Kondakaria in the Greek original of the 12th-13th centuries.

Before us is a new full-fledged work of our tireless paleographer and expert on ancient manuscripts, Archimandrite Amphilochius, which is of great value for the study of ancient church hymnography. We are talking about a collection of kontakia and ikos that appeared several months ago, which he extracted from Greco-Slavic manuscripts and published under the above title. When you see this voluminous collection, about 50 printed sheets, where almost all the existing manuscripts of this kind are written out and revised, and in addition, with the spelling of the original being observed, you are involuntarily amazed at the enormous diligence, perseverance and persistent patience with which Fr. Amphilochius, and this surprise increases even more in view of the fact that the works on which the venerable collector devotes his energies have not yet earned due appreciation and remain known only to a small circle of specialists. We say this not in order to cast a shadow on the one-sidedness and mechanicalness of our author’s works, on the exclusively paleographic, textual setting of his publications, but we note a curious fact of its own, where, on the one hand, tireless publishing activity appears, and on the other hand, an equally remarkable disregard for it, even in the environment where these works could have a lot of application. We feel more and more the need for this unsightly, painstaking, dry work, and the further progress of some departments of church science is directly dependent on the degree of familiarity and development of handwritten liturgical material. The description of the manuscripts serves this purpose only partly. Even the best of them only point out this material, make it clear what can be sought from a famous monument, but using it in the original remains necessary and remains difficult. It would be highly desirable to organize a publishing society - like the St. Petersburg Society of Lovers of Ancient Literature - and publish materials for the history of our worship and church life in general. In a number of other enterprises of this kind, the defect turns out to be on the side of liturgics, despite the fact that the largest amount of written material has reached this part. Bringing these sources to light and publishing the more important of them in the original would inevitably raise the level of our liturgical science (if only we have one), and bring us face to face with the whole department of writing, which contains the actual solution to many ecclesiastical issues on the agenda. Such a collective enterprise, placed under the supervision of an experienced editorial staff, could avoid many of the mistakes that befall individual publications carried out from the angle of a personal and sometimes one-sided view of the matter. Moving from these pia desideria to the work of Fr. Amphilochia, let’s first get acquainted with its material side, i.e. with the content of the published monuments, and then we will make a few comments about the critical-historical part of this work and about the methods of conducting business. Both foreign and our domestic scholars have long known that the Synodal Library contains a Greek collection of kontakia and ikos in a manuscript of the 12th-13th centuries. Thanks to Mattei's catalogue, descriptors of foreign libraries have cited it more than once and from time to time turned to this manuscript for information. But a satisfactory scientific description of it has not yet been made. O. Amphilochius publishes the text of this collection in full, in compliance with the original spelling, supplements it with kontakia and ikos from other sources and, based on these latter, indicates variants or discrepancies. In the appendix he places the text of the Greek kontakia and ikos according to their recent edition by Cardinal Pitra on the basis of manuscripts of the Vatican and other libraries. Parallel to the Greek section of the collection, en regard, there is a Slavic text of kontakia, which is based on the kontakari of the 11th-12th centuries. in the church charter of the Printing Library. The text of this kondakar is supplemented, explained and compared with a number of later Slavic manuscripts of kondakar content, taking into account more than 30–40 manuscripts and early printed books. Let us add that all this material was published preserving the features of the original letter and with that paleographic luxury that distinguishes most of the works of Fr. Amphilochia on the publication of ancient monuments. Not limiting himself to this, he and the Kondakar published a whole collection of Greek facsimiles from the Synodal Kondakar on paper of the same type, format and color as the original, so that having these photographs before your eyes, you have, as it were, a photographic copy of the main manuscript, where the text of the original is transmitted word for word, letter for letter and the external physiognomy of the manuscript is maintained. We are not competent in paleography to evaluate the work of Fr. Amphilochia; let's say more - its publication does not occupy us from the archaeographic side, which does not go beyond the letter of the text and sometimes forgets about its content. We intend to talk about the latter, and we see in the work of Archimandrite Amphilochius, first of all, a rich collection of material for getting acquainted with the initial form and further movement of an entire department of ancient Christian hymnography. The very fact that this branch of ancient chant has been preserved in such complete form and with such clear features of its original structure shows that kontakary works once occupied a very prominent place in the composition of worship and were widely known. The monuments of this flourishing branch, which have come down to us in manuscripts and have survived as part of the current canon, provide part of the material for getting acquainted with the worship of that time. The author gives us several explanations on this matter in the historical and philological introduction to his publication, but this information is very incomplete, presented cursorily, and it is difficult to agree with some of it. It was, of course, impossible to do without defining general concepts about this type of church songs, and indeed on the very first page of the introduction it is discussed what kondakar, kontakion and ikos are. But in raising these questions, the author, apparently, does not suspect that to restore the original meaning of these terms there is data both in Ducange’s dictionary and in the hymns of Philaret of Chernigov, not to mention first-hand sources. Leaving these data aside, he is content with a technical definition based on the structure and current position of these songs in the service - and goes no further. Only regarding ikos does he copy out a definition from Sophocles’ church dictionary, but we admit that we cannot explain to ourselves why the venerable Fr. Amphilochius gave place to this source and prefers it to others, we dare to think - he is not unknown. This definition is too superficial to dwell on, and too immediate to refute. This brevity of historical information is then generously rewarded with “critical remarks on a brief study of the Greek kondakari in the historical review of hymns, Philaret of Chernigov.” Here, step by step, the mistakes of the author of the “song-writers” are corrected, who took his information about the Synodal Kondakar from a very unreliable hand and, apparently, did not have the manuscript itself before his eyes. One cannot help but be grateful to the corrector for this documented indication of errors that could and did mislead those authors who, not being able to cope with the original manuscript, trusted its careless description in the “review of hymns.” But in bringing to light and correcting errors, the author does not seem to want to know what was done in this regard before him and does not make use of such comments regarding the kontakary, which would not be superfluous for him when composing the preface, and from the point of view of scientific impartiality are even necessary. Thus, he does not mention a single word about the study of Cardinal Pitre that was published back in 1867: “L’hymnographie de l’eglise grecque” (in which, by the way, two kontakari were published in memory of the apostles Peter and Paul), about the “Prolegomena” for the publication of Greek chants in “Anthologia graeca, Christ et Paranikas“, about the hagiology of the Eastern Church, Archimandrite Sergius and the translation of several kontakia of Romanus in our spiritual journals. He did not use all the handwritten material, leaving without attention, we don’t know why, the 12th-century Kontakari. in the library of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra (see description No. 23) and the kontakari of the library of the Assumption Cathedral. At least in the list of sources, neither one nor the other manuscript is mentioned. Next, the author makes an attempt to distinguish from the synodal manuscript the authentic kontakia of Roman from those that do not belong to him and divides the first into two headings: kontakia with the name of Roman (undoubtedly belonging to him) and without a name, but, in all likelihood, his own. As for the first part, then, without a doubt, an acrostic with the name “τοῦ ταπεινοῦ Ρωμάνου” can serve as a reliable sign. But the same cannot be said about the critical technique for dismantling material included in the number of “in all likelihood.” The boundaries of the probable are generally very unstable, they can be shifted and pushed apart at will, and the degree of this elasticity will depend on the greater or lesser firmness of the criterion that will be applied to the case. The author of the introduction considers the inscription above the kontakia ἰδιομέλον to be such a criterion and makes the following assumption: since the first kontakia were compiled by Romanus, they served as models for the compilation and execution of later ones and, in turn, did not need an index for execution. But this technique cannot always correctly lead to the goal and turns out to be shaky, especially in the frame that Fr. gives it. Amphilochius. We have in the synodal collection kontakia of the later recording, which included the works of hymnographers of the 11th-12th centuries, and who can guarantee that in this case the greatest fame fell to the share of the most ancient kontakia of the Romanovs, that they, and they exclusively, were then considered a model for the compilation and execution of new ones. Couldn’t there have been some among these later works that competed with the first and, enjoying wide popularity, could themselves become such basic exemplary songs? Further, although the name ἰδιομέλον, ἀυτομέλον is not separable from the technical structure of a well-known song - since this structure itself also determined the method of singing performance - nevertheless, the latter could be much more convenient and easier to start from more well-known, familiar and accessible melody samples than from the most ancient ones. These latter were as authoritative as their fame and technical structure were handy. In this regard, the song of Damascus, Cosmas of Mayum, and Andrei of Crete could be self-vocal with the same right as the songs of the Romanovs. Therefore, the category of self-vocal kontakia included all those that had a unique structure and were written not by imitation, but freely. That this advantage of self-accordance was not used by all, without exception, the kontakia of Roman the Sweet Singer, but some of them were performed according to the model of more famous ones - there are indications of this in the collection itself. It also happened that above the same kontakion in one Greek list there is ἰδιομέλον, and in another its similarity is indicated (for example, the kontakion to the Assumption, p. 17). Finally, the kontakia of later compilers were also performed spontaneously (for example, to Theodore Sykeot of the 7th century), as can be seen from the inscriptions, and other of them are placed without indicating the similarity; for example, kontakion of St. Marcian with an acrostic poem by Gregory (from the collection of Peter, p. 31), on the Introduction of the Virgin Mary, George (ibid 32); many songs with the name Studita (40–41, 47–48). Having assimilated many of the unwritten kontakia to Roman the Sweet Singer on such, in our opinion, shaky basis, the compiler of the collection attributes the compilation of the famous akathist to the Theotokos to the same writer. This opinion, as far as we know, is new and has not yet been expressed by anyone, positively deserves full attention both in its news and in the nature of the arguments on which it is based. The similarity of the akathist in terms of its external structure with the complete kontakary works of Roman is beyond any doubt. At the head of integral plays of this kind, as well as at the head of the akathist, there is usually a kontakion, followed by 24 sections or stanzas (in kondakaries, sometimes more, sometimes less), arranged either in the order of the letters of the alphabet, or according to the model of a ready-made lemma with the name of the compiler. To complete the similarity, according to the fair remark of Fr. Amphilochia, ancient manuscripts do not know the name “akathist”, but call this type of chants a collection of ikos. This is how it is read in the synodal and typographical kontakara, and so, let us add, in the typographical charter (fol. 3), where it is said that according to the sixth song of the canon, on Saturday of the 5th week of Great Lent, the kontakion tone 8 is sung “to the chosen governor and 24 ikos without sitting.” Even in later manuscripts of the 14th-15th centuries, for example, our Academy’s general menaion, it reads: “Ikos are like an akathist.” So, we have in the form of an akathist nothing more than a complete kontakary play consisting of one kontakion and twenty-four ikos. Based on this external similarity, and on the absence of a similar akathist in the chapter, the author comes to the conclusion that its compiler is none other than the same Roman the Sweet Singer. For many reasons, this hypothesis cannot be accepted, and from the data on which it is based, the conclusion drawn does not follow. Similarities with the kontakia of Romanus are also noticeable in later works of this kind, compiled according to their model. The absence of similarity also cannot serve as a decisive sign, as we have already said. Despite the external similarity in the structure of the kondakars and the akathist, there are also major differences between them, indicating a different pen, a different method of the compiler, a different processing of the main kondakar form. In the Kontakari of Roman, the ikos always end with the same refrain, which runs through their entire series and closes them in a monotonous frame: in the akathist, on the contrary, some ikos have the following final verse: “χ ᾶ ιρε νύμφη ἀνύμφευτε “others” ἀλληλ ᴕ ία “. In Roman, all ikos are equal in volume, and this equality is in close connection with the volume of the first, main one, which serves as the norm for the rest: in the akathist, the hallelujah stanzas are much shorter and are composed according to the model of the kontakion “τῶ ὑπερμάχω”, and in the undoubted works of Roman the Sweet Singer, the kontakion, or the first stanza, not only stands outside counting the letters of the acrostic, but also differs from the others in its quantitative composition. It is easy to verify this by taking any of the complete kontakary works of Romanus and comparing the composition of the kontakion with the ikos. In the akathist, stanzas with the ending χαῖρε would be equal to the main ikos, if we were to take away from them the 12-fold greeting, thanks to which they are made almost three times longer than the hallelujah stanzas. This quantitative inequality was the reason why the hallelujah stanzas subsequently began to be called kontakia - by analogy with the first - and the stanzas with the ending χαῖρε retained the name ikos. Thanks to this dual system, the akathist form separated from the ordinary kondakari as an independent one, and while these latter had already outlived their time, the akathist retained its composition intact and remained faithful to it to this day. The author does not share the opinion of George of Pisidia as the compiler of the akathist to the Theotokos. But we think that doubts on this score are based on a misunderstanding, and the strongest arguments in favor of the Roman rest on the structure of the akathist and its similarity with kontakary works. On the contrary, the content of the akathist in many cases speaks of a later compiler and corresponds perfectly to the well-known attack of the Persians and Avars on Constantinople under Heraclius, which occurred, according to the Easter chronicle, in 625 (Chronic Paschal. Mign. Patr. curs. compl. T. 92, p. 1005). The militant nature of the kontakion “Τῇ ὑπερμάχῳ” 1 does not fit with the general church and historical themes that develop in the works of Roman, and in contemporary Byzantine history there are no indications of events that would give rise to the compilation of such works. The very idea of ​​the intercession of the Mother of God for Byzantium and the dedication of the capital to Her begins to take shape and move into literature from the time of Justinian 2. The expression: “εὐχαριστήρια, Ἀναγράφω σοι ἡ Πόλις σου” serves as an expression of this view. The same reference to the historical circumstances of that time is contained in the following expressions of the last ikos: „ χαῖρε τῆς ὲκκλησίας ὁ α ᾽ σάλεντος πύργος (tower, pillar, as a defense during sieges) "." Even the scribe’s mistake in reading Kontakion 8: “Hail Persians, teacher of chastity,” where instead of “πιστῶν,” the scribe read “Περσῶν,” has, in our opinion, the same characteristic connotation and stands in close connection with the memory of the Chaldean youths and the worship of fire. Thus, the author of the akathist, by all accounts, must have lived at the time of the military event that took place, or at least knew about it, but whether he was George of Pisidia, as some say, or his contemporary Patriarch Sergius, as others say - this question has not been resolved with the clarity that, for example, falls to the lot of more famous hymns: Damascus, Theodore the Studite, Roman the Sweet Singer, Philotheus and etc. In Western scientific literature, there are two opinions regarding the compiler of the akathist, one of which is in favor of George of Pisidia, and the other in favor of Sergius. Most researchers, both there and here, are inclined to side with the first. Authoritative Western scholars speak in favor of Patriarch Sergius: Christ and Paranicas in his work: “Anthologia graeca carminum christianorum” (p. LII), Pitra in “Hymnographie de l’eglise grecque” (p. 46), he in his kondakara and other authors of the Greek anthology express their thoughts in a polemical tone and the opposite decision The question is considered a guess, devoid of any support. But they provide little data in their favor, referring only to one codex Bibliothecae Marcianae (Venetian), where the name of Patriarch Sergius is placed in the chapter of the akathist. But we know nothing about his literary activity, while George of Pisidia was distinguished by his poetic talent and left several works that give him a prominent place in Byzantine anthology. (See about him Joseph. Mar. Qverc. Praefat. Apud. Mign. p. 1161–1194. Nicolai Griech, Literaturgesch. III. S. 344–345). The Persian War of that time interested him keenly, and he devoted several iambic poems to its description: De expeditione persica, Bellum avaricum, Heraclias, while more general and edifying motifs were developed by him in Shestodnev and in a poem about the vanity of life. Comparison of the style of these poems with some passages of the akathist leads to the same conclusion. However o. Amphilochius does not attach value to this type of evidence: he says that one can find in Chrysostom many passages similar to the akathist and, based on the similarity of expressions, perhaps attribute to him the compilation of the akathist. But comparison is different, and not every similar place points to one common author. Comparisons can and should be made only on the basis of typical passages that give an idea of ​​the time, style and conditions of origin of a famous work. General biblical and general church expressions, such as those given on page 16, of course, do not go to the point and do not explain anything. But the expression “ἡ πὸλις σο῀υ”, common to the akathist with George and writers close to him in time, is already a typical feature that distinguishes a certain era, certain views. The expression of the akathist “πυρὸς προσκύνησιν σβέσασα” has the same characteristic meaning and points to the fire-worshippers of the Persians, with whom the Byzantines came into especially close relations under Heraclius, when the struggle between Parisism and Christianity really flared up, and the leader of the campaign himself, having taken Ganzak (in northern Armenia), found a church of fire worshipers in it and destroyed it to the ground (Theophan sub an. 623). The compiler of the akathist makes a hint at this relationship when he connects this proclamation with the coming of the Magi from Chaldea (this is the content of the 5th kontakion and 5th ikos), and the very name of them as Chaldean youths suggests the thought of the youths in the Babylonian furnace. On this basis, we consider it completely convenient to draw for comparison with the passages from the akathist just given the following verses from the poem of George of Pisidia “῾ Ηρακλειὰς”, where he says: ὁ κρατῶν Περσοκράτης ᾽ Ο Πυρσολάτρης ἐξοφώτη Χοσρόης , Πάλιν κάμνος περσικἡ , καὶ δευτέρα Δροσίζεται φλὸξ Δανιηλ τῶ δευτέρω Πάλιν παροινεῖ ῎ Εως σὸν ἀυτῶ καὶ τὸ πύρ ὑπερβράσαν Σύν τῶ θεουργ ή σαντι συνκατεφθάρη 3 (Patrol. T. 92 p. 1298). In the poem on the campaign of the barbarians against Constantinople (Bellum avaricum), the introduction develops the theme of the 1st kontakion of the akathist and is expressed in this way: “if any painter wishes to depict the trophies of battle, let him imagine (προτὰξοι) the one who gave birth without seed and paint Her image, because only in Her power was it possible to defeat nature first in birth, and then in battle (τόκ ῳ – μάχη). Just as She once gave birth to salvation without seed, so now unarmed, to appear here and there as an indispensable Virgin both in war and at Christmas.” Having then moved on to a detailed account of the circumstances of this glorious struggle, he turns to the Mother of God with the following words: ? τῶν ἐνοπλῶν δακρύων Τῶν πορπολούντων τὸ θράσος τὸ βάρβαρον ῎ Οσον γὰρ ἀπλαῖς τὰς ῾ ροὰς τῶν ὀμμάτων Τοσο῀υτον εἰργες τὰς ῥ οὰς τῶν ἁ ιμάτων. (ibid. p. 1273). The venerable author finds it impossible to attribute the composition of the akathist to George of Pisidia on the grounds that on the night of the siege, when the Constantinople sang a non-sedal song, there was no time to compose an akathist, “there was no time to compose such excellent hymns in the depth of thoughts.” But who says that the akathist was composed then; There is no need to accept such a strange thought, and it does not find justification in the text of the very news about the non-sedal. The Akathist was compiled later under the influence of joy for the happy outcome of the siege and the entire subsequent war of Heraclius with the Persians. According to the chronicle, on this terrible night for them, the besieged sang some kind of hymn to the Mother of the Word, and at that time there were already enough such hymns, and there was nothing difficult in choosing them. They sang this hymn while standing, and preserved this custom during the annual holiday established for this occasion. In the Easter chronicle, which contains a detailed account of the siege of Constantinople by the united troops of the Avar Kagan of the Persians and Slovenians, nothing is said about the special prayers of the Byzantines to the Mother of God, although the salvation of the city and the origin of the sea storm that sank the enemy boats are attributed to Her intercession. But this will be much better seen from the story itself about the unsaddled one. Church news in this episode of the military history of the then Byzantium came to us in two editions: a more complete one and a brief one, compiled on the basis of the first. Both were published, by the way, by Min in the 92nd volume of his patrolology, but were also preserved in Greek manuscripts and Slavic lists. A detailed tale was also included in our Lenten triodion under the name of the story of the unsedal (the story is useful, it was compiled from ancient scripture), and the short one is placed in the form of a synaxarion in the service of Saturday of the fifth week of Great Lent. The author of the Kontakari cites passages from both editions based on Greek and Slavic manuscripts, but does not distinguish between them. Neither one nor the other legend, in our opinion, provides grounds for the conclusion about the existence of an akathist during the siege and its use by the besieged. The oldest extensive edition says that Patriarch Sergius convinced the people to place their hope in the help of the Mother of God (Migne p. 1355), carried around the walls the image of the Mother of God holding the infant Christ in her arms (ibid); another time he takes the miraculous image of Christ, the robe of the Mother of God and the tree of the Cross (1357) and prays with tears, pronouncing the words of the psalm: “may God rise again” (Ps. 67). A few days later, when the city was surrounded on all sides, the Patriarch (Heraclius was then on a campaign) sent an embassy to the main commander of the detachment - satrap Sarovar - with gifts and a peace offer, but the petition was unsuccessful. Then the people, raising their hands to heaven, offer a prayer to the Lord and its original words are given (p. 1360). The enemies experienced their first defeat at sea: their fleet, consisting of monoxyls, or single-trees - small boats cut from solid wood - (1356) crashed near the Blachernae church, and the enemies, having lifted the siege, fled, pursued by emboldened residents and troops. Then the Patriarch, together with the people, poured out gratitude for salvation with the words of the psalm: “Lord is your right hand” (b. 1364). Having further told about the flight of Kagan, the compiler of the story concludes his story with the following remark: “in remembrance of such a good deed (of the Mother of God), we annually hold a real national meeting and celebrate an all-night (παννύχιον) holiday, bringing Her songs of gratitude “ὡ δὰς εὐχαριστηριόυς ““. Thus, in the entire story there is no clear indication of the singing of the akathist during and immediately after the siege, although it, by the way, is discussed in the words ὡ δαὶ εὐχαριστήριοι, but these ὡ δαὶ refer to the event that took place and were performed at the annual in memory of it holiday To this main tale the story adds a story about a similar event that happened under Constantine Pogonat and Leo the Isaurian. From the detailed edition, the compiler of the synaxarion made an abbreviated essay in which he combined all three events into one whole and included the establishment of the holiday among all of them. This article presents the matter somewhat differently and seems to speak in favor of the author. “The God-loving people of Constantine, it is read here, giving thanks to the Mother of God, throughout the whole night (ὁλονύκτιον), singing, they sang a non-sedal song, as if she were awake for him” (p. 1352). One might think, based on the external side of the phrase, that then, on that very night, the clergy and people sang the akathist and that, therefore, it was already known then, but under “ὁλονύκτιον τὸν ὕ μνον καὶ ἀκάθιστον” Of course, it is not a song of a known composition in the sense of current terminology, but it is a question of a method of singing, applicable to any other type of church songs. The original version does not contain this expression; it is due to later church language and leads to misunderstanding due to the confusion of ideas. In the very passage cited by Fr. Amphilochia, according to the manuscript of the Greek triodion of the 15th century, a later akathist, as a collection of ikos, differs from what the inhabitants of Constantinople who escaped from trouble sang. „῾ Ο λαὸς κατὰ τὴν νύκτα ἐκείνην τὸν ὕ μνον τῆ του Λόγου μητρὶ ἔμελψαν , ὲν τοῖς παροῦσι τῆς Θεομήτορος ο ῐ κοις ὀρθοὶ πὰντες ἀκροώμεθα “. Then they sang ὕ μνον, now they sing ikos. According to the edition of Minh (b. 1352) and Gretzer in the notes to Codin (De offic. p. 239 ed. Paris), this passage is read more fully than in the above passage, and reads as follows: “(this holiday) was called non-sedal because at that time the people stood all night, singing the song of the Mother of the Word, and because in all other ikos, having the custom of sitting (ἕ "We all listen to them standing." And here the synaxar speaks vaguely about the song that the Byzantines sang at night; and in what is said further about listening to the Ikos of the Mother of God, standing, while others are listened to sitting, obviously we are talking about a custom contemporary with the composition of the legend and notes a fact from later liturgical practice. This is indicated by the use of the present form: ἕ χοντες, ἐν τοῖς παροῦσι, ἀκροώμεθα. Let us conclude our analysis with a few comments regarding that part of the introduction, which deals with the patterns on which kontakia and ikos were compiled. When we started reading this chapter, we expected to find in it a solution to the question of the origin of this widespread branch of hymnography and an explanation of the way in which kontakary chants were adopted and spread in the church. But our expectations were not met. The venerable author began at the halfway point and indicated the beginning where the matter was during the period of continuation and establishment. The author begins the history of kontakia with Roman, but in fact this branch of chants begins much earlier, in ancient Greek lyric poetry and has its representatives in early Christian hymnography. The basis for it was the method of singing, which in the technical language of the ancient Greeks was called “ύπακόυειν” to sing along, i.e. repeat in chorus a well-known chorus, rhyme or verse at the end of a song spoken by the luminary. (Κορυφα ῐ ος ὑποβολεὑς, praecentor late canonarch). Without repeating here the well-known passages regarding this type of singing from Eusebius’s story about the therapists and from the apostolic decrees, we will analyze here a typical example of this kind in the work of Methodius of Patara: “Παρθενιον” or the feast of the virgins. In terms of external structure, this poem is nothing more than a series of kontakia, arranged in the order of the letters of the Greek alphabet and each ending with one common refrain: ἀγνεύω σοὶ καὶ λαμπάδας φαεσφόρους ... This last verse is repeated 24 times the number of stanzas of this kontakary, just like the refrain “from the youth of the eternal God” in the original kontakary of the Roman. In the Greek theater ὕ μνος and ἐφυμνία, the song and choruses alternated between the lead singer and the chorus, the former singing the entire aria or ὡ δὴ, and the latter accompanying it with a final chorus. The performance of kontakia in church meetings took place in the same way. Those present - λαός constituted the choir, and the chosen psalt or singer took the place of the luminary. To complete this singing atmosphere, it must be added that the λαὸς or choir was located around the singer, who, holding in his hands a scroll of covered parchment “κοντάκιον, διφθέρα,” recited individual stanzas of the kondakari on it, and the people ended this melody with a response chorus. St. Roman, composing kontakia, imitated this type of work and transferred the long-known and widespread branch of hymnography to church soil. He consolidated its use with a number of completed works, which later songwriters began to imitate with greater or lesser success. This type of church lyricism was most to everyone’s taste and had a strong influence on other types and branches of hymnography, becoming part of the canons and other complex sequences. But in order to judge the participation of the kondakar system in the composition of the canon, it is necessary to take into account its ancient form, and not the processed later one, which we have in the canons of Damascus, Cosmas of Mayum, and others. The most ancient canon was nothing more than a paraphrase of the main biblical songs, or, better to say, such a performance of them, when certain sections of these songs alternated and were closed with some common verse, taken directly from them, or composed in relation to their theme. Songs 1, 7, 8 and 9 were especially convenient for such a performance, because they easily and naturally highlighted such a characteristic chorus. This feature was especially clearly expressed in the structure of the ancient canons of the Armenian Church, which retained the original form of eastern hymnography. Most of these canons, judging by their publication in the Russian translation by Mr. Emin (Sharakan - Liturgical Canons of the Armenian Church), consists of 8-9 sections, and these last break up into stanzas, the number of which in the complete canon ranges between 20-30. These stanzas are called “tun” in Armenian, which means house (Sharak. VIII); and correspond to the Greek ο ῐ κος (Italian stánza-room, stanza, couplet). Grouped mostly by three in each section (sometimes 4 or more), they have the same composition for each group and end with the same chorus. The difference from the Kondakari is that here each group has a special structure and a special chorus, and some of them are composed in relation to the first, seventh, eighth and ninth biblical cantos. But having assimilated the main features of the kontakary system, the canon dealt a strong blow to these works and little by little forced them out of use, accepting only small excerpts from the entire kontakary under the name of ikos and kontakion after the 6th song of the canon. Greek Kontakari of the Synodal Library, published by Fr. Amphilochius, depicts the state of these chants in the flourishing time of their existence, although in the era of the appearance of the manuscript they were no longer used in their entirety and were replaced by other successions. A collection of them in Slavic translation under the Typographical Regulations of the 11th-12th centuries. depicts a period of decline and presents them in the form of isolated passages, torn from integral works and finding a place for themselves in the annex to the canons and other parts of the service. But the memory of the original performance of these songs was still preserved, and after the ikos the main chorus is usually placed, preceded by the inscription: “people.” However, from one place cited by Arch. Amphilochius, it is clear that in the 9th century. Kondakari were still used in full force, and at the discovery of the relics of Clement of Velichsky, the singing of the 16th kontakion was mentioned. A significant part of the Kontakari for the meat-eating week, compiled according to the acrostic “ἀναστασίου τοῦ ταπεινοῦ ἄινος,” is read by Gohar in the Euchologia p. 568, but here the acrostic is interrupted at the word τον ταπ, and further ikos are given in the kondakara from other sources. This kontakari was published in abbreviation back in 1868 by Peter in his monumenta juris ecclesiast. graec. T. 2, p. 286. Leaving here the analysis of the venerable work of Arch. Amphilochia, we express our sincere desire that publications of this kind do not pass unnoticed for spiritual science, but arouse more and more attention and interest. Regardless of their historical and liturgical significance, some kondakari present excellent works of church poetry, familiarization with which would be highly desirable in a more accessible and updated translation. Their finished publication in the original, together with the Old Slavic text, would greatly facilitate this task, especially since the publisher included a fairly complete explanatory dictionary of the most difficult words found in Kondakari. This song, along with other Mother of God songs appropriate for the occasion, was performed in Constantinople during lithiums or thanksgiving prayers for the victory. Οἱ δὲ ψ ᾶ λται ἄνωθεν ἐν τ ῳ άμβῶνι ψάλλοασιν θεοτοκια ? προστασ ί α ϕοβερἀ “ καὶ τὸ „ ἐπί σοι χαίρει “ καὶ τὸ „ τεῖχος άκαταμάχητον “ τὀ „ τῆ ύπερμἀχω στρατηγω τὰ νικητ ή ρια “ καὶ τὰ τούτοις ʹ ομοῖα , πολλάκις δὲ καὶ εἰ νεα τόχη γένεσ ϧ αι τροπαρία τῆ ὑπὀ ϧ εσει ἁ ρμόζοντα. (De cerem. avl. byzant. II cap. XIX p. 609 ed. Bonn). The news that Constantine the Great dedicated his new capital to the Mother of God appears among later Byzantine writers, but traces of special veneration of the Holy Virgin in Constantinople are noticed very early, and the transfer of Her clothes to Byzantium, in the middle of the 5th century, contributed to the further revival and strengthening of this cult. Justinian, according to Procopius, built two churches in the name of the Mother of God: both of them were located outside the city, rising in front of its walls as an impregnable stronghold and fortress of the capital ( τῆς πὀλεως . De aedif. Just p. 188 edit Bonn). On the African shore of the Strait of Gibraltar, he also built a fortress and with it a church in the name of the Mother of God, with whom he wanted to sanctify and strengthen the most extreme limit of his kingdom („ τ ἁ τῆς πολιτείας προοίμια “ ibid. p. 343). This idea is carried out especially clearly in relation to Constantinople in the life of Andrei the Fool, and on it is based the confidence in the inaccessibility of the capital, as the heritage of the Mother of God, to enemy attacks. In the Easter chronicle, at the beginning of the story about the unsuccessful siege of Constantinople by the army of Chosroes, Byzantium is called “ταπεινή αὑτο῀υ (Κόρε ϐ) πόλις” (p. 1005). In the story about the akathist to the Mother of God, προπολέμουσα τῆς ίδίας πολεως appears (ibid. 1361). Since the first defeat of the enemy occurred at sea near the Blachernae church, it is very likely that this circumstance was the reason why Heraclius included the Blachernae suburb along with its shrines within the city limits and connected it with a wall (ibid. p. 1017. cf. Unger. Quellen d. byzant. Konstgesch. S. 118). The fire-worshipper Khosroes, the sovereign ruler of the Persians, has faded (Untranslatable play on words: Περσοκράτης - Πυρσολάτρης). Again the Persian oven, and for the second time its flame is cooled with dew for the second Daniel (Heraclius). Again Khosroes goes wickedly mad, idolizes fire and imagines himself as God, until, finally, this overflowing fire goes out along with him, who idolized him.