To materials for the history of the Church Charter

The article we are publishing is borrowed from the Greek typique of the Synodal Library No. 380 and is placed at the very end of it, without a title. This typicon, judging by the postscript on page 258, was written in 7056 (1548) in the Kutlumush monastery, on Mount Athos, by the monk Pachomius 1 and thus dates back to the half of the 16th century. We have not come across such an article in any of the Greek and Slavic types we have seen, and yet it is very remarkable in content and can serve as valuable material for the history of the ancient charter - a history for which, before the tacticon of Nikon the Montenegrin (that is, until the last half of the 11th century), we have only a few fragmentary news, from which it is impossible not only to trace the ancient fate of the Jerusalem branch of the charter, but also to restore its original type. In view of this poverty of historical data, any new clarification and instruction on this issue should have undoubted liturgical importance and help fill, at least in part, the gap in the ancient history of the charter now in force in the Orthodox Church. What we know about the genealogy of the Jerusalem type is taken, as is known, from Simeon of Thessaloniki, and he borrowed, although without indicating the source, from an article of Greek typists, which contains instructions to the abbot on the strict observance of church regulations. This article begins with the words: “δει τοινιν τον προεστοτα πασαν εκδεικ v υσθαι σπουδην” and leads the type from the first founders of the Palestinian monasticism: Euthymius the Great, Theodosius, Gerasim on the Jordan “whom the beast served,” Chariton the Confessor and Cyriacus the Hermit. We will not check this genealogy and find out its historical foundations - this is the subject of a separate study: - in the present case we will deal with the article that interests us and will become more closely acquainted with its content. She also traces the origin of the current Greek rite to the Palestinian monasteries and the Lavra of Saint Sava, but adds to this several interesting considerations about the further fate of the Jerusalem rite. According to the instructions of this article, the charter after Savva the Sanctified was supplemented and changed. Many different liturgical rules were published by different persons, which were included in the typical text. Mark Indrutsky agreed with them and brought them into the system. But subsequent expounders and scribes of the charter began to mix its main text with those explanations that came from the pen of the Indruti liturgist, and from this misunderstandings arose. This remark is justified by the ancient charters, where, indeed, Mark’s chapters are not summarized in a system and in some lists they are placed in the text of the charter under the corresponding days according to the triodion and month, in others they are written down in a special article, and in some they are assigned to the margins of the manuscript in the form of scholia. The compiler of the article complains about differences in the administration of the service, points out the differences between the oldest and latest statutes, and, for his part, has taken the trouble to revise the statute and, if possible, smooth out the differences that have appeared. For this purpose, of the types he had at hand, he used mainly the middle lists, that is, not the most ancient and not the latest. This shows that private attempts were made in the monasteries to correct the statutes, but they were not of an official nature and remained a matter of personal initiative, which did not leave a visible influence on the further processing of the type. The compiler of the Kutlumush list limited himself to condensing Markov’s chapters into one article and making several explanations of the official content in the margins of the manuscript. In conclusion, he gives several instructions regarding monotony in the performance of church singing, explains why some of the songs are sung by choirs together, and others separately, and at the same time makes an interesting, although not entirely correct, explanation of the name of the stichera of verse. The article is published according to the text of the named manuscript in compliance with the spelling of the original. We only allowed us to expand the title here and there and add unfinished words. But there are very few abbreviations in the original. Doubtful reading is indicated by a question mark. For greater ease of use, we attach a translation of this article and accompany it with word-by-word explanations. Ί στέον δτι ὴ παρ ou σα έκκλησιαστική διάταξις έκ τῶν ί εοοσολομιτικῶν κα᾿ι παλαιστίνων άγιων μοναστηριων έχει τάς άφσρμάς κα᾿ι μάλλον της λάβρας τ ou ήγιασμέν ou σάβα. έν η καί έγγράφω ϛ μετα τάυτα 2 (?) ’ εκδέδοται . κακέιθεν ώσπερ τις πηγή εί ϛ άπαντα τά γένη τῶν όρθοδόξων μετωκετέυθη 3. την έισαγωγή άρμό ϛ ι ou σαν. a γίνονται ή άχρηστα έκτραπεντα διά τήν εναλ λαγήν τής ποιότητος τής γής. ou τω δή τά συνέβη καί έν τω παρόντι τυπικώ . ’ επεί γάρ μετά ταύτα πλέιστοι παρά πολλών κανόνες διεδόθησαν είχός ήν καί ’ εναλλαγήν υποστήναι . καί εις ρυθμόν έτερον μετασκευασθήναι οπερ ou κ άντιχεισθαι δοκεί ? . δθεν καί ό ίερωτάτος μάρκος ίοροῦντο ϛ τὴν α ’ νωμαλίαν ίδών τῆς ακολι ou θίας μετά ταῦτα καί ως σκεφάμενο ϛ ou κ αφ ' εαυτ ou ή εναντίον τι ήθέλησε παρεν ɛ ιραι τῆ παρ ou ση διατάζει , άλλα πάσαν διελθών καί ακριβῶς στοκασάμενος τόν ταύτης σκο πόν ινα μή τόν ειρμόν καί ?? ίδίως 4 δέ τό ίδιον πονημχ συνετάξατο . την αφορμήν εχ τάυτης ειληφως. καί ῶσπερ τις άρίστη γῆ τὸ νάμα καθαρώτερον καί ποτιμώτερον το ͂ ις χρή ϛ ουσι προυβάλλετο. άλλ᾿ οί αλαξ ό νες καί υπε ρήφανοι καί τή βορβορώδει τε καί θειώδει γή έοικοτες καί πάντα έχ πολλῆς έννοἱας γινώσκειν οί ό μενόι τ ό ou τω διειδέστατον καί ήδύ π ό μα διαδεξάμενοι άλμυρὸν πως καί τεταραγμένον άπεδέιξαν. έκ μέν τ ou τυπικ ou εί ϛ τάς ἐρμηνείας 5 τ ou μάρκι ou. ’ εκ δε τῶν εις τ ou το μεταθέμενοι καί τά μέν άνω κάτω τά δ ’ αν κάτω άνω θεντες καί τά μεν προσθέντες τά δ ’ αφελώντες . τά δ ’ ως σκόλια καί άμφιβ ό λως έν τῶ τυπιχῶ .... (two words are not understood) φερ ό μενα άυτοί ώ ϛ κείμενα καί άναμφηρίστα τ ou τω συντάξαντες . καί άπλῶς είπεῖν τά παρ ’ αυτῶν τελ ou μενα κρείττονα τῶν προτέρων 6. καί έστι νυν οράν. τῶν μεν ou τω φαλλ ό ντων των δε άλλως, χλέυη μεν παρά τῶν έχθρῶν τῆς αληθέιας πένθος δέ παρά τῶν έυφονόυντων (sic). οθεν τά μεν τ ou προρρηθεντος οσιωτάτ ou μάρκ ou έν τοῖς παλαιωτέροις . έν τίσι δέ καί τών νεωτέρων άντιγράφοις 7 ακμήν καθαρά καί άνεπηρέαστα φέρονται, τά δέ τ ou τυπικ ou ou δαμῶς. ήμ ɛ ις ou ν καί τά παλαιά τῶν τυπικῶν τῆς άρετῆ ϛ θαυμάζοντες. ?? καί μάλλον έυκρινεὶ μεμφόμενοί τε τῶν παρά ταυτ ’ τί τετολμηκοτες or τοῖς πάνυ νεωτέροις. ?? ένα᾿ντιον κατά το έγχωρ ou ν τω παρο᾿ντι τυπικῶ έκθέμενοι. δεδοικότες μή πῶς τῆ προφητικῆ άρα εμπεοωμεν. ουαί γάρ φήσιν οι συνετοί έν έαυτο ί ς καί ένώπιον άυτών έπιστήμονες. έπεί και εν προοιμ (written on the field: παροι – μίαις) γέγραπται. μ ή μετάιρε όρια αιῶνων ά έ ϴ εντο οι πατέρες σ ou. ? ou τω γαρ αν σονήσοι ακριβῶς ως έχει έχαστον τυπι κόν καί έιτε καλώς έιτε κακώς έπέι ϐ χ (`) έν άυτή ώς ε ἶ παναρμονία τῶν τυπικῶν άπάντων , ώσαύτως τε καί τόν έν τῆ εκκλησιαστική ύμνωδία έπιστατέιν λαχόντα τόν άυτόν τρόπον άπαξ μεν καταρχα᾿ς έπεσκεμμένως διελ ϴ ειν. έπειτα τον ολον ένιαυτόν παρα᾿ μέρος 8 εστ άν πληρωθῆ άπαν . καί γάρ ώς έν ύποδειγματι έιπειν . το τυπικο᾿ν πάντοτε εὶς ίβ μοῖρας διαιρεῖ τὴν τε ὴμέραν καί τὴν νύκτα, τά τε άπαξ καί δίς έν ίδίοις χωρί (οις) διασαφηνισ ϴ έντα ? τοῖς στιχιροῖς καί κανόσιν. ένθα μέν διπλασιασθηναι ἡ πολλαπλασιασθῆναι έδει τα τροπάρια διωρισμένως εχφρα (?). ’ ενθάδε ou δει η καί αμφιβόλος ὲχει καί έν τῆ έξ ou σία τ ou φαλλόντος ανεξέταστα παρειληφε. διά τ ou το χρή άχριβῶς έιδέναι το᾿ τυπικόν καί μήτε τάς ῶρας καί τ ou ς καιρ ou ς αγνω ɛ ιν . μήτε τὴν άναλογίαν τ ou τυπικ ou καί το ενδεχόμενόν , ίν ' ou τω πάντα έυσχημόνως καί κατά τάξιν γίνεται κατά το αποστολικόν παραγγέλμα . καί γάρ τῶ ὄντι έι εξετασμένως τις διελθέι τὸ τυ πικόν ο u μόνον δια᾿ τὴν έυταξίαν επινοηθεν ευρήσει άλλά καί διά τὴν όμονίαν . ?? ? ? ou σι περί τοῖς έν τάις δεσποτικάις έορτάις ἄπερ ήν (?) ωμιως ? ? το τετήρηται ou μόνον έν τοίς προρρηθείσιν. ἀλλά καί εν τίσιν ίδιομέλοις στίχιρόις καί μάλλον τοίς λεγομἑνόις τ ou στιχ ou. τοῖς τελευτάιοις τῆς αχολ ou θίας στιχιροῖς άπερ καί διά τ ou το οιμαι ιδίως τ ou στίχ ou λέγεται ο ͂ τι στιχηδόν εν τῶ μέσω στάντες καί εις ένα χο᾿ρον καί στίχον ο ί δύο συνελθόντε ϛ χοροί ὁμοφώνως καί μετ ΄ ευλαδέιας ταύτα ἄλ ou σι 9. ?? σι καί συνεργα ϛ σμένοις ομονοείν καί φιλεισθαι . τ ou ναντιον δε τοῖ ϛ μη τοι ou τοις . ou πάντοτε δέ τ ou το γίνεται ο ͂ τι ἀδυνατον . a ? εορταῖς ἐτησίοις. ῖνα μἡ έπί πολύ αφιστάμενοι τ ou θεί ou νεῶ καί ἀλλ ή λων έις μίσος ɛ λθωσιν ῶν αφιστανται. ou τω δὴ κ ᾶ νταυθα . ἐκάτερον μεν τῶν χορῶν το ίδίον στιχηρόν προστέτακται έν τῶ ιδιω τόπω φάλλειν ιδίως , όμ ou δέ ἄπαντας τινα τῶν τελευτάιων στιχηρῶν (?). είσ ένωσιν ou μόνον έαυτῶν άλλά καί προ᾿ τ ou των τ ou θε ou. ὄσοσ ou τον καί τῶ πλησίον ?? εὶς θν καί αλλήλοις δεικνύομεν ɛ νωσιν . καί τ ou το μεν ὅ σον τὸ ἐπ ’ έμοί . υμ ɛ ίς δἐ πατερες καί αδελφοί τὴν ευγνωμοσύνην αποδεξάμενοι την ἐυχήν ὑμῶν (?) αντιδοίητε. You should know that the present church order originates from the Jerusalem and Palestinian holy monasteries, especially from the Lavra of Saint Sava, to which it was subsequently transferred in writing. From here, like some kind of source, it spread in streams to all generations of Orthodox Christians, who adopted the first custom as better and more convenient to use. But how waters transferred from place to place become useful or unfit for use, judging by how they change with the change in the quality of the soil; the same thing happened with the real typical. Since many rules were subsequently published by many, it was natural for them to undergo changes and alterations in a different way, and this, it seems, did not contradict the thoughts of the first compilers, but rather corresponded to it. Then the most sacred Mark of Indrut, seeing the incorrectness of the church's succession, as they soon noticed, did not allow himself to bring into the present rite anything from himself or alien to him, but traced it all and carefully determined its task so as not to disrupt the connection and affinity (between its parts) in such a way that he especially composed his own work, taking advantage of the reason in the charter itself and acted in the same way as if someone led to an excellent land for the needy streams are pure and drinkable. But the vain and arrogant, like muddy and clayey earth, out of great conceit, considering themselves omniscient, having taken this light and sweet drink, made it salty and cloudy. Namely: from the type they transferred the articles into the interpretations of Mark, and from these latter - into the type, putting in front what is behind, and what is behind in front; one was added, the other was destroyed; what was included in the type in the form of explanations and in doubt was introduced into the text as undoubted. In a word, considering what they did to be better than what they had done before, they actually confused and put one instead of the other. And now you can see how some sing this way, and others differently, and this causes ridicule from the enemies of the truth and regret from those who sing in good agreement. Meanwhile, the articles of the above-mentioned Venerable Mark are still found clean and intact in the most ancient types and even in some later copies, but what is in the type is not. Therefore, marveling at the dignity of the ancient typologies, approving for their agreement the later ones - similar to them - especially well compiled, and condemning those who disagree with them, we did not, however, decide to completely follow either the most ancient lists or the newest ones, but most of all we used the middle ones between them, without introducing anything into the present type from ourselves and contrary to what follows - for fear of being subjected to the prophetic curse: “Woe to those who are wise.” in yourself, and understand before yourself” (Is. 5:21), and as it is written in parables: “Do not set the limit of the eternal things that your fathers set.” (Prov. 22, 28) Therefore, anyone who wants to write a type must read it all in advance, because this is the only way to know for certain whether this or that type is good or bad, because it is not in this alone that the agreement of all types lies. In the same way, the director of church chant must go through it once with attention first, and then in parts for a whole year until the whole year is over, because, speaking for example, in the typology, day and night are always divided into 12 parts. What is explained once or twice in its place is considered superfluous and unnecessary to change, just like in stichera and canons. Thus, it is definitely explained that in one case the troparion should be sung twice, or several times, but in another it should not; sometimes the matter is presented indecisively and left to the will of the singer. Therefore, it is necessary to carefully consider the type and not leave in the dark neither the hours and times, nor the correspondence of the type with others and its content, so that, in this way, everything will be decent and in order, according to the apostolic commandment. And indeed, if anyone reads the type with special attention, he will find that it was compiled not only for deanery, but also for achieving agreement; for this is unity and decorum, so that not a single choir sings anything superfluous, as can be seen in some antiphonal stichera and irmos on the Lord's holidays, which are supposed to be sung by choirs, so that there is no poverty and discord in psalmody. And agreement consists in singing the same thing together, and this is observed not only in the chants mentioned above, but also in some self-vocal stichera, especially in the so-called stichera, i.e. in the final stichera of the service. These latter, as I think, are called verses (τ ou στίχ ou) because standing in rows (στιχηδον) in the middle, and united in one choir and row, both sides sing them unanimously and with reverence. It always happens that we are in unanimity and love with whom we sing, talk, eat and work, but we treat others differently. However, due to the impossibility, this does not always happen (singing); but just as it was established among the children of Israel not to enter the church every day, since this was impossible, but only at certain times and annual holidays, so that those who were far from the church of God and from each other would not come to despise those from whom they were removed: the same thing (occurs) here with us. Each choir is assigned to sing its own special stichera separately in its place, and all together - one of the final stichera as a sign of unity not only among themselves, but also, first of all, with God. For insofar as one is united with God, so is one united with one’s neighbor. Since we have united with God through prayer, then we ourselves and through this symbolic action demonstrate unity with God and among ourselves. That's all I wanted to say. You, fathers and brothers, having accepted good advice, repay it with your prayer. Επληρθη το παρόν τοπικόν δια χειρος παχωμι ou μοναχ ou εν ετει ? τω τ ou Αθω αγιω ορει . Μετά τάυτα can be read μετά τό u τον i.e. after Savva the Sanctified. The compiler expresses the correct idea that prev. Savva did not leave a written service charter. The rules that he taught to his successor in writing before his death were of a disciplinary nature, like the wills of other abbots of monasteries. The idea is that at the time of the author of this article, the Palestinian charter was in general use in the east. The representative, apparently, presents the matter in such a way that Mark of Otranto set out his liturgical rules in a special article in the form of a separate work. But, without speaking at all about the authorship of the named person, the most ancient statutes present Markov's chapters in the form of official notes under the corresponding days of the church year. From this we can conclude that they appeared initially in the form of additional explanations to the text of the charter and were not separated from it. Interpretations or έρμηνέιαι are actually called Markov's chapters in the handwritten Greek statutes. The abuse of Mark's name in statutes went even further. Even obviously later liturgical rules and articles were attributed to him and marked in the margins with the monogram MR. Thus, in the 16th century in the east, the later lists of the charter did not agree with the ancient ones and, at least, some of them differed in the setting of Mark's chapters. Here a hint is given of the two main parts of the then charter: the general one, which sets out the order of the daily service, and the private one, which sets out the service according to the month. The name στιχηρά τ ou στιχ ou means that type of stichera that is performed in connection with selected verses from the psalms. But it is very vague, and the addition τ ou στιχ ou does not add anything to the concept of stichera. Stichera in their generic meaning, therefore, stichera are sung with known verses or to well-known verses from the psalter, and not because they are sung together, or separately in the choirs. The stichera are nothing more than additional songs (troparia), which began to be added to the psalter verses and alternated with them. The name stichera “stikhovny” cannot be explained in the sense of this article and because singing together, in united choirs, is prescribed in the charter and the last stichera are cried out to the Lord.