Mithra (Historical and archaeological essay)

We now place a miter 1 on the head of each bishop during divine services, everywhere in the Official of the Bishop's Office, called a cap 2. This head adornment of our bishops became an accessory of their rank in relatively recent times, which explains the very significant fact that all the most ancient and later rites of consecration not only of a bishop, but of a metropolitan and even a patriarch, Greek, South Slavic and our Slavic-Russian ranks, written, old printed and even now used in liturgical practice in the East and here in Russia about The miter remains completely silent. It is as if the miter is not even considered part of the episcopal vestment. An exception in this regard is represented by the ranks of ordinations of southern Russian liturgical monuments, which speak not only of the miter and its placement on bishops during ordination, but even when elevated to the rank of archimandrite 3 . Despite all this, in the practice of the Greek Church, the Patriarch of Alexandria has long been, and, following his example, later some other eastern bishops began to use a head adornment during worship, which was called the miter 4. Simeon of Thessalonica, a writer of the first half of the 15th century, clearly speaks about this. Answering the question: “Why, except for the Patriarch of Alexandria, do bishops and priests serve with their heads uncovered, and what is better to serve with their heads uncovered?”, our exegete writes: “With their heads uncovered, all eastern hierarchs and priests, with the exception of the Patriarch of Alexandria, perform sacred rites not out of any humiliation, but according to the most sublime and especially sacred word, which the God-speaking Paul proposes in teaching, calling Christ our head, and us His members, and that those who honor our Head Christ should have their heads open during prayer. And not only for this reason, but also because the person being consecrated accepts ordination with his head open, and must therefore pray and perform sacred acts as he was ordained. The hierarch in particular, since the one being consecrated has on his head the words given to God, that is, the Holy Gospel, and should not have another cover on his head at the time when the most divine (mysteries) are being celebrated. But perhaps someone will say: the Patriarch of Alexandria, who has a sacred veil on his head (ιερόν επιχαλυμμα), and very many others, according to ancient tradition, do not act piously? I do not say this, for those who act in this way have an ancient tradition as an excuse, but it is better - the most legal. In fact, the legitimate (Old Testament) bishop wore a mitre (χιδαριν) on his head, which was also called a miter (μίτραν), just as the bishops who wear it like to call it (οι περιτιθεμενοι ιεραρχοι τουτο φιλουσι χαλειν) (i.e. at the present time). Perhaps they have it in the likeness of the crown of thorns of the Lord or the sovereign who was on His head. But, however, since they also take off their miter at the most important times of sacred rites, this shows that the tradition of Blessed Paul is more important, for the image of the crown of thorns is depicted by cutting the hair on the head of the initiates, when making the sacred seal... It is more important, of course, to pray and perform sacred rites with an open head, and this should not be neglected, especially in the most important times 5.” In his answers to Gabriel, Bishop of Pentapolis, Simeon of Thessalonica returns once again to explain the question of why the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Pope of Rome perform divine services in a miter, and other bishops with an open head, and indicates for the first - the basis for imitation of the attire of the Old Testament high priest and in the resolution of the council, which allowed him, due to illness, to put a miter on his head, remaining with the same an explanation of the symbolic meaning of this attire, and for the Roman lady the basis is in the chrysobulus or deed of gift of Tsar Constantine to Pope Sylvester 6. In the next 21 answers he again explains the importance of the custom of performing divine services for bishops with an open head, for which the miter should be considered a saint. The Gospel that reclined on their heads during their consecration 7 . From these reasonings of the exegete, worship in the Orthodox East of the XIV-XV centuries. the conclusion clearly follows that he personally did not use miters during divine services, and to his other colleagues and contemporaries, for example, Bishop Gabriel of Pentapolis, he recommended preferably to adhere to the more common custom in the East and, in his opinion, more legal - to perform divine services with an open head without a miter. And indeed, we see in the practice of the Orthodox East that not only in the 15th century, but even in the 16th, 8th and 17th centuries, Eastern hierarchs do not use mitres during worship, with the exception of patriarchs 9. Our traveler to the East at the beginning of the second half of the 17th century, the famous elder Arseny Sukhanov, describing the consecration of Metropolitan Neophytos of Bethlehem in Jerusalem, says, among other things, the following: “But (the Patriarch) did not give him a sakka and a hat, because all the metropolitans serve in sakkas, and with the patriarch in vestments (sic), and no one has a hat in private, and does not wear dares, except the patriarch 10. “The metropolitans were all in sakkos,” writes the same Arseny Sukhanov about the patriarchal service on Great Friday, not noticing the above contradiction in his words regarding the use of sakkos by the metropolitans of Palestine, “but all without hats, since no one wears hats anywhere except the patriarch, and they don’t have them and never have. And the Metropolitan of Nazareth beat the Sovereign with his forehead, as if he had a hat that was worn out, and so that the Sovereign would grant it, he ordered a new one to be made, and when he arrived, he gave that Sovereign’s Nazarene hat to the Patriarch, and the sakk was all alone. But in Nazareth there were no hats from the beginning, and now you won’t wear them. And the patriarch took her, they said, and pawned her. And with us the Nazareth served with the patriarch and without the patriarch without a hat 11.” In “Taktikon, the Hedgehog is an Official, as the Greeks maintain church rites and singing,” describing the service of the patriarchs of Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch, he says that before the liturgy they “put down their cap, saying: “The Lord enthroned in beauty, clothed with beauty, the Lord clothed with strength and girded; for establish the universe, which cannot move, always now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen 12 "". In the work of the same author, compiled after the appearance of the “Proscinitary” (after 1653) and known under the name: “On the Greek ranks in brief”, on the issue of interest to us, it is said in a calmer tone, without any polemics, and therefore closer to the truth: “And the saint’s caps are not on many archbishops and metropolitans, to whom it was given from the ancient pious kings, but others (all metropolitans and bishops) without hats. They don’t have a single archimandrite (in cap 13).” Based on the above excerpts, it is clear that in the East in the second half of the 17th century, the same order began to be established regarding the wearing of mitre-crowns by bishops, which is observed to this day. That is, all Eastern patriarchs enjoyed the right to wear mitres, but, paying respect to the seniority of the throne they occupied, when serving together, they did not put mitres on everyone, but only the oldest of them according to their position 14 . Metropolitans and bishops receive a miter from the head of the patriarch at the end of the liturgy, but not at the consecration itself, and use it during divine services in their diocese and when they take precedence in divine services; in the presence of their patriarch, they do not put on the miter, but cover their heads with a kamilavka with a fleur-like basting. As for the form of the eastern miter, then, without going into deep research about the form of the ancient Alexandrian miter, which, due to the lack of positive data, is not easy to determine 15, in resolving this issue we can focus our attention primarily on the name accepted throughout the East, and for a long time, its name - crown (κορώνα) or crown (στέφανος). Indeed, the oldest eastern miter known to us, now kept in the skeuophilacian laurels of St. Athanasia on Athos and reputed in legend for the crown of the Byzantine emperor Nikephoros Phocas (963–969), ktitor of the Lavra, dates back, according to the definition of academician N.P. Kondakov, to the 16th century 16 and represents the shape of the crown of the later Byzantine emperors, i.e., a high hat with a rim around the head and with a curve at the top 17. The second patriarchal miter 18, now accepted in the practice of the Alexandrian Church, the use of which, according to legend, was introduced from ancient times, differs little in its form from the miter-crown. It was quite natural for Greek national pride, after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, to place the crown of non-existent emperors on the head of its ecumenical patriarch, the main and only guardian of the interests of Orthodoxy and nationality itself in the entire Muslim East, especially since even earlier, in the era of the dawn of the Byzantine Empire, the patriarch from the hands of the emperor received such signs of royal dignity as dalmatics or sakkos, lor or omophorion, etc. 19. In this form of crown, the miter from Constantinople passed to other eastern patriarchs and bishops, and in 1653, at the request of Patriarch Nikon, a lover of Greek customs, to us in Russia 20, replacing in our liturgical practice the previously existing form - miter caps. As for the time when the miter in the form of a cap or cap appeared in our church liturgical practice, then, due to the lack of positive data 21, it is difficult to say with accuracy. It is unlikely, however, that we will make a big mistake if we attribute the time of the appearance of mitre caps as a liturgical accessory to the 15th century, because with such significance these main decorations undoubtedly appeared among our bishops in the 16th century 22 and passed on at that time even to some honorary archimandrites 23 . It is possible to assume that the custom of laying mitres by some bishops in the East, noted by Simeon of Thessalonica, also had an influence on our liturgical practice, in which hitherto bishops outside the church used head decorations in the form of caps, which from that time received the meaning of belonging to the episcopal rank. At least, the acts of the Moscow Council of 1674 make it clear to us that the fathers of this council were not alien to the idea of ​​us borrowing the miter from the Orthodox East, following the example of the Eastern patriarchs. “Miter, having the image of the mount of the cross 24,” says the acts of this council regarding the patriarchal miter, “in the likeness of the most holy Greek gods natriapcu, in sacred rites, according to the custom of the saints of the Eastern Church, like the great saint ‘Cyril of Alexandria’, his head was covered with withered golden cloth, when the saint and Your representation to the 3rd village council; and having exalted himself, according to the statute of the Equal-to-the-Apostles, the holy great king Constantine, who was to Saint Sylvester, and like Theophilus of Alexandria (more correctly, the Jerusalem) Patriarch, King Basil (976-1025) of the Purple-born placed a diadem, and in the church he commanded to be adorned with the laws 25.” The rules of the same cathedral established that metropolitans should have a “golden or silver-plated, gilded cap,” and that archbishops and bishops should have a “silver-forged cap 26.” The name miter (μίτρα), given to the head ornament of our bishops, is borrowed from the book of Exodus. 28, 37; 29, 6. Bearing in mind this name and form of our ancient Russian miter, used by bishops before Patriarch Nikon, prof. E. E. Golubinsky expresses the following consideration regarding its origin. “With our bishops,” he says, it was customary (has become a custom) to serve not in just any skufia, but to have special skufia for this purpose, designated specifically for divine services. Since the skufia were removed from the head during the service, in order not to put them flat and flattened, which is very unrepresentative, but to put them on, they began to make them (the liturgical skufia) on a hard lining, so that they took the form of caps. They began to make caps from expensive materials, decorate them with simple ornaments and icons, and in this way, our bishops began to have special liturgical caps, which were then enlarged to the size of caps, and these first caps, then caps, are our current miters. Skufi, converted by placing a hard lining into caps, remained as such, that is, small caps until the end of the 16th century. (for example, the miter of Patriarch Job 1595 in the Moscow Patriarchal Sacristy. Arch. Savva. Index Moscow. patriarch sacristy M. 1863, ed. 4, p. 13, tab. V, take off 22); after that, they were somewhat increased in size and, while maintaining the skuf-like shape, became caps, as they began to be called” (Historical Russian Churches, vol. I, half II, pp. 234–235). If, of course, we keep in mind the services of our bishops outside the church, during religious processions and solemn processions, and moreover, under our harsh climatic conditions, since in churches, following the example of the Orthodox East, our bishops performed services in ancient times, undoubtedly with their heads open, then the need for a miter-hat for them in this case is beyond any doubt. Our ancient miter hats were not only lined with cotton wool, but were also lined with ermine fur at the bottom, in order, of course, not only to make them beautiful, but also to make them warm for the head and ears. For the same purpose, sometimes they put on mitres and headphones (A. Dmitrievsky. Patmos Sketches pp. 200–201). Brocade, satin, altabas, isorbaf (Arch. Savva. Index of the sacristy, p. 2, explains. dictionary,) and other materials from which our sacred vestments were made, formed the outer shell of these mitre caps. Over time, in view of their liturgical use and out of deep respect for the episcopal rank, miter hats began to be decorated with gold beads with images of saints, garnished with pearls and trimmed with precious stones. Such a miter hat had already become a precious church utensil, an accessory of church sacristies, and could be used during divine services in the church even with great convenience, especially in winter, in our cold churches with the terrifying northern frosts. And indeed, in the 16th century, the miter hat or “cap” (Description of the RKP. Moscow Synod. Biblical Section III, Part I, p. 96) became an integral liturgical accessory for all bishops, and since the middle of this century it has already adorned the heads of some honorary archimandrites (§ 18 p. 128). But this is where our agreement with the venerable professor on the issue of the origin of the miter cap, the history of which, as we believe, ends within our fatherland at the end of the first half of the 17th century, is limited to. Approve together with prof. Golubinsky that “the Greeks borrowed hats from us in the 16th century, giving them the shape of the crowns or crowns of their emperors, which these latter had in the later times preceding the capture of Constantinople by the Turks” (History of the Russian Church, vol. I, half II, p. 235), we do not consider ourselves right. The facts known to us do not support this assumption. From the words of Simeon of Thessaloniki it is clearly clear that in his time, in the first half of the 15th century, miters in the East were worn not only by the Patriarch of Alexandria, but also by many other bishops (Mign. Patrol. Curs. complet, t. 155 col. 717). Consequently, the form of the miter in the East had already been developed at that time (This is what is preserved to this day in the skeuophilacian laurels of St. Athanasius is the miter crown of the supposed Emperor Phocas and the miter of the Patmos skeuophilakia), and in the 16th century there was no need for Greek bishops to borrow a miter cap from us in Russia. The miter of the Eastern patriarchs, in its appearance and decoration, was sharply different from our Russian bishop's cap and at the beginning of the 17th century. has already perplexed our zealots of antiquity and experts in church ritual. “And he was wearing a hat, notes an eyewitness to the service of the Patriarch of Jerusalem Theophan with the Russian metropolitans and archbishops in Moscow in 1619, the capes were nailed down on black velvet, like a coruna, they were gilded, and the stones were planted, but there were no saints, except for a cross hammered at the top, and in each country there were four cherubs and seraphim.” (Reading general and historical ancients at Moscow University 1883, book II, department II, p. 166). This is, firstly. Secondly, the eastern bishops and patriarchs who came to us in Rus' for alms in the 16th–17th centuries willingly accepted mitre hats in the form of gifts from kings and metropolitans and patriarchs and even asked for these gifts (Communication between Russia and the East. on Church Affairs. St. Petersburg, 1858, part I, p. 88, 101), but they were not used during worship, but, in view of their material value, were sold to the Jews as collateral (Palestine Law collection, v. 21 (vol. VII, v. III, p. 82); Greek files in the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, St. 33, file No. 16), or they were remade. Our miter hats with sable edges in the East were not suitable for the climate. – Not being able to dwell here in detail on the question of the origin of our miter-hat shape, we, however, allow ourselves to express, in the form of an assumption, an idea about its origin, and somewhat different from the above considerations on this subject by Prof. Golubinsky. Taking a closer look at the form of the ancient Russian episcopal miter, preserved in monuments (Arch. Savva. Index to the Patriarchal Moscow sacristy, p. 13, plate V, no. 22), and comparing it with the form of the grand ducal caps, as they are known from ancient icon images of the holy Russian princes (Antiquities. Archaeological Herald, published M. archaeol. 1867, January–February, pp. 3–4, drawings 1, 2 and especially 3 and 4; Vladimir, Boris, Gleb and others, one cannot help but see the great similarities between them and others. The similarity between the caps of grand dukes and episcopal miters in ancient times was so great that scientists consider the ancient “slipper” still preserved in the sacristy of the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral to be both a “grand ducal” cap and a bishop’s miter cap (Ancient Russian States, department I, p. 150, department II, p. 24; architect Macarius. Description of church antiquities in Novgorod and its environs, M. 1860, part II, p. 358). Did not, in fact, happen to our ancient miter-hat the same thing that happened among the Greeks with the miter-crown? If the latter was a copy of the crown of the Byzantine emperor of a later time, then our miter-hat was not modeled after the grand-ducal gang, with which the similarity in form can hardly be denied? Did our bishops not receive this head adornment from the heads of our pious princes, who deeply revered the episcopal dignity?.. In the “decree on how to install a bishop” of 1650, Bishop Dionysius Balaban, we read the following; “Then the ordainer will take the miter from the holy meal, and if there is an unconsecrated one, giving it to one of the bishops present in the right hand, he blesses it in the shape of a cross... and having sprinkled it with sacred water (after reading the prayer), the abiye, who assist him and the other bishops, gives it to him with a kiss, having kissed it, they place it on his head, saying to the ordainer this: “Lord our God, in Thy name we place on the head of this archbishop and Thy warrior the mitre of this hand of us unworthy Thy servant, and we pray to crown him with the glory and honor of the bishop, and deign him to be a helmet of salvation and confirmation, in victory over all that opposes the truth of Thy holy Gospel, to eradicate the opposition the devil's powers are with her all the days. For You are the strength and strengthening of Your servants, and to You we send glory to the beginningless Father with Your only begotten Son and Your all-holy, good and life-giving Spirit, now and ever” (Rkp. bib. Soph. Cathedral No. 77, fol. 65 vol. - 66 vol.). Almost in the same expressions the bishop reads the prayer, and when placing the miter on the head of the archimandrite: “We pray that you crown him with Your highest blessing and deign to be for him a helmet of salvation and affirmation, and for victory against all the wiles of the devil and the enemy of Your truth all the days of his life.” (Ibid. l. 34). The form of the mitres or headbands of the Alexandrian patriarchs of ancient times can be seen in the images of Saints Athanasius and Cyril, the Alexandrian patriarchs, in Card. Albani in his “Menologium Graecorum jussu Basilii imperatoris. Urbini 1737, pars II, pag. 116. Mign. Patrol. Curs. complete, t. 155 col. 716–717; St. Pisan. father and teaches. c. vol. 3, pp. 23–25. For detailed evidence regarding the forgery of this chrisovul, see Prof. A. S. Pavlova. A collection of unpublished monuments of church morals. St. Petersburg 1898, pp. 54–92. Mign. Patrol. Curs. complete, t. 155 col. 872–873. “Greek bishops do not know the use of a ring, and, says Jacob Goar, they do not wear mitres (nec mitras ambire), but the legates of the East from Pope Gregory X, according to the custom of Latin bishops, were decorated with tiaras, mitres and rings, as Pachymer testifies” (Εὐχολογ Goar. pag. 258). In 1557, Patriarch Joasaph II of Constantinople asked Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich to send a new miter for patriarchal service in Constantinople (Russia's relations with the East on church affairs, part 1, p. 88). Right Palest. collection V. 21 (vol. 7, v. 3) p. 73; Sn. page 263. S. A. Belokurov. Arseny Sukhanov. Ch, II, c. I, ed. 2, M. 1894, p. 114. This should explain the fact that our envoy Boris Blagovo, who observed in Constantinople in 1585 the joint ministry of the three patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch with nine metropolitans and six archbishops, saw a miter on only the Patriarch of Alexandria and gave this fact the following explanation: “and they name him in his father’s place and place him more than all the patriarchs.” (Communication between Russia and the East on Church Affairs, Part I, p. 149). E. E. Golubinsky. History of the Russian Church, vol. I, half. II, pp. 231–232, approx. 3; Sn. Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Alterthumskunde und für Kirchengeschichte 1899, Heft. 2–3, pp. 96–102; Taf. VI. H. P. Kondakov. Monuments of art on Mount Athos. St. Petersburg 1902, p. 242. “Quite similar to the sakkos (according to legend, of dubious nature, made from the military cloak or mantle of Emperor Nicephorus Phocas) and even, but to our guess, says Prof. Kondakov, perhaps, makes up the same vestment with him, a miter, as if the former crown of the same emperor in the same Lavra sacristy, shown to everyone on its feast on July 5th. The miter is contemporary with the sakkos or made a little later than it. The reason why the Lavra monastics settled on it in their desires, of a purely Greek nature, to have a real sign of the historical friendship of the emperor with the first abbot of the Lavra, lies in a small detail of this miter: along its bottom, also worn out, there is sewn a metal, very rough and made of gilded silver, aureole. On the rim there is a plaque in the shape of an eagle, decorated with diamonds and cut diamonds. The corolla is made of leaves curved along the trump, and their design seemed to us to have nothing to do with antiquity. We cannot vouch for all the details of our description, but even the brocade of the miter seemed to us bad and late, just like this whole legendary story was a straight fable invented in the last century for pilgrims.” D. F. Belyaev. Byzantina vol. II, pp. 292–293 and approx. 1. See the image of this miter from Bishop. Porfiry Uspensky in his atlas: “The Christian East. Egypt and Sinai. Views, essays, plans and notes for travel” St. Petersburg. 1857, tab. III; Sn. arch. Savva. Specify Moscow. patriarch sacristies pp. 14–15, tab. III, fig. 23. It seems to us that kundurs or shoes with eagles embroidered on them in gold, used during divine services by the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, as our elder Arseny Sukhanov says (Prav. Palest. collection. century 21 (vol. VII, century III) p. 254, note 1), passed into the vestments of the patriarchs also from the Byzantine costume emperors. Christ. Read 1881 No. 11–12, p. 795, approx. 1; Arch. Savva. Index of Moscow. Patriarchal Sacristy pp. 15–16 and table. III, fig. 25–27; Antiquities of the Russian State, M. 1849, dep. I, pp. 124–132. Currently, three mitres are known, which by tradition date back to the 11th–12th centuries: one is located in the Novotorzhsky Borisoglebsk monastery of the Tver diocese and is attributed to the Monk Ephraim, archimandrite and founder of this monastery († 1053), (Antiquities. Transactions of the Moscow Archaeological Society. vol. VII, v. 1, p. 27 note; Sn. Church. 1902 No. 43, pp. 1525–1526; Law. Sobesedn. 1902, book X, pp. 462 – 465), and the other two were in the tomb of St. Nikita, allegedly from 1108–1550. “Grand-Ducal” (Arch. Makaria. Archaeological descriptions of church antiquities in Novgorod and its environs. M. 1860, part II, p. 357-358; Antiquities of the Russian State, department I, p. 150; department II, p. 24). If we could calm down on this legend, then the question of the time of the appearance in our liturgical practice of mitres in the form of “caps”, reminiscent of the shape of an ancient skufeika, worn, according to the assumption of Prof. E. E. Golubinsky by our clergy in the pre-Mongol period of your historical life (Historical Russian ts. vol. I, half. II, pp. 232, 234–235) and much later, would have been resolved in the most positive way. But, unfortunately, there are good reasons to doubt the dates that are established by tradition regarding the time of origin of the named Metropolitans. We have the most general information about the miter of the Venerable Archimandrite Ephraim (if we believe the legend), and, according to the existing description (Antiquities, vol. VII, century I, p. 27, note), it is very difficult to judge the antiquity of this miter. We can only say that this miter in its origin is no earlier than the 16th century, since Russian archimandrites, as is known, began to decorate their heads with mitres only in the second half of the 16th century. This miter is made of silk material with an ermine edge, which also does not prevent it from being attributed to this time. We have more data to judge the miters of the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral. The first Novgorod miter, in the form of a blue grodetour cap, trimmed with ermine fur, with small crosses embroidered on it in gold and two cherubs and seraphim with the inscriptions: “cherovim, seraphim,” lay on the head of St. Nikita allegedly from 1008 to 1558, i.e., until the time of the discovery of his relics. But the fact is that at the same time in 1558, his staff (sic!) was found in the saint’s coffin, made of three honeysuckle sticks, with carved three apples and carved on a walrus ivory, with which its crossbar and upper part were decorated, with images of saints, such as, for example, St. Peter of Moscow, Leontius of Rostov, etc. Sergius of Radonezh (Ancient Russian State, Section I, p. 157). It is clear, therefore, that this staff, attributed by local tradition and church inventory also to the 11th century, can in no way be dated to the time of the death of St. Nikita. Scientists who describe Russian antiquities quite rightly date the present staff, or rather its decorations, to the 15th or even the first half of the 16th century, and are ready to consider them the fruit of the zeal of either Archbishop Euthymius II (1429–1458), or even the famous Macarius (1526–1540), later the All-Russian Metropolitan (Ibid. p. 158). One can therefore, and quite rightly, doubt the chronology of other objects found in 1558 in the tomb of St. Nikita. It is quite natural to consider them a sign of saintly zeal and reverence for St. Bishop Nikita from the same Novgorod rulers of the 15th–16th centuries. The shape of the miter does not at all contradict this very probable assumption. As for the other miter cap, which the describers of Russian antiquities call this: “an ancient grand ducal or bishop’s hat of Novgorod” (Ibid. section II, p. 24) and which, being wooden, round in shape, is lined with scarlet satin with the Deesis, two angels and cherubs embroidered on it in gold, silver and silk, with a wooden a gilded cross in a wooden circle, trimmed at the bottom with ermine fur (Arch. Macarius. Arch. description of the ancient church in Novgorod, part II, p. 358; Ancient Russian state. II, p. 24), then this cap, as can be seen from its names, is of dubious origin and can hardly be recognized as an ancient Novgorod miter lords But, despite the lack of material data to resolve the issue that interests us, prof. K.E. Golubinsky, in his History of the Russian Church of the pre-Mongol period, devoted a lot of space on its pages to the question of “the head covering” of our bishops during divine services “in ancient and old times” (vol. I, half II, pp. 230–236), and the compilers of “Antiquities of the Russian State” (Olenin, Solntsev, S. Stroganov, M. Zagoskin, Iv. Snigerev and A. Veltman), apparently, do not doubt the origin of our bishop's miter from ancient times. “Among the saintly distinctions, the latter say, the miter from ancient times (sic) in our fatherland served as an adornment not only for bishops, but even for some archimandrites” (sic!) (Ancient Russian State Department I, p. 122). In particular, on the issue of the form of the episcopal miter in Russia, they write the following: “while in the Christian East, under the domination of the Latins and Mohammedans, the external differences of the rank of hierarchs underwent changes, the Russian Church, under the Mongol yoke, kept them inviolably, in the form in which (?) they were accepted from the Byzantine “Church.” (Ibid.). From what we said above and in this case and on the basis of the historically undoubted evidence we have given, one can see how worthy of attention are the considerations we note here on the question of the time of origin of the episcopal miter and its forms, and whether this question can be considered, given the existing data, at least close to a positive solution. Service RKP. XVI century M. Synod. bib. No. 366 (680), l. 47 (Description of the RCP. Moscow. Synod. library. department. III, part I, p. 96); A. Dmitrievsky. Archbishop Arseny of Elasson and his historical memoirs. Kyiv. 1899, p. 86; Σάθα Βωγραφ. σχεδίασμα περὶ τοῦ πατρ. Ἱερεμίου β.΄ Ἐν Ἀθην. 1870, σελ. 48, 59, 76; Arch. Savva. Specify M. patriarch, sacristy p. 13; Chr. Reading, 1879, No. 11–12, p. 569. See above § 18. Hand. For rural paste 1903, vol. 1. No. 11. In 1686, the Kiev Metropolitan was “allowed” to wear a miter with a cross at the top (Description of the Kiev-Sophia Cathedral and the Kiev Hierarchy p. 200 and approx. p. 101) “for the sake of custom in that country.” Ambrose. History of the Russian hierarchy, part I, p. 328. You might be interested in: