Review [2] I. D. Mansvetova “Church Charter (Typik), its formation and fate in the Greek and Russian Churches”

See also: Church Charter Typik, its formation and fate in the Greek and Russian Churches, Professor Ivan Danilovich Mansvetov Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy I.D. Mansvetov is one of the very few figures in the field of scientific development of issues from the history of Christian worship. Among these figures I.D. Mansvetov occupies an outstanding place, which he won for himself, on the one hand, with amazing energy and continuous work in developing these issues, and on the other hand, with the outstanding merits of his works of a purely literary and scientific nature. A masterful presentation of a subject that is very dry and difficult to express literaryly, the ability to find a successful plan or diagram for constructing one’s work, thoroughness and serious elaboration of even minor issues using new and raw materials, the ability to identify or avoid deftly and easily stumbling blocks on this or that issue - these are the qualities that are usually inherent in the works of this venerable professor. The named work of I. D. Mansvetov is distinguished by all the advantages now indicated, but has behind it one more outstanding advantage - the importance of the issue he raised, originality and courage in posing it. In fact, our Church Charter has enormous practical significance. It regulates the entire structure of the religious and everyday life of our modern society, and acquaintance with its historical fate can have not only scientific significance and satisfy simple curiosity, but also important practical significance. This study will show not only how this code of various kinds of questions and demands from modern Christian society, and in particular from our clergy, was formed, but also what has existed in it for a long time and is thus illuminated by the authority of deep antiquity, and what has appeared in recent times is distinguished by its novelty, randomness, which spoils, introduces instability of views and views and produces in our church and liturgical system not “order and good looks,” and qualities that are contrary to them, and therefore are subject to either correction or complete destruction. However, in order to achieve the indicated results, in order to take on the boring, painstaking work of sorting through all the available material included in our so-called Typikon, and for its cleaning and sorting, it was necessary, first of all, to be imbued with the importance of the work undertaken and to boldly and directly look into the eyes of all the difficulties that faced the author in the performance of this work. G. Mansvetov, as an experienced person, and not for the first time taking up such work, with a bold stroke of the pen outlined very broad tasks for himself “to trace the formation and fate of the Greek Typikon in the Russian Church.” Although this courage does honor to the author, it would not be superfluous for one’s own safety and for the more successful fulfillment of the work undertaken to limit the flight of one’s imagination and moderate the ardor of one’s boundless plan. The fact is that the author had to work in an area that had been little explored and developed before him, and in most cases deal with raw material, contained in our and Greek manuscripts of the famous Moscow book depositories. “We do not provide a detailed list of materials, precisely because the author openly and boldly declares that there is no special literature, but there are several works and collections of liturgical content that have a positive significance in the development of the question of the Typical, and then even if we were to sort through all these works and convey their content, we would not receive a historical outline of the scientific development of this issue, but would have before us a number of individual works, not connected by the succession of work, but appearing in the world in fits and starts and by chance. The study of the question of Typica has no history and has not constituted a clearly defined task in theological science” (p. IV). But the author is not embarrassed by the difficulties presented and recognized by him and boldly sets about fulfilling his task. Justice, however, requires us to note that from the very first pages of this work we see a deviation from the intended task and instead of the “formation” and initial “fate” of the Typikon, which regulates the worship of the Orthodox Church, instead of reasoning about the reasons for the appearance of the Typikon in the Christian Church and its original form, the author confines himself to commonplaces that are of no interest to anyone. Everyone knows, everyone knows that “the complete Typica appeared as a result of the difficulties that turned out to be in practice when conducting services according to different books and as a result of the collision of the daily structure of the service with its composition according to the Triodion and Menea,” and “that the Typical service is inseparable from the general course of development of the church service and goes with it hand in hand, reflecting in its movement the various changes that this latter experienced” (p. 1). But no one knows, and it is very interesting for us, in what form the original Typical of the Christian Church was, if not in the first centuries of the Christian era, then at least in the times of the confessor Chariton. There can be no doubt that the Typikon of this time had little in common with the present, it could not yet be “the result of difficulties that were encountered in practice due to the collision of the daily divine service with its composition according to the Triodi and Menaions,” since the Christian Church did not yet know about either the first or the second... The author easily and deftly got rid of all the questions that may arise from an inquisitive reader of his books when asked “about the formation” of the Typikon and its original fate. Instead of any questions and resolution of various kinds of perplexities, Mr. Mansvetov fills the first chapter of his book with the title “the first period of the history of the Rite”, after a categorical statement that “from the first period of the Rite no special records have been preserved, but there are only materials for the history of the Typica in various collections and liturgical works (p. 2), fills it with a description and presentation of the content of the Euchology of Jacob Goar, the handwritten Psalter of the Reverend. Porfiry 862, his Gospels 835, Paremeinikov IX-X centuries. or the meeting of Sevastyanov and Rev. Porphyry of the 10th century, Apostolic Decrees, several kondakars of various Russian and foreign libraries, articles μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας, published by Cardinal Pitra, and the works “De ceremoniis avlae Byzantiae” (pp. 3–10). Already this list of works and materials clearly tells us how far the author is from the idea of ​​introducing us to the “formation” of the Typical of the Orthodox Church and its original form. In these “materials,” as Mr. Mansvetov calls these sources of liturgy, there are already those that could easily and with great benefit for the matter be attributed to its second chapter, to the time of the existence in the Greek Church of Typical texts as known records of church liturgical orders. But what is especially curious in this chapter is that the author is trying to make an analysis, to extract “materials” for the history of the “education” of Typicus not only from the monastic rules of Pachomius of Egypt, Basil the Great, Cassian the Roman, but even of Benedict of Nursia, the organizer of Western monasticism, Caesarius of Arles, Isidore of Seville, etc. Why it was necessary to analyze the Western rules is not known. We think that this was done due to a lack of material to fill the first chapter. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain Mr. Mansvetov’s certificate in the statutes of Western monasticism, which had no influence or relation to the liturgical statutes of the Greek Church and, as far as we know, are never quoted in them. It is very unfortunate that the author, in the same chapter, characterizes the general state of worship in the Christian Church in the first period of the existence of the Typikon. Without the introduction of the features of worship from Western Typikons, this part of the first chapter would not have been read without interest, although the reader would not have found any indication in it of the “education” of the Typikon. Obviously, tracing the history of the “formation” of the Typikon is much more difficult than writing the history of the “formed” Typikon. And we see that Mr. Mansvetov abandons this first attempt and takes up the second, easier one. The second chapter, which contains the “second period of the history of the Charter” or the Charter in its first records, begins with the statement that even from this time the original records of the Charter have not survived, but there are only short records belonging to the pen of one or another famous abbot of the monasteries. So, here the author points to the record of Theodore the Studite and makes a brief description of it. The author then analyzes the complete records of the Rule of Athanasius of Athos, the records in the Sinai Colonar and indicates their significance in the history of the Church Rule. The third chapter introduces us to the history of the Charter in its complete editions, preserved to this day in manuscripts in Moscow libraries. Since, in the author’s opinion, the processing of the Charter during this period took a major step forward and its content was determined from all main aspects (p. 74), the author dwells on the oldest representatives of this group. He describes the Slavic Charter of the Moscow Synodal Library No. 330 (380 according to the description) and the Greek Charter of the same library No. 456, despite the fact that the last list of the charter meets with very strong objections in science in its seniority (Victor. Description of the RKP. p. and Sevastyanova. M. 1881, p. 11 note), and the first is considered by Mr. Mansvetov himself as reworking of the Studite Charter in relation to the orders of the Alexiev monastery and in many places compiled anew under the pen of its ktitor” (p. 122). From a comparative analysis of these two disparate statutes, the author comes to the conclusion that “the Church Rule in the last period of its development identified two main branches: Studite and Jerusalem” and asks the question regarding “typical features that distinguish one from the other” (p. 75). Mr. Mansvetov ends the first section of this chapter with a presentation of these “typical features” in more or less detail with his own comments. Among the features of the Studio Rules, the author, by the way, includes the absence of all-night vigils, the performance of Matins every day separately, without distinction of holidays, the reading of the Studio canons primarily before others, and the general brevity of services. As for the singing of the morning song “Glory to God in the highest,” Mr. Mansvetov, contrary to the clearest data, claims that it was sung and not read, as Nikon Chernogorets, a writer of the 11th century, stated (p. 79). The last belief is, obviously, the fruit of some misunderstandings of the author, arising from the fact that in one of the articles of the Charter No. 330 this song is categorically said to be sung (the song will be l.260), but the author in vain did not pay attention to the fact that the same handwritten Charter speaks of the singing of kathisma, six psalms, canon and other components of our morning worship, which were never sung, but only read. Obviously, the expression “peto will” must be understood in a general sense, in the meaning of reading, and not singing exclusively. If we allow the understanding of this place to be the same as we see in Mr. Mansvetov’s book, then we will be left with a new fundamental feature of the Studite Charter, which neither Nikon Chernogorets nor the later followers of the Church Charter paid attention to. From the present interpretation of the article of the Charter of Patriarch Alexei on the singing of the Great Doxology (fol. 260) it is necessary to conclude that this song was sung every day, because the article speaks of a weekly, ordinary divine service, whereas according to the Jerusalem Rule, the singing of the Great Doxology constitutes a distinctive feature of holiday services and days in honor of deliberate saints. Most likely, you need to think, as Nikon the Montenegrin also asserted, that this song was never sung, because in the services even on the twelfth holidays, after the stichera on the praises, there are also stichera on the stichera. The presence of these latter even in our modern Typikon (for example, when services are now celebrated for the Presentation and Annunciation according to Mark’s chapters) excludes the prevailing custom of singing the Great Doxology on the twelfth holidays and is replaced by the reading of the Great Doxology. The indication that the singing of the Great Doxology on Holy Saturday at Matins, which was customary in the monastery of Patriarch Alexei, was a matter of an exceptional case (it would never have been the custom to do it), convinces us even more that in other places where the practice of the Studite Rule prevailed, the Great Doxology was read and not sung. In this case, i.e. On Great Saturday, at Matins in the monastery of Patriarch Alexei, there was no stichera on the verse and the order of the service was set out in relation to the present. In this circumstance, we are also convinced, by the way, by the fact that when Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible traveled to Novgorod, between the various liturgical customs of the Novgorod practice, he abolished the existing custom of singing the great doxology, a custom consistent with the prescription of the long-prevailing Jerusalem Charter, which was not done in Moscow and other places, apparently out of habit of practice in relation to this previous time. Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich addressed this feature to the fathers of the hundred-domed cathedral, and the singing of the great doxology was introduced into liturgical practice by a special definition of the said cathedral (Stoglav. ed. Kaz. 1862, chapter 5, issue 33, 34, pp. 73, 74). Analysis of the short outline of F. Studite without any special need, however, due to its translation by Prof. Golubinsky (I.R.Ts. vol. I., half. II p. 671) was done very thoroughly. The same cannot be said about the Slavic Charter of Patriarch Alexei. This Charter would deserve a more detailed analysis, which has not yet been done in relation to this most precious monument of liturgical writing. With even greater right we can say the same about other handwritten Typicons of the studio industry. Here one cannot fail to note the rather strange manner of the author. When making an analysis of one or another liturgical monument, he very often omits passages, even those that are very important and necessary for his purposes, because these passages are set forth in the works of other authors, and quite often, with the exception of “Description of the Manuscripts of Moscow. Synod. Bible." Gorsky and Novostruev and occasionally the “Hagiology” of Sergius, he does not indicate these works. Of course, they are known to specialists, but the author may have readers who are not specialists, and it is for them that it is necessary to give precise instructions on where they can read this or that place of the monument that interests him. After presenting the content of the studio charters, Mr. Mansvetov proceeds to analyze the surviving copies of the Jerusalem Charter and dwells on the fate of this Charter in the east and in the Slavic lands. From some fragmentary information about the initial fate of the Jerusalem Rule, he draws the following conclusions: a) “The hidden ancient Jerusalem type”, found by Nikon in the Laodicean monastery, where he came “originally” from the Abbot Savin of the monastery Nicodemus, represented a complete record, which included a general part in the form of a circle of daily services, b) in content it was close to the Studio Rule and differed from it in some ways the features that Nikon noted in his Taktikon, c) it was distinguished by its consolidated elective character and contained many features from the practice of the great Church, the Studite and Svyatogorsk monasteries, and, finally, d) it differed in its features from the Typikon of our time. Then the author sets out the contents of our Jerusalem Typikons of Moscow libraries from the most ancient times, in chronological order, established by the scientists who described them. The analysis of these statutes is made relatively superficially and sometimes does not even exhaust the essential features that distinguish the Jerusalem Charter of ancient times from our modern one. However, this analysis is significantly supplemented by appendices in which these manuscripts are described more fully. The origin of the so-called “Mark’s chapters” remains unclear, and even the fact in what quantity these chapters appeared in the Typikon from the hands of their creator, Mark of Otranto, has not been established. This is very necessary, firstly, because in the liturgical monuments themselves their number is not everywhere and not always the same, and secondly, in our literature there is almost no information on this issue. The articles indicated by the author on this issue (p. 217 and note I) also do not contain detailed information. Next, the author introduces the character of the Svyatogorsk Athos Rite according to its original “outline”, which, as the author thinks, was not a literal translation of the now famous “Y̓ ποτύπωσις”. Here he speaks about the appearance of the Jerusalem Rule on Mount Athos and about its alterations under the influence of local prevailing practice. The Psalter of the M. Synod considers the Psalter to be prominent representatives of the Svyatogorsk type of church services in the city of Mansvetov. bib. No. 431–325 and the Greek Book of Hours of the monk Phicara, which he describes in his book. The influence on our Typikon of the liturgical orders of the great Church of Constantinople is undoubtedly, and therefore, following the Rule of Svyatogorsk of Athos, the author acquaints his readers with the Typikon of the great Church and sets out some characteristic customs of this Rule. Since the true original Rule of the great Church has not reached us, in order to become acquainted with the customs, its author made a very interesting analysis of the book “De ceremoniis” and extracted from it a lot of interesting data in this regard. The writings of Simeon of Thessaloniki, an expert on the liturgy of the Eastern Church, well acquainted with the orders of the Church of Constantinople, as well as some data contained in our ancient handwritten liturgical monuments, largely complemented the author’s information in this regard and greatly facilitated his work. G. Mansvetov was happy, and in this case he was greatly helped by the handwritten Greek service Apostle, stored in the Moscow Academic Library. He carefully, and even more than was required by his real work and task, described the real Apostle quite scientifically from the external and internal sides and extracted a lot of expensive data to characterize the Rule of the great Church. To our deep regret, the author omitted to indicate to what time the writing of this important liturgical monument dates back to. We cannot pass over in silence here a very regrettable fact that would be undesirable to see in works like this one, namely the ignorance of some very important data for characterizing the liturgical customs of the great Church. Being carried away by the news and the discovery of new data, the author lost sight of the data that had long been published and appreciated by others. We mean “The Charter of the Great Church of St. Sophia was copied by the God-loving Archbishop of Novgorod Clement” 1. This monument, unfortunately not fully preserved, was discovered and published by our well-known scholarly lover of antiquities A. Popov (First appendix to the description of the RKP. and the catalog of books of church printing in the library of A.I. Khludova M. 1875). According to the time of writing, this monument dates back to the 13th century, was written on parchment and contains services from September 1 to September 14 of the same month. Within the limits of this note, we do not have the right to enter into a detailed analysis of this liturgical monument, but we will only point out the services of September 1 and 13, as services distinguished by remarkable and characteristic features. From the liturgical orders of the Church of Constantinople according to handwritten data, a natural transition, in our opinion, should have been to the modern Typikon of the great Church of Constantinople, regulating divine services in the east at the present time, in order to show in what relation this latter stands to the features set out in the book of Mr. Mansvetov of the Charter of this church of ancient times. But for some reason the author did not follow this direct path, but preceded it with a review of the first printed Greek Typikon and then gave a description of the modern Typikon of the great Church. Pointing to the printed Venetian Typicon of 1577. (a copy of this year is kept in the Moscow Printing Library), as the first-born in the history of the printed Greek Typikon, the author limited himself to presenting the preface to this Charter, written by its publisher Andronikos Iunius of Kerkyra, and only in general terms made it clear to the reader that “if we exclude differences in presentation and some additions, it turns out that in the service part they present a remarkable similarity with the pre-printed lists of the Charter . It is clear, the author adds, that the publishers were guided by these latter to the widest extent and allowed themselves to deviate from them only in rare cases” (p. 251). In our opinion, more serious attention should have been paid to the question of the relationship of handwritten typikons to the first printed one, or, at least, to indicate what the mentioned “deviations” of the first printed Typikon from their originals were, but the author did neither one nor the other, limiting himself to only a dry list of articles included in the first printed Typikon, indicating where they were printed other than this place. There is more detailed information about the modern Typikon of the great Church in the book of Mr. Mansvetov than about the first printed Jerusalem Greek Typikon. In addition to presenting some of the rituals that interested him, which take place in liturgical practice today, in the services of Sunday, the Nativity of Christ, the Annunciation, Lent and in particular Holy Week, Easter week, the author also resolves here the question of the nature of this Charter. To this question he gives the following answer: “upon closer acquaintance with the matter, it turns out that this is not the ancient Typical of the Great Church,” with which he introduced his readers in the previous sections of his work, “but its later presentation and alteration” (p. 263). Having further made several comments regarding the inconveniences of using this Typikon in the Greek Church, as the Typikon, which contains features that “occur only in the practice of the great Church and are not adapted to general Church use” (p. 262), the author considers the question of this Typikon to be completely exhausted and moves on to the fate of the Jerusalem Rule in the Slavic lands. Meanwhile, in our opinion, it is not only not superfluous, but even necessary to pay serious attention to the relationship of the modern customs of the Typicon of Constantinople to current liturgical practice and to look for some kinship between them. The fact is that a comparison of our modern customs of church liturgical practice with similar customs contained in the Typicon of the Great Church leads us to the conviction that the similarity between them is complete and the dependence of one on the other is undeniable. A future researcher of the fate of our Typikon would do well to pay attention to this circumstance. The city of Mansvetov begins the history of the Slavic Jerusalem Charter with the Charter of Savva the Serbian, who gave it to the Hilandar monastery. This Charter represented “the union of the orders of Athonite with those of Jerusalem” and was not distinguished by the completeness that became characteristic of it in the 14th century. The full Charter was put into practice in the translation of Archbishop Nicodemus, the original of which is kept in Belgrade, information about it was reported by Danich (Glasn. XI) and Mr. Mansvetov in the appendices to this book. The Nikodimov edition of the Typikon did not last long in practice and gave way to a new one, supplemented by local Serbian features. As for Russia, “for us the turn from the Studite Charter to the Jerusalem Charter began at a time when the first was in full swing and clearly visible in the 13th century.” (p.269). The author explains this turn by the appearance in our country from the east of the peculiarities of the Jerusalem Rite, which, colliding with the customs of the Studite Rite that was dominant at that time, gave rise to various kinds of perplexities and questions that were resolved at councils (for example, Constantinople, 1276) and authoritative pastors of the Russian Church (Niphon, Bishop of Novgorod, Metropolitan Cyprian and etc.). The Jerusalem Charter appeared in practice only in the 15th century. But it was introduced into practice and began to act not immediately everywhere in the same way, but gradually, displacing previous customs and the Studio Charter. This replacement of one Charter with another was carried out simply, without any disturbance on the part of those using it and without official coercion on the part of the church-administrative authorities. The author counts six editions of the handwritten Typikon, but considers four to be more characteristic and stable. He gives more or less detailed information about each of these editions. He considers the first edition to be the Serbian one, introduced into practice by Nikodim. Its lists, according to Mr. Mansvetov, are distinguished by their brevity and systematic construction. They contain the general part, the service according to the Menea and Triodion, and there are very few additional articles. In the earlier ones there are neither Markov's chapters nor extracts from Nikon Chernogorets. The second edition represents a local Russian revision of the Greek Typica and serves as a transition from the studio charters to the Jerusalem one. Here, obscure and technical terms are explained and translated by Russians, and the commemorations of Russian saints are introduced in the month book without mentioning the South Slavic ones. Markov's chapters are already found in these charters, but without the addition of various minor articles of a service nature. The author includes the “Church Eye” or the Charter, translated in 1401 to the Perivlento monastery by Abbot Afanasy Vysotsky, as the third edition. This edition is distinguished by its prefabricated, compilative nature and its particularly complete presentation of the general part in comparison with the previous lists. It consists of 67 chapters, contains articles from the Taktikon of Nikon the Montenegrin, five unknown chapters by origin (40–44) and a comparison of the Studite, Svyatogorsk and Jerusalem charters in the monthly and triode parts. The fourth edition is characterized by the introduction at the beginning of the Charter of an article on the exact execution of the rules of the Typikon by the abbot, a different placement of articles in the first part, the addition of new ones (for example, chapters 10,21,79 and 81) and the division of 67 chapters of the introductory part of the previous edition into 125. The service according to the monthly word is set out in exactly the same way as in the charters of the third edition. But this division of handwritten Typicons into four editions cannot be accepted as correct because the author’s circle of observations is too limited. The author gets acquainted with manuscripts only from Moscow libraries, occasionally only looking into the St. Petersburg and Belgrade libraries, and completely ignoring a library so rich in liturgical manuscripts as the former Solovetsky Monastery, now located in the Kazan Theological Academy. In this library, the author would undoubtedly find quite a lot of very interesting data for his conclusions and generalizations. But besides this, the author himself soon abandoned his division of the Typikon into four editions and did not adhere to it in his further research. “The Slavic statutes of the 16th-17th centuries,” says Mr. Mansvetov, according to the presentation of the main parts, some are adjacent to the fourth edition, and others to the third, others do not fit either one or the other and have their own rather large features. Based on these features, it would be possible to count several more editions, but since almost every Charter has its own differences, and the growth of their composition is progressive, it will be more convenient to outline the further development of the Typical in a general outline and note the main aspects of the work that took place on it” (p. 281). This work consisted in the fact that at this time our Church Charter began to be replenished with many such introductory articles that had nothing to do with the Charter, and to be revised in relation to Russian practice. The additions to the Charter affected all parts and some of them grew in quantity so much that they only constituted the volume of the Typikon (Synod. RKP. No. 329). At this time, entire collections appeared, called “Obikhodnikov,” which included the customs of one or another monastery or cathedral and, under the influence of the ruling Jerusalem Charter, acquired such decisive importance that local Russian customs seemed to completely supplant the customs of the ancient Jerusalem Charter. The appearance of these Obikhodniks was undoubtedly facilitated by the fact that at the local Russian councils of that time many Russian saints were canonized, for which new services were also needed, but to assert that until the 16th century. the number of Slavic-Russian saints and holidays in our charters is very insignificant and fluctuates between six and ten (p. 284), this is, to say the least, hasty. We have already said that the author uses a small field of observation, and therefore it is not a bad idea for him to be careful in drawing conclusions. We can point the author to the Typikon of 1494, written in the Solovetsky monastery by the famous Solovetsky hard worker regarding book copying by the holy monk Dosifei, under the Russian Metropolitan Zosima, and now stored in the library of the Kazan Theological Academy. In this Charter, the number of names of Russian saints and local Russian holidays in total is not less than twenty, namely, on September 7, 20 and 25, on October 1, 15 and 21, on November 6, 17 and 27, on December 21, on February 11 and 12, on March 11, 30, on 2, 3, 7, 9, 20, 23 and May 28, June 9 and July 15 and 24. If you take a closer look at the present monthly book, then the number of names of saints, without any doubt, will increase significantly. Thus, from this fact one can draw a conclusion completely opposite to what the author made in his book, i.e. that for the period of time before the 16th century. there were quite a lot of memories of local saints and that they coped not only in their areas, but even went to the pages of the general Typica (comp. p. 285). It goes without saying that the number of these saints increased significantly compared to before in the 16th and especially in the 17th centuries, so that “it is not only possible to count, but even with the human mind it is impossible to comprehend how many saints of God have shone in holy Russia to the glory and praise of God.” But speaking about the appearance of the Obikhodniki in the liturgical practice of our Russian church, about their significance for the characterization of our worship for a given period, pointing out that “extracts from the Obikhodniki were often included in the general charters and were mixed with the rules of the Greek Typical; for the most part they were included in the content of the latter and supplemented its main text with details of local practice” (p. 272), the author, however, did not go into a detailed analysis of these Obikhodniks, stipulating in the preface that “this section of our liturgical writing is so rich in content and important in its conclusions that we did not dare to touch upon it in a cursory essay” (p. IV). In our opinion, this, even if only a “cursory sketch” of the monastic Obikhodniks is urgently necessary due to the fact that these Obikhodniks have a very close relationship with our first printed Typikon of 1610, the contents of which, without this acquaintance, will remain incomprehensible to most readers and will cause even greater bewilderment when they learn that this Typikon of 1610 was condemned by the Patriarch of Moscow Philaret and was burned. The analysis of local Russian statutes that we have indicated would be more appropriate and would be read with greater interest than, for example, the analysis of the so-called “Skete Rule,” which took place in the monastery cell and which guided the monks in the execution of their cell rules. It is difficult to understand why the author spoke about this Charter in his book, because this Charter had absolutely nothing to do with the prevailing Jerusalem one, and did not have the slightest influence on it. The simultaneity of existence with this latter and the identity of names (charter) do not yet give the right to attention to one or another monument. It seems that Mr. Mansvetov’s book would not have lost in completeness if the author had omitted the pages with the monastery Rules, but, on the contrary, would have even gained in harmony and consistency. The “discriminating” Charter of Gennady, Archbishop of Novgorod (1505) was not particularly important. This bishop’s attempt to simplify the use of the general Charter and give a decision regarding the performance of services on similar holidays or when several commemorations coincide on one day (p. 304) was a very respectable attempt, but it did not bring the good results that the Archbishop of Novgorod expected from it. First of all, it became known in practice no earlier than the 17th century, when this Charter appeared on the pages of local Russian charters and was adopted within the Novgorod ones. Later, through the Novgorod manuscripts, this work penetrated into Moscow, but here, according to the special consciousness of Mr. Mansvetov, “it did not have much practical significance and influence on the processing of the Typica and remained an experience without a future” (p. 305). That is why we think that the author would have done better if, from a detailed analysis of the monastic Obikhodniks, he had directly and naturally moved on to the fate of our printed Typikon, leaving without mention of the monastic and monstrous Gennadievsky rules, or limiting himself to only the most general brief remarks about both. The pages devoted by Mr. Mansvetov in his book to the fate of our printed Typikon can be called brilliant. These pages are read with exciting, lively interest and directly respond to the needs of our time, overwhelmed by various perplexities and questions to which our Orthodox clergy is eagerly awaiting answers. The first printed Typikon was the Charter, published in 1610 by the Troitsk head, and then by the charterer Loggin, nicknamed Shishelev. Although the preface says that this Charter was published “by command of the great sovereign” - “with the blessing of the chief shepherd, the extreme saint, the father of the chickens Irmogen the Patriarch of Moscow” and “on the advice of the most reverend metropolitans, archbishops and bishops and the entire consecrated council,” but later, when various kinds of complaints were raised against Loggin for the correction Service Book, then this Charter was subjected to strict condemnation by the Patriarch of Moscow Filaret. “Those charters,” said the patriarch, were printed by the Kryloshan black Loggin of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery without the blessing ... of Patriarch Hermogenes and the entire consecrated cathedral, and many of the articles in those charters were printed not according to the apostolic and not according to paternal tradition, by their own will.” The consequence of this condemnation was that the present Charter was burned (R.I.B. III, 902). From the book of Mr. Mansvetov can only see that this condemnation was “weak and unfounded” (p. 313), but the question of which articles in this Charter were included “not according to the apostolic and not according to paternal tradition, by their own will,” this question remains unresolved for Mr. Mansvetov. He makes the assumption that “the patriarch could have expressed this idea under the influence of those reviews that were made about Loggin by Dionysius” with his employees during the dispute about the pretext “and fire,” but this assumption is hardly plausible. Most likely, you need to think that the above words of Patr. Philaret refers specifically to the articles included in the Charter from the local Russian Obikhodniks, to which the Charter of 1610 was in direct and close connection. This connection is not visible in Mr. Mansvetov’s book; it is not even visible what this “firstborn” was like in its content. It would be necessary for the author to acquaint his readers with a detailed analysis of this Charter, since copies of it are very rare, and Mr. Mansvetov had several of them in his hands. The next edition of the Typicon was made in 1633 and repeated in 1634. There is almost no difference between both of these editions and the question of the reason for this second edition remains unclear. In comparison with the Charter of 1610, it turns out that the publishers of the Charter of 1633 and 1634 had in mind to shorten the first edition and exclude from it articles of Russian origin, borrowed from monastic and cathedral rites; in a word, they wanted to put an end to the further growth of our Typikon. This edition is in many respects better than 1610, but did not eliminate quite major shortcomings and was carried out without a specific plan and inconsistently. Therefore, with the publication of the Typikon in 1641, we again see a change from its publication in 1610. In the Charter of 1641, articles “from the Epistles of Nikon” were excluded, articles were added on the number of monks, on the general content of the Charter, on how the service is carried out in Russian monasteries, a note on how to conduct the service in the absence of menstrual Menaions, an article on fasting and some other articles (see p. 322). The publication of the Charter under Patriarch Joseph in 1651 was almost a repetition of the 1641 edition. But on completely different principles and with different results, the correction of our Typikon was carried out when it was published in 1682 and 1695. These latest editions date back to the time when we clearly recognized the need to carry out book corrections based on Greek originals, and therefore the results from such work turned out different. So, for example, the publication of the Typicon of 1682 was made from the Charter of 1641, but after careful correction of this latter according to other sources, such as, for example, the corrected books of hours of our Moscow editions, the Lvov Trefola, Greek charters and Menaions. The result of this correction was that entire articles of Russian origin were crossed out as disagreeing with the Greek originals, up to 50 commemorations of saints, the celebration of which was approved at the councils of the previous time, were excluded from the monthly book, many troparia and kontakia compiled by Russian hymns were destroyed on the same basis, an agreement was made in the text of prayers and exclamations corrected earlier, and thus the disagreement between Typikon and other liturgical books. In particular, the editorial work consisted of changing the titles of articles, replacing technical and obscure words with simpler and more well-known ones, setting up a more correct structure of speech, changing the order of articles and shortening them. To get acquainted with the detailed side, the author presented a very detailed description of the “quoted” Typikon of 1641, stored in the Moscow Printing Library under No. 1373 (pp. 328–356). From this acquaintance Mr. Mansvetov draws the following curious conclusion that none of the above requirements were carried out consistently, and the correctors, losing the guiding thread in places, went astray. This resulted in contradictions and oversights, which are striking upon careful reading and can hinder the performance of church services. In other service books, these oversights are not so noticeable, but in the Charter, which combines the contents of other church service books and regulates their use, they constitute a very large flaw and can serve as a reason for many misunderstandings” (p. 338), which should not exist and “the presence of which is felt all the more strongly because “The Charter of 1682 is the basis for its further editions, and, with many exceptions, is still reprinted without changes.” (p. 342). One cannot but agree with this remark, which is quite reasonable; and the created Charter of 1682, misunderstandings were soon revealed, and there was an urgent need to agree on the Charter that was in effect in practice with the existing liturgical Menaions, which were corrected only in 1689. This agreement was made during the publication of the Charter of 1695, when, in addition, some mistakes of the publication of the previous time were destroyed. In this edition, many commemorations of saints, deleted from the monthly calendar during the charters in the 1682 edition, were again returned to their places. The 1695 edition “completed the process of correcting our Typikon. What was undertaken and done in this regard further, up to and including the last edition of 1877, is limited to minor changes in the text of the prayers and sequences. Even some mistakes and oversights made by the inspectors of 1695 have not been eliminated. and the matter remains in almost the same situation as it was 180 years ago. On the editorial side, our present Charter has also not moved far forward, and with a few exceptions, it is a reprint from the 1695 edition” (p. 356). In the “appendices” to this book, the author points out the liturgical significance of the Kondakarei of Roman the Sweet Singer (p. 369) and the Charter of Benedict of Nursia (p. 375), describes the complete charters of the studio edition No. 33–380 (p. 378) Moscow. Synod. bibliography, Moscow. printer. bib. No. 285 and No. 287, M. Synod. bib. No. 331–381 and No. 382–905, lists the Greek lists of the Studio Rules according to printed sources (p. 397), describes all the rules of the Jerusalem edition stored in the libraries of the Moscow Synodal and Rumyantsev Museum (p. 403), accurately publishes the Slavic service on the day of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary according to the Rules of the M. Synod.bibl. No. 330–380 and according to the Greek charter of the same library No. 456, compares the studio charters No. 330–380 with the Jerusalem one according to the presentation of services on the feast of the Epiphany, on the feast of the Presentation, on the feast of the Annunciation, on the first week of Lent, gives a description of the Nikodimov Typik of the Belgrade Public Library, the Charter from the Sebastian collection in the Moscow Public Museum No. 1458 and the Charter from the Imperial Public Library of the Serbian edition, provides an entire excerpt from the Charter of the Imperial Public Library, Serbian edition, provides an entire excerpt from the Charter of the Imperial Public Library. Libraries about the Tsar's many years and the abbot's congratulations on the eve of the Nativity of Christ, makes a comparison of the synodal statutes 2 and 3 editions in the presentation of the daily service and according to the Triodion, describes the corrected copy of the Menaion for the months of April, May and June from the library of M. typographical. under No. 1316 and No. 1144, which began to be corrected two years after the amendment of the Charter, i.e. in 1689, lists new memories and troparia in the Charter of 1695. in comparison with the charter of 1682, finally, he makes several brief comments on the ktitor’s charters in Byzantium. From the brief and very superficial review of Mr. Mansvetov’s book, it is quite clear to see how thorough this book is on the issues raised in it. Undoubtedly, when reading this book, many questions and misunderstandings may arise, some places in it directly challenge the reader, but we must not forget that the author has almost no predecessors in the development of this issue and works on it very diligently, collecting materials in manuscripts and undeveloped sources. Of course, the author should have limited the scope of his work and he would have, perhaps, gotten a complete history of our Typikon, whereas now, carried away by the details, he introduces a lot of unnecessary things and instead of the history of our Typikon gives a description of them. Mr. Mansvetov’s book can be called, and the name will be quite correct, a description of all the books and manuscripts bearing the name “Charter” and stored mainly in Moscow libraries. In addition, the description is not carried out in historical sequence, but rather randomly and in leaps and bounds, so that a non-specialist can become completely lost in the mass of this material. It is in vain that the author avoids many interesting questions in complete silence, and speaks about others only casually and in passing, just to get rid of them, but does not provide solutions to these questions, leaving them open. But after all that, we repeat, readers will read this book and some of its pages, especially those devoted to the history of our printed Typikon, with keen interest and curiosity and will undoubtedly say a big thank you to its gifted and hardworking author. Quite detailed information about the personality of the real Novgorod Bishop Clement was collected from A. Popov, the publisher of this monument. About this bishop, Mr. Popov obtained from chronicles and other handwritten data that he was elected to the Novgorod see after the death of Archbishop Damasus of Novgorod in 1274, and was ordained in Kyiv in 1276. pacified the riots that occurred in Novgorod several times and died in 1299. He also wrote, in addition to the present Charter, the Helmsman of 1280. First addition. to description RKP. Bible A.I. Haudova pp. 11–12 You might be interested in: