On the history of nomocanon in Byzantium and ancient Rus'

As can be seen from here, the published monument is a compilation from sources of Byzantine law - the 8th and 9th centuries. Eclogues and Prochiron and from some “Agricultural Charter”. What kind of agricultural regulations is this? According to the publisher, “in general, the charter can be characterized in its content as a zemstvo-police and, at the same time, a criminal code. He talks about various kinds of thefts (of agricultural tools, draft animals, grain, fruits, food supplies, etc.), about the seizure of someone else’s land and crops, about cutting down and setting fire to someone else’s forest, about the responsibility of shepherds for the livestock entrusted to them, about grass and other losses caused by domestic animals, etc.” (page 32). The internal legal nature of the monument is made up of two fundamental principles of the social life of all ancient Slavic tribes: communal land ownership and the personal freedom of the peasant - farmer, even if he was sitting on someone else's land. This diversity of elements of the language of the monument gives reason to admit that the original edition of the translation was made back in the Kiev period in the 12th – 13th centuries, but then, as a result of the practice of this legislative monument, its ancient translation was updated in relation to the legal consciousness and dialect of the Moscow period. A very strong incentive to attribute the original edition of the translation to the Kyiv period is the fact that some articles of the original were materially changed by the translator, precisely in relation to the most ancient Russian life. So in the 13th chapter of the law on executions, instead of “makers of counterfeit coins” (ο πλαςτην μονιταν ποκών) - “who wrote off a false document for the sale of a place” - an alteration indicating that the monument belongs to the Kyiv period, when the crime provided for by Byzantine law, It was impossible for us, just as coinage had not yet been minted. The sources of Byzantine law were translated and copied in our country not for edifying entertaining reading, but for their possible application to life, to local legal practice: where is the sphere in which the monument in question was most closely applied? It not only shows how, during the period of Russian Pravda and Yaroslav’s statute on church courts, the provisions of Byzantine laws on criminal penalties for this or that crime were applied in our country, but also leads to a guess about the original and main scope of action of the agricultural statute. If the church charter speaks of incendiary and theft as subjects of metropolitan and episcopal court, then this cannot apply to the general court of the church, the competence of which extended to all classes of ancient Russian society, but only to the special one, to which, firstly, peasants living on church lands were subject - according to the general rule of that time: “on the ground and court”; 2ndly the lower clergy, as a class of persons who in all respects of their lives were subordinate to the church hierarchy. The body of this court was the same bishop's officials who were in charge of collecting taxes from the peasants of the bishop's estates and from the tax-paying clergy of the diocese - tithes. They - in the words of Stoglav - “from time immemorial and forever” were in charge of and judged the entire priestly and monastic rank and all the clergy of the church and other people (i.e., peasants of the bishop's estates) in private and in bondage, and in battles and robberies, as well as spiritual affairs" - in a word: they were in charge of and judged such cases for the solution of which the agricultural charter, as an addition to the church one, was assigned specifically for the saintly court on “spiritual matters” could serve as a completely sufficient guide.” (page 35). So, the scope of application of the agricultural charter is the peasants who lived on the patrimonial lands of the bishop's houses, and the lower tax clergy. Mr. Pavlov’s present work – in his words – was prepared for publication 10 years ago, intended as part of “a complete history of Byzantine law among the southern Slavs and in Russia” (p. 8). In view of this statement, is it possible not to sincerely wish that all obstacles to the fulfillment of his important undertaking would be removed for our Russian scientist? From this last work, in the 7th century, a Nomocanon of XIV titles was compiled, just as a Nomocanon of 50 titles was compiled from the works of I. Scholasticus in the same 7th century. The author of the nomocanon in the XIV titles was that lawyer, from whose writings περί έναντιοφανειών and others in Vasilicon excerpts are very often given, designated either by the common noun τοϋ ’Ανωνύμου, or by - τοϋ έναντιοφανούς · Then, in 883, the work of this author, whom the compilers of the Basiliconian scholia, due to ignorance of his own name, called “έναντιοφανης”. - has undergone a minor addition, the author of which, since the 12th century, has been the famous Patriarch of Constantinople Photius. “It seems to me,” Tsakhariye wrote then, “this authorship of Photius is more than doubtful. The merit of the (additional) processing (nomocanon) “is so insignificant (ist so gering) that it can hardly be considered worthy of such a learned and high-ranking person; and if such a work was published in 883 with the name of the ecumenical patriarch, then it is hardly possible to explain how only 20 years later, instead of this new, to a certain extent, official edition of the nomocanon, the old edition was rewritten, now available in No. 715 of the Bodleian Code (which Zacharia described in detail)? It's amazing how Tsakharieh overlooked this consideration. Pitra, with an undisguised, undisguised favor towards Photius, this time turned out to be more insightful than Tsacharie, when, regarding the above-mentioned addition to the Syntagma, he made the following remark: “while other councils are counted chronologically according to the accepted order and are named very briefly, these later ones are either passed over in silence, or are placed out of order, or in the very last place, even after smaller councils, sometimes after the canonical epistles, – or are depicted with unusual descriptive expressions, cloying to the point of disgust, namely: ’Ιουστινιανού τού έυσεβοϋς βασυλέως, έν τφ Τρούλλω τοϋ παλκτίο Κωνσταντινοπολεως. Or: Σύνοδο ά καί β’συγκροτηθεϊσης έν τφ ναφ των αγίων α’ποστόλων. Or: της άγιας σύνοδο της έν τφ περιωνύμω ναφ καί επωνυμφ του θεού Λο'γου συστάσης, την ζ’ οικουμενικήν σύνοδον βεβαιωσάσης, πάσαν δέ σχισματικήν χαϊ αιρετικήν πλάνην απέλασης - that everything points to a later work and strongly reeks of the intolerable arrogance of Photius, just like his words - as the second preface conveys them, clearly show this.” 3 Having discarded in these words of Pitra what was clearly said by the understandable hatred of Photius (after all, nothing prevents a deeply learned man from being a good Catholic), we will have to recognize in them the absolutely correct consideration that the introduction into the canonical set of rules of the Council of Trullo (hated and not recognized by the Latins) under the name of the 6th Ecumenical Council and the comparison of the Photian local councils with the ancient generally recognized ones - was not only an unimportant matter, but extremely important, requiring authority, and precisely Photius’s authority. 2. “How could it happen that 20 years after the officially published nomocanon, it was not he who was written off, but the old one, not corrected?... A strange argument! At that time, it was not surprising to rewrite an old handwritten volume even if new ones, corrected and supplemented, existed. The Nomocanon, even in the pre-Photius edition, was still considered a venerable tome, and handwritten tomes were a value that did not fall easily. At the same time, very few such lists have reached us: how much work did Tsakhariye cost to find them? Meanwhile, the lists of the Photius edition are countless. 3. “It is easier to understand that only three centuries later the Nomocanon of 883 was attributed to Photius, than that during the period immediately following its processing by Photius, such a famous author was ignored.” But who ignored the name of Photius, when he himself did not want to announce his name, but completely hid it? Didn’t the scribe, namely a careful and conscientious scribe, consider and should not consider it his duty not to deviate from the original: not to subtract anything and not to add anything to it?! The name of Photius, as editor of the Nomocanon, was not forgotten; it was preserved and kept where it should have been kept - in the tradition of the most knowledgeable canonists. Let, then, the venerable Byzantine scholar present stronger arguments for the pseudo-authorship of Photius; then, albeit with regret, the history of Eastern canon law will make an amendment to the title of the Photius Nomocanon (into Pseudo-Photius), but there are still no sufficient grounds for such an amendment. 4 Tsaharie's research this year is aimed - as stated - at solving the questions: a) about Anonymous-Enantiophanes and b) about the sources he used in compiling the κείμενα. On the first question, Tsakhariye states the following position: Anonymous-Enantiophanes is one person, the author of the works: a) περί ληγατων καί μορτις καΰσα δορεών, b) μονοβιβλος περί ένανπιοφανειων, c) παραγραφαί for the abbreviation digest (“Summa digestarum”) and - it goes without saying - the author of the Nomocanon in XIV titles. The time of writing of the last Tsakhariye now indicates the period between 629 and 640. In particular, regarding the identification of this unknown person – Anonymous-Enantiophanes – Tsakhariye states: 1) he is not the same person as Professor Julian, the author of the “Latin Abbreviation of Novellas” (“Breviarium novellarum”) - as Pitra claimed; 5 he is younger than Julian, whose time of death falls in 578–582. b) These sources turn out to be common in Enantiophanes with those used by the unknown author of the Collectio constitutionum ecclesiasticarum. On pp. 3–4 there is a study of these sources. But their results are very important. Tsaharie found that the works hitherto considered sources of the Collectio tripartita were not his sources. Thus, the Collectio tripartita contains up to 30 passages from the Institutes of Justinian in an abbreviated form. It was usually believed that the author of the Collectio constitutionum ecclesiasticaruia borrowed this abbreviated statement of institutions from the Paraphrases of Theophilus: Tsacharie came to the positive conviction that the Collectio tripartita had nothing in common with the Paraphrases of Theophilus: its source was some other Summa institutionum. Numerous passages of the Digest in the Collectio tripartita were introduced from the Summa digestarum of Anonymous the Elder, which was also used by Anonymous the Younger (pp. 3–9). In the discussion of extracts from the Novels, the author of Collectio tripartita and Εναντιοφανής agree on only one source - Epitome of Athanasius of Emessia: for Collectio tripartita in its third part is nothing more than a literal borrowing of the first three sections or titles of Epitome of Athanasius. But did Εναντιοφανης also use other titles from the work of Athanasius? – Contrary to the opinion of Heimbach, Tsakhariye now proves that εναντιοφανης did not use the work of Athanasius; He also did not use the complete collection of Novels in their 168 numbers - as Biner and Heimbach claimed. Enantiophanes drew the rulings of the Novellas literally from a special Epitome novellarum, traces of which are preserved in the Epitome ad Prochiron mutata and in the Epitome Marciana. Interesting comparisons of different passages of the Nomocanon with fragments of the original text of this generally unknown collection, given by Tsakhariye, clearly and completely convince of this (pp. 6–7). But what is this Epi-tome novellarum? So, according to the latest research by Tsaharie, the κείμενα of Photius' Nomocanon is compiled from the following sources: 1) Collectio constitutionum ecclesiasticarum, 2) Summa digectorum of Anonymous the Elder, a work currently assumed only from fragments (in the scholia to Basilicon and in the κείμενα); 3) Epitome novellarum – containing a very condensed Greek text of the novels, of an unknown author; 4) Summa Codicis - compiled either by Professor Stephen, the author of the translation of the digest (Πλάτος) and a contemporary of Justinian, in the last years of his literary activity (after the death of Justinian), or another lawyer of the same name. According to these sources, some unknown lawyer in the 7th century, designated by the scholiasts of Basilicon with the common name Anonymous-Enantiophanes, composed the civil part of the Nomocanon; but not Patriarch Photius, although tradition teaches him this work; composed in 629–640, and not in 883, although the second preface of the Nomocanon puts this year as the time of formation of κείμενα. Published in Memoires de I'Academie Imperiale des sciences de St. Petersburg, Serie VII-e. T. XXXII. No. 16. Zacharia v Lingenthal “Die grichischen Nomokanones” . Memoires de I'Akademie Imperiale des sciences de St. –Petersburg. VII-e Serie. T. XXIII, No. 7. Pitra, Histor. et Monumenta. II. 436.