Research in the field of Russian science of canon law. [Rec. at:] Krasnozhen M. Interpreters of the canonical code of the Eastern Church: Aristin, Zonara and Balsamon

M. Krasnozhen: Interpreters of the canonical code of the Eastern Church: Aristin, Zonara and Balsamon, M. 1892 A completely special study containing, in addition to the items indicated in the title, the following materials: a brief historical outline of the canonical codification for centuries VI–IX; history of canon synaxis; about the ancient scholia on individual rules and the attitude to these scholia of Aristin, Zopara and Balsamon, and, at the end of the book, appendices: 1) the Greek text of the synopsis of the canons with the name of Stephen of Ephesus according to the manuscript of the Vienna Library; 2) ancient Greek scholia to the rules according to the manuscript of the Munich Library. These additions to the main content of the book constitute, as it were, its necessary setting, indicating the circumstances, motivations and tasks that the three named canonists had to fulfill in their commentary works. The first of these secondary matters is a very concise outline of the origin of the canonical and nomocanonical collections, which gradually developed to completeness and completeness into the syntagma and nomocanon of Patriarch Fotai. The last two works served as the subject of scholia, first by nameless glossators, and then in the 12th century. decorated with complete interpretations of Zonara and Balsamon. The information provided by the author about the ancient scholia, as well as his judgments about the attitude of the interpretations of Aristinus, Zonara and Balsamon to these scholia, are based mainly on an independent study of manuscripts from the Munich and Vienna libraries. At this point, the author’s book makes important corrections and additions to what has hitherto been expressed on this subject in courses on church law. The author’s treatise on canonical synopsis (pp. 18–28) is of the same nature. The Russian science of Canon Law should treat this treatise of the author with gratitude, as well as the text of the synopsis of Stephen of Ephesus published by him in the appendix: for with these works the author filled the gap that had previously existed in Russian science. And in Western literature, only brief information on this subject was given by Wiener’s famous monograph: De Collectionibus canonum ecclesiae graecae, Berolini 1827 and some prolegomena of publishers of canon law monuments. In terms of volume, these parts of G. Krasnozhen’s book are not large, but they are the result of hard work, to which only the author’s skill in work and interest inspired by penetration into the tasks and requirements of his chosen specialty could have prompted him. The author has diligently studied the comments of the named Byzantine canonists; their characteristics are, in general, thorough and correct. But here the author’s work was comparatively easier, since he had a ready-made Russian translation of the interpretations at hand. The book is generally compiled thoroughly and, as a scholarly monograph, will rightfully find attention in courses on canon law. But despite its merits, it sometimes raises fundamental doubts about the correctness of certain provisions, although expressed categorically, and arouses in the reader the need to turn to the author for some additions. So: 1) The author very strongly asserts that John Zonara wrote his interpretations after the interpretations of Aristinus. I “undoubtedly” lived and wrote them even under the emperor Manuel Komnenos (1143–1180). True, he confirms such a decisive judgment with arguments: but, firstly, these arguments are not his, but someone else’s, and not verified by him, and secondly, they are such that they provide the basis for a probable only assumption, but not at all for a categorical statement. "Both the chronicle and all the other works of Zonara were written by him as a monk; he did not become a monk under Alexei Komnenos: he wrote the obituary of this emperor from the personal recollections of traces, he was still at court then; he could not have described the court events contemporary with Alexei Komnenos if he had already retired to a secluded island. Zonara hardly accepted monasticism and soon after the death of Alexius Komnenos, since he knew the events from the time of the next emperor. It may even be that Zonara was not a monk in 1156: at least at the council of this year, among the court officials present, μεγαλεπιφανέστατος πρετοασηκρῆτις is mentioned. Νικόλαος ὁ Ζωναρᾶς, and this may be the historian and canonist of Zonara under his worldly name” (pp. 60–61). As can be seen from the very structure of the speech of this argument, it all consists of assumptions. These assumptions are subverted by the testimony of Zonara himself in the last page of his chronicle. Having described the death and burial of Alexei Komnenos and presenting a concise and general description of it, Zonara ends his chronicle this way: “here is the end of my writing, and may the flow of history, which has gone so far, stop: for to commit to writing what is now happening (δοῦναι γὰρ γραφῇ vυvὶ καὶ τὰ λεὶποντα) seems to me both useless and untimely.” From this testimony it is clear that the chronicle of Zonara was completed in the first years of the reign of John Komnenos (And when was it started? - Without a doubt, back in the reign of Alexei Komnenos: for it is a very large work), and that at that time Zonara was already a monk (for, as we will now see, he had already begun to write the first lines of his chronicle as a monk). “The chronicle was not - we read from G. Kraspozhen - one of Zonara’s last dying works; on the contrary, it was the first literary work of the famous canonist after his monastic vows. We find indications of this in the preface to the chronicle itself, where the author talks about the loss of his wife and children as the reason for his recluse, that until now he had been inactive and did not feel the strength to take up pen and books at the request of his friends. This shows the writer as a recent monk who is taking up literary work for the first time. If we consider it proven that the chronicle was Zonara’s first literary work, then it must be assumed that after writing it he lived for quite a long time, because besides it he left several other extensive works (for example, a lexicon, syntagmatic interpretations of church rules, etc.) (p. 61). The preface actually says something similar, but not exactly the same, namely the following: “Someone will very aptly say in mockery of me that I am busy with external affairs more than necessary, since it was fitting for me, as in truth, to have abandoned my previous activities, to have withdrawn from turmoil, to have emigrated from the World, to have arbitrarily abandoned life and condemned myself to eternal exile (so He arranged for us and for us, since He tore my bonds, depriving me of my loved ones, with what intention - He knows - although to grief for me, but for the benefit), - I had to not take part in anything other than that which arranges the soul, cleanses from the filth caused to it by the malice of (former) deeds, and that appeases God in that in which I have angered Him, transgressing His commandments and justifications, and seek such in the manner of forgiveness of sins. I was carelessly disposed towards the necessary work (ἔργον) due to inertia towards good, - I extended zeal for an extraneous matter (παρέργον) But - let me say something in my own justification - I did not undertake this work on my own impulse. My friends encouraged me to do this, seeing that I had leisure and saying that leisure should be used for work that is generally useful and that I myself can receive reward from God” 2. Every word here seems to indicate that the writer is “not a new monk, but an elder already completely accustomed to his position, for whom the very first thing is spiritual contemplation and prayer, and interest in worldly life, with which he has already broken ties, should be alien to him. But if this is so, then it seems very unlikely that the further assurance of Mr. Krasnozhen’s book (argument 3): “Zonara undoubtedly lived and wrote even under Manuel Kodanin (1143–1180), since in the interpretations of the Syntagma of church rules and in his other writings there are indications of such circumstances that can be attributed to certain years of the reign of this emperor.” 3. If Zonara and at the beginning of his reign John Komnenos was looked out for by an experienced elder monk (in his chronicle), but the assurance that he lived and wrote even under Manuel Komnenos makes it necessary to attribute to him a very exceptional longevity. We think that in Zonara’s comments themselves there are passages indicating that he wrote them not after the chronicle, but simultaneously with it, or even before it. From Zonara’s point of view, church rules are the same revelation of divine thought as the Holy Scriptures, therefore it is natural to assume that having become a monk, Zonara at first more willingly devoted himself to studying the rules and drawing up interpretations of them than to compiling his chronicle 4. In his comments, Zonara quite often points to various phenomena of the church life of his time: these phenomena, with the help of his chronicles, can be conveniently attributed to the reign of Alexei Komnenos and those who preceded him emperors. For example, in the commentary to the 98th rule of the Council of Trullo, Zonar says: “nowadays betrothal is tantamount to marriage according to the force of the novel of the emperor, Mr. Alexius Comnenus.” The novella mentioned here was published on July 1, 1084. In the interpretation of the 7th rule of Neokesar. Council of Zonara says: “we saw both the patriarch and various metropolitans taking part in the wedding feast of the emperor’s second marriage.” – About the reign of Emperor Nikephoros Votaniates (1078) in the chronicle of Zonara we read the following: “When this emperor’s wife died, many girls looked for an opportunity to marry him, and most of all - Zoe, the daughter of Emperor Duca. But he wanted to marry the former empress Eudokia, or Maria, the wife of his predecessor. So, he sends to Evdokia, who, they say, did not refuse the proposal, but some monks rebelled against this marriage, as illegal. Then he brings the Empress Maria, the wife of his predecessor, sinning no less, as if he had brought Evdokia: for this was daring, shameless adultery, therefore, the one who blessed the marriage has already become an alien to the priesthood.” In the interpretation of the 3rd rights. IV Omni. Council of Zonara says: “even to this day this evil (the arrangement of worldly affairs by clergy) occurs and no one stops it: neither the king, nor the patriarch, nor the bishop. So many rules are neglected, and patriarchs and bishops serve together and have communion with persons who are subject to dethronement by virtue of these rules. In the chronicle of Zonara we find the following passages that fully justify this indignation of Zonara at his time: 1) “This emperor (N. Votaniat),” says Zonara, “partly due to old age, partly from natural stupidity, almost did not touch the affairs of government at all, but called the Metropolitan of Sid and entrusted him with the care of public affairs” 5. 2) “The Emperor (Michael Dukas 1071), incapable of governing the state, assigned Metropolitan John of Sida, a eunuch, a very active man, to the affairs of the city.” In the interpretation of the 28th rule of the IV Ecumenical Council, Zonara says: you express it - “to have equal advantages” was used for the sake of royal power and synclite, although now the former has turned into tyranny, and the latter is constrained and has lost all meaning." If we take into account Zonara’s description of the accession to the throne of Emperor Alexius Comnenus I and the first steps of his activity, followed by a brief description of this emperor, which ends Zonara’s chronicle: then, it seems, no doubt can arise that the above-mentioned νυν refers to the time of Alexius Komnenos, and that, consequently, Zonara’s commentary on 28 is right. IV Omni. The cathedral was written during the reign of Emperor Aleksha Komnenos 1st (that is, before 1118). Zonara describes the accession to the throne of Emperor Alecius Comnenus as follows: "Having captured Constantinople, they allowed their hordes to treat peaceful citizens as is typical for the enemies of the fatherland. Evil extended to the point of bloodshed; virgins, dedicated to God, were subjected to unknown, married women - desecration; decorations of the churches of God were subjected to plunder; even sacred vessels were not spared: not Bold and restrained people plundered both them and the sacred vials filled with bloodless sacrifice, spilling the holy on the ground. Senators who came across the meeting were pulled from their horses, stripped of their clothes, and forced to walk through the streets half-naked and on foot. And this continued all day publicly and publicly 44.... “having taken possession of the capital and not yet having firmly set foot on the throne (i.e., without being crowned king), the Comnena destroyed many things, decreed by N. Votaniates, by the authority of the emperor, in writing, with a wave of the pen, tyrannically (γράμματι βραχυσυλλάβῳ, τυραννικῶς) 6. As an emperor in general, Zonara characterizes Alexei Komnenos as follows: “The emperor must respect justice, care for his subjects and observe ancient customs and established ones. And meanwhile, he tried most of all to change and to abolish old customs; he used state property not as common and public, but as his own, and he considered himself not its manager, but its owner (he did not honor the senators and called them his own home). honor rightfully belonging to them, but on the contrary tried to humiliate them. In everything he did not observe the rules of justice, which is characteristic of Suum cuique tribuere according to merit. On the contrary, to his relatives and some servants, he bestowed public money by the wagonload and endowed them with generous annual incomes, so that they owned untold wealth and maintained a retinue fit not for private individuals, but for emperors, and erected buildings equal in size to cities, and in beauty not inferior to the imperial palaces; to the rest of the nobles he did not show the appropriate honor, so as not to say worse, sparing this husband” 7 . But the “noble” Zonara could not have written the above words in his commentary on the 28th Prov. IV Omni. Council, if he wrote it during the reign of John Komnenos. Nikita Choniates is no less strict than Zonaras in his characterizations of the Byzantine emperors, he says the following about him: “John to this day (13th century) is glorified by everyone with praises and considered, so to speak, the crown of all kings; who sat on the Byzantine throne from the Kamnin family. But in relation to many of the ancient and best emperors, it can be said that he equaled some of them, and even surpassed others... This was a man who ruled the kingdom excellently and lived godly... Like a deadly infection, he drove idle talk and excessive luxury in clothing and table from the royal palace, and wanting all his household to imitate him, he did not cease to practice all types of abstinence” 8. In general, Emperor John, even according to Gibbon, who was so far from any flattery of the Byzantine emperors, was morally strict with himself and lenient with others; he was chaste and temperate; and even Marcus Aurelius the philosopher would have disdained his unartificial virtues, flowing from the heart, and not borrowed from school. Under the rule of such a monarch, innocence had nothing to fear, and the widest field was open for personal merit. John's virtues were wholesome and unblemished. This was the best and greatest of the Komnenos" 9. But Zonara could have written a commentary that interests us during the reign of Emperor Manuel Komnenos: for although the latter was little involved in state affairs, was wasteful and voluptuous, he was not a tyrant 10. Taking into account the data presented so far, we believe that it is historically more likely to attribute the canonical and literary activity of John Zonara to the time of Emperor Alexius Komnenos 1st, rather than to assert that “Zonara undoubtedly lived and wrote even under Manuel Komnenos.” One more note. Mr. Krasnozhen's book gives the impression of a dry, lifeless and therefore very boring book. Of course, the reason for this lies partly in the nature of the subject of research, and mainly in the nature of it as a specially scientific inheritance. But it seems to us that the venerable author made some omission, due to which his scientific dryness went over the edge, as they say. When we say this, we mean his characteristics of the personalities and commentary properties of Zonara, Aristin and Balsamon. The author provides brief biographical information about each of these individuals, characterizes their commentary techniques in detail, and indicates their advantages and disadvantages. These biographies and these characteristics are documented - almost impeccable, in any case true, thorough.... but completely lifeless. Biographies resemble formal lists, and the characteristics of scientific activity resemble professorial certification of working scholastics. Zonara, Aristin, Valsamon are not living individuals, but automatic figures, monsters who only show their life in that. that they write commentaries and differ from one another only in the degree of scholarship. Hence it happened that Aristin is very good, Zonara is even better and Balsamon is the height of perfection. It’s not natural, but it’s absolutely true. The venerable authors omitted from sight: a, the moral element in the personality and activities of the commentators they describe and b, the historical living environment in which they worked. After all, these were, in fact, not scholastics who wrote just to write something, but practical figures who influenced life, even quite noticeably, and their very writing activity directly served the tasks of their practical activity, their life aspirations. “Comments” alone are not enough to fully characterize Zonara: one must certainly take into account his “chronicle.” Only these two works taken together provide sufficient material for a true, living, accurate characterization of him. In them, Zonara appears as a strong, intelligent and honest statesman, politician, deep lawyer, patriot, highly moral, pious person. The charm of his highly moral personality is a historical fact. Balsamon refers to him in no other way than in the most enthusiastic expressions: “noble Zonara,” “divine Zonara.” The Greek pedalion alone among medieval interpreters calls him “the great Zonara.” This was one of the few types of the noble but already dying out Greek nation. Balsamon speaks with different traits of moral and national character in his comments. This “purest citizen of Constantinople” and “a most needed part of the Holy See of Constantinople” 11 - as he recommends himself, very expressively presents himself as a representative of those degenerate Greeks about whom in ancient Rus' a typical judgment was formed: “flatter the essence of the Greeks.” Balsamon in his comments rudely flattered the boundless arbitrariness of the Byzantine emperors in church affairs; He even elevated this boundless arbitrariness into a kind of canonical principle. Encountering the sharpest contradictions between the canons and private imperial definitions and orders, Balsamon has no hesitation in saying that such orders are made by emperors according to the authority given to them from above. (Explanations, to 12 Ave. IV Ecumenical Social.). Well? Maybe Balsamon lived in a better era than the strict Zonara? Perhaps in his time the throne of Byzantium was decorated by emperors incomparably better than, for example. Alexius I Komnenos? A little historical information, unfortunately, gives a completely different answer. Here, for example. what was, according to the image of N. Choniates, the emperor Andronikos Komnenos (1183–1185). "First, he approaches the throne as the guardian of the young Emperor Alexei, son of Manuel, and after these crimes we pave the way to the throne. Andronikos crept into the trust of the unreasonable Byzantine people and, along with this trust, stole the royal crown. One of the first victims of his cruelty was Empress Maria, Manuel’s wife: the tyrant was so inventive that he tortured the unfortunate woman before her death and forced her son, young Alexei, to sign his mother’s death warrant. She was followed by the turn of her helpless son, despite the fact that Andronicus solemnly swore that he would take care of the welfare of the young emperor. The unfortunate young man was strangled with a bowstring at night and Andronik, trampling the corpse with contempt, ordered his head to be cut off, presented to him and, marking it with the imperial seal, ordered the head to be thrown in one place and the corpse in another place. With the young wife of Alexei, with whom the latter entered into a fictitious marriage, Andronik, aged, hunched over, worn out, frail, was not ashamed to forcefully marry. But this strange marriage did not keep Andronik chaste... He often left the capital and spent time with a crowd of harlots in secluded places; On this occasion he loved to choose poetic natural caves in the mountains and cool groves, and took his mistresses with him, like a rooster - chickens or a goat - goats to the pasture. He loved bliss and luxury like Sardanapalus, who wrote on his grave: “I have only what I ate and practiced.” At the same time, Andronicus was distinguished by extreme cruelty: “The day when he returned to Byzantium from his insane orgies was the most miserable day on the islands of Propontis. It seemed that he returned with nothing else but to destroy and slaughter people. to penetrate the depths of the soul with cruelty, this man considered the day when he did not blind someone to be lost. In general, Andronicus resembled a sphinx, being partly a beast, yet adorned with a human face, he did not completely cease to be a man.” 12. Emperor Isaac Angelos (1185–1195), under whom Balsamon was at the apogee of his glory, spent all his time in feasts. "He immersed all his thoughts in the dishes he emptied. The most common guests at his Solomonic dinners were some spoiled monks. These were people who, in mockery of themselves, took on a monastic image. These feasts were called Solomon's because they represented entire mountains of bread, the kingdom of animals (for a variety of meat foods), a sea of fish and an ocean of wine. Sometimes these feasts were accompanied by the most wild, barbaric entertainment. When one day the hottest siege of dishes in the palace began, Isaac, in the form of a cheerful episode or in the form of a dessert, ordered the head of one killed troublemaker Vrana to be served: it was brought with a distorted mouth, with his eyes closed, thrown onto the floor, and, like a ball, they began to throw darts from side to side in different directions.... Other pleasant activities of the emperor consisted of the following: he was hung with various clothes, like a ship with haberdashery. goods, curled his hair, dressed up like a peacock. He did not allow himself to wear the same dress twice. Loving fun and enjoying the songs of a tender muse, the emperor filled the palace with jesters and dwarfs, and opened the doors wide to all kinds of comedians and buffoons. All this was accompanied by drunkenness and insolent voluptuousness.” Like most of the Byzantine emperors, Isaac was religious and took a close part in the affairs of church administration, or more precisely - and here he showed his arbitrariness perhaps much less than in matters of state administration. From his activities in this area, historians point to some strange love of his to replace patriarchs; During his short reign, he replaced the following patriarchs: Vasily Komatir, Nikita Munton, Leontius, and finally - though at the insistence of the people - Dositheus. All of them, with the exception of the last one, were worthy people. What could motivate Balsamon to flattery such emperors? Some explanation for this seems to be the following story of N. Choniates from the life of Isaac Angelus and Balsamon: “Having disgraced the patriarch Leontius, Isaac decided to play out a whole drama and elevate the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus to the universal presidency. Knowing that the church canons did not allow this, the emperor slyly turned to the patriarch who held the position at that time the throne of the city of God of Great Antioch to Theodore Balsamon, the most famous of all the then jurists. In a private conversation with him, he pretended to grieve that the church had become so impoverished in pious and reasonable people, and monastic virtues had become so rare and unnoticeable that there was no longer such a luminary that, like the sun, had constancy in its movement, or a person who could sit at the helm. the sacred throne - and with a firm hand to guide the path of the entire host of believers. Sadly bringing other similar observations to the surface, the king added: “Unless you, the many-bright luminary, will shine at the height of this patriarchal throne, will you truly direct the path of the Christian people and bring churches and monasteries into proper order; I would very much like to transfer you from the Anyokhi church to this universal and high throne, but I was held back only because such movements have been prohibited since ancient times canons and are considered to be contrary to church laws. And if Theodore, having thoroughly studied the laws and canons, could prove that such a transfer, as before, could be appropriate now, and would be able to persuade the thoughts of the majority to this, then he, the king, would consider such a matter a true find for himself and would immediately, without any proceedings, dispose of its proceedings.” Antioch and the cough that all this can very well be settled. The next day, meetings of bishops began in various sacred chambers, cathedrals, and inquiries about movements; everything was immediately resolved; followed by a determination with the expression of imperial permission and - Theodore of Antioch still remained Antiochian: Dositheus was transferred from Jerusalem to the See of Constantinople in such a magnificent and crowded process that it was not inferior to the royal triumphs, and the priests, fooled and needlessly violating the canons, only gaped in amazement " 13. As can be seen from here, Balsamon exceeded the expectations of Isaac the Angel when he proved that there was no deviation from the canons even where Isaac himself and all his contemporaries saw such a deviation. A monument to this kind of law-interpretive activity of Balsamon still remains the “other interpretation” of his 14 rights. St. Apostles. Perhaps more detailed historical information would indicate similar motives and sources for other interpretations of Balsamon. ‘) N. Khoshata, Kingdoms. Isaac Angel, II, 4. See the April book Theologian. Herald. In support of this, these “circumstances” are indicated under the line and then Mr. Krasnozhen says the following on his own behalf: “Objections to the fact that the circumstances mentioned here should be attributed to the era of the reign of Manuel and Komnenos were made in the “Printed Letter to A.S. Pavlov” (the late Most Reverend Alexy, Archbishop of Lithuania): but the arguments given in this letter do not weaken the opinion expressed prof. Pavlov (p. 62). Such a courageous decisiveness of the verdict in the mouth of the young scientist is unlikely to convince anyone of its thoroughness. In the preface to his commentaries on the rules of Zonara, he says: The rational words of Your words will enlighten and give understanding to the young - the prophet and God-father David spoke to God. But the word of God will be understood in all justice by those who understand the definitions of St. Apostles "St. Fathers: since they established inspired and taught by the Divine Spirit. Therefore, having made an explanation of the sacred rules and, having opened their minds, making them understandable, in truth brought enlightenment to those who, for the sake of simplicity and lack of education in morals, are like children, unable to penetrate into the depths of the sacred rules. As a result of this, it was necessary for me to take up this matter, as it could be of benefit to many... And let no one condemn me for impudence: because I did not take on this of my own accord matter, but I obeyed the convictions of others and devoted myself to this work so as not to be reproached for disobedience.” Reign of John, ch. 12. Gibbon V, 366, 381. Prof. A. I. Lebedeva: Essays on the history of the Byzantine-Eastern Church pp. 149 et seq. Another interpretation is for 28 Ave. IV Omnibus. Sob. N. Xoniatas, Kings. Andronicus, ch. 13. N. Choniates, Kings. Isaac Angel, II, 4. You might be interested in: