Feedback on the essay Ph. Meyer "Die Hauturkunden fur die Geschichte der Athoskloster"

Ph. Meyer. Die Haupturkunden für die Geschichte der Athosklöster grösstentheils zum ersten Male herausgegeben und mit Einleitungen versehen von Ph. Meyer, Studiendirektor des Predigerseminars auf der Erichs-bürg. Leipzig. 1894. I–VIII+1–303. On the pages of the Byzantine Temporary we have already had occasion to note the very noticeably increased interest in the study of modern monasticism in St. Mount Athos and its historical past not only among learned Greeks and Russians, but even Germans and French. The book of Mr. Philipp Meyer, the full title of which we wrote out above, is undoubted evidence of the existence of the indicated interest among these latter. The author of this book, who has recently become interested in studying the sources of Byzantine history, while he was the pastor of the Protestant community in Smyrna (in Turkey), visited Mount Athos twice, became interested in the historical past of the Svyatogorsk monasticism and tried, as much as possible for him, to study the “most important documents” relating to this curious past, looking for these “documents” in the numerous book depositories of Athos. Mr. Meyer explains the reason for his interest in Athos monasticism by the fact that “Since the time of the Comnenos, Athos has been considered the guardian of Greek monasticism. True,” says the author, “there were also other monastic communities, such as those on Mount Latros in Miletus, Olympus in Asia Minor, Gan on the Propontis (der Ganos an der Propontis), and the still existing Meteoran monasteries in Thessaly; but for the most part the monasteries stand apart, and if many of them, such as Sumela near Trebizond, St. John the Theologian on Patmos, Holy Sepulcher Monastery (?) of St. Sava and the famous Sinai enjoyed great influence, but the monastic communities still stood far above them. But of these, except Athos and Meteor, all were half demolished by the storms of time. The latter never had widespread significance. So, all that remains is the community of 20 Athonite monasteries, which had an enormous influence on Greek monastic life; her Orthodoxy was only occasionally darkened (?); she developed mysticism to the highest degree in her hermitage; she created in idiorhythm a new form of monastic life; she retained all its other forms - Cenobial, Kellyot, monastic and hermitic (der Eremiten). Its liturgical rules are reputed to be perfect. Thus, the history of the Athonite monasteries can serve as an example in the history of Greek monasticism in general, and is itself considered a model. Anyone who knows the history of the monasteries of the Holy Mountain knows the hysteria of Greek monasticism in its most perfect form” (5.3–4). Unfortunately, the author considers the “most perfect form” of Svyatogorsk monasticism to be “a new form of monastic life - the idiorhythm”, which he extols with enthusiastic praise, characterizing, in contrast to it, the “old ideal” of Greek eastern monasticism with very unsympathetic features, since this ideal supposedly only required “to fulfill the commandments of Christ “outside the world”, through the renunciation of all natural and ethical communal forms with all their relationships." “All moral activity (alle sittliche Betätigung) for the Greek monk,” argues Mr. Meyer, “belongs to the “light”; The religious alone, with the exception of the moral, must fill his life. He wants to live in asceticism, mysticism, in the unearthly; to be united with God’s nature and through this to partake of eternal life on earth” (S. 1). Condemned “to immutability” in its desire for the specified ideal, the implementation of which the Orthodox Church not only does not prevent, since, according to Mr. Meyer, it does not know “any other ideal,” but even encourages it in every possible way, Eastern monasticism is contrasted for greater humiliation with Western monasticism, which, according to the author, pursues “the tasks of culture in the broadest sense” (ibid.). The ideal of Orthodox monasticism, which is extremely unsympathetic and completely incomprehensible to the Protestant author, deeply saddens him, and he would probably have completely refused to study its past and present if in the history of this monasticism he had not encountered a pleasant phenomenon for himself, which was the desire of the Athonite Greek monks for idiorhythm, which began on Athos in 1400. Our author is not at all embarrassed by the well-known fact that the Eastern “church, faithful to its traditions, strongly opposes idiorhythmic monasteries” (S. 2), which, according to his consciousness, “sinned many times with the decline of monastic life” in general, contributed to the “decline of community life” in particular, opened access to personal property ownership, and at the same time “luxury and secular life” (S. 2–3). G. Meyer does not deny all of the indicated abnormal phenomena in the monasticism of idiorhythms, but in defense of “this most perfect form of monastic life” he makes a reservation that all of the indicated shortcomings are inevitable phenomena in the transitional time from one order to another, from harsh discipline to complete freedom, when “the monks were not yet prepared to assimilate and process the morally highest level” (S. 3), and besides, they they are abundantly rewarded with very attractive phenomena unknown to the previous ideal of Eastern monasticism. “Together with the property,” according to Meyer, “the moral life of ‘light’, ‘culture’ enters the monastery.” “He who owns property not only in the interests of the monastery, as was hitherto, but also on his own enters into relations with the outside world.” “Interest in education and knowledge, in the tasks of culture, in nationality” penetrates into idiorhythmic monasteries (S. 2). In the main representatives of this new system of monasticism on Athos, such as in the Lavra, Vatopedi and Ivere, Mr. Meyer observed, during his travels around Athos, that “there the monks are individuals, there they are interested in knowledge, there they are engaged in domestic politics, there one encounters a delicate, dignified treatment” (S. 3), and in general today the monasteries of idiorhythms are supposedly “distinguished by a high moral imprint” (Edend.). In his fascination with idiorhythms, as “a new and most perfect form of monastic life,” the author goes so far as to believe that sooner or later the Greek people, “in their best strength,” will lead the Eastern Orthodox Church out of “passivity” and “detachment from the light,” and even assures that it is “essentially, as it were, on the way” to this. “Then the idiorhythmic monasteries will take their place in the church and the life of the people” (S. 3), the very place that rightfully belongs to them. “These are the thoughts, as far as they relate to monasticism, that guided the author in his work.” (Ebend.). From the point of view of these thoughts, Mr. Meyer divided the entire history of Athonite monasticism into two periods - the Cenobial and the Idiorythmic. We deliberately made a rather detailed analysis of the preface of the book we are examining by Mr. Meyer in order to acquaint our readers with those “thoughts” and “hopes” with which he began to study the historical past of Svyatogorsk monasticism and the “main documents” for it. From this analysis it is clear that the author, firstly, does not understand at all the ideal of Eastern monasticism, and, secondly, in his judgments about some phenomena in this monasticism, he is content with his personal random impressions, derived from acquaintance with only a very few monasteries of Mount Athos. According to the author's frank admission, he knows the Athonite monasteries: Lavra, Vatopedi and Iver (S. 3); for scientific research, he visited the Trinity cell