On the issue of secret confession: review of the essay by Prof. A. Almazova "Secret Confession"

A. Almazov: Secret confession of the Eastern Orthodox Church, [Experience of external history]. T. 1. General regulations for confession. Page I–XVI; 1–596. – T. II. Special statutes; separate prayers and church-civil decrees related to confession. Page 1–464. – T. III. Applications. Page I–V; 1–296; 1–80, I–XVII. Odessa. 1894). The named scientific work is one of those that, at the first moment of familiarization with them, gives a feeling of satisfaction, upon further, closer acquaintance, they act on the student not only calmingly, but also excitingly, causing initiative in the field of research carried out by the author. The reason for this particular effect of works of this kind generally lies in the freshness, novelty of the material that they reveal to the light of God and sheds new light in the breadth and depth of a scientific field that was hitherto considered possible to be explored. Under the influence of this general reason, in this case, the insufficiency of the work performed, noticed in places, has a stimulating effect on the student, as well as the naturally arising desire not only to point out it, but also, if possible, to correct it through independent activity, albeit in the direction of the author. The impression of freshness and novelty of Mr. Almazov’s work is produced by the mass of material examined by him and, in a small part, published by him, hitherto known only from manuscripts. How extensive this material is can be seen at the very beginning of Volume I, where the author enumerates the Greek, Yugoslavian and Russian manuscripts on the basis of which he compiled his work (pp. V–XVI). This list is so impressive that it makes it worthwhile to prove the author’s extraordinary diligence. The mass of handwritten material presented by the author testifies to the great tension not only of the spiritual forces applied by the author to the study of his material, but even of physical tension. Anyone who is even little familiar with this kind of activity knows that only young eyes are able to endure the tension required here with impunity... The tension of intellectual forces that befell the author was truly enormous and difficult. In the mass of multilingual manuscript material from different centuries and countries, it was necessary to navigate, classify here and there scattered monuments of deep antiquity, and, based on their analysis, recreate the relationship of interdependence and successive connection of elements that had hitherto appeared to the author as pieces of a whole, mechanically dissected and scattered over long distances by time and fate. The author did all this. His mental vision was presented with a grandiose plan to compile a complete history of confession in the entire Eastern Church (i.e., in the local Greek, Yugoslavian and Russian churches). However, the author has so far managed to implement almost only a third of this grandiose plan; he compiled only the history of the actual rite of confession - its strictly liturgical side; As for the canonical - penance statutes and legislation on confessors - it is only intended by the author for information. Despite the fact that this part of the planned plan took three large volumes to complete. And this vastness in this case is a true indicator of the richness of the content of a scientific work: for the author cannot at all be accused of any excess, at least for example. in verbosity, repetition, or prolixity of presentation. The abundance of material is sometimes a very gratifying aspect of the work for the researcher: more often one hears complaints about the lack of material. The work required to master it is forgotten under the influence of the high pleasure experienced by the researcher from the awareness of the importance of the results of the work. This happens when a happy accident provides a researcher with a completely new monument, one acquaintance with which results in incomparably more than what was previously obtained through comparison, analysis, and generalization of meager historical material and led only to extremely hypothetical conclusions. In such a happy case, the work of getting acquainted with fresh material - no matter how intense it may be - is very pleasant work: for just getting acquainted with it, it gives the worker the discovery of a positive, historical truth. But not so in this case. The author was not supposed to illuminate any particular issue with a happy discovery, but was faced with the most menial labor of dismantling and developing a mass of raw material so varied and disordered that its sheer mass could simply lead to despair from the difficulty of coming to any positive results. And the author overcame this menial labor with amazing patience. His extensive research presents a whole series of classifications of a huge mass of confessional rites and an attempt to establish their mutual connection and historical continuity from the 10th century to the present. What this attempt is - we will see further, but now we must highlight the valuable merit of the author of Russian theological science in organizing an entire area of ​​​​raw material, from which only insignificant fragments had previously been snatched for research. Here, without going into consideration of the author’s book itself, we consider it our duty to point out one more excellent quality of it: this is the author’s unusually attentive attitude to the works of Russian scientists in the author’s chosen field of research. Not to mention such outstanding representatives of modern Russian science as professors: A.S. Pavlov, M.I. Gorchakov, N.S. Suvorov, A.A. Dmitrievsky and others, the author did not ignore the most little-known authors, the most insignificant journal articles. Let us proceed to a detailed indication, if possible, of what exactly was done by Mr. Almazov for the history of secret confession and how it was done. Of the six chapters into which volume I of the study is divided, the first (introductory) chapter (pp. 1–78) presents a concise and very detailed outline of the history of confession for the first nine centuries from the beginning of Christianity. In essence, this is a fairly complete statement of opinions on this subject expressed in our scientific literature, and this is the entire scientific merit of this chapter. But this is not where the author’s scientific efforts were mainly directed: they appear in all their specificity in the following chapters. The second chapter (79–201) under the heading: “The statute of confession in the Greek Church since the 10th century. to the present time,” represents a historical image, independently compiled by the author, of the changes that the rite of confession underwent in the Greek Church over the indicated period of time. The historical process of this modification, according to the author’s research, appears in the following sequence. In all the diversity of confessional rites of this period, two types are primarily distinguished: a) Eastern Greek and b) Western Greek, or Italic Greeks. The historical process of modifying the rite of the Eastern Greek type consisted, first of all, in the gradual transformation by nameless scribes and scribes of the rite of confession, which was compiled in VI by the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John the Faster. What kind of order is this? Based on the prevailing opinion in science, and mainly on the authority of prof. M.I. Gorchakov 1, the author recognizes as such the edition of Postnikov’s charter of confession, which was published by Morinus under the title: συνταγεϊσα ύπό τοῦ όσίου πατρός ύμών Ιωάννου τοῦ Νηστευτοῦ 2. “We will deal with this edition of Postnikov’s nomocanon,” says the author, “as with the primary charter of confessional rites in writing” (p. 74). With the presentation and description of this rite, the author begins his history of confession from the 10th century (pp. 79–86). Leaving for the time being the question of whether the author had sufficient grounds at the present time to consider the said edition as “the primary charter of confessional rites in writing,” we must note at least two inaccuracies made by our historian of confession in the presentation of this ancient rite. (But a historian and canonist, first of all, should be accurate in the presentation of documents and written monuments). 1) From the words of the original, the author reports the following about the place of confession: then, placing the confessor on one side of the altar and standing on the other, the confessor questions him with all meekness and, if possible, kisses him and puts his hand on his neck” (p. 80). It seems that the attentive reader should find it incomprehensible why the confessor and confessor stand so far from each other and how can the latter kiss the first and put his hand on his neck, standing on the other side of the altar? No matter how small one imagines the altar of the times of I. Postnik, it still seems very difficult for the confessor and confessor to perform the actions prescribed by it in such a situation. In the original and its oldest Slavic translation this passage reads like this: Both from the original and from the translation it is quite clear that the confessor and the confessor stand close (or next to each other) in the “land of the altar entrance”. What kind of “country of the altar entrance” this is, we leave it to the expert archaeologists to answer 3, for our part we limit ourselves to only pointing out the first inaccuracy in Mr. Almazov’s presentation. 2) The second inaccuracy made by Mr. Almazov in the order in question is already more important. It consists, firstly, in the fact that the author overlooked a whole moment in the rite sequence and, secondly, in the fact that he overlooked the line separating the rite sequence itself from the penance and merged these two works of (presumably) one person into one. Here is the evidence for this. On pp. 80–83, Almazov reports: “After dismissal, the compiler of the charter sets out a lengthy discussion about penances, and at the conclusion of everything he gives a prayer with the inscription: Εύχή έπί τοῦ έν ​​δεσμώ and so on. According to the reference to the original, something different appears, namely: the rite of confession does not end with the dismissal, but the confessor is ordered to sit again next to the confessor and in the most meek and affectionate way ask the latter what commandment from the confessor he is able to fulfill. Moreover, the confessor himself is instilled with an extremely attentive pastoral attitude to the position, age, gender, mood and entire mental make-up of his spiritual child, so that the “commandment” given to him is neither burdensome nor too weak, and that the very repentance of the sinner is assessed not by its duration, but by his spiritual disposition, in a word, the doctrine of confession and repentance is revealed, which is a characteristic feature of the view of I. Faster, precisely as a mentor of confessors and a teacher of repentance. These instructions to the confessor end the charter of confession, as is clearly stated in the following words of the original: διαφοράς τών έξομαλογουμένων (Morin, 1. p. p. 84) [and this is about the exact test and differences of those confessing] and after that the “discussions about penances” really begin, or more precisely, the penance nomocanon of I. Postnik begins, moreover, it begins with a special section, unfortunately not noticed by Mr. Almazov. The headings are: Αί δέ έπιτιμήσεις καί αί διαφοραι έισιν αῦται (i.e., penances and their differences are as follows). A penitentiary, indeed Dov. the lengthy one ends with the following verbiage: “To our good God be glory forever and ever. Amen". And only after this, obviously, traces. As an epilogue, a prayer for those under prohibition is added. Thus, according to the original text of the rite under consideration, the whole sacred rite of confession is composed of the following 4 points: 1) the pre-confessional part; 2) confession in the closest sense, i.e. disclosure of the confessor's sins to the confessor regarding the latter's questions; 3) permission from sins; 4) a pastoral-spiritual conversation between a confessor and a confessor, with the goal of an accurate study of the moral personality of the sinner and ending either with a simple “commandment” (έντολ), that is, with a pastoral teaching on how to lead life, or with a “prohibition” (επιτήμιον). The last point is missing from Mr. Almazov’s presentation. According to the original text, the rite in question consists of three different parts: 1) the rite (in the exact sense), 2) the penance and 3) the epilogue. These parts of the monument are not noticeable in Mr. Almazov’s presentation. Important inaccuracy! But let us follow the author in his review of the subsequent fate of the considered order. The author presumably states that it was “practised” and not very widely and over a very short period of time” (p. 86). However, based on his further reasoning, it should be thought that it was practiced even after the 10th century; Moreover, it should be taken into account that it has been preserved (in a very limited number of copies) from manuscripts of the 12th–13th centuries. Being too lengthy, this rite of passage, in the opinion of the author, should naturally have given birth to a more abbreviated one. Such people actually appeared. The first such abbreviation is the shorter edition of the Postnikov Charter, which was also published by Morin under the title: Νηστευτοῦ λόγος πρός τόν μέλλοντα έξαγορεύσαι τόν έαυτοῦ πνευματικόν υίόν. Having briefly outlined the composition of this order and characterized it, the author approximately determines the time until which it was used in practice, the 13th century, for from that time, and perhaps even earlier, according to him, other abbreviations of the Postnikov Rule appeared (pp. 89–90), namely: II 4. The rite of confession, in which the pre-confessional part involves the reading of two psalms: 50 and 69, the Trisagion, Lord have mercy 40 or 24, and the same number of bows and prayerful appeal to God by the penitent. The question article is edited in the same way as in the main edition. According to confession, there is only one rather lengthy prayer, which belongs only to this monument. The author knows only 1 copy of this edition from a manuscript of the 15th century and was published by him in volume 3 under No. 1. III. The only distinguishing feature of this edition from the previous one is the replacement of the confessional prayer with the prayer of the first edition (ό Θεός συγχωρήσας τφ προφήτη Δαβιδ). The author knows of 4 copies. this edition: one of them from the 16th century. 5, another XIII century. and two without indicating the century of the manuscript (p. 91 notes). IV. With complete identity with the previous charter, the confessional prayer adopted there is joined by another prayer: ό Θεός δί ημάς ένανϑρωπήσας - the third λύσις of the main edition. – Two copies are indicated. this edition (page 93 notes). V. Instead of the 69th psalm adopted in the previous abbreviations, the 31st is used, and five more prayers are added to the confessional prayer, of which the last three are not found either in the above or in other editions. The charter itself is accompanied by large extracts from the canonical part of the charter of I. Postnik (pp. 93–95). VI. Charter under the title: Νηστευτοῦ.., in which not a single psalm is prescribed before confession; after confession, the priest recites 7 psalms. “By the number of his confessional prayers - gov. author - this edition, as is obvious, is very little inferior to the main edition; As for the nature of these prayers, in this respect there is a significant difference between them: with the exception of the first three prayers, which took place in the main edition, the remaining prayers here constitute an innovation in the Postnikov charter of confession (p. 96). V. Finally, in the opinion of Mr. Almazov, the same charters should include the one that is included at the end of the monument published by Morin under the title Ιωάννου μοναχοῦ... κανονάριον. According to this charter, only Psalm 69 is mentioned in the pre-confessional part, and only one prayer in confession. “Both the first (i.e., Psalm 69) and the last constitute a direct extract from the lengthy edition (p. 97). All these abbreviations, summarized by Mr. Almazov under seven editions, had practical application, in his opinion, within the 12th–16th centuries. (page 98). No matter how freely the unknown descriptors of the presented rites acted, altering the main edition, their alterations did not violate (!) the correct design of the order. However, there were also such descriptors who compiled the rites, although in connection with the Faster’s regulations, but “with the very wrong and insufficient construction” (99). Mr. Almazov represents three such ranks (99–102). This is the first series of rites in the Greek Church, practiced in the X-XV centuries. and this is the first period of the history of confession (or if we start history from the beginning - the second). Its essence consisted in a gradual reduction and even distortion of the main edition of the Postnikov Charter. This last circumstance was the reason for some new phenomenon in the history of confession. “The appearance of extremely spoiled - gov. Mr. Almazov - Postnikov’s revisions of the confessional charter involuntarily forced more serious Greek confessors to pay more attention in general to the confessional regulations, which were in practical use under the name of this author. The confessors, of course, met complete diversity here. Without precise historical grounds to give preference to any of these statutes over others, and perhaps taking into account some of their shortcomings (actually of a statutory nature), such confessors found it more expedient to draw up their own confessional rites for themselves. The material for them (in liturgical terms) was the confessional charter of the Faster and the prayers that were in the euchologies. In view of the extreme diversity of both the first and the second, in no case could one expect more or less uniformity from the fruit of the hands of such entrepreneurs. This really came true and could not have come true, as can be seen from the proposed review below of the works of Greek liturgical-canonical literature known to us, in this case always anonymous” (pp. 102–103). The mass of rites of confession, described later, is divided by the author into 10 groups. However, it cannot be said that this mass was very significant - since for some groups only two or one specimen is indicated; - nor that these rites differ sharply from the previous ones: some of them could be directly included in the previous ones. – The description, as before, is accompanied by an approximate indication of the time and breadth of practical application. The author extends the chain of these rites to those in practical use in the Greek Church at the present time. Without going into consideration of these descriptions, as they do not represent anything characteristic in comparison with the previous ones, we consider it not superfluous to point out the special interest of the order of the bishop’s confession, presented under No. IX (pp. 124–125). The same indication should be made for the rite number VIII, since it serves as a prototype of the currently accepted order in the Russian Church, but after the publication at the end of 1897 of the book by A.S. Pavlova: Nomocanon at the Great Trebnik. New, completely revised edition. M. 1897 - the designated place in the study of Mr. Almazov should lose its interest. This is the historical process of modification of confessional rites of the Eastern Greek type. On pp. 132–141, the author presents a description of a whole series of rites of the Western Greek type, undoubtedly, in his opinion, compiled in the west (i.e., in Southern Italy), known to the author exclusively from manuscripts. Based on the characteristic features of editions of this type, the author distinguishes three groups. Their Western Greek origin is characterized by the following features: a) the presence of Catholic litany in the rite of confession (in the pre-confession part); b) a feature of the permit formula; c) a special form of question paper and d) greater harmony and uniformity in the distribution of pre- and post-confession prayers. The oldest of the ranks of this type, known from a manuscript of the 10th century, was published by the author in the appendix (Vol. III, No. 15, pp. 64–73). To the credit of the author, it must be said that this division of Greek rites into two types - Eastern and Western, and familiarization with the latter constitutes, in the proper sense, a scientific discovery of it. It is noteworthy that this type is based on the nomocanon of I. Postnik. Having completed the review of the rites, the author then presents - in his words - the “experience of a consolidated review” of all the liturgical elements that were part of the rites of confession. These elements include: psalms, readings from the Old Testament prophetic books, as well as from the New Testament Holy Scripture: the Apostle and the Gospel, and prayers. The author compiled a list of the latter in 40 issues (p. 148). So far, in understanding the vast and varied mass of his material, the author had in mind primarily the liturgical element or άκολουϑία έπί τών έξομολογουμένων (the succession of those who confess); according to confessional adherence, according to him, that element was always inherent, which gave him the name τάξις τής έξομολογήσεως (charter, or order of confession); This element includes articles guiding the testing of a penitent, pre-confessional exhortations, and post-confessional instructions (p. 157). Since these articles also had their own history in practice, the author devotes the end of the chapter to a review of this subject (167–201). These are, in perhaps general terms, the plan and content of the history of confession in the Greek church, which occupies the 2nd chapter of the 1st volume of Mr. Almazov’s study. Our presentation, of course, is not able to give the reader even an approximate idea of ​​the deep interest that Mr. Almazov’s book itself brings, introducing directly to the extraordinary variety of rites he describes. Without exaggeration, we can say that Mr. Almazov opened a whole hitherto unknown department of church and liturgical literature. This is the undeniable merit of Mr. Almazov, this is the deep interest of his book, the interest that - as we put it at the beginning of the review - produces not only a pleasant, but also a stimulating effect on the student who studies it. But while giving well-deserved honor to the venerable author, as a diligent collector of fresh liturgical-canonical material, we consider it our duty to highlight the major - in our opinion - mistakes of him as a historian of confession. We think that it was a mistake on the part of the venerable author to write the story of the confession. Such a task is premature. For it, he lacked, firstly, material, no matter how strange it is, given the abundance of it in his book, and secondly, that preparatory work for history, which is called historical criticism. And this is a shortcoming, not only of the part of Mr. Almazov’s research considered, but of his entire work. Therefore, we will dwell on clarifying it here as thoroughly as possible. In the first respect, i.e. In discussing the insufficiency of material, we observe the following in Mr. Almazov’s book. Having undertaken to write the history of confession from the 10th century on the basis of documents, even mainly from manuscripts, the author had at hand the following: for the 10th century, only a single one - and then of the Western Greek type; for the XIth, not a single one, for the XII-XIII, no more than 4: three extensive (in his opinion, the main) edition and one short one: the rest, in a significant number, are from the XIV-XV and later centuries. This circumstance should have directly led the author to the idea of ​​​​the possibility of writing the history of confession based on documents only from the 14th century: for he did not have enough material for the early centuries. But he, apparently, did not pay attention to this and dared to write his history, starting from the 10th century. How did he fill this gap? – The only way: at your own author’s discretion. Here's the proof. 1) The author chose the 10th century as the starting point for his history of confession; the question arises: what phenomenon occurred in this century in the history of confession in order to set the line for a new period? There is no explanation other than: it’s the author’s pleasure. 2) What specific ceremonial consequences of confession were used in practice in the 10th and subsequent centuries? To answer this seemingly so natural question addressed to the historian of confession from the 10th century, we encounter in Mr. Almazov’s book only vague and strange judgments about the time and breadth of action of the main edition of the Postnikov Rule (p. 86) and the first in a series of its abbreviated editions (89–90). Here are some of the points underlying this reasoning: a) (Genuine Postnikov) “the charter was not practiced very widely and in a very short space of time” (This means - in the VI-VII centuries no further?). b) “At very early times in Greek practice, there were masses of confessional statutes in incomparably brief editions” (where did these masses come from? - completely unknown: the author does not indicate a single such statute). c) “The truth against our assumption (i.e. that the Postnikov charter was not practiced widely and not for long) seems to be evidenced by the existence of lists of the interpreted charter for a very long space of time after the 10th century.” (only three lists of the 12th-13th centuries). d) “But it is more expedient to look at the reasons for editing such lists as the desire to have at hand a monument of patristic literature, which served as a prototype for the confessional rites that were in use (i.e. in the 12th-13th centuries, the Postnikov charter had only archaeological interest). e) The oldest of the abbreviations of the Postnikov Rule was the one that in Morin’s edition bears the title Δόγος πρός τόν μέλλοντα (p. 39). “The lists of this charter do not go back in antiquity earlier than the 14th century.” (ibid.). “This charter had practical significance, in any case, no later than the 13th century” (p. 90). These are the provisions that the reader will find in the book of our historian of confession as an answer to the question: what rite of confession had practical application in the 10th century in the Greek Church. The general answer can be formulated as follows: firstly, a mass of the shortest ranks, hitherto unknown to anyone; secondly, the order of worship under the title Δόγος, the oldest lists of which do not go back further than the 14th century. All this, of course, is fantasy, fantasy and fantasy, crept into history written from documents. 3) What specific rites of confession were in practical use by the Greek Church over the centuries from the 12th to the 15th century? The answer to this is: (Since the 13th century) and even earlier, other abbreviations of the Postnikov Rule appeared, more suitable for practical use; We move on to considering these abbreviations (p. 90). For this reason, we offer a description of those 6 groups of rites, a brief summary of which we have presented above, and then the author says: “The time to which the lists of abbreviated versions of the Postnikov Rule of Confession that have survived to this day refer embraces the 12th–16th centuries. There is no doubt, however, that such abbreviations appeared much earlier... As for the time of dominance in the practice of confession of these abbreviations, then, in our opinion, it does not extend beyond the 15th century” (98–99). Turning to verify this “scientific opinion” from the point of view of its documentary and historical thoroughness, we find the following in Mr. Almazov’s book. Of the entire mass of these rites, only one, which, in the author’s opinion, represents “not so much a charter as a careless sketch of it” (p. 97), has reached us in the RKP. XIII century; one in the RKP. XIV century (p. 92) and one in the RKP. XV century (p. 90) the rest are in the RKP. XVI century. The question arises: what reason does the reader have to accept as undoubted that these rites appeared even “incomparably earlier than the 12th century, and that in practice their use does not extend beyond the 15th century? We believe that an answer to this question on our part is not required. Yes, “there is no doubt” that Mr. Almazov distributes Greek rites over the centuries without any embarrassment, at his own discretion. It seems we have the right to such a conclusion... But our task is not limited to just pointing out Mr. Almazov’s mistakes. His books also challenged us to do some amateur activities. An unusually happy chance helped us, more thoroughly than Mr. Almazov, to solve the question that occupied us: what order of rites had practical application in the Greek Church of the 10th century? We answer without hesitation: the one that in our application occupies the first column under the title: MPSCR. Cod. Monar. grau. No. 498. (X century) Διδασκαλίαι πατρών, etc. 6. According to competent persons, the original manuscript belongs to the 10th century: in content, i.e. liturgical and statutory elements, it can safely be attributed to an earlier time: in details it bears the features of deep church antiquity. But perhaps in the 10th century this rite was described only as a “monument of patristic writing” - in the words of Mr. Almazov, and not for practical use? We have documentary grounds to assert that this rite was in Greek. churches of this time practical use. This documentary basis is presented to us by the oldest hitherto known edition of the Slavic translation of the nomocanon by John Postnikov, located in the famous Rumyantsevskaya Kormcha No. 230. Based on the content and language, Rosenkampf 7, Vostokov 8 and Pavlov 9 attribute this translation to the era of the conversion of the Bulgarians to Christianity 10. Comparing this ancient Slavic translation with the Greek text of Postnikov's nomocanon of the Munich manuscript, it turns out that the former is literally an exact translation of the latter, although in some places (for example, at the beginning) it has tirades missing in the latter 11. But it seems that there can be no doubt that the Greek Equal-to-the-Apostles enlighteners of the Bulgarians in the 9th century translated into the Slavic language exactly the rite of confession that was generally accepted in their mother church. We are confident that Mr. Almazov recognizes the validity of these arguments of ours, just as we are confident that he himself would have expressed them before us if he had these two precious manuscripts at hand (although, as can be seen from his book, he knew about them). Against our reproach for self-will in the distribution of Greek rites over the centuries, Mr. Almazov has the right to object to us that we attach too much importance to the date of the manuscript of the monument. For it is possible that the ancient monument that has come down to us will be put in a manuscript of the 16th century. In essence, it is only a copy of a work of the 10th or even earlier centuries, while a monument of the 13th century could be preserved for us in the very form in which it came out of the hands of the author himself. The dates of manuscripts must be verified by historical criticism. We attach a very high value to this (possible) objection, and therefore we pose the question: has Mr. Almazov, as a historian of confession, sufficiently taken advantage of that means of finding the truth in relation to his handwritten material, which is called historical criticism? Before discussing this issue, we consider it our duty to state that in Mr. Almazov’s research the critical element generally occupies a prominent place. But his criticism is predominantly literary, ritualist criticism. Having deepened all your attention to the rites, i.e. in the liturgical elements of confession (psalms, troparia, prayers, readings from Holy Scripture), the author everywhere evaluates the monument he describes precisely from this ritual point of view. He has an ideal, a criterion developed through a deep and extensive study of the monuments of rites for assessing the rite of confession. His requirements in this regard are clear and definite. He wants the rite of confession to have the qualities of completeness, harmony in the arrangement of liturgical elements, expediency, correspondence of parts of the rite to the moments of confession as a sacrament or as a “sacramental - in his favorite expression - act.” But we mean historical criticism in the narrow sense, directed, firstly, to solving the question: to what time does a given monument belong according to its internal features, and, secondly, in what genetic sequence should comparable homogeneous monuments be established from this point of view?.. The cornerstone, so to speak, of the entire construction of the history of the rites of confession in Greek. churches from the 10th to the 15th centuries. Mr. Almazov’s book contains the following two theses: 1) “John the Faster did not in the strict sense of the word compose the statute he published, but composed it, i.e. to a certain extent he used ready-made material. This is indicated by the very inscription of the charter άκολουϑία συνταγεϊσα... (p. 85). 2) This most extensive edition of the Postnikov charter of confession is not only the oldest, but also the main one: all other hitherto known editions of this charter refer to it as derivatives of it, as its abbreviations. The author slightly tries to substantiate both theses with a) the antiquity of the list of the said edition and b) a comparative analysis of its content with the content of other editions. In our opinion, both theses and their foundations do not stand up to historical criticism. So, as for the author’s reference to the comparative antiquity of the list of this edition, then - as we have already stated above - such a reference is currently not valid: the oldest list of the Postnikov Rule is the Munich 10th century, containing a brief order of rites. The brief rite of confession also contains the oldest Slavic (Rumyantsevsky) translation of the Postnikov Rule. Georgian nomocanon of St. Euphemia of the first quarter of the 11th century again contains a brief edition of the Postnikov Rule 12. In due time, i.e. in 1874 prof. M.I. Gorchakov, to whose authority Mr. Almazov incidentally refers, had the right to assert that the lengthy edition of the Postnikov Charter is the oldest. At the present time, it must give way to its more ancient ones. In defense of antiquity, even the ownership of the lengthy edition by I. Postnik himself, the author points to its title. “The usual text of this inscription - says Mr. Almazov - τοῦ όσίου πατρός Ιωάννου τοῦ Νηστευτου. Analyzing it, we cannot help but note one feature in it, this is the name of John the Faster not “άγιος”, but “όσιος”. The use of just such a term, in our opinion, indicates the earliest edition of such an inscription, even at a time when the memory of I. the Faster was fresh and when the question of canonizing him had not yet been raised. This judgment is in complete harmony with the omission in this inscription of the title of the Faster τοῦ πατριάρχου Κονσταντινοπόλεως - which presupposes the general knowledge of the hierarchical position of the Faster at the time to which the compilation of the inscription we have just given relates to its nomocanon” (p. 75). One could, perhaps, agree with this consideration of the venerable author, if he were talking about the antiquity of only the inscription, and not the entire monument, under this ancient inscription which became known to us in a manuscript of the 12th century. But the antiquity of one inscription is not enough to prove everything that could have appeared with this ancient inscription in the Middle Ages. Moreover, the features indicated by the author in the inscription in question, such as “όσιος” instead of “άγιος” and the absence of a patriarchal title in the name of John the Faster, do they really speak so convincingly for the antiquity of the inscription? Isn't it the other way around? The author should not be unaware from the indications of Russian church-historical literature that in Byzantium not one person was known with the name of John the Faster, but at least two: John the Patriarch of Constantinople (VIth century) and John the Faster, the famous ascetic monk of the 11th-12th centuries 13 . The inscription in question is precisely suitable for this John the Faster of the 11th century, and not for the Patriarch of Constantinople of the 6th century. It is not impossible that this famous ascetic in the 10th century. and compiled that complex compilation of confessional rites, which Mr. Almazov so bravely attributed to the famous patriarch of the 6th century... In any case, in order to so decisively attribute this rite to the Patriarch of Constantinople of the 6th century, as Mr. Almazov does, one must first at least try to eliminate possible objections to this. Meanwhile, the author not only did nothing of this kind, but on the contrary, did something exactly the opposite. So eg. the author himself claims that “this statute, being lengthy, corresponded very little to the idea of ​​the confessional rite until the 6th century, when it was undoubtedly the shortest” (p. 86). Or: “the pre-confessional prayer (of this rite) is known only from this monument; in comparison with others that are shorter, more frequently used, and undoubtedly ancient, does not allow us to see in it a liturgical monument of primary antiquity” (p. 81). For our part, we cannot help but point out to the author the fact that the introduction into the rite of confession of the entire sixth psalm with two glories 14, then the penitential troparions of the 4th tone and the troparion to the Mother of God diligently, allowed by the author of the rite in question, certainly obliged Mr. Almazov to resolve the bewilderment: were these troparia themselves known in the 6th century? At least with regard to the last of them, it seems safe to say that for the first time it is found in the Παρακϑησις’e of the monk Theostirictus, who, as is known, lived in the first half of the 9th century 15. If, finally, in Almazov’s own book the reader encounters the statement that “at present it is impossible to determine with absolute certainty what the original intact form of Postnikov’s nomocanon actually was” (p. 73); then the question arises: on what is the first of Mr. Almazov’s theses, expressed so categorically, based?! It seems to us that it is historically more reliable to adhere to the opinion that I. Fastnik (6th century) was neither a compiler nor the author of confessional rites, but was only the author of: a) instructions for confessors on how to make confession, b) instructions on how to apply canonical rules on penances to those who confessed. He added those and other instructions to the rites practiced in his time, which is quite possible to recognize as the brief but completely complete one contained in the Munich manuscript of the 10th century, which we place in the appendix. We base this opinion on the following data: 1) The said manuscript is clearly and separately assigned to one person, Basil (i.e., John the Faster), only the penance follower, who follows the rite, while the rite itself is assigned to the collective author - the “fathers.” 2) Neither the 11th-century writers Patrarch Nicholas the Grammar and Nikon the Montenegrin, nor the scientists of former times and the present say anything about John Pootnik as a compiler of rites, but look at him as a mentor of confessors and a teacher of repentance. With the first thesis of Mr. Almazov, the second also falls. The choice of Mr. Almazov as the main editor of the lengthy order of rites seems strange simply because he himself considers this order of rites to be a compilation. How can this compilation serve as the basis for her shortest works?! Moreover, with this choice Mr. Almazov violated the elementary principle of historical criticism, according to which the main (or genuine) in different editions of a work attributed to one person is considered to be that in which they are more or less similar and the accidental that in which they disagree. G. Almazov did just the opposite in this case. He chose the liturgical element as the basis for classifying the editions of the Postnikov Rule, i.e. psalms, prayers, readings from Holy Scripture; but it is precisely this element in them that is most random, varied to infinity, so that if these same editions did not have similarities in other respects, they would not even be considered homogeneous. Striking examples of this phenomenon are represented by three confessional statutes, bearing the name of I. Postnik in their inscriptions, published by Morin and characterized by Mr. Almazov 1st under the name of the main edition (pp. 79–80), 2nd under No. 1 (in a series of abbreviated ones, pp. 87–89) and 3rd under No. 11 (p. 97). In these statutes, the rites of confession (precisely in terms of their liturgical elements) are so different that it is absolutely impossible to assimilate them not only to one person, but even to one century. The question arises: what brings them together so much that the descriptors of these ranks did not hesitate to attribute them to I. Postnik? We answer: firstly, all three rites are literally similar in the penance order that immediately follows the rite; secondly, they are similar in their instructions to the confessor on how to make confession; thirdly, they are similar even in the general scheme of the entire rite, retaining 4 (mentioned above) moments of it 16, and finally, they are similar in their common evangelical spirit and view of the repentant sinner, with the patristic clarity expressed by St. John the Faster. But all of them, like many other editions bearing the name of the Faster and described by Mr. Almazov, presuppose one main edition, containing both the rite of confession and the teaching of how to perform it and instructions on how to use the rules of St. Basil the Great during the imposition of penance. Over the centuries, this basic edition was either practiced quite steadily (as evidenced by the incomparable number of short editions from different centuries), or it was subject to liturgical modifications by the insertion of psalms, prayers, and readings from Holy Scripture. What is this main edition? It is currently very difficult to answer this due to lack of data. But, in any case, it is more thorough to read the editorial board of the Munich Handbook. X century, than Morino's edition of Άκολουϑία καί ταξις, known only in manuscripts of the XII-XIII centuries. and in all likelihood compiled around this time. Our general conclusion from all these considerations will obviously be this: either Mr. Almazov must redo his history of confession from the 10th to the 15th centuries. and the entire classification of rites with the name of I. Postnik, or decisively refute our arguments presented here: in this form, both his history and his classification of the said rites should for now be considered unsatisfactory from a historical-critical point of view. Let us further follow Mr. Almazov in reviewing his work. The history of the rites of confession in the Greek Church is only a small part of his enormous work. In the same first volume they are presented with; a) the history of confession in the Yugoslav churches and b) the history of this rite in the Russian church. The history of the rite of confession in the Yugoslav churches is devoted to Chapter III of Volume I (pp. 202–233). According to the author, it had the following points: 1) at first, in the Yugoslav churches (which are not indicated), the statute of confession of I. Postnik was in effect in an abbreviated version, as evidenced by its list in Rumyantsevskaya Kormcha No. 230. The author limited himself to this reference, without presenting either an analysis of this edition or its publication, although it has not yet been published. Regarding this, all that remains is to express regret. 2) This rite, in the opinion of the author, did not have a long and widespread practice, as evidenced by the scarcity of monuments of such practice (however, these monuments were known even in Moscow and the Sergius Lavra in the 14th and 15th centuries), and the fact that already in the 14th century. among the southern Slavs there is a rite of confession in a complete alteration of the Postnikov charter, although with the name Postnikov. And this rite, the description of which is devoted to the author on pages 203–206, in his opinion, was not practiced for a long time and not widely. 3) Almost exclusive dominance here belonged to the 15th century order of rites, published in 1882 by Heitler. The author devotes a rather detailed examination of this monument to pp. 206–212. In his opinion, this monument is an independent Slavic compilation, which may be based on some confessional statute of Western Greek origin; but in any case it is hardly possible to assume any ready-made original for it. – Having assumed a dominant role in practice, this rite subsequently underwent some changes; Based on monuments from the 14th–16th centuries, which are very few, the author then indicates what these changes were (pp. 212–223). The general conclusions to which the author came, reviewing the history of the rite of confession in the Yugoslavian churches, are as follows: 1) In contrast to the practice of the Greek Church, there was no variety of editions of this order. In essence, there were only two editions, even - strictly speaking - one - the one published by Heitler. 2) Regarding the prayer composition of confession, the author notes the comparative independence of the Slavic rites. It is reflected, firstly, in the selection of psalms: the most commonly used here were psalms 4, 12 and 37, which are not found in the rites of the Greek church. Among the 23 prayers of the Slavic rite, 9 are unknown in the Greek original; 2, although taken from the Greek original, is in a very noticeable alteration, and 2, although they are in the Greek original, confessions are not found during the rites (p. 226). In the 16th century The southern Slavs, namely the Serbs, already had printed publications of confessional rites. What ranks were these? – “The same edition,” the author answers, “with the most insignificant changes, which we see in the handwritten Yugoslavian monuments we examined” (p. 229). Since the 17th century the Serbs began to be guided by Russian liturgical books (p. 231). Instead of Serbian ones, from the 17th century. publications of Euchologia appear among other Slavs, namely in Striatin 1606 for the Galician Slavs, in Dolgopolye 1635 and in Buzeo 1702. In essence, they present the rite of confession in the same edition as the Serbian editions, but however they also allow differences, which are then noted by the author (pp. 231–232). Chapters IV, V and VI (of the first volume) are devoted by the author to the presentation of the history of the rite of confession in the Russian Church (i.e., most half of the entire I volume (pp. 234–596). The author himself explains such attention to the Russian history of the rites of confession, which in itself deserves gratitude, partly by the complexity of the subject and its lack of research, and partly by the abundance of material that he had at hand: he revised up to 150 handwritten rites of confession and a very significant number of printed publications (p. 235). It should be noted, however, that such an abundance of handwritten material relates almost exclusively to the 16th and 17th centuries. As for the previous centuries, for the 15th century the author had no more than 2–3 copies on hand, for the 14th century – one or two, and that’s all. Thus, for the history of rites for the centuries XIII 17, XII, XI and X, the author had a complete lack of handwritten material. This circumstance did not at all prevent the author from beginning the history of rites in the Russian Church from the very beginning of the appearance of Christianity in Rus'. How did he make up for the lack of material? In response to this, we have to repeat the same thing that we said about the history of the rite of confession in the Greek Church from the 10th to the 15th centuries, compiled by Mr. Almazov. Thus, at the very beginning of the Russian history of the rites of confession, we encounter the following categorical statement: “This edition (III) represents a literal borrowing from South Slavic practice, made, undoubtedly, along with the adoption of Christianity in Rus'” (p. 249). Meanwhile, this edition is known to the author from lists only from the 16th century (note pp. 248–249). In the absence of positive data from the author for the history of confession in the first centuries of Christianity in Rus', it is even more unexpected to encounter his following statement: “Among these editions (the main ones, according to Mr. Almazov), we do not consider Postnikov’s abbreviated charter of confession. Undoubtedly, his lists were very common in Rus'. ...But in all these cases, the fasting charter was introduced in the name of its canonical significance, but not for practical use in liturgical terms” (pp. 235–236 note). Such a statement requires evidence, but Mr. Almazov does not seem to want to know this and demands from the reader unconditional faith only in his unfounded statements... It is noteworthy that the abbreviated version of the Postnikov Charter in ancient Rus' was not only copied from one original ancient Slavic translation by Rumyantsevskaya Kormcha, but was also translated again from the original. This is easy to verify by comparing the texts of this edition, which occupy columns II and III in our appendix. The language of the latter is completely different from the former. Here are some examples for clarity. There seems to be no doubt that the translation of the third column was made again from the Greek original. So, therefore, this edition was important both in Greece and here in Rus'! And Mr. Almazov, as a historian, should not have ignored such a major phenomenon. In reality, however, there was no such disregard on the part of Mr. Almazov. For, despite himself, he was forced to deal with this short edition of the order, which he had rejected, but for some reason he classified it as a lengthy one. We encounter this phenomenon, incomprehensible to us, in his book when he describes the first basic edition of the Russian rite of confession. As representatives of the 1st edition, the author indicates two lists of order: the first from the 14th or early 15th centuries. content in parchment Breviary belonging to the bib. M.D. Academy No. 184 (published by the author in the appendix); the second - in parchment. hands XIV century, belonging to the library. Chudov Monastery (also published by the author). The first of these rites, according to the author, represents “Dov. a true copy of the charter of I. Postnik in its most widespread Greek version.” The second, “with obvious similarities” with the first, allows for deviations from it and, moreover, more. significant (pp. 236–237). The most cursory comparison of the three rites mentioned here is enough to decisively reject the genetic connection in which Mr. Almazov places them. Thus, the rites of the academic manuscript not only do not represent a true copy of the widespread charter of I. Postnik, but also have very little in common with it, namely only confessional prayers. Meanwhile, the difference between them is enormous. In our Russian rites there are neither six psalms, nor paremias, nor readings from the Apostles and the Gospel, which are found in the (alleged) Lenten Rule, but in the latter there is not a trace of those updates (secular and monastic) that were introduced into our rites, thereby radically changing the entire “method of confession” (to use the language of Mr. Almazov). As for the Chudovskaya edition, it has absolutely nothing to do with the academic one and should be directly put in a genetic connection with the edition of the Rumyantsevskaya Kormcha and with the one we put in the appendix (column III): the similarity between them is literal 18 . On this basis, from the first “main” edition of the Russian rites of confession, indicated by Mr. Almazov, we must remove the Chudovsky List No. 5, as it has taken a completely out of place in Mr. Almazov’s classification. Its place is in the group of rites of the short edition, which in fact are very common in Rus', but in the study of Mr. Almazov did not find an appropriate home. Mr. Almazov divides the varieties, or “deviations” from the first main edition, into 8 groups (pp. 238–242). From among these groups, judging by the description given by Mr. Almazov, we have reason to exclude the following for placement in the category of short editions: a) Described under No. 2. According to the author’s depiction, it is as follows: “Before confession, only one usual beginning was supposed and psalms 50 to 69 were omitted, and after confession - after the repentant said “Lord have mercy 30”, and when he fell on his face, one prayer was said: God is forgiving of Nathan David, after which only it was noticed: “also let go” “Christ the true God” ... “Thus,” the author further says, “the real The excerpt from the entire prayer composition of the prototype allows only one prayer in the rite (what kind of prototype is this, having seven confessional prayers!)” (p. 289). b) Described under No. 7, namely as follows: “Instead of absolutely all the prayers of the main edition, only two are put in its confessional part... This time,” the author notes, “we are already dealing with such an extreme distortion of the main edition that it is with great difficulty that its traces can be recognized in it” (p. 241). It is a vain effort to discern distortion; it is more convenient to directly include it among the short ones. c) Described under No. 8, exactly like this: “They added to the usual psalms before confession - or just one psalm. 6th, or in addition to it another psalm. 12th. In the first case, the prayers for confession were either only “God forgiven Nathan of David” and “God of all might, I confessed to You servant” ... or just the actual prayers of the main edition, but without the prayer: “Greatly I will magnify Thee” and so on. (p. 242). These concepts, in our opinion, are completely sufficient for the formation of a special edition of rites, and, moreover, an older edition than that indicated by Mr. Almazov. The second main edition (according to Mr. Almazov) is characterized by him as follows: “In the pre-confessional part there are no psalms and after the usual beginning there is only one prayer: Master, Lord our God, like... The confessional part is as follows: After confession, the confessor says: “God, child, forgives you invisibly by His grace and I am a sinner.” Then he reads the renewal and then places the confessor’s right hand on his neck and pronounces the second permissive formula: “God, child, will forgive you and forgive you, and you are already forgiven at this hour for all these sins you have spoken of, both in this age and in the future, and to whom God will not forgive your sins from you, but from my neck and hand.” Then followed the teaching, after which the confessor, crouching to the ground, read psalms: 50, 142 and 6, and the confessor at this time read the prayers: God our Savior, like Thy prophet Nathan; 2) Lord like Peter and the harlot with tears and h) God forgiving Nathan of David. After this, the confessor stood up and the confessor read 4 more prayers of permission. In addition to this, at the conclusion of the rite there is also a prayer: Lord Jesus Christ... Lamb and Shepherd; and the prayer of Cyril of Turov: “Much merciful and all-merciful”... (pp. 242–243). This edition has three modifications (pp. 244–248). This edition, in the opinion of Mr. Almazov, is of completely Russian origin and cannot be recognized as an earlier one. The material for it was: 1) the first edition, 2) the generally accepted edition among the southern Slavs, and 3) a special penitential and cleansing article, quite well known in our translation, and very early known from Greek monuments (described by the author in Volume II, Chapter 1). Characterizing a little further (p. 301) the features of the rite of this edition, the author expresses, among other things, the following, in our opinion completely incorrect, explanation of the rite of laying the hand of the confessor on the neck of the confessor. “There is no doubt, of course,” he says, “that such a rite is justified by the presentation of the performer of the sacrament as a good shepherd, taking upon his shoulders the lost sheep. But where to get this ritual? If one can doubt that such an original action was a purely Russian innovation, then, in any case, there is no reason to recognize it as borrowed from the Greek Church: there we never see such an action, and external ritual was generally removed from the rite of confession? It is more plausible to see a South Slavic establishment in this ritual.” Both the symbolic meaning of this ritual and its historical origin, given by Mr. Almazov, are completely incorrect and fantastic. So, as for the historical origin of this ritual, an indication of it is in each of the editions of the Postnikov Charter. It's amazing how Mr. Almazov overlooked this! Here it is stereotypically repeated that the one receiving confession “questions (the confessor) with all calmness and meekness, if it is possible to kiss him and place the hand of the person confessing on his neck, and even more so, if out of much sorrow and shame he is overcome and oppressed, he sees him.” There is no need to intensify the interpretation of such a ritual: with it the confessor expresses his love and joy for the sinner who voluntarily repents. But this meaning of the rite in question is especially clearly and deeply expressed in the canonary of I. Postnik, ed. Morin and also found in the ancient translation of the above-mentioned Rumyantsev helmsman. Here we read: “first of all, one must have a confession, received in church or in some secret place with meek eyes and a joyful heart, just as at a bright dinner (καί έπί άρίστφ λαμπρψ) calling and applauding, kissing and guilty of all sins great and small before him verbate" (RKP. B.M.D.A. No. 54, l. 78). In the “bright dinner” mentioned here, it is not difficult to discern a clear allusion to the parable of the Prodigal Son, in particular to v. 20–26 Luke. XV. According to the teachings of St. I. Faster's confession is a joyful meeting of a father with his repentant prodigal son: this is the symbolic meaning of the above-mentioned actions of the confessor. The third edition, according to the author, was the most widespread. The composition and order of prayers in it are as follows: according to the usual beginning, the performer of the rite recites Psalms 50 and 4, followed by the following psalms and prayers: Lord, Master, bowing the heavens and Psalm. 6th; Master Lord God, call upon the righteous and psalm. 12; and finally the prayer: Lord God to our Savior like Your prophet Nathan. Next is confession, and after confession there is only one prayer: Lord... Forsaking the sins of Peter and the harlot with tears. Regarding the origin of this rank, the author claims that it was literally borrowed from Yugoslav practice and was undoubtedly borrowed along with the adoption of Christianity in Rus' (p. 249). There is no evidence of such certainty. As the most commonly used edition, this edition allowed for a wide variety of modifications, both “original” and those resulting from the combination of this edition with the two previous ones. As original “modifications”, the author indicates 9 groups of rites, denoting them with the letters A, B, C, D, D, etc. The author indicates 12 groups as derivatives resulting from the combination of this edition with the two previous ones, denoting them with the letters a, b, c, d, etc. (pp. 249–273). Bypassing in this section the author’s considerations regarding the time of origin of these typical editions, as very hypothetical and requiring verification, we must acknowledge both great merit and very hard work for the author’s classifications. Having categorically stated at the beginning of Chapter IV that there were three main editions of the confessional rite in the Russian Church, before the advent of printed publications (p. 236), the author, after describing them, found himself forced to point out the existence of two more editions (275). But even here the work of classification is not over yet. Until now, only full confessional rites were meant. The observant author did not escape the existence in ancient manuscripts of a mass of abbreviated rites of confession, used in special states of penitents. They, according to the author, took their content from lengthy editions, so there is no reason to consider them independent editions; nevertheless, due to their various brevity, it is rarely possible to determine which particular lengthy edition a certain abbreviated rank is dependent on (p. 276). Therefore, the author builds a special classification for them, basing it on the special church conditions for which each of them was intended. Accordingly, the abbreviated rites of confession are divided into ranks: a) general; b) worldly and c) monastic (276–281). But having completed this work, the author could not calm down from the mass of handwritten material that overwhelmed him; there was still something left in it that seemed not to be attached to any of the premises he had hitherto invented. “In conclusion of the review,” he says on page 281, “of the editions of the written Russian confessional rite, we allow ourselves to outline the prayer composition of some confessional rites of a completely incorrect structure. The author indicates three categories of such ranks (281–283). Having finally completely overcome his arduous work of classifying handwritten confessional rites, the author takes a look at the past of the rite of confession in the Russian Church, depicting the gradual course of the historical succession of confessional rites, and sums up the liturgical elements of which these rites consisted. Chapter V (pp. 318–490) is devoted by the author to a study of the method of confession in the Russian rite and additional articles containing instructions to the confessor on the manner of making confession, imposing penances and teaching instructions to his spiritual children. This chapter, rich in content like all the others, gives in particular very detailed information about the so-called “renewals” - very common in the ancient Russian rite of confession and its question-related articles. The latter in the author’s book represent very interesting material not only for the history of confession, but also for the history of ancient Russian pastoralism in general. The applied articles of the Old Russian confessional rite also included prefaces, confessional teachings and nomacanons or penances. At the end of this chapter, the author describes them, classifying them, as usual, by type. And here the venerable author has to point out a very important omission: among the nomacanons he has no mention of the fundamental principle of all penance nomacanons - the “canonaries” of I. Postnik, the full translation of which is found in the Rumyantsev helmsman No. 280 and the helmsman of Moskov, which we have repeatedly mentioned. spirit. acad. No. 54. Whether the author knew about the existence of this translation cannot be judged from the book. Chapter VI (pp. 491–596) of the first and last volume is devoted by the author to the history of the statute of confession from the time it appeared in print to the present. It presents a very thorough overview of the history of printed publications of the confessional order in the southern and northern Russian churches, gives a very complete overview and description of individual manuals for confessors, published both by private individuals and officially separately from the breviary and used in spiritual practice at the present time. This is where the history of the rite of confession in the Russian Church ends. If we compare the author’s works on the history of confession in the Greek and Russian churches from a scientific-historical point of view, we will have to note the following common feature: comparative insufficiency in material and methodological respects during the initial periods of history in both churches and an abundance of material and scientific thoroughness in subsequent ones. I would like to tell the venerable author that he tried in vain to give his enormous work the appearance of an integral story of confession. His sphere of strictly scientific specialty is only the later centuries: from the 14th to the present. As for the history of confession in the Russian church in particular, we cannot help but note the impression of some strange surprise that the reader endures, and which, apparently, the author himself felt when finishing his story. In the previous chapters, the reader was confirmed in the idea that the Russian Church from the beginning of Christianity in Russia to the 17th century. was in the discussion of the rites of confession under the influence of the Yugoslav churches and, least of all, under the influence of the Greek church. And so in 1658, Patriarch Nikon quite unexpectedly introduced into the breviary the rite of confession, which has nothing at all in common with the ancient Russian rites and is not of Yugoslav origin, but purely Greek, compiled on Athos. “The decisive and immediate replacement,” says the author, of the old printed rite was a dramatic innovation in Nikon’s Breviary, especially noticeable for those interested in divine services. It can be said that in no other case was there so much novelty in relation to the rites that make up the contents of the missal as here” (p. 687). Thus, the entire history of the Russian polygraph of confessional rites for the 16th and 17th centuries, to the development of which the venerable author devoted so much effort, ended unexpectedly and sadly! He himself seemed to be frightened by such a surprise and, under the influence of this impression, expressed a few words in defense of Patriarch Nikon (pp. 537 et seq.). But in comparison with the enormity of the fact, the apology turned out to be rather weak. In reality, such an unexpectedly drastic change probably did not occur. The influence of the Greek Church in Russia has never ceased, both in terms of the entire system of worship, and in particular the confessional rite. The indiscriminate polygraphy of the 16th and 17th centuries, which provided the venerable author with such a mass of such lengthy rites of confession, can hardly be considered a true indicator of the actual spiritual practice of that time. As a result, it gave the rite of confession in 40 printed sheets of the consumer book of 1623, this polygraph probably in reality only more and more aroused the desire to free oneself from this massiveness of rites and obtain the rite according to authority and brevity, understandable and easily applicable in spiritual practice; The already mentioned book by Prof. convinces us of the validity of this assumption. A.S. Pavlova, specially dedicated to the history of rites, published in 1658 by Patriarch Nikon. The case of Patriarch Nikon regarding the publication of this order of rites does not at all seem to be a sharp surprise. For here, on the one hand, it is stated that this rite follows from the second half of the 16th century. and throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. almost exclusively and was used in Greek spiritual practice (p. 46), on the other hand, that no later than the 16th century. This order and nomocanon also appeared in the Slavic translation in the Yugoslavian churches. “The large number of Yugoslavian lists of the nomocanon that have reached us,” says A.S. Pavlov - and the fact that some of them were found in the lists of Vlastar’s syntagma testify, of course, to the same extensive use of this book in the churches of the Orthodox Slavic south as its Greek original had in its place of origin. But nowhere, the author continues, has the nomocanon been so fortunate as in our Rus'” (p. 55). Having quickly become widespread in Kievan Rus, thanks to the publications of Berynda and Kopystensky, it naturally attracted the attention of the Northern Russian hierarchy, and “since 1689, a number of Great Russian (Moscow) editions of the nomocanon began (p. 59). The Nomocanon, printed in 1639, was attached to two consumer books published in the same year - worldly and monastic. In 1651, during the patriarchate of Joseph, a new edition of the nomocanon was published, again in conjunction with the missal. This publication, generally speaking, was a simple reprint of Iosaphovsky (p. 63). Finally, in 1658, under Patriarch Nikon, a corrected missal was published with a corrected nomocanon, corrected “precisely according to the Greek original” (ibid.). According to this representation of the historical course of printed publications of confessional rites in Russia, the action of Patriarch Nikon appears as a completely natural, historically consistent phenomenon. The only novelty in it was the correction of the order according to the Greek original 19. Here we end our review of volume I of Mr. Almazov’s research. The length, which may seem unnecessary, of our review is justified, on the one hand, by the abundance and importance of the content of this volume, which represents essentially the center of the entire work of the venerable author, - on the other, by our feasible desire to fully characterize the properties of the scientific work, which appeared with all clarity already in this first volume. We have almost nothing left to add to this characteristic on the basis of the following volumes, and therefore we will allow ourselves in the future to limit ourselves to only a general overview of their content. Volume II is divided into four large chapters, each having the meaning of an integral study. The 1st chapter (pp. 1–102) has as its subject a review of the sequences of confession performed according to the special conditions of the confessor, namely: the rite of confession of the protege before consecration; rite of confession of the deaf and dumb; following the confession of persons who have fallen away from the church and who are joining it again; the rite of confession and communion for the dangerously sick. This last rank stands out for its special abundance of material and it is exclusively Russian. Chapter 2 (pp. 103–172) is the subject of a review of special statutes that relate only to some aspects of the full rite of confession, such as: monastic repentance and the rite of self-comunion; prayer against desecration by worldly people other than communion; rules of priestly self-confession; the following about the priest who was tempted in a dream; the rank that wants to confess their sins with tears; research on the communion of St. waters of great consecration for Epiphany; service for the remission of sins; regulations for the appointment of a confessor. This chapter is read with great interest, as it introduces the rituals that characterize Russian pious antiquity. It also deserves to be noted in the sense that it testifies to the author’s desire for a comprehensive study of his subject, to deepen it into such details that he could ignore without fear of being reproached for incompleteness. The study and explanation of the essence of the so-called “skete repentance” proposed here by the author especially deserves recognition from the Russian liturgist. However, here, in this chapter, as nowhere else, a certain unkind trait characterizing the entire study of the venerable author appears in all its sharpness. This is the author's language. In this regard, it must be said that the venerable author generally cared little about the literary and stylistic treatment of his work. Quite often in his books one comes across awkward, pretentious proposals, like, for example. such: “how very rational this is, we have to talk about it on another occasion” (1 vol. p. 108), or: “in one of them such prayers are the essence” (p. 100). Quite often his “manuscripts” and even “insertions” “bring something to our attention” (p. 246), and “prayer” often “appears” (p. 265). There are also strange mergers of Russian words, such as: “primordial” (edition) and “primarily derived” (p. 867). The better the last epithet, for example. such: “not black and white” or: not white and black”?). But nowhere does such abuse of language, some strange mixture of Russian words with foreign ones, make itself known so unpleasantly as in the chapter of Volume II under consideration. Eg. on page 146 catches the eye: “the role given here to the Epiphany water”; on the next one (147): “It is the Epiphany water that was chosen as an external accessory for the rite”; on page 150 “the priest appears in no more than the role of a reader.” Chapter III (pp. 173–320) is devoted to historical research on prayers, both directly included in the confessional rites, and those having only a certain relation to this rites. The author has a very extensive cycle of these prayers for study in the following sections: 1) Prayers for the penitent; 2) prayers for those confessing; 3) prayers for permission from penance, oaths and all sins; 4) prayers of permission from external defilement; 5) Lenten prayers and their relationship to confession; 6) general and special prayers of permission for death in general; 7) certificates of permission for death; 8) prayers of permission for those who died under excommunication and 9) prayers of repentance of a subjective nature. In terms of its subject matter, this chapter is related to volume 1 more closely than the previous ones. She is simply an additional part to him and could even enter him entirely with greater convenience. This close connection with the first volume is indicated by the author himself, who makes very frequent references to it in his first volume. And in its internal character, especially in methodological terms, it is completely homogeneous with the history of order, proposed in the first volume. Therefore, they have common advantages and disadvantages. So, along with the extensive erudition of the author, here, as there, one discovers: a) too much freedom in constructing hypotheses and b) a tendency to exaggerate the antiquity of liturgical monuments. a) So, about prayer: Lord our God, like Your prophet Nathan... the author expresses the following judgment: “in origin, this prayer undoubtedly dates back to the deepest Christian antiquity. This is evidenced by the simplicity of its design, its influence on the text of other prayers compiled later and, finally, its presence in all the most ancient euchologies. Based on all such data, its origin can rightfully be attributed to a time before the 6th century” (p. 374). Taken separately, this judgment could perhaps be considered impeccable. But as soon as we pay attention to the relationship in which the author places this prayer with another quite similar to it in content and structure, the judgment expressed above already raises insurmountable doubts about the author’s critical impartiality. The prayer he compares is: God is forgiven by Nathan of David... The author says about it: “It belongs to a very respectable antiquity. Of course (!) it is fair to admit that she is the same age as the first of the penitent (i.e., God our Savior), but somewhat later” (p. 194). Here are these prayers in the most ancient Slavic translations: Although the volume is almost equal, the first of these prayers is richer in content and simpler in presentation. The form of doxology alone forces the first to be attributed to a deeper Christian antiquity compared to the second. b) From a strictly historical point of view, the venerable author will not escape, it seems, the reproach of being too bold and partial to his manuscripts and for the following judgment: “The author of the prayer being interpreted (Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God) is not named; but one monument is an exception here too (directly attributing it to James, the brother of the Lord). This indication, being the only one of its kind, is extremely important in this case because 1) it is found in a monument no later than the 12th century and 2) in a monument in which the apocryphal element is completely absent. At the same time, one cannot help but recall that with the name of the Apostle James, this prayer is also found in the ancient Greek statutes of confession (?) and, in addition, with the general inscription εύχή, it occurs in the most ancient lists of the liturgy attributed to the Apostle James. In view of all this, if there are no unconditional grounds to agree with the reference in question to the author of the prayer that occupies us, then, in any case, one cannot (not) admit that even in ancient times this prayer was looked at as a monument dating back in its origin to the first centuries of Christianity” (p. 172). In our opinion, an impartial attitude towards this testimony of the 12th century manuscript. gives the right only to the following judgment. A medieval descriptor (12th century) of a liturgical monument attributed this prayer to James, the brother of the Lord, on the grounds that it is found in the lists of the liturgy, learned according to tradition by this apostle. Chapter IV (pp. 320–454) and the last one in the second volume, under the heading: “Confessors,” presents a historical overview of the teachings of St. fathers and church definitions on confession as a general Christian duty. The source for it is no longer handwritten material, but the existing scientific literature on the subject, mainly Russian. In this respect, this chapter is similar to the 1st chapter of the 1st volume, which, by the way, is evidenced by the commonality for both sources. Its scientific dignity is homogeneous with it. The third volume of Mr. Almazov’s scientific work is an appendix to the first two. In essence, this is not a study, but a publication of Greek and Slavic monuments. The publication of this material by the author is divided into 7 sections: the first 4 are an appendix to volume I of the study, and the last three to volume II. The total number of Greek articles published by the author reaches 23 issues (for volume I) + 57 (for volume II); Yugoslavian 3№№; Russian 120 nos. (for the 1st volume) +80 (for the 2nd volume) - different centuries and different volumes. Both the purpose of the publication and the criteria which guided the publisher in the selection and arrangement of his material are explained in the preface to this volume. The fact that this third volume of Mr. Almazov’s learned work has already received very attentive attention in our literature, namely as a publication, in the articles of Prof. A.A. Dmitrievsky (“Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy” 1897 November and December), gives us reason to avoid a detailed description of this part of Mr. Almazov’s work with reference to the above-mentioned critical articles. But we consider ourselves obligated to make up for what is lacking in them. The learned reviewer, in our opinion, acted strictly one-sidedly, pointing out only the shortcomings of the publication. Of course, this severity is evidence of the reviewer’s scientific zeal for the truth: typographical errors in the publication, of which Mr. Dmitrievsky pointed out so many, of course, constitute a great sin for the publisher. In pointing out these shortcomings and correcting them, the reviewer’s merit is certainly worthy of gratitude. However, we cannot lose sight of the mitigating circumstance of the publisher that he published not just one, albeit large, handwritten monument (a letter from one hand), but small articles in a wide variety of handwritings. This circumstance is a very complicating and hampering issue for publication. And it would not be unfair to shift a significant share of the responsibility for the sins of a publication of this kind from the publisher to the typesetters of the printing house, who are forced to constantly change fonts. On the other hand, if, out of justice, the work of correcting the publisher’s errors is assessed with gratitude, then isn’t it all the more deserving of the work of the publication itself, which is incomparably greater than the first? In general, III of this year Almazov, with the exception of no more than 8 articles, the rest of the material published outside is in print for the first time and, moreover, in the form of a scientifically commented publication: for the research offered in volumes I and II in a significant part is precisely an extensive commentary on the publication, although this latter, in turn, serves for the first, so to speak, as a justifying document. Taking into account, on the one hand, the value of monuments scattered in handwritten form in distant libraries and collected by Mr. Almazov in one book, on the other hand, the lack of our publications, our pathetic dependence in this regard on foreign publications - we must, in fairness, first of all, welcome each new publication, especially scientifically commented, like the publication of Mr. Almazov, and to correct the shortcomings inevitable in every human act, add an expression of gratitude for hard publishing work undertaken for the common benefit. By expressing such gratitude, Mr. Almazov from liturgical and canonical Russian science and we end our review of his scientific work. Briefly summarizing the results of our feasible study of the entire scientific work of Mr. Almazov that we have considered, we must say: 1) This work, in terms of its vast erudition, freshness of material, extraordinary energy and zeal of the author, represents a very outstanding phenomenon in Russian scientific and theological literature. 2) Revealing the history of confession from the point of view of its rites and the image of the test of the penitent over periods of time almost unexplored until now, Mr. Almazov’s work has taken a strong place in science, filling a vast gap in it. And if this work is not devoid of shortcomings in material, methodological and literary terms; then these shortcomings should only have an exciting effect on other researchers, prompting them to improve the building that was erected by Mr. Almazov. The building of science can never be the work of one: it is always the product of collective labor. And God grant that there be as many learned workers as possible in Russian theological science like Mr. Almazov. On this basis, we would believe that on the part of the highest spiritual scientific-administrative institution, which has honored us with the honor of expressing before it our opinion about the work ahead, it would be quite fair to award Mr. Almazov for his very diligent, scientifically fruitful and, in church-practical terms, very useful work the full prize of the Most Reverend Metropolitan Macarius. Prof. St. M.I. Gorchakov: Nomocanon at the Great Trebnik (review) see Report on the XVI award of Count Uvarov. 1878. Page 82 et seq. Commentarius historicus de disciplina in administratione sacram. poenitentiae. Parisiis. M.D.C.LI. 77–90. In our opinion, the following editions of the Postnikov Charter provide very important options for the passage in question: See our post application. 3rd page 4 [Almazov vol. III, pp. 64–65. RKP. X century It is interesting that according to this edition, the initial moment of confession is not performed at all before the altar, as in most editions of the Postnikov Rule [έμπροσϑεν τοῦ ϑυσιασηρίου], but directly before St. meal [έμπροσϑεν τής άγίας Τραπέζης], See Almazov in c. m. Published in a book by Prof. A. Dmitrievsky: Divine services in the Russian Church in the 16th century. Kazan. 1884. App. No. VIII. We owe our acquaintance with this monument in copy to the extraordinary generosity of the late A.S. for a scientist. Pavlova. He gave us an exact copy of this famous Munich manuscript, made for him in 1877 by G.K. Muller (Nomocanon under B. Trebnik. New edition. M. 1897, p. 30), Review of the Helmsman's Book in historical form. SPb. 1889. 89 et seq. Description of Rumyantsev. museum, page 279. The original Slavic-Russian nomocanon, pp. 22 et seq. Imaginary traces of Catholic influence in the most ancient monuments of Yugoslavian and Russian. c. rights, M. 1892. Pp. 42 and 43. In the Pannonian Life of Methodius (died in 886) we read: “then the nomocanon, decreed the rule of the law and transposed the books of the fathers.” Pavlov, Initial. Sl.-Russian nomocanon, p. 22. See second column of our appendix. We present this ancient Slavic translation from the manuscript of the Moskov library. Theological Academy of the XV-XVI centuries. (while maintaining the spelling of the original) is completely identical with the above-mentioned Rumyantsevskaya. Pavlov: Notes on the Georgian nomocanon, p. 9. Letter to Academician K.I. Brosset, 1874 Andreev I.D. Patriarchs of Constantinople from the time of the Council of Chalcedon to Photius. Sergiev Posad 1835, pp. 256–286. In the rite under consideration, the pre-confession part is depicted in this form: the priest places the one who has to confess before the altar and sings with him the Trisagion and psalms: VI, XXIV, and L; and praises. Then say psalms: XXXI, LXIX and CI, glory and says the troparion of the 4th tone, “visit my humble soul,” the other: “swimming the abyss” (See these troparions in the Psalter for the XV kathisma or in the Octoechos of the IV tone); to the Mother of God diligently as a priest, etc. F.A.Ch. Historical overview of the hymns and hymns of the Greek church. Chernigov, 1864, p. 316. That is 1) pre-confession part; 2) revelation of secret sins, 3) resolution of sins; 4) a confessional conversation between the spiritual father and the confessor. True, the author had a parchment document in his hands. XIII century Soph. bib. No. 524 (belongs to the library of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy), but the author notes about it; “unfortunately, for the most part it (probably the RKP) is so damaged that there is no way to restore it in its entirety.” (Page 241). The Chudov version was published by Mr. Almazov in Volume III, No. 1, dep. III, pp. 102–105. Pavlov: Nomocanon with a large breviary. New ed. M. 1897. We accidentally came across a handwritten copy of this rite, along with the nomocanon, in the RKP. No. 53 bib. Moscow spirit. Academy, precisely as an epilogue in the syntagma of M. Vlastar under the title. “Nomocanon, that is, a legal rule with the Holy God.” L. 265–298. The entire manuscript was written no earlier than 1620, for this year is designated as the time of compilation of the “Key of the most necessary things of this book” (L. 208), before and no later than 1640, for in this year the RKP. was already donated to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, as evidenced by the inscription of the donor at the beginning on the sheets of the manuscript: “The book, the verb rules of the saints, the father gave to the ruler of the house of the Life-Giving Trinity and the great wonderworkers Sergius and Nikon, the cellarer, elder Alexander Bulatnikov leta zrmi.” You might be interested in: