Wonderful publication. [Rec. on:] Pavlov A.S., prof. Nomocanon at the Great Trebnik

In this edition, the venerable author has solved this broad problem in full. His search for the Greek original of our nomocanon and its Yugoslavian translations ended with the fact that they brought him entire collections of Greek, Yugoslavian and Russian copies of the monument, a long-standing opportunity to accurately establish the time and place of the appearance of the monument, the succession of its copies from the 15th to the 18th centuries. and indicate in them the most detailed options for explaining the variants of the Slavic translated text. The collection of Greek monument lists assembled by the publisher is divided into two categories. The first represents the original edition from which the oldest Slavic translation was made; the second is the later corrected one, according to which the previous Slavic translation was corrected under Patriarch Nikon. Pavlov, - to anathematize any person hated by the people by throwing stones into a pile and uttering certain words of curse (ς̄ τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ, ς̄ τὰ παιδία τοῦ, etc.). The ritual of popular anathema is described as follows by Pukville in his travels through Greece: “To commit anathema, the people give the name of the person being cursed to some piece of land, onto which they throw stones of condemnation. Each of those present does this; Then those passing by consider it their duty to add their voice here, so that little by little a pile of stones forms in the cursed place. The consequence of this anathema is that the people's enemy becomes a vurkolak after death: his body remains in the grave undecayed, and the children are amazed at their thinness. I heard several stories of this kind from the peasants, who, in my presence, ceremonially renewed their anathemas against the Khoja Bashi of Patras. They cursed his ancestors, his soul and offspring, erecting a monument to their revenge in a pile of pebbles. (Pouqueville Voyage dans la Grece, t. III, p. 531. ed. 1820). chronographs - not only clergy, but also ordinary people, throwing stones on city streets and squares (Zάϑασ Μεσαιωνικὴ Βιβλιοϑήκη, t. VII, 581). Here is a direct example of that “meeting” or “throwing” of stones at the bishop, which was silently mentioned in the present article of the Nomocanon” 5. Thus, we add, instead of a dark, uninteresting rule, in the light of the commentary a number of living pictures of the church and everyday life of the Greek people appear before us. Or here’s another comment on rule 16: Rule: The Elits perform magic from a gypsy woman (ἐις τὰς αἱγυπτίσσας), and the Elits bring the sorcerer to their house... And if you want, look for this broadest legend in Zonar John, chapter 175. The full Slavic text of the rule is as follows: If a husband and wife baptize a child 11 for one person, he commands 12 not to mix with each other, since the godfather is imputed. If they copulate, they have a prohibition of 17 years and throwing around all day a hundred, dry-eating Wednesday and heels: forgive these and be cursed. Having before our eyes only this text and especially its variant detsou, the initial words of the rule can be understood not only in the sense of prohibiting a husband and wife together from receiving one child from St. baptism, but also separately of different children of the same family. This is indeed what some diocesan bishops of the last century understood, although St. The Synod has repeatedly rejected such an interpretation 13 . With the publication of the Greek text, it would seem that such a disagreement in the interpretation of the meaning of the rule should have come to an end, for at the beginning of the rule it reads like this: ἀνϑρώπου παιδίον ορίζομεν, etc. (i.e., if a husband and wife both baptize one person’s child, we determine, etc.) Incorrectly (like Mr. Berdnikov) interpreting this rule, Rostov Metropolitan Arseny Matseevich in 1745 divorced the priest of his diocese in the village of Eremeytsev, Afanasy Matveev, from his wife, deprived him of his rank and imprisoned the spouses (who already had children) in monasteries for the fact that they perceived separately in one family two twin babies (a priest with a soldier, a priest with a peasant)... The separated spouses filed an appeal with the Synod. The case in connection with other similar ones about the Tara archpriest Ivan Zuev, thanks to strong bickering that arose between the synodal members, dragged on for about 7 years, until it was resolved by two Highest decrees on September 20. and November 21, 1752 (in favor of those separated). In the same sense and on the basis of the same Supreme Decree, on November 21, 1752, the case of three married couples who had children in three different families and “restrained from further cohabitation by Metropolitan Sylvester of Tobolsk was decided... But even now, not all diocesan bishops have abandoned the view of the binding force of Article 211 of the Nomocanon.