near Kareya (S. 273) and the Xiropotamian monastery (S. 278), that is, only some Athonite monasteries and, moreover, all with an internal structure according to his favorite system of idiorhythm. From the book we do not see that Mr. Meyer looked into at least one Athonite monastery with a different structure - according to the Kinoviat system, which he does not like so much. It is not surprising, therefore, that in his judgment about modern Athonite idiorhythms there is a lot of subjective, biased and one-sidedness. And in the cinenial monasteries of Svyatogorsk, as we know, there are individuals who are interested in “knowledge” and are not unknown even in literature (see our book: “Russians on Athos”, St. Petersburg, 1895, pp. 326–331; Compare: History of Athos, Ave. Porfiry, part III, pp. 528–534, St. Petersburg, 1892). The monks of these monasteries are attentive, polite and helpful in their dealings with visitors to their monasteries and serve the latter selflessly, knowing no rest day or night, solely for the sake of the feat of obedience. The archondaric idiorhythm and his assistant, without “baksheesh,” are very stingy with treats, and are not particularly cordial in receiving visitors. Who visited St. Mount Athos for scientific purposes, he knows well that it is incomparably easier and quicker to gain access to study in the libraries of cinenial monasteries than of idiorhythms, where the library key is at the uncontrolled disposal of the librarian, who is very often absent from the monastery on business and for various reasons. As for interest in “national politics,” it is equally inherent in both monasteries. Proof of this can be the chapter of the book we are examining entitled: “Der Kampf der Nationalitäten auf dem Athos” (S. 88–99), in which the characters are representatives of both monasteries. In the absence of interest in “national politics,” there could not have been those sad phenomena that St. Mount Athos, and which are only briefly described in this chapter of this book. Attesting the moral life of the monks of the idiorhythmic monasteries of our time with excellent praise, Mr. Meyer himself says that these monasteries in former times sinned “many times with the decline of monastic life,” that they were penetrated by a passion “for luxury and secular life,” the necessary companions of which are vices alien to true monasticism - greed, bribery, untruths and grave offenses against the innocent poor. It was in vain that Mr. Meyer did not take a closer look at the daily sybaritic life of the current proestos of Athonite idiorhythms, enjoyed by young beardless dokims, at the comfortable atmosphere of their cells. It was in vain that he did not look into the Kinoto decisions, which were repeatedly aimed at eliminating the well-recognized evil and each time unsuccessfully, this was the removal from Athos of beardless youths, secular merchants, etc., before he decided to attest that the monasteries of idiorhythms are now “distinguished by a high moral imprint.” And how and how does the author explain that significant fact in the life of the Holy Mountain monastics that the monasteries, poorly provided for materially, flourish on Athos, even being reborn from the ashes (for example, the Simono-Petersky Monastery), while the rich and famous idiorhythmic monasteries fall into desolation and dilapidation (for example, Hilandar), and sometimes are close to closure) (as, for example, in recent times Patriarchal Stavro-Nikita Monastery)? All these are facts that it would be useful for an enthusiastic admirer of the Athonite idiorhythmic monasteries to ponder... The entire book, except for the preface, consists of two sections. The content of the first, one might say, introductory section consists of only three chapters of a general nature. In the first chapter, the author groups the rules of the monastic life of St. Basil the Great, whom he considers "the founder of Greek monasticism in the Cinobian form" (S. 6); in the second, he reviews the legislation regarding monasticism of the Byzantine emperor Justinian I, who recognized the “cinnovial form” as its state significance (S. 11), without touching at all, with the exception of the decrees of Emperor Leo the Wise (886–911), later legislation on the same subject and limiting himself to one simple statement that “the legislation of later emperors did not deviate from the paths of Justinian” (S. 14), and in the third he clarifies “the significance of the Studite monastery for Greek monasticism in the Middle Ages” (S. 15). Of greatest interest to the reader is this last third chapter, in which the author introduces the historical fate of the studio charter in the east 1 and even within our fatherland. True, there is nothing new or original in this chapter; the author mostly repeats familiar things. He says, for example, that Theodore the Studite developed the rules of cinenial monastic life down to the smallest detail (ibid.), he considers his “Διαϑήκη” to be a completely independent work, and “Ὑποτύπωσις” only “more likely” attributes it to this father, and then only in its “basis” (in ihrer Grundlage) (S. 16), claims that St. Athanasius of Athos was the first(?) to use the rules of St. Theodore the Studite in his “Ὑποτύπωσις’e” and even in “Τυπικὸν ἤτοι Κανονικόν”, etc. Only his idea that the rules of St. Athanasius of Athos “became the standard for other Athonite monasteries in general” (ibid.), but it is hardly possible to agree with this idea, since we have no data for such a statement. We personally, on the contrary, have some reason to think that, for example, in the Hilandar Athos Monastery, in liturgical and monastic practice, they used their charter, which was given to it by its founder Savva the Serbian, borrowing it from the Evergetid Monastery of Constantinople 2. There are some other data on the basis of which it can be assumed that the rules of St. Athanasius of Athos in the Athonite monasteries, except for the Lavra, did not matter; they were guided by their own special independent statutes. One can, perhaps, assume that the above rules had practical significance in Iver, as a monastery that was in constant and living spiritual communion with the Lavra of St. Athanasius of Athos. Proving the dependence of the “Ὑποτύπωσις” of St. Athanasius of Athos from the “Ὑποτύπωσις” of St. Theodore the Studite by comparing homogeneous rules in both monuments (S. 17–18), Mr. Meyer does not pay any attention to major shortcomings 3 in the text “Ὑποτύπωσις’a” by St. Theodore the Studite, published by Cardinal Angel Mai (Novae patrum bibliothecae t. V, 1849. pag. 111–125) and reprinted by Min in the 99th volume of his “Patrolog. curs, complete." These shortcomings are so significant that in some places the very dependence of one monument on another becomes very doubtful. The second section of Mr. Meyer’s book is devoted to “the development of Svyatogorsk monasticism before the introduction of the idiorhythmic system” (S. 22–56). The content of this section consists of the following chapters: a) the life of St. Athanasius of Athos and his founding of the Lavra on Athos, b) the internal structure of life in this monastery and c) in other Svyatogorsk monasteries, d) the ordering of their life, with the help of the Typikon of Emperor Constantine Monomakh, e) the time of the Komnenos in the history of Athonite monasticism, f) the time of the Crusaders, g) the time of the subjugation of St. Mountains to the Patriarch of Constantinople and h) a note about the cell of St. Sava the Serbian near Karea and about his Typikon. In the third section, the author reviews the history of Athonite monasticism “from the appearance of the idiorhythm in monasteries to our time” (S. 57–99). This includes chapters: a) the introduction of an idiorhythmic system of monastic life on Athos, b) the time of the decline of Athonite monasticism, c) the beginning of its revival, d) theological disputes in the 18th century: about the commemoration of the dead, about the communion of St. Mystery, e) a new system of monastic life on St. Grief is idiorhythmic and f) the struggle of nationalities on Mount Athos. From a brief review of the contents of this book, it is clearly clear that a thoroughness, completeness, and comprehensive study of all the issues raised in it on seventy-nine pages cannot be demanded from the author, and we would be completely satisfied if we found here the accuracy, clarity of presentation and real historical truth desired in such publications. To our deep regret, the indicated qualities do not constitute the property of Mr. Meyer’s book to the proper extent. The fact is that he took up the study of the history of Athos without the necessary preparation, without first familiarizing himself with the rich literature of his chosen subject in Russian, French and even Greek. The author’s guidance in finding written sources for the history of Athos in libraries, in his words, was mainly “the still unprinted (now published in English) 4 catalog of Athonite manuscripts by Professor Lambros of the University of Athens, processed, according to Mr. Meyer, with great accuracy” (mit grosser Genauigkeit) (S. 5), although in reality, as can be judged from the first part of this catalog in Greek published by the same professor, 5 he is very far from the perfections attributed to him. In essence, the aids were: 1) superficially and with big errors, a book compiled by the Constantinople scientist Manuel Gideon: “Ὁ Ἄϑως”, called for some reason by Mr. Meyer “excellent” (ibid.) and 2) sources of even more dubious merit - Greek Constantinople newspapers, Athonite guidebooks, the famous book of a “lover of truth” written about the process in Panteleimon Monastery, etc. It is not surprising, therefore, at all, that under the influence of these sources and manuals, the book we are examining included not only erroneous information, but positive fables, invented in the heat of passionate newspaper polemics. So, for example, in the chapter: “struggle of nationalities” there are lines apparently written from the words of Constantinople publicists in 1877, who were very hostile towards Russian monks on Athos. About the late abbot of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery, Archimandrite Macarius (Sushkin), a native of the city of Tula, Mr. Meyer expresses that he “was a friend of the Russians, if not a real Russian” (ein Russenfreund, wenn nicht ein Russe selbst) (S. 95): the words are in any case inaccurate. As for the brevity noted above in the history of Athos by Mr. Meyer, we have no right to make demands on him in this regard, since he made the necessary reservation about this. “Other things that are known,” he writes in the preface to his book, “I avoided; for others, I could refer to my article in a periodical on church history; for others, which the documents do not touch on, or what they touch on briefly, I had to explain in more detail. I also tried to point out the main lines of connection (Hauptverbindungslinien) with the general history of Greek monasticism” (S. 4–5). In a word, the purpose of publishing the book we are examining is to publish “the main documents for the history of Athos,” and its historical essays, distributed among the chapters listed above, are only brief comments on the published documents. By recommending his work from this point of view, and expressing the hope that it will be satisfactory in this respect, the author thereby obliges critics to evaluate his work only from the appropriate point of view. Indeed, 24 issues of “the most important documents for the history of Athos”, published by Mr. Meyer and occupying more than half of his book (S. 102–269) of its entire volume, and without any comments to them can be considered a valuable contribution to church historical science. And therefore, it is not at all surprising that abroad and even here in Russia 6 the appearance of this book was met with very sympathy. We, however, cannot share the enthusiasm lavished on Mr. Meyer, since the documents published by him, with a few exceptions, either do not represent novelty and are known in historical literature from other works, or are themselves of little scientific value. For example, document No. 1 “Τυπικὸν ἤτοι Κανονικὸν τοῦ ὁσίου καὶ ϑεοφόρου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἀϑανασίου τοῦ ἐν τῷ Ἄϑω” was already known from the book of Mr. Manuel Gideon, who published it according to the Iveron manuscript in the book “Ὀ Ἄϑως” 1884 ἐν Κωνσταντ., and documents No. 2 and No. 3, the origin of which is associated with the name of the same Venerable Athanasius of Athos, were published in our literature in Russian translation 7 , however, with some passes, by the late rector of our mission in Jerusalem, Archimandrite Antonin 8; documents No. 4, No. 5 and No. 6 were printed by Ave. Porfiry Uspensky in his “History of Athos”, part 3, department. 1, Kyiv. 1877, pp. 265–271, 277–289 and 355–377; in "Ἀϑωνιάς" Δ. Πίστη "Περιγραφικὴ ἱστορία τοῦ ἁγίου ὄρους Ἄϑω." Ἐν Θεσσαλον. 1870. σελ. 32–42 and in “Ὁ Ἄϑως” of Gideon Manuel σελ. 101–106; document No. 7, containing a translation into Greek of the statute of St. Savva of Serbia for the Karean cell, was printed in the original many times 9; documents No. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 20 have already been published by Ave. Porfiry Uspensky in the continuation of the “History of Athos” (publication of the Academy of Sciences) part 3, department. 2, St. Petersburg. 1892 at No. 3 (pp. 619–620), No. 10 (pp. 650–654), No. 22 10 (p. 673), No. 22 (pp. 667–673), No. 24 (pp. 675–685), No. 90 (pp. 1058–1061) and No. 92 11 (pp. 1062–1067), documents No. 19 were published by the same publisher in his “Second Journey to St. Mount Athos” M. 1880, pp. 482–485, but with the difference against Mr. Meyer’s edition that the first letter (A) is printed in abbreviation, the second (B) in its entirety and the fourth (D) with an omission, (according to Meyer S. 237), in 30 lines, the third letter (C) and fifth (E) by Ave. Porfiry are completely omitted. Regarding the 1875 letter of Patriarch Joachim of Constantinople No. 24, which the late Archimandrite of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery Macarius (Sushkin) was approved by the abbot of the said monastery, Mr. Meyer directly stated that he copied it from the printed original (aus dem Druck abgeschrieben) of the Constantinople edition (S. 279). Thus, the new, unpublished documents, unless we are mistaken, in Mr. Meyer’s book are 1) the letter of the Patriarch of Constantinople Joachim I (1498–1502, 1505–1506) of 1498 regarding the ordination of the archpriest of the Holy Mountain and the abbot of the Lavra as the patriarch of the ecumenical throne and regarding the non-admission to St. Mountain of beardless youths No. 13:2) excerpts from the Iveron manuscript of the 16th century. No. 595, which contains the instructions of the monk Pachomius regarding monastic hostels on Athos, under No. 14: 3) a letter from a certain hieromonk Dionysius to the protate of Kareia with denunciations against the luxurious non-monastic life of the monks of St. Mountain, which caused the need for large funds and the need through this to borrow for high interest from the monks of the same Mountain, under No. 16: 4) extracted from a 17th century manuscript. No. 208 of the Iveron Library with instructions on life, behavior and spiritual exercises for monks-Kelliots under No. 17:5) reliable stories of the elders about revelations and miracles that happened on Athos, from the Xyropotamian Codex of the 18th century. No. 97 under No. 18:6) letter of the Patriarch of Constantinople Theodosius II (1769–1773) to the monks of St. Mountains with the conviction to stop disputes about commemorations and a letter from the Patriarch of Constantinople Gabriel IV (1780–1784), dated 1781, authorizing the priesthood of Hieromonk Athanasius (Ἀϑανάσιος ὁ Πάριος), under No. 19:7) charter for the monastery of the Forerunner, compiled by the Iversky Kyriarchic Monastery in 1788, under No. 21: 8) a letter from the Patriarch of Constantinople Sophronius II (now living Patriarch of Alexandria) in 1864, aimed at regulating the relations of the Kelliots to the monasteries, on the lands of which they, according to a well-known agreement, settled under No. 22, and 9) samples of “homologies”, or of treaty letters concluded on certain conditions even now between the monasteries and their kelliots and kaviots or kalivites, under No. 28. All nine numbers indicated by us, again published by the city. Meyer's documents, as can be seen from a brief review of their contents, can be useful material for the complete history of Svyatogorsk monasticism, but all of them, with the possible exception of the charters of the Patriarchs of Constantinople Joachim I, Sophronius II and partly Theodosius II, in no case can any longer lay claim to the title of its “main documents” (die Haupturkunden). Without these documents, this story would have lost little of its integrity and even thoroughness. This is, on the one hand. On the other hand, in our Russian historical science, examples of “homologies”, characteristic examples of visions and miracles that occurred on Athos, were known a long time ago from the “First Journey to the Athos Monasteries and Hermitages” Kyiv. 1877, part 1, dept. 1, pp. 266–269 and from “History of Athos” part 3, dep. 1, pp. 166, 167, etc. by His Grace Porfiry Uspensky. Parallel publications of the same documents, however, are possible not only in two completely different literatures, of which one, that is, German, does not want to recognize the other, even in the same literature. In this case, scientific criticism usually gives preference to the edition that was made with more energy in collecting the best originals for the published monuments, unless, of course, their autographs themselves cannot be found, and if the texts found by the publisher are subjected to comprehensive, strictly critical study before their appearance in the light of God. Considering the book under review by Mr. Meyer in the first respect, we must say that it stands little higher than other similar publications in our Russian and Greek literature. No matter how much Mr. Meyer praises the hospitality of the Athonite idiorhythmic monasteries and their “delicate, dignified treatment,” nevertheless, from his book it is not clear that the monks of these monasteries treated him with more confidence than other foreign travelers to St. Grief, and the doors of their treasured skeuophilacia and libraries opened wide before him. On the contrary, from the book of Mr. Meyer we see clearly that he, like other scientists, did not have access to the main repository of the most important documents of the Svyatogorsk monasticism - the archive of the Kareisk protat, and from the monastic libraries he became well acquainted with their treasures only in Iver, in the Lavra of St. Athanasius of Athos and partly in Xiropotamus, having published from the manuscripts of the latter one document No. 18. The main source from which he extracted the most important documents for the history of Athonite monasticism, a manuscript of very ancient origin served (the charter, for example, of Emperor John Tzimisces was copied here from the original (ἐκ τοῦ ἰδιου πρωτοτύπου) only in 1784 on October 14), found by the publisher in cells of St. Trinity near Kareya (S. 273). Because of this, it is quite understandable that Mr. Meyer had few documents published in the originals. The latter include the chrisovul of Emperor Andronicus under No. 9, the chrisovul of Emperor Manuel under No. 12, the charter of the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah II 12 under No. 15, the charter of the Iveron Skete of the Baptist under No. 21 and samples of “homologies” under No. 23; here we can include the first three documents and excerpts from manuscripts No. 14, No. 17 and No. 18, and all other documents were borrowed from the manuscripts of Iver, the Lavra of St. Athanasius and the cells of St. Trinity near Kareya. But regarding the documents we have just listed, published from the originals, we consider it necessary to make some reservations. Firstly, the chrisovules of the emperors Andronicus and Manuel were made public by the Reverend. Porfiry Uspensky, based on the same originals that Mr. Meyer used for his book, but without an exact indication of this important circumstance. Secondly, Mr. Meyer is not always accurate, as one might expect from him, in determining the chronology of the manuscripts from which he publishes documents, and sometimes gives preference to ancient manuscripts and later ones with exact dates, of rather dubious origin. For example, document No. 6 “Διήγησις μερικὴ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν Ἀλεξίου βασιλέως καὶ Νικολάου πατριάρχου, γινόμενη κατὰ διαφόρους καιρούς” published by Mr. Meyer (S. 163–184 Comp. Ave. Porfiry History of Athos, part 3, department 1, pp. 355–377) according to the Iveron manuscript, which he considers to be of origin no earlier than around the 15th century (nicht vor dem 15 Jahrhundert geschrieben) (S. 274). But since the language of this document in its features is close, in his opinion, “to folk Greek,” he gives preference to the “best example of the text,” which he found in the already known codex of 1784 of the Holy Trinity Cell near Kareya (S. 274). St. Porfiry acted completely differently, finding in the Iveron collection, which he calls the “small Pandect” (Πανϑέκτης) in contrast to another collection of the same library - the “Great Pandect” - the exact chronological date of February 3, 1514. (First trip to Athonite monastery and monasteries, part 1, part 2, p. 204 sn. 286). Our scientist gave complete preference to the collection of 1514 and published the text of this curious document based on it. Hence the difference in the order of the components of the same document in the editions of Mr. Meyer and others. Porfiry. We found a text of this document completely similar to Iversky-Porfiryevsky in the 15th century manuscript of the Moscow Synodal Library No. 421 (Arch. Vladimir. Systematic description of the RKP. Moscow Synodal Library M. 1894, part 1, pp. 634–635), as well as in Meyer’s predecessors in "Ἀϑωνιάς" Δ. Πίστη σελ. 32–42 and in “Ὁ Ἄϑως” by Manuel Gideon σελ. 101–106. In view of such a venerable antiquity of the manuscripts in which the text of document No. 6, published by Mr. Meyer based on the only 1784 manuscript of the Holy Trinity Cell, is found, we, until his autographs are found, do not dare to follow Mr. Meyer and do not dare to recognize the text published by him as “the best.” We admit, we are not at all interested in the postscript in the manuscript of the Holy Trinity Cell “ἀντιγραφὲν ἐκ τοῦ ἰδίου πρωτοτύπου ἀπαραλλάκτως ”(S. 273), which we are not averse to even considering as a stereotype, or a simple mechanical postscript of the scribe. Thus, in the end, in comparison with similar publications, Mr. Meyer’s new book, we recognize only the advantage that for the first time in it, in its entirety and after a thorough check of the texts, if not with autographs, then from manuscripts very close to the time of their origin, the works of the founder of the Lavra and the organizer of the Athonite monasticism, St. Athanasius of Athos, are published. With the name of St. Athanasius, three works are known in science, now published in Mr. Meyer’s book under the first three numbers with the following titles: a) b) Ἡ διατύπωσις τοῦ ὁσίου καὶ μακαρίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἀϑανασίου and s) καταστάσεως τῆς λαύρας τοῦ ὁσίου Ἀϑανασίου). The last article in the manuscripts does not have an inscription; it was compiled artificially by the publisher in imitation of the work of St. Theodore the Studite, with whom this article has great similarities both in content and even presentation. G. Meyer based his edition of the works of St. Athanasius of Athos on the text of the Iveron manuscript of the 16th century. No. 754, which, as we know, Mr. Manuel Gideon had at hand, who for the first time promulgated the Typikon of this father, but first compared it with texts of more ancient times in the Lavra of St. Athanasius. Thus, Mr. Meyer compared the first document “Τυπικὸν ἤτοι Κανονικόν” with the list of the “Canonikon” of 1814, which he calls the “official list” (officielle Abschrift des Kanonikon) (S. 271) precisely because under its text he found the much-talking note “Ἴσον ἀπαράλλακτον τῆς ἱερᾶς διαϑήκης τοῦ ϑεοφόρου πατρὸς ἡμῶν ἁγίου Ἀϑανασίου... ἥτις διὰ τὴν παλαιότητα τῆς γραφῆς ἤδη σχεδὸν εἰς τὸ φϑαρῆναι ἐπείγετο, ὅϑεν διὰ προτροπῆς τινὸς μοναχοῦ, τοῦ διδασκάλου λέγω τὴν κλῆσιν Προκοπίου ἐγράφη" κ. τ. λ. (ibid.). Then, with the help of “his friend,” the secretary of the Karei protate, hieromonk of the Lavra, St. Athanasius, Fr. Chrysostomos, both the first document and the other two, he checked according to two old codes of the 13th and 11th centuries, which are usually “not shown to anyone” and are jealously guarded by the fathers of the Lavra from the eyes of the curious in the treasured skevophilaky (S. 272). The result of the last check was the complete conviction of Mr. Meyer that the Iveron text is dependent on the first codex of the 11th century, and the Lavra text of 1814 is dependent on the second codex of the early 11th century, or the autograph of St. Athanasius. As for Ὑποτύπωσις’a, its text in the Iveron and Lavra manuscripts of 1814 was borrowed from the first codex of the 11th century (S. 272–273). The choice of text for the three works of St. Athanasius was thus clear to Mr. Meyer, and he, without any hesitation, printed it from the Lavra manuscript of 1814, noting in the footnotes the variants and from the Iveron manuscript, as reproduced by Mr. Manuel Gideon, with the omission of only some notes in the margins and divisions into chapters. Mr. Meyer was also encouraged to adhere to the text of the Lavra Manuscript of 1814 by the fact that the text, for example, of the “Canon” of St. Athanasius in this manuscript is closer to the text of the Ὑποτύπωσις by St. Theodore the Studite according to Min’s edition than in the Iveron manuscript of the 16th century. (S. 271). We could recognize Mr. Meyer’s method in publishing the texts of the works of St. Athanasius of Athos as quite scientific and serious if he eliminated the misunderstandings that arise in the reader when reading the pages devoted to these most important documents from the history of the Holy Mountain monasticism. Firstly, for us, who are personally familiar with Fr. Chrysostom, his competence in paleography seems very doubtful, since he has not yet declared himself in science, and yet Mr. Meyer not only treats with complete confidence the description made by “his friend” of the two ancient codes of the Lavra skevophilaky, but then, as we will see below, he bases on it his considerations regarding the time of origin of these works from the hands of St. Athanasius (S. 273). Secondly, Fr. Chrysostom did not pay due attention to the preservation of the oldest codex of skevophilakia, the beginning of the 11th century, which he recognized as the autograph of St. Athanasius, and Mr. Meyer did not indicate to us how this should have been done, in what relation this code of skevophilaky stands to the original from which the “official” list of the Canonikon or Typikon was made and about which the signature of 1814 says that Διαϑήκη of St. Athanasius “διὰ τὴν παλαιότητα "(S. 271). Thirdly, the publisher did not clarify with sufficient completeness and thoroughness why Mr. Meyer decided to consider the Lavra list of the “Canonicon” of 1814 “official”. The above signature under this list (Ἴσον ἀπαράλλακτον τῆς ἱερᾶς διαϑήκης κ. τ. λ.) and its similarity to the text Ὑποτύπωσις’a by St. Theodore the Studite in Min’s edition – the grounds for this are insufficient and unconvincing. Finally, due to the incompleteness of the description of all the lists containing the works of St. Athanasius of Athos, in Mr. Meyer’s book the very important question of the signatures under the autographs, or “official” lists of the wills of St. Athanasius, remained completely unclear for us. These signatures are not mentioned at all when describing the Lavra manuscripts, nor by Mr. Meyer, nor “his friend” Fr. Chrysostom, but the late Fr. Archimandrite Antonin 14 and Manuel Gideon 15 repeatedly talk about them, and their presence in the lists of wills, in our opinion, gives the character of authenticity to the document and was quite appropriate and natural. Understanding very well the importance of the “testaments” of St. Athanasius of Athos for the history of the Holy Mountain monasticism, Mr. Meyer focused with great attention on the question of the time of origin or writing of St. the father of three of his works and made an attempt to give a more or less accurate definition of him, although, as we will see now, not everywhere with the same success. Document No. 1 “Τυπικὸν ἤτοι Κανονικόν” Mr. Meyer considers it to have been written at the beginning of 970, because it is about John Tzimiskes (969–975), who ascended the Byzantine throne after the assassination of Emperor Nicephorus in 969 on December 16 Phocas, it is said, is already about the reigning emperor (S. 119:273) - and is not even averse to considering the death of the latter as the reason for writing the Typikon. Διατύπωσις, printed under No. 2, was written, in his opinion, after the death of the emperors Nicephorus and John, under their successor Basil II (975–1025) Porphyrogenitus, who confirmed the golden letters of his predecessors, i.e., close to the time of the death of the organizer of Athonite monasticism, St. Athanasius, who died, according to Meyer, between 997 and 1011. Document No. 3, called Ὑποτύπωσις by the publisher, he leaves without an exact definition of the time of its origin and expresses doubt about it: whether this document came from the hands of the Rev. Athanasius in the form in which we read it in the “official list” of 1814, or did it suffer later changes and layers? The publisher is confused by what, in his opinion, is an important circumstance that Ὑποτύττωσις is completely absent from the ancient code of Lavra skevophilaky, recognized by Fr. Chrysostomos for the autograph of St. Athanasius (S. 273). Agreeing in general with the conclusion of Mr. Meyer on the question of the time of origin of the first two documents, we, however, do not find any grounds for the first of these documents to be dated to the death of Emperor Nicephorus Phocas, or to see in his death the reason for writing the Canonikon, and the second to be considered, so to speak, the dying will of St. Athanasius of Athos. The death of the latter, as is known, was unexpected. He died under the arches of the newly built cathedral monastery church that fell on him and his companions. In particular, regarding the motivations for compiling “τὴν παροῆσαν ἔγγραφον ὑπόμνησιν, διαϑήκης ἐπέχουσαν τύπον, μᾶλλον δὲ μυστικὴν οὖσαν διατύπωσιν ἔγγραφόν τε καὶ ἐνυπόγραφον" (S. 123), at the beginning of Διατύπωσις', St. Athanasius directly states that he was motivated by “thoughts about the unknown hour of death” (τὸ τοῦ ϑανάτου ἄδηλον τέλος), “mainly when traveling by sea, for the sake of shipwrecks that often happen, according to the incomprehensible destinies of God” (ibid.). From here, therefore, it is clear that its compiler, although he was already in venerable old age (συγγηράσαντα) (S. 124), was still vigorous in body (ἔτι ζῶντος ἐμοῦ) (S. 123) and was preparing for new voyages on the sea, which was good for him familiar, thanks to repeated travels on the affairs of his Lavra to Constantinople. Consequently, about the Διατύπωσις of St. Athanasius, it is enough to say that it was written by him after 975, when Basil II the Porphyrogenitus, nicknamed the Bulgarian Slayer, occupied the Byzantine throne. As for the third document, called “Ὑποτύπωσις” by Meyer, it was written by St. Athanasius undoubtedly earlier than the first two. In our opinion, Ὑποτύπωσις is clearly and definitely spoken of both in the “Canon” or Typikon and in the Διατύπωσις’. The following words of the Typikon: “Κοινῶς ἐσϑίειν παρεγγυόμεϑα τοὺς οὓτως ἡνωμένους, κοινὴν τὴν πᾶσαν ἀκολουϑίαν ἐπιτελεῖν ἐν τῇ ἁγίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκκλησίᾳ τὴν τε νυκτερινὴν καὶ ἡμερινήν, καϑὼς ἔργῳ αὐτοῖς "We do not hesitate to refer to Ὑποτύπωσις’у, since they fully and thoroughly characterize the content of this monument. Even more clearly and definitely it is said about it, even indicating the nature of its origin, in Διατύπωσις’e. “I bequeath,” we read here, “to observe in St. Church of God and in the meal, and in all other services, the rules, both written and unwritten ἐγγράφως ἐκτεϑέντας καὶ ἀγράφως παραδοϑέντας ἔν τε τῇ ἁγίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκκλησίᾳ, καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀριστηρίῳ, καὶ ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἄλλαις διακονίαις), which the holy and God-bearing fathers laid down, and we, unworthy, borrowed from their scriptures and traditions in parts and handed them over as a rule and example (ἐκ τῆς ἐκείνων γραφῆς ????? καὶ τύπον τῆς καϑ’ ἡμᾶς λαύρας) to our Lavra” (S. 124). The Ὑποτύπωσις of St. Athanasius of Athos, as Mr. Meyer very convincingly proved with a number of comparisons in the first part of his book (S. 17–18), was written under the strong influence of the Ὑποτύπωσις’a attributed to St. Theodore the Studite, and in content it is precisely the statute (τοὺς τύπους) or a collection of rules regarding the order of “worship in St. church”, the behavior of the monks “at meals” (ἐν τῷ ἀριστηρίῳ) and during their performance of various kinds of obediences (ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἄλλαις διακονίαις), that is, it embraces everything that now constitutes the content of document No. 3. As for the existing differences and disagreements in both Ὑποτύπωσις’s known to us, they must be attributed to the share of that “tradition” (παραδόσεως), from which, in addition to the “scriptures”, St. Athanasius drew the rules for the charter of the foundation he founded laurels. It seems to us that the third document, the origin of which is associated with St. Athanasius of Athos, and which does not have a direct inscription or title in the manuscripts, should not be called Ὑποτύπωσις’om, as Mr. Meyer did, borrowing the name from a similar article by St. Theodore the Studite, but much more correctly and closer to the truth: "Κανὼν καὶ τύπος." This name is given to this article and, moreover, more than once (S. 124, 123:113) by the compiler himself, St. Athanasius of Athos and his reliable biographer 17, a disciple of Elder Anthony (S. 129), who, in turn, was the most devoted and beloved student of the venerable founder of the Lavra (τῷ διαδόχῳ αὐτοῦ [i.e. Athanasius Ave.] τούτῳ δὴ τῷ νῦν ἐμῷ διδασκάλῳ, ὃς Ἀντώνιος κέκληται) 18 . This name for the monument, which, according to the compiler, was supposed to regulate the liturgical and internal monastery structure in the Lavra he founded, is quite suitable and decent “Τύπος” is called the well-known “testament” of St. Savva the Sanctified (see our “Travel to the East and its scientific results.” Kyiv. 1890, p. 179), very similar in content to the document in question. “Κανὼν περὶ βρώσεως καὶ πόσεως” is given in 1161 to the Nikolo-Kazulian monastery (in Otranto) by its abbot monk Nicholas (Description of the liturgical rkp. stored in the right east, vol. 1, part. 1, p. 818). In a word: Κανών or Κανονάοιον Κανὼν or Κανονάριον, undoubtedly, was the name of the charter of the church service of the Great Church of Constantinople (ibid. p. 110, 172:193). In a word, the name we are establishing for the third document, from the point of view of liturgical terminology, should not confuse us in the least, since it was well known in ancient Byzantine writing and does not represent anything unusual. When did the Rev. leave his hands? Athanasius of Athos this “Κανὼν” or “τύπος”, or, as Mr. Meyer calls him, “Ὑποτύπωσις?” The late St. Porfiry Uspensky 19 believes that the time of its composition can be dated back to either 964 or 965, when St. Athanasius, wanting to strengthen the well-being of his monastery, presented a note to Tsar Nicephorus Phokes, setting out in it, among other things, the full charter (καϑόλον διάταξιν) her, and when this king not only approved this charter (ἐπιβεβαιῶν), but even issued a special chrisovullah (χρυσοβούλλιον), with which he donated 244 gold coins (νομίσματα) to the monastery from the income of the island of Limnos (S. 114–115, 107, 109:113). A reliable biographer of St. Athanasius, whom we have no sufficient reason to distrust 20, dates the time of compilation of the Κανὼν’a, or more precisely, the receipt of the indicated 244 gold coins for the Lavra to 961 = 6469 21, i.e. to an even earlier time. The matter, it seems to us, is quite natural for the organizer of monastic life on St. Woe to him who wanted to organize it in all respects on a different basis than those practiced before him - to begin his reforms with precise regulation to the smallest detail of the rules (κανὼν) regarding the liturgical order in the monastery, the internal mutual relations between the abbot and his assistants, elected officials and simple ordinary monks who decided to live according to the rules of strict communal life (κοινοβία) and regarding their everyday ordinary life, which is now before us the third document according to Mr. Meyer’s edition. The fact that confuses the publisher is that Κανὼν or “τύπος” is not in the ancient codex of the early 11th century of the Lavra skevophilaky, which he recognizes, according to Fr. Chrysostomos, for the autograph of the monk, even if we rely on the testimony of Mr. Meyer’s “friend,” in our opinion, also speaks for the fact that this work of St. Athanasius came out of his hands much earlier than the others, and therefore naturally did not find a place in the said codex. The Lavra skevophilakia contains the last two works of St. Athanasius, expressing both the will of the monastery of the Lavra in the event of death and quite often directly called his “testament” (διαϑήκη), and in the biography even directly “the last testament”, and as such, naturally, could be bound into one collection and tightly, tightly, like priceless treasures, they were always kept secret, far from the gaze of idle curiosity. His “Κανὼν or τύπος”, given as a guide to the abbot and brethren, had a completely different purpose: they were guided by him in the church, at meals, in cells and in every difficult case; They were obliged to know it almost by heart, and for this it was their duty to “always read it (πάντοτε ἐν τῇ συνοδίᾳ ἀναγινώσκεσϑαι) in the assembly, so that none of the brethren would be excused by ignorance” (S. 140). Consequently, “Κανὼν” or, as St. Athanasius expresses it in this case, “πάντα τὰ παρ’ ἡμῶν κανόνισϑέντα” (ibid.), should not lie in skevophilakia, but should always be in plain sight, before the eyes of everyone. Nothing can be surprising if this monument, which had such wide practical use in the Lavra for so many centuries, has not survived in the autograph to our time, or, as the Lavra list of 1814 puts it, “σχεδὸν εἰς τὸ φϑαρῆναι ἐπείγετο.” The question of in what form the “Κανὼν or τύπος” of St. Athanasius has come down to us is, in our opinion, easily and in a positive sense. We have no doubt that we have it in the very form in which it came from the pen of its author. A clear proof of this can be seen in what was recently published by Prof. St. Petersburg University I.V. Pomyalovsky “The Life of St. Athanasius of Athos” based on a manuscript of the 11th century. This life belongs, as we said, to a person who had every opportunity to collect the most reliable information about the patron of the Lavra from his elder and mentor Anthony, a friend of St. Athanasius, and to whom all the most important documents of the Lavra were accessible and well known. We consider it unnecessary in this case to make comparisons of texts from “Κανὼν’а” and the newly published life of the saint, but we cannot help but point out to our readers on p. 34–36 of this life as an example, so that they can personally verify that the detailed analysis of “Κανὼν’a” made by the compiler of the life, and in places even the literal words of the original, completely coincides with our understanding of this document, as it now appears before us in the book being analyzed by Mr. Meyer. The acquaintance of the author of the biography of St. Athanasius with his “Κανὼν’om” and other works of this father is reflected very often on other pages of his accurate and thorough work (ibid., p. 95, etc.). St. Athanasius could not tolerate major changes and additions to “Κανὼν” if only because he was, as we said, in front of everyone, therefore, under the strict control of the brotherhood. Here, if we can talk about changes in “Κανὼν”, then we need to keep in mind qualitative changes on the part of the scribes, and not quantitative ones in the sense of adding or abbreviating it. But what distinguishes Mr. Meyer’s book from a number of similar publications is not so much the careful search for autographs for the documents he published, since for this he, like his colleagues, was not in happy and exceptional circumstances during his trip to St. Woe, how much serious critical work he did on the text of these documents. His so-called “text-critical notes” to the documents (S. 270–279) show that he directed his main attention to this side of his work, revealing in it a thorough philological preparation and a fairly correct understanding and ability to handle Greek texts of various eras. Knowing well that “corrections of a medieval text into ancient Greek would be artificial anachronisms,” Mr. Meyer, when publishing his documents, tried “if possible to leave the text found in the manuscript as it appears to be the best in comparison” (S. 270). But, in his choice of texts, he, unfortunately, was not always strictly consistent. For example, let us point to document No. 4, the contents of the Typikon of Emperor John Tzimiskes. Mr. Meyer borrows its text from the Iberian manuscript of the 16th century. No. 754 and from the manuscript of the Holy Trinity Cell near Kareya in 1784 with a note at the end: “ἀντιγραφὲν (Τυπικὸν) ἐκ τοῦ ἰδίου πρωτοτύπου ἀπαραλλάκτως”, since in both of these codes the text, in his opinion, is equivalent (ziemlich gleichwertig), leaving at the same time almost without any attention the “dubious” text of this document in the bad book 22 “Ἀϑωνιάς” (S. 273–274). Mr. Meyer acts completely differently in relation to document No. 5, which contains the Typikon of Emperor Constantine Monomakh. Having found it in the same manuscripts and in the same book “Ἀϑωνιάς” as the previous document, and everywhere “with a spoiled language”, although in the same edition, he considers the conclusion (ἐπίλογος) in “Ἀϑωνιάς” better than in the manuscripts copied, in his opinion, from the originals since this conclusion is not shortened here. “Der Schluss in der Athonias,” writes Meyer, “ist sogar besser, er ist nicht gekürzt, wie in den Handschriften” (S. 274). The document is published, however, according to manuscripts, and the discrepancies in “Ἀϑωνιάς” were not even included in the variants. In this way, Mr. Meyer continues his critical work on the text further, when publishing other documents. Of course, one can disagree with the publisher in preferring one text over another, argue about their comparative merit in terms of language, and a true inveterate philologist can criticize the publisher’s taste and his philological competence, but one can never refuse to take seriously the work he has planned - the publication of the most important documents for the history of Svyatogorsk monasticism. This work is conscientious and done diligently. If we compare the publication of Mr. Meyer in this regard with the publication of our venerable “doctor of Hellenic literature”, the late Ave. Porfiry Uspensky, then all the advantages fall to the share of the former. Our historian and philologist exhibits astonishing negligence in publishing documents, partly, of course, excused by the haste with which he was forced to work. Ave. Porfiry sometimes left the copying of documents from manuscripts to the will of random copyists, 23 without worrying about later checking the copy with the original. True, he sometimes openly repented of this excessive trust of his 24 and regretted it later, but because of this, annoying omissions, gross typos, spelling errors and similar very undesirable shortcomings in the scientists who published them penetrated into the very important documents he published. Comparing now the major works on the study of the Svyatogorsk monasticism of our venerable historian St. Porfiry with the small book we are examining by Mr. Meyer, compiled by him with several times less energy, in a relatively short period of time, but under circumstances immeasurably more favorable than when our historian began his scientific research, and with great care and caution in assessing the texts, we feel that involuntarily all our sympathies are inclined to the side this new book. And we are quite sure that not a single historian of St. Gory now cannot ignore the work of Meyer that we are examining, and abroad, judging by the enthusiastic and sympathetic reviews of criticism that greeted its appearance, this book will become a guide on this subject for a long time. By carefully studying the documents published by Mr. Meyer, and partly by comparing them with similar documents in the manuscript of the M. Synodal Library of the 15th century. No. 421, we noticed that they contained some errors and even irregularities, which we consider it worthwhile to draw the attention of our readers to. For example, page 131, lines 18 and 32 Meyer reads: εξάψαλμον vm. ἐξάψαλμον; instead of ἑξάψαλμον; 132, 15 ψάλλομεν δώδεκα instead of ψαλμοὺς δώδεκα; 132, 33, etc. Πεντεκοστῆς instead of Πεντηκοστῆς; 133, 5 μετὰ τὸ προκείμενον 25 εὐϑέως τὸ Κύριε ἐκέκραξα instead of μετὰ τό προοίμιον κ.τ.λ.; 133, 14 ἰσοταχὼς instead of ἰσοταχῶς; 134, 23 ἀπαντὴν instead of Ὑπαπαντὴν τοῦ Κυρίου; 133, 34 διαφαούσης instead of διαφασκούσης; 135, 3 ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ τεσσαρακοστῇ instead of ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ; 135, 10, 12 λιτὰς instead of λίτῶς; 136.1 εἰ ἐπιμένοιεν τῇ κρίσει instead of εἰ ἐπιμένοι ἐν τῇ κρίσει; 136, 10 οἱ δὲ μηδ’ ἐν τούτοις instead of οἱ δὲ μηδὲν τούτοις; 136, 32 τῶν παραψίδων instead of παροψίδων; 138, 3 τὴν ἀκάϑιστον instead of τὸν ἀκάϑιστον; 139, 6 τίϑεται αὐτοῖς instead of τίϑεται αὐτοῖς οἶνον; 143, 1 καϑ’ ἑνὸν instead of κατὰ τὸ ἑνὸν; 143, 13 ἡμῖν instead of ὑμῖν; 143, 28 πρὸς ἡμᾶς instead of πρὸς ὑμᾶς; 143, 33 προσμείνοντες instead of προσμείνοντας; 145, 2 ἐν ᾧ βούλεται instead of ἐν ᾧ ἂν βούληται; 145, 22 ἐπὶ τῷ συμφέροντι instead of ἐπὶ τὰ συμφέροντα; 146, 26 συμποσιαζέτων instead of συμποσιαζέτωσαν; 148, 15 βοηϑῆσαί τινι; 149, 28 τὸν ἐξ ἀρχῆς παρακολουϑήσαντα instead of τὸν ἐξ ἀρχῆς καὶ ἄνωϑεν παρακολουϑήσαντα; 150, 19 μεγίστης instead of μεγάλης; 150, 24 Ἀρσένιος ἡγούμενος instead of Ἀρσένιος μοναχὸς καὶ ἡγούμενος; 151, 7 Συμεὼν μοναχός instead of Σέργιος μοναχός; 151, 9 152, 17 ἐν καλῷ τούτῳ σπόρῳ instead of ἐν καλῷ τούτων σπόρῳ; 158, 15 ἀμετακίνηται instead of ἀμετακίνητοι; 160.1 εὐλαβέστατος Νεόφυτος instead of εὐλαβέστατος μοναχὸς Νεόφυτος; 160, 29 συγκαϑεζομένου, etc. From these notes, in our opinion, it is clearly visible, firstly, that Mr. Meyer was not always able to choose the best text for the documents he published in terms of spelling and did not always clearly understand the characteristic features of the document, and secondly, that the documents published in Mr. Meyer’s book are hardly quite close to their autographs. In our opinion, the book we are examining by Mr. Meyer is clear and convincing evidence that single work in the Athonite book depositories, given their inaccessibility, no matter how energetically and diligently it is carried out, will never be crowned with the desired success - to see the actual historical truth. Only the collective joint work of scientifically trained people, an entire scientific expedition, equipped with all the means and recommendations, can count on the fact that the treasured doors of the archive of the Kareya protate and the skevophilakia of the main Athonite monasteries will open before it, as repositories of the most important documents for the history of Svyatogorsk monasticism. Therefore, one cannot help but welcome the already matured idea of ​​our Academy of Sciences to equip a scientific expedition to Athos for the indicated purpose from persons who have declared themselves in the literature for the study of Byzantine writing. It would be desirable for this idea to be implemented in practice, and the good intention would not be put on the back burner, since the present time, in view of the peaceful mood of minds on Athos, should be considered the most favorable for the Russian scientific expedition there. It goes without saying that this expedition needs to stock up on funds and all kinds of recommendations from the spiritual and secular governments, our Russian and Constantinople. It is in vain that Mr. Meyer includes St. among the persons for whom the Studite charter was well known. Christodoulus, the founder of the St. John the Theological Monastery on Patmos (S. 18), since the latter, in his “Ὑποτύπωσις’, speaks everywhere about the Jerusalem charter and does not make it clear that he was well aware of the practice of the Studite monastery. Miklos, et Müll. Acta et diplomat, mouasteriorum et ecclesiarum orientis. Vindob. 1890.t. III, pag. 71, 88. See our book “Description of liturgical manuscripts stored in the libraries of the Orthodox East.” Kyiv. 1895 vol. 1, part 1, pp. 45–49. Spyr. P. Lambros. Cataiogue of the Greek manuscript on mount Athon. Vol. 1, Cambridge. 1895. Σ. Π. Λάμπρος. Κατάλογος τῶν ἐν ταῖς βιβλιοϑήκαις τοῦ ἁγίου ὄρους ἑλληνικῶν κοδίκων. τ. α. μ. α´. ἐν Ἀϑήν. 1888. Such reviews were published in the Chronicle of the Historical and Philological Society under the Imperial. Novorossiysk University. 4. Byzantine branch 2, Odessa. 1894 pp. 123–127 and in Christian. Readings for 1805 No. 11–12, p. 579, where the present book is even attributed to Erich Meyer, “Europe’s first expert on modern Greek literature and history.” Of the laudatory reviews abroad, we read reviews in the Byzantinische Zeitschrift and in the Theologische Literaturzeitung. In the Greek original, we knew only small excerpts from documents No. 1 and No. 2, printed by Ave. Porfiry in the “History of Athos”, part 3, department. 1, p. 335 and part 3, dept. 2, pp. 1081–1082. Notes from a devotee of St. Mountains. Kyiv. 1864, pp. 173–182; 199–212. Arch. Leonid. Read In history total history and ancient Russian. 1867 book. 4, pp. 133–136. An excerpt from this document is printed by Gideon in his “Ὁ Ἄϑως” σελ. 116–118 and in general form in Δ. Πίστη, “Περιγραφικὴ ἱστορία” σελ. 86–92. With omissions, this document was previously printed by St. Porfiry in his “Second Journey to St. Mount Athos” pp. 496–498. The charter of Patriarch Jeremiah II was issued by Rev. Porfiry Uspensky, based on a textually faulty copy. For example, apart from a slight difference in the text of the letter itself, we do not see among the signatures the name of Metropolitan Gerasim of Irakli and we notice an inaccurate representation in the signature of the Patriarch of Alexandria Sylvester (Slich. S. 215–218 and History of Athos, part 3, department 2, pp. 1058–1061). G. Meyer, according to Fr. Chrysostomos now gives in his book a detailed description of these “cherished” codes of the Lavra skevophilaky. One of these codes contains the text of the ancient life of St. Athanasius, now published by Prof. I.V. Pomyalovsky (Life of St. Athanasius of Athos. St. Petersburg, 1895), a laudatory word in honor of the saint and the full text of all three of his works; in the other, which, according to the time of writing, may date back to “the very beginning of the 11th century, to the time of Athanasius himself, and can be considered an autograph” (?) (S. 273), there are only the first two works of this father and the third, called Mr. Meyer, is completely absent . (S. 271–273). Notes from a devotee of St. Mountains, pp. 173, 181, approx. 1, 2; 182, approx. 1–2. In the life of St. Athanasius Διατύπωσις, although this testament is called “τὴν τελευταίαν ἐντολὴν” (Pomyalov. I.V. Life of St. Athanasius, p. 95), but in the sense that others dying wills after this St. the father no longer wrote. Тὸ πρακτικὸν τῷ ἐρημικῷ, we read in the life of St. Athanasius, οὐχ ὑφ’ ἑτέρου, ἀλλ’ ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκείνου χειρὸς τυπούμενα, ὑφ’ἧς καὶ αὐτοὶ πάντες ἤγοντο αὐτὸς γὰρ αὐτοῖς τά πάντα καὶ νόμος καὶ νομοϑέτης καὶ ϑεῖος τύπος ἐδόκει (Prof. I.V. Pomyalovsky. Life of St. Athanasius of Athos, p. 52). History of Athos, part 3. dep. 1, Kyiv. 1877, pp. 74–75. Ave. Porfiry (Historical Athos. Part 3, Dept. 1, p. 75, note) does not trust the date indicated in the biography of St. Athanasius on the sole basis that in 961 Nicephorus Phokas was not yet emperor and, therefore, could not give St. Athanasius chri from ovula, but the life speaks of a letter signed and seal (ἐπισφραγίσουσα) which could always be given to the monk by a noble nobleman-monk, who ruled the throne instead of the young Emperor Vasily. This is, firstly. Secondly, in his “Canon”, written, as we have already said, when Emperor Phocas died, St. Athanasius had the right to call his simple charter also chrisovul (S.115), an imperial document, and it is unlikely that he sinned in this case against the historical truth. I.V. Pomyalovsky. Life of St. Athanasius of Athos p.30. About this book, Manuel Gideon remarked: “ἀγράμματον ἔργον, πλῆρες σολοικισμῶν ἀνορϑογραφιῶν” (Ὁ Ἄϑως σελ. 69, σημ. 10). “What is printed here in a rush,” writes St. Porfiry Uspensky regarding the text of the Typikon of Emperor John Tzimiskes, “is not in the list of the Athos and Paul Monastery, copied from the original in 1784. This means that all these words were erased in this original or the copyist did not understand them” (History of Athos, part 3, section 1, p. 265, note) “Now I regret,” he writes regarding the signatures of the abbots under the charter of the same emperor I. Tzimiskes, that I did not copy off further signatures” (ibid., p. 275, note *) G. Meyer makes a strange amendment to this word and even twice (S. 133 not, 134 not.) in this form: προκείμενον oder προοιμιακόν. As if these words are equivalent! You might be interested in: