Journey through the East and its scientific results

Report on a foreign business trip in 1887/1888 with appendices I. Brief outline of a trip to the east I left Kyiv on July 2, 1887 and headed my way through Odessa to Constantinople. In Odessa, while waiting for the ship, I decided to get acquainted with the manuscript library of the Imperial Novorossiysk University and, in particular, with the collection of South Slavic manuscripts of the late professor V.I. Grigorovich. But out of the entire small and randomly compiled collection of manuscripts 1 for my purpose, I found interesting and scientifically important only one handwritten Breviary of the Bulgarian letter of the 16th century, No. 126, in four, 198 sheets, acquired by the University in 1878 from a certain Polezhaev. I have described this breviary in great detail, and some interesting rites have been copied in their entirety, observing even the peculiarities of the original in the letter. Sophia (greater and lesser), Kakhrie-Jamisi, Twelve Apostles, St. Irene, on the site of the Studite Monastery, etc., as well as get to know in some detail the architecture and decoration of modern Constantinople churches in Galata and in different places of Phanar. From libraries, I regularly visited in the mornings (from 9-3 o’clock in the afternoon) the library of the Jerusalem courtyard 3 in Phanar, where there is a fairly large collection of manuscripts with a catalog according to which the library contains 624 issues 4, very thoroughly compiled by the head of the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem, Archimandrite Antonin 5. Here I managed to describe in detail 5 euchologies, 2 typikons and several other liturgically interesting manuscripts. On July 20, I arrived on Athos, and on the 23rd I began my studies in the library of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery, in which, thanks to the enlightened assistance of the well-known abbot of this holy monastery in Russia, Archimandrite Fr. Macarius, and the tireless labors and concerns of the well-read and lovingly devoted librarian Fr. Matvey, in a very short time a very decent library of manuscripts has been compiled. My regular studies here were interrupted for a time by a sad event in the life of this monastery, which happened on the night of August 7, 1887. I mean a terrible fire that destroyed six churches in the monastery in a very short time, including the Russian Cathedral in honor of the Intercession of the Mother of God, and many cells. Due to this circumstance, as well as for other practical reasons, on August 16 I left the hospitable Russian Panteleimon Monastery and began a tour of St. Mountains with the aim of viewing other monasteries and their libraries. Until the first of October, I only managed to visit the monasteries: Simono-Petersky, St. Paul's, St. Lavra. Athanasius, Iversky, Russian St. Andrew's monastery, Pantokratorsky, Vatopedi, Esphigmensky, Khilandarsky, Kostamonitsky and Dokhiyarsky. I also visited other monasteries while passing through, but I couldn’t see their libraries for various reasons. On October 1, I returned again to the Panteleimon Monastery, considering my academic studies on Mount Athos for this year to be completed, so as not to lose a convenient time for traveling to Jerusalem 7 . As for the rest of the libraries, although the manuscripts in them were mostly renumbered by the Athens professor S. Lambros in 1880 8 and placed in cabinets, all this was done hastily, in a hurry, without any system 9 and does not in the least facilitate the work of finding the necessary manuscripts with the speed necessary in such cases. There are no even rudimentary catalogs in these libraries. The fathers of the Athonite monasteries did not even bother to make copies of the draft catalogs compiled by Professor Lambros and his companions, which did not require any special work or much time. Indifference to the book treasures of their owners, even in our time, when demand and scholarly interest in them have increased significantly compared to previous times, is striking for travelers and causes amazement on their part 10 . But if this is the fate of the monuments of Greek writing among people who bear the name “Greek”, speak the Greek language, or rather “Roman-Italian-Turkish” and proudly declare that the blood of Socrates, Plato, Meltiades, Themistocles, etc. flows in their veins, then it is self-evident what we can expect from the current Svyatogorsk inhabitants of the Greeks in relation to the monuments of the South Slavic writing. And indeed, the Slavic libraries in the monasteries: the Greek St. Paul 11 ​​and the Bulgarian (former Serbian) Hilandar 12 are in the most bleak and deplorable state. In both of these libraries it is currently impossible to find many very important manuscripts about which learned travelers of earlier times made comments 13 . Available manuscripts are either placed in chaotic disorder in cabinets, with parchment manuscripts standing next to paper ones, and these latter alternate with old printed and even newly printed books of the lowest value, or they are piled up in damp corners and even in attics. It is impossible not to note here the unfortunate circumstance that access to the repositories of Slavic writing is faced with much greater difficulties than to the libraries of Greek manuscripts. From the time the Russians firmly established themselves in the monastery of St. Panteleimon 14, when the Russian monasteries on Athos - Andreevsky and especially Ilyinsky were accepted under the special patronage of the Russian ambassador in Constantinople, among the Greeks monastics on Athos, who own most of the Slavic monasteries, a very unfavorable conviction developed for the Russian traveler-researcher that sooner or later their monasteries would pass into the hands of the Slavs and in particular into the hands of the Russians, as a nation more powerful than other Slavic peoples politically. From here, among the Greek monks, Russian travelers with scientific goals meet the most unfriendly, not to say downright hostile, reception. At the end of October, I said goodbye to Constantinople and on the steamship of the Russian Society of Shipping and Trade, on a direct flight, went to Alexandria, and from there on the French steamship of the Fabre and Co. company to Jaffa and arrived in Jerusalem on the 7th of November. Having been received very favorably by His Beatitude, Patriarch Nicodemus of Jerusalem, I received free access to the library of the patriarchate, located in the nondescript building of the patriarchal monastery of St. kings Constantine and Helena. This library 17 is currently being put in order and described by the famous Greek scientist A. Papadopoulo-Keramevs, who, with the material support of His Beatitude, hopes to publish his catalog of Jerusalem manuscripts, with the addition of many newly discovered monuments of ancient Christian writing. The patriarchal library itself is currently of relatively little interest to a scientist, because its best manuscripts, which served as its decoration and were seen by the scientists Scholz, Cox 18 and the Reverend. Porfiry Uspensky 19 and others, such as, for example, the Typikon of 1159 of the monastery of St. Mamanta, the Greek-Arabic gospel of the 11th century, etc., became the property of the Parisian national library 20 and, moreover, in a relatively very recent time, or disappeared from it completely without a trace. But this library, by the time of my arrival, had been enriched with a significant number of valuable manuscripts transferred here from the libraries (upper and lower) of the Lavra of St. Savva the Sanctified, through which it attracted my attention for a long time. According to the thoughts of His Beatitude, Patriarch Nicodemus, in Jerusalem, at the patriarchal monastery of St. Equal-to-the-Apostles kings Constantine and Helena, with the assistance of the above-mentioned scientist A. Keramevsa-Papadopulo, one general library for all manuscripts of Palestine and with it a museum of Christian Palestinian antiquities 21 were founded. I began my studies in the patriarchal library on November 15, 1887, and graduated on January 23, 1888. Such a very significant and for me unexpected period of time for studying here was required partly because among the manuscripts of the former Savvinsky library there were very many scientifically valuable ones (7 typikons, 5 euchologies, 2 apostles with the peculiarities of the practice of the great Church of Constantinople, etc.), and mainly due to the extremely limited amount of time assigned for studying in the library (there are only five hours a day: two (9-11) before lunch and three (2–5) after lunch), with very frequent breaks on the occasion of various numerous local church festivals, when the librarian, the patriarchal archdeacon, the vociferous singer, Fr. Juvenaly locked the library and went to the church to fulfill his direct duties. In such cases, the library did not open for two, and sometimes even three days in a row. I devoted my free evening time to studying the manuscripts of the head of the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem, Archimandrite Antonin, who owns a very valuable collection of Greek and South Slavic manuscripts. The total number of his manuscript library reaches 80 numbers, among which there are palimpsests and many parchment manuscripts. I was especially interested in the South Slavic parchment manuscripts that I found in the library of Fr. Antonina 22 is such an abundance that it is now difficult to find in the richest private library. With complete readiness and rare courtesy, the most humane Fr. Archimandrite Antonin provided me with the use of both manuscripts and his rich printed library, even in my apartment, on Russian buildings, in the noble building. From January 25 to February 3, I worked on manuscripts in the library of the Cross Monastery, which is only 20 minutes away from Jerusalem. At this monastery there is a theological school 23, the type of which is an exact copy of the Constantinople theological school in Chalki. Here a happy accident helped me make an important discovery for science. I found in the unpublished “Sacred History”, compiled in 1801 by the Hierokyrix of the Church of the Resurrection, Archimandrite Maxim Simeo, “The Rules for the Service of Passion and Easter Weeks in Jerusalem.” Here, this “Charter” was copied by the author, as an appendix, from the 1122 manuscript of the Savvinsky Library. By the nature of its liturgical, archaeological and topographical features, the composition of the “Ustav” should be dated back to the 9th or early 10th century. This monument, containing very interesting data for characterizing the liturgical orders of the ancient Christian church in general and the Church of Jerusalem in particular, about the orders of which we previously knew nothing, at the same time contains a lot of important and unknown data in science for the archeology and topography of the holy places of Jerusalem in the most ancient era (second) of its existence. I dare to hope that with the unveiling of this monument, Palestinian scholars will have in their hands a very reliable guide in resolving many issues relating to the holy places of Jerusalem. Upon returning to Jerusalem from the Monastery of the Cross, from February 3 to 21, I spent time studying the topography of St. places in relation to the monument I discovered, in a thorough acquaintance with the archaeological excavations carried out near Jerusalem and inside it, in reading pilgrimage literature, both ours and foreign, and prepared the monument I discovered for publication 24. On February 22, after three and a half months of stay, I said goodbye to Jerusalem and headed to Sinai. From Jaffa to Port Said, during a terrible storm, he traveled on a steamship of the Russian Shipping Company in trade, from Port Said to Ismailia, along the Suez Canal - on a small mail steamer of an Egyptian company, and from there to Cairo by rail. Arrived in Cairo on February 25 in the evening. The purpose of my present visit to Cairo was: 1) the desire to receive from the Sinai Archbishop Porfiry, who permanently lives in the local Dzhuvaniysky metochion on monastic affairs, a blessed letter of recommendation, without which a long-term stay within the walls of the Sinai monastery is impossible (devotees usually live in the monastery for only eight days), 2) have reliable information about a more convenient and easier path to Sinai and 3) wait for the departure time of the caique to Raifa, when it was decided to travel along the Red Sea 25. On March 2 (1888), the epitrope of the Sinai courtyard for fans traveling to Sinai in Suez notified me by telegram that the caique on which I was supposed to sail to Raifa (El Tor) was ready for departure. Without delay, the very next day I set off for Suez by mail train. Near Ismailia, our train crashed due to the derailment of class III carriages, and therefore I arrived in Suez at 11 at night, instead of 7 pm. On Friday, the 4th, I made purchases of clothing and canned goods necessary for the difficult journey ahead, and in the evening of the same day I boarded a caique to go to Raifa. But a strong, contrary wind blew and the captain of our ship, an Arab, told me that we must wait until the wind changes. Because of this, willy-nilly, I had to sit on the caique in sight of Suez the whole next day until 10 o’clock in the evening, without any movement. On the evening of March 5, the wind completely died down, and we set off. With the current of water, which is quite strong in the Red Sea, after two days' sailing, we reached Raifa on Monday of the first week of Lent. The library of manuscripts of the Sinai Monastery has long enjoyed a scientific reputation as the most flattering among other libraries of Eastern Orthodox monasteries. Discoveries that followed directly one after another, made relatively recently from us, in the treasuries of this library, such as, for example, Mr. Tischendorf - the Codex of the Gospel of the 5th century, Mr. Heitler, a Zagreb professor - the Glagolitic Trebnik and Psalter, the late Rev. Porfiry (Uspensky) - some of the most ancient manuscripts described by him in his travels, etc., and then scientific disputes, sometimes very passionate, about these very discoveries, generated in the scientific world the most lively interest in the treasuries of the Sinai Monastery, which very few lucky people were able to see. But the exaggerated idea of ​​the manuscript wealth of the Sinai library is now gradually dissipating. Back in 1870, our scientist Archimandrite Antonin, head of the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem, made a description of all the Greek and Slavic manuscripts of this library. True, this description is kept in manuscript in the Sinai library and has not seen the light of day, but for those studying in the library itself, it, as conscientious work and, moreover, an expert in Greek writing and language, serves as an excellent reference book. Thanks to this only description, the owners themselves learned what of these treasures survived in their hands, after a long-term plunder of the manuscripts, either by the crusaders, or by barbarians, thirsty for profit, the riches of the monastery, then by visiting rich people - lords, then, finally, by occasional visiting zealots and priests of science, with a passion for their own collections of manuscripts and antiquities in general. In very recent times, the Greek manuscripts of the Sinai monastery were revised and described for the second time by the now famous Greek paleographer, Professor Hardhausen, the author of the best guide to Greek paleography, who spent 40 days for this purpose within the walls of the Sinai monastery. Its catalog: “Catalogus codicum graecorum sinaiticorum, Oxonii” was published in 1886 and now gives everyone the full opportunity to judge the existing composition of the manuscript library of the Sinai Monastery. It is of little use for studying manuscripts in the monastery itself and in no case can replace the handwritten catalog of Archimandrite Antoninus, which the venerable paleographer does not treat with due respect. Relying on his experienced eye and having a small amount of time at his disposal, Mr. Hardhausen did not carefully review many manuscripts, and therefore did not notice the historical indications of the time of their writing, in the determination of which he encountered a lot of major errors. Errors of two hundred and three hundred years can be seen in him quite often 26. But Mr. Hardhausen’s mistakes are significant only in science, for those involved, so to speak, in the statistics of handwritten scientific material, for people who have not been to Sinai, but for a researcher of these manuscripts at their location, it does not seem particularly difficult to notice these errors and avoid them. In this case, the handwritten catalog of Archimandrite Antonin is a very solid assistant for such a researcher. The researcher experiences much more difficulties when finding the manuscripts he needs in the library itself. In the Sinai monastery, despite the fact that its manuscripts, with the exception of those in the Juvaniysky metochion in Cairo and manuscripts in the languages: Arabic, Syriac, Coptic, Georgian, Armenian and Latin, have been known for a long time and are all renumbered, however, the method of storing them is practiced and is still the most inconvenient for scientific research. This description is the property of the author, who lives in Jerusalem, and in Sinai, there is not even a copy of it), together with a fairly significant collection of early printed Greek publications, is stored in a room behind the cell of the abbot-archbishop, opposite the paraclis of John the Baptist, which in turn contains 80 boxes of books and manuscripts that have not yet been sorted by anyone (according to Arch. Antonin, about 500), transported here from Cairo, from the Sinai compound there. All manuscripts are in Georgian languages ​​(their description promises to be published by A.A. Tsagareli, professor of the Georgian language at St. Petersburg University, who visited Sinai in the winter of 1883, specially sent by our government to study Georgian monuments of writing, architecture, painting, etc.) etc.), Abyssinian, Armenian and Latin, not yet described by anyone or even brought to light, as well as various sheets of numerous broken very ancient and now completely lost to science manuscripts are stored in a special rather untidy warehouse, under the old library building, near the Virgin Paraklis. Manuscripts, parchment in format, and therefore extremely varied in content, lie in chests; bomb and paper manuscripts, manuscripts in Slavic, Arabic and Georgian languages ​​are placed in exactly the same way on shelves in cabinets; manuscripts in other languages ​​and fragments from manuscripts are either piled up or placed in random bundles in baskets. Therefore, it is quite understandable that when searching for manuscripts marked by a researcher in catalogs, one has to spend a lot of wasted labor and time to find out in which chest or shelf this or that manuscript is placed, and it is often necessary to sort through all the manuscripts of a known chest one copy at a time in order to find the desired number at the bottom. In that case, I find it quite fair to mention here with deep gratitude the help and always helpful readiness of Fr. the steward of the Galaktion monastery, who often sat for whole days in stuffy book depositories, looking for the numbers of manuscripts I needed. While performing many other duties in his monastery, Fr. During my stay in the monastery, the housekeeper was also considered a librarian and carried out these difficult duties with his characteristic humility and love for every task entrusted to him, as long as it tended to the benefit and glory of the monastery, from which he had not left the world for more than thirty years, and which he promised to serve in the harsh cassock of a simple monk for the rest of his life. But often there is courtesy in zeal. economists could not overcome the difficulties that this method of storing manuscripts presented. From almost every section of manuscripts, one or two copies remained unfound. Some of these manuscripts, due to their important scientific significance and rarity, were the subject of searches in various chests and cabinets for not one, but two or more days, and several people took part in the search. It is with deep sadness that I record here the fact that all my efforts to find a bombed copy of the Greek handwritten Taktikon of Nikon the Montenegrin, XI-XII centuries. No. 441, as far as I know, not found in other European and Eastern libraries, turned out to be completely fruitless. With a keen eye, Fr. The steward of the monastery manuscripts and modern learned travelers, after the sad and still fresh story in the monastic legends of the theft of the Bible codex by Mr. Tischendorf 29, it is difficult to admit that this manuscript, as well as some others, could disappear from the monastic treasuries. It is most likely to think that these manuscripts, due to an oversight by Fr. the housekeeper, were placed in places that do not belong to them, and to find them now you need to rummage through all the chests and look through all the cabinets of different library rooms and storerooms, which, quite understandably, is beyond the power of even the hardworking Fr. economist. The library of the Sinai monastery, even if it does not justify the exaggerated ideas of European scientists about it, should still be rightfully considered one of the richest in the world. True, in the Sinai monastery, the archaeologist-palaeographer will no longer find the Gospel codex of the 5th century in the trash, like Mr. Tischendorf, although finding passages from an earlier time is quite possible, or, with the blessing of the Great Martyr Catherine, he will not take it from the monastery attics, like the late Rev. Porfiry Uspensky, euchology of the 10th century 30, but the Sinai treasuries will now provide a total of more than 3,000 manuscripts in different languages ​​at his service. The number of Greek manuscripts alone exceeds two thousand, and many of them, in addition to their content, have enormous artistic interest, thanks to the numerous miniatures of the most elegant work that they contain. In particular, for me, the Sinai library provided such a number of liturgical manuscripts that I have not seen in other eastern libraries, and I am unlikely to ever encounter them later. Suffice it to say that the Sinai library contains up to 55 copies of handwritten euchologies, dating from the 8th–9th centuries. up to the 17th century. Among the euchologies there is a bombed euchology No. 973 with a date of 1153, which is so far the only rarity in the scientific world. Between the Orologies there is one No. 863, VIII–IX centuries. with the title: “Ὡρολόγιον κατὰ τὸν κανόνα τῆς λαύρας τοῦ ἁγιου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Σαββα". A lot of scientifically interesting manuscripts are also found in other departments, which, it must be added, embrace the practice of the churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantinople and the local Sinai. I traveled from Sinai to Suez on camels within five days. The usual travel time is considered to be seven days and sometimes nine, as our fans travel, but I walked at an accelerated pace, stopping only for short rests in the terrible midday heat, reaching 50 degrees or more, and in the dead of midnight.... I arrived in Suez on the 4th of July and, having rested from the difficult road the whole next day, on the 6th, Wednesday, I went to Cairo, where I arrived the same day in the evening. The purpose of my second visit to Cairo was to survey the archaeological sights of old Cairo, where many basilicas of ancient Greco-Roman architecture have been preserved, the Bulak Museum of Egyptian Antiquities and to get acquainted with the manuscripts of the local patriarchal library. Thanks to the recommendations of Mr. Shcheglov, the secretary of our diplomatic agency under the Khedive of Egypt, who at that time was also correcting the duties of the agent himself, in the absence of Mr. Koyavder. O. Archimandrite Kefala, the deputy of the Patriarch of Alexandria, who always goes to Alexandria for the summer, freely allowed me to study manuscripts. The library of the Patriarch of Alexandria is small (about 370 manuscripts) and is located in the reception station of the patriarchal house (synodikon). Its manuscripts are predominantly of historical, canonical and biblical content. He compiled a draft catalog of the city. marriages that contain the most curious, in the language of our time, metric books of the Alexandrian patriarchate, starting from the second half of the 15th century. Containing information about the persons getting married, these collections quite often contain patriarchal resolutions with handwritten signatures regarding some difficulties on canonical issues and church practice regarding marriages: often, by the way, they contain divorce and property affairs of the persons getting married. They will provide the future canonist researcher with very abundant material, which the most conscientious historian is not able to exhaust in proper completeness. As for the manuscripts of liturgical content, they, firstly, are extremely few in number, and, secondly, they do not provide anything new in comparison with the manuscripts of the Sinai library, from which many came to Cairo at a time when Sinai was spiritually temporarily dependent on the Alexandrian patriarch. I finished my studies in Cairo on August 1, and on the 2nd, Tuesday, I left for Alexandria. This city, undoubtedly important in commercial terms, is of very little interest to the archaeologist. A visit to the buildings of the Patriarchate, in which the church, as they say, contains columns brought here from the ancient Theban churches, some other churches of this city of later architecture, as well as a Pompeian column, took me only half a day and filled all my idle time. My desire to visit the so-called Alexandrian catacombs remained unsatisfied, because I could not find a good guide who knew the catacombs. Due to the rare cases of visiting them by learned archaeologists, there are no experienced guides to the catacombs here. On August 3, I left for Athens on an Arab direct ship, where I arrived on the morning of Friday, the 5th. In the summer, Athens, like any other university city, presents a lot of inconveniences for academic studies. Scientific life at this time of year comes to a standstill, so to speak. The university, museums and libraries are closed. Scientific forces, tired from the work of the completed academic year, rush to rest, and the tireless ones undertake scientific excursions. But if educational and auxiliary institutions of the city are opened for viewing by casual visitors, then the time allocated for this is very short. The first and main purpose of my trip to Athens was to see the remains of the most ancient classical buildings and generally monumental buildings, such as the Parthenon, Nike-Apteros, Erechtion, Theseus, Olympian Jupiter, the Tower of the Winds, etc., the most ancient Christian churches in the city itself in its environs, acquaintance with the central, polytechnic and acropolis museums, as repositories of monuments of ancient classical sculpture and material remains (for example, in the collection of Mycenaean antiquities. Sakellion, who worked a lot on the description of the manuscripts in Patmos, which had not yet been published, and created literary fame for himself by publishing many valuable ancient monuments of history and literature. As a person, Mr. Sakellion is very amiable, talkative and helpfully polite, ready at any time to share with his interlocutor his extensive knowledge of bibliography and paleography, but as a librarian of the national Greek library, he is hardly in his place today. Old age, lack of material resources, and hence the most versatile literary activity prevent him from devoting his already weak strength entirely to a real library. Therefore, despite the ten years that have elapsed since the manuscripts arrived at the University of Athos from the Meteora monasteries, these manuscripts are not only not described, but are not even arranged in order in cabinets and are lying in heaps on the floor. It is quite clear that sorting through these heaps of manuscripts and finding what is necessary and interesting is not an easy task, and it requires a lot of time, which, as I said, I had at my disposal only three hours a day. It is also clear that such a scientific treasure, which I had not previously encountered in other eastern libraries, like the complete clergy typicon of the 11th century Our Lady of Evergetia, fell into my hands only two weeks before my departure from Athens and, no matter how much I rushed to describe this manuscript, I managed to do it barely halfway, and then only superficially. Some manuscripts that were interesting to me remained completely unread due to the onset of the month of September, when my trip abroad was expiring. With the hope that someday I would have to visit Athens again, I parted with the Athenian book treasuries and on September 3, Saturday, I left through Constantinople and Odessa to Kiev, to my place of service. II. Motives and objectives of travel Starting now to evaluate the scientific results of the trip I made, I consider it very appropriate to say a few words about the importance, the urgent need of scientific excursions and about the tasks that a liturgist in our time should pursue in general and which were outlined, in particular, by me personally when I went abroad. If we call the works of Bishop. Veniamin (“The Tablet” of Dmitrevsky (Explanation of the Liturgy), Kataev (The Rite of the Royal Wedding), Malinovsky and Smirnov (The Rite of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts), several mediocre educational manuals (Chernyaev, Kutepov, Smolodovnch, etc.) then we will exhaust all the literature on Liturgics for this first period. Little of this literature could be of use for the teacher of Liturgy at the Academy with the introduction of the statute of 1869. The programs on this science for theological seminaries published by the Educational Committee at the Holy Synod, compiled almost mainly on the model of the best German manuals on Liturgy: Schmidt, Luft, etc., many of which in the program themselves were recommended to seminary teachers, had an influence, without any doubt, on the development of plans for academic lectures. But since the mid-seventies, the best academic teachers and university professors (Mansvetov, Krasnoseltsev, Pavlov, Gorchakov, Archpriest Nikolsky, etc.) began to independently develop our science based on its primary sources. Of course, they could begin their work with specific issues in the history of Orthodox worship and work with great effort, due to the lack of work in this area in our previous time and the relatively small number of publications on the study of the primary sources of Orthodox worship even in the West. In just fifteen years, not only have solid monographs been written that can do credit to Western literature, but quite a few primary sources of our worship have been extracted and published. Many of our scientists, such as His Eminence Porfiry Uspensky, Archimandrite Antonin, Professor Krasnoseltsev, not content with the handwritten material of our relatively poor libraries, managed to study and, as far as time and experience allowed them, describe foreign libraries. In the minds of some of them, the need has already matured to publish a whole collection of primary sources of our worship and to replace or significantly supplement the only manual of this kind that I mentioned “Εὐχολογιον” by Gohar. Our science was eagerly awaiting the collection promised by the late Right Reverend Porfiry, compiled by him on the basis of the best and oldest liturgical manuscripts discovered by him in various eastern libraries, under the title: “Divine services of the Byzantine Church,” but this promise was not destined to come true. This collection, during the life of the late Porfiry, was not published, and from his spiritual testament it is not clear that such work was preserved in his posthumous papers. But what is already important for us is that the deceased had such a consciousness, and it belonged not to a specialist liturgist, but to a simple lover of ancient church writing, who only in his spare time devoted his time to developing questions on the history of Orthodox worship. It is now clear that such a consciousness appears much more often among persons who have specially devoted themselves to the study of Orthodox worship, and, consequently, the need for work, like that promised by the late Right Reverend Porfiry, is felt by them at every step with greater persistence. In particular, for me, the lack of work on the publication of sources of Orthodox worship was very noticeable, and was recognized to such an extent that even as a student, when developing my master’s work: “Divine services in the Russian Church in the 16th century,” part 1, I was forced to make scientific excursions from Kazan to Moscow and St. Petersburg to study Greek and South Slavic manuscripts in the local libraries. After completing the academic course, as a private assistant professor at the Department of Liturgics, the Academy Council assigned me to teach a course on the history of worship in the Russian Church, which I taught for two years. At this time, when compiling lectures on a subject that had not yet been developed, the need to study the primary sources of our worship, i.e., was even more obvious to my consciousness. Greek and South Slavic manuscripts are no longer in random collections, such as the Moscow and St. Petersburg libraries, but at the very place of their origin, in eastern book depositories, about which at that time I had the most vague and in most cases incorrect ideas. Already at this time I had the idea of ​​​​working about a scientific trip to the east with the purpose of surveying the book depositories of Athos, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Sinai, Cyprus, Patmos, etc., but the transfer to an independent department at the Kyiv Theological Academy in 1884 prevented me from bringing my idea to fruition. Compiling lectures on the general course of Liturgics, studying literature on church archeology, which I was supposed to read at the Kyiv Academy, preparing some scientific works for publication and analyzing newly appearing works on the subject of my specialty filled all my time and delayed the execution of my planned journey by almost four years. This time, however, was not fruitless for me. I managed to discover significant gaps in the literature on particular issues that were developed by me personally, or by my students in their course essays, in existing manuals, to discover weaknesses, the correction of which seemed possible, only after personal acquaintance with the monuments, mostly stored in Western libraries and described by Western scientists, and to even more clearly recognize the urgent and pressing need for work on the primary sources of Orthodox worship and their publication either in its entirety or in extensive scientific descriptions. More specifically, acquaintance with the literature on church archeology, which is developed mainly by Western scientists and on the basis of material monuments that are now preserved either in their entirety or in remains in Italy and France, prompted me to study the topography of these monuments at their location myself and check the scientific conclusions of Western archaeologists. All this together forced me to add to my previous thought about traveling to the east a new thought about traveling to the west. In this sense, in 1887, I submitted my request for a business trip abroad for a year and a half to the Academy Council, which recognized my request as worthy of respect, but reduced the period of the trip to one year with several months. This period was further reduced (to 13 months) due to the fact that the permission of St. I received the Synod for this business trip only at the end of June, and I left abroad on July 2. It is not ours to make the final assessment of the extent to which our plans and intentions are appropriate and meet the requirements of modern theological science, but no one can take away from you the right to some share of our own self-awareness in assessing the work we have accomplished. Looking back at the hard work we have gone through as a collector and researcher of the primary sources of our liturgy, and having before us a lot of new data, we cannot help but say that even now, with the review of eastern book depositories still unfinished, our plans have been realized as satisfactorily as we personally did not hope when going on the business trip that was allowed to us. III. Oriental libraries of manuscripts and early printed books In the series of liturgical books of the Orthodox Church, and, consequently, the sources of our science, two books occupy a primary and main place, embracing, one might say, the entire ritual - this is the Euchologium or, in our opinion, the Service Book and the Trebnik and the Typikon or Church Rules. Therefore, we mainly turned our attention to them; We devoted most of our work and time to the study of these manuscripts. In particular, in relation to the Greek Euchology, we set ourselves the goal, taking into account the works in this direction of our predecessors: Goar, Gabert, Revedot Swainson, Bunsen, Krasnoseltsev, etc., to collect as many lists of it as possible and, by comparison, to note the new lists of ranks that exist in them, hitherto unknown in science, and to indicate interesting options for the ranks already known in Science, according to the publications of these scientists. In a word, we decided to repeat the work of the famous Catholic scientist of the 17th century. Yak. Goara, which he brought to the XIII century only, but within wider boundaries and on the basis of the study of eastern book depositories and to fulfill the task that our late scientist, Right Reverend Porfiry Uspensky, dreamed of, but did not accomplish it after his death. We wanted to give into the hands of liturgical specialists and those just beginning to develop issues on the history of Orthodox worship such a Εὐχολόγιον, or such a collection of handwritten materials related to a given liturgical book and scattered in numerous and quite often distant from the centers of education of Eastern book depositories, a personal visit to which is difficult for some, and positively impossible for others, which would save them from existing difficulties and would open up the opportunity for them to work completely scientifically and independently in this area. This is on the one hand. On the other hand, by publishing such a collection, our cherished dream was to indicate to our theologians who study the gradual revelation in the book. churches of the dogmatic teaching about the sacraments, on one of the most important and hitherto untouched by them sources or primary sources of this teaching - on our liturgical rites and the continuation of the sacraments. They express church consciousness clearly, completely and in historical sequence, expounding the dogmatic teaching on the sacraments, as well as on other points of theoretical theology. We think this is a tremendous advantage of this primary source, which others do not have, being an expression of the consciousness of a certain specific person, and not of an entire church, like our rites and successions, and it deserves, in our perhaps extreme opinion, the special and serious attention of Orthodox theologians. During our journey, we managed to survey 114 euchologies (23 parchment, 12 bombycin and 79 paper), and of these, as more interesting and important from a scientific point of view, we compared and most carefully described, often with very extensive extracts from them, 77 euchologies (20 parchment, 11 bombycin and 46 paper). In this way, a very venerable volume of materials was compiled (from 45 to 50 printed sheets), which is called Εὐχολογιον’ and includes lists of rites and sequences of Orthodox worship from the 8th century to the 16th century. We set these limiting points of your “Euchology” in the first case because before the 8th century we did not find copies of Euchology in eastern book depositories, and in the latter because the development of Greek Euchology ends in this century; it goes to the printing press and little by little takes on its unchanging real form. True, quite a lot of Greek euchologies, and in particular liturgiaries, have been preserved from the 17th century and even from the 18th century, but all these lists represent a repetition of lists from an earlier time and are poor in liturgically interesting options. However, these manuscripts cannot be completely ignored, because they contain ranks and sequences, the oldest originals of which have disappeared without a trace. Therefore, in our “Euchology”, although the review of lists of ranks ends with the 16th century, we nevertheless place some important and interesting ranks according to the lists of the 17th century. These rites undoubtedly include: the rite of washing the feet (Ακολουϑία τοῦ ϑεὶου νιπτῆρος), set out in dramatic form, where all 12 apostles are the characters, and which we extracted from the 1728 manuscript Athos-Panteleimon library, the rites of election, “evangelization”, small “sign” and installation as a bishop, metropolitan, serving as the direct original of similar rites of yours, published by the professor of canon law at Moscow University A.O. Pavlov 33, the ranks of installation as a patriarch and coronation to the kingdom 34, taken by us from the 1665 handwritten collection of the Holy Sepulcher Library in Constantinople, as well as some other, however, very few ranks. Our Εὐχολογιον, if he is awarded the enlightened attention of Messrs. members of the Academy Council and then printed, in itself will constitute a very important scientific acquisition. Embracing the monuments of Orthodox worship in its entirety over such a long period, our Εὐχολοιγον will be a tremendous help in the ongoing development of your science within our fatherland. All the data we collected from Orthodox worship are of undeniable interest and novelty, but not all have the same scientific importance. Some of these data, due to their scientific interest, deserve special attention and are worthy of mention in this case. In the field of the whole, euchology cannot be passed over in silence here, for example, euchologies of the 8th–9th centuries. Sinai Library No. 957, as having the closest relation to the already known in science Εὐχολογιον’u of the same time according to the Barberinovsky list (Codex Barberinus S-Marci), published by Goar completely (Εχολ. Lut. 1647 an.) and Swainson only the ranks of liturgies (The Greek Liturgies Lond. 1884) and in many ways complements the mentioned publications; manuscript of the 10th century of the same library No. 958 for the completeness and interest of the rites of the most ancient liturgical practice contained in it, which have completely fallen out of use and therefore are not found in other manuscripts of somewhat later origin, XIII, XIV, etc. centuries, and the Bombycin Euchology of the same monastery No. 973 with a specific date of 1153. The last Euchologium, being a very pleasant exception among its counterparts of all known libraries 35 and having an undeniably important date for the lasting scientific conclusions of our science, is at the same time of scientific interest due to the abundance of prayers for various cases, among which there are many prayers of apocryphal content and the appearance at such an early time of very complex rites and sequences with prayers, often also of an apocryphal nature. It is also necessary to point out here the bombed euchology of the Cairo patriarchal library of the 14th century. No. 104 and on the manuscript of the 15th century Sinai library No. 1006, as the most remarkable collections of rites and sequences, practiced exclusively only in the church of Alexandria, on the 14th century parchment manuscript of the former library of the monastery of Saint Sava (now the Patriarchal Library of Jerusalem) No. 362, together with the manuscript of the Cairo Patriarchal Library of 1407 No. 371, as the sources of the practice of the great Church of Constantinople and, finally, the Hierarchical missal of 1660 of the Patriarchal Library of Jerusalem No. 151, together with the above-mentioned collection of 1665 of the Holy Sepulchral Library of Constantinople, as monuments of the former practice of the Church of Jerusalem. It is impossible not to note here the parchment euchology of the Sinai library of 1426, No. 968, which, in addition to its material and remarkably elegant writing, is not devoid of liturgical significance due to the completeness of its rites, often later repeated in other Sinaitic manuscripts of later times. No. 133, the Panteleimon-Athos library of 1545 and No. 28 of the 16th century, the Esphigmen library of 1602 No. 210 and the Holy Sepulcher library in Constantinople No. 425 and No. 449 of the 17th century. An interesting article is directly related to the same issue: καὶ Φιλοϑέου, contained in a manuscript of the 16th century. Vatopedi Library No. 449. Ilitary XII - XIII centuries. Sinai Library No. 1020, the contents of which we are familiar with from the “Notes of the Sinai pilgrim” by Fr. Antonina (Proceedings of Kyiv. Dukh. Acad. 1873, book III, pp. 55–58), presents you with an interesting list of the rites of the liturgy of Basil the Great. Manuscript of the Sinai library of the 15th century. No. 986 contains a most curious rite of liturgy with the title: Αρχὴ σὺν Θεῷ ἁγίῳ τοῦ διακονικοῦ. Αὕτη ἡ τάξις γίνεται ἐν τῇ σεβασμίᾳ λαύρᾳ ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ ὄρει τοῦ Ἄϑω, ἑκεὶϑεν γὰρ ἐστὶ τὸ παρόν Διακονικὸν. This is the same rite that gave rise to the appearance in our service books of the late 16th century, the so-called seven-prosphoria, which was firmly established in our liturgical practice in the 17th century, due to the fact that this rite was included in the printed service books of that time. In our polemical literature, it is well known under the name of the “Athos” rite, but your polemicists have previously expressed doubt about the existence of its Greek original (Philar. “Old printed nomocan. and his certificate on the number of prosphoras at the proskomedia” M. 1876 p. 43 ff; his “Rite of the Liturgy of St. John. Golden. According to the presentation of the old, modern and ancient written service." M. 1876. p. 41 ff). As for the most interesting lists of the rites of the daily ancient divine service, we can point to τᾶξες τῆς τριτοέκτης ἐν ταῖς νηστείαις in the manuscript of the 8th–9th centuries. Sinai Library No. 957 and for the rank ἑορταζομένων ἁγίων in a 15th century manuscript. Pantokratorian Athonite Library No. 149. Lists of ranks should be considered very important: marriage in manuscripts of the 8th–9th centuries. No. 957 and X century. No. 258 of the Sinai library, baptism (the charter of this rite) in the 1404 manuscript No. 324 (935) of the Vatopedi library, washing of feet in the 12th century manuscript. of the same library No. 315 (926) in the Sinai library of the same century No. 758 and the accession of heretics, usually inscribed in our manuscripts like this: “the order, if anyone in heresy has been baptized to God, he will turn to God, whether he is a Jew or a heretic” 36, in the manuscript of the Sinai library of 1475 No. 980. The last rank in the Slavic translation is very often found in our manuscripts, but its Greek original was not known until now. Meanwhile, this rank has long attracted the attention of our polemicists on the issue of finger formation. The well-known phrase: “if anyone does not bless with two fingers like Christ” was borrowed from Stoglav (chapter 31) from the mentioned rite and has not yet lost its vital meaning. Among the very important finds we include: Σχηματολόγιον (collection of rites of monastic vows) by Theodore the Studite based on a 15th-century manuscript. Panteleimon Athos Monastery, Σχηματολόγιον according to a 15th century manuscript. Patriarchal Library of Jerusalem No. 273, Ἐξοδιαστικὸν (sequence of burial of bishops, priests, deacons and all persons of the sacred rank) according to a 15th century manuscript. library of the monastery of St. Savva the Sanctified No. 373 and, finally, Συνοδικὸν (the order of cursing heretics on the week of Orthodoxy) according to manuscripts of the 14th century. University of Athens No. 256 and XV century. Sinai Library No. 989 and No. 531. At the same time, with the study of data for Greek euchology, we did not forget the urgent need to pay the same attention to the monuments of South Slavic euchology. We were obliged to do this by the urgent need to see a similar euchology in print as soon as possible, because much less has been done in our science for the study of South Slavic euchology than for Greek euchology. If we point to the Glagolitic service book of Lavoslav Heitler, a Zagreb professor 37 , to the rite of the liturgy of Euthymius, Patriarch of Tarnovo 38 , to some monuments published at different times in the magazines “Starine” and “Glasnik”, as well as by Professor Krasnoseltsev in his book: “Information on some liturgical manuscripts of the Vatican library” K. 1885 and partly Gorsky and Nevostruev in their famous “Description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synod. libraries", Dept. III, part 1, M. 1869 - that’s all that we currently have regarding the publication and study of monuments of South Slavic euchology. Now, if we keep in mind the quantitative results of what we have done in this regard, then at first glance it turns out that they are apparently not as significant as the results in the field of studying the sources of Greek euchology. First of all, in quantitative terms, the number of South Slavic manuscripts described by us extends only to 60, of which 18 are parchment manuscripts, one is bombed and 41 are paper. In particular, the euchologies (i.e., Service Books and Trebniks) have been described by us in only 17 copies: 2 parchment, one bombed and 14 paper. Further, if we pay attention to the scientific value of the euchologies you described, we will see that the oldest and most scientifically interesting specimens belong mostly to private owners. All this is easily explained by the circumstances that during our trip we studied monuments of South Slavic worship mainly in the libraries of Greek monasteries, where these monuments ended up by accident and were stored, due to unfitness for use and for other sadder reasons, without due attention to them. Slavic book depositories, such as, for example, in the Hilandar and St. Paul Athos monasteries, in which we had the opportunity to study and which were once famous for the remarkable wealth of manuscripts (see V. Grigorovich “Essay on travel to European Turkey”, M. 1877 ed. 2), at present, as we had the opportunity to say above, represent only comparatively pitiful, of course, remnants of their former riches... The library of the very wealthy Bulgarian Zograf Monastery on Mount Athos, which has a valuable collection of South Slavic manuscripts and is quite well-equipped, as we can judge based on the reviews of learned visitors and based on our superficial and random review of it in 1886, was not, due to lack of time, the subject of our scientific description. But if we make a scientific assessment of all the material we have collected regarding South Slavic worship, then we cannot help but say that in this regard we have obtained several very interesting and scientifically important acquisitions. In particular, in relation to the South Slavic euchology, we can point here to a detailed description of the Trebnik of the 14th century. No. 119 of the Serbian edition from the Hilandarskaya library, on a Serbian manuscript of the 14th–15th centuries. No. 149 from the library of St. Paul and Athos, on the Bulgarian Trebnik of the 16th century. No. 126 of Odessa University, where this manuscript was acquired in 1678 from a certain Polezhaev, and on the Service Book of the Serbian edition of the 16th century. No. 92 of the Hilandar Library. All these monuments, having the closest and most direct relationship to the worship of our church in the 15th–16th centuries, at the same time, with some of the most interesting features of rites and successions, provide very valuable material for characterizing the South Slavic worship of this time. Two parchment euchologies from the 13th–14th centuries. from the rich collection of South Slavic, namely parchment, manuscripts of our head of the spiritual mission in Jerusalem, Fr. Archimandrite Antonin, who intends to sell it to the Imperial Public Library in St. Petersburg (the slowness in this important matter entirely depends on the directorate of this library), deserve attention not only for the antiquity of their origin, but also for the peculiarities they contain in the rites of infant baptism, burial, consecration of water, etc. Finally, in the field of South Slavic euchology, I cannot help but note a very important acquisition in the proper sense this word. While I was on Mount Athos, I managed to buy a Serbian Service Book of the 16th century from a xiromachus (poor man). In addition to the rites of the liturgy, it contains the rites of initiation into all hierarchical degrees up to and including the priest, and some other prayers. All these ranks are distinguished by such original and highly interesting details and features, not found either in the ancient Greek euchologies, or in similar manuscripts of South Slavic origin known to us, that their publication in their entirety is not only desirable, but is, in our opinion, a matter of primary and essential necessity. Thus, all the available material related to the study of the history of the South Slavic euchology and collected by us on this trip will, if we add to it a description of other South Slavic liturgical manuscripts that we have seen and are scientifically interesting, which we intend to do, the second volume of our foreign works in 25 or 30 printed sheets. The oldest short record of the Church Rules known to science was hitherto considered to be the record of the Studite monastery under the title: Στουδίου, which appeared in the 9th–10th century and was published for the first time by Angel May in his “Spiceleg. Roman" t. IV, and hence reprinted by Min in “Patrolog. curs complete. t. 99" (Greek series). The full translation of this entry was made by prof. MDA Golubinsky in his “History of the Russian Church” M. 1881, vol. I, part 2, p. 671. Ὑηοτύπωσις of the Studite monastery in this edition we checked against the parchment and the oldest, close to the time of the appearance of the manuscript record of 1028 Sinai library No. 401 and discovered some, not devoid of scientific interest, the options in it. Then in the Bombycin manuscript of the 13th–14th centuries. Vatopedi Library No. 323 (133) (Slich. RKP. M. Synod. Library No. 456) we have opened a new edition of this Ὑηοτύπωσις’ with very significant and important options, the appearance of which in print will shed bright light on the attitude of Ὑηοτύπωσις’ in this edition to the Slavic Typikon of Patriarch Alexei of Constantinople, known in science, in a 12th-century manuscript. M. synod, bib. No. 330–380. In 1864, Archimandrite Antonin published the Ἀϑανασίου in Russian translation in his famous book: “Notes of a Devotee of the Holy Mountain.” Kyiv. 1864. The relationship of this Διατύπωσις’ of Athanasius of Athos to the Ὑποτύπωσις’ of the Studite Monastery is the closest, and the latter, undoubtedly, served as the original of the first, and therefore the important scientific significance of this monument is beyond any doubt. We were not able to see the autograph of Διατύπωσις'a Athanasius, since the monks of the monastery of the reverend father refused to show it to us, but we saw and even took a copy from the later copy of this Διατύπωσις'a, stored in a handwritten collection of the 16th century. No. 754 (228) Iveron Athos Monastery. In its entirety, the charter of Athanasius of Athos bears the following title: πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἀϑανασίου τοῦ ἐν τῷ Ἀϑῳ and consists of two parts, of which the first bears the title now given and treats the construction of the Lavra on Athos and the initial structure of life in it 39, and the second already contains the will itself, the church charter of the monk with the above title. Comparing the translation of this Διατύπωσις with the original, known in science, we found that the translation was made freely and with a significant reduction in the text, and therefore its scientific value falls by itself, and there is an urgent need to see the original Διατύπωσις in print as soon as possible. Almost the same thing needs to be said regarding another translation of Fr. Archimandrite Antonin, namely about the scientifically known “Sinai canonary” of the 9th–10th centuries, published by him in Trud. Kyiv. Spirit. Academician for the months of May and June 1874. This canon is contained in the parchment gospel of the Sinai library No. 150 and bears the following title: “Κανονάοιον, σὺν Θεῷ ἀρχόμενον ἀπὸ τὸ ἅγιον πάσχα μέχρι τοῦ ἁγιου σαββάτου καὶ ἀπὸ μηνὸς. "" Very important options for it are given by an excerpt from another gospel of the 9th–10th centuries, containing an endless canonary with the title: τῶν ἁγίων, ἀρχόμενον ἀπὸ μηνός Σεπτεμβρίου ἔως μηνὸς Αὐγόυστου, ἔχον πάσαν ἀκολουϑίαν. With the help of this original, many questions and confusion caused by its translation are easily eliminated. Our attempt to verify the Taktikon of Nikon the Montenegrin in its Greek original, in the manuscript of the Sinai library No. 441, failed for the reason that, as noted above, we did not find the necessary manuscript in the library itself. In view of the importance of Taktikon for characterizing Orthodox worship in the 11th century. and at the same time different patriarchies, we consider such a failure to be extremely sad and undesirable. The idea that was always inherent in them about the importance for the history of the Church Rule before the appearance of complete records of the rules of Savva the Sanctified and Theodore the Studite, the so-called ktitor typikons, which were given to monasteries by their ktitors and were the main regulators of worship in the period before the XII or XIII centuries, served as an incentive for us to pay serious attention to this kind of monuments of the Church Rule. The book by Miklosic and Müller “Acta et diplomata monasteriorum et ecclesiarum orientis” Vol. V.t. II, Vindobon. 1887 an., which reissued the ktitor's statutes of Michael Attaliatus in 1077, Empress Irene in 1114, Bishop Nauplia and Argos Leo in 1143, Bishop of Thomas Nile in 1210 and Metropolitan Zichnia Joachim in 1324, nourished and supported our confidence that the works directed to study such monuments will not remain fruitless. To the monuments of the ktitor typikons that we have already listed, we managed to add new, hitherto unknown in science, monuments, namely: the typikon of the Georgian monastery, St. The Virgin Mary Petritsutissa in Baskov near Philippopolis, given by the Jerusalem Patriarch Euthymius in 1084, the typikon of the Constantinople Pantocrator Monastery, given in 1137 by the Byzantine Emperor John the Firstborn of the Komnenov family, the typikon of the monastery of the Great Martyr Mamnitus, given in 1159 by the sovereign prince George the mystic abbot of this monastery Athanasius, the typikon of the Mother of God Monastery of Ilia Vomon (τῶν Ἠλίου Βωμῶν), given by Emperor Manuel Komnenos in 1162, the typikon of the Mother of God Monastery of Evergetida, compiled by the abbot of this monastery Timothy in the 11th century and, finally, typicon for the monastery of St. Auxentia at Chalcedon near Constantinople, given by Tsar Michael Palaiologos between 1260 and 1281. From these typikons, we copied the entire typikon of Elijah Vomon of 1162 from the list available in the library of the Russian Athos-Panteleimon Monastery and made from the original stored in the library of the Patmos St. John the Theological Monastery, excerpts from the typikon of the 11th century were extracted. of the Mother of God Evergetid Monastery, the original of which is kept in the University of Athens and of all the other typikons we have named, copies preserved in an 18th-century manuscript. Khalkinsky (seminary) library No. 85. All these typikons, in addition to their liturgical significance, as the only regulators of Eastern Orthodox worship in the period before the appearance of the monastic rules of Theodore the Studite and Savva the Sanctified, are important for us as historical documents of the highly curious era of Byzantine life of the 11th, 12th and even 13th centuries. From them we can characterize not only the state of worship during this period, but even the life and morals of the monks of this time, who had a tremendous influence on all aspects of life in the Byzantine Empire. The most important of the clergy typikons we have indicated should, undoubtedly, belong to the typicon of the 11th century monastery of the Mother of God-Evergetides, because in this monument the Church Charter of services for the weekly and annual circle and the rules of monastic life of this monastery are inseparably preserved. The first part has a very characteristic title: ἀκολουϑίας τῆς εὐαγοῦς μονῆς τῆς ὑπεραγίας Θεοτόκου τῆς ? ἀκολουϑίαν μέχρι συμπληρώσεως Αὐγόυστου, ώσαὺτως; ?? φαρισαίου μέχρι τῶν ἁγίων πάντων and the second is the usual inscription for all such monuments: Πρόλογος τοῦ Τυπικοῦ (followed would write ἑπίλογος, since this article is at the end of the Typical). But our enumeration of what we have done in the field of ktitor’s charters would not be complete if we did not point out here two very interesting finds that have the closest and most direct relation to the Jerusalem charter of Sava the Sanctified. We mean here the already mentioned charter for the service of Holy and Easter weeks in Jerusalem in the 9th-10th centuries, which we found as appendices to the handwritten and hitherto not published sacred history (Ιἑρὰ ἱστορία) of the city of Jerusalem and all of Palestine, written in 1801 by Archimandrite Maximus Simeo, a former professor theological school and hierokyrix of the Resurrection Church and Τύπος καὶ παράβοσις καὶ νόμος τῆς σεβασμίας λαύρας τοῦ ἁγίου Σάββα, discovered in a manuscript of the 13th century. Sinai Library No. 1096. In view of the special importance and deep scientific interest of these monuments, we translated the first of them into the Slavic language, provided extensive archaeological and liturgical notes and have already begun to publish it on the pages of the journal “Orthodox Interlocutor” (this work, also completed by us during a trip abroad, will form a very respectable book of 15 to 20 printed sheets), and the second, already the subject of a special essay in The Church-Archaeological Society at the Kyiv Theological Academy for the past 1888, after the necessary additions and corrections, will be published on the pages of the academic journal: “Proceedings of Kyiv. Spirit. Academy" 42. No. 1096 of the same library, as an example of a typikon that took place in the practice of the Lavra of Saint Sava, typikons of the 16th century. from the library of the monastery of Sava the Consecrated No. 305 and No. (no number), as a representative of the practice of the Jerusalem Palestinian monasteries, bombytikons of 1214 No. 1047 and 1311 No. 1101 of the Sinai library, as the only charters of the practice of the Sinai monastery, typikons of 1346 No. 320 (931), 1405 No. 324 (935) and 1446 No. 321 (932) of the Vatopedi Athonite library, as representatives of a special edition of the church charter, which we call Trebizond, because the oldest of these manuscripts No. 320 (931) contains undoubted traces of the practice of the local Trebizond church and, finally, typikons of the Kostamonite library No. 26 (22) XV century, cathedrals of the Panteleimon and Dokhiarsky Athos monasteries, as prototypes of the Svyatogorsk Athos typicon that was created later. All the manuscripts we have listed contain very scientifically interesting details, provide very important information for the history of the church typology and, in their entirety, eloquently tell us that we do not yet have the real actual history of this most important liturgical book, the writing of which is a matter for the future... In particular, for the history of the Svyatogorsk Athos charter, about which in our literature there is so far only our small note (Manual for rural pastors of 1887), they have very important handwritten cathedral typikons: of the Dionysia monastery, written in 1638, a copy of it in the Iveron monastery, made by the archimandrites of this monastery Hilarion and Athanasius in 1878, typikon of the Grigoriat monastery, compiled, at the request of the abbot of the monastery, Daniil Zagorei, by the famous learned Athonite monk Jacob in 1851, which was only a year earlier (i.e. in 1850), at the request of the abbot of the St. Paul Athonite Monastery, compiled another typicon for this monastery, the typicon of the Kostamonite monastery, compiled in 1854 by Dionysius Xenophotinus, a monk from the Peloponnese and hieromonk from Berria Meletius, and, finally, the typicon of 1869 of the Vatopedi monastery, compiled by the typicar Jacob. All these typikons are direct and positive material for the history of the Svyatogorsk typikon. There are similar typikons in some other Athonite monasteries, but they still remain unknown to us. Typicons with features of the practice of the Studite monastery, or inscribed with the name of St. We did not meet Theodore the Studite in the eastern book depositories. We saw and described only five lists of the South Slavic typikon, of which only two lists (No. 493 and No. 241) of the Hilandar library deserve attention in terms of the composition and order of the material found in them, and the rest (2 from the library of St. Sava and 1 from the Sinai library) represent a literal translation of the lists of the Greek Jerusalem Rule in its oldest edition, before the appearance in it, so called Mark's chapters. These lists do not even contain the names of South Slavic saints. Note. All three volumes of materials we have listed: a) Greek Euchologium, b) South Slavic Euchologium and c) Typikon are completely ready for printing. If the Academy Council allows us to print them on the pages of an academic journal as appendices, or separately, having previously requested a special amount from the Academic Committee of the Holy Synod for this, then we can immediately begin printing them. Necessary small notes will be made during printing. But if we studied mainly monuments related to the Euchology and Typikon, as the most important liturgical books of the Orthodox Church, this means that we did not pay serious attention to other liturgical books. On the contrary, as we will see now, we spent a lot of work and time on studying data for history and other, one can link, secondary, liturgical and church books, namely: Book of Hours, Triodeum, Apostle, Gospels, Sticherars, Psalms, Octoechos, Profitologies, collections of services, Menias, etc. And in this department of liturgical writing we managed to do a lot of very valuable work in scientific findings that deserve special mention here. In total, we read and described 15 Orologiev specimens. Of these, the Book of Hours of the 8th century. Sinai Library No. 863, in addition to its antiquity, is of particular significance for the history of worship due to its composition and text of the troparions and stichera included in it, as well as the name with which the origin of this composition is associated in the inscription. The Book of Hours is inscribed as follows: ἡμῶν Σάββα. Our science is familiar with the contents of this monument from its brief description by Fr. Archimandrite Antonin 43. In addition, the Book of Hours of the 13th–14th centuries should be considered interesting. No. 868, where services are laid out for every hour of the day and night, and the Book of Hours of the 13th century. No. 870 with two hourly hours after the hours of one, three, six and nine. Both of these manuscripts from the Sinai library are interesting as examples of cell Orology, used by Kelliot monks who lived far from monasteries with churches. In the Sinai library, all other Orologies are not without their scientific significance, and therefore we have described them in detail. Of the Orologies of other libraries, Orologies XII in Library No. 71 and Orologies 1303 from the libraries of Fr. Archimandrite Antonin. Both of them represent the type of the later Book of Hours of Esphigmena, set out according to the rules of Sava the Sanctified and memorizing the modern Book of Hours for us. Between the Slavic Orologies in Sinai we met two XII-XIII centuries. No. 12 and No. 13 with the peculiarities of the practice of the studio charter. As is known, hitherto they thought 44 that “the Books of Hours of the Studio period have not reached us,” and therefore the important scientific significance of this find is beyond any doubt and is self-evident. Among those described by us, the Triodeum deserves special attention: a manuscript of the 11th century. No. 327 (927) of the Vatopedi library, manuscript of the 10th century. Sinai Library No. 735 and RKP. XIII century the same Bible No. 739, containing the features of the practice of the Studite monastery, manuscript of the 13th century. from the library of the former theological school in Jerusalem in the monastery of the cross No. 14, as a representative of the Holy Sepulcher Jerusalem practice, and an 11th century manuscript. No. 760 and XII century. No. 758 of the Sinai Library, as examples of the Triodeum of purely Jerusalem origin, with the exact inscription of the names of the creators of the canons and stichera. Triodion 1099 No. 742 and No. 741 of the Sinai library, written in the Lavra of Saint Sava from originals of Constantinople origin, are the earliest harbingers in Palestine of the influence of the practice of the Studite monastery, which was strongly felt here in the 12th and especially the 13th centuries. Let us note another manuscript of the 10th century. No. 734 of the same library, interesting for the abundance of rites of washing the feet on Great Thursday and their diversity of composition. In total, we described 20 specimens of Triodeum. Of the apostles, important for their synaxarions and extensive extracts from the typicon of the great church, relating mainly to the feast of the Annunciation during Lent, we should note the manuscript of the 11th–12th centuries. from the library of Sava the Sanctified, manuscript from the 14th century. from the Patriarchal Jerusalem Library No. 285, manuscript of the 11th–12th centuries. No. 27 and XI century. No. 17 of the Dohiar Library and some others. In total, we described 19 copies of the gospels, and 8 copies of the apostles. For the same reason we were interested in the most ancient Profitologies or collections of readings from the prophets and from other books of the Old Testament and, during our journey, described in detail 11 copies of them. Manuscripts: XII century. No. 46 Esphigmen Library, XII century. No. 536 of the Vatopedi library, XI–XII centuries. No. 62 bib. Sava the Sanctified, No. 9, XIII century. and No. 14 XII–XIII centuries. Sinai library deserve special attention over others. We have described five copies of the Psalms, but of these, only one, belonging to the library of the University of Athens, is of particular importance. This manuscript is from the 10th century. No. 67, by the way, contains special, in its composition, hours for Thursday, Friday and Saturday of Holy Week and Τυπικκλησίας τὰ κατὰ συνήϑειαν ἀκριβόμενα. In connection with the Psalms, we considered the so-called Pandects, which include the Psalms as one of the constituent parts. In addition to the Psalter, this type of manuscript contains all 12 Menaion, Lenten and Colored Triodion, Octoechos, Book of Hours, apostolic and gospel readings for the whole year with the synaxarion. Of the three copies you described, two are manuscripts: XIII century. and 82 and XII–XIII centuries. No. 5 of the Simono-Petrine Library of Athens deserve special attention for their synaxarions and the liturgical features of the Triodeum contained in them. Of the other liturgical books, we described 6 copies of the Stichirae, 3 copies. Oktoichov, 9 copies. Menaeus, 11 copies. music liturgical books and 4 copies. individual services. Among the individual services, we should note the service to the Venerable Anthony of Pechersk 45, compiled in 1849 by the already mentioned learned Athonite monk Jacob, whose pen also includes another service in honor of the Intercession of the Mother of God 46, now performed in many Athos-Greek monasteries 47, and the service in honor of the Kiev-Pechersk saints, written in 1643 by the legate of the ecumenical patriarch Parthenia by Meletius Sirig 48. This last service, together with the service of the position of the tunic of the Savior, sent from Persia by Shah Abbas to Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich, is in a special handwritten collection of Mikhail Sirig under the title: Κανόνις εἰίς διαφορους ἁγίους stored now under No. 141 in the Holy Sepulcher Library in Constantinople. The Octoechos and Stichirari are distinguished by a remarkable uniformity of content and provide very little for science, and therefore we devoted relatively little time to this type of monuments and described a small number of them. As for the Menaion, this type of liturgical writing is perhaps the richest. You can find dozens of handwritten Mena in every library, but studying them requires some kind of self-sacrifice on the part of the researcher. Studying them can lead the researcher to many interesting scientific conclusions; in them, undoubtedly, he will discover the names of many unknown church hymnals, and at the same time many new unknown canons and stichera, but this will require a lot of work, and most importantly, time, which we did not have in sufficient quantity. The study of this type of liturgical monuments is a matter for the future. To us personally, such an activity seemed premature self-sacrifice and, from a scientific point of view, still pointless, because in our science, as we already had the opportunity to say above, its most important sources, that is, the most important church and liturgical books, remain unstudied. This only needs to explain the fact that during our entire journey we managed to examine only 11 liturgical Menaia. Of these latter, from a scientific point of view, the most interesting is the parchment scroll (1 m. 36 cent.) of the December Menaion of the 9th century. from the library of the Sinai monastery. In this ancient Menaion the following services are currently preserved: on the 13th to Modestus, Archbishop of Jerusalem, at 2 p.m. to Melchizedek the priest, at 17 p.m. to the holy martyrs Eustratius, Auxentius, Orestes and Mardarius, and at 7 p.m. to the three youths: Ananias, Azarias, and Misail. As far as time allowed, in addition to what was indicated, we managed to get acquainted with and describe 9 manuscripts of a canonical nature, 51 collections of patristic writings, patericons and chronographs and 13 manuscripts of historical content. Of these latter, we paid attention to such manuscripts that mainly relate to our fatherland or Palestine. In the latter case, we studied with particular interest the pilgrimage literature of Greek travelers to Palestine and managed to make several discoveries in this area. One of these journeys under the title: εἷνε ὁ ἅγιος τάφος καὶ ἕτερα τόποι, ὅπου ἐπερικάτησεν ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χρίστὸς, καὶ ἡ Ὑπεραγία Θεοτόκος καὶ οἱ ἅγιοι ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἅγιοι προφῆται, found by us in a handwritten collection of the 16th century. No. 1000 of the Sinai Library, we copied it entirely and will eventually be published. From another collection of the 17th century. As for historical manuscripts relating to our fatherland, our church, here in the first place we need to put the history of the Russian people, brought to Dmitry the impostor inclusive and recorded in 1668 of the Iveron Athos Monastery by Archimandrite Dionysius, now stored in the Holy Sepulcher Library in Constantinople. The full title of this curious story reads like this: τῆς ἀρχῆς τῶν Ῥώσσων, πόϑεν κατάγονται οἱ ἀρχηγοί αὐτῶν, καὶ περὶ τοῦ πότε καὶ πῶς ἐλαβον τὸ ἅγιον βάπτισμα καὶ ἔγιναν ?? σωματικῶς εἰς τὴν Ῥωσσίαν καὶ ἑκόρηξε τὸ ϑεῖον κύρηγμα, μεταφρασϑέν δὲ καὶ συλλεχϑέν ἐν συντομίᾳ ἐκ τῶν σλαβαϊκῶν βιβλίων εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν διάλεκτον παρὰἐλαχίστου Διονυσίου ἀρχιμανδρίτου τοῦ ἐκ τῆς ιἑρᾶς καὶ βασιλιχῆς μονῆς τῶν Ἰβήρων τῇ ἐν τῷ ἀγιωνύμῳ ὄρει τοῦ Ἄϑωνος, ὄντος αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν περίφημον καἰ βασιλεύουσαν μεγαλόπολιν Μοσχοβίαν ἐν ἔτει σωτηρίῳ ҂αχξη. The whole story is divided by the author into 17 titles. We described this story in detail and made several extracts as examples of its language and scientific and literary merits. In the same library we noted an important manuscript 49 for the history of the South Russian church, written in 1642 by the famous Meletius Sirig, under the title: Ἔκϑεσις πίστεως τῆς ἐν Ῥωσσίᾳ τῇ μικρᾷ ἐκκλησίας ἐκδόϑεῖσα κατ’ ερώτησιν καὶ ἀπόκρισιν, handwritten translations: Patericon of Pechersk, printed in Kyiv by Innocent Gisel in 1661, translated into Greek by the Iversky Monastery by Deacon Cosmas in 1694, Synopsis of the same Gisel, printed in 1680, translated in the monastery of St. Nicholas the Great Head in Moscow in 1693. Travel to Siberia by Nicholas Spafari in 1675, translated in the same year (1693), etc. All the liturgical, canonical and historical manuscripts we have listed are described by us in rough form, but after processing the materials at our disposal, they will undoubtedly produce a scientifically interesting collection, which will form the fourth volume of the materials we have collected, in a volume of 25 to 30 printed sheets or even slightly more. While we were primarily studying handwritten sources of Orthodox worship, we did not forget the first-printed liturgical books of the Orthodox Church. Anyone who has worked on sources of this kind knows well, from personal experience, that the only manual of this kind, compiled in two parts by Vreto in 1854 (Νεοελληνικὴ φιλολογία), could not satisfy even the indulgent researcher of early printed literature. A major two-volume work by Emil Legrand entitled: “Bibliographie hellenique ou description reason. de ouvrag. publ. in grec. par de grec. aux. XV-e et XIV siecl,” Paris, published in 1885, largely fills the gap that exists in the literature, but is also not without some shortcomings and mistakes, which we have already pointed out in print 50. The best proof of this idea is the very important circumstance that Emil Legrand himself, as we have heard from reliable sources, is preparing a whole volume of additions to the published two volumes. Consequently, personal acquaintance with the first printed editions is a matter of urgent necessity for anyone who does not want to look at things through the eyes of others. On the other hand, for us, the study of early printed editions is also important because we are interested in the text of liturgical books, their constant correction under the pen of certain reference books, while Emile Legrand pursues bibliographical goals in his book mainly, describes their appearance, content and cites verbatim the prefaces and afterwords existing in these editions, sometimes with diplomatic precision. Of the interesting printed editions that we have seen, we will note here the order of the liturgy (incomplete), printed on a parchment scroll kept in the library of the Esphigmena Monastery (Em. Legrand does not mention this rarity), the first printed typikon of 1545, the full circle of the first printed mena 51, etc. IV. Monuments of Christian antiquities in the east In relation to the other science we teach at the Academy - Church archeology, when going on a business trip abroad, we set modest goals for ourselves. Bearing in mind the wealth of literature on the study of classical and Christian antiquities in the West, and on some issues even here in Russia, we decided to limit ourselves to only a personal review of these antiquities at their location and check the conclusions existing regarding them in the scientific literature. This is what we did, observing the ancient churches of Constantinople, the Coptic churches of old Cairo, the basilicas of Bethlehem and Sinai, the Holy Sepulcher Church in Jerusalem, the ancient Christian churches of Athens and its environs, the monumental classical remains of the Parthenon, Erechtion, Nike-Apteros, Olympian Zeus, the tower of Vegrov, etc. etc., and getting acquainted with the wealth of eastern museums of antiquities: Imperial (Ottoman in Constantinople, Bulak in Cairo, Patriarchal there, Central, Polytechnic and Acropolis in Athens and other less significant scientifically in other places. But sometimes the facts themselves, monuments of architecture, sculpture and painting, before which we stood face to face with our noble greatness, venerable gray hair, high qualities grace and grace, with their, so to speak, silent eloquence, spoke so much to your mind and heart that we, willy-nilly, turned from a passive, one might say, spectator of antiquities into their researcher, and our labors in this regard did not remain fruitless, at least for us personally. While we were in Constantinople, visiting this wonderful monument of Christian architecture, and most importantly painting, with a book in the hands of our Byzantinist, Prof. N. Kondakova - “Mosaics of the Kahrie-Jamisi Mosque in Constantinople”, Odessa, 1881, we could not help but draw attention to this monument of Christian antiquity, on the one hand, and on the other, to the important circumstance that the book we named by Prof. Kondakova does not give us a proper understanding of this monument. Our personal observations and research made during the review of this mosque made it possible to discover some inaccuracies in the said book and notice aspects of this monument that for some reason our archaeologist did not pay attention to. The result was the most lively interest in this monument of Christian antiquity 52, awareness of the insufficiency of existing descriptions of it and a sincere, ardent desire to say one’s word about it over time. In Jerusalem, we observed the excavations carried out, on behalf of our Orthodox Palestine Society, on a Russian site near the Avraamievsky Monastery, by Catholics near the cave of St. Godfather of Joachim and Anna, opposite the Sheep Fountain, on the site of the Church of the First Martyr Archdeacon Stephen, near the Damascus Gate, completed excavations on the Mount of Olives in a Russian place, etc., but since the discovery by us of the already repeatedly mentioned Charter of the service of Passion and Easter Weeks in Jerusalem in the 9th-10th centuries, we had to independently study the topography of St. places in Jerusalem and architectural structures that were at these places. The result of these archaeological studies in Palestine are extensive notes to what we have already published in “Prav. Interlocution.” the said Charter. The Sinai Basilica, built by Emperor Justinian between 527 and 557, and its famous 6th-century mosaics. The transformations in the apse of the main church and the equal-pointed cross in a circle on a golden (also mosaic) background in the small altar niche of the Church of the Burning Bush were always the subject of special attention of scientists visiting the Sinai monastery. From all travelers to Sinai we can always find brief information about these perfectly preserved monuments of the best era of Byzantine art, abandoned in the wild desert. Recently (in 1881), the Sinai basilica and its mosaics were the subject of special study by our Byzantine scholar, Prof. St. Petersburg University N. Kondakov, who, in the community of the photographer Raoul, for this purpose undertook a trip to Sinai and lived in the monastery for three weeks 53. With the talent, diligence and knowledge characteristic of this Byzantine professor, not only these monuments of ancient church art, but also the carved external and internal doors of the basilica and all the manuscripts containing artistically interesting miniatures were thoroughly examined and described. We, therefore, had to, with the book of Prof. Kondakov in his hands, just check his conclusions regarding these monuments. We admit that we fully share the conclusions of the venerable scientist and if we can make any reproaches to him, they relate only to the incompleteness of the description of some, in our opinion, interesting monuments of art that are now preserved in the Sinai monastery. So, for example, we absolutely cannot understand, much less agree with the following remark of Prof. Kondakova: “except for the mosaic in the vault of the altar and on the arch above it, as well as the vault in the Kupina chapel, all the other walls of the church and the narfix are covered with plaster (except for the same chapel, the walls of which were covered with faience tiles in the 17th century)” and “in the monastery there are no memories (!) of how these walls were and whether these walls were decorated differently in the old days” 54. Strange as it may seem, here Mr. Kondakov repeats his predecessor, Fr. Archimandrite Antonin, in almost literal words: “There is no other wall painting (besides mosaics) in the church,” says Fr. Antonin - and whether it was when is unknown. Now everything is covered with new plaster, even the most granite columns” 55. Meanwhile, in fact, almost next to the Church of the Burning Bush, on the left side, in the niche of the altar of the paracleis of the Apostle James, there is an excellent large fresco depicting the Mother of God in the middle, and on the sides the creators of the liturgies of St. the Apostle James, Basil the Great and John Chrysostom, with the inscription “προφήτης” instead of ἅγιος, and the prophet Moses. All faces are depicted at the full height of the niche, the height of a person, and are distinguished by remarkable artistic decoration. Especially beautiful and expressive is the young face of the prophet of God Moses in a short tunic, with a staff in his hands, with an open curly head. In its present form, this fresco has been renewed, as evidenced by the freshness of the colors, most likely in the 17th century, but with strict adherence to all the beautiful features of the artistic style of the original. We have no doubt that in this fresco we recognize the remains of the painting with which, in all likelihood, the entire basilica was decorated, but over time, due to frequent earthquakes and unfavorable atmospheric phenomena, it cracked and collapsed (the current lead roof on the basilica was installed only under Archbishop Nikephoros in 1732), so for the sake of appearance it was necessary to cover all the walls with plaster. The decoration of the churches of Justinian's time, along with mosaics and frescoes, was completely in the spirit of that time, and in many ancient churches the most curious monuments of this branch of Christian iconography are still preserved, which, we add, preceded for several centuries the later custom of the Christian church to decorate the walls of its churches with icons painted separately on boards of different sizes. Further, the existence of wall iconography in other parts of the basilica, or at least on the columns, can be found in some, although not entirely clear, indications in literary sources. In the above-mentioned journey to Jerusalem and Sinai, which we discovered in a 16th-century manuscript. Sinai Library No. 1000, we read, among other things, the following interesting remark: μολυσκέπαστος, ἐχει κολώνας ιβ´, καἰ εἰς πᾶσαν κολῶναν ἔχει τοῦ χρόνου ὅλου τῶν ἁγίων λείψανα; καὶ εἶναι ζωγραφισμέναπᾶσα κολώνα τοῦ μηνὸς τοὺς ἁγίους. Are the current twelve large icons of the calendar with images of saints celebrated by the church throughout the year hanging on the 12 columns of the basilica a replacement for the wall images on these columns that were in former times? But if this question is resolved negatively, even though it is incredible, we repeat again, there is little in it, yet we now have data to talk about the undoubted existence of wall paintings in the Sinai basilica in ancient times. One only has to wonder why the scientists who visited the Sinai basilica earlier did not pay any attention to this fact. Some justification for them can only be served by the important fact that the fresco we described is located in the depths of a completely dark niche behind the throne, leaning against the wall itself, and due to the density and darkness of the color scheme, the faces depicted in it are completely invisible to the ordinary viewer. From a distance it seems that this niche is simply painted with dark paint and does not contain any painting. We looked at it during the day, but with a candle stuck to a long twig, bringing the candle to the very faces of the saints. We also regret that Prof. Kondakov did not pay due attention to the remarkably rich collection of icons hung on the walls of the basilica and in all the paraklis of the monastery. He only casually notes that these are icons of “letters from Athonite and Moscow of the last century” and that of them only “the magnificent folded icon of the Burning Bush in the chapel of this name with a calendar and obverse calendar on the side boards, as well as the image of the monastery itself on the archbishop’s chair (on the back of the throne?) and the icons decorating the high pulpit or pulpit to his elegant and subtle miniature writing of the beginning or end of the 18th century" 56. In fact, this collection of icons is much more interesting than one might assume at first glance. True, the description of this collection of Asseman’s glory, which our learned Archimandrite Antoninus, who also examined it superficially, promises the publisher and compiler of its description, will not acquire 57, because among its icons he will no longer encounter “the best examples of Greek, Georgian, Armenian, Abyssinian, Nubian and Negro writing,” which the late Rev. Porfiry Uspensky in 1850 58 and calmly selected it as a “remarkable rarity” for his collection, now kept in the museum at our Academy, but he will undoubtedly extract a lot of very interesting data for the history of Christian iconography in general and the Sinai-Cretan school of icon painting in particular. Realizing this kind of very significant gap for church archeology, we decided to fill it, to describe the collections of Sinai icons, at least those located in the basilica and in the adjacent paraclis. In total, we described 511 icons. Bearing in mind the entire amount of data obtained regarding the Sinai collection of icons, we must note a characteristic feature that stands out sharply from a number of similar ones, for example, in Jerusalem in the monastery of St. Savva the Sanctified, on Mount Athos in some monasteries and in other places in the Orthodox East, is complete tolerance for all kinds of artistic styles, reaching, if I may put it this way, to complete artistic indifferentism. Hence, in this collection, if we forget for a while that there were once icons of Armenian, Abyssinian, Nubian, Negro, etc., we will now see icons of ancient Greek, Athonite 16th century, Greco-Georgian, Cretan 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, Serbian, Moldavian, various Russian, Moscow, Stroganov schools. Southern Russians, even schismatics and, finally, Latin... In the same church, at the most insignificant distances, we see a beautiful icon: “Ἡ ἀμόλυντος - Immaculate,” painted at the request of Nikolai Kurin, philosopher and doctor (Δέησις τοῦ δούλου τοῦ Θεοῦ Νικολάου κουρόνου, τοῦ φιλοσόφου καὶ ἰατροῦ), by the artist Emmanuel Lapard in 1626; another icon on the same subject, completed around 1615 by the prolific and talented master priest Jeremiah the Cretan; the icon of the Meeting, standing on the left side, at the entrance to the royal doors of the basilica, executed in 1571 by the Damascene Cretan; icon of the Mother of God Hodegetria of the 16th century, according to local Sinai tradition, considered to be the work of the Evangelist Luke, but renewed Κορνάρου Ἰωάννου κρητὸς) by a very mediocre Sinai artist, John Cornard, a Cretan in 1778; and here, or even in a more honorable place, in the altar, near the high place, on the right side - an icon of the Mother of God with the Latin inscription: “Conditorem mundique Virgo continet ulnis” XV or XVI century. The icon of the Mother of God with the Latin inscription mentioned above is called the Ponomar Icon (τοῦ Κανδηλάπτου). The following miracle revealed by it is told about this icon. One day, the sexton or candilapt of the monastery, according to custom, lit the candles and lamps of the church before the start of the service. Doing this extremely casually and with a restless heart, he approached the real icon of the Mother of God and began to light the front candle, but at that time an invisible hand dealt him a strong blow to the cheek. Struck by this, Kandilapt immediately came to his senses, fell to his knees before the Mother of God, whose hand he mistook for an invisible hand that had brought him to his senses, and with tears begged for mercy. Having sincerely confessed his sin - before the abbot and openly told about the wonderful sign that came to him from the icon of the Mother of God, the candidate received forgiveness from the abbot, but so that he would forever remember his sin. In memory of this event, a silver likeness of a hand was made onto the icon, attached with silver nails in the lower part of the image (like the icon of the Mother of God of Three Hands), and the candilapt was obliged to perform every service without fail and, first of all, to light a candle in front of this icon, as if asking the Mother of God each time for a blessing for the upcoming work. This custom is sacredly observed to this day. There are also many wonderful stories told about the icon of the Mother of God, painted, according to monastic tradition, by the Evangelist Luke and restored by John Kornar in 1778, and it is revered along with other named miraculous icons of the monastery. In addition to these best examples of Greek writing, the paraklis of Joachim and Anna contains excellent miniature calendars of Greek-Georgian writing of the 15th–6th centuries. 59 in triplicate; in the paraclis of John the Baptist, built in 1566 at the expense of the Moldavian ruler Alexander, local icons were painted by artists of that time from Moldova; in the paraklis of Joachim and Anna there are icons, although painted by Greek artists, but from Latin originals, such as, for example, a fold depicting the Mother of God on a throne with the Child of God. On the sides of the Mother of God are angels. To the left, Christ crowns the Mother of God and the Assumption of the Mother of God, and to the right, Christ teaches the Pharisees in the Jerusalem Temple and the Entombment of the Savior. In this last picture, the Mother of God is painted with a distorted face, tormenting her thick hair, randomly flowing over her shoulders, and falling to the ground... St. Nicholas is depicted in a Catholic tiara and with the same staff in his hands; The Forerunner is holding a Lamb in his hands, with a flag on his head. Next to similar works of art, we can point out the most significant examples of Russian icon painting. Such icons undoubtedly include the icon of the Annunciation, of excellent workmanship and with remarkably fine decoration of the buildings depicted on it, painted in 1610 by Macarius Ostatkov and located in the Church of the Burning Bush (No. 35); icon of the 17th century Nativity of Christ, written or donated by Simeon Prozanov (Συμεών Προζανὸβ) and located in the altar of the basilica (No. 2); the icon of the Transfiguration of the Lord from the Moscow letter of the 15th–16th centuries, sent to Sinai in 1594 (7102) June 7 by the well-known Arseny Archbishop of Elassovsky in Russia; an excellent fold in the same place (No. 24) with the image of a faceted chamber and the Kremlin with a regional square on the back side, painting of the 17th century; icon of All Saints in the paraclis of the Apostle James, southern Russian letter, sent from Kyiv in 1773 Hieromonk Gregory, abbot of the Church of the Great Martyr Catherine, belonging to the Sinai Monastery (No. 21); in the same place (No. 13) and the same letter, an icon of the merciful Philaret of the 17th–18th centuries, which belonged to Hieromonk Meletius Roumeliot, who in 1797 tied an icon to the Sinai artist Chrysanthos in honor of his angel (No. 91 in the basilica); in the same place (No. 14) an icon of a schismatic letter from the 18th century, depicting St. Cyril of Beloozersky and (No. 9) icon of St. Mitrofan of Voronezh, letters from the 19th century. etc. etc. But besides, so to speak, the equality of icons painted by Russian masters of all schools and shades with the saints whom the Greek Church does not honor and whose memory we, Russians, began to celebrate relatively recently, with icons of Greek subjects by masters, in Sinai iconography we can observe a phenomenon unprecedented in the history of icon painting. Icons of Russian schools are made models for Greek Sinai icon painters and are sometimes renewed by them. So, for example, a wonderful fold located in the Burning Bush (No. 59), containing the Dormition of the Mother of God, the burial of the Great Martyr Catherine and the Annunciation, was restored by the hand of the Sinai artist Victor the Cretan in 1651 according to the original of a Moscow letter of the 15th–16th centuries, part of which, representing the Burning Bush and the Image Not Made by Hands, is preserved to this day back side. But this is not enough. Often Russian saints in Sinai are depicted on icons by local Greek artists. Of the Russian saints, Metropolitan Alexei of Moscow was especially lucky in this regard. An icon of this saint with the inscription: “ὁ Ἀλέξιος, ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Ῥυσίας” is located in the paraclis of the Apostle James (No. 10), another with the inscription: “ὁ ἅγιος Ἀλέξιος ϑαυματουργός" in the Juvaniy Sinai metochion in Cairo, etc. In the paraclis of the Apostle James we saw an icon of the Greek letter of the 18th century, which depicts the Moscow saints Peter, Alexei and Jonah (No. 29). Reviewing the entire collection of Sinai icons and pausing carefully over this phenomenon, one involuntarily asks the question: how did the Sinai churches turn into a museum containing a rich collection of ancient icons of different writing, different schools and movements, different nationalities and religions? The collection of icons themselves, supplied with very detailed notes either on pieces of paper glued to them, or on the back side of the icons themselves, with the names of the donors, the time the icon was received at the monastery, etc., gives a very clear answer to the question posed. From these notes one cannot help but see that all these icons were collected here by chance, through donations from different people, different countries and localities. Of the 511 icons, we found on only one icon a note that it (the icon of St. Stephen and Lawrence, located in Basilica 94) was donated by a council decision of the elders of the monastery (κοινῇ βουλῇ τῆς συνάξεως). We found a few icons with the names of the archbishops of Mount Sinai, as caring abbots about the decoration and splendor of their monastery. Here in the first place we must put one of the most active abbots in this regard, Archbishop Ioannikiy (see the icon of the Mother of God of the Russian letter of the 17th century, donated in 1683, No. 2 in Kupino), followed by Archbishops Athanasius, Kirill (icon of the Mother of God in the iconostasis of the basilica), Abraham (no. 4 icon in the paraklis of St. Constantine and Helena), Constantius (Our Lady in the Bush, No. 112) and some others. In most cases, the donors of icons were Sinai monks who were outside the monastery as exarchs, proto-synchels and epitropes of the monastery in numerous monastic rituals and in memory of their spiritual connection with throwing, they sent sacrifices to it in the form of icons (we do not indicate examples, since the majority of such icons) - Sinai monks who went on a journey to collect alms (εἰς No. 23 in Η. Kupina), for the worship of shrines Neop. Kupina, or ὅταν ὑπάγῃ νὰ προσκυνήσῃ νὰ τὴν ἔχῃ No. 14 of the Dzhuvaviysky metochion), or for receiving education in Smyrna or on Patmos 60 and leaving their icons, which sometimes remained there forever, but sometimes were returned to their owners, because they had convinced themselves of this right even when leaving the monastery 61. Deliverance from Death Η. Kupine), as an expression of gratitude, a sacrifice for the salvation of the soul (διὰ ψυχικήν μου σωτηρίαν. Ibid. No. 102), and most often the death of the owner and his posthumous will - all this significantly contributed to the enrichment of the Sinai monastery with icons, at least in quantitative terms. For a more thorough solution to the question posed, we consider it useful to present here a list of donors, compiled by us on the basis of the notes to the icons. At the same time, it would be useful to note that this list includes only those donors who accurately indicated the time of their donations and thus, in some respects, dated the time of origin or inscription of this or that icon, and on the other hand, we have not yet made a strict distinction between donors - customers of icons, who usually declare themselves in the stereotypical phrase: Δέησις τοῦ δούλου τοῦ Θιοῶ κ.τ.λ., and donors, to whom the icon fell into the hands much later after its painting. In a detailed description of the icon we will make this distinction, since it sometimes has important chronological significance. Here is the list. In 1594, the icon was sent from Moscow by Arseny, Archbishop of Elassona and Demonika (Δαιμονικοῦ), a former companion of the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah, who came to Russia to install our first Patriarch Job, the author of the poetic composition: Κόποι καὶ διατριβὴ τοῦ ταπεινοῦ ἀρχιεπισκόπου Ἀρσενίου, γράφει καὶ τὴν προβίβασιν τοῦ πατριάρχου Μοσχοβίας (Burning Bush No. 102). In 1603, Eugene, hierodeacon, came from Ioanin (ἐζ Ἰωαννίνων). In 1626 - Nikolai Kurin, philosopher and doctor. In 1630, Hieromonk Averky donated the icon. In 1636 - Zakhary Pesin. In 1647 - Elder Christodoulos, it seems, a Cretan from the Skordili family, who later became a priest. In 1674, 1723 and 1730 Theophanes, proto-Sincelian, Cretan. In 1680 - Simeon monk, Roumeliot. In 1681, Joasaph, the hierodeacon, donated the icon, and Macarius, the hieromonk, made a frame for it with inlays in 1682. In 1683, 1691 and other years, the monk Ioannikis, archbishop of Mount Sinai, a Peloponnesian native, nicknamed Lascaris, made many donations of icons. In 1701 he donated a crucifix made in Russia in the 17th century. Archimandrite Kirill, a Cypriot, who visited Russia in 1689 and brought from there in 1691 a silver-plated shrine for the relics of the Great Martyr Catherine, donated to the Sinai monastery by Tsars John and Peter Alekseevich and Princess Sophia. In 1708, Elder Philotheus ordered an icon in honor of his angel, who in 1680 tiled the walls of the Church of the Burning Bush with blue tiles with painted flowers. He was originally from Damascus, it seems. In 1710 - Simeon, hieromonk, from Chios. It seems that the origin of the iconostasis of 1717 in the chapel of the Prophet Moses and the construction of the library in 1734 can be associated with his name. In 1712, the icon was donated by Athanasius, Archbishop of Mount Sinai, originally from Nyausta (ἐξ Νιαούστης). Through the efforts of this bishop, he made a base for the marble shrine of the Great Martyr Catherine in 1715 and in 1712 a bishop's cathedra, lined with mother-of-pearl patterns based on Indian tortoise bone. He died in 1720. In 1715, the Sinaite Anastasy the Bulgarian donated an icon to the monastery. In the same year, two icons were donated by Hieromonk Gerasim, a native of Philippopolis, who later became a proto-Sinkel. repeatedly donated icons to the monastery, as, for example, in 1776 and 1778. The year 1722 marks the first victim of Hieromonk Constantius Byzantios, who in 1746, on August 14, was elected by the Council of Sinai Elders to the place of Archbishop Nikephoros as abbot with the name Constantius I. In 1723, Proto-Sinkel Daniel, going to Ahalia for the third time, gave to the basilica the icon of the Mother of God with the Child crowning St. Ekaterina. In 1724, the donor was Hierodeacon Jeremiah, a Cretan from Kydonia, who was elevated there to the rank of archimandrite and was a dice in Sinai. There were donations from him in 1732 and 1793. In 1726, the monk Ioannikin Moraidis, who went with Mr. Gerasim to Samos and handed it over to Mr. Anthim for storage in the basilica, owned the icon of the Mother of God, now kept in the Dzhuvaniysky metochion in Cairo. In 1728, Hieromonk Gabriel was the donor. In 1733 - a certain John Fuma. In 1733, 1752, etc. Gideon, hieromonk, dike of the monastery, originally from Crete. In 1770 and 1777 Monk David, a former housekeeper, made offerings to the monastery of Sinai icons. This elder, on behalf of the Sinai fathers and Archbishop Cyril, went to Gaza in 1771 to purchase wheat, since that year bread prices were high in Egypt. In 1770 - protosinkel and dike of Patmos Athanasius. In 1776 - Dionysius protosinkel, a Cretan by birth, sent to collect alms to Gallipoli (see the explanation of the word ταξιάρης by Rev. Porfiry. First trip to the Sinai monastery. St. Petersburg, 1856, p. 251, note). archbishop, and died in 1629. In 1778 he sent an icon of southern Russian writing from the 17th–18th centuries to the Sinai monastery. All Saints Hieromonk of Sinai and Abbot of the Monastery of the Great Martyr Catherine in Kyiv Gregory. In 1780 he donated an icon of St. to the monastery. Kalinnik, painted by the Sinai artist John Korvar in the same year, the Russian Sinai monk Kalinnik, made the following inscription on it: “Lord Jesus Christ, through the prayers of St. Martyr Kalinnik, save your servant Kalinnik in his departure.” This icon arrived at the Church of the Burning Bush in 1782 on June 6, as Jeremiah Dickey testifies. In 1780, the Sinai hieromonk Gerasim, originally from Tripoli, sacrificed the icon of the Mother of God with the Great Martyr Catherine, which he had ordered. In 1781 - monk Philaret. In 1782 - monk Arseniy of Crete. In 1782, 1793 and other years, Jeremiah, a native of Kidovia on the island of Crete, was a very zealous contributor of icons to the monastery collection, and was a proto-synchel and dike of the Sinai monastery. His gift is especially remarkable - the icon of the Forerunner, very artistically embroidered in silk and gold, with a wonderful massive frame, chased work. This icon was donated by Fr. Jeremiah in 1793 in memory of his threefold deliverance from death, through prayer to this saint. This icon is now located in the Church of the Burning Bush. In 1884, the monastery received an icon of the Great Martyr Catherine, painted by the hand of the Sinai artist, Cretan John Kornar in 1780, from Matthew, Bishop of Rithymnine and Aulopotamia (in Crete), who died in retirement in the monastery in 1864 (see about this bishop in Kondakov. Travels to Sinai, p. 53). Rev. Matthew, a native of Crete, was for a long time the housekeeper in the Cretan Sinai church of St. Matthew and for his highly moral qualities was elected by the Cretans to the mentioned department. At his initiative and partly at his expense, the construction of a new burial church of St. began last year (1888), in the month of May. Tryphon in the Sinai monastery. The present icon was presented by the Sinai fathers living in Cairo in the Dzhuvaniysky metochion in 1831 to Archbishop Meletios of Crete, apparently the predecessor of the late Right Reverend Matthew, who died in 1839. After the death of Bishop Meletius, this icon became the property of his nephew, a certain Stephen, from whom it was bought for 150 groschen, due to its special significance for the monastery καὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἡμῶν μοναστηρίου) protosinkel Hilarion and steward Matthew, successor of the Right Reverend Meletius. “every gift is good” - and the Sinai fathers with equal gratitude accepted large icons of the best artists of their time - Damascus the Cretan, Emmanuel Tzane, Jeremiah the Cretan and small icons of mediocre artists: Victor the Cretan, John Cornard, Caesarea the hieromonk, etc. and, finally, icons of the most diverse Russian schools, Bulgarian, Moldovan artists, Georgian, Armenian, etc. Here, finally, we must look for an explanation for the fact that the Sinai collection of icons contains a wide variety of icons based on the material on which they are painted. Between these icons we see icons of amazingly fine workmanship, embroidered in silk and gold, such as, for example, the icon of the Forerunner, donated in 1793 by Archimandrite Jeremiah, or the icon of the Great Martyr Catherine, hanging along the entire wall behind her relics, on the right side of the main altar; icons painted on marble, such as a small icon of St. Nicholas, hanging under the local icon of the main altar of the same saint; icons on mother-of-pearl, such as the Annunciation and the Resurrection of Christ in the Church of the Burning Bush; on sea shells in an unfinished form, such as, for example, in the same church the icon of the Burning Bush and the Great Martyr Catherine, painted in 1722; on stone, such as the beautiful relief image of the Baptism of the Lord in the paraklis of Joachim and Anna, and carved relief icons on wood, such as the icon of St. Nicholas in the paraclis of Joachim and Anna and an icon in the form of a cross in the paraclis of Simeon the Stylite. The island of Crete, nicknamed “hundred-city” in ancient times, occupies one of the most advantageous places on the globe in all respects due to its geographical position. Stretched out like a wide ribbon against the blue-blue background of the Mediterranean Sea, cut along the edges with bays convenient for anchoring ships and for trade communications of residents, with inaccessible rocks in the middle, covered with the most luxurious and varied vegetation, with a moderate favorable climate, the island of Crete, rightly, can be called “the happiest and best land in the world,” - a land “flowing with milk and honey,” as one Arab conquering leader described it. Its inhabitants, distinguished by their external physical beauty, which still distinguishes the Cretan Aspasia from a number of other fellow tribesmen, thanks to such natural happy conditions of the country, developed a spirit of enterprise, courage, courage and complete independence. And the political circumstances for the Cretans were much more favorable than for their other tribesmen. “For the sake of truth, it must be admitted,” says the scientist Herman Grigoras, “that after the general revolution that befell our Greece, Crete, having received into its bowels many educated men (who fled from the rule of the Turks), became a remarkable refuge of Greek learning and education, became a prolific mother, giving many very useful men, leaders and collaborators in the restoration of what was destroyed. And we see that in the 15th and 16th centuries a special love for enlightenment appeared among the Cretans” 65. Cretan natives, having received their initial education in their homeland, go to complete it to Italian universities: Venice, Padua, Rome and other cities. At the University of Padua, a whole Cretan colony was formed from Cretan youth; there was a similar colony in Venice. Many of them, after completing their education abroad, returned to their homeland and there served the cause of public education, but some, more gifted, remained outside their fatherland and became professors at foreign universities, for example, in Venice, Marcus Musurus, in Florence, Marcus the Cretan, etc., and managed to gain fame as scientists, such as, for example, John Grigoropoulos and John Musurus, both members of the Aldine Academy, Pavel Skordili and a teacher of the Greek language in Ferrara and others. The 15th and 16th centuries for Italy were, however, not only centuries of prosperity for the sciences, but also for the arts, and in particular painting. In the 15th and especially in the 16th centuries, schools of painting were created in Italy, such as Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo Buonarotti, Raphael, Corregia, etc., which have no equal to date. The artistic activity of the Italians of this time, as well as education, was concentrated mainly in university cities. Their paintings were the subject of admiration and even serious study by all layers of society of that time. It is impossible and even unnatural to imagine that Cretan youth, studying at Italian universities at that time, remained alien to the passion for the arts. On the contrary, if we cannot now point out numerous examples in favor of the Cretans studying painting under the guidance of Italian artists in their extensive and European-famous studios (we can only partially consider as such Presbyter John Rosos, Angel Vergikios, etc.), then the entire sum of the numerous monuments of the Cretan school of icon painting with striking clarity convinces us of the naturalness of such a phenomenon. A comparison of these monuments with similar subjects of the best Italian masters leaves no doubt as to the source from which the Cretan artists drew inspiration and models. More specifically, with regard to the development of aesthetic taste among Cretan youth at this time, they were not hindered in this by other scientific pursuits, such as philosophy and medicine, and even the administration of high public positions. We find an example of this, and a rather striking one, in the Sinai collection of icons. In the basilica, on the wall at the top there is a large icon called: “Ἡ ἀμόλυντος”, painted in 1626. by the hand of a very skilled artist, a certain Emmanuel Lapardi, with the following inscription from the customer: “Δέησις τοῦ δούλου τοῦ Θεοῦ Νικολάου Κουρίνου, τοῦ φιλοσόφου καὶ ιἀτροῦ.” In the same basilica, but only on the other side, there is an icon of the Mother of God, commissioned by the priest Christodoulus of the Skordili family and painted by Constantine the logothete (Χεῖρ Κωνσταντίνου, τοῦ λογοϑέτου κρητός). Consequently, enlightened Cretan figures, even occupying a high official social position, found time to practice the fine arts and even church painting. But even in addition to such clear examples and numerous monuments of the artistic activity of the Cretans of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, it is very natural to guess a priori that Crete provided all possible conveniences for the flourishing of fine arts and, in particular, church painting, the most necessary art for the entire Orthodox East, which was at that time in a period of terrible physical and moral enslavement. Be that as it may, the fact of the formation and prosperity of the school of church painting in Crete in the 16th and subsequent centuries is beyond any doubt. From here, especially after 1541, when Selim II landed with his troops in Crete and caused great devastation, zograph artists moved and found shelter and wide scope for activity in the monasteries of Athos, Sinai, Patmos, Cairo, Constantinople, Alexandria and in all other cities where people who spoke Greek Roman language lived. Traces of their artistic activity remain to this day. Cretan monk Theophanes with his son Simeon in 1535 But what had an unfavorable effect on the internal life of the Sinai monastery in the 17th and 18th centuries, on the mutual relations of its brethren who came here from different parts of the Orthodox world, in other respects undoubtedly had an important and beneficial significance. The dominant position in the monastery of the Cretan natives, as people scientifically and aesthetically educated under the influence of the enlightened West, was created in the Sinai monastery by itself. They were united not only by fraternity, but also by more lofty interests - a love for the sciences and arts, which they studied in their “happy” homeland, in the days of their youth. Having arrived in Sinai, the Cretans continued to engage in the arts, 75 and in particular church painting, as an art more suitable than others for monastic use, and created a whole school of painters. The founder of the Sinai school of icon painting can be considered the Sinai hieromonk Jeremiah the Cretan, whose brush belongs to the local icons in the iconostasis of the basilica and several large icons on the side walls of the main church and in the Church of the Burning Bush. These icons were painted by him during the period from 1512–1515. Almost everyone who had the opportunity to see the icons of this artist speaks of them as works of “wonderful writing” (P. Nektariy, Grigorovich-Barsky, Ave. Porfiry Uspensky, Prof. Kondakov, etc.). The only exception and completely unfair one is our arch. Antonin, who gives the following review about them: “local icons are not remarkable for their antiquity, grace, or decoration” 76. The brush of this artist is actually distinguished by the correctness of the drawing, the extraordinary softness and delicacy of the colors, the clarity in the development of the details of the picture and the knowledge of the traditions of ancient Byzantine church writing. In this last respect, Hieromonk Jeremiah has no other equal artist in Sinai. Needless to say, these artists remained alien to the concept of church tradition in Orthodox Eastern art and the superior merits of Byzantine art over Western art. Hence, without regret, one cannot look at those icons from the Sinai collection that were painted in the 15th and 16th centuries, but then, during their renovation, fell under the inexperienced brush of John Cornard and some other artists. John Cornard, in particular, is important for the history of this school in the sense that he was more willing than other Sinai artists to try to paint icons in oil paints; but the icons he painted using this method are distinguished by their unfinished and clumsy appearance. The colors of his icons, diluted excessively with oil, with a predominance of bright colors: red, blue and yellow, are still distinguished by their extraordinary richness and variegation, which is striking to the close eye. The oldest dated icon in Sinai dates back to 1516, but the icon with the date and name of the artist is known to us only from 1551. In this year, the icon of the Mother of God on the Clouds was painted, which is now kept in the Church of the Burning Bush. Its author was Emmanuel Tzane (τοῦ Τζάνε), a priest by rank, a native of the island of Crete. It seems that Emmanuel Tzane ila Tzaneti came from that house, whose relatives had their own printing house in Venice in the 16th century. and were engaged in publishing liturgical books, canonical content, etc. in Greek. The icon we named was renewed in 1778 by John Kornar. The same Emmanuel Tzana can be attributed to the large icon of the prophet Moses, located on the wall of the basilica at the top and having the inscription: Μνήσϑητι, Κόριε, τὴν ψυχὴν Μανουήλ. In 1571 he made the icon of the Presentation of the Lord, nicknamed in the monastery “ktitorskaya”, by a Damascene Cretan. In 1603, a certain George Klonza (Κλόντζα), a Cretan, painted an icon of the Sinai Fathers. This icon, of very good workmanship, is located in the paraclis of the Transfiguration of the Lord. In 1683, a certain Hadji-Kiriakis Vouliotis donated an icon of St. Great Martyr Catherine's very mediocre letter to Archbishop Ioannikius of Sinai with the council. The donor provided this icon with the following curious note: αὐϑέντῇ καὶ δεσπότῃ, ἀρχιεπισκόπῳ τοῦ ἁγίου ϑεοβαδίστου ὄρους Σινᾶ καὶ Ῥαῖϑοῦ, κορίῳ κορίῳ Ἰωαννικίῳ σὺν τῇ ἁγίᾳ αὐτοῦ σονάξει, ὁ ταπεινὸς δοῦλος χατζὴ Κυριάκης Βουλιότης συναίτης μὲ τὸν παρὸν προσκυνεῖ 1683 ὀκτωμβρίου. (The icon is currently kept in the Russian St. Andrew's monastery on Athos among a rather valuable and large collection of ancient icons of the Byzantine, Athonite, Serbian and other schools. This collection was started by lovers of antiquity and patrons of the monastery P.I. Sevastyanov and A.N. Muravyov, and now it is being increased with new additions at the expense of the monastery itself). In 1691, hieromonk Caesarea was engaged in icon painting. In 1709, a Cretan painted the entire height of the main iconostasis on its inner side, Vaontsa (Βαόντζα). The painting is very good artistically, unfortunately, it was renewed in 1778 by John Kornar. This picture is divided into several sections and in one part depicts in the faces the history of the Jewish people, and in the other a Jew who fell into the hands of robbers. In the middle is the Mother of God, surrounded by scenes from the history of the Old and New Testaments. In the depiction of sacred events and persons, triviality is evident everywhere. So, for example, St. King David in front of Jerusalem is depicted with a cello in his hands. In 1718, hierodeacon Chrysanthus, originally from Cyprus, was engaged in painting in Sinai. In 1723 – 1733 – George Castrophylax is a Cretan. In 1724, the icons of Jerobei, hierodeacon of Sinai, were painted. In 1728 - John Mavrogiani. In 1764 - John the Cretan. In 1770 - Theodosius of Sinai from the Peloponnese. In 1775 - Polychronius the Cretan. In 1777, etc. - John Cornarus, Cretan. From 1782 to 1792 - monk Neophytos, a Cretan from Handaka. In 1797 - Gerasim hieromonk. We know the names of some and other Sinai artists, but without the exact dates of their artistic activity, and therefore we did not include them in this list. There is reason to think that with a more thorough study of the materials we have collected for Sinai iconography, it will be possible to approximately date the activity of these latter in Sinai and thereby significantly increase the present list of Sinai zographs. Kugler, - that the most ancient masters (Antonio Vivarini and Johannes the German) possessed a perfection in coloring, unprecedented before that time, especially of the naked body; then, the aforementioned Gentile da Fabriano lived for a long time in Venice and in this city educated many students who, without a doubt, adopted and developed in their own way the clear and brilliant style of their teacher; and, finally, that earlier than all other Italian schools, the Venetian technique of oil painting came into use, which, due to its fluidity and richness (compared to fresco painting), was particularly conducive to the development of this originality. But the main basis or reason for the special direction of the Venetian school should be sought in the bright and festive character of the local people. Regarding the design, arrangement and furnishings, the Venetians mainly adhered to the practice of the neighboring Paduan school, but at the same time successfully evading its exaggeratedly strict manner and disposing of what they borrowed from it completely independently in those cases when it did not agree with their personal views. The element of color that prevailed among the Venetian masters of that time expressed, for the most part, only a predilection for conspicuous splendor and brilliant variegation: a completely harmonious combination of colors was left to the later period to develop. Regarding the method of images separately, it should be noted that historical compositions, in the proper sense, are rarely found, and where they are, we notice in them a layout different from the manner of the Florentines and Paduans. If the latter are dominated by a symmetrical general arrangement of figures, their calculated distribution into groups, etc., among the Venetians, from the first, we notice a certain inclination towards the so-called genre, expressed in the fact that the composition is generally more scattered and that more importance is attached to the setting and incidentals, mainly the landscape. More often there are ordinary images of Mary Donna sitting on a throne and surrounded by one or another saint, depending on which zealous customers of the icons wished to have. Before the time of the Vivarinii, therefore, later than in other schools, the faces of individual saints were painted on a gold background and were separated from each other by a special frame; then this division was abandoned and everything was combined into one image, usually with an architectural setting in the background, and then, strictly speaking, the “conversation of the saints” became possible. The saints have now ceased to be placed at equal distances from each other and in a resting position; it was necessary to come up with some variety. The Cretans draw subjects for their icons directly from the Venetian masters, although at the same time they do not completely shun the subjects and examples of ancient Byzantine writing, modern Athonite, Russian artists of various schools and trends, etc. So, for example, on the icon of the Mother of God, Cretan icon painters, like Venetian artists, try to depict the saints who are certainly standing before her. The plot of the Mother of God on the throne with David, Solomon, Isaiah and Daniel standing before her is the most common and beloved by Cretan artists. Dozens of similar icons are found in the Sinai collection. In parallel to this plot, Christ as the Great Bishop, also sitting on the throne, is depicted with the four evangelists, sometimes in the form of human figures, sometimes quite often symbolically. The Holy Great Martyr Catherine is rarely depicted at the moment of her torment on the wheel. Grigoriadis (Ἡ ἱέρὰ μονὴ τοῦ Σινᾶ, 1875), and a Greek artist from the school of the Cretan initial period. This is evidenced, on the one hand, by the fact that the style of the real icon is similar to the icon of the Mother of God, painted by the hand of priest Emmanuel Ttsane, and other icons of the 16th century, and on the other hand, also by the fact that the Latin inscription on the icon contains gross grammatical and spelling errors. Obviously, the artist only copied the inscription, but did not know Latin, and therefore wrote it in such a way that it is only possible to read it by guesswork. The passion of Cretan icon painters for genre and especially for landscape often leads them to blunders and errors against the truth. However, this is where all the talent poured out, because it provided the opportunity to satisfy this passion, to show oneself an artist in the true sense of the word. A good subject for this in Sinai Cretan icon painting was the image of the Burning Bush. Every artist took on this subject, which is why a lot of icons of this kind have been preserved in the collection we are describing. According to their talents, each of the Sinai artists contributed something of their own to the development of this plot, sometimes revealing signs of true talent, and therefore, along with the abundance of icons on this plot, we also see a remarkable variety in its development, in detail. Depicting Kupina in the form of a burning bush, or in the form of an image of the Mother of God standing in the middle of a flame, artists write on the side St. Moses and St. Great Martyr Catherine. But the true vocation of the Sinai-Cretan artist is not genre, but landscape and perspective. Steep and high mountains, squeezing the Sinai monastery on all sides, the monotonously boring vast valley of Rakh, a narrow strip stretching from the monastery to the mountain range that hides it within itself, a small piece of the transparent blue always monotonous sky, as if stretched over the monastery as a cover from the peaks of Mount Galaktion and Epistimiia to Horeb - all this constrains the Sinaitic artist and not gives him the opportunity to show the full power of his true talent. That is why, having depicted on the icon with remarkable detail the above-described scenes of Sinai life, the Sinai artist commits violence against nature, breaks out of the shackles that are squeezing the monastery and him personally, and mentally ascends to the Divine Sinai, or an even higher point on Mount St. Catherine (in reality these mountains are not visible from the monastery). The desire of the Cretan-Sinaites “for the architectural setting in the background” of the icon was already partly expressed in the icons of the Burning Bush, in the images of the Sinai monastery, but it was reflected in greater relief in the icons of the Byzantine type. A remarkable example of this kind of icons in the Sinai collection can be considered the festive icon of the Nativity of the Mother of God, located on the wall of the basilica in a row of monthly icons. The plot of this icon is very complex. In the most prominent place of the icon, a building is depicted with a door open into it, in which stands a driver. Joachim kissing St. Anna. To the side there is a tree and in front of it a tetrahedral pillar with a hole inside, from which one can see the exit to a platform covered with a tiled trulli-shaped light roof supported by Byzantine columns. Both buildings are connected by crimson cloths (flags) intertwined with dark and gold ribbon. The door to the room is hung with a pink curtain on a wire. St. Joachim stands in front of the door, and an angel flies towards him with the joyful news of the conception of St. Anna. Below, on a bed covered with a white cover with red and blue interceptions, St. Anna sits in a thoughtful pose, her gaze fixed on the baby - St. Our Lady, resting peacefully in a spacious bed with a red blanket. One of the maids, a young one, serves St. Anna a bottle, another holds a fan over her, the third, an elderly woman, with one hand clears food from the table, served with jugs, glasses, forks and knives, and with the other gives the order to a young girl to put a decorated loaf, like Monomakh’s hat, on the table. Below, in front of the cradle of St. Mother of God, a young girl sits at a tow and spins wool. The faces depicted on the icon are full of life and movement. On the architecturally intricate thrones of the Sinai-Cretans sit not only the Savior and the Mother of God, but even, very often, St. Great Martyr Catherine and St. hierarchs. Cheerful youthful faces of angels and saints, or with flower garlands in their hands, or even with musical instruments, for example, St. David with cello, St. angels with a bassoon, clarinet-piston and flutes are also found in other zographs of the Cretan-Sinaitic school of painting, but most often in the Cretan-Sinaites George Klovtza and John Cornard. Occasionally, artists of the Cretan-Sinai school painted portraits under the icons, either their own or those who ordered the icons. Such in the Sinai collection should be considered the icon of the Mother of God in the basilica with the image of Nektarios, Patriarch of Jerusalem, as well as the icon of the Burning Bush with the image of Patriarch John of Jerusalem, in the paraclis of St. kings Constantine and Helena - an icon of Abraham and Melchizedek with a portrait of the Archbishop of Sinai - Abbot Abraham, in the Church of the Burning Bush - an icon of St. Great Martyr Catherine in 1755 with a portrait of the customer, the Sinaite monk Joachim, in the basilica - the icon of the Presentation of the Lord and All Saints, with a portrait of the same monastic face - on one icon half-length, and on the other - full-length. We think that the artist himself is depicted here. As border decorations, Sinai icons sometimes depict local lizards called crocodiles in various positions. We see such decorations on the icon of the Burning Bush (No. 39) in the church of the same name. Note. Everything we have stated here about the peculiarities of the Cretan-Sinaitic school of icon painting looks more like a summary than a study in the proper sense of the word. We will do the latter after a detailed description of the Sinai collection of icons, and will constitute an independent new work in the series of those indicated above. Year by year, interest in book and manuscript treasures is increasing more and more in the scientific world. The most important European manuscript libraries have had published catalogs for a relatively long time. True, these catalogs, in most cases, are compiled unscientifically and cannot in any case satisfy a person with broad requests and requirements for this kind of publications, but they are important as statistics of available manuscript material awaiting scientific development, and for the libraries themselves, as an official published inventory of available property, usually easily spread out in the hands of bibliomaniacs and manuscript collectors. In recent years, the turn has come for libraries located far from the centers of European education, for libraries in the far East. Currently, the famous young Greek scientist, Doctor of Hellenic Philology of the Imperial Moscow University, A. is busy describing the manuscripts of Palestine. Papadopoulo-Keramevs, who became famous in literature for describing the manuscripts of the Smyrna library 78, Macedonian and Thracian libraries 79 and various libraries 80 of the Mediterranean islands. They hope to soon publish descriptions of the manuscripts of the Patmos library I. Sakkelios, head of the manuscripts department in the Greek National Library in Athens and who compiled its description many years ago, and secretary of the Patriarch of Alexandria G.G. Mazaraki, who described in rough form all the manuscripts of the patriarchal library in Cairo quite a long time ago. Finally, catalogs of manuscripts from the Sinai library in 1886 and the Athenian library in 1888 have already been published, with which we now intend to introduce our readers. The catalog of Sinai manuscripts was compiled by the famous Greek paleographer, Leipzig professor W. Hardhausen, who for this purpose, on behalf of his university, deliberately lived in Sinai for 40 days in 1880. Gaining great fame with his work entitled: “Griechische Palaeographie”, Leipzig. 1879, which has now become a reference book for anyone who has to deal with Greek manuscripts, Mr. Hardhausen could not help but draw attention in the scientific literature and with his present Catalog of manuscripts of the Sinai library. People of science 81 accepted this Catalog with joy and full gratitude for such unselfish and selfless work, because now the opportunity has only opened up for everyone to judge directly the book wealth that the Sinai library currently possesses, which, thanks to the discoveries of Messrs. Tischendorf 82 Heitler 83 and others, completely exaggerated ideas have developed in the scientific world. You can be sure that in science, this Catalog, until a more detailed scientific description of the Sinai manuscripts appears, will occupy an honorable place along with the catalogs of Montfacon, Lambetius, Pitra and others. The name of Hardhausen, as a paleographer, can serve as a sure guarantee of such hopes. But in reality, this Catalog hardly has the right to such an honorable position in science, since, unfortunately, it is not without very serious mistakes and oversights, unforgivable not only for a paleographer who has gained European fame, but also for any more or less attentive reader who knows how to parse manuscripts. In this regard, our compatriot, the famous head of the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem, Archimandrite Antonin, without a great reputation as a European paleographer, who compiled a description of the same manuscripts back in 1870, unfortunately, which has hitherto remained unpublished, stands above the German learned paleographer, who about Fr. Antonina even expresses herself somewhat condescendingly. “Numeri, quibus codices notavi,” writes Hardhausen in his preface, “ii sunt, quos ipsi prae se ferunt libri, quibusque notati sunt in catalogo manuscripto bibliothecae Sinaiticae, quem monachum Russicum olim fecisse dicunt” (Catal. praefac. pag. VIII). G. G. Hardhausen states in the preface to his Catalog that he left the numbering of the manuscripts the same as was done before him by Archimandrite Antoninus, and therefore, quite naturally, in the naming of the manuscripts and in their distribution into departments, he repeats the mistakes of his predecessor, not at all embarrassed by the fact that the postscripts to the manuscripts, read by himself and even given in his Catalog, speak against him. So, for example, the manuscript of 1478 No. 1106 is referred to by him as the Typikon (pag. 225), whereas in fact it is Minologiy, as is read in the postscript to this manuscript, printed by Mr. Hardhausen: Ἐτελειώϑπ τὸ παρὸν Μηνоλόγιоν ἐν ἐτει 6986 μηνὶ Αὐγούστῳ ζ´. The 15th century (?) manuscript No. 977 is listed, according to Hardhausen (page 216), among the Euchologies, while this is a real Octoechos, or rather Paracleticus, containing services for the entire week, except Sunday and Monday (the manuscript has no beginning). From euchology there are only two rites: the small blessing of water and the burial of dead worldly people. Also a manuscript from the 16th–17th centuries. The full postscript clearly speaks of the writing of the manuscript in Crete and says nothing about the homeland of the economist of the local Sinai metokh, Athanasius. But this postscript was not fully read by Mr. Hardhausen, and yet for the history of Crete and the Sinai monastery it is not without significance as an important historical document and deserves attention. Ἐν αὐτῇ δὲ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, i.e. on the day of completion of the manuscript, the scribe continues, ἧλϑεν ὁ αὐϑεντης, ὁ μισὲρ Ἰάκωβος, λόρδης, ὁ καπιτάνιος, τετζενερὰλ εἰς τὸ μοναστήριον, (38) ἐστιν περκουραδόρος τοῦ μοναστηρίου, καὶ ἐδέχϑηκεν αὐτὸν ὁ εἰρημένος ἀγιώτατος οἰκονόμος, ὡς ἔπρεπεν, καὶ ἐξωδίασε πολλὰ καὶ ηὐχαρίστησεν αὐτῷὁ εἰρημενος ἐνδοξώτατος ἄρχων ἐξ οὗ γὰρ καὶ οὺκ ἔλαβεν ἐφ’ ὅλην τὴν χώραν οὐδὲν δωρεάν, εἰ μὴ μόνον ἐκ τὸ μοναστηρίου ἔλαβεν εἴ τι ἄρα ἔϑωκεν ὁ εἰρημένος οἰκονόμος μετὰ μεγάλην χαρὰν καὶ εὐχαρίστησιν. Ἔγραψα δὲ αὐτὸ ἐγὼ ὁ διὰ ἕνα μῆνα (manuscript in 8 beats, 260 sheets) καὶ ἔραψα καὶ ἄλλα τινὰ, ἅ οὺκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ καὶ δέομαι ὑμῶν, πατέρες, τοῦ μέμνῆσϑαι κάμοῦ τοῦ ἀμαρτωλοῦ. Ἀμὴν. That is, “On the same day, in the evening, the chief, Mr. James Lord, captain-general, arrived at the monastery with 38 small and large galleys, who is considered the procurator of the monastery. The said most holy steward accepted him, as befits, and spent a lot on it, but the said most glorious chief thanked him, because he did not take anything for nothing from him or from the whole country, except for the monastery, from which he accepted what the said steward gave him with great joy and pleasure. Here is this postscript: ἀρχιεπισκόπου τοῦ ἁγίου ὅρους Σινᾶ καὶ ἐτέϑη εἰς τὸ μετόχίον τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Κλίμακος, καὶ έιτις ἀρῃ αὐτὸν ἔχῃ τὰς ἀρὰς τῶν τριοκοσίων δέκα καὶ ὀκτὼ ϑεοφόρων πατέρων καὶ τὴν κατάραν τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου Κλίμακος. The following remarks in the Catalog of Mr. Hardhausen regarding the manuscript of the 16th century give little for the reader, and even more so for history. No. 989 (page 215): “a) Sub finem numinator scriba Thomas Partologus and b) Adduntar al. man. historica quaedam scr. 1554". Who the scribe Thomas the Patrologist was and what historical notes are available at the end of the book - all this remains unknown to the reader. The curious is given the opportunity to visit Sinai and there read both the scribe’s postscript and the later postscript with historical notes. The first one reads like this: ϑείας τετράδας ἐκπλήρωκα τὴν, Θεὸς δοτὴρ, βίβλον Θεοῦ, τὸ ὑῶραν Θωμᾶ Πατρολόγου πόνος τάχα καὶ ϑύτου, and the second reads as follows: ὁσιωτάτου καὶ τιμιωτάτου ἐν ιἑρομονάχοις καὶ ἐν πνευματικοῖς ?? Σινᾷ ὄρους, καὶ ἔιτις τὸ ξενώσει ἀπὸ τὸ ἅγιον μοναστήριον καὶ ἀπὸ τὸ καϑολικὸν νὰ εἷνε ἀφορισμός παρὰ Θεοῦ Παντοκράτορος καὶ ἀπὸ τιακοσίων δέκα καὶ ὀκτὼ ϑευφόρων τῶν ἐν Νικαίᾳ πατέρων καὶ τὸ ἀνάϑεμα. Ἐκοιμήϑη ὁ ἄνωϑεν Ἰωαννίκιος καὶ πνευματίκὸς πατὴρ ἐν ἔτει ҂ζξβ (1554), Σεπτεμβρίῳ κδ´, ἡμερᾳ κυριακῇ. ὥρα ζ´ εὁρτῇ τῆς ἁγιας Θέκλας ἰσαποστόλου καὶ πρωτομάρτυρος. There are quite a few such inaccuracies, and they undoubtedly depend on the fact that Mr. Hardhausen in his Catalog of additions to manuscripts either gives them briefly or, due to an oversight, completely ignores them. Much larger mistakes were made by Mr. Hardhausen when identifying manuscripts without dates. Of the numerous examples, we will point out two as particularly outstanding and even striking. The Bombycin manuscript in part 16 No. 1040 is attributed by Mr. Hardhausen to the 14th century (page 219), while in reality it was written at the beginning of the second half of the twelfth century. The time of writing of this manuscript is precisely determined by the following data contained in the manuscript itself. In the deacon's petitions, the names of the Byzantine emperor Manuel Komnenos, who reigned from 1143 to 1180, and his wife Mary (fol. 50), as well as all four contemporary patriarchs of Constantinople, Luke Chrysovergus, who ruled the ecumenical throne from 1156 to 1169, and the Alexandrian Sophronius III (1166), Athanasius of Aitiochi, who sat on the throne from 1156 to 1170. and Jerusalem Nikephoros 1166 (according to Palamas 1178–1187) (fol. 9, etc.). Thus, the time of writing of the manuscript falls on the beginning of the second half of the 12th century, or more precisely on the years between 1156 and 1169, i.e., during the patriarchate of Luke Chrysovergus. It would be possible to determine the date of this manuscript even more accurately if we were able to more or less definitely indicate the time of the reign of the Sinai archbishopric of Peter, whose name is repeatedly mentioned about his health in this manuscript. Unfortunately, we refuse to do this at present due to a lack of historical data. In the list of Sinai bishops and archbishops compiled by the late Right Reverend Porfiry of the Uspensky, mainly almost on the basis of the work of the Patriarch of Jerusalem Nektarios 85, the archbishopric of Peter dates back to the time between 886-1008, then to 1279 86, although, with a careful comparison of the names of these archbishops, one cannot help but see that in both cases we are talking about the same persons. Now we only note the present fact for the future historian of the Sinai monastery and state with certainty that Archbishop Peter of Sinai was a contemporary of the above-mentioned four patriarchs and ruled the archdiocese in the middle of the 12th century. It seems to us that for a specialist paleographer who looks down on the work of his predecessor, Archimandrite Antoninus, such major mistakes can hardly be excused. Justice, however, requires that we note that our Russian scientist also dates manuscript No. 741, according to the initial page, to the 13th century. Such a discovery is far from an indifferent matter for liturgical and church-archaeological sciences. With this manuscript in hand, we can now affirm positively that complaints that the Sinai monastery allegedly did not have its own Charter are both premature and completely unnecessary. “Then, everything else at our meal,” writes Archimandrite Antonin in his Notes of a Sinai pilgrim, “the same thing - with options even less perceptible than at my spiritual meal of the ancient church typikons, which bored me today with their unchangeable: “containing the general routine of the day-night sequence performed in the Jerusalem Lavra of the Venerable our father Sava the Sanctified." I have nothing to say against this venerable charter and the order indicated in it. But - there were charters of the Studite monastery, the Athos Lavra, etc., however, they were more likely additions to the Palestinian charter 93 than original codes and regulations, but still reminiscent of a certain originality. But the Sinai monastery, which existed in its infancy even during the time of Queen Helena, did not develop anything of its own for itself” 94. How to explain this? I think that the easiest way to explain it is that the so-called Savvinsky Charter was never an invention of the monastery of St. Savva, and there has always been, and now is, the universal charter of the Orthodox Church, which was formed little by little, over the centuries, from the very times of the apostles, mainly in Palestine, and from there spreading across the distant borders of the earth. The diligence of the monks of the monastery of the God-bearing father only extracted it from the books of hours, octoiches, menaia, triodes, etc. and presented it in the form of one reference book. Thus, the same Savvinsky charter was the Sinai and Studite charter and any other, as far as it concerned the general course of church services and the routines of Christian life associated with it 95. This manuscript clearly shows that the Sinai monastery already from the beginning of the 13th century used its Typikon in church and liturgical practice, which had “a certain originality,” although compiled on the basis of the Typikon of the Lavra of St. Savva the Sanctified. This is on the one hand. On the other hand, the present manuscript destroys the erroneous opinion existing in the literature 96 that allegedly “according to the testimony of the Patriarch of Jerusalem (who was previously the Archbishop of Sinai), the Studite Rule was used in Sinai in the 17th century" 97 . Not only at this time of complete domination in the entire Orthodox East of the Jerusalem Charter, but also in 1214 at Sinai, the Typikon of Jerusalem of the Monastery of St. Sava the Sanctified was already put into practice and, as the above title of Typikon No. some minor additions and changes to suit local practice. Hardhausen) like this: Ἀρχὴ σὺν Θεῷ τῶν προσευχῶν ἡμερονυκτιῶν, and manuscript No. 867 has a very important primus titilus like this: Ὡρολόγιον οὺν Θεῷ ἔχον τὴν ἄπασαν ἀκολαυϑίαν τοῦ ὁσίου πατρός ἡμῶν Σάββα ἡγιασμένου. Both of these titles are scientifically much more meaningful and interesting than those listed in the Hardhausen Catalog. In the department of the Holy Scriptures (Vetus Testamentum) there is a manuscript of a unical letter from the X–XI centuries. (according to the catalog of Antoninus of the 8th century) No. 7 is designated by the word: “Prophetologum” (pag. 2) and is completely lost among many other manuscripts with a similar name. In fact, this manuscript stands out very clearly from a number of similar ones both with its inscription and postscript, which Mr. Hardhausen did not even consider necessary to mention. This is the full title: τῷ ἁγίφ ὄρει τῷ Σινᾷ. Οί ἀναγινώσκοντες εὔχεσϑε ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ διὰ τὸν Κύριον. Ὁ βουλευτὼν ἑπάραι αὐτὸ ἵνα ἔχη, τὴν ἀρὰν τῆς Ὑπεραγίας Θεοτόκου καὶ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν Μωυσέως καὶ Ἀαρὼν. Αμήν. To get acquainted with Mr. Hardhausen’s manner of listing the articles included in a particular manuscript, it is enough, as an example, to point to manuscript XVI–XVII in No. 976, apparently described in more detail than others in the Catalog (page 211). Here are the articles included in this manuscript: a) Chapters of Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria, b) on the degrees of kinship, c) questions of the Jews and answers to them by Christians, d) Gregory of Nyssa's treatise on St. Trinity, e) the words of various church fathers, f) the rite of joining heretics who come to the Orthodox faith, g) an article on the food and drink of monks, h) on the acceptance of priests, bishops and deacons to confession, i) on the fast of Arcivurius, k) the charter of Emperor Justinian, l) an excerpt from the nomocanon of John the Faster, m) the rules of Niketas of Irakli, Patriarch Nikephoros of Constantinople, John of Kithra and Matthew Blastar, n) various paternal and rhetorical instructions, o) an excerpt from physics, p) the order of bishop's sees in the patriarchates, q) Maximus the monk's treatise on spirits, r) Manuel Lascaris on the schema, s) samples of spiritual and other letters, t) succession over the koliv, u) canon over the dead, w) the order of burial of worldly people, x) the order of consecration of churches, y) an article about the fathers who were at the council in Nicaea, z) 12 members of the faith, the torment of Kalinnik, 2) the order of burial of monks, 3) paternal evidence regarding the symbol of faith, 4) articles about the Latins, 5) the answer of Meletius, Patriarch of Alexandria to the questions of the Russian Tsar Theodore Ivanovich about Easter and about the patriarchate in Russia, 6) agricultural laws, 7) the message to Sinai of the Alexandrian Patriarch on various liturgical issues, 8) Basil the Great's answers to the questions of St. But if we leave aside for a while the question of the completeness of the list of articles and pay attention to the articles themselves indicated in the Catalog by Mr. Hardhausen, then in these instructions we will find many inaccuracies that cannot do him any credit as a scientist. In the 1568 manuscript No. 459, according to Mr. Hardhausen, there is an article: incerti auctoris: Περὶ τῆς δευτέρας οἰκοδωμῆς (sic) τῆς πόλεως Ιἑρουσαλὴμ καὶ τοῦ ναοῦ. Ἡν αὐτος τριαί τείχεσιν – ἀνυμνεῖται ὑπὸ ἀπείρων δυνάμεων (page. 112). The title of this article intrigues the reader with its interest. While studying ecclesiastical archaeological antiquities in Palestine and following the literature on the issue of excavations at a Russian site near the Abrahamic Monastery in Jerusalem, we hoped in this article to find new data for the history of the Church of the Resurrection and precisely in the second era that was interesting to us, that is, after the destruction of the Jerusalem shrines in 614 by the New Persian king Chosroes, but our hopes were dashed instantly, as soon as we picked up the real manuscript and read a few lines of this article in it. It turned out that the incertus auctor is none other than the well-known Jewish historian Josephus, and this article is about the construction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in its second era. In manuscript 1086 No. 401, Hardhausen notes: Primus titulus (in col. ii fasciculi β´), λότος ε´. Περὶ τοῦ χωρισμού – ρῖε. Περὶ τῆς σωτηριώδους ἐξαγορεύσεως κ.τ.λ. De versione Latina cf. c. 402, Ineditus, ut videtur. De orationibus catecheticis cf. Migne Partol. Curs. complete. t.) 99 pag. 21, 509, 1693. Testamentum Theodori. Ἀκούων τοῦ ϑείου Δ., Μ. 99 pag. 1813 (page 96). Firstly, in the learned Catalog the expression: “ineditus, ut videtur” is exactly the same as if its author had simply passed over in silence the articles that interested him and had not made any comments about them, and secondly, and most importantly, Mr. Hardhausen forgets that his reference to the Latin text of F. Studite’s catechetical teachings is unconvincing, since it differs in many respects from the Greek original. It would be better if Mr. Hardhausen in this case referred to the modern Greek translation of these teachings, published in Venice twice by John Glica of Ioanin in the last century, or to the publication, just a year before the publication of his Catalog, published under the editorship of the hieromonk of the monastery of St. Hardhausen, the famous Greek paleographer, does not know the Greek language, and especially since he cannot read Greek manuscripts fluently - we explain all this by the haste with which he had to look through 1,223 Sinaitic manuscripts in order to complete his work in 40 days, and then, when printing, by the desire to disguise his oversights before the readers. Not many, of course, lucky ones will have to get to everything we have indicated, since the manuscripts are in the desert not close to us and, therefore, you can almost say anything about them with impunity. The palm as a describer of the Sinai manuscripts, although stale, undoubtedly lies in the hands of Mr. Hardhausen. But we completely refuse to understand such oversights in Mr. Hardhausen’s Catalog, which are easy to avoid not only for a learned paleographer, but even for an ordinary mortal with sighted eyes and hands not lacking the ability to sense. So, for example, on page 219, when describing liturgical scrolls and entire manuscripts with the rites of the liturgy, we read: Liturgiae, 1036 (bombyc. saec. XII–XIII); 1037 (saec. XIII) (bombyc. or chart?); 1038 (saec. XVI); No. 1039 (saec. XIII)." Looking through these same manuscripts in library chests, we found that many of these scrolls, especially parchment ones, were preserved quite perfectly. Quite a few bomb scrolls have also been preserved quite satisfactorily. As for the distribution of these manuscripts in the Hardhausen Catalog according to the material on which they were written, here we found many errors. Here's how real manuscripts should actually be distributed: No. 1020 to No. 1028 parchment scrolls. No. 1029 to No. 1035 bomb scrolls. No. 1036 to No. 1038 whole parchment manuscripts. No. 1039 to No. 1040 and No. 1042 to No. 1045, entire manuscripts are bombed. Mr. Hardhausen's manuscripts No. 1043 to No. 1045 (page 320), also manuscript No. 1006 (page 218) are considered to be paper, but in fact they are bombed. Along with such incorrect and incomprehensible designations for the material of the Greek codes, there are even less clear designations in the Hardhausen Catalog, for example, “cod. chart. (?)" (p. 148, 149, 152 et. cet.), "cod. membr (?)" (pag. 32, 75, 159 et cet.), or even "cod. сhart (bomb. ?)” (page 192), indicating that he does not distinguish paper well from bombycin, and this latter from parchment. For a specialist paleographer, such a confusion, in our opinion, is unexcusable. Lambros for photographs from monuments of Byzantine art 105 preserved in St. Woe, I added the drawing teacher of the royal children, the Swiss Gillieron. The fruit of his labors on St. The Mountain appeared a Catalog of 5,766 Athonite manuscripts, more than 2,500 pages, in ¼ (Ἔκϑεσ., σελ. 23) or, as Mr. Lambros now claims, containing “more than one hundred and eighty typographical (printed) sheets” (Κατολογ. προλ. σελ. This Catalog describes the manuscripts of the following twenty monasteries or places: Iveron (1,366 manuscripts), Dionysian (588 monasteries), Kutlumush (461 rkp.), 106 Dokhiarsky (395 rkp.), Xiropotamian (342 rkp.), Esfgmensky (320 rkp.), Russian St. Panteleimonovsky (264 107 rkp.), Filofeevsky (250 rkp.), Karakallovsky (250 rkp.), Simono-Petrsky (245 rkp.), Pandokratorsky (234 rkp.), Stavronikitsky (162 rkp.), Ksenofsky (163 rkp.) 108, Grigoriatsky (155 rkp.), Kostamonitsky (111 rkp.), Zografsky (107 rkp.), Hilandarsky (105 rkp.), St. Paul's (94 rkp.), the library of the Protat Assumption Cathedral in Kareya (81 rkp.) and the library of the monastery of St. Anna (46 RKP). Remained undescribed, according to Mr. Both his report on his business trip and his current new work attracted the attention of people of science and were met both at home and abroad with sympathetic reviews. But his hopes “for the intercession and support” of “friends of science” in finding the necessary funds for the publication of his enormous work turned out to be unrealistic, and also outdated, because true “friends of science” in most cases are unmercenary and have their wallets constantly empty, and patrons of the arts are now rarely born on classical soil. In particular, Mr. Lambros’s calculations for the powerful and enlightened first minister of his homeland, Charilla Trikoupis, who simultaneously served as two ministers - finance and military, whose support he met during his departure to Athos, and thought to find now, when printing his Catalog, also did not come true, since, with strong opposition in parliament and with deficits in the state budget that existed until recently, Mr. Trikoupis did not dare to include in the estimate of public expenditures and the cost of printing catalogues. Lambrosa. Therefore, the Catalog, compiled in the summer of 1880, remained unprinted or unpublished until August last 1888, that is, exactly eight years, when Mr. Lambros, already at his own expense, decided to print the first part of the first volume, or, as he puts it, “one twelfth of the entire Catalog.” With this publication, he once again wanted to announce to the “friends of science” about his unpublished works, in particular, to remind his benefactor, First Minister X. Trikoupis, of himself, which is expressed in the dedication of this work in his name (Τῇ βουλῇ τῶν ἑλλήνων καὶ Interior design 1880 χορηγηϑείσης ὑποστηρίξεως ἀφιεροῦται) and in the following formidable, but for true friends of science extremely sad statement in the preface to this work. “The reasons for the non-publication of this part of the Catalog since then have been numerous, a little indifferent for the reader, but for me,” says Mr. The preface we have given to the now printed Catalog of Mr. Labros clearly makes it clear to us what we have the right to demand from this Catalog and from its compiler, as a professor of paleography at the University of Athens, and what we should look at with condescension in view of the difficulties that the publisher encountered in printing and compiling the Catalog. The “possible accuracy” that Mr. Lambros observed when describing the manuscripts does not allow us, however, to pass in silence, for example, the confusion in the Catalog of Manuscripts: Paraclitics with the Colored Triodion, Typikon with the Psalter, etc. So, for example, N 108 (according to Lambros - 539) of the Kostamonite 119 library is described in the Catalog we are examining as follows: “Κῶδ. περγ. εἰς †-ον αἰῶν. ιγʹ, ἀκέφαλος καὶ κολοβὸς 1) Παρακλητικὴ, 2) Τὰ συναξάρια τῆς "" (σελ. 108). Incomplete designations of the names of manuscripts cannot be called “possible accuracy” either, which, according to the Catalog of Mr. Lambros, do not make it possible to judge their high scientific interest. For example, manuscript No. 104 (540) is described as follows: “Κῶδ. περγ. εἰς 16-ον αἰῶν ιγ´, Θεοτοκάριον περιέχων τοὺς ὀκτῶ ἢχους”, i.e. “Code parchment, 16 lobes of sheet, 13th century, Theotokary, containing eight voices” (σελ. 108) which in essence is a striking oddity, before which the reader will be perplexed, even well familiar with this kind of writing and clearly imagining the contents of this Greek liturgical book. In fact, if we present the entire inscription of this manuscript, it will be clear what kind of manuscript it is and what its contents are. The title reads like this: “Θεοτοκάριον, περιέχων (ον?) τοὺς ὀκτωήχους στιχηρὰ προσόμοια τῆς ὑπεραγίας Θεοτόκου”, i.e. Theotokary, containing similar stichera in eight voices in honor of the Most Holy Theotokos. In addition to these stichera, the manuscript also contains canons of the Theotokos in eight voices for each day of the week in the evening. This manuscript is incomplete, which is also not indicated by Lambros, and therefore at the end of it 15 sheets of paper were added and on them in the hand of the 16th century. missing canons have been added. As for the scientific side of this Catalog of Mr. Lambros, i.e., instructions regarding what of the manuscripts was printed and what was not printed, then in this regard special demands cannot be made on it, since the compiler made a reservation in his preface. “Only in rare cases,” says Mr. Lambros, “remarks about whether this or that article was published and where exactly, or whether it was not published and this was done to save space” (Καταλ. προλ. σελ. 6). True, the reservation is somewhat strange, especially if we pay attention to what kind of comments there are on this subject in the already printed Catalog. About the handwritten “Spiritual Mirror” of the 19th century. No. 15 (341) of the Zograf Library, for example, Mr. Lambros notes: “Ὁ κῶδιξ οὖτος εἶνε πιϑανῶς ἀντίγραφον ἐντύπου βιβλίου 129, τὸν αὐτὸν φέροντος τίτλον, ὅπερ ἀγνοῶ πότε ἐξεδύϑῆ. Τὸ δὲ ἐν Νεοχωρίῳ τυπογραφεῖον ἐσυστάϑη ὁπωσδήποτε μετὰ τὸ 1821" (σελ. 82); about manuscript No. 45 (481) of the Kostamonite Library, containing a story about a miracle that happened in Egypt in 1484, under the Patriarch of Alexandria Joachim, it says: “εἶνε ἄγνωστον ἂν καὶ πότε "" (σελ. 100); about manuscript No. 18 (565) of the Gregorian Library, containing “a book called a denunciation of the lies and godlessness of the Freemasonic faith,” etc., Mr. Lambros writes: “Ὁ κῶδιξ εἶνε ἴσως ἁντίγραφоν ἐντύπου τινὸς" (σελ. 118), etc. Such remarks, in fact pointless and priceless, and there are a lot of them in the Catalog we are considering, and “to save space” and without any damage to the reader could be omitted from it. The scholarly reputation of the publisher required careful information on all these issues, and scrupulousness required complete silence, but, to our deep regret, we see neither one nor the other in this case. “It is appropriate for everyone to show diligence,” it is said here, “so that nothing from those in this Charter is either small or great due to some fault, but let the church service be preserved, the rite, the order of everything is unbroken and immutable, as from the holy fathers who were before us, it was handed down to us in holy monasteries and laurels, that is, from Saint Euthymius the Great 136, Savva the Sanctified, Theodosius the Kinoviarch 137, Gerasimos, who was on the Jordan, the beast served him, Chariton the Confessor, who betrayed each other, like some kind of lot from this past, who later accepted, like the father of his sons, like not some unwritten tradition by the passage of time, in Having fallen into oblivion of the depths, he will be darkened, moved with jealousy by the great Patriarch of Jerusalem Sophronius 138 with the scripture (ἐγγράφως) he will betray the word to those who exist: and before the holy monastery of our venerable and God-bearing father, the great Savva the Sanctified, the barbarians burned and the beloved write-off of the divine Sophronius was quickly burned by fire, in the divine the wise John was great, and to him the title of Damascus, like a lustful bee, the sweetest of honey and a honeycomb, the sacred paternal traditions of the collected, from then on and to this day in every generation are preserved" 139 . So, Simeon of Thessalonica not only connects the real Jerusalem Typikon with the διατύπωσις’om of St. Savva the Sanctified, but directly thinks that the will of St. father is nothing more, nothing less than the outline of the Church Rule, lost during the invasion of Palestine by the Persians led by King Chosroes in 614, when St. the places were destroyed, many monks of St. the laurels were beaten and scattered throughout Palestine, and then restored by the Patriarch of Jerusalem Sophronius. This opinion, as we said, persisted in the literature for a long time, and a different view on this issue seemed strange. So, when the scientist Udin in his Commentaries made a very reasonable remark about the rules of St. Savva the Sanctified, that Cyril laid down the rules of community life for the organization of morality, and therefore this is not at all the same as the now well-known Rule of Church Followance of St. Lavra of Jerusalem St. and the God-bearing father Sava, observed in other saints. Thus, of all the scientists we named, D. Mansvetov came closest to the truth, although he reached his present conclusion, one might say, by groping, guided only by a critically subtle instinct, because he did not have the very “rules” of St. at his fingertips. Savva the Sanctified, which he, in agreement with Simeon of Thessalonica, considered lost to science without a trace. His general thought, especially in the first half of his judgments, is so close to the truth that it is difficult to express any other conclusion, even after direct acquaintance with the text of these “rules”, which a happy accident helped us discover in the manuscripts of the Sinai Library. In order to see more clearly that these “rules” really embrace the most important and general features of monastic life, they only touch on some of the liturgical orders of the Lavra of St. Savva the Sanctified and absolutely do not stand in any connection with the so-called Jerusalem Church Rule of this father, now in force in liturgical practice, we offer here to our readers their original text with a translation into Russian and with interlinear notes taken mostly from the life of St. Savva of Jerusalem. The real “rules” of Saint Sava the Sanctified were discovered by us under the following random, but interesting for their historical authenticity, circumstances. We found the first list of these “rules” in a parchment manuscript of the 12th–13th centuries. 183 Sinai Library No. 1096, which by its title did not stand out from the numerous series of similar manuscripts. But, upon closer acquaintance with the contents of this manuscript, it turned out that in front of me there was a Typikon, specifically embracing the church and liturgical orders of the famous Lavra of St. Savva the Sanctified. These orders in no case could have taken place in other Palestinian monasteries, due to the absence in them of those sacred churches (for example, the Church of God, the cave church, the church in the Himarra Stream, etc.) and sacred places (for example, the tomb of St. Sava, etc.), as well as events and holidays (for example, the pre-celebration of St. Sava from the first of December, the solemn service of this father on the 5th, the service in honor of fathers beaten by the Persians and Moors on January 20, service to the 15 fathers of the Lavra beaten by the Ishmaelites on May 15, etc.). Already this one circumstance, the very fact of finding the ancient Typikon of the famous monastery, which all researchers of the history of the Church Rule (Bishop Sergius, Prof. I.D. Mansvetov, etc.) only dreamed of, was enough to attract deep attention and arouse in us the most lively interest in this manuscript, and this was also supplemented by another more interesting and important fact in the history of our Typikon, the discovery of the “rules” of St. Savva the Sanctified, handed in writing to his successor Melitus and considered by scientists to be lost without a trace. The text of these “rules” is placed in this manuscript on sheets 145 and 146, that is, it occupies only two sheets of the manuscript in 16 parts. It is preceded by the usual presentation of the synaxarium services in Typicons and the article: ἀκολουϑία τοῦ νιπτῆρος, and will be followed by the article: ἐπιστολὴ ἀδελφοῦ πρὸς γέροντα with the elder’s answers to it and a presentation of the services for the Colored and Lenten Triodions. That is, the “rules” of St. that interest us. Savvas are in the middle of the Typikon, between articles of a general nature. But, if we leave aside for a moment the fact that these “rules” were found in the manuscript issued by the Lavra, then their historical authenticity is beyond any doubt. If we compare the content of these “rules” with the facts that we know from the most detailed biography of Rev. Savva the Sanctified, which we have already done in the footnotes to the text of the “rules” we are now publishing, it will fully correspond to the order of life of the Lavra of this father, which was practiced in it and described by the most reliable biographer, almost a contemporary of St. Savva, Rev. Kirill Skifopolsky. We are even inclined to think that the author of the biography of the holy father was familiar with the text of these “rules” and even used them when compiling his “reliable” and carefully compiled work. The following circumstances lead us to this idea: 1) Cyril of Scythopolis, speaking about the Rules of St. Sava, introduced by him in different cinnovies, repeatedly calls them the word νόμος, and when talking about the written rules of the holy father, left by him to his disciple and successor Melitus, you use the word παράδοσις, i.e. uses two such terms that we now find in the inscription of the “rules” of St. that we have discovered. Savva, and 2) in the biography one notices in places the identity with the real “rules” not only in thoughts, but sometimes even in presentation. To the reliable biographer of St. Savva, familiar with his letters, which he quotes in his work either in extracts or in its entirety, it was very natural to know and have at hand the very “rules” of St. father, who, undoubtedly, were still led in the Lavra, when the Rev. was there. Cyril of Scythopolis, i.e. 38 years after the death of St. Savva the Sanctified. Now we have to solve a very interesting, but at the same time difficult question: in this form have the rules of St. Savva the Sanctified, in which way he handed them over to his successor Melitus, or did they undergo changes, reductions and additions in later times? It is not yet possible to expect a definitive answer to this question. A superficial acquaintance with the contents of the monument that occupies us is enough for us to say that it now contains several later insertions, which in the mouth of St. Savvas were inappropriate. So, for example, St. Savva could not call himself a saint or even blessed, he could not give instructions that the liturgy should be performed at the tomb of a saint (i.e., his own) by an appointed priest, and finally, he could not also talk about the Franks (φράγγοι), who appeared in Palestine in the 11th century and began to sharply contrast with the Greeks (Ῥωμαῖοι), after the division of churches. That is why we consider the later insertions of the words in the inscription of these rules: τοῦ ἁγίου Σάββα, the introductory phrase at the beginning of the rules: Δεῖ γινώσκειν τὰ περὶ τοῦ ὁσίου καὶ μακαρίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Σάββα ϑεσπισϑέντα and in the middle there is a whole rule: Ἐν δὲ ϑήκῃ τοῦ ἁγίου προλειτουργίαν ποιεῖν τὸν εἰς τοῦτο τεταγμένον πρεσβύτερον. Such additions are very appropriate under the pen of later scribes of the “rules” we are considering, and we also encounter them in St. Theodore the Studite, in Διατύπωσις’s Ven. Athanasius of Athos, and in the mass of words and teachings belonging to the writers of the first centuries of the Christian Church. This phenomenon is well known, and researchers of ancient writing are familiar with it well. But, pointing to the above inserts, we still cannot say that these “rules” of St. Savvas, after excluding these additions, are close to their original original, which came out of the hands of their editor, and that in other lists of the newest or oldest we will not find new rules or new additions. This is a question for the future. At the present time, one cannot help but note the curious circumstance that in the manuscript from which we take the Greek text of the “rules”, a small empty space is left at the end of them. In another manuscript of the 15th century. the same library No. 531, containing a list of “rules” from the previous manuscript, but with the omission of the words: ἢ τοὺς φράγγους and with three more minor options indicated above, this empty space is increased by several sheets. Obviously, both copyists of the “rules” of St. who are now known to us. Savvas considered the lists they had at hand to be incomplete and thought to supplement them over time, and therefore left empty spaces in the manuscripts - the Lavra copyist, as one would expect, was small in a few lines, and the later Sinai was already in several sheets. However, even in its present, if you like, unfinished form, the “rules” of St. Sava the Sanctified are very precious for the scientific results or conclusions that their discovery entails. With the promulgation of these “rules”, our patrolological literature is enriched with something very important; and the oldest monument of ascetic writing from the beginning of the 6th century, from which discoveries are not often made these days. The origin of the monument, according to all data, is associated with the personality of the famous ascetic and ascetic St. Sava the Sanctified, who was the most active and first organizer of the so-called cinenial life in Palestine, from where this strict image of monastic life was later borrowed to all other Orthodox countries. Therefore, our historical science, with the publication of these “rules”, acquires a solid cornerstone for the history of monasticism in the east. "Rules" of St. Sava is the first Charter of the monastic structure, the prototype of all those Charters that, from the 9th century, appeared very often and were called in the Byzantine Empire the clitoral Charters. Viktorov, “that the late Grigorovich, as is known, had the custom of donating manuscripts belonging to him, especially those that he himself or other scientists had already published or sufficiently examined, to those institutions where he served and with which he entered into any relations” (ibid., p. 2). Other donors include a professor at Moscow University, the famous Russian canonist A.S. Pavlov (also a former professor at Novorossiysk University), who donated several handwritten nomocanons from the 17th–18th centuries. But the manuscripts acquired with funds from the University from Polezhaev and others should be considered more scientifically valuable; however, there are very few such manuscripts. The total number of manuscripts in the University library does not seem to exceed 130 copies. The usual order of this procedure is as follows. Anyone wishing to study in the libraries of the Athos monasteries is required to submit proof of his identity from the Constantinople ambassador of the power to which he is a citizen to the Greek Patriarchate. He is given a blessed letter signed by the Ecumenical Patriarch, in which His Holiness recommends the holder of the letter to the antiprosops of the Karean Athonite kinot τῆς κοινότητος τοῦ ἁγίου ὄρους τοῦ Ἀϑω, τέκνα ἐν Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν This is the title of this letter) and fatherly asks them to show this person due honor and all assistance. in his scientific pursuits τούτῳ προσώπῳ πᾶσαν φιλίφρονα τιμὴν καὶ δεξίωσιν, διευκολύνοντες αὐτῷ προφρόνως τὴν ἐξακολούϑησιν τῆς ἐπιστημονικῆς αὐτοῦ ἄποστολῆς). With this letter from the patriarch, on the day of the meeting of the kinot of the Athonite 20 antiprosops, which usually happens on Fridays of every week, with the exception of emergency cases, the recommended one appears in Kareya, at the meeting of the fathers of the antiprosops, and hands it over to the Proto-epistate of the kinot. At the same time, the antiprosop of the monastery in which the traveler is temporarily staying recommends it to the fathers. The grammarian (secretary) of the kivota reads the letter in front of the antiprosops, a resolution is made and the letter is written immediately. The traveler is offered vero, glyco in a cafe, offered by kavas kinot, and if he speaks spoken Greek, then the antiprosops exchange a few phrases about his arrival on Athos. After preparing the letter, the grammarian reads it in front of the icon, and then hands it to the traveler. This letter is addressed to: ὄρους Ἀϑω, with a request to provide assistance in studies and hospitality to its owner (παρακαλοῦμιν Αὐτὰς, ἴνα προσενέγκωσεν αὐτῷ πᾶσαν δυνατὴν περιποίησεν καὶ συνδρομὶν ἐν τῷ ἔργῳ). This library was founded through effort and expense ἐξόδων) of the ever-memorable Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus II (1669–1707), the author of an extensive theory of patriarchs, and his nephew and successor in the department, Patriarch Chrysanthus (1707–1731) in 172 in August. This information is conveyed by a Greek inscription carved on a slab above the entrance to the library. At present, the Catalog does not accurately indicate the total number of manuscripts contained in the library of the Jerusalem courtyard in Constantinople. So, for example, the famous parchment manuscript of 1056 is no longer in this library, from which the Greek scholar Metropolitan Philotheus Bryennius of Nicomedia published in 1875 the “two epistles of Clement”, and in 1883 a more scientifically valuable monument of ancient Christian writing, which made the name of its publisher known in all parts of the old and new world under the name "Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀηοστολων." This manuscript, at the request of the current Patriarch of Jerusalem Nicodemus, was sent to Jerusalem and placed among the manuscripts of the local Patriarchal Library at the monastery of the Holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Kings Constantine and Helen. But in the library of the Jerusalem courtyard in Constantinople there are several manuscripts that for some reason were not included in the catalog and are not even numbered. We have seen more than a dozen such manuscripts. Κατάλογος χειρογράφων βιβλίων, τανῦν εὑρισκομένων ἐν τῇ ???? παναγίου Τάφου, συνταχϑεὶς μὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐλλογιμωτάτου καὶ ? καϑηγητοῦ τῷ 1862, ἐπεξεργάσϑεὶς καὶ ἐξελεγχϑεὶς δ’ ἐν συμπαραβολῇ ἀκριβῶς ὑπὸ Ἐμ. Ιὠαννίδου Ἀμοργίνου τῷ 1864 κατ’ εὔρεσιν, τῷ δὲ 1877 δωρηϑεὶς τῷ κὺρ τὴς αὐτῆς βιβλιοϑήκης, παρακλητικῶς αἰτήσαντι παρ’ ἐμοῦ τοῦ Ιὠαννίδου. The catalog is divided into two parts; both parts contain 312 manuscripts. Its purpose is clearly defined by the following postscript at the end of it: Φαναρίῳ Μετοχείου τοῦ παναγίου καὶ ζωοδόχου Τάφου πρὸς εὐχερῆ μὲν εὕρεσιν τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ χειρογράφων ἐλαχίστην δὲ ἔνδειξιν βαϑείας εὐλαβείας καὶ σεβασμοῦ ὁ φιλοπονήσας Ἐμμανοης Ἀμοργίνος καὶ ἐν διδασκάλοις ἐλάχίστος ἐν Ταταούλοις κατ’ Ἀπρίλιον τοῦ ἔτους 1878. Each article included in a particular manuscript is indicated in this catalog in the most precise way, often indicating its beginning and whether this article was published and where exactly, or not published. About handwritten collections with unpublished material and having important scientific significance, the Catalog notes: “worthy of special attention” or “wonderful collection,” etc. This mark is given in the catalog to the parchment collection of 1056, from which Metropolitan Bryennius published “two epistles of Clement” and (“Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων"). Therefore, it is hardly fair to attribute the honor of the first discovery of real remarkable monuments of ancient Christian writing to the Greek scholar Metropolitan F. Bryennius, the “happy chance” that befell him and his own zeal for research, of course, manuscripts, as some think (Works of the Holy Father 1889 book 1, add., p. 355), and it, in our opinion, belongs entirely to our Russian scientist, head of the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem, Fr. Lebedev, were published more than once from 1845 to 1858 by German, French and English researchers, and therefore it is not surprising that regarding the parchment handwritten collection of 1056, “no one (i.e., from these scientists) has heard a word yet” (Creative Holy Father, book 1, Add., p. 337). I have not seen manuscripts in the libraries of the monasteries: Dionysevsky, Kutlunushsky, Xiropotamsky, Filofeevsky, Karakallovsky, Stavronikitsky, Xenofsky, Grigorievsky, Zografsky, the monastery of St. Anna and in Protat on Karei. Staying in Palestine in the summer is difficult for studies due to terrible heat, and winter, i.e. the months of December and January, as we know from personal experience, cannot be considered a completely favorable time due to damp, rainy and cold, windy weather, in the absence of heating devices like our stoves in the premises. You have to constantly warm your numb hands over braziers, with the help of which, although the temperature of the rooms is made bearable, you constantly sit with your head filled with lead as if from fumes. Judging by the report of Mr. Lambros mentioned by us, when describing the manuscripts, he sorted them according to materials and format (καϑ’ ἀλην καὶ σχῆμα) and then divided them into ecclesiastical, liturgical, classical and secular, nomocanons and musical manuscripts (Ἔκϑεσ., σελ.), but in reality we did not notice any order in the arrangement of manuscripts in the libraries. The disorder of this description of the Athonite manuscripts is now visible to anyone who has become acquainted with his published book (“Κατάλογος τῶν ἐν ταῖς, βιβλιοϑήκαις τοῦ ἁγιου ὅρους ἐλληνικῶν κώδίκων, τομ. α´, μερ. α´ ἐν Ἀϑήν. 1888" (For a detailed review of this book, see the Order of manuscripts in the libraries). the one we see now in his “Catalogue”. We find numerous evidence of the poor condition of manuscripts on Mount Athos in the past from our Russian travelers, such as Grigorovich-Barsky Ave. Porfiry Uspensky, P. Sevastyanov, architect. Antonina and others, as well as from many foreign scientists who were on Mount Athos. In the report we mentioned, the Athenian professor S. Lambros (Ἔκϑεσ., σελ. 15, 17–18) drew a very detailed and vivid picture of the storage of manuscripts on Athos in our days, which struck even the fathers of the Holy Mountains with the brightness of its colors, even carelessly indifferent to their book treasure. Our traveler V. Grigorovich-Barsky, on his second trip to Athos in 1744, witnessed the barbaric defeat to which the St. Paul monastery and its rich Slavic library were subjected to by their new owners, the Greeks, who had recently ousted the Serbs and Bulgarians from here. “In this monastery,” he writes, the Bulgarians and Serbs originally lived, but now the Greeks have recently settled in decline. In my first arrival to the Holy Mountain in the year 1725, reading and singing, and all the power was Bulgarian, but now nothing is found from these except the Slavic library, in which many different books are found, printed and handwritten, the foreigners who live there began to distribute and some to sell, others of little value to sell, so that the ancient Bulgarian glory and memory will be eradicated. (Second visit to Mount Athos; ed. Palestine Society, pp. 390:391). In Khalki there is, in addition to the library of the theological school, another manuscript library at the local commercial school. It counts up to one hundred numbers of manuscripts, brief indications of which can be found in the brochure of Bartholomew of Kutlumush under the title: “Ὑπὸμνημα ίσοτορικὸν περὶ τῆς κατὰ Χάλκην μονής τῆς Θεοτόκου, 1846 ετ. σελ. 73–101." There is no detailed catalog of these manuscripts, if you do not take into account the catalog compiled in 1884 by A. Popadopulo-Keramevs and hitherto not yet made public, and the study of them is not without some serious difficulties in such a case, as noted by professor of Novorossiysk University A. Kirpichnikov in his abstract, read by him at the last Yaroslavl archaeological congress entitled “Two weeks on the island of Halki” (Journal of the Ministry of People’s Education, 1887, part CCLIII, department IV. His same feuilleton on the same topic in “New Time”, July issues of 1887). In the τοῦ library of the commercial school, quite a few copies of Greek handwritten mena are collected, which came here from the Kutlumush Athonite scholar monk Bartholomew, who was engaged in correcting the liturgical Greek mena and in particular their synaxars. These corrected menaia were printed and accepted into liturgical practice in secular Greek churches, but on Athos they were condemned and even considered “heretical.” There are also other, albeit not numerous, scholarly publications known in the literature, made from manuscripts in this library, for example, by a certain Dorofeev Evelpid and others. This handwritten collection is very important in its material, which covers the history of the Byzantine state and church in its most interesting and still little explored era. Here is the composition of this collection: 1) μοναστηρίου τοῦ πανοικτιρμονος ἐπικεκλημένου τοῦ Ἀταλειάτου, 6585 ἐτ. (printed by Safa Μεσάιων βιβλ. τ. α´), 2) τῆς ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Παντοκράτορος 6645, 15). γενέϑλιον ἡμέραν τοῦ μάρτυρος Εὐγενίου, ὄπως εἴληφεν ἀρχὴν ἡ τούτου εὅρτὴ ἐπὶ Ἀλεξίου τοῦ μεγάλου Κομνηνοῦ καὶ περὶ τούτου ἐν μέρει διήγησις иˆ16) Ἰωάννου πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τοῦ Ειφιλίνου ἀκολουϑία τῶν εἐρημένων ἁγίων μαρτύρων. This collection is in four, written in the handwriting of 1761 and has a general title: " Brief information about the patriarchal library in Jerusalem was reported by the professor of the Kazan Theological Academy I.F. Krasnoseltsev in his article: “Slavic manuscripts of the patriarchal library in Jerusalem” (Orthodox. Conversations 1888, book XII, appendix, pp. 1–32), which has as its task to describe the South Slavic liturgical manuscripts stored in it content. The same article also lists the most important finds made by Mr. Keramevs-Popadopoulo in the manuscripts of the patriarchal library (ibid., p. 4). W. Gardthaus. Griechische Palaeographie. Leipz. 1879 s. 321, 346. In May 1888, the Jerusalem theological school at the Monastery of the Cross was closed due to a lack of funds for its maintenance in the patriarchate, and at the same time the library that was here, quite valuable for the antiquity of its manuscripts, was transferred to Jerusalem and merged with the patriarchal library. See Orthodox. Interview 1888 book. XII, p. 3, appendix. in the article by prof. I.F. Krasnoseltseva: “Slavic manuscripts of the patriarchal library in Jerusalem.” The preface to this monument was published by me in Orthodoxy. Interview 1888 for the month of July, Appendix, and the printing of the monument itself, with translation into Russian, was postponed until the current 1889. This ends the “short report” for the first half of my trip abroad, compiled in accordance with the resolution of the Academy Council of July 20, 1887, in Cairo on February 28, 1888 and received in Kyiv of the same year on March 14, and then follows a detailed official report reviewing the scientific results obtained by me during my trip to the east for the entire 1887/1888 academic year. In multis codicibus Nanianis, qui nuns Venetiis sunt, writes Prof. Hardhausen from the words of Mingarelli (Mingarelli T.A. Graeci codices Mss. apud Nanianos asservati. Bologna 1784), hodie quoque legitur Τῆς ἁγίας Αἰκατερίνης τῶν Σιναίτῶν. e.g. cod. 74; Gregor. Nyss. S. XVI cod 101–102; Gerouticon scr. 1615–1617, cod. 108; Io. Xiphilinus s. XVI, cod. 173–174; liturg. s. XVI et XIV, cod. 207; Theodulus s. XVI–XVII, cod. 210; liturg. s. XVII, cod. 254; Alex. Aphrod. (Scr. Io. Rhosus a. 1486. ​​cf. Cod. Sin. 165), cod. 281; Theodor. Prodrom. s. XII–XIV…Evangeliarium quoque Berolinense 4° No. 47) antea sinaiticum fuit. Denique in Sinai monte scripti sunt cod. Alexandr. 454; Octoechus (an 1523) et cod. Cantabrig. Ff. III, 30; Galeni opera an. 1550 a Georgio ser. (Catalog. codic. graecor. Sinaitic. Oxon. 1886 an. pag. VI, praefac.). Many manuscripts from Athonite libraries ended up in the Florentine library of Lawrence de Medici in the 15th century, with the assistance of Lascaris. In chapter 67 of Gibb's Roman History we read: “Latebaut in Atho Thraciae monte. Eos Lascaris – in Italy reportavit. Miserat enim ipsum Lavrentis ilie Medices in Graeciam" (We borrow the quote from Prof. Grigorovich’s book “Essay on Travel in European Turkey,” ed. 2, M. 1877, p. 80, note). Histor. Russian librarian vol. VI, 1880, pp. 438–564. This rank was published by E. Barsky in his book: “Ancient Russian. monuments of the sacred wedding of kings to the kingdom.” M. 1883. pp. 1–18. Gardhouse. Catalog. Pag. 208. This rite was published in our work: “Divine service. in Russian church for the 16th century,” 1884, Kaz. Part 1, appendix, pp. 54–60. Euchologium glagolski spomenik manastira Sinai brda. U Zagreb. 1883. Glasnik srpsk scientist. Drushst book. VIII; Porf. Deut. travel according to St. Mount Athos 1880 Until 1849, there was no oral tradition on Athos, not even rumors among the Greeks there that St. The Monk Anthony of Pechersk once asceticised on Athos, in a cave near the monastery of Esphigmen, and that there he received monastic vows from the Esphigmen abbot Theoktistus. This tradition was first stated to the late Metropolitan of Kyiv Philaret in a letter from the Esphigmeni monks (Arch. Antonin. Notes on the veneration of the Holy Mountain, p. 295, appendix 2), and then spread throughout Rus' through a brochure; “Esphigmensky Monastery on St. Mount Athos,” published in Kyiv in 1851. If we are not mistaken, the letter of the Esphigmenians and the mentioned brochure came into the light of God just at the time when the elders of this monastery initiated a petition to St. Synod about allowing them to come to Russia to collect alms to decorate its dilapidated buildings. In 1849 on St. The grief hegumen of the Esphigmen monastery, Agathangel, instructed at that time the well-known church pyita throughout Athos, monk Jacob, to compile in Greek a biography of the Monk Anthony of Pechersk and a service in his honor. This brochure is inscribed as follows: “Ἀσματικὴ ἀκολουϑία καὶ Βιογραφία ϑαυμάσιος τοῦ πανοσίου ?? ἐν ὄρει τοῦ Ἄϑῳ ἐν τῇ ιέρᾷ μονῇ Ἐσφιγμένον, καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀπέναντι αὐτῆς ὄρει Σαμαρείᾳ καχούμενον ἀσκήσαντι, εἷτα διὰ ἀποκαλύψεως ἐν Ρωσσίᾳ πεμφϑεὶς, ἀρχηγὸς τῶν ἐκεῖσε μοναστῶν γενόμενος, τὴν ϑεόδμητον μονὴν Πετζέρσκοί ????? τῆς ιἐρᾶς μονῆς Ἐσφιγμένου κυρίου Ἀγαϑαγγέλου καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ ἀσκόυντων ἑπίτροπων καὶ λοιμῶν ἀδελφῶν εἰς ἀΐδιον αὐτῶν μνήμην, ἐπιμελείᾳ δὲ ὅτι καὶ πόνῳ μοναχοῦ οἰκτροῦ Ἰακώβου τῆς αὐτῆς μονῆς τεκνου ἐν ἔτει τῆς ἐνσάρκου Θεογονίας ҂αων (1850); ἐν τῷ ἁγιωνύμῳ ὄρει τοῦ Ἀϑωνος. The brochure is dedicated to the Orthodox Church and the Russian Holy Governing Synod in the following terms. Such a service is in the Typikon of the Athos-St. Paul Monastery (σελ. 53), compiled at the request of Abbot Sophronius the Kefalonian in 1850. This service with synaskar is inscribed here like this: Τῆς ἁγίας σκέπης τῆς ὑπεραγίας Θεοτόκοῦ and ends with the note: Ἰστέον οὖν ἡ ἀκολουϑία τοῦ ἁγίου Ρωμάνου ψάλλεται ἐν τοῖς ἀποϑείπνοις, ἡ δὲ ἀκολουϑία τοῦ ἀποστόλου Ἀνανίου ψάλλεται τῇ ἐπαύριον μετὰ τοῦ ἁγίου Κυπριανοῦ, εἰ δὲ βούλοις ψάλλον αὐτὴν μετὰ τῆς ἁγίας σκίκης ὁμοῦ (σελ. 64). Quite detailed information about the personality of this Meletius Sirig was reported by the late Reverend. Filaret in his “Review of Russian. spirit. liter." 1859 Khark. p. 277. The mentioned service to the Kyiv wonderworkers, significantly corrected, is published in Kyiv and hitherto under the title: “Service to the reverend fathers of Pechersk and all the saints who shone in little Russia, printed from the Akathists with the canons” (Kyiv, 1866, September). In this title the Kiev edition of this service differs significantly from the Greek original, which is inscribed as follows: “Μνήμην ἐπιτελοῦμεν τῶν καὶ ϑεοφόρων πατέρων ἡμῶν, ἐν Πιετζαρίῳ ἀσκησάντων, καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν Ῥωσσίᾳ λαμψαντων, συντεϑεϑεισαν" κ.τ.λ. Obviously, the publishers wanted to give this service an often local, southern Russian character, which, however, they did not manage to do completely. Christ. Read 1888 No. 9–10 p. 545. It will be interesting to note that in one Panteleimon Athonite library there are 26 Venetian editions of the Menaions of the 16th century, not listed in the book of Mr. Legrand. In these views, we acquired an expensive (50 francs.), but luxurious atlas of photographs from the mosaics and frescoes of this mosque, made by the Frenchman André Leval (catal. explicat. des principal. mosaiqu. peintures et sculptur. exist. a Kabrie-Djami a Constant. et photograph. par Pascal Sebah. Constant. 1886 an.), which remained unknown to our archaeologist even in his last work on Constantinople antiquities - “Churches of Constantinople”. Od. 1887 Travel to Sinai in 1861. From travel impressions. Antiquities of the Sinai monastery. Odessa. 1882. Preface. pp. I and IV. Archim. Antonin. From the Notes of Sinai. Mantis., p. 145. Travel. on Sinai, page 71. From the Record. Sinaisk Bogomolets, p. 146. Deut. travel to Sinai mon. in 1850 St. Petersburg. 1856, p. 164. One half of these calendars ended up in the collection of the late Most Reverend Porfiry Uspensky and is stored together with his other oriental icons in our Church-Archaeological Museum (I. Petrov, Collections of ancient oriental icons and examples of ancient and book paintings, bequeathed by Venerable Porfiry Uspensky. Church-archaeological Society of the Kyiv spirit. Ak. p. 12. Καὶ, παροῦσα τῶν τριῶν ἱεραρχῶν, we read on icon No. 33 in the chapel of Joachim and Anna, ὑπάρχει κἀμοῦ Θεοδοσίου μοναχοῦ, ὁποῦ πάγω εἰς τὴν Σμόρνην, διὰ νὰ μάϑῳ τὴν ὁποῖαν τὴν ἀφήνω τοῦ γέροντά μου κὺρ Ἀνϑίμου Καισαριτίδου 1770, Απριλλίου 10 and 21 1779 Νοεμβρίου 2 τὴν παροῦσαν ἁγίαν ?? σχολῇ τῆς Πάτμου, καὶ τὴν ἀφήνω εἰς τὴν μέσην. Θεοδόσιος. a) τῶν διακρεψάντων and b) τῆς διαπρεφάντων καϑηγητῶν (Κωνσταντ. Α´, τοῦ πατρ. Κωνσταντ. τοῦ Βυζαντιου. Κωνσταντ. 144–188 καὶ 346–367). Note. Pokl. Holy Mountain, page 132. Perv. travel to Athos. mon. and skete. part 1, dep. 1. page 224; Read in general loves. spirit. enlightenment 1884 book. III, p. 218. Read in general loves. spiritual enlightenment 1884 book. III, p. 229. We described this icon in detail in the article “The architecture of modern churches in the east, their painting and liturgical accessories” (Manual for rural pastors, 1887) Rev. Porfiry “First journey to the Sinai monastery. in 1845" St. Petersburg 1856 p. 135; his: “Second Journey to Sin. mon. in 1850" St. Petersburg 1856, p. 357. A lot of outstanding figures came out of the school in Khandak - people of clergy and secular rank, who, with their high official position and their literary works, won themselves an honorable place in history. Among the secular, many received their initial education in this school of the Sinai monastery, but of these we name Nicholas Calliaki, who completed his education in Rome, the former professor of rhetoric in Padua, Thomas of Catania, professor of philosophy in Padua, and others (Κωνσταντ. A´ εκδ. Θεοδωρ. Μ. Αριστοκλ. ἐν Κωνστ. 1866 εῖ, σελ. Meletius Pigas, after completing his education at the Khandaki Sinai school, under the guidance of Hierodeacon Meletius Vlast, traveled to Italy to complete his education, attended lectures at the universities of Venice and Padua, where he took a course in logic from Jacob Zabarella and graduated from the Faculty of Medicine, but in search of the Latins, did not receive a diploma for this title. After completing his education in Italy, Meletius Pigas returned to his homeland in Crete and became a teacher at the Sinai school, and then at the school in the main city of Crete. See the icon of the Burning Bush in the church of the same name, commissioned by Nikifor the monk, with the artist’s signature (circa 1764): “Χεῖρ Ἰωάννου, προσκυνητοῦ κρητός.” Deut. travel to Sinai, Rev. Porphyria, pp. 316, 319. The Sinai-Critans knew other arts besides painting. Kozma the Cretan economist, for example, was a good master of iconostasis and made the current iconostasis for the basilica in 1612; Hieromonk Maxim gilded this iconostasis in 1675 and painted the back side of the iconostasis; monk Pankraty in 1678 and monk George in 1682 and others made cladding with mother-of-pearl patterns on Indian tortoise bones on various sacred and liturgical objects; monk George was a goldsmith and in 1680 he built an ark to store the relics of the Great Martyr Catherine; Gerasim protosinkel from Philippopolis in 1783 made a marble phial for the porch of the cathedral church; Sinai monks Procopius and Porphyry in 1714, with a remarkable art of combining veins, in the merging of joints and in the selection and placement of slabs, patterned by nature, laid out church floors from multi-colored marbles, etc. From the West Sinaisk. God., p. 146. Rukov. to the history of painting, ed. 3, transl. Vasilyeva M. 1872, pp. 277–278. Κατάλογος τῶν χειρογράφων τῆς ἐν Σμύρνῃ βιβλιοϑήκης τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς σχολῆς. Σμύρνη. 1877 ετ. Ἔκϑεσις παλαιογραφ. καὶ φιλολογικῶν ἐρευνῶν ἐν Θράκῃ καὶ Μακεδονίᾳ ἐν Κωνσταντιν. 1886 ετ. An extensive description, still in print, under the title: κατάλογος, τῶν ἐν ταῖς ἀνὰ τὴν ἀνατολήν βιβλιοϑήκαις εὐρισκομένων ἐλληνικῶν χειρογράφων, καταρτισϑεῖσα καὶ ?? φιλολογικοῦ σλλόγου. Published for the time being for the release of this catalogue. The first issue was published in 1884. Adolf Harnack made a very sympathetic review of this Catalog in Theologische Literatur Zeitung, No. 19, 1886. Tischendorf discovered at Sinai and promulgated the 5th century Gospel Codex, known to science. Heitler, a Zagreb professor, traveled to Sinai with the express purpose of examining and describing the Glagolitic manuscripts stored there; Euchologium and Psalter, which he, upon returning to Zagreb, published in their entirety, having previously transcribed the Glagolitic alphabet into Cyrillic. Name of Herman, Archbishop of Sinai, Ave. Porfiry Uspensky mentions the year 1156. “Deut. travel to Sinai monast.”, p. 357. In the Hardhausen Catalog, the measurements of both manuscripts are as follows: No. 741–24*16.5; 4 centim, and No. 742–24*17.5; 5 centim. This small difference depends entirely on the fact that the measurements in the last manuscript were made by Mr. Hardhausen on the initial bombycin sheet, which is somewhat wider compared to the parchment sheets of the present manuscript. Similarly, in manuscript No. 741, and according to the remark of Mr. Hardhausen, in fine sequitur fasciculus membran, et folia nonnula bombycina minoria formae (pag 161) against the parchment sheets of the manuscript itself. Christ. Read 1888 No. 9–10, p. 504. In hand Syn. bib. 1311 No. 1101 τῆς πανσέπτου καὶ ἁγίας. Ibid. The title ends with this word with the addition: μηνι Σεπτεμβρίῳ ἰνδικτιῶνος ι´, ἔτους ҂ςῶκ. All this correspondence is given in the book of the Right Reverend Porfiry Uspensky: “Deut. travel to Sinaisk. mon. in 1850" St. Petersburg 1856, p. 357, but with great errors and distortions. In this case, Fr. Antonin expresses an opinion that is completely erroneous and somewhat incomprehensible to us. Back in 1864, he published a book in Kyiv: “Notes of a Devotee of the Holy Mountain”, in which, by the way, for the first time he published in abbreviated form and in Russian translation Διατύπωσις Rev. Athanasius of Athos, which he gave to his monastery as a spiritual testament or ktitor’s charter (pp. 199–212). “It (i.e. Διατύπωσις) should be revered as a very important monument of church antiquity for science,” Fr. wrote then. Antonin, - on a par with the similar studio charter.” Somehow, in 1870, the Studio and Afanasievsky charters turned out to be “additions to the Palestinian charter”, only “resembling a certain originality”, and not “peculiar codes and regulations” - we cannot understand this. In fact, the Studite Charter, compiled by the fathers of the Constantinople Studite monastery on the basis of the Ὑποτύπωσις’ of St. Theodore the Studite, with which the Διατύπωσις of St. Athanasius of Athos is often literally similar, differs in many respects from the Charter of the Jerusalem Studite. Savva the Sanctified (Mansvetov. Tserkovn. Ustav. M. 1885, p. 76; Slich. Khrist. Read. 1888 No. 9–10, pp. 510–519), existed in church and liturgical practice independently for a long time and, if it became an “addition to the Palestinian Charter,” then in Constantinople and already in the 12th or 13th century. In other words, this means that the Jerusalem Rite, having appeared in Constantinople, was strongly influenced by the Studite Rite that prevailed there and took its place only when it itself opened its pages to the peculiarities of the practice of the Studite monastery. Manuscripts No. 1097, No. 1101 and No. 1103 have many of their own (Sinaitic) features that the Typicons of other places do not have. So, for example, on the 4th of September we find here a solemn service in honor of the prophet Moses the Seer of God, in which at the all-night vigil at the litia it is supposed to go to the relics of St. Great Martyr Catherine (καὶ ἀπερχόμεϑα ἐν τῇ λάρνακι τῆς ἁγίας Αἰκατερίνης), to the Church of St. Forerunners (ἐν τῷ ναῷ τοῦ τιμίου Προδρόμου), to the Church of the Burning Bush (ἐν τῇ ἁγίᾳ βάτῳ) (l. 65:66), under On November 24, a solemn service in honor of the Great Martyr Catherine (l. 84), on January 14, the same service in honor of the fathers killed in Sinai and Raifa (l. 106:107), in which, at the end of Matins, it is necessary to go with the lithium to the Theotokos paraklis, where there was a vessel with oil, miraculously received by George Arselaite (The story about this is printed in Porfiry Uspensky “First journey to the Sinai monasteries in 1846”, p. On the canon on this day, after 3 and 6 hymns, 6 ikos from the akathist in honor of the Mother of God are supposed to be sung, and the rest are postponed for the indicated reason until the day of the akathist, i.e., until Saturday of the fifth week of fasting (τοὺς δὲ ἑτέρους ιβ´ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀκαϑιστου διὰ τὸ ἀβαρέστερον καὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ψάλτας περισσοὺς l. 115 vol.–116). Αрх. Antonin. From the Notes of a Sinai pilgrim. Proceedings Kyiv. Spirit. Academician March 1873 p. 64. This opinion appeared in our literature, thanks to the famous learned hierarch of the Russian Church, Philaret of Chernigov. “Patriarch Nektarios, (in the 17th century), he says in his famous work: “Historical review of the hymns and hymns of the Greek Church.” Black 1864, p. 307, - who, in his own words, saw the original church charter of the studio, writes that this charter differs from the charter of St. Savva, mainly because in the studio charter it is shown to read the canons of the studio fathers, why is it not called the charter of Savva or Damascene, but the studio charter. Nektarios says that the same Rule is preserved on Mount Sinai with some modification, which, as can be seen from his description, concerns the celebration of liturgies and commemorations.” The Most Reverend Philaret was led into a real error by an insufficiently clear legend about the Rules of the Sinai monastery of the mentioned Jerusalem Patriarch Nektarios, who in fact did not say anything similar to what the Most Reverend attributes to him. Filaret. Here are his original words: “φυλάττει τὸ ἱερὸν αὐτὸ μοναστήριον ἀπαράλλακτος τὸ ? ἐκκλησίαν κρατεῖ, ὅπερ ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις Σάββας ἐτύπωσε καὶ παρέδωκεν εἰς τὰ μοναστήρια αὐτοῦ εἰς τῇ Παλαιστίνης τὸ ὁποῖον ὁ μὲγας ϑεοπέσιος Δαμασκηνὸς εἰς αὐτὸ τὸ μοναστήριον τοῦ ἁγίου Σάββα μετηῤῥύϑμισε, προσϑεὶς εἰς αὐτὸ τοὺς κανόνας, καὶ ἱδιόμελα ἅπερ αὐτός τε καὶ ὁ Κοσμᾶς ἔγραψαν καὶ πάλιν ὕστερον οί ἐν τῇ Μονῇ τῶν Στουδιτῶν θραπτοὶ, ἔτι δὲ καὶ Ἰωσὴφ ὁ ὑμνογραφος πληρέστερον ἀπετέλεσαν, ὡς φαίνεται, καὶ ἐστὶ τὴν σἡμερον, προσϑέντες καὶ αὐτοὶ εἰς αὐτὸ, ἀδείᾳ συνόδου οἰκουμενικῆς, τὰ πάνσιμα αὐτών μελωδήματα, τὸ ὁποῖον οὺκ ἔτι Σάββα ἢ Δαμασκηνοῦ Τυπικὸν λέγεται, ἀλλὰ Τυπικὸν τῶν Στουδιτῶν, ὡς ἐν τινι παλαιῷ ἀντιγράφῳ εὔρομεν. Τοῦτο τοίνυν κρατεῖ καὶ τὸ μεγαλώνυμον μοναστήριον τοῦ σιναΐου ὄρους" Βενετ. 1817 σελ. “This sacred monastery is preserved by the invariably ancient Typikon, which the Eastern Church maintains throughout the entire universe, which was first legitimized by the likes of the saints Sava and handed over to his monasteries in Palestine, which the great and divine Damascene improved in this monastery of St. Sava, adding to it the canons and self-conciliations written by himself and Cosmas. Again, later, the writers in the Studio monastery Theodore and Theophanes, and also Joseph the hymnist, more significantly supplemented, as it seems, with the consent of the Ecumenical Council, their wise chants, which is not yet called the Typikon of Sava or Damascus, but the Typikon of Studio, as we found in one ancient list. This Typikon also contains to this day the glorious monastery of Mount Sinai.” Here, in this tirade, the historical fate of the Greek Typikon is sequentially told and it is directly stated that the Sinai monastery in its liturgical practice uses the ancient charter of Sava the Sanctified, and this charter is observed in it to this day, that is, until the time of Patriarch Nektarios. Where Patriarch Nektarios found the oldest copy of the Studite Charter is unknown. One might think that he saw it in the library of the Sinai monastery, but at present none of the 16 lists of the Rule stored in this library are inscribed with the name of the studio monastery. Didn’t P. Nektarios mean by the oldest list of this charter the manuscript of the monastery No. 401, written in 1086, which contains, among other things, Ὑποτύπωσις συν Θεῷ καταστάσεως τῆς μονὴς τῶν Στουδιτῶν? Mansvetov. Church Charter, page 128. From the previous quote it is clear that the present formulation of the opinion of P. Nektarios in prof. Mansvetova has nothing in common with reality. An idea is imposed on Patriarch Nektarios here, which, as we already know, he did not express. Oddly enough, it is a fact that our compatriot, the famous “pedestrian” Vasily Grigorovich-Barsky, who was in Sinai in 1728, testifies about the monastery Typik that “The ancient Studite Typik, held by the Venerable Savva the Sanctified, is preserved in the Sinai monastery” (Travel to the Holy Places. St. Petersburg, 1779, p. 279). True, this remark of our tireless “pedestrian” is anachronistic, because, in fact, St. Savva the Sanctified, who died in 524 after the Nativity of Christ, could not “keep” the Typikon of the Studites, which was finally worked out only in the 9th century, but the fact of the existence of the Studite Rule in the Sinai monastery even in the 18th century is confirmed here. Undoubtedly, it would not be easy for us to explain this fact if we did not know where Mr. Grigorovich-Barsky got this remark from. Savva, who “invariably maintains the Eastern Church throughout the entire universe,” which “contained the glorious monastery of Mount Sinai” during the time of Patriarch Nektarios and, of course, during the visit to Mount Sinai in 1728 by our Russian “pedestrian,” who, to our deep regret, did not consult precisely on this issue with the typicar of the Sinai monastery of that time. Archimandrite Antonin dates this manuscript to the 12th–13th centuries and, in our opinion, is more correct. Firstly, the handwriting of the manuscript most closely reminds us of the manuscripts of this time - small and somewhat oblique; secondly, the manuscript speaks of the invasion of the Holy City of the Franks as an event that happened in Palestine in recent times. Under the 15th of May we find the remark: ἀρχῆς ὑπὸ τῶν Περσῶν ἐν τῇ λαύρᾳ τοῦ ἁγίου Σάββα, ἐν ταύτῃ ?? ἰσμαϊλιτῶν πατέρες ιέ, ὅτε δηλονότι παρεκάϑηντο τὴν ἁγίαν πόλιν οί φράγγοι (l. 107). The translation belongs to a good expert in the Greek language, His Eminence Theophan, and the publication was made at the expense of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery on Athos. Teachings of St. Theodore the Studite will compile the fourth (already in print) volume of the Philokalia, published by the same monastery. One can only regret that the teachings are sometimes translated not in their entirety, but in extracts, since the beautiful Patmos manuscript is damaged in some places and is inconvenient to read. So, for example, in article 28, according to Min, we read: ὁμοῦ ἐπὶ τῶν παροψίδων ἐῤῥιπτομένων, and in the manuscript the same place is stated: ὁ ἦχος χλιερίων ἐν τῇ ὑποτάττῃ μαγειρίᾳ πάντων ὁμοῦ ἐπὶ τῶν παραδίψων ἐῤῥιπτομένων, in article 30 instead of: ἀπίεφϑα in the manuscript: ἄππια ἐφϑὰ, etc. Μιχαὴλ Ἀκομινάτου τοῦ Χωνιάτου τὰ σωζόμενα. Ἐν Ἀϑίναις 1879–1880. (30 δραχ.). In addition to this work, Mr. Lambros has many others, but we will indicate the most important of them: 1) Παναγιώτου Δοξαρᾶ περὶ ζωγραφίας, χειρόγραφον τοῦ 1726 νῦν τὸ πρῶτον μετὰ προλόγου ἐκδιδόμενον. Ἐν Ἀϑην. 1871 (δραχ. 2), 2) Collection de romans Greca en langue vulgaire et en vers d’aprés le manuscrits de Leyde et d’Oxford l’aris 1880. (20 δραχμ), 3) Ἱστορικὰ μελετήματα. Ἐν Ἀϑην. 1884 (5 δραχμ.), "Ἔκϑεσις πρὸς τὴν βουλὴν τῶν ἐλλήνων" 1889 ετ.). We sincerely wish happy success to the hardworking Athenian professor in his work conceived for the benefit of science, its speedy completion and wide dissemination among readers. This report was published in a separate brochure under the title: “Ἔκϑεσις Σπυρίδωνος Π. Λάπρου Δ.Φ. ὑφηγητοῦ πρὸς τὴν βουλὴν τῶν ἐλλήνων περὶ τῆς εἰς τὸ Ἁγιον ὄρος ἀποστολῆς αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὸ ϑέρος τοῦ 1880. Ἀϑην. ἐκ τοῦ τυπογραφείου τοῦ Αἰῶνος (2/11 ὀκτοβρίοῦ ἔτους)", reprinted in the Constantinople spiritual journal for the same year "Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἁλήϑεια" for the months of October and November and in some German magazines by August Boltz and Heinrich Rickenbach. Quite extensive extracts from this “Report” were published in “Journal. Min. folk Enlightenment." 1881 sq. II, G.S. Destunis. Not having at hand the “Report” of Mr. Lambros, when compiling these bibliographic notes, we used the mentioned extracts from it by Mr. Destunis. “It is known,” says Mr. Lambros in his report on the work on the study of Byzantine art, “that for many reasons, and especially due to the opposition between the Western and Eastern worlds that arose from religious disagreements, everything Byzantine was despised and slandered by the Franks, but of everything Byzantine, nothing, perhaps, was subjected to more unfair judgments than Byzantine art. According to the prevailing views, when it comes to art, Byzantine means motionless, devoid of life, incorrect in terms of design and color. This judgment of art connoisseurs, unfortunately, finds confirmation in fragments of Byzantine painting located in European museums, where mostly ordinary works are collected, belonging to the inept brush of hagiographers of recent centuries, who worked mechanically. The real art of the predecessors of Giotto and Orcagna is unknown: this art was to be studied in the forests of the Holy Mountain. Lambros here obviously means the Museum of Christian Antiquities at the Academy of Arts in St. Petersburg (T. Florinsky, Athos Acts of St. Petersburg 1880. p. 18), which received, in all likelihood, only a part of the photographs from the remarkable monuments of ancient Christian art on Athos, because we saw a lot of cripples and photographs of Mr. Sevastyanov in the basements of the Russian St. Andrew's Skete on Athos, in which the late P.I. Sevastyanov lived and worked for a long time and to whom he bequeathed a rather rich collection of Greek and Slavic manuscripts and ancient icons of Athonite writing, collected by him during his travels. Manuscripts adorn the monastery library, icons are in the newly built church above the fraternal meal, and beautiful tracing papers, made mostly in life-size of the original and kept in the monastery only for display to the public, have deteriorated so much from dryness that there is no way to unfold them. Lovers of antiquities will have, not without regret, to repeat a task already done once, and, moreover, to begin it under conditions in which others can hardly be placed. Intending to study Byzantine art on Mount Athos, I, of course, continues Mr. Lambros, did not dare to even think about taking on these enormous and expensive works, but I had a more practical goal in mind. I intended to restore the good name of Byzantine art; I believed that it could be carried out most successfully if such an album (λεύκωμα) was published in one of the artistic institutions of Western Europe, which in chromolithographs and chalcographs would contain, although few of the Byzantine works of art of Athos, but the most excellent of them. And since I managed to take with me the skilled artist Mr. Jalleron, then I was pleased to see the fulfillment of my desires, at least for the first half of the work, since we have already made very successful copies of the excellent murals (τοιχογραφιῶν) of Panselin, which is in the Church of Protata on Kareya, executed with paints or just in pencil, as well as copies of excellent miniatures (ἱστορικῶν) from manuscripts we found in the libraries of the monasteries mentioned above. I also took care to copy with paints those beautiful and varied capital letters with which Byzantine manuscripts are decorated, as well as all kinds of head decorations in order to gracefully decorate my explanatory text with them, which should be attached to the edition of works of Byzantine art, if this edition can be executed as desired. For this purpose, some other works of art and sacred utensils were copied and photographed, so that the whole would be more diverse. G. Gilleron also photographed some remarkable pages from the manuscripts: I will especially mention fourteen pages containing folk songs set to music πορασημαντικῆς), which were discovered by him in the amount of thirteen on the bindings of manuscripts. We found these songs, writes Mr. Lambros, written down on seven leaves of the 16th century codex, which contains the kratimata of various church hymns (κρατήματα διαφόρων μελοποιῶν τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς μουσικῆς). But of these seven sheets, only one page was visible, the rest made up the cardboard that served as the binding of the manuscript. It took a lot of work to peel off and preserve these sheets by carefully wetting them. This find is quite remarkable at a time when great efforts have been made to discover the technique of Byzantine music and to revive our folk melody. There are known studies on this subject by Bourgault Ducoudray living in Paris and our fellow tribesman Mr. John Dzedva, who certainly promised to make it easier for me to transcribe my copies and photographs of these ancient melodies of the Greek people to the notes of European music” (see Ἔκϑεσις πρὸς τὴν βουλὴν). In the Kutlumush Library, according to its catalog, which is also well-known to Mr. Lambros, there are considered to be a total of 552 manuscripts. The library of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery has grown significantly since the visit of Athos by the city of Lambros. Currently, the number of Greek manuscripts from this monastery reaches 850 numbers. The manuscripts of the Xenophian Library are described incompletely. So, for example, Mr. Lambros does not mention at all about a very significant manuscript of the 14th century, containing the acts of the Council of Constantinople, the so-called eighth, and the correspondence on the case of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (see Second travelogue on Mount Athos., Rev. Porfiry 1880 M. pp. 56, 273–276) and does not say that the handwritten Psalter with the interpretation of the same library No. 5 is divided into two parts. There are up to a thousand manuscripts in the Athanasius Lavra, and up to 4,000 in the library of the Vatopedi Monastery. The total number of manuscripts in this library is slightly higher than 100 and fragments are not less than the same figure, so that in numerical terms it exceeds the libraries of the monastery of St. Anna, Protata of the monasteries of St. Paul, Hilandar and Zograf, and the scientific value of some manuscripts and the antiquity of their writing is not inferior to many, even richer libraries of St. Mountains. From this “ktitor” of his, who always did not skimp on promises and petitions in favor of the skete before the powers that be, the library of St. Andrew’s monastery received as a gift, if we are not mistaken, only two or three manuscripts and, after his death, a chamberlain’s uniform, carefully kept behind glass in a display case located behind the sacristy of the monastery. On a Greek parchment gospel sheet, 225 sheets, 11th–12th centuries. with the miniatures we find the following postscript: “Tuia evaggelia sa pudaruna na shzhitat svetago Apostol Andrea monastery Saraitskogo Russians in the light of the mountain, evaggelia sanazozavsha po pernament sa girth for the love between our community Koshanetsky monastery Our Lady of Samospstetsa (see information about this monastery in A. Papadopula-Karamevsa in his „Ἔκϑεσις παλαιογραφ. καὶ φιλολογικ. ἐρευνῶν ἐν Θράκῃ καὶ Μακεδονίᾳ ἐν Κωνσταντ.“ 1886 ετ.), and in Saraitskata opshchina Ruska in the summer of 1879, month Septemvria in 6, from Makedonna from Zhanetsk and diocese in from Casavilna." We heard about the existence of manuscripts in this monastery in the Russian Panteleimon Monastery and from the monks of the present monastery. Some information about the existence of manuscripts in other Athonite monasteries, besides those mentioned, can be found in the book of the Reverend. Porfiry Uspensky “The Second Journey. according to St. Mount Athos", M. 1880, pp. 333–464. In relatively very recent times and for a very insignificant price, it was acquired by the Kutlumush Athos Monastery from one keliot in excellent preservation and excellent writing of the 14th century. Euchologium, which was in practical use in the little-known Philanthropist convent of Constantinople (I. Kondakov. Byzantine ts. and memorials. Constantinople. Od. 1886, pp. 73, 81–82:105) and containing the customs of this particular monastery (ἅτινα στιχηρὰ προεγράφησαν καὶ ἐτέϑησαν ἐν τῇ σεβασμίῦ Φιλανϑρώπου μονῇ). Another parchment manuscript of the 13th–14th centuries was acquired from the same cell and in the same monastery. - words of Ephraim the Syrian. Sympathetic reviews of his report were made in the journal Ἀϑηναῖον vol. VIII, century. 1 and 2, 1879 by the Athenian professor Castorch, in Constantinople in the journal “Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἀλὴϑεια” 1880, by August Boltz in Bonn 1881, by Heinrich Rickenbach in Vienna 1881 and we have G. Destunis in the Minister Magazine. People's Enlightenment In 1881, Prince. II. The appearance of this Catalog caused a completely benevolent review by O. Gebhardt in the “Theologische Literaturzeitung” for the current year 1889 in No. 2. Here, by the way, a review is given about a new work still unknown to us, but promised by Lambros, entitled: “Περὶ τῶν " Ἀϑήνησι, τοπογραφεῖον “Παλιγγενεσία” Ιω. Ἀγγελοπούλου. 1888 ετ. “A very thorough search was made for palimpsests,” Mr. Lambros wrote in his report, “not only those whose lower ancient text was Greek, but also Slavic or Georgian parchments, to consider whether they were written down from worn-out ancient Greek texts” (Ἔκϑεσ., σελ. 24). The palimpsests he found, however, did not represent anything interesting or important scientifically. We know of only two other handwritten Typicons with this title on Athos: in the Russian Panteleimon Monastery of 1841 and the Dokhiarsky Monastery of the 15th century. Both of them are of practical importance when conducting modern worship in these monasteries. Manuscript No. 39 (475) Mr. Lambros describes as follows: “Κῶδ. χαρτ. εἰς 8-оν αἰῶν. ις´. Μηναῖον Ἀογούστου. Ἐν τέλει· Ἐτελειώϑη κατὰ τὸ ҂ζξϑ ἰνδ. Κυρίλλου τλήμονος Ναυπακτίου, ἤτοι 1561. Ἐκ τοῦ γραφικοῦ ???? πλὴν τοῦ ἐπομένου κώδικος καὶ τοὺς ὑπ’ ἀριϑ. 30 καὶ 32–37". (Καταλ. σελ. 98). It is remarkable that in this place Mr. Lambros does not make any reference to manuscript No. 48 (484). At Rev. Porphyry provides several excerpts of the Latin text of this manuscript and even the red four-line lines for the notes are reproduced photographically. Deut. travel according to St. Mount Athos. M. 1889, p. 262. This date is also indicated by Rev. Porfiry in his book: “Deuteronomy, travel. according to St. Mount Athos", p. 261. In view of the errors indicated by us, made by Mr. Lambros in determining the time of writing of the Athonite manuscripts, and the work of Mr. Gebhart (see Theolog. Literaturzeitung. 1879 No. 14) to compose, on the basis of this Catalog, an idea of the antiquity of the Athonite manuscripts and their number over the centuries, turns out to not achieve its goal. In the description of this manuscript, Mr. Lambros made several inaccuracies and even errors. The manuscript, for example, makes no mention at all about the prayer of St. Tryphon (σελ. 178), but it speaks of the permissive prayer of St. Patriarch Niphon of Constantinople, there is no completely special and obscure title: ἐκκλησιαστικὴ τάξις (ibid.), the rite of joining the Latins to the Orthodox Church is, of course, the one that was approved by the Church of Constantinople after the Council of Florence, and finally, with the words: διατάξεις τινὲς ἐκκλησιαστικαί denotes the ranks of accession of the heretics Methodius and Gennadius Scholarius, patriarchs of Constantinople. However, similar inaccuracies were made by Mr. Lambros in the description of many other manuscripts. So, for example, in Ilitaria of the 12th century. Xenophian Library No. 161, except for the rite of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (without beginning), indicated in the Catalog (σελ. 192), there are the following articles not indicated in it: the rite of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, three prayers over the sick and a prayer over the one taking monastic vows. At the end there is the scribe's signature: Κωνσταντίνος μοναχός. This call of St. Cyril of Scythopolis, together with sixty other monks of “other Orthodox monasteries,” was made by the fathers of the Lavra of Sava the Consecrated, “by the will and determination of the divine John, bishop and hermit” (pag. 375), who, in the 38th year of his age, settled in the monastery, even during the life of St. Sava, was on the most friendly terms with him (detailed biography of this holy father, whose memory in the Lavra of St. Sava was celebrated on January 8 (Τυπικ, RKP. Sinai. Bible of the 12th century. No. 1096 fol. 73 volume), compiled “in a special work” by the same Ave. Cyril of Scythopolis (Coteler pag. 248) and in the manuscripts it is inscribed as follows: Βίος καὶ πολιτεία τοῦ ἁγίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου, τοῦ ἐπισκόπου καὶ (W. Gardthaus. Catalog, cod. graecor. sinaitic. Oxon. 1886 an., pag. 120) and told our author many very useful and important information about the life and activities of the holy father (Coteler. pag. 248). The same Bishop John and a certain “most honest and child-loving Father George” later prompted Cyril of Scythopolis to “describe the godly life of our holy fathers Euthymius, who completed their path on earth (this biography was published by Cotelier in his Ecclesiae graecae monument. t. IV pag. 1–99, and the Russian translation of it in Christ. Reading. 1824 g. Part XV) and Savva" (ibid., pag. 220, 221:249). Cyril of Scythopolis treated the very flattering assignment entrusted to him quite conscientiously and wrote a biography of St. Savva in the most careful manner according to the data most worthy of credibility. “I have information about him,” says Rev. Cyril, carefully and with difficulty collected from reliable holy men who were his disciples and associates and who to this day imitate his life and sanctify our path to God” (page 221). By these “reliable holy men” Cyril of Scythopolis means, in addition to the already mentioned Bishop John, Gregory the Presbyter and his cousin on his father’s side (page 226), “the divine Paul, famous in the great monastery for his holy virtues,” the disciple of blessed Jeremiah - an Armenian (page 247) and Abba Gerontius, abbot of the monastery St. Euphemia (page 292). About some miracles of St. Savva the Sanctified’s biographer tells him as an eyewitness (pag. 355:359). Therefore, it is not surprising that his introduction to the biography of Rev. The author ends Savva with the following interesting appeal to the “most honest and child-loving Father George” already known to us. “I beg you,” he writes, “to believe everything that I have already said, or will be said now. For this purpose, I mentioned times, places, persons and names with precision, so that the truth of my story could be quickly explored” (page 221). Coteler. Eccles. graec. monument pag. 229. The lists of the Jerusalem Typikon, in terms of the time of their writing, are for the most part no earlier than the 13th century. We know from the 12th century only three lists: Nos. 1094, 1095 and 1096 of the Sinai Library, and the last list No. 1096 of Prof. Hardhausen (Catalog. codic. graec. Sinait., pag. 222) for some reason dates it to the 14th century, although the internal data and handwriting of the letter do not in the least prevent us from recognizing it as a manuscript of the 12th century. Archimandrite Antonin considers this Typikon to also be from the 12th–13th centuries. The idea that the rite of church service by Rev. Savva the Sanctified was taken from St. Euthymius the Great, is expressed very clearly in the following inscription of the handwritten Typikon of the 15th–16th centuries. Athos-Karakallo Library No. 165: τῇ· λαύρας τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Εὐϑυμίου τοῦ μεγάλου καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ μεγάλου Σάββα. From the Typicon of St. Theodosius of the Kinoviarch, extracts are available in the Sinai Typicons of 1214 No. 1097 and 1311 No. 1101 (RKP. Sinai. bib.) and bear the following inscription: Τυπικὸν τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἀκολουϑίας τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Θεοδοσίου τοῦ κοινοβιάρχου (l 16). We know Typicons with the following title: λαύρας τοῦ ἐν ἀγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ ϑεοφόρου Σάββα, συγγραφὲν ὐπὸ τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατριάρχαις Ἱεροσολύμων κὺρ Σωφρονίου. RKP. own bib. XIII century Typical. RKP. XVI century l. 2; Τυπικ. RKP. 1526 Mign. Patrol. Curs. complete. t. 155, col. 556 conf. cul. 900. Commentar. de scriptor. ecclesiast., t.1, pag. 1396. Historical Survey of the Hymns and Hymns of the Greek Church, ed. 2, Chernigov. 1864 p. 210. Months of the East M 1875, vol. I, p. 128. Histor. Russian Churches, vol. I, sexes. II, M. 1881, p. 500. Savva the Sanctified also sent young people who came to the Lavra to Abba Theodosius, giving the following wise fatherly instruction: “My son, it is indecent, or better yet, harmful for this Lavra to have someone without a beard. This law (νόμος) was laid down by the ancient fathers of the monastery and the great Father Euthymius passed it on to me” (page 260); and “this ancient law (νόμος παλαιὸς), which was in force among the ancient fathers, ordered that other laurels be transferred to the abbots” (page 229). By metokhs we usually mean farmsteads, generally plots of land belonging to laurels or monasteries, with all the churches and buildings erected on them, in which a fairly large number of monastic brethren sometimes live, constituting, as it were, a separate monastery, as well as hospice houses, etc. Rev. Savva could consider such methods to be the numerous cenobias that he himself founded (page 321), as well as hospice houses in Jerusalem, Jericho, etc. (page 262:253). Here, obviously, is the Jerusalem courtyard of the Lavra (pag. 262), in which the church of the archangels Michael and Gabriel was located (see the postscript to the 16th century Typikon of the library of St. Sava, now patriarchal No. 305: Τὸ παρὸν Τυπικὸν ὑπάρχει τῆς ϑείας καὶ ἱερᾶζ καὶ βασιλικῆς μεγάλης λαύρας... τῶν ἀρχαγγέλων Μιχαὴλ καὶ Γαβριὴλ ἐντὸς τῆς ἁγίας πόλεως Ἱερουσαλὴμ...) and which is sometimes even identified with the Lavra itself (see the postscript to the handwritten Triodion of 1099 in the Sinai Library No. 741 by N. Kondakov. Travels to Sinai in 1881, pp. 111–114; I.D. Mansv. Church Charter. M. 1885, pp. 185–187: Gardthaus. Catal. pag. 162. Ἱεροσολύμοις). Many admirers and admirers who came to Jerusalem on pilgrimage usually stayed in this place. As can be seen from this place, the monastery itself was separated from the hosts by an internal wall for the purpose of removing the monks from contact with fans who were housed in the women's half (ἐν γυναικίῳ μοναστηρίῳ) of the monastery hotels. In the sense of confession, the famous Greek canonist Balsamon understands this expression in his interpretation of the 14th rule of the seventh ecumenical council. St. Sava, according to his biographer, severely punished his disciples even for involuntarily casting a glance at a woman. On the way from Jericho to Jordan St. Savva and a certain student of his once met a crowd of people, “among whom was a beautiful girl. When these people passed by them, the elder, wanting to test his disciple, said to him: what is this girl like who passed by us? Does she seem to have one eye? The brother answered him: no, father, she has both eyes. Hearing this, the elder said to him: where is that commandment that says: “Do not fix your gaze on her and do not be deceived by her eyelashes.” (Prov.6:25). With curious eyes you can ignite passion in yourself. Now be sure that you will not live with me in the cell, because you do not look after your eyes as you should.” St. Sava sent this student to Bastellia and accepted him back into the Lavra only when he “had sufficiently learned to watch his eyes in every possible way and to watch over his thoughts” (page 293). No. 38 under the title: “What is κανὼν τῆς ψαλμωδίας, so often mentioned in the biography of St. Savva the Sanctified?”) in Armenian (pag. 264). The noted discrepancy between the published monument and the biography of St. Kirill Skifopolsky deserves special attention. Iberia, enlightened by the light of the Christian faith back in the first quarter of the 4th century, had in Palestine in the 5th century a remarkable figure, ascetic and scientist Murvanos, known under the name of St. Peter, Bishop of Mayum, who became a monk in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and built a monastery in the name of the Most Holy Theotokos, called the “monastery of the Ivers,” and a hospitable home for Georgians and Greeks (Rights of Palestine. Collection vol. IV century 1, St. Petersburg 1888, p. 33). Worshipers from Iberia came to Palestine and Vera monasteries were built here in the 6th century. (ibid., p. 37). Meanwhile, a reliable biographer of Rev. Savva the Sanctified does not even give any hint that, during the life of this saint, among the other brethren in his monastery there were also natives of Iveron, while he speaks persistently and repeatedly about the Armenians. This word obviously refers to the lithium performed daily at the tomb of St. Savva (RKP. Syn. Bible No. 1096 l. 9 καὶ εὐϑέως ἐξερχόμεϑα εἰς τὴν ϑήκην τοῦ ἁγίου (fol. 64), after the end of Matins, before the start of the Liturgy. In the RKP. No. 531: ἐν τούτῳ τεταγμένοις. “Sava decreed,” writes Cyril of Scythopolis, “that on Saturday the meeting should be in the church created by God, and on Sunday in the Church of the Mother of God, and he decreed that in both churches on every Sunday and Lord’s holiday there should be an unceasing vigil from evening until morning” (ἀπαραλείπτως ἀπὸ ὀψὲ ἕως πρωὶ ἀγρυπνίαν) (pag. 263). Any monastic work entrusted by the abbot to a well-known person is called diakonia. All officials of the monastery: ecclesiarch, housekeeper, cook, etc. were taken on every task with the knowledge (page 287:323) and blessing (page 360) of the archimandrite or abbot. “Reverend Savva,” says his life, “took care that all the necessary things were in the Lavra, and that for this reason the fathers were not forced to leave the Lavra into the world when they decided to move away from worldly noise” (page 243). In everyday life, Rev. Savva tried in everything to imitate the life of the great Euthymius. So, “since this man had the custom, on the fourteenth day of the month of January, to retire into the perfect desert and spend the Pentecost there, then Savva, having changed this custom a little, left the Lavra, after the lapse of the day on which the memory of St. Anthony, celebrated the memory of the great Euthymius (see the service for this day in the Τυπικ RKP. Sinai. Bible No. 1096 l. 77; RKP. Bible Patriarch Jerusalem. XVI century l. 95 vol.), which is celebrated on the twentieth day, and after this he went into complete desert. There, before the Vai holiday, he was removed from all communication with people. And he did this almost every year” (page 249). Following the good example of their abbot, many of Sava’s students, out of love for solitude, did the same (page 250). From the Lavra St. Savva the Sanctified monks were made bishops not only in the Jerusalem Patriarchate, but even in the Alexandrian Patriarchate. Thus, a certain George, brother of the Lavra, then a monk of the cave monastery, once went to Alexandria and became well known there to Archbishop Zoilus (541-551), and was ordained Bishop of Pelusium. (page 277). A lot of abbots of other monasteries came from the monastery of St. Savva. Many of his students St. the father made them abbots during his lifetime, and others took their positions as abbots later (pag. 140:277). In manuscript 531: παυσάσϑω. The word σύναξις very often denotes liturgical gatherings of brethren in ascetic literature. The present word is used with this meaning several times by Rev. Cyril of Scythopolis in the biography of St. Savva (page 264 et cet.). See above, footnote No. 99: “Archimandrite Antonin attributes this manuscript to the 12th–13th centuries...”. You might be interested in: