a white robe approaches and with his hand rolls away the stone, showing with his appearance, calling out with a trembling voice and through the deacon, announcing the three-day rising - and the deacon, lifting the veil, proclaims: let us become good “... Such contemplations in the main are obviously quite related to “Revelation” (51). It is unknown who was the author, or better yet the compiler, of the interpretative service we examined. In manuscripts it is often inscribed with the words: “The Interpretation of Sichi.” Descriptors of the manuscripts of the Synodal Library and the Rumyantsev Museum believe that one should read: “Isikhievo,” as it is read in one Synodal manuscript (52). The name of Hesychius, the presbyter of Jerusalem, was very well known in ancient Russian writing, and therefore the distortion of his name is quite strange, although it should be allowed in this case. But if this inscription really points to Hesychius of Jerusalem, who lived in the 5th century, then it is difficult to explain its origin, since the work we have analyzed in its present form cannot in any way belong to Hesychius. It is possible, however, to make some assumptions. It can be assumed, firstly, that if not all, then some part of this work really belongs to Hesychius, but which one is hardly possible to determine. Of Hesychius’s writings, comparatively very little has survived, and in those that have survived, there is nothing like an intelligent service. Only in his interpretation of the book of Leviticus (53) can one find interpretations very similar to those in the interpretative service entitled: “On the bringing of the old law” and “The laws have been accomplished in Christ.” Perhaps, it seems, there is also the following assumption: the work now known under the name of Herman and which forms the basis of our interpretive service, was not known in ancient times under the name of Hesychius? In Slavic manuscripts it was never inscribed with the name of Herman and in general belongs to the number of dubious works of Herman (54): it exists in different editions and in many of its parts is similar to another similar work, known under the name of Sophronius of Jerusalem. Didn’t Hesychius write an interpretation of the liturgy, which served as the basis for both the work of Sophronius and the work of Herman? Be that as it may, however, the interpretative service was brought into its present composition by the Russian compiler. Рядом с толковою службою во многих древних рукописях помещается как её дополнение небольшая статья под заглавием: «Толк священнического чину. что есть ереи и почему глоголется священник и что пострижение главы его» и начинающаяся словами: « чтець есть столп мученический " ( 55 ). Статья эта во многих рукописях встречается также и отдельно ( 56 ) и везде надписывается именем св.Васипия Великого, но на самом деле не принадлежит ему. В ней заключаются краткие толкования священных лиц и их принадлежностей, но все эти толкования почти буквально, только с сокращениями и permutations, taken from the works of Herman or Sophrony. In ancient Rus', the explanatory service was the most complete explanation of the rites of the liturgy; however, it obviously did not provide a completely clear and reasonable understanding of the liturgy, not to mention other services, which it does not concern at all. Meanwhile, the curiosity of the Russians regarding this subject was very great. Therefore, in ancient Russian literature, especially the 16th century, quite often there are articles, mostly small in size, related to the interpretation of the meaning of various private individual ritual actions. These articles are of Russian origin and were written for the most part about various distortions of liturgical rites due to an imperfect understanding of their meaning. So, for example, in the same collection of the Solovetsky library (No. 872), after the explanatory service, two teachings by an unknown author are placed, of which the first explains why at the liturgy you need to sing: “pray and give glory to the Lord our God,” and not “pray and give glory to our God,” as some sang, and also explains why, in the famous verse: “honest before The Lord's death of his saints ", the last word should not be changed - in relation to the month: "the death of his saint", "the death of his saints", "the death of his baptist", etc. (57). The second teaching explains in detail why in the well-known song: “let our lips be filled”, one should sing: “for you have made us worthy to partake of communion” and refer the word: “us” to all those present in divine service, even if they did not receive communion. This explanation was caused by the fact that at that time many “unversed in the power of each other” sang: “For thou hast made him or them worthy to receive communion,” depending therefore, one priest performed the liturgy and received communion, or several (58). Many other explanations of this kind, caused by various distortions in the field of rituals, existed in ancient Russian literature. Many similar explanations can be found in the decrees of the Stoglavy Council, especially in Chapter. 7–20 ( 59 ). All these explanations, however, are not of high merit. More satisfactory interpretations are found between the writings of Maximus the Greek. These are his messages on the correction of liturgical books, his “Tale of the world above and for the salvation of our souls, let us pray to the Lord”, “The word is not fitting for those who speak: they should not be more divine than the liturgy, who have not had time to come to the reading of the divine Gospel”, etc. (60). The last word contains a brief explanation of the meaning of the entire Liturgy. The need for explanations of divine services was especially vividly felt during the correction of our liturgical books and rituals in general under Patriarch Nikon. Authoritative explanations of this kind could greatly help to improve correction and prevent new distortions. Nikon entered into lively relations on this issue with the Eastern patriarchs, who, for their part, took an active part in the difficulties of the All-Russian Patriarch. At Nikon’s request, Patriarch Paisius in 1653 sent “a useful book, a divinely wise interpretation of the divine liturgy, spiritual tablets, or the revelation of church mysteries.” This book, known under the name “Tablets,” was soon translated from Greek into Slavic by order of Nikon and, after a council review, published in 1656 with various appendices. The interpretation of the liturgy contained in this book is very extensive and consists of 122 mostly quite extensive chapters. Of these, the first 65 chapters contain, in addition to the preface, an explanation of the church, its accessories, sacred clothes and things, chapters 66–79 - an explanation of the proskomedia, and the rest - an explanation of the liturgy itself, along with an interpretation of the antiphons, the creed, the Lord's Prayer and others. In the writing of the first chapter, it is indicated, rather vaguely, however, that the compiler of this interpretation is John the Priest Nathanael, who here mainly owns only the work of a collection of interpretations of various authors. He himself probably composed only the first half of the first chapter, which has the meaning of a preface, where he talks about the need for interpretation of the liturgy, about the general meaning of the liturgy, which “reveals the entire look of the condescension of the true God and our Savior Jesus Christ, who did for our salvation” and resolves the bewilderment of why in the liturgy often the same action has different signs. Everything else in this work belongs to other interpreters of the service: Dionysius the Areopagite, Herman, Simeon of Thessaloniki and especially Nicholas Cabasiles. Thus, the second half of the first chapter, which contains the answer to the question: “what is the church,” and then a description and explanation of the rite of consecration of the church, is borrowed partly from the works of Herman, partly from the work of Simeon of Thessalonica: “Conversation about holy rites.” The following chapters, starting from the second to the 65th inclusive, are also taken entirely partly from the interpretation of Herman, partly from the works of Simeon of Thessalonica and Dionysius the Areopagite. Borrowings are done here quite mechanically. Some chapters bear the same title and have the same content, differing only in that they are borrowed from different sources and placed in different places. So chapter 9 is entitled: “What does the incense, the censer signify,” and chapter 65: “What does the censer show,” chapter 17: “About the proposal and what does the proposal signify,” and chapter 52: “What does the sentence show,” etc. The rest of the “Tablet” from the 66th to the end, i.e. up to chapter 122 inclusive, there is nothing more than the “Explanation of the Divine Liturgy” by Nicholas Kavasila, Archbishop of Thessalonica (61), translated here in its entirety with very few abbreviations and supplemented by some rather significant insertions. These inserts occupy chapters: 98, 99, 107, 108 and 110. Chapters 98 and 99 “On the Confession of Faith” and “The Twelve Compositions of the Faith,” which contain an extensive interpretation of the Creed, belong to Simeon of Thessalonica and constitute his special work (62). Chapter 107 “Nicephorus Xanthopulus interpretation of the most honest to the priest and ecclesiarch Mr. Neophytos about the hodegetria” contains historical information about the song: “The most honest cherub” and its interpretation. Chapter 108 is entitled: “Another voice of the Mother of God, 8 we sing it all standing with much reverence for the miracle that happened in the holy Lavra of Athos, as if the imam followed the appearance” and contains information about the miraculous appearance of the Mother of God to the domestic, who sang: “He rejoices in you” instead of “It is worthy to eat.” Chapter 110, “On Prayer,” contains an interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer, taken mainly from Herman’s work. Thus, the “Tablet” or explanation of the liturgy, published under Nikon, is mainly the work of Nicholas Cabasilas, supplemented by interpretations of Dionysius, Herman and Semeon of Thessalonica. Until now, the works of both Thessaloniki archbishops were not yet known in Russia. Some time after receiving the “Tablet” in Moscow, in 1655. A new work was received from Patriarch Paisius of Constantinople, containing an explanation of various church and especially liturgical objects. This is Paisius’ message or answer to questions about various church affairs proposed to the Ecumenical Patriarch by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon. Here are 27 answers to the same number of questions. Most of these answers deal closely with liturgy, but especially the first one, which contains a brief but complete, clear and simple explanation of the liturgy. This message was then translated and published in the same book: “The Tablet” (63). In addition to the above interpretations, in the second half of the 17th century. Many other interpretations, mostly translated, have become known among us. The oldest in date of appearance and the most widespread of them was the work of the abbot of the Kyiv Golden-Domed St. Michael's Monastery, teacher and preacher Theodosius Safonovich: “A report on the church and its secrets,” published for the first time in Kyiv in 1666 (64). It was translated from the South Russian dialect into Great Russian and was distributed in many lists. In the list of the Synodal Library of the 17th century. No. 288, it is entitled as follows: “The legend about the Church of Saints and about church affairs, about the Divine Liturgy and about Vespers, from Saint Simeon, Archbishop of Thessaloniki and from other church teachers, collected by the priest and deacon and all Orthodox for useful reading, from Greek and Latin into Russian, translated new into the holy Greatness of the Wonderworking Lavra of Kiev-Pechersk, published in the summer of 1668" (65). In the manuscripts of the Solovetsky Library this work is found very often (66), but under the short title: “On the Church of Saints” and without the preface found in the synodal manuscript. The name of the author was probably not known to the Great Russian copyists; at least it does not appear in the manuscripts (67). The entire work is divided into five sections: 1) about the holy church, 2) about priestly clothing, 3) about proskomedia, 4) about the Liturgy of God, 5) about Vespers. Each department is presented in the form of short questions and answers. The text contains references to Simeon of Thessalonica, Nicholas Cabasilus, Dionysius the Areopagite, Herman and others. The author used the works of all these interpreters as material quite independently, so that he can be called the author of his work without a stretch. Compared to the previous ones, this new interpretation is decidedly better in its brevity, intelligibility, and completeness, which explains its significant prevalence, despite some false opinions expressed in it. These false opinions relate to the doctrine of the time of transubstantiation of the holy gifts and at one time aroused strong excitement and controversy in the Great Russian Church. In the explanation of the liturgy, the question is posed here: by which words are the holy gifts dedicated and the bread is transubstantiated by the body of Christ, and the wine by the blood? The author replies that “according to the testimony of the teachers who agreed with these words of Christ: accept and eat”... and as proof he refers to Chrysostom, John of Damascus, and Ambrose. But realizing that in this case the prayer for the transubstantiation of gifts would not make sense, he further poses a new question: “for the sake of the priest, after the saying of the words of Christ: take, drink..., prays: and make this bread an honest body, and in this cup an honest blood. transfigured by your holy Spirit. then it is no longer through Christ’s words, but through these that bread is transformed into the body and wine into the blood of Christ.” To explain this contradiction the author is forced to go into a rather long explanation and suggests several ways to reconcile the contradiction. He believes that the priest, praying for the transubstantiation of gifts that, in his opinion, have already been transubstantiated, either prays only for the non-imputation of his own unworthiness, or for the non-imputation of the unworthiness of those receiving communion, for the transubstantiation of gifts not for the condemnation of those receiving communion, but for the remission of sins (68). No matter how many stretches there are in these explanations, they were accepted by some Russian scribes, who defended them in writing (69). In the same book there is a question: “Is it necessary to fall on your knees and bow during a presentation?” and is resolved positively. This also did not agree with Orthodox traditions. Therefore, the book “Exposition” was condemned, as well as the champions of the false opinions contained in it, for example, the famous Sylvester Medvedev. Quite a few works were written to refute these opinions, which are found both in manuscripts and in printed books. These are: a refutation compiled by Patriarch Joachim in Osten, Likhudami in Akos, a denunciation in a notebook, glogolem "Exposition" in the manuscript of the Synodal Library No. 289. Nevertheless, this book, as we have seen, was quite widespread. Somewhat later than the work of Theodosius Safonovich, a book by Nicholas Bulgar of similar content appeared in our country: the sacred catechism “Kathcismoz iera of the divine and sacred liturgy, the interpretation and torture of the faithful who are consecrated to death. according to the questions and answers published by the torturer and the chosen one” (70). This book was published in Greek in Venice in 1681 through the efforts of the author’s brother, the archpresbyter on the island of Corfu, as can be seen from the dedication of the book to Logothetus Leontus Glyka. This book also contained “certain bewilderment and unusualness”; therefore, its translation was made with some additions and explanations, for example, regarding the symbol of the Roman Church, called the apostolic one, and regarding the need for a blessing for the consecration of gifts. The translation work itself belonged to an unknown person. The monk Euthymius, known for his many translations, says in a record of his works that the translation of this book was done at his (Euphemia’s) hire (71). The Catechism of Nicholas the Bulgar is one of the most little-known interpretations and was very little disseminated, probably due to the fact that high importance was not attached to it. Of greater importance are the translations of the works of Simeon of Thessaloniki and others that appeared in our country at the end of the 17th century, mostly thanks to the works of the already mentioned monk Euthymius. The works of Simeon of Thessalonica, written in the first half of the 15th century, occupy a primary place in the series of interpretations of the divine service in their completeness and merits, but until the end of the 17th century, in the words of Dositheos, Patriarch of Jerusalem, they were “like a fence enclosed and a source sealed by many ignorant” (72). In Russia, they first became known only from excerpts in the “Tablet”. In Greek, they were also known until that time. only in manuscripts. But around 1685, by order of the Moldavian Duke John, with the participation of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Dosifei, they were printed in Giaz in Moldovavlachia. Immediately after printing, Dosifei sent them to Moscow to Patriarch Joachim in 1685. Here they, by order of Tsars Peter and John Alekseevich and with the blessing of Patriarch Joachim, were translated by Euthymius, partly from a printed edition, partly from a manuscript written in 1434 in Thessalonica. The translation began in 1686 and was completed in 1689. Together with the works of Simeon of Thessaloniki, the same Euthymius translated and placed in the same book “The wisest and most verbal Mark Eugenicus, Metropolitan of Ephesus, the narrative of church succession” (73). Euthymius's translation, like all his other translations, was rather unintelligible in its language. It was apparently intended for publication, but was not printed. Somewhat later, the same works were translated again by Metropolitan Dosifei of Suceava, who is also known for other translations into the Slavic language, for example, the translation of the messages of Ignatius the God-Bearer (74). Dositheus was engaged in this translation in Russia and probably in Moscow, with the assistance of a translation made by Euthymius. The language of this new translation seems more intelligible than that of Euthymius, but grammatically there are also many incorrectnesses. An even more incomprehensible translation of Simeon’s works is known, made in 1696 by Nikolai Spafariy, translator of the embassy order under Alexei Mikhailovich (75). Of all these translations, the first one was better known and most commonly used, i.e. translation by Euthymius (76). Part of it was subsequently published in the appendix to Dimitrevsky’s “Explanation on the Liturgy.” One of the synodal copies of this translation was used by the Right Reverend Benjamin of Rumovsky when compiling his “New Tablet” (77). Following the book of Simeon of Thessalonica, Patriarch Joachim received from the same Dositheus of Jerusalem some other works, and, among other things, two volumes of the library of the fathers, where interpretations of the liturgy of Herman and Nicholas Cabasilas were placed. The last of them was not translated because it is likely that its full translation was already contained in Nikon’s “Tablet”; Herman’s interpretation was translated “with the blessing of the Most Holy Cyrus Joachim, Patriarch of All Russia, into the Slovenian dialect in the reigning city of Moscow and was written by the hand of a sinful certain Negli monk (the same Euthymius) in the year from the creation of the world 7197 (1689) in the monastery of the miracle of the holy Archangel Michael” (78). This translation is known to us from the manuscript Sol. not yet known (79). Thus, in the 17th century. Our literature for the interpretation of divine services was almost exclusively translated: at this time translations of all the most important Greek interpreters appeared: Herman, Dionysius, Simeon of Thessalonica, Nicholas Cabasilas and Mark of Ephesus. In subsequent times, more independent experiments began to appear. See hand. Synod. bib. No. 115 XVI century, Rum. Museum No. 194, l. 165 and No. 376, l. 81 of the 17th century. Description Synod. bib. department II part 2, page 1. Room. music No. 93 XV century. Solov, bibliography. No. 115 XV century. Khlud. No. 53. Chetyi-Menaion of Macarius, no. IV. Syn. bib. No. 107 XVII century. Room. muses No. 231 XV or XVI centuries. l.355, No. 233 XVI century. l.318; Synod. bib. No. 323 XVI century. l.296. Proclamation of the Creed, Holy Scripture. father T. I. p. 343. Russian full translation of “Occult Breeding” see the Scriptures of the Holy Fathers and teaches. churches relating to the interpretation of worship. published at c. Peter. spirit. ak. T. I. 1853, lyrics. pp.342–343. Full Russian translation there, pp. 355 et seq. See Description. hands Syn. bib. Dept. II, part 2, p. 420. Sol. bib. hands XV century No. 858 l.240–244; Syn. bib. No. 316, XV century. l.336. Wed. Writing fathers rel. to interpretation theologian T.I pp.375–40. That the Greek text had different editions. see Philaret's Teaching on the Fathers of the Church. T.III, p.248, approx. 10 and 20. Sol. hands No. 858 l.241 vol. Sol. hands No. 858 l.242 vol. 243. Solov. bib. hands XV or XVI centuries. l.98 No.917. “India marks the womb of the Mother of God,” see Sophronius of Jerusalem’s explanation in volume I of the Scriptures of the Fathers, rel. to the divine service page 270. see Sophronius of Jerusalem's explanation in volume I of the Scriptures of the Fathers, rel. to the divine service Herman, p.373. see Sophronius of Jerusalem's explanation in volume I of the Scriptures of the Fathers, rel. to the service, Sophrony: “The Liar... also signifies the Virgin, when under the very heavenly bread,” p.270. This article is in the Solov. collection of the 15th or 16th centuries. No. 807, l.395–397. It appears quite often in synod manuscripts. See No. 318 XVI century. l.103 vol. In connection with it, here is an article, beginning: “the church is the church of God, the earthly heaven”; No. 322 of the end of the 16th century. l.40, No. 231 XVII century. l.98 under the title: “On Saturday of the third week of Holy Lent, a word from St. Gregory the Theologian about the divine service.” No. 106 Interpretation of the apocalypse of the 17th century. l.489. Solov.bibl. No. 858 XV century. l.244; No. 917 l. 100 rev. Rum.Rum.music. No. 233 XVI century. l.200; No. 231 XV century. or XVI century. l.351. In list No. 917 ** saint is a saint. In list No. 914: “and behold the verb like the cherub.” We release here the interpretation of this song. It also exists separately in manuscripts. No. 917 too. This interpretation is often found especially, but it is not in hand No. 858. No. 917 stones secondary movement. No. 917 at the hour of judgment. List No. 917 also includes an interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer. In Sophronius, as in the manuscript: “it is said three times: Go forth with a catechumen, so that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be spoken.” Creation fathers, rel. to the divine T.I, p.286. What are Sol.ruk. No. 917 and 858. Room music No. 233, 231. Solov.ruk. No. 802 and 872. Synod. No. 333, etc. Solov.ru. No. 1085, Synod. No. 206, 331. Room. No. 236. Stoglav. ed. Kaz. ak. p.100. Described. hands syn. bib. from. III. Part I, p.91. Sol.bibl. No. 802 l.1 and 2; No. 872 l.20 and 21. Comparative writing father, rel. to interpretation theologian T.I, pp. 357, 358, 361–365. See Hand. Syn. bib. No. 319 XVI century. l.40 rev. Sol. bib. No. 872, l. 25. In op. Herman we read: “wine and water together are precisely the blood and water that flowed from the side of Christ, as the prophet says: bread will be given to him (to eat) and water will be given to him (to drink), and this serves as an image of the fact that Christ was perforated by Longinus on the cross. The bread and the cup are a true, actual imitation of that supper at which Christ, taking the bread and wine, said: Take, eat, and drink of me, all of you, for this is my body and my blood. showing that by this he made us partakers of his death, his resurrection and glory,” pp. 370 and 371. Description hands Syn. bib. Dept. II, part 1, pp. 420, 421. Syn.bibl. No. 323 XVI century. l.186 “Knowledge is known about how a god should be. offering." Room.mus. No. 236. Sol.bibl. No. 872 l.36 instead of “sit down” - “become” Let us cite one passage here: “Pack the saint with great boldness. with true heart. preaches to the people. orthodoxy blessing. a conversation and not a cloud. like Moses in the tabernacle. evidenced by open hypocrisy. Having seen the glory of the Lord, I will learn to glorify the holy Trinity. one to one, talking to God. and it is not secret to tell people the incomprehensible secret. It is easy to theologize the deity. living-possessing. pre-existent trinity. Father and Son of the Holy Spirit. The Father is without beginning but never begotten. The Son is begotten from the Father, but his birth is without beginning from the Father. The Holy Spirit is ever with the Father. who comes from the Father and rests in the Son... Now you mentally see the saint drinking with seraphim powers. victory song" No. 802 l. 14 rev. and 15 Wed. Herm, pp. 402, 403, see also pp. 390–401. No. 872 l.40, 41, 45, No. 802 l.10, 11, 12. See Rum. music No. 8 XIII or early XIV century. Here all three explanations are placed side by side. No. 236 l. 12 and 13. Syn. bib. No. 323 l. 400, No. 185 l. 165, No. 165 l. 357, No. 64 l. 120, 147. No. 872 l. 62. In all other lists, instead of the word: “knowledge”, there is: “vision”. Pis. father and teaches the church. T. I. pp. 392 and 400. Commentarius in Leviticum is known only in Latin translation. Migne Patrol. curs. compl. T.93. Syn. bib. No. 158, 206, 331. 333. Sol. bib. No. 872, etc. Found in Korichey 1282. See Description. Syn. bib. from. II. Part 2. p. 420. 421. Stoglav, Ed. Kaz. acad. p.83 and following. Sochin. Maxima, T.III, pp. 60, 92, 98, etc. The writings of the fathers and teaches. churches, rel. to interpretation God. vol. III, pp. 289–427, Migne Ra**. T. CI. The writings of the fathers and teaches. churches, rel. to interpretation God. vol. III, pp. 59–116. A new translation of Paisius's first answer is placed in the Pis.father and teaches. T. III, p.429. Filareta Review rus. spirit. lit. I, § 179, p.118. Description of hand.Syn. bib., II, 3, p.420. Missal XVII or beginning. XVIII century No. 1028, l. 124, Collection of the 18th century. No. 883, l. 57, Collection No. 782, etc. In one of the sols. manuscripts (No. 782), this work is marked in the table of contents with the name of Herman because it is likely that it begins with the same words as the work of Herman, whose name is quoted in the margin. Sol.ru. No. 883 l.84, 86 et seq. In the manuscripts of Sin. bib. No. 294, l. 150 contains a “book about the divine liturgy”, written by the hand of Sylvester Medvedev. Synod. bib. No. 266, XVII century, Description. II. 3. Page 293. Description Syn. bib. II. 3. p.499. Description Syn. bib. II. 2. p.490. See Syn.bibl. Nos. 179, 180, 181, 182 and 183. Sol.bibl. No. 799. Pis. Fathers and Teachers II, p. 9. In addition, Euthymius made a new translation of the works of Dionysius the Areopagite (see Syn. Bible No. 108) and Cyril of Jerusalem (Syn. Bible No. 116). He also compiled the “Inspiration from the Bishop for the Orderly Service of the Divine Liturgy”, see Sin. bib. Nos. 296–298. Church community Bulletin 1878, No. 5 and 9. In Sin. list No. 183 there is the following postscript: “September 13th of this day, 1748, brought from the Reverend. Benjamin, Bishop of Nizhny Novgorod and Alator, his minister, a book called the Rite of Blessed. Simeon arch. Thessalonian... And this synodal book was given to him by Benjamin for writing about the church rites of the book.” Description II. 1,498. Sol. bib. No. 237, l. 9 rev. Rev. Philaret points out the existence of such a translation in Sin. bib. Scientist about father III, p. 248 pr. 18, but it is not in the Description. You might be interested in: