The meaning and significance of the so-called 13th rule of the Council of Laodicea

(Regarding the opinions of Messrs. Papkov, Ostroumov and Barsov) It is cruel to eat against the goad. A. A. Papkov, with his article “For the attention of the Orthodox society” (New Time No. 11033), set a very difficult task for Messrs. Ostroumov and Barsov. The task is to, at all costs, refute Mr. Papkov’s opinion about the meaning and significance of the so-called 13th rule of the Council of Laodicea. Their articles adorn the Church Gazette: article by prof. M.A. Ostroumov in No. 2 under the title “Attention of the Orthodox Society (response to A. A. Papkov)”, article by E.V. Barsov in No. 4 under the title “The newest interpreters of ancient church rules (reprinted from the Moscow List). However, Mr. Papkov was not the only one who suffered from these learned men; it also went to some members of the pre-conciliar Presence, of whom the writer of these lines is named. This persistent indication of my complicity with Mr. Papkov obliges me to come forward with an explanation. I confess, however, that if I were motivated only by personal polemical interest, then the best means of defense would be to choose complete silence. The interest of these articles is more important and profound; they touch upon the issue of returning to the clergy and the Orthodox people the right to actively participate in the election of pastors and bishops - “the return of what belongs to the clergy and people by historical and apostolic right 1 . Should or should this right not be returned to its ownership? Are there any canonical obstacles to resolving it in a positive sense? This is the main interest of these articles. Without a doubt, it was precisely this interest (and not polemical) that prompted the Editorial Board of the Church Gazette to give space to these articles in their columns. The same interest motivates me to break free from silence. Back in 1903, in view of rumors that were beginning to appear in the press about the convening of a council, I pointed out “the sad state of our church-official canonical code, represented by the Helmsman and the Book of Rules 2. Daring to solve canonical issues with such codes in hand is risky. They differ in the text; in the “Book of Rules” itself there is no proper correspondence between the Greek and the “Slavic-Russian translation” 3; the very Greek text reprinted from Beveridge leaves much to be desired. The extent to which these codes are inconvenient for the stated purpose can be seen at least from the fact that it is sometimes impossible to decide from them - what is a well-known article: a rule, or just its title? It was this notorious question that served as the main theme of the articles under consideration on the meaning and significance of the 13th canon of the Council of Laodicea. Here are the texts of this rule in the named codes: It is natural that all those Orthodox hierarchs, canonists and simple lovers of canon law who read the 13th canon of the Council of Laodicea according to the text of the Helmsman and the Slavic-Russian translation of the Book of Rules, were firmly convinced that they had in it an indestructible canonical support for prohibiting “worldly people” from electing candidates for the priesthood and bishopric. But now A. A. Papkov appears in the press with a statement that this canonical support is imaginary, there is no Laodicean rule at all, and what is presented as it by our official codes is, in essence, only a table of contents of the lost rule. A. A. Papkov proves his statement by the fact that in the Greek text of the imaginary rule at the beginning there is περὶ το ῦ - a characteristic feature of the table of contents, which words are absent in the translation of the “Book of Rules”, that in the ancient Helmsman at the beginning of the imaginary rule there is a particle “yako”, which is not present in the later ones. It was for this completely fair and correct statement that prof. attacked Mr. Papkov with his articles. Ostroumov and E.V. Barsov. But what could they say against Mr. Papkov’s statement? After all, no matter how much you write, the texts of the Helmsman and the “Book of Rules” will not change, it is difficult to fight against them, like against a prick, and it is completely useless - you will only harm yourself. But nothing can be done, but you can “unsubscribe”. “Unsubscription” is a well-developed bureaucratic method in our country - to hush up, delay some matter, which in itself is simple and clear, but for some reason unpleasant. Its secret is to introduce fog into a clear matter, to divert attention from the main subject to some extraneous circumstances and to bore the reader so much that he will cease to be interested in it. The technique of unsubscribing in our bureaucratic world has been brought to perfection; they can unsubscribe from us absolutely anything: “I can’t understand this paper, but I can unsubscribe,” our businessman will say this and unsubscribe. With all due respect to Mr. Papkov’s critics, I must nevertheless say that in their articles the “subscription element” prevails over the literary and scientific one. But let's turn to particulars. It is remarkable that both critics, first of all, agree with Mr. Papkov’s positions and even confirm them, which, of course, does them credit. Yes, Prof. Ostroumov writes: “One thing is true, that the text of the rules of the Council of Laodicea (with the exception of one rule 60 according to our “Book of Rules”) is expressed in “indirect speech.” They all begin with the words περὶ το ῦ or ὅτι δεῖ, or ὅτι οὐ δεῖ, i.e. about what should, or about what should not... This indirect grammatical construction of them can have a twofold explanation. Firstly, it can be assumed that the presentation of these rules was preceded by an introduction in which it was reported how the fathers of the Council of Laodicea, having gathered in Laodicea of ​​Phrygia, drew up decrees about what should not be done in such and such a way, or on what should be done in such and such a way. Secondly, it can be assumed that in the indirect construction, not the full text of the rules of the Council of Laodicea has been preserved, but only the titles to them, briefly expressing their content, and, according to my assumption, the last rule has come to us in the full text. I do not know where and when prof. Zaozersky spoke in favor of this second assumption, but I myself defended it in my abstract at the XII Archaeological Congress in Kharkov in 1902, and pointed out that back in 1888 at the Catholic Congress in Paris, Abbot ßoudinhon spoke in the same sense, i.e. he saw the titles in the text of the Laodicean Rules, without touching, however. question about the final rule." Here it would be appropriate for Prof. For Ostroumov to put an end to it, it would have been both efficient and impressive for Mr. Papkov: then it would have become clear to all readers that it is not only Papkov and Zaozersky who see Laod in the 13th rule. of the cathedral is not a rule, but only a title, but also prof. M.A. Ostroumov and Abbot Boudinhon. Ho prof. Ostroumov had to unsubscribe and refute, at all costs, Mr. Papkov, and so he continues: “But even if we assume that in the current, i.e., the text that has reached us, we really have only the titles of the rules, then from here we still cannot draw the conclusion that they do not have the proper church authority, as A.A. is apparently inclined to think. Papkov 4. This fact in no way weakens their authority and does not detract from their mandatory significance not only for the Russian, but also for the entire universal church. Firstly, the decrees of the Council of Laodicea are expressed in them (that is, in the titles?) with complete clarity and certainty. Secondly, in all the Greek and Latin collections in which they are found, they are placed precisely in the current form that has come down to us 5 . We find them in the collections of I. Scholastic and in the syntagma in XIV titles 6; even earlier they were placed in a collection of 60 titles and in the book of rules that the Greek fathers had at the Council of Chalcedon. Then we find them in the most ancient Latin canonical collections: Isidore, Dionysius, Gallic and Irish. Since the time of Theodoret, to whom they were known, they have been accepted throughout the East, as well as in the Roman, Spanish, Gallic and Irish churches, i.e., throughout the West. Thirdly, by the second rule of the Trullo Council they were approved (“sealed by agreement”), undoubtedly in the same edition as they were placed in the syntagma in Title XIV. Thus, from an ecclesiastical point of view, they have authority and obligation in the form in which they have come down to us. It is impossible to argue against this” 7 . What is it impossible to argue against? Of course, against the fact that only the title of the 13th rule has reached us, but... What about the “but”? Unsubscribe and nothing more! The second opponent, E.V. Barsov, is an even stronger professor. Ostroumova confirms the opinion of Mr. Papkov, but for this she also condemns him even more strongly, and not only him, but also some other members of the pre-conciliar presence, but for what she scolds is unknown. Here are his words: “First of all, let us note that no matter how much we respect Professor N.A. Zaozersky, we cannot recognize in him the discovery that Mr. Papkov assimilates to him. Always and everywhere, every canonist knew that the authentic acts of the Council of Laodicea did not reach us, that in the monument known to us relating to these acts, 19 rules (including the 13th) in the Greek text begin with the expression: “about that” and 40 rules - with the word “what”; every canonist always understood that in its external form this monument is not a genuine conciliar act, but a pointer to the canons held on it; but until now it has never occurred to anyone to play with the word “table of contents” in its modern meaning and talk about replacing the true canon with “table of contents.” Secondly, the text of these rules known to us is not only a table of contents, but a so-called synopsis of them. A synopsis was a shortened statement of the general idea of ​​a given law 8 . For practice, the synopsis was not only convenient because in its presentation the rules were easier to understand and remember, but also that the synopsis required less time for correspondence and less expenditure on written material, which was then very expensive. The rules of the Council of Laodicea have come down to us in precisely this abbreviated form, and it is believed that this synopsis appeared soon after the council for the practical use of the Laodicean Church. Some of its rules are stated in more detail, others very briefly, and all 9 begin with the same expression “about what”; The 13th rule is no exception and is an equally short and clear synopsis of the real rule. Thirdly, and what is especially important, all the rules of the Council of Laodicea, despite their abbreviated form in the form of an index, in ancient times were included in the general church canonical code... (and) there has never been a doubt in history that the canons of the Council of Laodicea, which have come down to us in the form of a synopsis, in index form, accurately and clearly express the meaning of the original conciliar rules” 10. Comparing these considerations E.V. Barsov with the above considerations and Prof. Ostroumov, it is easy to notice the following similarities between them: both of them, under the rubric, firstly, agree with the opinion of Mr. Papkov that the 13th rule (like the others) of Laod. of the Council there is a table of contents, or an index, but in the following sections (second and third) they both try to prove that it is a rule. Both end up with the following concession period: although the 13th rule of L.S. has a table of contents = an index in form; however, in essence it is a rule. The fault of Mr. Papkov and his accomplices is that they did not build such a period. I don’t know what Mr. Papkov thinks about this, but I, for my part, declare that, by the grace of God, I have never built such periods and will continue to try not to build them. The second indictment against Mr. Papkov is that both writers point out that Mr. Papkov indicates in the Slavic-Russian translation of the “Book of Rules” the omission of the words: “about that”, and in the later Slavic helmsmen the omission of the word: “like”, retained in the most ancient ones. That this indication is also correct is confirmed by both accusers; but Mr. Papkov’s fault is - why did he attach importance to such an omission? “A.A. Papkov finds, - gov. prof. Ostroumov that in the Slavic translation, the two initial words περὶ τοῦ found in the Greek original, i.e. “about that”, are omitted, and the Slavic text, both in the original edition of the “Book of Rules” and in all subsequent years, begins directly with prohibitive words: “let it not be,” etc. Meanwhile, according to the translation of A.A. Papkova, this rule should be read as follows: “let it not be allowed for a gathering of people to elect those who are to be promoted to the priesthood.” Obviously, A. A. Papkov does not rightly consider the transfer of indirect speech in a direct sentence, and the expression “about that” should naturally disappear, to be a translation with an “omission”. In essence, there is no omission here, but there is a transformation of an indirect sentence into a direct one and the transformation is absolutely correct” (p. 55). E.V. Barsov judges Mr. Papkov and his accomplices much more strictly, and defends the Slavic-Russian translation much more energetically, namely: “If in the Slavic translations (of the Book of Rules and of our Helmsmen) the first words are omitted: “about what,” then since the rules of the Council of Laodicea were included in the general church code, these demonstrative expressions have absolutely no meaning - and the question of replacing the real rule with a table of contents could arise exclusively in the minds of only some members of the pre-conciliar presence, who know how to play with words more than think in historical content. And, if in the Efremovskaya Helmsman of the 12th century. “Yako” is still retained (Greek περὶ το ῦ), then it appears not only in the Helmsman of the ΧVΙΙ century, but also in the lists of the 14th, 15th and even 16th centuries. for already at that time, for practical meaning, this “supposedly” was considered unnecessary” (No. 4, p. 145). What can be said about these opinions? In my opinion, nothing more than to perpetuate them as an exemplary canonical polemic of the 20th century, giving them only a more vital and generally understandable form, approximately in the following picture: G. Papkov (private prosecutor): The Book of Rules allowed a translation with the omission of particles “about what”. Her 1st defender: There is no omission here, but there is a completely correct transformation of an indirect sentence into a direct one. 2nd defender: these particles have absolutely no meaning! “Yako” is completely unnecessary! Readers Cer. Ved. and Moscow Leaflet: “Down with particles!” So. arr., the goal of unsubscribing has been achieved; Mr. Papkov and his comrades lost the trial and must suffer for protecting the particles. But let us leave, reader, the unsubscribe element in the articles of Messrs. Ostroumov and Barsov and move on to the scientific and literary. The efforts of both named scholars are devoted to clarifying the meaning of the Greek word ὄχλος, in the canonical language and the language of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament. However, before entering this area, I must make the following disclaimer. The reason that prompted these scientists to carry out philological research regarding the word ὄχλος was the different understanding of this term, used in the 13th rule of the Council of Laodicea, by Slavic and Russian translators. Mr. Papkov also pointed out this difference in his article. Thus, the Slavic-Russian translation of the 13th rule conveys this term with the expression: “gathering of the people,” Kazan Spirit. Academy (in the translation of the Acts of Ecumenical and Local Councils) with the word “community”; printed helmsman with the expression “people of the world.” The question arises: who is the 13th rule of Laod. Council prohibits the election of candidates for the priesthood? The question is not easy to resolve, although, as we have seen, Mr. Ostroumov and Barsov repeatedly and persistently asserted that the 13th rule that has come down to us “clearly, precisely and definitely” expresses the meaning of the original rule. For our part, we must point out another Russian translation of the 13th rule, owned by Prof. Kazan Spirit. Academy V.A. Narbekov. In his edition of the Nomocanon Photius. Narbekov conveys the 13th rule this way: “that the election of priests should be entrusted to the common people” 11. So, what does ὄχλος mean? - “common people, a gathering of people, worldly people, a community” - this is how our Slavic-Russian translations of the 13th canon of the Council of Laodicea answer in a variety of ways! Of course, if we were talking about the translation of some article of an abstract, and not a vital nature, such uncertainty and such diversity would not have much significance, but since we are dealing with a canonical rule that serves as a support for the recognition or denial of rights for well-known persons, the question of certainty and clarity receives enormous significance. This significance of the question will be fully illuminated as soon as we move on to practical, vital soil, for example. present time. So, if we admit that according to the thought of oo. of the Council of Laodicea, only the common people do not have the right to elect candidates for the priesthood, that is, eminent citizens, dignitaries, etc., for example. the governor and prosecutor have this right. If, on the contrary, we admit that, according to the thoughts of these fathers, “worldly people” generally do not have such a right, then it means that eminent citizens and dignitaries do not have it, and this right belongs only to the bishop, or to spiritual authorities in general. If we accept the translation of the “Book of Rules” as correct, then, on the contrary, we will exclude from the right of election only a randomly formed, disorderly and violent crowd, but we recognize this right for respectable people, for properly organized communities, for example. parish, etc. Given the importance of determining the exact meaning of the term ὄχλος, every attempt of this kind deserves nothing but welcome. It is with just such a benevolent mood that we begin to consider such an attempt on the part of Messrs. Ostroumov and Barsov, made by them in their polemical articles against Mr. Papkov. But, of course, this mood cannot bind us in pointing out mistakes, mistakes, polemical hobbies; for only in this way can we arrive at a definition of the clear and precise meaning of the term in question, the only goal towards which we strive. If this goal is achieved, it will be our highest reward. If your work calls forth more advanced workers who, having pointed out its shortcomings, will give a more correct solution to the issue, we will treat them with warm gratitude, considering it a high honor for them to have enlightened attention to our efforts. Refuting the opinion of Mr. Papkov that the word ὄχλος should be translated as it is translated in the Book of Rules, that is, by the expression: “gathering of the people,” Prof. M.A. Ostroumov says: this concept of “gathering of people” is most closely matched, apparently, by the Latin word turba. In the translation of Dionysius the Less, made around 500, we actually read: Quod non sit permittendum turbis electiones facere qui sunt ad sacerdotium provehendi. But already in the title of this text it says: Judicio multitudinis ordinationes fieri non debere. Here it is no longer a turba, but a multitudo (πλῆθος Carth. 64, Greek 57). But even earlier, precisely after the Council of Chalcedon in Italy itself, where there were many Greeks (in Magna Graecia), ὄχλος was translated by the word populus. In the so-called translation of Isidore, in the Spanish and Gallic collections we read: “De eo, quod non sit populis concedendum electionem facere eoruin, qui altaris ministerio sunt aplicati” (Migne LXXXIV, LVI, col. 716). In this case, there appears to be a perfect correspondence between the Latin and Old Slavic translations “how to command the people to create elections”... In the Slavic translations of the New Testament, the word ὄχλος is also translated by the words people, for example. people disciple (Luke 6:17); many people were priests (Acts 6:7)." Let's dwell on these considerations for now. First of all, we are surprised by the fact that Prof. Ostroumov weakens the merits of D. Maly’s translation by pointing to the translations of the latter’s predecessors. Professor Ostroumov, more than any of the Russian canonists, knows that 1) the Latin translations of the Greek rules that existed before Dionysius were extremely unsatisfactory, 2) that Dionysius the Less enjoyed well-known authority in. a learned man and an excellent connoisseur of both languages ​​and 3) that as a result of all this he was asked to make a new Latin translation, which then supplanted the previous unsuitable translations 12. And knowing this, is it possible to correct the translation of Dionysius with translations of some unknown Italian Greeks? After all, this means the same as correcting verse and language, for example. Pushkin in the language and verse of Trediakovsky. So. arr., simple common sense demanded the opposite attitude to the compared translations, namely: since Dionysius avoids at all costs translating the Greek ὄχλος with the word populus, but translates it either with the word turba or with the word multitudo - and this means that the word populus from the point of view of an expert in Latin and Greek. languages ​​are not suitable here at all. What also surprises us is why Prof. Ostroumov did not pay attention to the fact that Dionysius, in addition to an accurate translation of the Greek original, attached his own title to it, with which he designated its subject and designated it in other terms, namely: the term turba with the term multitudo, the term eiectiones with the term ordinationes. The difference is very important: Dionysius translated the original literally; there it was necessary to use the words turbis (ὄχλοις) and eiectiones (τὰς ἐκλογάς), for ὄχλος, in its original meaning, is a restless, violent crowd, for which the Latin turba is the most suitable term, as well as the word ἐκλογ ὴ is quite accurately translated by the Latin electio. But in his title to the translated monument, Dionysius was no longer embarrassed to follow it literally, but expressed his understanding of it and tried to clarify it by using Latin terms that have one specific meaning. And as a result of this, he replaces the word turba with a completely specific multitudo (πλῆθος) multitude, crowd, and even attaches to it a completely new word judicio = court, sentence (Greek. ψηφω), and replaces the word eiectiones with the word ordinationes (χειροτονίαι, ordination). The title, or better yet, the explanation of the translated monument is as follows: according to the court or verdict of the crowd, the multitude, consecrations should not be performed. Here, according to Dionysius, is the meaning of the rule of the 13th Laod. cathedral – And we must admit that this understanding is absolutely correct; but more on that later. Now we will continue to consider Mr. Ostroumov’s further argumentation. In favor of the ancient Latin translations, Mr. Ostroumov points to their correspondence with the Old Slavic translation (Efremovskaya Kormcha) and the Slavic translations of the New Testament. The argumentation is very bold and original: for hardly anyone has hitherto thought of bringing the text of the rules of our famous helmsman closer to the Latin editions of the Italic Greeks of the 5th century. But we must admit that apart from these qualities, such an argument has no others. The fact is that Prof. Ostroumov, apparently, was poorly acquainted with the language of Efremov’s helmsman and, in general, with the Russian language of that distant time, and therefore found a correspondence where there was none at all. The word “people” at that time did not mean what it now means: a crowd, a multitude, i.e. the same as the Greek ὄχλος, and the concept that is now denoted by the word “people” was denoted by the word “people”, corresponding and even related to the Greek λαός and the Latin populus. “The people of our land did not choose him,” says the chronicle (and not the people, as it should be said today). “It is not righteous to jump onto the holy throne, but the prince and his people will delight in him (and not the people, as it should be said today), and vice versa: the expression of the New Testament: a nation of disciples, a race of priests means nothing more than a multitude of disciples, a multitude of priests (ὄχλος = πλῆθος, multitudo, as in Dionysius, but by no means populus and λαός. And the words of the Efremov helmsman; that one should not command the people to make elections correspond precisely to the Greek ὄχλοις, i.e., “crowds” or “multitudes,” and not the Latin populis, for then in Efremov’s helm it was written “to the people.” But we will talk about the Ephraim helmsman later. subsequently, and now let’s move on to Mr. Ostroumov’s further argumentation. “What is the significance,” Gov. he further, after his references to the Latin translations, - has the word ὄχλος - people in the 13th canon of the Council of Laodicea? Despite the fact that, according to philologists, the word ὄχλος is related to vulgus, German. Volk, in our opinion, it is still impossible in this case to interpret this expression in the sense of a gathering of people, a crowd or a mob, as Van Espen did in his time. The rule is best explained on the basis of the rules themselves. To clarify the matter, the Council of Carthage can help us with rule 111-e (according to our Book of Rules), 102-e (according to the Helmsman) and XCVII-e (according to Dionysius), which reads like this: “They also decided this: the people (ὄχλος, in Berveridge populi, in Dionysius plebes), who have never had their own bishop, are by no means give it, unless by decision of the entire council of each region ἐπαρχίας provinciae) and the first bishop, and with the consent of that bishop, in the border (ὑπὸ τὴν διοίκησιν, ad cujus dioecesim) in whose territory this church stood.” If we remember that according to church rules (57 Laod. 6 Sardis.) a bishop should not be appointed to a small and poor city, then by the word ὄχλοι in the Carthaginian rule we cannot mean not only gatherings of people, but even us of small towns. Obviously, here we mean the people in the form of the mass of the urban population of those people. significant cities in which a bishop could be installed. If so, then ὄχλος will mean the same thing as populus, the mass of the population as opposed to ruling organizations (Senatus populusque. Sys.), in ecclesiastical terms as opposed to the clergy. Undoubtedly, this word means the same thing in canon 13 of the Council of Laodicea. If in the classical era it was possible to make a distinction between δῆμο ς and ὄχλος, then in the era of the Laodicean rules, especially in the East, this distinction was hardly always maintained. Ὄ χλος denoted the people in the sense of the people or common mass (in a certain volume or place) 13. Here is the argument of Prof. M. A. Ostroumova and her results: 1) in the era of the Laodicean rules, the difference between δῆμο ς and ὄχλος disappeared; 2) the word ὄχλος meant the same as populus, which 3) in the meaning of the 13th rule of Laod. personal Only the authorities or the “ruling organization” can elect to the priesthood, and no people are supposed to meddle in this matter, even if it were the entire famous populus romanus = ὄχλος. This is the power of the 13th rule of the Council of Laodicea! It goes without saying that with this conclusion Dionysius the Small, the philologists, Van Espen, the translators of the Book of Rules, as well as the Kazan Spirit, were defeated. The Academy, which decided to translate the word ὄχλος with the word “community”: the synopsis of Aristin and the Helmsman with its “worldly people” turned out to be the most accurate. The main, if not the only, reason for prof. Ostroumov in his such a victorious argument was a reference to the 111th rights. Carthage Cathedral. Is this support sufficient, is it not rotten in order to arm with her alone, challenge all philologists to battle? First of all, one thing should be noted, as if silent by Prof. Ostroumov, the fact that the Greek text of the Carthaginian rules is not an authentic translation from Latin, made by some unknown person around the 7th century, probably a Greek. The true text of the rules of the Council of Carthage is Latin, the best edition of which is the one that Dionysius the Less (this Dionysius again) preserved in his collection. With this in mind, the comparison of the texts of Rule 111 compared by Mr. Ostroumov needs to be changed radically, namely: Previously, when speaking of rule 13 of Laod. Council, Mr. Ostroumov explained the meaning of the rule with its Latin translations - Dionisiev, Isidorov, etc., and now, when we were talking about the 111th rule of Carth. Council, it is necessary, on the contrary, to explain the Latin original with a Greek translation and substitute a Latin translation (Beveridge) of the Greek (translated) text 14. Unknown Greek the translator translated plebes with the word ὄχλοι, and Beveridge translated this latter with the word populi. We point out this circumstance not in a polemical way at all, because by pointing to it we, in fact, strengthen Mr. Ostroumov’s argument. It turns out something like double-entry bookkeeping: the Latins translate the word ὄχλοι with the word populi, and the Greeks translate the Latin word plebes=populi with the word ὄχλοι. It turns out that it seems to be an immutable truth that ὄχλος = populus, which is what Mr. Ostroumov claims. And, however, no matter how witty this method of argumentation may be, we, in the name of truth, must recognize it as very unfounded for the following reasons: firstly, c. Mr. Ostroumov did not act thoroughly, referring specifically to the 111th rule of the Council of Carthage, and omitted from sight the other rules of the same council, which shed more light on the philological issue at hand; secondly, trying to explain the meaning of the Greek. the word ὄχλος, Mr. Ostroumov compares with it only the Greek words πλῆθος and δῆμος, and completely forgets about the word λαός. This oblivion was fatal for his philological research. G. Ostroumov limited himself to a reference to one 111th rule of Carf. cathedral, in which the Latin word plebes is actually translated into Greek ὄχλοι. We will provide all the rules of Carthage. Council, in which the word plebes is found, we present in three comparative texts: Latin (Dionysius), Greek and Slavic, borrowing the last two from the excellent edition of Prof. V. N. Beneshevich. (Ancient Slavic Helmsman XIV tit. without interpretations. St. Petersburg 1906). What result will come out of this code will be obvious. See also rules 50, 48 and 42. In all of the above rules for designating the lay composition of dioceses and parishes, a very stable terminology is observed, namely: the Latin word plebs, Greek λαός, and Slavic people. And this stability is not some peculiarity of the rules of the Council of Carthage, but a property of the entire canonical language of the period, at least of the ecumenical councils. Look at the rules according to the Greek text of at least the “Book of Rules”, and you will be completely convinced of the correctness of this provision: λαός is a common word to designate a secular element in the composition of church society, just as the word κλῆρος is a common word to designate a spiritual class serving the church; κλῆρος and λαός initially exhausted the entire composition of church society, which was later complicated by a third element - the monastics (μονάζοντες). These are the Apostolic Canons: 36, 39, 55, 58, 60; I Universe 11th, Trul. personal 12.19, VII Omni. 2. To designate an individual person belonging to each of these categories of church society, the terms κληρικὸς, λαϊκὸς and (later μοναχὸς) the Old Russian “lyuzhanin” are also used very consistently 15. As for the word ὄχλος, it occurs very rarely and always - in the sense of a crowd, and sometimes a restless crowd. So, in addition to the two rules indicated by Mr. Ostroumov, Laodicecus. 13 and Carthage 111, this word appears in only two more rules; in the 61st rule of Trul. Council and in Rule 64 of the Council of Carthage. Here are Trul's words. personal Rule 61: Directly in the sense of a rebellious crowd, ὄχλος is used in the 64th rule of Carth. cathedral, which unfortunately completely escaped the attention of prof. Ostroumova. The rule depicts the following phenomenon: “Many of the presbyters, arrogant and insane, raise their necks against their own bishops, with feasts and malicious advice inciting the people (τὸ πλῆθος) so that, out of wanton affection, they themselves would be installed as rulers... There are very many who conspire with their crowd (τοῖς οἰκείοις πλήθεσιν), which they, as it is said, mislead, flattering her ears, and by flattery attracting people of shameful life to themselves, moreover, puffing up and separating themselves from this class of ours, they, relying on their crowd (τῷ ἰδίῳ πλήθει), having been repeatedly invited to come to the council, they renounce, fearing that their absurdities would be revealed... Justice demands - the council decides - that those who adhere to all the brethren and to the entire council not only retain the throne, but also receive such disputed districts into power: on the contrary, that those who imagine themselves to be satisfied with their crowd of people (τοῖς ἰδίοις ὄχλοις ) and those who despise brotherly love were not only deprived of the districts they had taken possession of, but also their own places, as if they were rebellious, they were taken away by the power of secular leaders.” In this case, this rule is remarkable for us because of the instability, the hesitation in the choice of terminology to designate the depicted phenomenon, which the Greek and Russian translators of the genuine, stable term plebs reveal; then they translate it into words; πλῆθος, then ὄχλος, then in the word people, then in the word crowd, then in the expression crowd of people, but not one of them translates with the word λαός or people = laity, as it should be translated, sticking to the original. What does this mean? Yes, of course, that an object characterized by the described features is not worth the name λαός and people = laity: the terms πλῆθος (multitudo) or ὄχλος (turba), crowd, rebels are enough for it. The translators could not resist the desire to introduce into the translation their subjective attitude to the rule being translated, and the result of this was their instability in terminology, very reminiscent of the same exact attitude of Dionysius the Less to the 13th rule of the Council of Laodicea. And this is the rule of Prof. Ostroumov did not even notice, concentrating all the efforts of his argument on the 111th rule of the Council of Carthage; but nothing could be more unfortunate than such a choice. As we have seen, the translator of the Carthaginian rules everywhere chooses the word λαός for the original plebs, chooses the same word for the title of the 111th rule, and at the beginning of the rule, which contains nothing more than a literal repetition of the title, for some reason puts ὄχλοι instead of οἱ λαοί. What is the reason for this? Absolutely none. This is some kind of completely inexplicable accident, which occurred, in all likelihood, not through the fault of the translator, but through the fault of his scribe or a later copyist: after all, from the words οἱ λαοί it is very easy to get ὄχλοι 16... And this is the accident of Prof. Ostroumov puts philological argumentation at the head of his argument, asserting, in defiance of all philologists, that in the era of the Laodicean rules the distinction between δῆμος and ὄχλος was not maintained, and that, consequently, the word ὄχλος can be translated indifferently with the word populus and plebs, but not in the way Dionysius translates - with the words turba or multitido. No, whoever listens carefully to the language of the canons of the period of the ecumenical councils will not for a moment encounter any difficulty in the meaning of the terms under consideration: λαός, like Lat. plebs and populus always mean a whole national or political union, or a whole class of this union, as well as in the ecclesiastical sense a whole class of laity, in contrast to the clergy and monasticism, (and the expression will be equivalent to it: τάγμα λαϊκόν I Om. 5, II Om. 6), sometimes in combination with the words Θεός and Dominus 17, while ὄχλος always denotes a temporarily or instantly formed gathering or crowd, organized or unorganized, formed from representatives of the same social class or different ones. An example of such an organized (and rebellious) crowd is given by the 64th rule of Karf. personal This is ὄχλος. The same rebellious organized crowd is represented, if you wish for clarity, by our “Black Hundred” when it acts as an active pogromist, or as a collective author of pamphlets calling for lynching; this is ὄχλος, but by no means λαὸς τοῦ Κυρίου. In this sense, the word ὄχλος should be understood in title 13 of the canon of the Council of Laodicea, if we treat with due respect the sacred antiquity of this monument. What exactly did such crowds or gatherings mean? Council of Laodicea - this cannot be doubted, for if they had in mind the class of the laity in general, they would have used for this not ὄχλος, but - λαός or λαϊκο ῖ or τάγμα λαϊκόν. But what exactly did the fathers of the Council of Laodicea forbid crowds or gatherings to do? Opponents of the elective principle in the clergy usually answer decisively that it is the very elections of candidates. It is hardly possible, however, to agree with this, even if we pay close attention to the text of the title of the 13th rule, namely to its words: καθίστασθαι εἰς ἱερατεῖον. The word ἐκλογ ὴ (or even ἐπιλογ ὴ, as in the table of contents of the Syntagma in the XIV volume) seems to indicate not the initial moment of choosing or naming candidates, but the second and more decisive moment - the election of one of the indicated candidates as fit for ordination. This is how, apparently, Dionysius the Less understood the meaning of the resolution of the Council of Laodicea under consideration, paraphrasing the 13th rule as follows: judicio multitudinis ordinationes fieri non debere. Such a trial and sentence at that time belonged to the presbyterium and the bishop, as those who performed the consecration, but not to the voters themselves, who only indicated the candidates. The anticipation of this right by the laity, especially by crowds of them, is, of course, not normality, which the 13th rule eliminates. That the test of the worthiness of the chosen one was carried out by the presbyterium, although the laity, who could testify for and against, were not excluded from participation, others close in time to Laodice also speak about this. cathedral sources 18. 0 the trial and the decision of the presbyterium, as an act preceding the ordination, is also mentioned by the bishop’s prayer at the ordination, preserved in the so-called. Apostolic Constitutions. “You yourself, even now, look upon this servant of yours (the name of the rivers) who, by the psifoy and the court of the clergy, has given everything to the presbyter” 19. With this consideration in mind, the meaning of the so-called. Rule 13 of Laodice. the council should define this: the fathers of Laod. The council established only the norm for the active participation of the laity in the election of persons elevated to the degree of priesthood, determining that in the future they should not be allowed alone, without the leadership of the presbyterium, to make such elections. Probably, they were brought to their attention by repeated cases of abuse by the laity of their original right to actively participate in the election of candidates for the priesthood and cases of inaction of the clergy (which St. Basil the Great also points out), and so they issued their decree. We say probably, because we do not know their decree (ὄρος) itself, but we judge only on the basis of the table of contents of this decree, called Rule 13, that has been preserved for us. Such an assumption and such an understanding of the surviving title of rule 13 is in accordance with “historical thinking,” in the words of E. V. Barsov. “In the era of the Laodicean rules,” in the words of Prof. M.A. Ostroumova, “the ancient order of electing c. officials by the clergy and the people, it operated even in the 6th century, as can be seen from the laws of the Emperor Justinian, which were even passed into our Helmsmen's books. “We decree,” these laws say, “that whenever there is a need for the ordination of a bishop, the clergy and first citizens of the city in which it is necessary to ordain a bishop gather and, before the Holy Gospel, elect 3 candidates, and that each of them (the voters) swear by the word of God and write down in the very act of election that they did not choose these candidates for gifts or promises, etc.” 20. Novella VI (chapter 1, 9–10) decrees that episcopal ordinations take place in the presence of the entire people of the church so that “everyone who wishes has full opportunity to object... This decree is also prescribed to be observed during the ordination of clergy” 21 . “If citizens delay the election of a bishop for more than six months, then let the one who should (i.e., the metropolitan) appoint him under his own responsibility in compliance with all legal requirements” 22. In view of these absolutely clear laws of the 5th century, it is hardly possible to admit that the fathers of the Council of Laodicea of ​​the 4th century decided to deprive the laity of their original right, established by Apostolic tradition, to elect candidates for church ministry 23 . In any case, the philological, canonical and church-historical grounds presented so far authorize the following conclusions about the meaning and significance of the so-called 13th canon of the Council of Laodicea: 1. Both in form and in essence, it is only a very brief table of contents of the conciliar definition (ὄρος) that has not survived to us. 2. Based on it, it can be assumed that oo. The Council of Laodicea made an attempt to regulate the right of participation of the laity in the election of candidates for the priesthood, but how exactly they regulated it cannot be said positively. 3. Read this so-called. The rule on the canonical basis for denying the laity the right to participate in the election of a candidate for the priesthood is also unfounded and reckless, just as it is unfounded and reckless to deprive someone of any right on the basis of an index to the laws, and not on the basis of the laws themselves. K.P. Pobedonostsev. Moscow Collection, p. 9, M. 1896. Theologian. Bulletin, 1903. Means of strengthening the power of our Central Administration. This is what the report calls this translation. Prosecutor; more precisely, this is an old Russian business language - a “high syllable”, sometimes turning into an archaic clerical language. Our italics. A.A. Papkov, as can be seen from his article, is completely innocent of this inclination. But they came in different forms, as we have already seen in part. In this syntagma it is in the form of a table of contents. See Narbekov: Nomocanon of Photius, pp. 21 and 59. Kazan, 1899. An interesting version of this table of contents is presented by Kormchaya, published by prof. V.N. Beneshevich, here we read: It was called, true, but incorrectly; the correct name is epitome. Wrong; earlier it was said, more accurately, that only the first 19 rules begin with the expression “about what,” and the other 40 begin with the word “what.” Church Ved. No. 4, p. 144. Narbekov. Nomocanon K - Polish Patriarch Photius. Part 2. Table of contents, title 1, chapter 7 (p. 21) and the Nomocanon itself, volume 1, chapter 7 (p. 59). Ostroumov: Introduction to Orthodox C. Law, § 33 et seq., p. 320. Church Ved. No. 2, pp. 56,57. Beveridge would have done better to parallel the Greek text with Carthus. The rules were set by the original of Dionysius the Lesser, but for some reason he decided to make his own Latin translation. These are, for example, the rules: Apostolic: 15, 24, 31, 48, 57; 62–66, 69, 70, 72, 84, III Omni. 6 and 7; IV: 2, 8, 21 and 24; Trul. Sob. 4, 11, 22, 42, 50, 51, 55, 56, 59, 65, 67, 69, 77, 80, 81, 86, 88, 92, 97; VII Universe 5, 13. Ankir. 3, Laod. 54, etc. As we saw above, from the variants to the Slavic text of this rule, the Old Russian scribes failed in rewriting this rule. Trouble will give birth to trouble! The sin of the Greek scribe involved the ancient Russian scribes in their sins. Apostle 39: Λαὸν τοῦ Κυρίου, Domini populous. See St. Vasil.Vel. message to the chorebishops; Feof. Alex. Right 7. Book VIII 16. We quote according to the text of the RCP. Kiev-Sophia Cathedral, No. 63, L.141, rev. Narbekov: Nomocanon Photius, Titus. I, chapter 23. E.V. Barsov gives the following considerations about the meaning of the word ὄχλος. G. Papkov thinks that the Greek ὄχλος means crowd... However, he does not give the slightest reason for such an interpretation. After all, for a correct understanding of the canons, only references in Greek lexicons are not enough. This requires serious familiarity with the Gospel and Apostolic texts and church historical language. Mr. Papkov will not find in any dictionary, for example, that Greek. ἔθνος means diocese, just as he will not find there what the Greek. ὄχλος means parish church meeting (Ts. Ved. No. 4, p. 145). Then follow arguments from the Holy Scriptures (Luke 13:17; Acts 1:16, 11:24), from which, by the way, it is revealed that the election of the Apostle Matthias was carried out by the parish meeting (p. 146). We do not agree with these arguments, but we completely agree that such philology cannot be found in any dictionary. You might be interested in: