Research in the field of Russian science of canon law. [Rec. on:] Ilyinsky N.I., priest. Syntagma of Matthew Vlastar

Syntagma of Matthew Blastar. Research by priest N. Ilyinsky. Moscow. 1892 In terms of the thoroughness and completeness of the study, the comprehensiveness of the analysis to which the author subjects his chosen subject, the study is remarkable. Having assimilated all the insignificant here and there, systematically in the prolegomena to publications or in law courses, information about M. Vlastar thrown out in foreign and Russian literature, the author in his research went for the most part his own way, completely immersed in the most studied monument of canon law, calling upon himself as aids the huge Greek Byzantine publications of Heimbach, Tsachari-von Lingepthal, Rally and Potli and friend. The work undertaken by the author and mastered by him, especially in his position (teacher at the Taurida Theological Seminary), is enormous. “Much wise and verbal Matthew Vlastar” - as our ancient scribes called him - in the named work of Fr. N. Ilyinsky found attention, even quite enviable for a Byzantine of the 14th century. The most important scientific interest, for the sake of which the syntagma of M. Vlastar enjoys the attention of civilists-Byzantologists, is formed in it by very summary excerpts of civil Byzantine law, given without any quotations. Where M. Vlastar got his exceptions of civil law from - this question has long occupied Byzantinologists and still remains not completely resolved. At least until now, the following opinion of Biener, expressed in his famous study, remained generally accepted in this regard: "Geschichte d. Novellen Justinians. Berlin, 1824." S. 221 et seq.: “Most of his (i.e. M. Vlastar’s) rubrics in the titles containing civil law resemble the rubrics of the unprinted Prochiron of Vasily (Macedonian), while others resemble the rubrics of the first ten titles of the Eclogue of Leo, printed in Jus graecoromanum Leunclavius. But he probably did not use both works, but only this copy of Vasiliev Prochiron, in which the first ten titles of the Eclogue of Leo 1 were placed at the beginning, and its other titles only in the form of excerpts were attached to the titles of Prochiron. (At the same time, Biner points to a similar copy of Prochiron in the Paris and Munich libraries). I carefully compared only some of the titles of the Lord; but his “ν ό μοι” in the doctrine of betrothal indicates the 1st title of Prochiron, and the title “περὶ βασιλέως” completely agrees with the 2nd title of the Eclogue. However, perhaps Vlastar also used other sources.” This opinion was adopted and confirmed subsequently by Mortreil, Heimbach and Ts. von Lingeltal. At the same time, the question of some “other sources used by M. Vlastar” has hardly moved forward 2, with the exception of however. one point - that M. Vlastar did not use the so-called “Basiliki” of Leo the Wise. This last point is very thoroughly clarified by Heimbach in his publication: “Basilicorum Libri LX”. T. V1, p. 153, 154, 156, 157. Lipsiae 1870. Fr. decided to fill this gap. N. Ilyinsky: in his research, to the best of his ability and means, he actually accomplished this difficult, solidly scientific task. But in the manner or method in which the author accomplished this task lies at the same time: the undoubted dignity of his work and - at the same time - a very major drawback. For almost every line of Vlastar’s syntagma, the author indicated in its most ancient monuments of law, canonical and civil, a parallel place: this is undoubtedly the dignity of his work. But he considered the parallel passages he indicated to be actual truths, from which M. Vlastar drew his knowledge; This is a very major drawback of the method, the lack of proper criticism. Due to this methodological deficiency, it turned out, according to the research of our author, that the Syntagma of M. Vlastar is a deeply learned work of Byzantine jurisprudence, combining, as if in focus, the results of the legislative activity of emperors, the Patriarchal Synods of Constantinople and the scientific activity of law professors. Meanwhile, in reality M. Vlastar was Dov. an ordinary compiler, as it turns out with perfect clarity from a comparison of his syntagma with the nomocanon of Photius and the interpretations of Balsamon to it. As for civil laws in particular, his task was not at all to compose any scientific legal work on the basis of those multi-volume legal works, parallel passages of which were introduced to the syntagm by his father. N. Ilyinsky, but to give only a set of the most important laws in force at that time regarding various church institutions and persons. And for this, M. Vlastar was completely satisfied with some kind of prochiron auctum, like that indicated by Biner, but there was no need at all to turn to such outdated codes as the Vasiliki of Leo. It is noteworthy that M. Vlastar’s contemporary, secular judge and lawyer, K. Armenopulo based his famous legal collection on the prochiron of Basil the Great, but did not use Vasiliki at all. For a thorough and correct solution to the question of the direct sources given by Vlastar of the civil laws of the published material on the part of civil law, contemporary material is not enough for him: extensive familiarity with the manuscript is necessary. So. image, attempt about. Ilyinsky to fill the scientific gap left by Biner, Heimbach and others. should be considered as having not fully achieved the goal, although on the other hand, as an attempt made with great zeal and thoroughness, one cannot but welcome it. A collection in alphabetical order of all objects contained in the sacred and divine canons, compiled and processed by the most humble hieromonk Matthew,” or the alphabetical syntagma of M. Vlastar. Translation from Greek. Priest N. Ilyinsky. Simferopol. 1892 Simultaneously with his research, Fr. I. Ilyinsky also published his Russian translation of M. Vlastar’s syntagma, equipped with very learned commentaries. As if to justify the birth of this venerable work, the author reveals in the preface (pp. I-XII) the significance of the symptom of M. Vlastar in the practice of Orthodox churches. Strictly speaking, in this case the discussion should not be about justifying such a late appearance of the translation of M. Vlastar’s syntagma, but about explaining the strange phenomenon why a monument of law that had such a wide and long-lasting significance in the church has not yet appeared in a satisfactory Russian translation? But since nothing else could be done to clarify this other than pointing out our usual inertia in the independent development of monuments of this kind, especially those requiring intense effort, the venerable author chose to evade this explanation, explaining in a positive way the importance of the work he had undertaken. “In the translation itself, accuracy and fidelity to the original were observed,” says the translator, in his preface (p. XI). Indeed, the translation is faithful to its original, reflecting its properties, that is, positive qualities and shortcomings even in the uneven, heavy and rough style itself. After all, M. Vlastar was a compiler, a diligent, conscientious compiler: what styles are not in his syntagm? It goes without saying what hard work lay before the translator in his task of giving an accurate and faithful translation of such an original. The author overcame this difficulty. As a reviewer, we are obliged, having given well-deserved honor to the author’s learned diligence, to note the weaknesses in his work. In this regard, we have noted the following: The syntagma of M. Vlastar, as it came from his pen, consisted of the following parts: 1) introduction (προθεωρ ί α), 2) a set of canons and laws under the letters of the alphabet and 3) epilogue. The latter consisted of the following articles: the abbreviated nomocanon of John the Faster, a catalog of ecclesiastical offices of the Great Church, the rules of St. Nikephoros the Confessor and some other canonical articles. In this composition, Vlastar’s syntagma is known from a list contemporary to its author, located in Moscow. synod. library (No. 149). O. N. Ilyinsky for his translation chose the text of the syntagma published by Ralli and Potli and in his translation limited himself to only a set of canons and rules, leaving the preface and epilogue without translation. From a scientific point of view, it is impossible to justify such a reduction of the original: for the preface and epilogue of the syntagma have scientific interest no less than the syntagma itself. In general - as mentioned above - the translation is accurate and faithful to the original; But as regards the translation of civil laws in particular, there are often ambiguities, inaccuracies and incorrectness that occur solely from the fact that the translator translated literally such terms and expressions that in the original are used in a technical sense, as formulas and terms of the legal Byzantine language. Here are some examples of this kind: On page 171 about. Ilyinsky cites the true “παραγραφ ή” with the word “exception” - incorrectly and inaccurately. Παραγραφ ή is a technical term corresponding to the Roman exception or prescription = objection. This was the name of a special type of trial. On page 320, the original expression: “παρὶ παρακαταθ ή κης” is translated by the expression: about trust; - again not accurate and not correct. Παρακαταθ ή κης is a technical term corresponding to the Roman depositum = luggage - a special type of contract. The translator identifies completely different technical terms ἐμφύτευσις and μ ί σθωσις by translating them into one word “lease” (see pp. 187 and 293); the term ἀγωγ ή = claim does not translate the same way: on page: 350 with the word: order, on p. 353 – transaction, on p. 382 – claim. Ignorance of technical legal language also explains the darkness of the translation, for example. the following law: “the loss of contracts does not destroy transactions in cases where the truth can be proven otherwise." (Page 353). It should have been translated: “the loss of a promissory note does not destroy claims when the truth can be proven otherwise." 3 The translator was confused by the word συμβ ό λαιον, which literally really means agreement; In Byzantine law it is used as corresponding to the Roman: instrumentum to indicate the written terms of the contract, i.e. in the sense of a generally written document. Revisiting the comments presented by Fr. Ilyinsky, we noticed only three places of the original syntagma, for which no source or quotation was indicated, and precisely on page 171 (“Exceptions according to laws happen, etc.”). Nor can we indicate where M. Vlastar borrowed this tirade from. Then in the preface to the syntagma (sub. S. 30) to the words: “the ever-memorable Emperor Leo the Wise through a certain Savvatiy protospafaria collected all the decisions into one whole” and so on (See the study, p. 155), 4 and finally, on pp. 29, 292 in section b. i.e., parallel places are indicated for it. Where did Father Ilyinsky find these parallel places? In response to this, one must indicate the following literature: 1, patristic works and works of Byzantine writers, such as: attributed to Dionysius the Areopagus (p. 56); 377), St. John of Damascus (p. 185, 186), Epiphany of Cyprus (p. 20), St. Theodore the Studite (p. 187), Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (Nomocanon and Library), church historians Eusebius (p. 196), Evagrius (p. 22); John Fournes (p. 367), John Moschus (p. 65), Byzantine canonists: Zonaras, Aristina and Balsamon; then the instructions of the Patriarchal Synods of Constantinople (T.V. of the Athenian Syntagma), then the sources of Byzantine civil law: Corpus juris civilis ed. Beck'a, entire edition of Zachariä von Lingenthal: Jusgraecoromauum T. I-VI, Heimbach edition: Libri Basilicorum LX. T. I-VI; C. Harmenopuli, manuale legum, sive Hexabiblos, ed. Heimbach; finally – the Slavic Helmsman’s Book and a set of Russian laws. These are the elements (primary sources) from which the comments of Fr. Ilyinsky to the Russian translation of M. Vlastar’s syntagma. In general, taking into account that the syntagma of M. Vlastar, hitherto available only in a very obscure Slavic translation and in rare copies, and yet its significance in the history of our church law was very important, we must admit that its translation by Fr. N. Ilyinsky, supplied with such learned comments, is not only a venerable scholarly work, for which the Russian science of church law should be grateful to him, but also a zealous feat for the benefit of the religious enlightenment of the Russian people, adorning the title of an Orthodox priest. These are the first ten titles of Epanagoga. Z. von Lingeltal in his article: Griechischen Nomokanones. S. Petorbourg. 1877 (Memoires de l’Akademie imperiale des sciences. St.-Petersburg. T. XXIII, No. 7) wrote: “In the preface (syntagma) there are signs that the author knew the nomocanon of 883; other sources from which he drew information, especially regarding “...” have not yet been sufficiently researched.” The original text reads as follows: δυνατ ό ν ἐστιν ἑτούρως ἀποδειφθῆναι τὸ ἀληθές . A parallel to this place can be indicated in the preface to ... in the ed. Zacharia v. Lingenthal: Ins graecorum. t.. II, 281. Only here instead of Savtius stands Simbitius. An explanation of this difference can be found in Heimbach's Libri Basilicorum. T. VI, 109, 110. This treatise is a compilation from the scholium of Balsamon to ... (Z. a. 189–191). You might be interested in: