Review of the book by I. D. Mansvetov “Church Charter (Typic), its formation and fate in the Greek and Russian Churches”

See also: Church Charter Typik, its formation and fate in the Greek and Russian Churches, Professor Ivan Danilovich Mansvetov Essay by Professor I. Mansvetov. Moscow, 1885. (Review by Associate Professor of the Kiev Theological Academy A. Dmitrievsky) The Church Charter or Typikon is very important in church liturgical practice. Not without reason, the “printing master Anisim Mikhailov son of Rodoshevsky” in the preface to the ill-fated Typikon of 1610 (editio princeps) called this book “The Eye of the Church and the leader of all books, even in the divine council of the Apostolic Church, goodness was pre-decreed in everything.” Indeed, our Typikon is not only the main regulator of modern church and liturgical practice and “the leader of all books,” but it extends its sphere of influence much further, striving to streamline even the structure of the religious and everyday life of modern Orthodox society. Therefore, it goes without saying that a thorough and comprehensive study of the historical fate of this book is an urgent need. Knowledge of the history of the Typikon, satisfying the curiosity of the inquisitive mind of a serious scientist, is also important in practical terms for the Church itself or, more particularly, for its shepherds, as leaders of the Orthodox Christian society; it reveals to us not only how this code of various kinds of demands from modern Christian society and, in particular, from our clergy has developed, but also what has existed in it for a long time and is thus sanctified by the authority of deep antiquity and what has appeared in relatively recent times is distinguished by its novelty, randomness and, therefore, introduces instability of views, produces in our church services “not order and decorum,” but qualities completely opposite and, thus, subject to either correction or even complete destruction. However, in order to achieve the now indicated vital and practical results from studying the history of the Typikon, it was necessary to come to a researcher who would willingly and with preliminary scientific preparation take on the boring, painstaking work of sorting through all the available material included in our Church Charter, would be imbued with the consciousness of its importance for the good of the Church and would directly and boldly look into the eyes all the upcoming difficulties in its implementation. In the person of the late gifted and hardworking professor of the Moscow Theological Academy I. D. Mansvetov, our Typikon found just such a researcher, despite the fact that the days of his working life at that time were numbered and he already stood with one foot at the edge of his premature grave. G. Mansvetov boldly and decisively set for himself a broad, not to say completely impossible for one person, even with the talent and energy of the late professor, - the task of “tracing the formation and fate of the Typikon in the Greek and Russian Churches in as complete an outline as possible.” It is impossible because in carrying out this task it is imperative to deal with raw material, which consists almost mainly in our Slavic-Russian and Greek manuscripts, and to work in an area not developed in science and, therefore, without predecessors. “We do not provide a detailed list (on the basis of which the book was written) because there is no special literature on our issue,” Mr. Mansvetov openly declares, “but there are several works and collections of liturgical content that have a positive significance in developing the issue of the Typical; and then, even if we went through all these works and conveyed their content, we would not even then receive a historical outline of the scientific development of this issue and would have before us a number of separate works, not connected by the succession of work, but appearing in fits and starts and by chance. The study of the question of the Typikon has no history and has not constituted a clearly defined task in theological science” (p. IV). Therefore, we are not at all surprised that in the end the author himself realized his mistake and, in the preface to his work, which should more accurately be called an “afterword,” frankly and frankly declared that the broad task he had outlined turned out to be impossible for him and calls for its further development by others “who are in better conditions for such work” than those in which the author was. “The Church Charter,” according to our researcher, “in its most complete and complete representatives combines two large departments: liturgical and disciplinary and provides decisions on issues relating to a) church service, b) monastic life and c) general Christian behavior. Of these three unevenly developed parts of the Typik, we, says Mr. Mansvetov, chose this first one for our studies, and touched on the disciplinary side only to the extent that it was necessary to clarify liturgical issues and gain a closer acquaintance with the fate of the Typik as a known record or written monument. But even within these limits, we did not do everything that was expected and that should have been included in our planned program, due to the impossibility of using all the data necessary to justify it. First of all, we still do not know the materials for the history of the Greek charter in its ancient times - during the transition period from brief notes to the formation of its complete written statements. What we had to get acquainted with the last of the Moscow libraries is limited to a dozen Greek lists, from which it would be very bold to make broad generalizations and restore the fate of the Typica during the period of its initial formation. Foreign libraries could have helped this matter to a large extent, but, unfortunately, the materials in them turned out to be inaccessible to us, and we could use them only to the smallest extent, according to the catalogs of Lambetius, Montfaucon, Hardt and others,” in which, we note from ourselves, there is only a list of manuscripts bearing the name Typikon, without even indicating the articles included in them. “From the area of ​​Old Russian charters in our work,” Mr. Mansvetov continues his thoughts, “the local Russian church ranks, whose representatives are the monastic everyday workers and the regulations of the cathedral service, remained untouched. This section of our liturgical writing is so rich in content and important in its conclusions that we did not dare to touch upon it in a cursory essay. In view of the already published materials of this kind and the beginning of their development, the study of local Russian statutes awaits a special monograph” (p. III). Thus, on the one hand, the lack of data to solve the proposed problem, and on the other, the excessive wealth of them, to almost the same extent, according to the author’s own consciousness, hinder him. But the shortcomings he indicated, so to speak, of a general nature do not exclude other, particular ones, which, although he did not mention in the preface, but which he encounters on almost every page. From here, again, it is clear why Mr. Mansvetov had to evade the intended task, instead of treating the history of the “formation” of the Typikon in his book about the already “formed” Typikon and heading its first chapter as follows: “The first period of the history of the Charter.” How difficult the task outlined by Mr. Mansvetov is can be seen even from this first chapter. He was unable to write the history of the “formed” Typikon already in its first period of existence. “From the first period of the Rule,” he says, “no special records of it have survived, and there are only materials for the history of the Typica in various kinds of collections and liturgical works. Therefore, the task of our research regarding this period will be to review the sources related to this and to extract from them material to get acquainted with the composition of the worship service of that time” (p. 2). The statement is very strong, but one can hardly agree with it completely. It is true that to this day “no special records have survived” of the Charter, the earliest copies of which become known only from the 12th century; not even a record of those rules that Savva the Sanctified passed on to his successor Melita before his death has survived to us, but we, however, know that two Orologies of the 9th century have survived to us, one of which has a connection with the customs of the Lavra of Savva the Sanctified (ὡ ρολ ό γιον κατὰ τὸν καν ό να τῆς Λαύρας τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Σάβα) and is described in some detail about. Antoninus 1, the Triodion of 1090, written in the Lavra of Sava the Sanctified 2, the August Menaion of the 9th century, now stored in the library of the Krushenicheskoe Monastery in Macedonia 3, etc. All these are very valuable materials for characterizing the liturgical orders in the period of time before the appearance of the records of the Rule, and we have no right to ignore them. But, making the above judgment, Mr. Mansvetov had himself in mind first of all, and we cannot strictly judge him for his ignorance of the data we have listed, because in science they have been appreciated in relatively recent times. Among the “materials for the history of Typica”, Mr. Mansvetov puts in first place the euchologies from the Barberino Library of the 8th-9th centuries. and from the collection of Rev. Porphyry (now Imperial pub. bib.) 10th century. (according to Mansvetov, the same age as the first), however, with the caveat that “they don’t give much for studying the Charter of Euchology” (p. 3). And indeed, if in these euchologies over the evening and morning prayers, which in themselves have no significance for the history of the Typikon, there would not be inscriptions like the following: εὐχὴ ἑωθ ί νη θ ᾿ πρὸ τοῦ εὐαγγελ ί ου , εὐχὴ εἰς τὸ Δ ό ξα ἐν ὑψίστοις, ἑὐχὴ εἰς Αἰνεῖτε τὸν Κύριον ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν 4, then these Euchologies could provide absolutely nothing for the present purpose. Now, thanks to the inscriptions indicated now, we become acquainted with the composition and order of the daily service. Second place after the Euchologia is given to the Psalter by Rev. Porphyry, written in 862, but from it the author draws such information that he can hardly pinpoint it to a certain specific place in the order of daily worship. The biblical songs discovered by Mr. Mansvetov in this manuscript, as we know (see ὡ ρολ. X-XI centuries, handwritten by Esphigmen. bib., No. 71 and Russian. Panteleim. mon. on Athos, No. 18), were part of the daily service, sung at matins instead of the canon, but in the Psalms these songs are usually placed at the end of the manuscript and without indication of their everyday use in church services. In addition, judging by the article “ψαλμωδ ί α καθῶς ψάλλομεν ἐν τῇ ἁ γ ίᾳ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἀναστάσει ", published by the archimandrite of the Moscow Danilov Monastery Amphilochius (Reader. general. lovers. spiritual enlightenment. 1873), in this Psalter we have a record of rituals practiced exclusively in Jerusalem, in the Church of the Resurrection, and, therefore, we can hardly This Psalter should be considered as materials for the history of the widely used Typikon. The most ancient handwritten Gospels quite often contain quite extensive liturgical notes, in the form of extracts from the Typikon, and can provide a researcher who does not have sources more suitable for his purposes with a tremendous service, but the Gospels of 835 and the 8th-9th centuries that Mr. Mansvetov had at hand. from the library of Rev. Porfiry does not belong to this kind of list, which is why he extracted very little liturgical data from them. Indications of readings for holidays and acquaintance with the month book of the 9th century, which Mr. Mansvetov does not even mention, that’s all they gave him. As for profitologies, given the same content, with very rare exceptions, it is possible to obtain from them quite a lot of valuable liturgical data, as we see from our author’s book (p. 5, note 1), but we must not forget that these data, for the most part, are directly related to the so-called Typikon of the Great Church and may not be suitable for characterizing the orders of the general church. Article:" ας “(p. 9) by its title says quite clearly that one cannot look for “materials” in it to characterize “the first period of the history of the Charter.” The same must be said about the essay “De ceremoniis aulae Byzantinae,” which refers mainly to “the rituals of the patriarchal service, the situation of royal exits and serves as material for getting acquainted with the ancient Charter of the Great Church” (p. 10). that for his purposes “this work gives little,” but also, what is much more important, is that it “goes beyond the pre-statutory period” (ibid) and therefore uses it already in the chapter on the “Charter of the Great Church” in great detail. Kondakar works of Roman the Sweet Singer and some writers before the 9th century. “in the history of the Charter, they are important as material for familiarization with one of the oldest forms of church hymnography, which had widespread liturgical use before the appearance of the canons and was subsequently supplanted by other types of church chants. In addition, the Kondakari contain indications of certain holidays and their liturgical settings.” But in view of the fact that some of the kontakia of Roman the Sweet Singer “were subsequently forged,” “the power” of them “as a liturgical source is significantly weakened, and they can only be used with great caution” (p. 371). As for the hymnographic works of St. Auxentius, almost a contemporary of Roman the Sweet Singer, nothing is known about them in the literature yet. All information about St. Auxentius as a hymnographer is usually drawn from his biography, compiled by his student and published by Mign. Patrol. Curs. Complet., t. 104, but they don’t go further than that. Thus, from the consideration of the “review of sources” attributed by Mr. Mansvetov “to the first period of the history of the Charter,” we come to the conclusion that to characterize the composition of the divine service of that time, he only had at hand the Apostolic Decrees (p. 8) and Profitologies. It is not surprising, therefore, that the author fills the section he has outlined, out of fear, obviously, of leaving it without content, not only with diverse material, but also takes it from different eras, as long as it is in manuscripts before the 10th century. With these actually few and, moreover, “little content” sources, and according to the consciousness of the author himself, it was difficult to begin to present the features of the liturgical order for a given time. Therefore, Mr. Mansvetov decides to acquaint his readers with the nature of the Western statutes: Benedict of Hyrsia, Caesarius of Arles, Isidore of Seville, etc., calling them “an important addition to the above sources” (p. 11), and using them he tries to do what he could not achieve with sources of Eastern origin. The attempt was very unsuccessful, because the statutes of the Western Church had no relation to the statutes of the Greek Church and ours and are never quoted in our modern Typikon, and, therefore, finding in them what is necessary to characterize the liturgical orders in the first period of the history of the Rule can be called a waste of labor and time. In general, to our regret, we must state the fact that for the historical fate of the Typikon in the Greek Church in its first period of existence, there is almost no data in Mr. Mansvetov’s book and its entire first chapter, in our opinion, is filled, with few exceptions, with completely unnecessary material. The second chapter, covering the “second period of the history of the Charter,” begins with a statement almost from the very first lines that of the most ancient monuments of the Church Charter, no authentic records have been preserved; “It is very likely,” writes Mr. Mansvetov, “they were partly included in the later ones, but it becomes impossible to isolate their content from here and associate it with one or another local Typical. They did not have an independent future, giving way to more authoritative and wealthy ones. From these local recordings, the Studio and Savvina took the preponderance: they formed the basis for the entire subsequent development of Typika and reflected the further movement. Since the original record of the Jerusalem charter has not survived, we will have to deal with the studio’s primary basis of the Typica and judge from it the composition of its first systematic records. It appeared in the 9th-10th centuries, based on the rules maintained in the Studite monastery under Theodore the Studite, and was compiled by an unknown monk who hid his name under the vague “ἡμεῖς”. In the 10th century, this record was adopted in full (?) on Athos, and in parts it was included in later statutes” (p. 62). But, carefully examining our author’s judgments about the monuments or ancient records of the Charter “with the studio’s fundamental principles”, compiled by him based on the study of the data indicated by him in the lists known to him, and some other sources, we must say that these judgments largely sin against the truth. The blame, however, for this largely falls not on Mr. Mansvetov, but on the data that he had in mind when making his judgments. As is known, very few records of the Charter of this edition have survived. In science, only three were hitherto known: a) Ὑ ποτύπωσις τῆς καταστάσεως τῆς μονῆς τῶν Στουδὶου, b) and s) Κανονάριν Συνάξεως κα ί ἑορτῶν κα ί μνημῶν τῶν ἁ γ ί ων ἀρχ ό μενον ἀπὸ μηνὸς Σεπτεμβρ ί ου ἕ ως μην ό ς Αὐγούστου ἐχων πάσαν ἀκολουθ ί αν. To these three monuments of the primary records of the Statute of the Greek Church of the city of Mansvetov, due to a completely incomprehensible attraction to the liturgical monuments of the Latin Church, he also adds the “Ordo Romanus”, published by Marten from a manuscript of the 9th-10th centuries. Marbach Library. Mr. Mansvetov himself gives a completely correct assessment of this liturgical monument of the Western Church and correctly determines its relationship to the mentioned initial records of the Greek Church Rule. “We,” says the author, “attribute it (i.e. “Ordo Romanus”) to the statutes of the second edition in the way of presenting the liturgical material, but in content it differs from them as much as the church year and ritual in the Latin Church differ from ours” (p. 70). One can only wonder, to say the least, what prompted the author to give a place to this monument in his book, the main task of which is to outline the historical fate of the Typikon in the Greek and Russian Church. The same “way of presentation” of a monument is not a sufficient basis for considering diverse monuments under the same heading and can lead a critic to very serious objections to the author. All three monuments of the primary records of the Church Charter in the Greek Church that we named were hitherto known to science, with the exception of the first, only in the Russian translation of the famous learned archimandrite and rector of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem, Fr. Antonina. This is one very important circumstance for the correctness of the judgment about the monument and for the conclusion, based on studying it, of certain conclusions should have inspired caution and prudence in our author, and even more so we have the right to demand this from him when he had reason to suspect the translation of the Charter of Athanasius, at least in a single case (in the article on clothing), “inaccuracy and incompleteness” (p. 65). But in fact, in Mr. Mansvetov’s book, to our regret, we do not see anything like this. Based only on the translation of Διατύπωσις by Athanasius of Athos, made by Fr. Antonin in his “Notes of a Devotee of the Holy Mountain”, Kyiv, 1864, who, as we now know, made very important omissions and changes in his translation, Mr. Mansvetov made the most thorough and detailed comparison of the studio style with the charter of Athanasius of Athos. In Mr. Mansvetov’s comparison (pp. 66–68) there is therefore neither completeness nor correctness. We personally currently have in our possession the Greek original of the charter of Athanasius of Athos, which we took from a handwritten collection of 16 sheets of paper written in cursive in the 16th century. and entitled: “Περὶ τῆς ἱερ ᾶ ς μονῆς τῶν Ἰ β ή ρων.” Manuscript No. 754 (228) is in the library of the Iversky Monastery on Mount Athos. The entire charter of Athanasius of Athos is entitled as follows: Ἀθανασ ί ου τοῦ ἐν τ ῷ Αθω "and consists of two parts, of which the first bears the title now given and treats the construction of the Lavra on Athos and the initial structure of life on Athos 5, and the second contains the will or charter of the Monk Athanasius with the title: "Ἡ "" This last part breaks down into the reverend father’s will itself, in which he gives instructions regarding the election of a successor to himself as abbot, on observing the rules of St. laurels, compiled by him, about the duties of epitropes, about the relationship of monks among themselves and to the abbot, etc., and on the article: a) περὶ τῆς ἑν βρ ώ μασι κα ί π ό μασι ποσ ό b) περὶ ? and d) Περὶ τῆς ἀγ ί ας τεσσαρακ ό ςης . Of these, the last two chapters, or rather headings, have as their subject the church and liturgical orders in the Lavra of St. Athanasius and were subject to comparison in the book of Mr. Mansvetov with the Ὑ ποτύπωσις -th of Theodore the Studite, as with its fundamental principle. Now, so that we can judge how incorrectly Mr. Mansvetov’s comparison of the records of the Charter known to us, and then below in the article “On the Studio Charter”, therefore, a statement of the features of this charter according to them, we will note here several facts, leaving their detailed comparison until a more favorable time. The ringing, for example, for Easter Matins, according to Theodore the Studite, is described as follows: κάτω, and according to the recording of Athanasius of Athos: π ί πτει τοῦ ὑδρολογ ί ου τὸ σύσσημον καὶ τ ῇ ? The similarity is almost literal, but according to Mansvetov, “no”. According to both records, there are two readings at Matins: one after the third song from Gregory the Theologian: Ἀναστάσεως ἡμέρα (according to Athanasius’ record: ἀνάγνωσις μ ί α ἀπὸτῆς τρ ί της, i.e. ὠ δῆς, and according to the manuscript of Vatop., XIII-XIV centuries, No. 323 (133), and Moscow synod., No. 456 and 141, γ ί νεται δε ἀνάγνωσις μ ί α ὑπὸ τοῦ θεολ ό γου · Ἀναστάσεως ἡμέρα ), and the other - after kissing, daytime (according to St. Athanasius ἡμέρας), i.e. the current word of John Chrysostom: “If anyone is pious and God-loving” (according to the handicraft of Vatop. and Synod., ἐν τῷ ἄμβωνι καὶ ἀναγιν ώ σκει τὸν τοῦ ἁ γ ί ου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰ ωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστ ό μου λ ό γον, οῦ ἡ ἀρχὴ Εἰ τὶς εὐσεβὴς καὶ φιλ ό θεος ). Mansvetov says that, according to both records, “after the kiss, the day of resurrection is read (the word of Gregory the Theologian)” (p. 66). The remarks about Compline from Monday of St. Thomas Week are literally similar in both entries, and Mansvetov thinks that this remark is “not present” in the entry of St. Afanasia. The same must be said about the comments regarding the fast of St. apostles, etc., etc. By a similar comparison of facts taken by us directly from the Greek original of the recording of St. Afanasy, with the data from the recording of Theodore the Studite, according to its publication by Min, we could turn very many of Mr. Mansvetov’s “nos” into “is,” but we consider the facts we have indicated to be quite sufficient for our purpose. If we state the fact that Ὑ ποτύπωσις of Theodore the Studite is known in science according to a very abbreviated list and not without some errors in the text, and that it is often found in manuscripts (Τυπικ, manuscript. Moscow Synod. Library No. 456; manuscript. Vatop. Library No. 323 (133); No. 325 (936) it is found in a more correct and complete form, then, on the one hand, similar features between Ὑ ποτύπωσις -th and Διατύπωσις -th will be even more prominent and will increase to a maximum, unexpected for Mr. Mansvetov, and on the other hand, they will arise even more. the obviousness of the features, the differences between them, which are very important for characterizing the orders according to the studio charter and for substantiating the important position for us that the recording of St. Athanasius represents in many ways a rather significant, contrary to the opinion of Mr. Mansvetov (p. 65), alteration of the studio style. The Ὑ ποτύπωσις of Theodore the Studite was first published in its present form by Angel May in his “Spicileg. Roman.", t. IV, and from here Minem was reprinted in “Patrol. curs. complete", t. 99 (Greek series). The Russian translation of the Easter service according to this entry was published in the “Complete Monthly Book of the East” by Archimandrite (now Bishop) Sergius, vol. 1, p. 42, appendix, and a complete translation of the entire Ὑ ποτύπωσις in the “History of the Russian Church” by Prof. Moscow Spirit. Academician E. Golubinsky, M., 1881, vol. 1, floor. 11 p. 671. Mr. Mansvetov made very detailed notes to it in the book we are examining on pp. 112–116, approx. On the basis of manuscripts with Ὑ ποτύπωσις more complete and correct, we personally published only the rite of Easter Matins in “Orthodox. Interlocution." for 1882, vol. 1, p. 269, and in its entire form it awaits republication as soon as possible. Already this passage, printed by us with variants according to Min and the famous Mr. Mansvetov, it was enough to be convinced of significant differences in Ὑ ποτύπωσις -a from different manuscripts and to force the author of the book we are examining to pay more serious attention to the list of Ὑ ποτύπωσις -a known to him from the manuscript of the Moscow Synodal Library No. 456, which he, apparently through an oversight, found everywhere (p. 96, note 2; 410) calls it “an extract from a short outline of the studio monastery” and confuses it with the actual extract from this latter, found in another manuscript described by him, No. 381, of the same library, with the title: Μονῆς τοῦ Στουδ ί ου (p. 404); but in Mr. Mansvetov’s book we see nothing like this. In his book, he completely ignored both of the literary monuments we have now named, associated with the name of the most famous monastery in Constantinople, and limited himself to simply stating the fact of their existence in the manuscripts of the synodal library described by him, and even did this, as we have seen, with a rather important mistake. In order to now actually be convinced of the differences that exist between the named lists of Ὑ ποτύπωσις -a, for our purpose there is no need to make a detailed comparison between them, but it will be completely sufficient if we limit ourselves to indicating the more important and significant differences. So, for example, in the Ὑ ποτύπωσις -th according to the manuscripts there is a remark about the beginning of matins on Easter in the vestibule and the reasons for this custom, a detailed description of the ritual of kissing the clergy with the abbot and the rest of the brethren, a remark that, according to the Charter of the Great Church, on each master's holiday the deacon pronounced the prokeimenon, the apostle and alleluarius, and the protopretor (ὁ πρωτοπρέτορος) is St. The Gospel inside the altar (ἔσωθεν τοῦ β ή ματος), a detailed description of the procession of the cross, which took place on Monday in the second hour of the day, after ringing three times (κρούων τὰ τρ ί α ὁ κανονάρχης), instructions for the tonsure of willing brethren into the Great Schema on Easter Tuesday, for the performance of Matins on the Monday of St. Thomas Week with its special features on St. Thomas Sunday itself, etc. All these features of our Ὑ ποτύπωσις actually fall on its first part, which is entitled “How we act in the assemblies of the holy and glorious three-day Resurrection” with the addition according to Min “of our Savior. About the bill." As for the remaining chapters, fewer differences are already noticeable in them. In Ὑ ποτύπωσις -e Minya, in the chapter “On the Holy Pentecost”, there are the first four comments: 14–17, which are absent in our list, in which the remark about the epistimonarch and the awakener is directly adjacent to the first chapter “On Holy Pascha”; but our list contains detailed instructions on food and drink for the entire Lent; in the article “On the Holy Great Pentecost”. Wu Ming has only a brief mention of food on the Sundays of Lent. In our list, the remark about the eve of Epiphany is, as it should be, at the end of Ὑ ποτύπωσις - and not in the chapter “On proportionality in services”, as in Min, and contains interesting features against the latter. When the priest leaves the altar for the blessing of water, in accordance with the most ancient and newest lists of the great blessing of water, the stichera is sung three times: “The voice of the Lord on the waters,” and according to Min – “I am baptized in the Jordan, Lord,” which, according to our list, is supposed to be sung when immersing St. cross. On the way back to the church they sing “Today is the Trinity in the Unity of Divinity,” while in Minya, after sprinkling the brethren and blessing the water, they sing: “The Voice of the Lord on the Waters” with the refrains: “What is the sea” and “See the sea and run,” and when returning to the church - the troparion “Dress yourself in the divine light.” Now comparing our record of the Ὑ ποτύπωσις of the Studite monastery with the Διατύπωσις of St. Athanasius of Athos in his Greek original, we will find much more similar features between both styles, but we will also discover very significant differences between them. As an example, let's compare some places in both records: According to Ὑ ποτύπωσις - from the studio According to Διατύπωσις - from Afanasy According to Mr. Mansvetov’s comparison of both records, it turns out that in Ὑ ποτύπωσις -th “matins begins after the end of the second watch of the night or at 6 o’clock,” and the remarks that “the priest, having left the altar, walks along the northern side of the church” and about the standing of the brethren with lighted candles are completely “not” (p. 66). The remark about Compline from Monday of St. Thomas Week is literally similar in both entries, and according to Mansvetov, in Διατύπωσις St. Afanasy there is no such remark. The same must be said about the fast of St. apostles, etc. But there are such important differences between one entry and another that deserve comment and however, for a very understandable reason, did not find a place in Mr. Mansvetov’s book. The entry of Theodore the Studite describes in detail, for example, the ritual of kissing at the end of Matins on Easter, speaks of the procession of the cross on Monday, and the tonsure of the brethren on Tuesday, but in Διατύπωσις there is none of this. In turn, the recording of St. Athanasius speaks, for example, about the reading of the Gospel at the end of the Matins of St. Thomas Monday, in general terms about Compline on Saturday evening and on the eve of the Lord's and in honor of the great holy holidays, about the celebration of requiem after Compline from Antipascha to the Sunday of All Saints, about Vespers of Pentecost, about the non-performance of Compline on the eve of the Nativity of Christ, Epiphany, on Good Friday and on Great Saturday, about the time of the liturgy, about the rite of Panagia, about the number of stichera on “I cried to the Lord” on weekdays and holidays, etc., and the Ὑ ποτύπωσις of Theodore the Studite remains deeply silent about all this. Mr. Mansvetov is also silent about all this out of necessity. Κανονάριν συνάξεως καὶ ἑορτῶν καὶ μνημῶν τῶν ἀγὶων ἀρχ ό μενον ἀπὸ μην ό ς σεπτεμβρ ί ου ἕ ως μηνὸς αὐγούστου ἔχων πάσαν ἀκολουθ ί αν is known in science, as we have already said, from a translation made by Fr. Archimandrite Antonin and published in Trud. Kyiv. Spirit. Academician for May and June 1874. We do not deny the undeniable importance of this monument of the 9th-10th century for the history of the Church Charter and believe its very competent translator, who has an excellent command of the Greek language, that it is conveyed “in an exact translation into Russian,” but for us a few dark places in this monument that were not amenable to translation and explanation by the publisher (πληροῖ, ὅ σοι, προσφωνιστικὸν τῶν κατηχουμένων, χοροστάσιμον, etc.), some indications of names from the Western calendar and of the custom of practice of the Greek Church in Italy (pp. 14, 25, 47, etc. according to the brochure), and one simple bewilderment of the publisher (p. 58 ibid) in order to have the right to refrain from judgment regarding the real liturgical monument, expressing a desire to see its original in print as soon as possible. In addition, we are personally motivated by the fact that the Sinai Canonary is not a short record of the Church Charter in the proper sense, imprinted by the character of one person or even a well-known community, created to regulate church and liturgical orders in one place or another, but is nothing more nor less than excerpts from an entire record of rather dubious origin, and therefore cannot even be considered, in our opinion, in this chapter. Instead of the Sinai Canonary and the notorious “Ordo Romanus,” we think it would be very appropriate to introduce here a review of the so-called “clitoral statutes” (τυπικὰ κτητορικὰ), to which Mr. Mansvetov barely devoted space at the end of his appendices to the book we are examining (p. 441), without giving them almost any significance for your goal. The records of the Church Rules of Studium and Athanasius of Athos are nothing more than the clitoral typikons given to certain certain monasteries for the regulation of monastic life and church liturgical life in them. The same is pursued by all other ktitor statutes in the proper sense of the word. Even in terms of content, there is a very great similarity between all this kind of monuments. If, of them, only the first two typikons especially stood out and received important significance in the history of the Church Rule - the Studite and St. Athanasius, the reason for this lies entirely in the historical fate of those monasteries for which they were written, and even more importantly - in those names with which tradition connected their origin. Of the Greek ktitor's charters, Mr. Mansvetov knew only three: a) the Charter of Empress Irene, given by her around 1114 to the convent of Grace in Constantinople, b) the Charter of Michael Attaliates 6 1077 (Μεσα ί ων . βιβλ . I., s. 1–69 Sathas) and c) Charter of Metropolitan Zichnia Joachim to the Monastery of the Baptist near Athos (according to Mansvetov on Athos) ἐν τῷ ὂ ρει τοῦ Μενοικέως, 1324 (ibid. s. 202–211). Of the Slavic monuments he considers to be ktitor typikons: the typikon of St. Savva of Serbia (Glasn. Serb. academic friendship. 1866, book III) and for the first time published by him “our holy father John Patelarei, abbot of the charter of his monastery” (pp. 442–444). To us personally and according to the publications of Miklosic and Müller “Acta et diplomata monasteriorum et ecclesiarum orientis”, vol. V, t. II, Vindobonae, 1887, in addition to those indicated above, the following ktitor's charters are currently known: 1) the Georgian monastery of the Most Holy Theotokos Petritsutissa (τῆς Πετριτζο ὕ ιτ ί σσης) in Baskov near Philipopolis, given by the Patriarch of Jerusalem Euthymius in 1084 to its abbot Gregory Bakurian (ruler Khalkin. theologian. school in Constantinople No. 85); 2). surnames Komnenov (ibid); 3) ργους καὶ Ναυπλ ί ου ἐπ ί τ ῇ γεγονυῖα πα ῤ αὐτοῦ νέα μον ῇ ἐπί ὀν ό ματι τῆς ὑπεραγ ί ας Θεοτ ό κου ἐν τῇ Α ῤ ε ί α, 1143 (Acta et diplom. monast. et ecclesiar. orient, pag. 183–190); 4) The Charter given to Athanasius, abbot of the monastery of the Great Martyr Mamant, by the sovereign prince George the mystic in 1159 (ruled by Khalkin. bib., no. 85); 5) τῆς ί ου Βωμῶν 7 ἤ τοι τῶν ἐλεγμῶν, given by Emperor Manuel Komnenos in 1162; 6) Typicon of the Mother of God Macherada (Μαχαιράδος) on the island of Cyprus, given by the founder of this monastery, Bishop Nilus of Thomas in 1210 (printed as a separate pamphlet in Venice in 1756, and from here reprinted by Miklosic and Müller in Act. diplomat, pag. 392–432) and 7) Typicon for the monastery of St. Auxentia at Chalcedon near Constantinople, given by Tsar Michael Palaiologos between 1260 and 1281. To the now listed ktitor typikons, we will also add the charter, “compiled between 1034 and 1043 by the Patriarch of Constantinople Alexy for the Assumption Monastery founded by him” (p. 73), which is known in science in the Slavic translation from its description by Gorsky and Nevostruev in “Description. glory handwritten Moscow synod. bibliography", dep. III, Part I, pp. 255–274. Mr. Mansvetov in his book also looks at this last monument as a ktitor’s typikon, although he did not directly and decisively express this. This is how we at least understand his words: “the Slavic edition, headed by Synodal Charter No. 330 - 380, represents a revision of the studio type in relation to the orders of the Alexiev monastery and in many places was compiled anew under the pen of his ktitor” (p. 121). However, while expressing a completely correct judgment about this monument, Mr. Mansvetov hesitated to call it by his name, and therefore it is completely in vain to present him as the “oldest representative” of the full edition of the studio charter in general (p. 74), below even makes a description of the liturgical orders allegedly prescribed by the Studite charter (140-168). So, the monuments of the Church Charter of the transitional era that we have named, each and every one of them, belong to certain historically famous persons, were written for a certain specific monastery and consist, although not of the same number of articles or chapters, but absolutely identical, sometimes to the point of textual literalism, in content, that is, from articles of a disciplinary nature that determine the structure of monastic life in a famous monastery, and from articles that treat liturgical orders also in relation to charters or synaxars of the Studite or Jerusalem monasteries. In this last respect, the monuments known to us break down as follows: the statutes of Michael Attaliatus in 1077, the Empress Irene in 1118, Bishop Argus and Navila Leo in 1143, Elijah Vomon in 1162, together with the records of the Studite monastery, St. Athanasius and Patriarch Alexios of Constantinople form one group with the liturgical orders of the Studite monastery, and the typikons of the Jerusalem Patriarch Euthymius 1084, John Porphyrogenet Komnenos, Byzantine Emperor, 1137, Prince George the Mystic 1159, Bishop of Timaseia Nile 1210 and the Byzantine Emperor Michael Palaiologos 1260–1281, together with the typicon of Sava the Serbian 1200–1208, set out the divine service in relation to the customs of the Jerusalem monasteries. However, in many points, for example, in the presentation of daily services, the monuments of both groups have much in common with each other. Undoubtedly, it would be very interesting to set out the very order of daily and annual divine services according to these monuments, in order to be able, upon further consideration of the complete records of the Church Rule, to highlight in greater relief its later layers in the divine service, but due to lack of time we are not able to do this now, and we promise to fill this gap later, on another occasion, when we will probably have at our disposal a larger number of similar monuments. Having indicated a certain place in the history of the Church Rule for the clergy typikons, we allow ourselves to express the opinion that these liturgical monuments constitute the transition to the complete records of the Church Rule, which appear only in the 12th century. In monasteries and even cathedral churches, these typikons were given by the founders, bishops and abbots precisely because the liturgical monastic charter had not yet been developed, had not yet received the completely finished form in which it became known by the end of the 12th century, when the need for issuing clitoral regulations, especially in its full form, was already disappearing. Be that as it may, the facts confirm our idea. In fact, if you pay attention to the chronology of the ktitor’s statutes we have listed, then their origin falls on the X, XI, mainly in the XII and partly in the beginning of the XIII century. Further, if we pay attention to another circumstance, that not a single complete Rule earlier than the 12th century has been discovered in any of the most famous libraries in Europe and Asia, 8 even in such a famous and rich library of the Sinai Monastery, which preserved within its centuries-old walls manuscripts of the 6th, 7th, 8th, etc. centuries, the earliest typikons belong to the 12th century, and the dated typikon, the oldest known in science, has 1214 (V. Gardthaus. Catal. codic. graecor. sinaiticorum Oxonii, 1886 an., p. 222), then you involuntarily come to the conclusion that there were no complete typikons in the modern sense of the word. The earliest lists of the complete typicon with the features of the practice of the Studian monastery in science are also known from the 12th-13th centuries (Theod. Toscani ad Typica graecorum Rom. 1864 an., p. 6–8). This circumstance, extremely important in the history of the Church Charter, cannot be ignored by its researcher. Finally, the oldest list of the Charter in the Slavic translation belongs, as we said, to the branch of ktitor’s charters. This is a handwritten typicon from the 12th century. Moscow Synodal Library No. 330–380. The time of the adoption of Christianity by the Russians (in 888) and the establishment of cenobitic monasteries in Russia by St. Theodosius of Pechersk, for which it was necessary to begin to “look for the rules of Chernechsk” from the “charter of the Chernets Studite” fall precisely on the period of dominance in the liturgical practice of Byzantium of short notes of the charter or ktitor typikons. Consequently, in Russia, no other typikon could have been introduced or transferred from Byzantium than the ktitorsky one. In particular, since the time of the embassy to Constantinople “one of the brethren” with the aim of writing off “the entire charter of the Studite monastery” falls (about 1065) to a time close to the administration of the Patriarchate of Constantinople by Alexius (between 1034–1043), who gave his monastery a typikon compiled by himself, should we not look here for an explanation of the fact that the original typikon is in Slavic translation came to us in Russia in the edition of this particular patriarch? In any case, for the newly established monasteries, which most of all needed the “Chernech rules”, which interpreted “how to sing the monastery song, and how to bow, and read the readings, and standing in the church and the entire church row, sitting at the meal and what to eat on which days all with the establishment” (P.S.R.L., vol. 1, p. 69), most of all could satisfy the ktitor's typikons in general and the typikon of Patriarch Alexy, as more complete and thorough than others, in particular. The complete records of the Church Charter could not satisfy this need, since in all the Slavic copies of the typikon known to us from the studio edition (see Mansvetov, appendix art. 380–395), except for the list of the 15th century. Moscow synod. library No. 382–905, which, with a few minor exceptions, represents “a complete similarity in presentation with statute No. 330” (p. 395), i.e., with the statute of Patriarch Alexy, in the Greek lists described by the scientist F. Toscani, already known to us, as well as in the Greek lists and even the oldest South Slavic Jerusalem edition or Sava the Sanctified “rules” Chernechsky" no. The above story of the chronicler regarding the search for St. Theodosius of the Church Charter, with an exact listing of the articles included in it, seems to reproduce the title of the second part of the charter of Patriarch Alexy. This title reads like this: “O Ustavnik, consider. about food and about drinking alcohol and about every other order. and about their presence both in the church and everywhere. was appointed, not according to the scriptures, to the monasteries of the studio by our reverend father, the confessor Theodore, who was the abbot there. devoted to the scriptures. from Saint Alexy and the Patriarch of the Universe, we will establish monasteries in the name of the Divine Mater" (manuscript of the Moscow Synod. Bible No. 330, fol. 196 vol.). The title of the second part of the Typikon of Patriarch Alexy, which we have now given, is also important for us in the sense that it points us to the sources used by this compiler of the Typikon. It turns out that Patriarch Alexy, the head of the Byzantine Church, did not have at his disposal the typikon of the Studite monastery in its complete form, since the Studite monastery itself did not yet know about the Typikon “from the scriptures,” but kept its customs mainly in “tradition” and only partly in the “Ὑ ποτύπωσις -e” already known to us. These sources, in connection with others, such as the typikon of the Great Church and the typikons of other monasteries, were used by the patriarch when the “Ustanovnik”, contained “not according to scripture” in the monastery of the studios of the reverend father of our confessor Theodore, decided to give it to his monastery “with scripture” on paper. Neither time nor place allow us to make a detailed comparison with the extracts of the texts of the articles of Alexy’s typikon with similar articles from the sources now named in order to most clearly prove the validity of the position we are expressing. In order for our position not to seem unfounded, we will make several comparisons of the articles of this typikon with the Ὑ ποτύπωσις (in the edition known to us) and other ktitor typikons. So, for example, the article “On the Great Holy Week”, about the service on Monday of St. Thomas Week, about the rearrangement of choirs at Vespers on Lazarus Saturday, about the commemoration of the dead on Meat Saturday, the article about the Great Pentecost, etc. are entirely taken from Ὑ ποτύπωσις by Theodore the Studite. The procession of the cross on Monday of Easter week is only mentioned in the typikon of Patriarch Alexy, but in Ὑ ποτύπωσις this process is described in the most careful way. In turn, the charter of Alexy at Vespers on Monday, in addition to the Easter stichera and the canon, specifies that the stichera and the canon be sung to the schema, because some of the brethren “wanted to be adorned with the schema on that holiday,” while Ὑ ποτύπωσις only makes the following remark regarding this: “Δέον ἐιδέναι, ὂt ι τῆς τρ ί της καὶ τῆς διακαινισ ί μου διδοῦμεν τούς "(manuscript Vatop. bib. No. 323) etc. Other articles, such as, for example, about the liturgies (No. 330, fol. 228 vol.), about the abbot (fol. 238 vol.), about the ecclesiastical enlightenment (fol. 278), etc. can be found in the other clitoral typikons we indicated. So, if the full Church Statutes begin to regulate Orthodox worship only from the 12th century, and until that time only the so-called “ktitor’s typikons” were important in current practice, then how can we explain the testimony of the famous expert on eastern worship and writer of the 11th century Nikon Chernogorets about the diversity of eastern typikons of Studite and Jerusalem? “It is necessary to know,” he writes in his tacticon, “as from the very beginning the existing brethren will bring me together, as the studio and Jerusalem types are different; parables and congregations and disagreeing one with another, lower studio with another studio, nor Jerusalem with another Jerusalem” (manufacturer: Solovetsky bib., found in Kazan. Dukh. Acad. No. 593, fol. 11 vol.). The question is very natural. From these words we see that in the 11th century. Not only were there Jerusalem and Studite statutes, but they were also found in various lists with many differences. But, in our opinion, this, at first glance, is a rather strong and important objection that can be easily eliminated. We believe, contrary to the arguments of Mr. Mansvetov (p. 73) that Nikon the Montenegrin had at hand precisely short notes or clitoral typikons, which, as we have seen, fall into two categories with significant differences: charters with the customs of the Studite monastery and charters with the customs of the Lavra of St. Sava the Sanctified. Here are the reasons for this confidence. It was noted above that in all the Greek and Slavic lists of the Studite Rule known to us, as well as in all the most ancient Greek and South Slavic lists of the Jerusalem Rule, there are no “Chernech rules” or rules regarding the structure of monastic life. Meanwhile, in the tacticon of Nikon Montenegrin, extracts are made not only of articles of a liturgical nature, but also of a disciplinary nature, and the latter are almost even larger than the former. The tactikon contains articles: “about the life of a cenobitic stay”, “a discussion about eating and drinking on Saturdays and weeks... and about the refectory arrangement”, “about socheva and vegetables”, “about clothes and vows”, etc. These are all articles that were only appropriate in the clitoral regulations, written not only for church use, but also for regulating the internal life of cenobitic monasteries. Only from these typikons could Nikon Montenegrin borrow such articles, which, moreover, are in most cases extracts from them. As for the “consolidated explanatory Typikon (word 1 of the Taktikon), where the testimony of the existing charters is compared,” the details regarding the services according to the Studite and Jerusalem charters that we encounter here should not confuse us, since at the hands of Nikon the Montenegrin there could be short ktitor’s typikons and extensive ones, such as, for example, the Typikon of Patriarch Alexy and the Typikon of the Byzantine nobleman of the 11th century. Mikhail Attaliat. The liturgical Typikon of the latter is still lost to science, but its existence is beyond doubt. In the chapter “περὶ τῆς δοξολογ ί ας” of his, in the proper sense, monastic ktitor’s charter, Michael Attaliat writes: “Τάς δε δοξολογ ί ας πάσας τὰς τε νυκτερινὰς καὶ ἡμερινὰς θέλω γενέσθαι κατά τὸ Τυπικὸν μοῦ, ὄπερ ἱδ ί ως συνεγραψάμην καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ, ὅ σα ἐκεῖσε κεκαν ό νισαι "(Miklos., M ϋ ll. Act. diplomat., p. 314), that is, regarding all evening and daytime doxologies, I wish that they be performed according to my Typikon, which I wrote separately, as well as everything else that is prescribed there. Judging by this statement, by the thoroughness of the first half of his charter, and also because the liturgical Charter did not find a place in the chapter “περὶ τῆς δοξολογ ί ας,” this, for our purpose, very interesting and hitherto, unfortunately, unknown charter should be no less in scope than the charter of Patriarch Alexy. From this kind of ktitor’s statutes, it is possible to compile a consolidated statute much more detailed than Nikon Chernogorets did. But if we had admitted for a while that Nikon the Montenegrin had to deal with the full Studite and Jerusalem typikons when writing his tacticon around 1086 (Bishop Sergius, Mansvetov, etc.), then how would we explain the fact that Patriarch Alexy, the head of the Byzantine Church, who was in charge of the then famous Studite monastery, when drawing up the charter for his monastery, did not find in this the last complete records of the charter, but was forced to use short records and ktitor typikons. The main church in the monastery founded by Patriarch Alexy was consecrated in 1034. If we take this year as the time of writing the charter of Patriarch Alexy, which is very likely, then the time of Nikon Montenegrin’s compilation of the tacticon is removed only 52 years later. Such a time is not enough for integral liturgical charters to be drawn up in the Studite monastery, for them to receive citizenship rights in liturgical practice, for them to become so complicated and modified under various influences that the Patriarchate of Antioch can say that these charters “disagree with one another.” We are no longer talking about the Jerusalem liturgical charter, which, as Mr. Mansvetov says, was formed on the basis of the studio. It did not take 52 years for this charter to receive its form in which we see it in the 12th century, and then to undergo all kinds of changes and additions, which Nikon Chernogorets declares. We think that in order to eliminate the objection raised above, raised by the words of Nikon the Montenegrin, it would be very appropriate to contrast the above passage from his tacticon with other passages from the same place. We will leave here his references to the triodion and other liturgical books that he used when compiling the tactikon, his advice: “it is appropriate to have the typics written: Studite and Jerusalem,” and we will only quote his words regarding the all-night vigils. “Likewise, it is true that in this typicon,” writes Nikon the Montenegrin in his summary typicon, “there is no all-night vigil, neither on a week, nor on a holiday, nor on a summer rite; for vespers and midnight office and matins in the image of the Studio and the Holy Mountains and simply decrees according to the law of communal wills” (Tactic words. 1). “The image” (τύπον) of performing liturgical rites in the studio monastery, and not the charter itself, and “the legal provisions of communal wills,” i.e. ktitor typikons - this is what the famous Antiochian had in mind when expressing his judgment regarding the differences he noticed in different statutes. It is clear that the personal character of the compiler had a tremendous influence on the typikon he published, and complete identity, quite naturally, could not exist between the statutes, the origin of which is associated with different persons. Defending the opinion of the complete independence of the ktitor's statutes as regulators of monastic worship in the period from the 9th to the 13th centuries, we must raise a very natural and equally interesting question: what were the non-monastic, parish churches guided by in this period of time when conducting their worship? We find the answer to this question from Simeon of Thessalonica (XIV century), from Patriarch Alexy of the XI century. and in other sources. « Κατ ᾿ αὐτὴν (i.e. διατύπωσιν of Sava the Sanctified) ἀκολουθοῦσι καὶ ὅ λαι αἱ ἱεραὶ μοναὶ καὶ ἐκκλησ ί αι , καὶ παντοῦ ἀκολουθοῦνται ὅ λαι αἱ τάξεις ?? κατὰ καιρούς εἰς τὴν μεγάλην ἐκκλησ ί αν τῆς Κωνσταντινουπ ό λεως ἀπὸ συν ή θειαν ἀρχα ί αν , ὁμο ί ως καὶ εἰς τὰς ἄλλας κοσμικὰς ἐκκλησ ί ας , με τὸ νὰ μὴν ἠ μποροῦν οἱ κοσμικοὶ νὰ τειλοῦν ὄλα δσα διετάκκθησαν ", i.e. monasteries (ed. Πολυζ. Λαμπανιτζ, ἐν Λειψ ί α 1791 an., page 246). The orders of the Great Church, indeed, had a great influence on the practice of other churches, and we have extensive extracts from the Typicon of the Great Church in the records of even Theodore the Studite, Athanasius of Athos, not to mention the records of Patriarch Alexy, where we very often find references to this charter and to other records. But Patriarch Alexy indicates a different guide, equally suitable for monasteries, due to the brevity of the synaxarion in the ktitor’s regulations, and for parish churches. “The statute for glorification in Great Lent for this and on the days of Passover, and on other holidays unlike those in the month,” writes this patriarch, “has already been given up according to the commandment,” etc. (manuscript No. 330, fol. 66 vol.). Thus, the “monthly”, i.e., the synaxar or canonary, was a very important guide in the church and liturgical orders of monasteries, and even more so in parish churches. The “monthly book” or synaxarion replaced the Church Charter, and therefore it is very often quoted under this name in church typikons: συναξάριον or συναξάριον στουδιωτικὸν τῆς ἐκκλησια στικῆς ἀκολουθ ί ας (Act. diplomat., ρ . 183, 359, 365, 377, etc.). This circumstance can also explain the fact that in the synaxars or canonaries before the 14th century we see extensive extracts from the Charter of the Great Church, records of holidays and liturgical orders of Studite and Jerusalem, which, given the existence of complete records of the Charter, would be at least unnecessary. Thus, the Sinai canonar was born, described and translated by Archimandrite Antonin, the synaxar in the handwritten Gospel of the archaeological museum at the Kyiv Theological Academy, described by Ivanov (known to the Imperial Russian Archaeological Society, new series, book 1), in the Apostle of the library of the Moscow Theological Academy (Mansvetov, p. 242–243), in the Apostles of the 11th century, No. 53 bib. Savva Sanctified. and XIV century Patriarchal Library in Jerusalem No. 285; in the pandects of the 13th century. Simono-Peter. bib. on Athos, No. 82; in the Apostle of the 12th century. bib. Dochiar. mon., No. 27 and others. When the need has passed, i.e. with the establishment in practice of complete charters, the importance of synaxariums or canonaries falls by itself, and therefore in manuscripts, starting from the second half of the 14th century, complete synaxarii with extensive extracts of a statutory nature disappear; the synaxari remain only with an index of readings from the Apostle and the Gospel, with prokeemnons, alleluaries and occasionally antiphons. The existence of synaxars under the Apostles and the Gospels indicates, among other things, the importance they were given in liturgical practice. The Gospels and the Apostle were the first and necessary accessories of every church, and therefore it was very appropriate to place with them the complete synaxari with notes of a statutory nature. In addition to these synaxarions, Orology, Menaion, and mainly Profitology and Triodion played a very important role in church practice, in which quite extensive extracts of a statutory nature are also often made. Only after resolving all the issues and objections we have indicated, most of which are either not touched upon by Mr. Mansvetov or, if touched upon, are resolved either incorrectly (about the works of Nikon Montenegrin) or timidly (about the Typika of Patriarch Alexy as a ktitor’s charter), the transition to full statutes will be easy and completely natural. In the history of the Church Rule there will be no leaps and difficulties that cannot be explained otherwise. Even that “small distance” is destroyed, which, according to Mr. Mansvetov, “separates the appearance of the first complete Typical from the time to which the brief notes of the statutes of the second edition belong” (p. 72). We have already seen that the church and liturgical orders of the Eastern Church, even during the period of the dominance of the ktitor’s statutes, were divided into two groups; Some of them, in their characteristics, gravitated towards the liturgical practice of the Studite monastery, which stood out from a number of other numerous Byzantine monasteries of that time by the severity of monastic discipline, the duration of worship and the high qualities of its abbots - fighters and defenders of Orthodoxy, while others reproduced for the most part the customs of the no less famous Lavra of Jerusalem's Saint Sava the Sanctified, whose fate in the historical life of the Zion Church is in many ways similar with the fate of the monastery of Theodore the Studite. Such a division of church practice, very naturally, should have been reflected even more clearly when the full Church Rule was formed, which claimed authority in the Churches of the Christian East by the very fact that it connects its genesis with the most remarkable representatives of eastern cenobial monasticism: Theodore the Studite and Savva the Sanctified. For a researcher of the historical fate of the Church Charter, the questions naturally now come next: “what is the mutual relationship of these branches, where are the typical features that distinguish one from the other, and does the name Studite and Jerusalem in the appendix to the charter have a positive basis for itself in the very history of the church rite and in the content of the typicals known under this name” (p. 26). “These are the main points of difference set forth by Nikon,” Mr. Mansvetov answers the questions posed: “1) according to the studio charter, there are no all-night vigils (ἀγρυπν ί α), but Vespers and Matins are celebrated every day separately, without distinguishing between holidays and weekdays; 2) according to the studio charter, it does not rely on the Matins of the Great Doxology. Added to this is the sign noted by Patriarch Nektarios that in the Studite monastery the canons of Studite compilers were read mainly, and Tuscany’s consideration that the Studite charter is shorter in terms of the scope of service than the Jerusalem one” (p. 76). “To these four points, strictly speaking, the dividing line drawn by researchers between the named branches of the typical is limited, but, not to mention the fact that it does not exhaust all the differences, some of the points of the section are still of dubious merit and can be accepted only with limitations.” The “restrictions” proposed by Mr. Mansvetov begin with the first sign, with the absence of all-night vigils according to the studio regulations. Despite the fact that he has enough data to judge the performance of this service during the period of dominance of the Studite rites, he says that the present sign, “generally speaking, is correct and is maintained consistently in all the Studite rites” (p. 78). Of course, if we mean in the proper sense the church studio type, then the expressed opinion is correct, although Mr. Mansvetov himself states that “two, three times they occur (according to Nikon: there is no all-night vigil) in the studio rules,” but if we mean the kitor’s rules with the orders of the studio synaxar, then we will meet all-night vigils in them ( ἀγρυπν ί α) not only “on major holidays and on the eves of local celebrations,” but also on the eve of every Sunday and the day of remembrance of the great saint. “Διαττ ό μεθα,” Bishop Leo writes in his Typikon, “τελεῖσθαι π ᾶ σαν ἑκάστοτε δοξολογ ί αν ἀπαραλε ί πτως καὶ σπουδα ί ως καὶ μετά τῆς ἀρμοζούσης προσοχῆς τε καὶ ν ή ψεως κατὰ ( τὸ ) στουδιωτικὸν συναξάριον τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἀκολουθ ί ας ... ἐν ταύταις (i.e. ἐορταῖς ) καὶ μ ό ναις τῶν ἀσκητικῶν ἵ δρ ώ των ἀνάπαυλαν ἐξουσιν , ἀγρυπν ί αν δε ἐντελλ ό μεθα καθ ᾿ ἑκάστην κυριακὴν γ ί νεσθαι ἀφ ᾿ ἑσπέρας καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἐπισ ή μοις ἑορταῖς καὶ αὐταῖς "(Miklos., M ϋ ll. Act. diplomat., p. 183). " Λιαπρακτέον τὰ τέ καὶ ἄλλα ὑμῖν, - says Empress Irene in her charter, - καὶ δὴ καὶ τὰς ἀγρυπν ί ας ἐν πάσ ῃ κυριακ ῇ καὶ δεσποτικ ῇ ἑορτ ῇ καὶ ἐν ταῖς " (pag. 360 ibid.) Empress Irina even defines in detail the days on which all-night vigils should be held, and the very time from which they were supposed to begin in summer and winter: τετάρτης ἀρχομένης ἐκτελεῖν “(ibid.). In general, in monuments of this kind we can find quite detailed indications of agripnia, which differed from the so-called funeral services. α and παννύχις, then they do not need to be mixed, as Mr. Mansvetov did (p. 28). According to the studio charter, in its full and brief records, as well as in other monuments of this period, the word παννυχ ί ς denotes a special service performed from Monday to Friday of the first week and from Sunday to Wednesday of Holy Week. A memorial service of this kind consists of a canon, 6 verses of which the sedalene is read, the prokeimenon with the verses “Every Breath” is sung, and the Gospel is read. The requiem service ended with the singing of the remaining three songs: 7, 8 and 9 (Triod. XI century. Vatop. library No. 316 (927) l. 1–8). Memorial services for the deceased were also called memorial services (Act. diplomat., p. 359), but these latter have nothing in common with the former. But if it is difficult to agree with Mr. Mansvetov’s judgments regarding the first sign of the differences between the studio charter and the Jerusalem one, then it is completely impossible to agree with his considerations regarding the singing of the great doxology, i.e., the second sign. The author bases his conclusions and considerations on very shaky ground and does not notice how he gets into contradictions. As is known, regarding the second sign, Nikon the Montenegrin spoke clearly and categorically: “It is appropriate to know that in the studio Typica, great doxology does not happen either in weeks or on a great holiday, but in those days on the praises the stichera is also spoken on the stichera. On small holidays, stichera are spoken exactly in stichera, and on other days.” From his words, over the course of 8 centuries, let’s say in the words of Mr. Mansvetov, this sign is repeated by subsequent researchers (p. 76), which, according to our author, “one-sidedly” causes the need to “call on other sources for help” and generally requires “restrictions.” “There is no doubt,” he writes, “that the great doxology was not sung on weekdays, and the studio regulations do not mention it in the presentation of Sunday and holiday services. Here there is no addition to the stichera of praise and verse in the form of a great doxology, but instead the singing of the Trisagion is spoken of. In this, apparently, sense, one must understand the instruction of the studio charter on the Sunday of the Cross, that the removal of the cross (also at Matins on September 14) is performed “according to the Holy God.” The service of Great Saturday directly speaks of the entrance of the servants into the altar after “Glory to God in the highest,” “for the glory of such singing,” that is, when singing “Glory and now” at the Trisagion at the end of the great doxology. At Easter Matins, “morning singing in low silence, Glory to God in the highest,” is mentioned, and in the Colored Triodion of the 11th-12th centuries. studio origin, this is accompanied by the addition “as always.” The use of the Great Doxology at Matins is spoken about even more clearly in the additional part of the Synod. studio charter No. 330, where it is noted that the monks stand in a well-known order “even more than the morning song, that is, Glory in the highest will be sung to God.” Perhaps Nikon had incomplete lists of the studio’s charter (comp. p. 77), where this last one was not present, or looked at the few positive indications on this matter and thus made a conclusion from most cases to the whole” (pp. 78–79). First of all, we will begin our objections by stating that Mr. Mansvetov in this case revealed an insufficiently solid knowledge of church liturgical practice. As is known, in the case when, according to the Rules, it is now necessary to sing the “great doxology”, there is no mention of stichera on the stichera, but when there is no talk of singing the “great doxology”, then, in addition to the stichera on the praises, the stichera on the poem are also read, even if it is a church holiday or the feasts of the Presentation and Annunciation. In this last case, that is, when the stichera are placed on the stichera, the doxology is read immediately after the stichera on the praise, and it is immediately followed by a petitionary litany, after the exclamation of which the stichera are already on the stichera, “There is good” twice in Lent and once on ordinary days and “Holy God,” “The Most Holy Trinity,” etc. This order is contained according to the Rule today. Undoubtedly, the same order, as Nikon Chernogorets testifies, existed during the period of dominance of the studio charter, since the influence of the charters on the daily service set out in the Orologion was very minimal, insignificant. Consequently, speaking about “stichera of praise and verse” (p. 78), the author has no right to talk about singing “Glory to God in the highest,” much less interpret the Trisagion after the stichera on the verse in the sense of singing and put it in connection with the doxology, despite its division into litany and verse. Such an interpretation puts the author in internal contradiction with himself. Further, we see a completely arbitrary interpretation of the facts and their deliberate distortion. In the clearest way, according to the author, the use of the great doxology at Matins is spoken of in the additional part of the synod. Charter No. 330, where it is noted that the monks stand in a certain order, “perhaps the morning hymn, that is, Glory to God in the highest will be sung.” Leaving aside the fact that the expression “peto” should not be taken in the literal sense, since the same monument repeatedly speaks of the singing of kathismas, the singing of the six psalms, the canon, etc., we will only pay attention to the fact that is important for us: given by Mr. Mansvetov, in proof of his thought, the “clear” place of Charter No. 330 is found precisely in the article treating the daily - weekly divine service (fol. 260 Coll. Descriptive manuscript. Moscow Synod. Bibl., III, 1, 268), about which Mr. Mansvetov himself confidently noted: “there is no doubt that the great doxology was not sung on weekdays, and studio regulations do not mention him in the presentation of Sunday and holiday services” (p. 78). But if we forget for a while about this contradiction of the author to himself and pay attention to his interpretation of the expression “as always,” which was indicated by us 10 (“Orthodox Sobesedn.,” 1882, vol. II, p. 370) in one of the Triodies of the 11th-12th centuries. Moscow typogr. bib. No. 255, then we come to completely unexpected conclusions. “For this reason,” that is, after the stichera on the praises, we read in this Triodion the description of Matins for Easter, “Glory to God in the highest, as always” (l. 54, 55). If we understand this expression in the sense that Mr. Mansvetov understands it, i.e. in the sense of indicating in this case the practice of the studio charter regarding the everlasting (as always) or, what is the same, the daily singing the great doxology (p. 79), then we will be dealing with a new feature of the studio charter, which neither Nikon Chernogorets nor all those researchers who dealt with this issue for 8 centuries after him knew about. Mr. Mansvetov himself asserts, as we have seen, that “the great doxology was not sung on weekdays,” therefore, it was not “always” sung, and, according to the Jerusalem Rule, the singing of the great doxology is a distinctive feature of holiday services and days in honor of saints. To assert that the Great Doxology was sung according to the Studite Rule means to posit a sharp difference between this latter and the Jerusalem Rule, which is not based on anything. Then, the author directly violates the facts when he asserts that “in this, apparently, sense (i.e., the singing of the great doxology) one must understand the instructions of Studio Rule No. 330 on the Sunday of the Cross, that the removal of the cross (also at Matins on September 14) is performed according to “Holy God.” We have already noticed that “Holy God” comes after the stichera on the stichera and “There is Good.” The actual passage in the original reads like this: “At Matins. one by one and two by one, they take down the crosses. is with security storage. and relies on the holy meal. until the end of the ninth song. then they place a table in front of the altar. and spread a cloth on top of it. and the cross is taken from the holy meal and placed on it. two, both sexes are svesma. according to the Holy God and according to our Father there is no remission. but proclaim the proclamation that Thy is the Kingdom. Abiye will begin to sing, we bow to Your Cross, Master, and the abbot and the priest will bow. and according to those deacon and others, the words spoken and the stichera of the Honorable Cross. and after worshiping the litany, they say, Lord have mercy. g῀. For this reason the abbot and the brethren are remembered and say, Lord have mercy. In ι῀. tazh omission” (manuscript No. 330, l. 14 vol.). Here 11, as we see, not a word is said about the singing of the great doxology, much less about the singing 12 “Holy God,” which, according to this brief summary of the charter, obviously follows after the stichera on the stichera, and precisely after the troparion: “There is good.” Such an understanding of the present passage is supported, among other things, by the description of a similar removal of the cross at Matins on the day of the Exaltation of the Lord, September 14, in the same monument. Here is the description 13: “The stichera are not sung when praising the Lord, but the stichera are sung at the stichera. sung in octai῁ cross on voice i. Ascended to the cross. Like in heaven we go. Moseova fell. to glory even now. When is the planting of Your Cross? and sing on such stichera. even in vespers and in verse, a verse is spoken. Holy God and Abiye begin to sing the veneration of Thy Cross. The Honorable Cross is then offered before the altar and they venerate it. Sometimes people bow to and kiss the Holy Cross. they sing stichera. self-voice voice B῀. Come again and again to the end of the kiss and finally the stichera are sung every now and then. Make your cross, O Lord. At the end of the kissing, the litany from the former deacon said, “Lord, have mercy on the child and let him go” (l. 77). So, contrary to the wishes of our author, none of the places he indicated speaks for him. Apparently, another place, not indicated by him, in another manuscript of 1398 No. 333 is more favorable for him. Here the service for the Exaltation is described as follows: “Glory to the highest. Holy God, rekshe abiye begin to sing, we worship Your Cross” (fol. 6 vol.). But an interpretation favorable to Mr. Mansvetov is hampered by the very important circumstance that in the same monument the same ritual, but on the Sunday of the Cross, is described completely in accordance with the above extracts from liturgical monuments (No. 333, l. 102). Obviously, we are dealing here only with an inaccurate statement of the order of the morning service on September 14, and almost even made under the influence of the Church Charter of the Jerusalem branch, which was already beginning to receive citizenship rights in liturgical practice at that time 14. As for, finally, the last instruction of Mr. Mansvetov, that “in the service of Holy Saturday it is directly stated about the entrance of the servants into the altar after “Glory to God in the highest,” to “the glory of such singing”” (p. 79), then we not only do not deny this fact, but we can also take into account the words of Mr. Mansvetov to add that the “singing” of the great doxology for this day was transferred to the charter of Patriarch Alexy from the practice of the Great Church and in the practice of the “Studio Church” this phenomenon is exceptional - “its customs are not followed exactly now” (manuscript No. 330, l. 35). And the truth must be said that in the Great Church, on which the liturgical practice of the entire Christian East was most obviously dependent, how. this can be seen from the brief and complete records of the Church Charter, starting with the record of Theodore the Studite, the custom of singing the Great Doxology by singers was not practiced. We know the rite of Matins according to the Rule of the Great Church ( ἑσπερινῶ και ὄρθρ ῳ, τ ῇ θε ίᾳ καὶ ἱερ ᾷ λειτουργ ίᾳ καὶ ἐπὶ τ ῇ χειροτον ί α τοῦ ἐπισκ ό που ), where the moment that interests us is described as follows: “After the priests enter the altar, the reader enters the second step of the pulpit and reads melodiously (λέγει μετὰ μέλους) “Glory to God in the highest,” after the performance of which by the priests and deacons in the altar, the reader again enters the pulpit and sings (ψάλλει μετὰ μελους) the psalm of David” (manuscript Russian. Andreev monastery on Mount Athos, 15th century). Here, in the Great Church, the reader, therefore, performed only the office of the canonarch, and singing, when necessary, was the duty of the priests and deacons, who, of course, repeated the words of the morning song after the reader. In other churches, this was such a rare occurrence that monuments even condition the singing of the stichera “Most Blessed Are You to the Theotokos” with the singing of the great doxology. “Καὶ ῾ Yπερευλογημένη ὑπάρχει θεοτ ό κε,” one monument describes the rite of Matins on Holy Saturday, - διὰ γὰρ δοξολογ ί α μεγάλη , εἱς τὸ ·Ἅ γιος ὁ θεὸς ποιεῖ εἴσοδος μετὰ εὐαγγελ ί ου καὶ εὐθύς λέγε , τροπάριον τῆς προφητε ί ας (handwritten by Simon.-Peter. bib. on Athos No. 5, l. 148). So, the difference between the Studite charter and the Jerusalem one, indicated by Nikon Montenegrin, remains in force. How firmly the custom of reading the Great Doxology was held and how long, in particular, in ancient Russian liturgical practice, the decrees of the Stoglavy Council can testify. Despite the fact that in the 16th century. The Jerusalem charter has already been firmly established in the practice of our Church, according to which the great doxology 15 is clearly distinguished from the small one, but in practice this took place only in Novgorod and Pskov, in all other churches it was read. “For the sake of guilt,” Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible asked the fathers of this cathedral, “they do not sing doxologies at matins in the week and on holidays, just as on ordinary days they speak in speech, and in the charter a great doxology is prescribed for deliberate saints - then honor him” (Stoglav, ed. Kazan. 1862, chapter 16, p. 81). The Fathers of the Council answered this completely ecclesiastical and correct question with the following decree: “As for other church singing, do everything according to the rules; the praise of Petya and the chaos at the gathering of Petya” (ibid. Ch. 16, p. 105). Obviously, the influence of studio practice back in the 16th century. was so great that the mere instruction of the Jerusalem Charter was not enough to change one custom, practiced for centuries, to another new one, and the authority of the Council was also required. As part of the daily services, Mr. Mansvetov points out the following differences between the Studite charter and the Jerusalem one: the absence of the rite of Little Vespers, Midnight Office and on some days (on Thursday and Saturday of Holy Week and Compline), the celebration of the hours only on weekdays, litias after each service, a slightly different reading of kathismas, the celebration of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts during Great Lent every day, not excluding the first days of the first week of Lent and Good Friday, celebrating special hours on Tuesday of Holy Week and celebrating Easter on Saturday of Bright Week. Of course, the enumeration of such features could be increased significantly, but some of those indicated require proper limitation, while others require the necessary addition. So, for example, although according to the studio rules, Compline is celebrated every day, the composition of this Compline is not always the same. The Studio Charter distinguishes Compline in three compositions: a) ordinary, performed on weekdays, b) small, beginning with the reading of Psalm 90 and performed on Saturdays, in the evening on the Lord's holidays and on the eve of the memory of great saints, and, finally, c) great Compline, which was performed during Great Lent (manuscript. Typogr. bib. No. 285, fol. 16 vol.; handwritten by Moscow synod No. 330, l. 11, 19, 268). These three main types of Compline are joined by a fourth, which takes place from Easter Monday to the Ascension and which is designated in the monuments by the word “execution” (manuscript of the Typographical Bible No. 285, fol. 16 vol.). What is the difference between each of the types of Compline we have listed? We refer those interested in this to your article “Divine service. in Rus. Churches for the first five centuries” (“Orthodox Sobesedn.,” 1882, II, 357–359. Comp. “Divine services in the Russian Church in the 16th century,” part I, pp. 4–7). As for Compline in the last days of Passion Week, it is destroyed not only according to the Studio Rule, but also according to the current Jerusalem Rule. It is hardly fair to say that “according to the studio charter and according to the ancient ones, the hours were not kept daily, but only on weekdays and fasting days,” because in the monuments known to us, contrary to the assurance of Mr. Mansvetov, p. 80, we have an indication and a detailed statement of the order of the hours for Easter (manuscript. Typogr. bib. No. 285, l. 17). On the eve of the Nativity of Christ and the Epiphany, the usual hours were celebrated, and this custom later passed into the Jerusalem charter, which already added to these hours the singing of special troparions compiled by the Patriarch of Jerusalem Sophronius. The author obviously confuses the festive lithium with the ordinary lithium at the end of each service, which is sung for the repose of patrons and at the request of those seeking remembrance 16 when he says that “it, that is, the lithium was not a feature of the festive vespers only, but was celebrated after each service” (p. 81). There is a very big difference between the festive litia and the ordinary one, even if we leave aside the ritual of blessing the loaves, which, according to the Jerusalem charter, is performed only on the eve of solemn holidays. Even in their character, both lithiums are completely different; one is funeral, and the other is solemn. Several additions and limitations need to be made regarding the “major differences” concerning “the treatment or system in which the liturgical material is presented in the Studite and Jerusalem types” (p. 82). So, for example, it is impossible to assert, as Mr. Mansvetov does, that “the Jerusalem charter is inscribed in the name of Sava the Sanctified and is confined to the Jerusalem district; studio ones don’t have any inscription.” 1) We know the typikons of the Jerusalem edition, which are dedicated to the Lavra of Saint Sava (Τυπικὸν κα t ὰ τὸν τύπον τῆς Λαύρας ... τοῦ ... Σάββα). Gardthaus, r. 222; εροσολύμοις ἁ γ ί ας λαύρας τοῦ ὁσ ί ου καὶ θεοφ ό ρου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Σάββα, μεθενεχθὲν καὶ διαδοθὲν καὶ εἰς τὰς πλε ί ους τῶν ἕ νθα γῆς τυγχάνουσιν ἁ γ ί ων μονῶν (manuscript Vatop. bib. No. 320 (931); No. 321 (932); No. 324 (935), and not to Savva the Sanctified himself and 2) among the Studite typikons there are those that are directly inscribed with the name of Theodore the Studite - Σύν θεῷ τυπικὸν περιέχον τὴν ἅ πασαν ἀκολουθ ί αν τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς καταστάσεως Θεοδ ώ ρου τοῦ στουδ ί του καἱ λοιπῶν (Theod. Toscani, p. 9). There is no reason to list among the “major differences” that “there is a disciplinary part in the studio charter: in the Greek Jerusalem lists it is either not there at all, or excerpts from a short outline are given, and even then in two or three lists” (p. 83). G. Mansvetov is well aware that “additional articles (disciplinary) are not found in all lists of the studio typikon” (p. 121), or rather, it should be said only in the “clitoral charter” of Patriarch Alexy and in the later list from him, in charter No. 905, but in all other Slavic and Greek studio typikons, as well as in the Greek and South Slavic Jerusalem typikons, these articles are not found. Ὑ ποτύπωσις of Theodore the Studite in the most ancient Jerusalem typikons is found quite often and not in extracts, as in the Charter of Moscow. synod. bib. No. 381, but in its whole form. Finally, the “mark chapters”, as an independent part of the Typikon, are a later phenomenon in the Jerusalem Typikon, and until the half of the 14th century. in all his lists we don’t even find the name “Mark the monk”. The presentation of the services of the annual circle in this ancient period of both records of the Church Charter has much in common with each other, which is why we can conclude our reasoning with the words of Mr. Mansvetov: “the relationship between one and the other branch of the charter is the closest, related. Both of them were formed on the same general liturgical basis” (p. 83). With information very carefully collected by Mr. Mansvetov about the historical fate of the Studite monastery and its first remarkable abbots, with an indication of their literary works, the author begins to consider the history of the Church Charter already in its complete records and, in particular, the history of the Studite church charter. To get acquainted with the “inner side of studio life,” Mr. Mansvetov again turns to brief records of the church charter: to Ὑ ποτύπωσις - from Theodore the Studite and Διατύπωσις - from Athanasius of Athos, analyzes them, furnishing them with rich erudition and very detailed, sometimes extensive notes (pp. 112–116), adds to them extracts of a liturgical nature from the catechistic teachings of Theodore the Studite (p. 100) and, according to all this data, tries with all his might to “clarify the fate of the church orders accepted here.” But all this turns out to be not enough for this purpose. G. Mansvetov then decides to bring here, as a representative of liturgical practice, the XI record of the church charter of Patriarch Alexy. (p. 114), the Studite typikons of the Greek Church, as far as they are known to him from the book of Mr. Tuscany, and, behind the scenes, even all the Studite charters in the Slavic translation. Already listing all these data, belonging to different eras, associated in their origin with the names of well-known certain individuals who lived in different parts of Europe, not even united by a unity of purpose, is enough for us to say that the historical fate of church orders in the Studite monastery depicted in this chapter is not devoid of very large errors. More specifically, if we remember what we said above about the editions of the records of Theodore the Studite and the Monk Athanasius of Athos, then it naturally becomes clear that the analysis of these records has major errors, although not through the fault of Mr. Mansvetov, and if we began to correct them at the present time, then we would have to do this analysis again, which we do not have time for in our present situation. Further, the transition from the charter of Patriarch Alexy of the 11th century. to the well-known Studite Greek charters is still easy and possible, if, of course, one does not take into account their Western origin, but on the way from these latter to the Studite typikons in the Slavic translation there are very important and difficult questions: what charter did our Russian Church accept from the Greek Byzantine Church? Why did St. Theodosius need a new charter when he established his cenobitic monastery, and how did he receive it, in other words, how to reconcile the apparently contradictory testimonies of the same writer, Nestor the chronicler, about this search for the Church Charter. Our most famous scientists, such as, for example, the late Metropolitan Macarius (“History of the Russian Church”), Archimandrite Sergius (now a bishop) (“Full month. East,” vol. I, note 51), prof. Golubinsky (“History of the Russian Church,” vol. I half 11, p. 323) and some others, but in resolving these issues they did not reach the desired unanimity, but expressed completely opposite opinions. Yes, Rev. Makariy and prof. Golubinsky considers the original recording of the studio charter in the Slavic translation to be the charter of Patriarch Alexy, and Metropolitan Macarius does not see any contradiction in the tales of Nestor the chronicler about obtaining the charter and easily reconciles both legends, and prof. Golubinsky, forgetting about the existence of complete Greek copies of the Studite charter and having in mind only the Ὑ ποτύπωσις of Theodore the Studite and the charter of Patriarch Alexy, admits a contradiction in the story of Nestor the chronicler and gives preference to Nestor the chronicler over Nestor the biographer St. Theodosius concludes that “one must think that the recording was made by Patriarch Alexy,” although “we don’t know for sure.” The clause is very strange. Rev. Sergius ignores all the stories of Nestor the Chronicler and directly lays out the grounds that the typographical Charter No. 285 “was known to us more ancient than the Studite one.” For Mr. Mansvetov, all these questions do not exist; he went through them in his essay in deep silence. Whether he considered any of the indicated opinions known in the literature to be correct or whether this question, in his opinion, did not deserve attention - this remained a secret for us, which the late professor took with him to the grave. In the history of the Church Charter of the studio edition, as yet little developed in the literature, many very important questions arise for the researcher, the solution of which is urgently necessary. So, for example, did the Jerusalem statute have an influence on the processing of the studio type? In what areas and for how long did the studio charter last? When and under what conditions did the studio charter replace the Jerusalem one? G. Mansvetov poses all these questions, but does not give answers to them. Indeed, we cannot call his following reasoning regarding the first question an answer. “In raising this question, we,” says Mr. Mansvetov, “do not mean to talk about the general foundations of both and explain the process of their development in the first period of the history of the charter. Our task in this case is somewhat different and concerns the changes that the already established, recorded studio charter has experienced on the part of the Palestinian industry. Just from the fact that studio lists from the 15th-16th centuries have reached us. - from such a time, when the Jerusalem charter came into full force in the East, - an assumption naturally arises in favor of this influence, and on the contrary, it becomes incredible that with the widespread development of the Jerusalem order of service, the studio editorial staff remained outside of any relation to them” (p. 126). For our part, we consider all these arguments to be completely arbitrary and to have absolutely no significance in resolving the issue. It is very important for us to know what influence the Jerusalem charter had, which, by the way, came into full force in the East much earlier than the 15th-16th centuries, which is shown by the very question of dependence - during the period of the formation of complete records of the church studite charter, and not on the records themselves, and moreover, during the period of time of the XV-XVI centuries, when the studite charter in the East had no significance and when the monuments of these records are a rare exception in the West and in our Rus'. Monk Gabriel rewrote the studio charter in 1558. for the Bozensky Cathedral, and he had at hand a list from 1292, and among the Slavic studios only one list is known from the ktitor's charter of Patriarch Alexy of the 11th century, No. 905, manuscript of the Moscow Synodal Library. As for other questions, there are almost no answers to them. “Unfortunately, this question,” Mr. Mansvetov answers the second question, “is extremely important for statistics and the history of church rites; with current scientific means, a positive answer cannot be given and conclusions will have to be drawn only from a few fragmentary data” (p. 127). “This is one of the most difficult questions,” writes Mr. Mansvetov about the last question, “and cannot be resolved positively. Based on the data that were at our disposal, such a categorical formulation of the question seems impossible and, in our opinion, is the result of an a priori attitude to the matter, which is not allowed by positive sources. It is impossible to approach this issue in such a general form, because in itself it already implies a misunderstanding and smacks of haste” (p. 129). But, in our personal opinion, all of these difficulties cannot exist if once and for all we abandon the standard yardstick, the once and for all developed plan for the history of the Church Charter, become more careful and critical of Nikon Montenegrin’s opinion about the complete records and give a broader meaning to the patron’s typikons. All these questions and difficulties will either be destroyed by themselves, or will change so much that their solution will not be impossible. Given the significance of the patron charters that we give them in the history of the Church Charter, many of these issues are resolved naturally and easily. The mutual influence of the statutes of various branches on each other is beyond any doubt, if we now know that in the same city statutes of different natures were simultaneously issued by ktitors. The inscriptions, prologues and epilogues of the patron charters resolve the issue regarding the place where this or that charter was in force; the freedom of action of ktitors, their broad rights, the absence of any official coercive orders from the highest spiritual authority, again the simultaneity of the existence of orders with the peculiarities of both charters give us the right to draw conclusions about the first traces of the appearance of one or another charter and eliminate the need to pose a general question, the solution of which in most cases will be impossible. Mr. Mansvetov prefaces the presentation of the liturgical part in the complete studio records with a discussion about the studio synaxarion and, of course, tries in vain to find traces of it in literary monuments. He loses sight of the fact that the Studite synaxarion is entirely built on the synaxarion of the Great Church, which had practical significance in the churches of Constantinople much earlier than the appearance of Theodore the Studite’s brief record. The very analysis of the liturgical features of this charter is not complete 17, and often suffers from inaccuracies, to which we will now turn our attention. G. Mansvetov says that “there is no special service on Friday of the 1st week in honor of Theodore Tyrone” (p. 143), while in the monuments this service is stated as follows: “in the Lenten liturgy, the psalter is not sung, on “I cried to the Lord” the self-accord of the two and Saint Theodore 3, tone 4 “The Mother loved the two, but the one,” “The ranks rejoice,” “like a doble,” they sing small Vespers, “Alive in Help,” and others silently outside the church. Otherwise, there is a deliberately holy great vespers in the nyazh” (manuscript of the Typographical Bible No. 287, fol. 6 vol.). “In the service of the 1st week of Lent, a significant place is given to the remembrance of the prophets,” says Mr. Mansvetov, “in accordance with the purpose of this day, according to the most ancient charter, before the establishment of a service in memory of the Triumph of Orthodoxy,” but in monuments both of these services stand side by side. “On the first Saturday of Lent we create a memory,” we read, “of the holy prophet Moses, Aaron and others, and of the icons” (manuscript No. 287, l. 7). The removal of the cross on the Sunday of the Cross, as we said, took place after the stichera on the verse and the Trisagion with the “Our Father”, but the monuments do not talk about the great doxology and the singing of “Holy God”. The researcher does not mention at all the interesting service “the hour of Holy Thursday with frost psalms and troparia” (manuscript of the Typographical Bible No. 255, fol. 26). “On September 14, there is no mention of the erection of the Cross,” writes Mr. Mansvetov, “but only of its carrying out and kissing. But that this rite already took place in the Studite monastery is evident from the remark about the pronunciation of “Lord have mercy” a hundred times at the end of kissing the cross (and in this exact number they said “Lord have mercy” during the erection) and from the special article on the performance of this rite in the additional part of the charter” (p. 152). Above, we deliberately described in full the services for the Exaltation and the Sunday of the Cross. Not a single one of them even hints at the erection of a cross 18 . If we refer to the singing of “Lord have mercy” as evidence of the presence in the Studi monastery of the custom of erecting a cross, then we will have to assume that the same custom took place on the Sunday of the Cross, since in this case not only is it said about the singing of “Lord have mercy,” but it is also added that with this “the abbot and the brethren are remembered,” which also happens only when the cross is erected (manuscript no. 330, l. 14 vol.). In fact, the rite of erection was not known in Constantinople, not only in the studio monastery, but even in the Great Church (A. Popov. First appendix to the Description of the manuscript of the library by A. I. Khludov, pp. 16, 17). In this latter, however, there was a custom, but to which “the bishop waits in the phelonion and omophorion in the middle of the catichumena, above the church doors and crosses 3 td, who sees the lot of people and glorifies God, and puts the packs in the baptismal chambers and therefore brings them into the vestibule” (ibid), but in its present form the rite of erection passed there only with the Jerusalem charter, according to which this rite was previously belonged to the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem. The fast of the eve of the Nativity of Christ is described in a very interesting way. “It is fitting,” we read in the monuments, “if the feast of the Nativity of Christ is on Saturday or a week, there will be the Liturgy of Chrysostom at 3 o’clock. After the funeral service, they eat bread and drink a single cup each, and in the evening the entire service until the end of the Gospel, according to the Gospel there is an octene, and the absolution of both the deacon to “Holy God” does not happen, unless there is a perfect liturgy. The troparion, voice I, “Thy Roaster,” is not sung at the same supper. For this reason, they copulate at the meal and eat the right dinner of fish and drink 3 cups, and the word of St. Theodore is revered to those who eat. And upon rising from dinner they sing “Holy God,” and the former prayer from the abbot. The Vevechernitsa is not sung together, but each one in his own cell according to custom” (manuscript. Typogr. bib. no. 287, l. 48; manu. Moscow synod. bib. no. 330, l. 113). The celebration of the hours on the eve of the Nativity of Christ and the Epiphany is not mentioned in the monuments of ancient times, but instead we find an indication of “Τροπάρια, ψαλλ ό μενα τ ῇ παραμον ῇ τῆς ἁ γ ί ας ? " and on " θεοφαν ί ων "(musical stichera. manuscript. Russian. Panteleim. mon. on Athos No. 51, sheets 33–35 vol., 47 vol.–50). From these troparia in subsequent times, the usual hours of these days were formed with special readings of the Old and New Testaments, and then even with special psalms (Min. of the same bib. l. 12-14). The performance of special religious processions on annual holidays and the consecration of churches is furnished with very interesting details, but this custom should not be considered part of the studio charter. In the practice of the Studite monastery, this custom, like many others, was borrowed from the Charter of the Great Church (manufacturer of the Holy Sepulcher Bible in Jerusalem No. 285, l. 194), and then very weakly reflected in the Jerusalem Charter. Thus, in one of the monuments of this kind we find under November 1 τὰ ἐγκα ί νια τοῦ ναοῦ τῆς βασιλικῆς ταύτης (Vatopeda) μονῆς with all features described in the studio charters (manuscript Vatop. bib. No. 322, l. 32). “Our Divine Father Savva set out the charter, receiving it from St. Euthymius and Theoktistus, and they received from those who preceded them and from the confessor Chariton. When the charter of Sava, (Διατύπωσις), as we learned, was destroyed after the devastation of that region by the barbarians, then our holy father Sophronius, Patriarch of the Holy City, laboriously expounded it, and after him our divine father John of Damascus, experienced in theology, updated it and put it in writing.” (Mign. Patrol. Curs. Complet. t. 155, p. 556). In this form, Simeon of Thessalonica sets out the genealogy of the Jerusalem charter, and often the monuments of this charter themselves. However, despite such clear evidence from real sources about the original fate of the Jerusalem charter, Mr. Mansvetov carefully collects all the data known to him in order to use them, as far as possible, to restore the ancient pre-literate orders of the monastery of St. Savva the Sanctified. His attempt, which revealed a remarkable acquaintance with the printed literature of his subject, was crowned with the success possible in this case. We cannot say the same about his other attempt - to determine the time of the appearance of complete records of the Jerusalem charter. Based only on the tacticon of Nikon the Montenegrin, he claims that “in the 11th century, the Jerusalem charter was already known in full” (p. 177) and he is ready to consider the “hidden ancient Jerusalem type” as a representative of the charters of this branch, found by Nikon with Cyrus Theodosius, abbot of the Spassky Laodicean monastery, in his monastery and laid down for copying in the monastery of Simeon the Divnogorets. But the Jerusalem typicon of this time is not similar to the one that became known under this name a little later. “In the 11th-12th centuries, there was a series of Jerusalem typics of a special composition, which, based on the time of its appearance, we,” says Mansvetov, “would call the first pre-written edition of the Jerusalem statute” (p. 178). We think that by this “special series of Jerusalem typikons” he means “special local charters of service” (p. 181), who had large monasteries and churches from their ktitors and who, without any doubt, influenced the processing of the present Jerusalem charter. If we understand precisely in this sense Mr. Mansvetov’s statement about “a special series of Jerusalem complete types,” then we will understand his further statement that “the earliest known Greek copies of the Jerusalem charter date back to the 12th-13th centuries.” (p. 181), otherwise it will be in conflict with the first. But the author seems to suggest this contradiction himself, adding an explanation to the position just expressed. “But this, of course,” he writes, “is not the actual limit of the written statutes of this branch, but the limit of their relative fame,” in other words, the author believes in the possibility of the existence of a church charter of this branch from the times of the 11th and even the 10th centuries. For this, apparently, he is told by the fact that “in the Holy Sepulcher Library, in Jerusalem, a charter written in 1159 by Theocharisius the Cappadocian” (ibid), forgetting that this typicon, which has long been in the national library in Paris, under No. 92 (N. Omont. Inventaire somm. de man. suppl. grec. de la biblioth. nation. Par. 1888 an., p. 13) was given by George the Mystic to the Mamanta monastery and, according to his own consciousness, “belongs to the category of ktitors” (p. 400, note 1). Mr. Mansvetov’s definition of the significance of the works of Nikon Chernogorets and their influence on the processing of the church charter of the Jerusalem edition is even more unstable. “First of all,” says Mr. Mansvetov, “the liturgical works of Nikon himself had some influence on its processing, but this influence is very insignificant” (p. 180). Below: “most of all was done (in relation to the Church Charter) by Nikon the Montenegrin, who decided to revise, compare and reconcile different types with each other on the basis of ancient church practice: but his works had no influence on the processing of the Greek typology and much more (what?) echoed in the fate of the Slavic charter” (p. 183). Even lower: “Much more was done in relation to the charter by Nikon Montenegrin. Nikon was primarily a practical figure. In pandects he explains the rules of general Christian and monastic behavior, in taktikon he deals with the organization of life in the monasteries of that time, establishes the order of worship and gives rules regarding fasting and celebrating holidays. For the same practical reasons, he dealt with the regulations” (p. 187). In the end, Mr. Mansvetov again declares with some addition: “Nikon’s work was not included in the Greek typography, and only a few of his comments and articles, known in contrast, were included there, for example, on the division of holidays into categories” (p. 192). We explain such unstable and even contradictory judgments about the same subject, in part, by Mr. Mansvetov’s exaggerated view of the works of Nikon Montenegrin, who was not only a simple conscientious collector of various types of church orders, a learned researcher of them, if this epithet can be applied to him, but also the compiler of a special typicon, which supposedly was supposed to play some role in church liturgical practice and thereby exert its influence on the current Church Charter, and partly, from insufficient familiarity with the very lists of the Church Charter, in which even the very name of Nikon the Montenegrin is unknown. In general, we think that the significance of the works of Nikon the Montenegrin in the history of the Greek typikon should be reduced to zero, in the history of the Slavic typikon - it is doubtful, and in the history of the development of the issue of the Church Charter - although it is important and valuable, it should be accepted with caution and after careful verification through criticism and careful study of the available data. “Even further,” according to Mr. Mansvetov, “the Typik was revised in the so-called charter of Patriarch Philotheus “Διάταξις τῆς ἱεραδιακον ί ας” or “Ordo sacri monasterii”” (p. 192). But what significance did the work of Patriarch Philotheus have in the history of the Church Charter? We find the answer to this in the words of Mr. Mansvetov himself. “The lists of the Greek charter that were at our disposal,” he writes, “lead to the conclusion that the “Ordo” had no actual influence on the editorship of the Greek type and passed without a trace for him” (p. 195). Completely sharing this last opinion of Mr. Mansvetov, all that remains is to express bewilderment: why, in this case, was it necessary in this place to touch upon the works of Patriarch Philotheus, who provided an undoubted service for the Service Book, and talk about his revision of the Typikon? And here, as in many other cases, the author apparently introduces interpolated episodes deliberately, in order to at least somewhat conceal before the readers the helplessness in which he found himself. The church charter of the Jerusalem branch had broad practical significance in the Christian Church: it guided the Orthodox Churches of Europe, Asia and Africa. In its position in different parts of the Christian world, it was subject to various kinds of modifications and complications caused by the needs of the time and local conditions. The researcher, taking upon himself the task of showing the “formation and fate” of this typicon, needed to collect as many monuments as possible and only then begin to characterize the liturgical orders according to this charter. G. Mansvetov began the task he had undertaken only “with a dozen available copies, which he had the opportunity to look through from beginning to end and compare with each other.” “The figure is not only too small,” as he quite rightly notes, “for generalizations and thorough critical work,” but, we will also add, in no case can it be recognized as “positive material for the history of the Typica for the period from the XIII to the XV ΙΙ century inclusive and for judging its distinctive features” (p. 182). The foundation is too shaky, to say the least, the fact of finding “a dozen available copies”, spread over the time of writing in the space of the indicated centuries, which the author chose to embrace in his work. In the same space of time there could be, and in fact are, Jerusalem typikons of a completely different edition than those that Mr. Mansvetov had, with features that he did not even suspect. Therefore, only a thorough study of monuments located in various libraries in Europe, Asia and Africa and almost little known from the descriptions of scientific researchers of these libraries, and their scientific classification can provide everything necessary for the purpose set by the author. Otherwise, every thesis can always be opposed by an antithesis. At least Mr. Mansvetov is in this position in the department “liturgical part in the Greek statutes of the Jerusalem branch.” Without going into criticism of every provision in this section, which, given the author’s available material resources, was executed, one might say, quite satisfactorily, we will allow ourselves to group or classify the monuments of this branch of the statute, that is, to fulfill what our author refused. All the monuments of the Church Charter of the Jerusalem branch known to us so far can be divided into the following three main groups: to the first we include all monuments with the title: εροσολύμοις ἁ γ ί ας λαύρας τοῦ ὁσ ί ου καὶ θεοφ ό ρου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Σάββα. Αὐτ ή ἡ διάταξις καὶ ἀκολουθ ί α γ ί νεται καὶ ἐν ταῖς λοιπαῖς τῶνἐνἹ εροσολύμοις ὀπιων ἁ γ ί ων μονῶν; to the second - with the title: εροσολύμοις ἁ γ ί ας λαυρας τοῦ ὁσ ί ου καὶ θεοφ ό ρου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Σάββα μετενεχθὲν καὶ διαδοθὲν καὶ εἰς τὰς πλε ί ους τῶν ἔνθα γῆς τυγχάνουσιν ἁ γ ί ων μονῶν 19, and to the third - with the title: Τυπικὸν ἀκριβὲς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἀκολουθ ί ας ἀπὸ τε τοῦ Τυπικοῦ τοῦ ἁ γ ί ου Σάββα καὶ ἑτέρων ἀθροισθὲν διαφ ό ρων , ἔχων καὶ τὰ κεφάλαια τοῦ μοναχοῦ κύρ Μάρκου , ἐν ο ἶ ς ἔκαστον αὐτῶν ςητεῖται χωρ ί οις μεθ ᾿ ἑτέρων τινῶν ἀναγκα ί ων σημει ώ σεων. Monuments of the first group can be divided into two sections: into monuments from the 12th century to the second half of the 14th century, and into monuments covering the period from the second half of the 14th century to the 15th century. inclusive. This group of monuments is the most widespread and well-known. Her monuments are found in every library and were available to Mr. Mansvetov when he wrote his book. The composition of the monuments of this group is generally more or less the same, but in particular there are some peculiarities between them. Lists of the Church Charter from the XII-XIV centuries. consist of only three sections: an introductory part setting out the order of daily services, a synaxarion or services according to the month, and, finally, services according to the Lenten and Colored Triodions. In the few complete lists of this period, at the end, one can find a note about the deacon’s censing, about the abbot’s observance of the Rule (a small article, only the beginning of a similar article in the lists of later times), about prokeemnas and alleluaries. The first part is presented briefly, without dividing into chapters with a special title, and each new article begins with the words: λομεν ἐστὶ καὶ τοῦτο γιν ώ σκειν, etc. the synaxarion is quite often not complete, there are no references to Mark’s chapters, but there are only comments that the feasts of the Presentation, the Annunciation, St. John the Theologian can be combined with others services of the annual circle, but only with some minor deviations from the generally accepted order of these services for each separately. Simplicity and relative brevity reign in the services of the Triodion. In the monuments of the second section of the first group, which covers the period of time from the end of the 14th century. in the 16th century, we see the same three departments, but in a significantly modified form. The introductory part of the Typikon is divided into chapters with the titles “Ε ἤ δησις” and “Δ ή λωσις”, and these chapters are presented with greater detail and completeness and are often dotted with references to the practice of other local charters. The synaxarion is complicated and already has several names of saints. for one day. The services are set out in greater detail and in the same way as the first part, with references to practice under other statutes. Brief remarks about the services of the Presentation, Annunciation, etc. remain in their places unchanged, although they now often stand in direct contradiction with similar remarks regarding the same services in the so-called Markov chapters. Triode services receive certainty and completeness in presentation. But these three parts of the Typikon were added from the second half of the 14th century. the fourth, which from now on becomes an integral part of monuments. This part is called: Τυπικοῦ. In addition to these chapters, the above comments remain about censing, about prokeimnas, alleluaries and about the observance of the Church Charter by the rector, while this last article is significantly expanded from the previous one. They are joined by kontakia, troparia, prayers to the Guardian Angel, for the blessing of fruits, rites for kneading bread (manuscript Pantocr. mon., l. 292), the rite of marriage (manuscript Vatop. bib. No. 322 (934), the rite of liturgy (manuscript. bib. Savva Sanctified. No. 305) and even an extensive interpretation of this liturgy (ibid.). In general, the further towards the 16th century, to the time of the printed Typikon, which was based literally, without any changes, on the monuments of this first group of the second section, the lists of the Church Typikon become more complicated and take on such a form that some of them can, with minor restrictions, be called its prototypes. This is, for example, the Typicon, handwritten. Simono-Petersky Library of the 16th century. No. 177 and the Collection of Mark's chapters of 1572 from the library of the Lavra of St. Athanasius on Athos. Few monuments of the second group are known so far. There are only three lists of them so far, and they all belong to the library of the Athos Vatopedi monastery. According to the catalog, these monuments are listed under No. 320 (931), No. 321 (932) and No. 324 (935). The first parchment typicon was written by the diligence of Procopius Khantzami for the Trebizond Monastery of St. Great Martyr Eugene in 1346, the third in 1405 and the second in 1446. In composition and presentation, the lists of this group differ significantly from the lists of the first group. The first part, quite extensive and similar in presentation to the monuments of the first group of the second section, includes articles not known in the monuments of the first group: a) περὶ τοῦ προκὲιμένου τοῦ ἀποστ ό λου, τοῦ ἀλληλουαρ ί ου καὶ τῆς ἐν τ ῇ ἀγρυπν ί α καὶ τ ῇ τραπέζ ῃ ἀναγν ώ σεως καὶ περὶ ἑτέρων τινὸς ὀφ ί λουσι τελε ἶ σθαι b) ? χου καν ό νες μετὰ τῶν ἐν τῷ Μηνα ίῳ etc. articles belonging to Mark the Hieromonk, but classified here as general guidance and only in the margins only in some places marked with his name “Μαρκος”, for example: 1) Περὶ τοῦ καθ ᾿ ἑκάστην ἑσπερινοῦ ὅ τε, ἐστὶ Θεὸς Κύριος, οὐ μὴν δε ὁ ἅ γιος εωρταζ μενος εἰς ή; 2) Περὶ τροπαρ ί ων τῶν ἀποδε ί πνων των ? ἑβδομάδος, and finally 25 chapters directly attributed to Mark the monk with the following title: Μάρκου μοναχοῦ τὰ ἐξῆς πάντα κεφάλύια. The synaxarion contains services for each day with the introduction of even special local celebrations (for example, in manuscript No. 320, the service in honor of Eugene on January 21st. Mark chapters are scattered throughout the month and at the same time there are not only for ordinary important holidays, as in the monuments of the first group, but even for January 30th, services in honor of three saints, and there are much more of these chapters for the most important holidays than in the lists of the first group). The services for the Colored and Lenten Triodions are set out in great detail and are furnished with the most curious ceremonial rituals, of which the lists of the first group are completely unaware. As for the additional articles at the end, the oldest of these lists only has indications of the daily prokeimnas, trinitarian verses and luminaries (manuscript No. 320), and the later - a short order of the Presanctified Liturgy, the rite of Baptism, the article περὶ τοῦ βασιλέως ἀγρυπν ί α ὅ πως γ ί νεται and the rite of small blessing of water. The third group of monuments is also insignificant in quantitative terms; there are also only three of them so far: Kostamonite Typikon No. 26 (22), Panteleimon Cathedral and Dochiar Cathedral; but one can think that their number will increase to a respectable figure when we have the opportunity to study all the modern cathedral typikons operating on Athos in current liturgical practice, and which were based on the lists of this group. The introductory part of this group of lists is in many ways reminiscent of the lists of the second group, although they differ significantly in the presentation of their ritual side. This also includes the chapters of Mark the monk with the title: ἀμφιβαλλομένων ἐν τοῖς τυπικοῖς περὶ τῶν ἑορτῶν τῆς ὑπεραγ ί ας Θεοτ ό κου τῆς γενν ή σεως , τῆς εἰσ ό δου , τῆς ὑπαπαντ ή ς , "" The second part is quite successfully defined by the title itself, which reads like this: ἐνιαυτοῦ , ἀρχομένη ἀπ ᾿ ἀρχῆς τοῦ Σεπτεμβρ ί ου μηνὸς μέχρι τέλους τοῦ Αὐγούστου, συμπεριε ί ληπται δ ᾿ ἐν αὐτ ῇ καὶ τὰ κεφάλαια τοῦ μοναχοῦ κύρ Μάρκου, ἐν ο ἷ ς αὐτῶν ἕ καστον "" The third part, inscribed as follows: “Ἀκολουθ ί α τ ῇ ς ἀγ ί ας καὶ μεγάλης τεσσαρακοστῆς σύν τ ῇ πεντικοστ ῇ", in presentation in many ways resembles the monuments of the second group, but the ritual side here has significantly advanced compared to the monuments of the second group. The remarks on alliluaries and prokeemnas constitute a small addition to the three main parts. In order to have at least some idea of ​​the peculiarities of presentation of each of the groups of monuments we mentioned, on the one hand, and on the other, to justify the division we made, we will give here a description of the presentation of the Gospel on Holy Saturday after the Great Doxology. We are, of course, far from thinking that our division of monuments into groups is so perfect that it will not require new changes. On the contrary, we are confident that when we have at our disposal not seventy lists, but a hundred or more, we will either have to make some new divisions in the indicated groups, or add completely new hitherto unknown ones to these three. For this we are told by two typikons of the Χ V Ι century. from the library of Sava the Sanctified, near Jerusalem 20 Both of them are so characteristic that we could not bring them under any of the indicated categories, nor could we form a new group from them. Containing very many of the features of local Jerusalem practice associated with the monastery in honor of the Holy Trinity, with quite frequent similarities in presentation, these two typikons are so different from each other that there is no way to put them in the same group. Therefore, we only note this fact, reserving the final judgment about it until a more favorable time. One of these typikons not only differs from similar monuments in its liturgical features, but even in its inscription, which reads like this: “Ἀρχὴσύν θεῷ ἁ γ ί ω τοῦ Τυπικοῦ περιέχον ( τος ) τὴν ἅ πασαν ἀκολουθ ί αν καὶ διάταξιν τῆς ἐκκλησ ί ας, γινομένη (ν) ὑπὸ τοῦ ὁσ ί ου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Σαββα τοῦ καθηγητοῦ τῆς ἐρ ή μου καὶ ἡγιασμένου "(manuscript without no.). We have not yet encountered a single monument with such an inscription, and judging by the descriptions known to us, we should still find the same typicon only in the Sinai Library under No. 1097 (V. Gardthaus. Catal., p. 222). In its presentation of features, this typicon differs in almost every way from similar monuments. It does not contain the rite of Little Vespers for all the most important holidays and on the eve of Sundays. The rite of the all-night vigil contains the following features: the psalm “Bless my soul the Lord” is sung in its entirety, and the priest, having censed the entire church before the start of this psalm, again comes out and censes the abbot, both choirs and the people; The lithium is not celebrated in the vestibule, but in the churches or chapels of the Brother of God and Simeon, and in each of them the stichera of the church are sung and one of the petitions is pronounced; while reading the Six Psalms, the priest censes; before reading the Gospel, the priest puts on vestments and goes out into the middle of the church to read, etc. The striking features in this monument can be considered the description of the erection of the cross and the remark regarding the service of the Presentation in the preparatory weeks. Since there is no small vespers on the eve of the Exaltation, there is no description of the removal of the cross from skevophilakia here. This takeaway carries over to the singing of “Glory to God in the highest.” When singing the Great Doxology, the priest dresses in all white (ἄπασαν στολὴν λευκὴν) clothes and with a censer in his hands, presenting lamps, goes to skevophilakia, takes the cross located in the ark, places it on the paten and carries it on his head to the main church gates ( μεχρι τῶν βασιλικῶν πυλῶν) and stands here until the end of the great doxology. Upon execution, “Holy God” says: “Forgive Wisdom,” enters the church, places the paten on a small table standing in the middle of the church, and burns incense on it. The singers sing the troparion “Lord Save.” Having bowed three times to the ground, the priest opens the ark, takes the life-giving cross with cornflowers (μετὰ βασιλικῶν κλάδων), stands in front of the holy gates (ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἁ γ ί ων θυρῶν) and erects the cross in the usual order, first to the east, then to the west, south and north, and then again to the east. After the erection, the cross is placed again on the paten, during the singing of the kontakion of the holiday “Ascending to the Cross,” which is immediately followed by the stichera for kissing the cross. The brethren come up and kiss the life-giving tree, and then the cross is taken by the priest to the altar, placed on the throne (ἐν τ ῇ ἁ γ ί α τραπὲζ ῃ) and Matins ends in the usual order. As for the Feast of the Presentation, when it falls on the Week of the Publican and the Pharisee, the Prodigal and the Feast of Meat, the service of these weeks is moved to Friday, and the Gospel of these weeks is also read at the liturgies, and on the day of the holiday, the service is performed only for the holiday (fol. 101 vol.). We do not see the name “Mark” in this monument at all. After all that we have said above, we leave it to everyone to judge how incomplete Mr. Mansvetov’s history of the Jerusalem rule in the Greek Church is and how one should look at his article with the title: “The liturgical part in the Greek rules of the Jerusalem branch” (p. 197). Everything said here can only be significant in relation to the monuments of the first group, and then - not without some reservations caused by Mr. Mansvetov’s misunderstanding of some places of these monuments. So, for example, “Lord have mercy” is sung 50 times at the litia only for the last time, and before that the same prayer is said 30 and 40 times (p. 198); there can be no talk of polyeleos in the usual Sunday all-night vigil (p. 199), because it is part of the festive service; the expression στιχολογοῦμεν ἀμωμον μιετὰ τῶν ἀλληλούια in the service of Matins on Holy Saturday (p. 214) and must be understood in the sense of indicating the singing of “troparia” immaculate,” and not vice versa, as Mr. thinks. Mansvetov, because more complete lists of the Church Charter directly speak of the singing of the immaculate in the modern understanding of this liturgical feature, etc., etc. The section of Mr. Mansvetov’s book “Markov’s Chapters” does not cover this subject in its entirety and does not eliminate all objections regarding the identity of the compiler of these chapters. The edition of these chapters does not seem to exist for Mr. Mansvetov. At the same time, we are no longer talking about the composition of Mark’s chapters in the monuments of the second and third groups. The opinion about Mark the Bishop of Ephesus, the famous fighter against the Latins and a fairly famous liturgist, as the author of these chapters deserves, in our opinion, some attention, although there are no serious objections to eliminate it. “The extreme poverty of positive data regarding the content of the Svyatogorsk charter and the lack of its records” prevented Mr. Mansvetov from writing a detailed history of this typikon. Everything that is stated in the article under the heading “Svyatogorsk Charter” is only a hint at the actual history of this charter, and not the history itself. The very fact that Mr. Mansvetov did not have a single typicon of the Holy Mountain speaks more eloquently than any other evidence that one should not look for the history of this charter in his book. We refer those interested in this issue to our article: “Svyatogorsk (Athos) Typikon”, published in the first issues of the magazine “Ruk. for rural shepherd." for the past 1887 A direct natural transition from the history of the handwritten typikon of the Jerusalem branch would have been to the printed one of the same branch, but for some reason Mr. Mansvetov decided to insert a section with the title “Charter of the Great Church”. This entire article is of a bibliographic nature and is filled mainly with a description of the Greek Apostle of the Moscow library. Theological Academy (p. 242). The materials collected in it are of undeniable importance for the history of the Charter of the Great Church, first touched upon only by our author, and will provide an undoubted service to the future researcher of this issue, but they are far from complete and do not exhaust even the information previously known in the literature regarding this issue. So, for example, although we do not know the truly complete records of this charter, the fact of their existence is beyond doubt. The famous scientist A. Popov found in the manuscripts of the library of A. I. Khludov an excerpt from this charter, containing the synaxarion from September 1 to 14. The title of this passage is curious and reads like this: “The statute of the Great Church of St. Sophia was copied by the God-loving Archbishop Clement” 21 (First approx. to Description handwritten bib. A.I. Khludova, M. 1875, p. 13). The fact of the existence of an independent Church Charter of the Great Church in the church and liturgical practice of Byzantium is also confirmed by the promulgation of Rih. Foerster of the list of books that belonged to the Great Church (Catalogue librorum R. Domini patriarchae Constantinopolitani, continens libros quinquaginta quinque). Among the manuscripts that are currently lost, and, it seems, hopelessly, is, among other things, “Tacticon 22, liber de Ordinationibus (in charta bebraina)” i.e. book of ranks (Inclat. litt. universit. eberhard. carolin. tubing. sacr. saecul. quarta die VIII mens. Aug. A. CIXXCCLXXVII celebr. congrat. univers. Rostochiens, rect. et conc. Richard. Foerster. de antiqu. et libr. manuscr. constant. comm. Rostoch., pag. 32). In our article: “Typicon of the Great Church or modern typicon of Greek parish churches” (“Manual for rural pastors.” 1887) those interested in the history of this charter will find several new very interesting data. The history of Mr. Mansvetov’s “first printed Greek typikon” needs major corrections and additions. G. Mansvetov considers the typikon of 1577 to be the “first printed one” (p. 248), but this is completely in vain, because the first edition was published in 1545. Emile Legrand mentions this publication as editio princeps in his major work (Emile Legrand. Bibliographie hellenique ou descript. raisonn. de ouvrag. publ. en grec par. de grecs aux XV-e et XVI-e siecl. Paris, 1885 an., t. I, pag. 268); two copies of the 1545 edition of this charter were seen by Archimandrite Antonin in the library of the Athos Philotheus Monastery (“Notes of a Devotee of the Holy Mountain.” Kyiv, 1864, p. 170). G. Mansvetov might not have known about Legrand’s work, which was published in the same year as his book, but the notes of the arch. Antonin were at his fingertips, and one must be surprised that he overlooked his indication of this very major fact, which is of undeniable interest for the history of the printed typicon. A detailed list of articles included in the first printed typikon made by Mr. Legrand (page 270), who, according to his custom, gives verbatim both the preface and the description of this typikon, which we published in the “Ruk. for rural shepherd." 1887 (see article St. Athos. typ., approx. 3), spare us to make again a detailed description of this statute. We will limit ourselves to just noting that this edition was reprinted in 1577, not in its entirety, as Legrand thinks (Cette edition est la reproduction de celle, qui fut donné par Andronic Nucius en 1545; onn’en a pas mence retranchi la preface. t. II, pag. 205), but with some changes. So, for example, the first printed typikon is called “Τυπικὸν καὶ τὰ ἀπόρρητα”, and the typikon of 1577 is called “T ὸ παρὸν Τυπικὸν”. The first edition belonged to John and Peter the Savyn brothers, and the 1577 edition belonged to Andronik of Kerkyra. The preface is almost entirely reproduced from the first printed typikon. In the disciplinary part of the typikon of 1577, Articles 2 and 4 were added, Paschal belongs to Basil Velerid of Kerkyra and begins in 1545, and ends in 1604, and in the typikon of 1577 - to Theophan the Hieromonk of Cyprus and begins in 1577, and ends in 1617. As for the description of the typikon of 1577 year, made by Mr. Mansvetov, it is very thorough and does not raise any objections. “The next edition was published,” writes Mr. Mansvetov, “in 1603 under the right of Hieromonk Joasaph and the supervision of Gabriel, Metropolitan of Philadelphia. It constitutes a reprint of the first edition, with the exception of the preface, which is omitted, and the Paschal, beginning in 1604 and ending in 1623.” (p. 251). If we agree with Mr. Mansvetov that the edition of 1603 23 “is a reprint of the first edition,” i.e., 1577, then what was the content of the typikon of 1603 mentioned by him “on the right” by Hieromonk Joasaph. Obviously, Mr. Mansvetov did not carefully compare both of these publications, otherwise he would not have found himself in contradiction with himself, but, on the contrary, he was most positively convinced that Hieromonk Joasaph really worked a lot on correcting the typikon. So, for example, he eliminated the contradiction between the synaxarion and Mark’s chapters regarding the permission of fish on the Feast of the Annunciation, if it falls on Holy Week (fol. 47 vol.), the remark regarding the use of oil on Wednesday of the 5th week for the sake of the upcoming work (fol. 77 vol.); introduced a new article in the first, introductory part, beginning like this: Οἱ ο ὖ ν θέλοντες σωθῆναι τῶν ἰδ ί ων κελλ ί ων, destroyed the 4th additional article - absolutely eliminated the typist's mistake in chapter 13 of Mark the Hieromonk, which had hitherto been repeated in all editions, and, finally, the articles on fasting on the eve of the Nativity of Christ on Sunday, Maundy Thursday and Holy Saturday and on the celebration of the 4th week of fasting in memory of John Climacus were presented more fully and clearly. The editions of the typikon of 1615, 1643, 1645, 1685, etc. until the publication of the typikon in 1771 constitute a repetition of the edition of the typikon of 1603. The typikon of 1771 is called “νεωστὶ τυπωθὲν ἐκ ?? ί δωνος ἱεροδιακ ό νου τοῦ παπαδοπ ό υλου ". But the correction of errors and additions to the Church Charter did not go far. Hierodeacon Spyridon limited himself to only correcting the remarks regarding the singing of the doxology on September 23, about fasting on Wednesday of the 5th week and on Holy Saturday, adding new comments regarding the postponement of the service of the Great Martyr Catherine to November 25 and Spyridon’s service on December 12, and three new articles regarding Paschal. Judging by the 1738 edition of the typikon with the statement that it is νεωστὶ τυπωθὲν καὶ ἐπιμελῶς διορθωθὲν, subsequent editions of the typikon only reprint the typikon 1771. The printed typicon of the Greek Church had as its original, as we said, a handwritten typicon, therefore, very naturally, the closest and closest relationship should exist between them. G. Mansvetov thinks that the “disciplinary part” of the printed typikon is something new, unknown in the manuscripts (p. 251), as well as the division into chapters and the number of stamped chapters, whereas in fact all this was completely transferred to the printing press from manuscripts. The history of the “Jerusalem charter in the South Slavic lands” has been carefully processed by Mr. Mansvetov. For her, he made references in the St. Petersburg Public Library and, through Professor Kulakovsky of the University of Warsaw, in the Belgrade Library (in Serbia), but this story still does not embrace the diversity of lists of the South Slavic typicon, which was in reality, so that it could be considered completely satisfactory. As an example, we will point to two (No. 493 and No. 241) typikons from the Khalandar Library, which in composition and presentation differ in many ways from those described by Mr. Mansvetov. G. Mansvetov believes that the Serbian copies of the typikon of Sava the Sanctified “were the first edition of the Jerusalem charter known in Rus'” (p. 272). “In Rus', the turn from the studio charter to the Jerusalem one began at a time when the first was in full swing and is clearly visible in the 13th century.” (p. 269). The author explains this turn by the appearance in our East from the East of the specific features of the Jerusalem Rule, which, colliding with the customs of the Studite Rule that was dominant at that time, gave rise to all sorts of perplexities and questions that were resolved at Councils (for example, the Council of Constantinople in 1276) and by authoritative pastors of the Russian Church (Niphon, Bishop of Novgorod, Cyprian, Metropolitan Moskovsky, etc.). When the very lists of the charter appeared from Serbia, they little by little began to supplant the previous customs of church practice and the Studite charter. The final replacement of one charter with another was accomplished simply without any disturbance on the part of those who used one or another charter, and without official coercion on the part of the church-administrative authorities. The lists of the Church Charter that came to us in Russia did not remain unchanged, but underwent very significant alterations in accordance with the customs of local Russian practice. The translation of the Church Charter, called the “eye of the church,” made in the Constantinople monastery of the Mother of God Perivleptus, in 1401, by Abbot Afanasy Vysotsky significantly increases the number of copies of this charter. Hence, the desire of the researcher to bring all these lists under known groups and categories is quite understandable. The number of editions of the handwritten typikon of Mr. Mansvetov totals six, but he considers four to be more characteristic and stable. He gives more or less detailed information about each of these editions and tries to indicate their characteristic features. The first edition, as we know, he considers the Serbian, introduced in 1319 in Serbia by Archbishop Nicodemus. Its lists, according to Mr. Mansvetov, are distinguished by their brevity and systematic construction. They contain the general part, the services of the synaxarion and the Lenten and Colored Triodeum, and very few additional articles. In the earlier ones there are neither Markov's chapters nor extracts from Nikon Montenegrin. The second edition represents a local Russian reworking of the Greek typikon and serves as a transition from the studio charters to the Jerusalem ones. Here, obscure and technical terms are explained and translated into Russian, and the commemorations of Russian saints are introduced in the monthly book without mentioning the South Slavic ones. In these charters there are already Mark’s chapters, but without the addition of various minor articles of a service nature. The author considers “The Church's Eye” to be the third edition by Abbot Afanasy Vysotsky. This edition is distinguished by its prefabricated, compilative nature and its particularly complete presentation of the general part in comparison with the previous lists. It consists of 67 chapters, contains articles from the tacticon of Nikon the Montenegrin, five unknown chapters by origin (40–44) and a comparison of the Studite, Svyatogorsk and Jerusalem charters in the monthly and triode parts. The fourth edition is characterized by the introduction at the beginning of the charter of an article on the exact execution of the rules of the typikon by the abbot, a different placement of articles in the first part, the addition of new ones (for example, chapters 10, 21, 79 and 81) and the division of the 67 chapters of the introductory part of the previous edition into 125. The service according to the monthly word is indicated in exactly the same way as in the charters of the third edition. But in no case can one agree with such a division of the handwritten Slavic-Russian Jerusalem statutes into four editions. The characteristic features of each of the mentioned editions indicated by Mr. Mansvetov are so random and unimportant that, guided only by them, one can consider each new list of the Church Charter as a separate independent edition, because in each of them one can find some changes and additions of the kind that he mentions. However, Mr. Mansvetov himself is fully aware of the instability of his principles, on the basis of which he made this division, and in his further research, when reviewing the lists of this charter of the Χ V Ι - Χ V ΙΙ centuries, he directly renounces it. “The Slavic statutes of the Χ V Ι - Χ V ΙΙ centuries,” he writes, “according to the presentation of the main parts, some are adjacent to the fourth edition, and others to the third, others do not fit either one or the other and have their own rather large features. Based on these features, it would be possible to count several more editions, but since almost every charter has its own differences and the growth of their composition is progressive, it will be more convenient to outline the further development of the type in a general outline and note the main aspects of the work that took place on it” (p. 281). We personally, based on the study of numerous monuments of this charter and in various libraries of the capitals and provinces, must say that all the lists of the Slavic-Russian Jerusalem charter embrace entirely the monuments of the Greek charter of the same name of the first group. Of these, the simplest ones without Mark’s chapters, together with the most ancient Serbian lists, reproduce on their pages the Greek originals of the first section, and “The Church Eye” by Athanasius Vysotsky and all subsequent lists of the Charter of our Church represent a translation of the originals of the second section of the first group. In the first case, in Serbia and here in Rus', they limited themselves to only introducing the names of local saints with troparia and kontakia of local origin and only in rare exceptional cases, when a local saint was in special veneration among one or another people, entering the order of their services, and in the second, introducing numerous articles in the first part from Nikon Montenegrin, drawing up a decree “on the great holy new wonderworkers, celebrated from Monday of Bright Week to Sunday all saints" and chapters "like Mark's" and "church chapters", which the Greek Jerusalem statutes never knew and do not know to this day. Thus, if it is necessary to divide the Slavic-Russian lists of the Jerusalem charter into editions, then it is necessary to admit that there are only two of them: the first is the simplest, almost word for word reproducing the ancient lists of the Greek charter (before the 14th century), and the second, approaching in its main parts the Greek charters (XIV-XVI centuries) of a later time, contains articles and entire chapters of local Russian origin. In particular, considering the above division of the monuments of the Jerusalem charter into four editions and from the point of view of even the author himself, one cannot help but see his haste in this case. The author is well acquainted with Moscow libraries, but he is little familiar with the St. Petersburg libraries and is not at all familiar with the Kyiv and Kazan libraries, where he, without any doubt, could come across very interesting lists of this charter and would find quite a lot of interesting data for his conclusions and generalizations. Let's point out the facts. The author, for example, boldly asserts that “until the 16th century. the number of Slavic-Russian saints and holidays in our charters is very insignificant and fluctuates between six and ten. “None of the lists of the charter known to us reaches the last figure,” he adds, “but we set it as the limiting point to which the total of Slavic memories reached according to various lists of this latter.” Meanwhile, if he had had his hands on the Typikon of 1494, written in the Solovetsky monastery by the famous Solovetsky hard worker in the field of book copying, the holy monk Dosifei, and now stored in the library of the Kazan Theological Academy, then he would have seen that back in the 15th century the number of names of Russian saints and local holidays went beyond two dozen 24 . This Typikon indicates Russian holidays on September 7, 20 and 25, on October 1, 15 and 21, on November 6, 17 and 27, on December 21, on February 11 and 12, on March 11 and 30, on May 2, 3, 7, 9, 20, 23 and 28, on June 9, on July 15 and 24. Acquaintance with the monuments of the Church Charter of South Russian origin (for example, the handicraft of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra No. 7), which in Mr. Mansvetov’s book is now completely passed over in silence, would have given the author several interesting features of South Russian church liturgical practice and would have enriched him with information regarding the synaxarion of this Charter. In the 16th, and especially in the 17th centuries, the number of Russian saints in our monuments increased significantly, so that “it is not only impossible to count, but even with the human mind it is impossible to comprehend how many saints of God have shone in the saints of Russia to the glory and praise of God.” Many of the saints, hitherto celebrated only in one locality or another, become, thanks to their canonization at local Russian councils, the property of the entire Russian Church; new services are compiled in their honor, or those compiled earlier are rewritten and come into use everywhere. From these services, little by little, entire collections were formed, called “Obihodnikov”. Each more or less famous monastery, ancient monastery had its own special “Obikhodnik”, which outlined the services with the ceremonies that were performed in these monasteries. Quite often, entire collections of services according to the customs of different monasteries were compiled from such “Obikhodniks” (manufacturer: Solovetsky Bible No. 1117). In any case, in the second half of the Χ V Ι century. we encounter the existence of “Obyhodniks”, which acquire decisive importance in liturgical practice and for a time even supplant the Jerusalem Rule, which seemed to be dominant at that time. “Extracts from everyday books,” according to our author, “often found their way into general statutes and were interspersed with the rules of the Greek typical; for the most part they were included in the content of the latter and supplemented its main text with details of local practice” (p. 272). But, however, all this did not force Mr. Mansvetov to engage in a detailed analysis of this kind of statutory monuments, but led him to the idea of ​​making a rather strange reservation that “this section of our liturgical writing is so rich in content and important in its conclusions that we did not dare to touch upon it in a cursory essay” (p. IV). It would seem that this awareness of the importance of this kind of monuments should have prompted them to be seriously studied, and not to pass them by or leave them until a monograph on them is written. But even just a “cursory sketch” of the monastic everyday life books is urgently needed in the history of the Church Charter, in our opinion, also because these everyday books have the closest relationship to our first printed typikon of 1610, the contents of which, without this acquaintance, will now remain incomprehensible to most readers and will cause them positive bewilderment when they learn that this typikon of 1610 was subjected to strict condemnation by the patriarch Moscow Philaret and was burned. We think that for the sake of this “cursory sketch” we could safely sacrifice the analysis of the “Skete Rule” and the “Contemplative Rule” of Gennady, Archbishop of Novgorod († 1505). The first of them was usually observed by monks in their private cell life, and it has only that relation to the history of the Church Rule that is called the “statute.” The second was written by the Bishop of Novgorod in order to simplify the use of the general Charter and give a decision regarding the performance of services on similar holidays or when several commemorations coincide on one day (p. 304). This attempt in itself is very respectable, but since it was intended to satisfy the needs of the local Novgorod church, from where the work of Metropolitan Gennady later moved to other areas of the Russian state, then, according to Mr. Mansvetov’s own consciousness, “it did not have much practical significance and influence on the processing of the type and remained an experience without a future” (p. 305). The scientific analysis of these monuments “without meaning or future” at the present time only spoils the integrity of Mr. Mansvetov’s book and makes the transition to the history of the printed Typikon unnatural. The first printed Typikon was the Charter, published in 1610 by the Troitsk leader, and then by the charterer, Loggin, nicknamed Shishelev. Although the preface says that this charter was published “by command of the great sovereign,” “with the blessing of the chief shepherd, the extreme saint, father of the cyrus Irmogenes, Patriarch of Moscow,” but subsequently, when various kinds of criticism were raised against Loggin for correcting the service book, this charter was subjected to strict condemnation by the Moscow Patriarch Philaret. “Those statutes,” he says, “were printed by the Kryloshan black Loggin of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery without the blessing of ... Patriarch Hermogenes and the entire consecrated cathedral, and many articles in those statutes were printed not according to the apostolic and not according to paternal tradition, by his own will” (Act. Archaeographic Expedition No. 228). As a consequence of such condemnation, that charter “was ordered by the sovereign patriarch to be burned” (Russian historical bibliography, vol. III, p. 902). From the book of Mr. Mansvetov, we only recognize his unfounded statement that the condemnation that befell our first-born typikon “was weak and unfounded,” but we do not see any incentives for such a condemnation of him, or even the articles themselves, “printed not according to the apostolic and not according to paternal tradition, by our own self-will.” True, he makes the assumption that “the patriarch could express this idea under the influence of those reviews that were made about Loggin by Dionysius” with his employees during the dispute about the prelog and “fire”, but this assumption in itself is not enough for the harsh condemnation of the typikon of 1610, already known to us. It is most likely to think that the above words of Patriarch Philaret refer precisely to those articles included in the charter of 1610 from the local Russian charters or “everyday people” to whom he stood in direct and close connection. Patriarch Filaret, a strict zealot of antiquity, starting a new edition of the Typikon and comparing it with lists of earlier origin, came across articles that he had not seen in old manuscripts and the origin of which he had a vague idea of, which is why he called them articles “not according to the apostolic and not the paternal tradition.” What articles did the charterer Loggin “voluntarily” include in his typikon? The answer to this can be given by a detailed analysis of the first printed Charter itself, which has not yet been described in detail by anyone. The composition of this Typikon, which is largely distinguished by its completeness and consistency, is as follows. The introductory part, which is quite extensive, consists of articles that were also in the handwritten typikons of the second edition. It is followed by 144 chapters of “the story of the hieromonk’s chapters of Mark on the writing off of the industrious and unknown statutory things.” Mark’s chapters here included the following articles: “Decree on the Intercession and the Presentation of the Theotokos, if the Intercession or Presentation of the Theotokos happens in a week”, “Decree on the Great Saint Sava, Archbishop of Serbia, how his service is sung with the celebration of Epiphany”, “Decree on the feast of the Council of the Archangel Gabriel on March 26, how his service is sung from Theotokos in the post-feast on a row” and similar articles, through which their number against the Greek typikon increased to an unprecedented figure. Behind Mark’s chapters there is an article of 25 chapters with the title: “The Decree on the Great Saints Polyeleos or the All-Night Vigil and in Great Russia the new miracle workers are celebrated on Monday, Bright Weeks and on the Day of Saints until the Week of St. Thomas and from the Week of St. Thomas at Pentecost to the Week of All Saints. These chapters are similar to Markov’s, laboriously written off.” These are the chapters: “It is also appropriate for your prudence to judge about this, if it happens to be like our father Jonah, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia, the wonderworker, or Euthymius of Suzhdal, the wonderworker, on the Monday of Bright Week, or on the same day to the week of St. Thomas, the whole service is sung by them every day on Bright Week, as indicated for George. If the church of the saint comes in the week of St. Thomas, we will sing the entire service to him without fail, just as we did to St. George. It is appropriate to know if some great saint happened on the week of the Myrrh-Bearers, or about the paralytic, or about the week of the Samaritan woman, or about the blind man. It is appropriate to celebrate, if the saint’s church arrives on the Wednesday of Midsummer, and the entire service to the saint’s church, together with the holiday, evening and morning, is sung, like the Theologian on Midnight. It is appropriate to know that if the great wonderworker appears on the Wednesday of the Midsummer, his entire service together with the holiday, evening and morning, will certainly be sung everywhere, like the Theologian on the Midsummer. It is appropriate to know that if a great saint appears on the week of the Samaritan woman, the service of the Midsummer is left and the resurrection of the Samaritan woman and the saint is sung. If one of the great saints or the holy passion-bearers Boris and Gleb appears on Pentecost, one day of the week other than Saturday and week. If some great saint, having an all-night vigil, should appear on Pentecost, one of the days of the week other than Saturday and week. If it happens on any week in the Easter of St. Anthony of Pechersk or in the Midsummer of the 50th, then his service is sung on the same day, when the abbot judges. It is appropriate to know how the service is sung on the one day of the week, the holiday and the cross and St. Anthony of Pechersk. If Tsar Constantine arrives at the age of 50 on the same day of this week, a service is sung for the feast and Presentation of the Most Pure Vladimir Icon and for Tsar Constantine. If some great saint appears on Saturday of the third week of Easter or 4 or 5. On Saturday 3 weeks after Easter, or 4 or 5, if the great saint, who has an all-night vigil, comes. If the saint’s church is opened on the Wednesday before the Ascension, then the entire service to the saint’s church is sung together with the holiday of Pascha. Perhaps St. Nicholas, great in miracles, will appear on the Wednesday before the Ascension. The entire service celebrates the holiday of Passover. If the holy church is celebrated on the Fourth of the Ascension of Christ, then the entire service of the holy church is sung together with the holiday (as to the Theologian with the Ascension). If the many-wonderful and great wonderworker St. Nicholas appears on the very feast of the Ascension of Christ, the service of all saints is sung with the feast. (Same). If Metropolitan Alexy will appear in the post-feast of the Ascension on the 6th week of Easter or 7 and in the post-feast of the 8th week. If the saint’s church appears on the 7th Sunday of the Passover of Saints, the Father will leave the Ascension service and the resurrection service will be sung both by the father and the saint’s church. As if the celebration of the Presentation of the Most Pure Vladimir will happen on the 7th week of St. father, the service of the Ascension is left and the resurrection is sung both by the Mother of God and by the father. If a great saint or a holy church appears on the heel of the 7th week of Easter in honor of the Feast of the Ascension, we sing the service of the holy church or a great saint with the celebration of the holiday. If the holy church happens to be on the Sabbath, we sing the service on Saturday along with the holy church, and on Saturday we sing the service for the dead on the Saturday that passed by or on the fourth that passed by. If the saint's church will appear on the 50th week. If any great saint or holy church appears on the occasion of the feast of the 50th anniversary of the descent of the Spirit, we sing the service to the great saint or holy church with the observance of the feast. If a great saint appears on the Sunday of All Saints, the entire service to the great saint is sung on this very week. If the holy church appears on the week of all saints, the entire service to the holy church is sung on this week of all saints. “These chapters that have been completed here are similar to the essence of Mark’s copying industriously.” About these chapters, Patriarch Filaret expressed that they were included in the Typikon by the charterer Loggin “of his own willfulness” and were compiled “not according to the apostolic and not according to paternal tradition,” and therefore they were not included in the edition of the Typikon of his time. Further, after “chapters similar to Mark’s” now come “church chapters” with the title: “The legend is known to the chapters like them about the churches of the saint or saints from the month of September until the week of the Publican and the Pharisee, from the beginning of the Publican even until the week of all saints.” Compared to the current Typicon, there is a lack of chapters from 26 to 42, 47, 50, 51 and 53, but there are chapters that do not exist today, for example. chapters about the church in honor of Euthymius of Sardicia, December 26, on the week or week after Christmas, church chapters for Monday of the first week (as Candlemas), for the entire Holy Week, the first day of Easter and the week of Pentecost. The further order of presentation of the Typikon is usual: month books, services for the Lenten and Colored Triodions, and the usual remarks about alleluaries, prokeimnas, sacraments, etc. The Typikon ends with an afterword. In the book by Mr. Mansvetov, an analysis of this Charter (pp. 318–319) is made very briefly. He did not consider it necessary to expand on the chapters “like Markov” and “church ones”, limiting himself to a simple statement that he knew them. Meanwhile, in view of their importance in the further history of the Typikon, they should be discussed carefully. The next edition of the Typicon after 1610 was made in 1633 and repeated, for a reason unknown to us, in 1634. Compared to the first edition, the latter has been significantly improved. The Typikon of 1610 underwent a significant reduction; articles of Russian origin, which we had occasion to notice above, were excluded from it. The publishers of this time obviously wanted to put a limit to the further complications of our Typikon, and they would have achieved their goal if the matter of correcting it had been carried out according to a definite plan and consistently. But in its present form, the Typikon of 1633–34 remained in practice only until 1641, and at this time we again see a turn to the first printed edition. In the Charter of 1641, articles “from the Epistles of Nikon” were excluded and articles were added on the number of monks, on the general content of the Charter, on how the service is carried out in Russian monasteries, a note on how to conduct the service in the absence of monthly mena, articles on fasting and some others (p. 322). The publication of the Charter under Patriarch Joseph in 1651 was almost a repetition of the 1641 edition. But the editions of the Typicon of 1682 and 1695 They stand completely differently towards their predecessors. These publications date back to a time when we clearly recognized the need to carry out book corrections based on Greek originals, and therefore, quite naturally, the results of such work turned out completely different. Although the 1682 edition was based on the typicon of 1641, it was previously corrected according to the already corrected books of hours in the Moscow editions, the Lvov Trefolo, Greek charters and menaions. The result of this was that entire articles of Russian origin were crossed out as disagreeing with the Greek originals, up to 50 commemorations of saints, the celebration of which had been approved at Russian Councils of the previous time, were excluded from the monthly book, many troparia and kontakia compiled by Russian hymns were destroyed on the same basis, an agreement was made in the text of prayers and exclamations corrected earlier, and thus destroyed disagreement between the Typikon and other liturgical books. In particular, the editorial work consisted of changing the titles of articles, replacing technical and obscure words with simpler and more well-known ones, setting up a more correct structure of speech, changing the order of articles and shortening them. To get acquainted with the detailed side of this correction, the author presented an excellent, detailed description of the “quoted typikon” he found in Moscow. Typographic Library No. 1373 (pp. 328–356). Based on this acquaintance, Mr. Mansvetov came to a very curious conclusion regarding the Typikon of 1682. According to him, “not one of the requirements indicated by him (i.e. a) correction of the text according to Greek models, b) its agreement with the corrected service books and c) exclusion from its composition of articles of a local and personal nature) was carried out consistently, and the correctors, losing the guiding thread in places, went astray. This resulted in contradictions and oversights, which are striking upon careful reading and can cause difficulties for the sender of a church service. In other service books, these oversights are not so noticeable, but in the Charter, which combines the contents of other church liturgical books and regulates their use, they constitute a very large flaw and can serve as a reason for many misunderstandings” (p. 338). The presence of misunderstandings, contradictions and inaccuracies “is felt all the more strongly since the charter of 1682 was used as the basis for its subsequent editions and, with a few exceptions, is still reprinted without changes” (p. 342). Some of the shortcomings of the 1682 edition of the Typikon and, by the way, its disagreement with the current Menaions, corrected only in 1689, were also noticed by contemporaries, despite the fact that the decree given in 1682 to the printing house said: “from now on, books at the printing house are ordered to be made in accordance with the rules” (receipt and expenditure book of the Moscow printing house No. 100). In 1695, by order of Tsars John and Peter Alekseevich and with the blessing of Patriarch Adrian, a new edition and correction of our Typikon was started, which was called “printed embossing in the second correction” and was agreed “in the monthly with the newly published Menaions in troparia and kontakion throughout the entire sequence.” Many names of Slavic-Russian saints, excluded from the Typikon of 1682 by Greekophile investigators, were now returned to their places, and some changes were made in other parts of the Typikon. “The publication of the Typikon in 1695,” according to Mr. Mansvetov, “completed the process of correcting our Typikon. What was undertaken and done in this regard further, up to and including the last edition of 1877, is limited to minor changes in the text of the prayers and sequences. Even some errors and oversights made by the inspectors of 1695 have not been eliminated, and the matter remains in almost the same situation as it was 180 years ago. On the editorial side, our present Charter has also not moved far forward and, with a few exceptions, is a reprint of the 1695 edition” (p. 356). Leaving aside a small inaccuracy regarding the original of the contemporary Slavic-Russian Typikon, one cannot but agree that in general the characterization of the subsequent fate of the Typikon, after its correction in 1695, is depicted quite fairly, but we personally prefer to deal with facts in order to correctly judge the shortcomings of this book in our time. The editions of 1700 and 1733 that immediately followed the publication of the Typikon in 1695 literally repeated their predecessor. The 1782 edition introduced new memories against the previous editions, namely: Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov, and Queen Alexandra. In the Typikon of 1791 we see the memory of the Venerable Nile of Seliger, a note about the service of St. the Apostle Jude with the service of Pentecost, a memory of the victory at Poltava, the memory of Prince Theodore Yaroslavich and an article about the double consecration of water on the eve of Epiphany. This article was deleted from the Typikon on December 12, 1749, but was published again in the 1791 edition and did not last long. On January 18, 1794, a decree was given to the printing house “not to print” this article. This article no longer exists in the Charter of 1814. Of the new memories, printed here on October 12 is the transfer of the right hand of the Baptist of the Lord John and the icon of the Mother of God, painted by the Evangelist Luke, to Gatchina and on January 28, Theodosius of Totem. The Typikon of 1832 contains “a recollection of the deliverance of the Church and the Russian state from the invasion of the Gauls.” Since 1838, the Typikon has been printed without any changes, letter for letter, and is no longer included on its pages in memory of the saints. Until now, the names of the Voronezh hierarchs Mitrofan and Tikhon and the Slavic enlighteners Cyril and Methodius, so recently honored by the anniversary celebration in our Church, remain unpublished. The absence of these names in the Typikon, a book constantly at hand by our clergy, makes it as if it is not obligatory for them to perform services for them, and it is not surprising that, even after the last anniversary celebration, the service to the enlighteners of the Slavs will be in the same oblivion among the clergy as it was in ours from 1866 to 1885. Thus, the immobility and stability of the Typikon of our days is its first drawback as a guiding book. Our Typikon owes the same qualities to the fact that it is in conflict with current practice and gives rise to confusion among our clergy and contradictions in the orders of the diocesan authorities. Of the many examples, we will give here the most typical - the removal of the Shroud on Good Friday, if the Feast of the Annunciation occurs on this day. The ritual of removing the Shroud at Vespers of Great Heel at ordinary times is not specified in the Charter, and therefore is currently performed differently in different places of the Russian Church. In other places, the Shroud is placed in the middle of the church immediately after hours, and the people who have come to Vespers already see it lying on a special table set up for this occasion, kiss it and light candles even before the priest arrives. In particular, a similar preparation of the Shroud can be seen in the large Moscow Assumption Cathedral, although with rather interesting features. “At the Vespers of Great Friday,” we read in the book “The Rite of Priesthood and Rituals Observed in the Great Assumption Cathedral,” “the bishop, having entered the church, ascended to the place, puts on Lenten vestments in the middle of the church and, having put on, goes to the tomb of the Savior with ripida and with candles, and having arrived, censes the coffin three times, the same authorities and, taking off his hat, lifts the coffin with the authorities on the frame, and carried to the prepared place in front of the royal doors and placed there, he also enters the altar and burns incense around the coffin three times, and the subdeacons with candlesticks are around. Also the protodeacon: “Bless, master.” Archimandrite: “Blessed be our God.” They begin vespers... According to the Apostle, the protodeacon reads the Holy Gospel behind the Shroud... and in the verse there is kissing and the release of vespers according to the rite with the trikirias, the bishop kisses the ulcer in the rib and arm, then in the legs, also in the hand, and the authorities immediately kiss the ulcer on the leg, and so do all those who have received it.” In other places, the removal takes place after Vespers itself, during the singing of the stichera on the stichera. “When singing the song: “Thee who is clothed,” which depicts the bewilderment of Joseph and Nicodemus, how they will bury the Lord, with what robe they will wrap them, the priest, portraying Joseph of Arimathea, smells the Shroud lying on the throne, walking around it three times with a censer. After the “Our Father,” when singing the troparion: “Blessed Joseph,” the clergy, through the most sacred actions, depict what is sung in the troparion. They lift the Shroud onto the heads and, preceded by the deacons with incense, transfer it through the royal doors from the altar to the middle of the church. The primate of the priests (and if the removal is carried out by one priest with a deacon, then the priest) in full vestments carries the Gospel under the Shroud, which is placed on the Holy Shroud after its position in the prepared place, in the middle of the church, depicting that the One who is placed in the tomb and entwined with the Shroud is the Word from the beginning (John 1:1). After bringing the Shroud to the middle of the church, after singing “Blessed Joseph,” the song “Glory and Now” to the “Myrrh-Bearing Women” is sung. It is, as it were, a continuation of the troparion “Blessed Joseph.” This is how the second kind of practice is described by Archpriest. K. Nikolsky in his famous book “A Guide to the Study of the Rules of Divine Services of the Orthodox Church,” St. Petersburg, 1877, p. 603. In some places, on this Vespers, a transition is made from a warm church to a cold one, and the Shroud is transferred at the indicated time from the altar of the warm church to the middle of the cold church and is placed here on the table near the royal doors. Where did this dual practice come from regarding one and the same incident in church liturgical practice? The practice of the first kind (preparing the Shroud immediately after the hours or at the beginning of Vespers without any prayers) stems from attachment to the letter of the current Church Charter, which, as we said, is silent about the removal of the Shroud after Vespers on Good Friday. The priests, who do not want to disrupt the course of the rite of Vespers with customs and rituals not provided for by the Charter, prepare themselves or order the Shroud to be prepared without any religious ceremonies and church songs for their clergy and colleagues. Wanting to follow the letter of the Rule, these priests forget that the Rule not only does not require this preparation, but directly speaks of the removal of the Shroud on Saturday at Matins from the altar, where, as we will see later, the Shroud should, according to the Rule, be prepared. As for the practice of the second kind (carrying out the Shroud during Vespers itself, while singing stichera on the stichera), it undoubtedly appeared in our country under the influence of the later practice of the Eastern Churches. This is how this rite is performed today in the Greek and Bulgarian Churches. At the vespers of Great Friday, after “Grant the Lord” and the petitionary litany, at the exclamation of the priest, the protopsalt with the rest of the singers stands opposite the royal doors and begins singing the stichera on the verse: “When You were Dead from the Tree,” and so on. At this time, six priests, dressed in sacred robes, exit the altar by the northern doors (Εἰς τὴν πύλην τοῦ ἀριστεροῦ χοροῦ), carrying epitaphs on their heads. The singers walk ahead of the epitaph, continuing to sing the stichera on the stichera, followed by the mikirium with a divanbol (candlestick), then the deacons with lamps and censers in their hands, and behind them the priests with the epitaph on their heads. As if bringing up the rear of the procession, the archimandrite walks behind the priests with the Gospel in his hands. The singers stop near the so-called edicule, and the epitaph is carried around the edicule three times and then placed inside it (ἔνδον τοῦ κουβουκλ ί ου). A portarius appears and places fresh flowers on the epitaph. At this time, the patriarch, who did not participate in the removal of the Shroud from the altar, descends from his pulpit (ἐκ τοῦ θρ ό νου), approaches the edicule, makes an adoration epitaph, and then kisses it and, having blessed the people, retires to his place. The choir sings "Εἰς πολλὰ ἕ τη δέσποτα". The portarius gives the patriarch “fragrant flowers decorated (with a special arrangement).” Then, two in a row, the remaining bishops present in the church, priests, church dignitaries (ἐκκλησιαστηκοὶ ὀφικιάλοι) approach the edicule, bow, kiss the epitaph and, having received flowers from the hands of the patriarch, retire to their places. During all this time, the second face sings “Glory even now”: “To you who dress.” After this, with the reading of “Now You Dismiss”, the Trisagion, “The Most Holy Trinity” and “Our Father” and the singing, at the exclamation of the priest, of the troparia: “Blessed Joseph” and “To the Myrrh-Bearing Women” and the usual dismissal of the rite of Vespers ends (Const. of the Church according to the rite of Christ. Great Church. Const. Protopsalt. George K., ed. II, 1860, p. 291). If we now exclude from the description of the rite we have presented - the removal of the Shroud during the vespers on Friday of Holy Week, the distribution of flowers by the patriarch, which in our Rus', especially in the north, would be far out of season, if we ignore the difference in the removal of the Shroud through the northern doors, which is done, it should be noted, in some churches and here in Russia, and if, finally, we transfer the removal of the Shroud to the singing of the troparion: “Blessed Joseph”, then the practice regarding this custom in our Church will be positively identical with the practice of the Eastern Churches and the dependence of the former on the latter will become quite obvious. But, having borrowed this beautiful and touching ritual from the East, we, however, were not consistent to the end. We should, together with him, borrow Eastern practice regarding this rite, if the feast of the Annunciation falls on Good Friday. We, remaining to this day with the “Mark’s Chapters,” are guided by them in all difficult cases of church and liturgical practice and cannot do without them even in the case indicated by us, through which we put ourselves in contradiction, create difficulties in practice and cause a number of orders from the diocesan authorities and even the Holy Synod, which are very often contradictory to each other. A whole literature has now been compiled from these orders. If the feast of the Annunciation falls on Great Friday, then, according to the current “Annunciation Chapter,” in this case the hours are celebrated at their own time separately from the liturgy. Vespers is connected to the liturgy, which begins immediately after the reading of the proverbs. Consequently, the stichera on the verse and everything else, along with the removal of the Shroud, according to this chapter, are omitted and remain unfulfilled. It remains, therefore, either to prepare the Shroud after the liturgy without any prayers, as is done in some places, or to come up with the idea of ​​removing the Shroud immediately after the liturgy or even during Little Compline, which is now celebrated according to the Rule on this day. Diocesan practice has tended to carry out the removal now after the liturgy, although complete uniformity has not been established here in all dioceses. “In order to apply this rite (i.e. removal of the Shroud) for Vespers, combined with the liturgy, - wrote Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow in 1855, - it is necessary (in the likeness of the Vespers of the Epiphany of the Lord), after the prayer behind the pulpit, the stichera should be sung on the verse of the Great Heel and then, during the singing of the troparion “Blessed Joseph,” the transfer of the Shroud, adoration and kissing and dismissal should follow liturgy. Small Compline with the canon should be at 5 o’clock in the evening” (“Moscow Diocese Ved.,” 1870, No. 50, l. 441). In the same year, 1855, in Kyiv, the liturgy and vespers ended with the usual dismissal. During the liturgy, the Shroud was in the altar, but not on the throne, as is usually the case on Great Friday. After the dismissal of the liturgy, stichera were sung on the poem “Ever from the Tree,” during which the clergy changed their light vestments to black ones and placed the Shroud on the throne. At the end of the song “You are Clothed,” “Now You Let Us Go,” the Trisagion, “Our Father” were read and, at the exclamation of the priest, while singing the troparion “Blessed Joseph,” after censing three times around the throne, the Holy Shroud was taken from the throne and carried from the altar to the middle of the church. After censing three times, the stichera for kissing the Shroud is sung: “Come, let us please you.” Accordingly, Little Compline was read with the usual canon and dismissal (“Lithuanian eparch. ved.” 1877, No. 9, p. 67). According to the regulations of the large Moscow Assumption Cathedral, Vespers in this case is performed separately from the liturgy and the removal of the Shroud occurs in the usual order, already known to us. In one of the diocesan cities in 1855, on the occasion of the church holiday, the Divine Liturgy was celebrated immediately after hours, and vespers, according to the rule of Great Friday, at 2 o’clock in the afternoon (“Lithuanian diocesan history” 1877, No. 9, p. 67). In view of the variety of liturgical practices indicated by us regarding the present case, the Holy Synod, by its decree, determined to act in this way: “at Compline at 5 o’clock in the afternoon, the good news will be sounded on a large bell and the entire ringing will be full. The abbot dresses in full vestments, and the others in small vestments. The Shroud is placed on the throne in advance and candlesticks are provided. Compline begins as usual. After reading “I Believe in One God,” the royal gates are opened and the stichera “Wearing You” is sung. At this time, the abbot, having distributed the candles, censes the Shroud on the throne, walking around three times. After the prophecy of the stichera, the Shroud is lifted from the throne, while the troparion “Blessed Joseph” is sung, and carried, according to custom, to the prepared place in the middle of the church or another church. Once the Shroud is in place, the rector censes it around three times, while singing another troparion: “To the myrrh-bearing women.” Therefore, there is the kissing of the Shroud, during which they sing the canon prescribed by the rules for Compline about the crucifixion of the Lord and the lamentation of the Most Holy Theotokos. Compline ends as specified in the Charter" (Nikolsky, “A Guide to the Study of the Charter,” p. 590). It is enough what we said above about the practice of the churches of Moscow, Kyiv and some others for one to conclude that the decree of the Holy Synod of 1855 in the very year of its publication did not truly achieve its goal. Strange as it may seem, but nevertheless it is a fact that in 1855, even in St. Petersburg itself, in some of its churches, the removal of the Shroud was carried out in accordance with the instructions of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. This interesting phenomenon can only be explained, in our opinion, by the fact that the order of the Metropolitan of Moscow was made entirely in the spirit of the Church Charter, and the order of the Holy Synod was original in nature and had nothing like it in church and liturgical practice. But, if the synodal decree of 1855 did not have adequate success in the year of its publication, then an even sadder fate awaited it in the subsequent time. In 1866, when a similar incident was repeated, the practice regarding the removal of the Shroud at Vespers of Great Heel was as varied as in 1855. And in 1877, the synodal decree of 1855 remembered only three dioceses: Samara, Tambov and Tula, making it known to their clergy through publication on the pages of local “Eparch. Vedomosti" (“Samara Eparch. Ved.” 1877, No. 5; “Tamb. Diocesan Ved.” 1877, No. 5, and “Tula Eparch. Ved.” No. 4); dioceses: Moscow (“diocesan history” No. 14, 1870, 1876, No. 50), Astrakhan (1877, No. 10), Yaroslavl (No. 2), Tauride (No. 4), Minsk (No. 2), Lithuanian (No. 9), Ryazan (No. 14), Kharkov (p. 168) and Smolenskaya (No. 4) reminded their clergy of the order of Metropolitan Philaret, that is, to take out the Shroud after the prayer behind the pulpit. How the removal of the Shroud was carried out in 1877 in the Kazan diocese is difficult to answer directly. The fact is that in “Izvestia. according to Kazan. eparch." this year we find two completely opposite orders, printed identically at the will of the local diocesan authorities. In No. 1 of “Izvestia” a notice was published for the attention of the clergy from the consistory about the celebration of the feast of the Annunciation in the coming year and, in particular, about the removal of the Shroud for vespers in the spirit of the order of Metropolitan Philaret, i.e., to take it out after the prayer behind the pulpit (p. 15), and in No. 3 of the same “Izvestia” the proposal of the deceased himself was printed Archbishop Anthony in the spirit of the Kyiv practice, that is, to carry out the Shroud after the dismissal of the liturgy (p. 63). Thus, instead of the “due uniformity in the performance of church services on this great day” throughout the Kazan diocese, which the late Archbishop Anthony, a strict zealot of church order, took care of, there was inevitable diversity, causing some misunderstandings among persons interested in this kind of orders of the diocesan authorities. These misunderstandings were expressed in print on the pages of “Tulsk. diocesan Ved." in the article “The Question of the Church Charter” (1877, No. 4, p. 141). The author of this article allows himself to doubt the “integrity” of the order published in No. 3 of Izvestia. according to Kazan. eparch.”, and positively refuses to believe that “two dissimilar orders on the same subject could come from the same authorities.” But the fact is obvious, “dissimilar” orders were made from the same government, and in the Kazan diocese this year they carried out the removal of the Shroud, if some priests also recalled the decree of the Holy Synod of 1855, in three ways: in some churches according to the Moscow Filaret custom, in others - according to the Kyiv one, and in others - in accordance with the decree of the Holy Rule. Synod. As for the remaining dioceses, in which proper orders were not made in this case, the stereotypical phrase of the Charter played a prominent role here: “if the rector wills,” or, it would be much more accurate that the priests of these dioceses were guided by the order of Kazan Archbishop Anthony, which, as we said, was published in No. 3 of Izvestia, and then reprinted in No. 8 of Tserkovny messenger". Some priests even became convinced, as can be concluded on the basis of the above-mentioned article in “Tulsk. diocesan Ved.,” that this order of the Kazan Archbishop “is authoritative simply because it was published in a newspaper serving as the organ of the Holy Synod.” That’s why “Minsk. diocesan Ved.,” having reprinted this order of the Most Reverend Anthony in its entirety, they make the following reservation: “this order, it seems, should be guided especially in rural churches” (1877, No. 5). Such confusion in practice, obvious contradictions in the orders of the diocesan authorities and misunderstandings among those who should know this could not have happened if, having accepted from the modern liturgical practice of the Eastern Churches the custom of bringing the Shroud to Vespers of Great Friday, we had at the same time accepted the remark of the current charter of these Churches that if the Feast of the Annunciation occurs on Good Friday, then the service To move the Annunciation to the Easter holiday itself, and not to connect the Heel service with the service of this holiday. In our modern Typicon, a similar transfer is recommended for services in honor of the Great Martyr George, if his memory falls on one of the last days of Holy Week. The typical pattern of the Eastern Churches gives very reasonable grounds for this transfer. “The holy, great Church of Christ,” we read here, “before a single century and from then on, from the patriarchs of the ancient archbishops, as if they had received, having seen the discord and confusion occurring in all the city churches, care for the Annunciation, the most solemn feast of the reception. And for the cessation of imaginary obstinacy, especially among the simple people of those who listen to the depth of spirituality, they determined the reorganization of the holiday, if it happens on these two mournful days on the Lord's day of Easter, as if the joyful with the cheerful ones would agree and sing, carefully avoiding the confusion of the bright with the deplorable, and so that there would not be a disagreement between troparions “Today hangs on the tree” with “Today is the joy of the Annunciation” and “Tearful sobbing for You is pure” with “Gabriel brought the gospel to the Virgin from heaven”” (Typical church. Const. ed. 1853, p. 181 note). But there is very little hope for the adoption of this custom of the Eastern Churches in Russia. Therefore, the above shortcomings would be eliminated by themselves if the decree of the Holy Synod of 1855 or the order of Metropolitan Philaret regarding the removal of the Shroud, as more instilled and rooted in our modern church and liturgical practice, were printed on the pages of our Church Charter in the “Mark Chapters”. Without this, we dare to think, confusion in liturgical practice will be repeated in the future whenever the Feast of the Annunciation falls on Great Friday. We have focused on this example as the most striking, but we can point out several other examples where the current practice is independent of the currently dominant Typikon and sometimes even in contradiction with it. So, for example, the four evangelists are read not only in the first days of Holy Week, but also throughout the entire sixth week; to sing the “immaculate” on Saturday at Matins, the clergy go to the middle of the church; with the Shroud they go not only from the altar into the church, but also walk around the church with it; Before the start of Matins on Easter, they take out of the church not only the Holy Gospel, but banners, a cross, and St. icons and do not go directly into the vestibule with them, but first carry them around the church with the singing of the troparion “Thy Resurrection of Christ the Savior”; on Easter, the liturgy is performed immediately after Matins, despite the fact that the expression “after the wound” in the Church Charter is applied to the liturgy on the feast of the Nativity of Christ and the Epiphany, when the liturgy is usually celebrated at ordinary times; During the liturgy, the Gospel is read not only with division, but also in different languages, etc., etc. About each of these rites in our modern liturgical practice, not indicated by the Typical, we have said our word in another place (see “Manual for rural pastors” for 1885, No. 1), and therefore we do not consider it necessary to repeat all this here, referring those interested to the articles themselves. We will only say in this case that the examples we have indicated tell us as convincingly as possible that liturgical practice cannot be stopped in its development, cast into once and for all definitely developed forms, because church practice is completely dependent regarding its development on the development and life of the Church itself or the society of its constituent people, the needs of which this practice serves. Hence the desire on the part of representatives of this Church or our clergy to see the customs firmly rooted in church practice after the last serious correction and addition of the Typikon in 1695, on the pages of the Typikon itself and in accordance with what it says about some of these rituals - a desire that is legitimate and completely natural. By the absence of a serious and thorough revision of our Church Charter, we explain, among other things, the presence of such phrases and remarks that have lost all meaning and significance and arouse only bewilderment in the attentive reader of the Typikon. Under the first of October in the Typikon we read: “Our Reverend Father Savva the Wonderworker of Vyshersk. His council is being held, according to the testimony of the bishop there” (Typ. Moscow edition 1844, l. 74), on the 23rd of the same month: “On the same day, the transfer of the venerable relics of St. Jacob Borovitsky, Novgorod miracle worker. His council is held, where his church is, according to the judgment and blessing of the bishop” (fol. 85), and on May 14: “On the same day of Saint Isidore Christ for the sake of the holy fool, the Rostov wonderworker. His council is being held in Rostov with the deliberation of the local bishop” (l. 238v). All these comments took place at the Council of 1682 and in the Typikon of that time, when Metropolitans Cornilius of Novgorod and Velikolutsk and Jonas of Rostov and Yaroslavl, participants in the Council, had to defend their local holidays, the names of saints, which had long been celebrated in their dioceses very solemnly. But what is the significance of the “testimony of the bishop there” (where?) and the “reasoning and blessing of the bishop” of Rostov in the celebration of the saints, now honored everywhere in Russia, what, finally, do these words make sense in the Typikon, mandatory for the entire Russian Church, when, moreover, the Rostov see, for example, is no longer spoken of as independent? The same circumstance must explain that St. Anthony of Siysk, celebrated in the Russian Church for more than three hundred years, is still called the “new wonderworker” (l. 117). Finally, how else can we explain it other than the lack of understanding on the part of our inspectors of the duties entrusted to them and knowledge of the matter itself, the presence in the Typikon of the following strange remark about the blessed bread, consecrated at the lithium at the all-night vigil: “The blessed have different breads of gift,” we read in the Typikon, “they set out the fire pot for those who drink with water, and the shaker they drive away, and every ailment and every illness is healed: by this they also drive away mice from their lives and drive away any other mischief” (fol. 5 vol.). True, this remark, with the exception of the last words (“even those who commit mischief are driven away”), was entirely transferred into our Typikon from the Greek typikons, but its inappropriateness here was recognized here in Russia for quite a long time. In the proof-reading service book of 1717 Moscow. typographical library in the rite of the all-night vigil, against the words now cited by the hand of the references on the field, it is noted: “Leave and do not print in the future.” And we see that, from the publication of 1721 to the present, in the Service Book in the rite of the all-night vigil, the above remark is not present. Only by the reason indicated above can one explain to oneself how something indecent in one book is kept as decent and natural in another, and for such a long time. The stability of our Typikon and, again, the lack of careful correction on the part of modern reference workers can explain the presence in it of words and expressions that are difficult to understand. Who, for example, would understand the words of the Typikon: “the blessing of meriti befits two ongia pure paximadas” (fol. 31 vol.), if later reference books had not translated the word “pa ξ imada” into the Russian word “crackers”. It is difficult for an educated person to understand the following passage of the Typikon: “When there is green food and food and measure, there are differences. From herbs, likewise, there is boiled and sauerkraut, and also fermented, recommended armea and kombosta: favo, slano and turnips with vinegar and other similar things are prepared in this way” (fol. 35 vol.). Only knowledge of the Greek language can somewhat clarify for us the meaning of the above words, which for a parish priest or cleric who constantly has this book before his eyes will remain completely incomprehensible, with the exception, however, of the words “turnip with vinegar” and “combosta”, reminiscent of our word “cabbage”. In Mr. Mansvetov’s book there are very many (pp. 343–349) other examples of inaccuracy, contradictions and dark places in the text of our Typikon, but we, for our part, only supplemented his thoughts and illustrated them with several striking facts. In general, we fully share his correct and impartial view of our Typikon. “In order to correct its inaccuracies and contradictions,” writes Mr. Mansvetov, “the text of the disciplinary articles should be revised again, compared with each other and the contradictions resolved. Next, it is necessary to more strictly determine the volume of extracts from the Typikon and restore their correct reading in accordance with the original. This, of course, does not in the least exclude those changes in the text that would be necessary for the agreement of Nikon's rules with the instructions of the Jerusalem charter and other sources. To achieve an accurate edition of these articles, it is necessary to take into account both the Old Slavonic translation of the Taktikon and the ancient lists of statutes, which included these extracts. Greek measures, technical names of table objects and clothes, local Greek everyday and liturgical terms should be explained in the margins or in footnotes and, where possible, replaced by corresponding, more understandable expressions from the language of the general church and local Russian. Our investigators paid attention to this side of the matter, but did not complete the task, limiting themselves to half measures. The matter still remains in this state of being started but unfinished, and the current printed Typical does not satisfy either the correct publication of the original text of these articles, or their publicly accessible, intelligible presentation” (p. 350). For our part, we will only add that our investigators must pay attention to the current practice, agree with the requirements of the Typikon and include it on the very pages of this Typikon. This especially needs to be done in cases where the authority of the highest spiritual authority, the Holy Governing Synod, rests on the customs of modern practice. The appendices to Mr. Mansvetov’s book indicate the liturgical significance of the kondakari of Roman the Sweet Singer (p. 369) and the charter of Benedict of Nursia (p. 378), and describe the full charters of the studio edition No. 330–380 (p. 378) Moscow. synod. bibliography, Moscow. typogr. bib. No. 285 and No. 287, Moscow. synod. bib. No. 331–381 and No. 382–905, the Greek lists of the studio charter according to printed sources are listed (p. 397), all the charters of the Jerusalem edition, stored in the libraries of Moscow, are described. Synodal and Rumyantsev Museum, as if the Slavic service on the day of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary was published according to the statute of Moscow. synod. bib. No. 330–380 and according to the Greek charter of the same bib. No. 456, the Slavic charters of the studio No. 330–380 are compared with the Jerusalem one according to the presentation of the services on the pre-feast of the Epiphany, on the feast of the Presentation, on the feast of the Annunciation and the first week of Lent, the Nicodemus typikon of the Belgrade Public Library, the charter from the Sebastian collection in Moscow are described. publ. Museum No. 1458 and the charter from the Imp. Public library of the Serbian edition, the entire excerpt from the statute of the Imp. publ. bibl. about the many years of the tsar and the congratulations of the abbot on the eve of the Nativity of Christ, a comparison was made of the synodal statutes 2 and 3 editions in the presentation of the daily service and according to the Triodion, corrected copies of the Menaion for the months of April, May and June from the Moscow library are described. typographical under No. 1316 and No. 1144, new memories and troparia are listed in the charter of 1695 in comparison with the charter of 1682, and finally, several brief comments are made about the ktitor charters in Byzantium. As far as time and our nomadic position abroad allowed us, we focused our attention on all the main provisions of Mr. Mansvetov’s book and agreed with some of them and even supplemented them with new facts, while regarding others we expressed completely opposite judgments. In both cases, we tried to be completely impartial and stay on the positive basis of facts, mostly collected by us in various foreign libraries. We were obliged to do this by the importance of the subject touched upon by Mr. Mansvetov’s book and the highly scientific authority of its author. Based on these facts known to us and a careful study of Mr. Mansvetov’s work itself, we must say that it does not give us a systematically consistent history of our Church Charter, but describes only books and manuscripts from libraries known to the author, bearing the name “Charter,” and this description is not always carried out in historical sequence. In short, this is a conscientiously compiled bibliography of the Church Rule, and in this respect the book of Mr. Mansvetova has an undeniable significance in the literature of this issue. The future historian of the Church Charter is obliged to take into account Mr. Mansvetov’s book as the first book in its history and not without very serious merits. But the book we are examining has perhaps greater significance in science for its particulars, to which we, due to lack of time, could not pay serious attention. This entire book is covered with extensive, sometimes several pages, notes, in which the author revealed rare diligence, remarkable familiarity with the printed and handwritten literature of his subject, and a conscientious attitude to the matter even on minor issues of his work. Considering Mr. Mansvetov’s book from this side, we must say that it should be a reference book for anyone involved in liturgics, a new and still little developed science. For many people, some of the appendices to the book will replace the actual manuscripts, the use of which is fraught with great difficulties. So, on the basis of all these data, we find it quite fair to recognize the book under review by Prof. Moscow Spirit. Academy of I. D. Mansvetov worthy of half the prize of the late Metropolitan of Moscow Macarius. Associate Professor at Kiev Theological Academy From “Notes of the Sinai pilgrim,” chapters. V, p. 49. Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy No. 3, 1873; v. Hardhouse. Cat. cod. graecor. Sinaitic. Oxon. 1886 an., pag. 186. "Journey to Sinai in 1881" prof. Kondakova. Odessa, 1882, pp. 111–114. A. Παπαδόπ .– Κεραμ . Ἐκθεσις παλαιογραφ. καὶ φιλολ. ἑρευνῶν ἐν Θρακ. Μακεδον. κατ ᾿ ετ . 1885. Εν Κωνσταντ. 1886, σελ. 25. Εὐχολ ., handicraft. Imp. publ. bib., l. 19, Conf. Goar. pag. 44. The first part of this charter was published in 1882 by the famous Constantinople scholar and editor of the magazine “Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἀλ ή θεια” in his rather bad work “Athos”. The Typikon of 1077 cannot be recognized as the oldest, because an older Typikon has been preserved in the Barberine Library - this is the Typikon of the Kazulyan Monastery, written by Hieromonk Hieromonk Hierotheus, 1105, January 29, 3rd indiction (Bullet. critiqu. No. 9, 1887, pag. 176, not. 1). However, this date is disputed by other scientists. Tuscany (Ad typic. graecor., pag. 7, not. 8) makes an amendment to the date and considers the year of writing of the manuscript to be 1205. The location of the Kazulyan monastery, for which the Typikon was written, is not easy to determine. R. Rosshi indicates this monastery in Otrant (Bullet. critiqu., pag. 176), Tuscany - on the field of Hydruitinsky (pag. 7), and Archimandrite Sergius - in Constantinople ("Full month. East", part 1, p. 121, pr. 3). The original of this charter is in the library of the Patmos St. John the Theologian Monastery, and a copy of it was acquired in the library. Panteleimon Monastery against the backdrop, where we met him. We are referring to the following most important editions of library catalogs of manuscripts: Montfaucon. Palaeographia graeca. Paris, 1708 an; Bandini A. M. Catal. codd. mss. bibliothecae Mediceo-Laurentianae. Floren. 1764–70; Pitra Bibliotheca apostolica Vaticana codd. mss. Codd. palatin graecí Romae 1885 an.; Zanetti Graeca D. Marci bibliothec. codd. mass. Vened. 1740 an.; Coxe H. 0. Catal. codic. mss. biblioth. Bodlejanae Oxford 1853; Lambecii P. Hamburgens. comment. de August. biblioth. caes. Vindobonens. 1665–1699; H. Omont Inventair. Somm. de ms. grecs. bibl. nation p. I, Paris, 1886 with addition 1883 an.; A. Papad. – Κεραμέως Καταλ. χειρογραφ. ὲν Σμυρνη 1877 ἒ τ ἐν . Σμ. His same Ἐκθεσις παλαιογραφ. κα ί φιλολογ. ἐρευνῶν ἐν θρακι καὶ Μακεδον, ἐν Κωνστ; 1886 ετ.; his same Μαυρογορδ βιβλιοθ. ἤ τοι γινικὸς περιγραφ, καταλ ό γος τῶν ἐν ταῖς ἀνὰ τὴν ἀνατολὴν βιβλιοθ ή καις εύρισκομένων ἐλληνικῶν χειρογράφων τομ. I, ἐν Κωνσταντ. 1884, etc. As an example of such manuscripts, we can point to the parchment Octoechos of the 11th-12th centuries. from the library of Sava the Consecrated No. 384, in which, in addition to Octoechos himself, there are canons in honor of various saints, as well as ? τοῦ φαρισα ί ο ἄχρι τῶν ἁ γ ί ων πάντων . In this manuscript we have an abbreviated Typikon. G. Mansvetov, without indicating our article, borrows all the evidence from it and tries, although completely in vain, to direct the facts we collected in it against us. Our article is entitled “Divine services in the Russian Church for the first five centuries.” “Orthodox. Interlocution." ea 1882 and 1883 This ritual is described in the same way in other monuments. Type. handwritten Moscow synod. bib., No. 333, l. 102; Typogr. bib., No. 287, l. 8. About the song “Holy God” we find in the monuments the following interesting evidence, which does not even allow the thought of singing this song in ordinary worship and everywhere. “Even if there is a great church,” we read here, “we find one such tri-holy hymn, which we cannot say for the sake of words, otherwise we will abandon it.” Rukop. Moscow synod. bib., No. 330, l. 30 rev; No. 333, l. 116 rev. In the same monument in the article: “On the erection of the venerable cross, I will remember the erection of the venerable cross many times”, this ritual is described somewhat differently: “Konchyan now praise the Lord abiy begin according to the Holy God and according to the Our Father of Thy Cross and the abbot and the priest and those other deacons will bow.” (fol. 262 vol.). In the Jerusalem statutes, in turn, we see the following remark: Τριὰς καὶ Πάτερ ἡμῶν (manuscript of Vatop. bib. on Athos No. 320, fol. 17, no. 321, fol. 13 volume; Athan. Lavr, manuscript of the 13th century, fol. 9, etc.). Obviously, the influence of the studio charter was felt here, where the Trisagion after the stichera on the stichera was followed by the Trisagion and “Our Father”. We consider it not superfluous to note that in all the most ancient orologies in the rite of Matins there is only one doxology, now called small. What this litia consisted of, performed in the morning and evening, can be seen from the article: καὶ πρωὶ "(manuscript of St. Sav. bib. near Jer. No. 305, fol. 248). We made a rather thorough analysis of the monuments from the time of the domination of the studio charter in Rus' in the article “Divine service. in Rus. Churches for the first five centuries" (Orthodox Sobesedn. 1882, I, pp. 253–277. The grounds for objecting to us and for confirming Mr. Mansvetov’s position, apparently, can be found in the article “on the erection” of the manuscript. Moscow synod. bib. No. 330. “The elders on both sides,” we read here, “and with that from the singers who are the kindest girls in front of the holy doors, they sing the troparion in the middle, as in the great church it is customary to sing, that is, “Today is the prophetic.” The abbot will bow down to the carpet three times before the sacred meal, even if there is a holiday a week. Therefore, standing on the degrees in front of the holy table and taking up the cross from the crustacean, he makes the sign of the cross to the east three times, one on the middle and one on the left and one on the right hand. Having baptized this from the outside, the elder on both sides with the singer will loudly proclaim “Lord have mercy” three times, according to the charter of the great church” (manuscript No. 330, fol. 262 vol.–263). There is something here that reminds us of the current rite of erection, but this is only a faint hint of a later similar rite. There is no mention here of singing “Lord have mercy” a hundred times, but only of singing it three times. We think that the first took place in the litiya, which was performed “after the death of Panukhidi” “at the trading place,” although, according to the Charter of the Great Church, this is supposed to be done only 40 times (A. Popov. First approx. to the Descriptive manuscript. bib. of A. I. Khludov, pp. 16, 17). We take this title for the monuments of the second group from the parchment charter of the manuscript. Vatop. bib. 1346 No. 320 (331), as very characteristic. Other monuments of this group bear a title completely similar to the monuments of the first chapter and, in the most convincing way, tell us about the dominance of the monuments of the first group in liturgical practice. One of the typikons has No. 305 on it, and the other is in the library without a number yet. Bishop Clement of Novgorod († 1299), mentioned in this list of the charter, was installed as a bishop in Kyiv after the death of the Novgorod ruler Dolmat in 1274. He took part in pacifying the revolts of the Novgorodians against Prince Dimitri in 1281 and against the mayor of Novgorod Simeon Mikhailovich in 1287, and not without success, as well as in the repeated construction of churches. He copied the Charter of the Great Church, obviously for the leadership of the Novgorod cathedral clergy. However, by its very name, this manuscript can hardly be attributed to the department of typikons, but, containing the ranks of the Great Church, this now lost manuscript would provide a lot of interesting data for the history of the Typikon of the Great Church. Undoubtedly, one could find in it the rites of the evening and morning services, the rite of the liturgy and other rites connected with the services of the annual circle. Vreto (Νεοέλλην. φιλολογ. Αθην. 1854, μερ. I, σελ. 14) considers the typikon of 1605 to be a special edition and calls it a reprint (μιτετυπ ώ θη το 1605) edition of 1603, but in fact speaks of the same edition of the typikon of 1603, which has the year 1603 at the beginning, in the Paschal - 1604, and in the Evangelium even 1606. Obviously, there is one simple misunderstanding here. The amendment of Mr. Mansvetov of the year 1605 to 1615 (251 pages, pr. 1) cannot be accepted in any case. The Typicon of 1615 constitutes a special edition. For a description of this typikon and a listing of the memories of Russian saints, see “Described. handwritten Solovetsk. mon., located in the library. Kazan. Spirit. Acad.,” vol. III, pp. 177–180. You might be interested in: