Номоканона часть вторая (чисто каноническая)

In the Slavic text of this article, we corrected the erroneous reference of the newest official publications to the 28th Apostolic Canon and put 29. This error did not exist in the pre-Nikon editions. And here the erroneous reference of official publications to the 29th Apostolic Canon, instead of the 30th, as was the case in pre-Nikon editions, has been corrected. The period of penance prescribed in the 11th rule of Basil the Great for involuntary murder is shown incorrectly in the Nomocanon: 10 years, instead of 11. The error arose from the fact that the compilers of the Nomocanon in this case did not use the original text of the cited rule, but an abbreviated one found in the one already known to us, adopted by Basil the Great under the title: περἱ τίτλου καἱ χρόνου άμαρτημάτων (see above, p. 9). This article is based on rules 13 and 55 of Basil the Great: the first talks about killing the enemy in war, the latter talks about killing in case of necessary defense. Although there is no crime in either case, nevertheless, Basil the Great advises Christian soldiers who have stained their hands with human blood (ώς τἁς χεῖρας μἡ καθαροὑς) to abstain from communion for three years - advice that, according to the fair remark of our “Book of Rules,” “was not put into effect at all, both out of inconvenience and out of respect, at the beginning of this same rule set forth (precisely because warriors are “champions of piety”). In the last case (murder in case of necessary defense), St. the father already gives a decisive rule, namely: “Thieves who smite each other shall be excommunicated from the holy mysteries” - for three years, adds our Nomocanon on the basis of the syntagma of Vlastar, in which (lit. L, chapter 7, not 6) a curious synodal resolution is given that took place on this subject under Patriarch Constantine Chliarine (1154-1156). The Synod decided: “if anyone, having the opportunity to avoid the malicious intent of the robber, is not satisfied with this, but deliberately attacks him and kills him (ὲκ μελέτης αύτῷ ὲπιθέμενος άνῄρηκεν), he is subject to penance, as a murderer, and, moreover, for a greater number of years than what is defined in the 55th rule of Basil the Great (the Nomocanon adds: “that is, for 20 years,” meaning, of course, the 56th rule of the same holy father about free murderers). For it could happen that the robber, remaining alive, would come to repentance and, leaving the robbery, would turn to the Lord. But if the robber is the first to attack with a naked sword a person who, in defending himself, kills him, in this case one must be guided by the provisions of this rule. And whoever, at the urgent request of his fellow citizens, for the common good, makes an effort to find the robber, finds him and kills him, according to both civil and church laws he will not only not be punished, but should also be awarded rewards, as having saved many compatriots from death and having made the country safe. But out of precaution (from frequent cases of killing of persons reputed to be robbers), the synod was pleased that such murderers should also undergo a three-year penance, like those who killed in war (Σύντ. VI, 353. 354; cf. interpretation of Balsamon on 55 rights. Vasliy V.). Murder, or the shedding of human blood in itself, no matter how and under what circumstances it is committed by a cleric, is recognized in church rules as an action incompatible with church priesthood, the highest act of which is the offering of a bloodless sacrifice in the sacrament of the Eucharist. “Whoever, even involuntarily, will be desecrated by murder,” says St. Gregory of Nyssa in his 5th canon, the canon recognized such a person as having already become unclean through an unclean deed as unworthy of priestly grace.” And persons already ordained to church-hierarchical degrees are subject to defrocking for such murder. The meaning of the church canons related here does not allow any doubt: “whoever of the clergy in a quarrel will hit whom, and with a single emphasis will kill (άπὸ τοῦ ένὸς κρούσματος άποκτείνῃ), let him be cast out for insolence his own,” says the 66th Apostolic Canon. The same punishment is determined for a cleric in the 55th rule of Vasily V. for murder in a state of necessary defense. Later church practice extended the application of these rules to cases of clergy killing the enemy in war. So Balsamon, at the end of his interpretation of the 43rd rule of Basil V., mentions the case of the deposition of one bishop who killed a Hagarene, when during the war he was preparing to strike him with a sword (Σύντ. IV, 191). In the same sense, the patriarchal synod in 1286 answered the question of our bishop Theognostus of Sarai about a priest who killed a man in the army (Russian Historical Bibliography, vol. VI, 138, paragraph 31). However, Balsamon knew of one example of the opposite practice. In his interpretation of the 13th rule of Vasily V., he says that when the Patriarchal Synod, on the basis of this rule, rejected the proposal of Emperor Nikephoros Phocas to rank those killed in the war as martyrs, then, by order of the emperor, several priests and one bishop appeared at the synod and admitted that they had participated in the battle with the enemies and killed many. The Synod, following the stated rule of Basil the Great, wanted to ban them forever from serving in the priesthood, but the majority (probably keeping in mind that these were priests who had participated in the war even before their ordination) insisted that they were even worthy of awards (Σύντ. IV, p. 133). On the other hand, there have been examples of clerics being defrocked for murder not only by the action of their hands, but also by the force of verbal insult, which for some people amounted to a fatal blow. Two such examples are given by Balsamon in his interpretation of rule 43 of Basil the Great. One priest was deposed by the patriarchal synod because he grabbed another priest, who had taken some book from his church without asking, and quickly snatched this book from him, causing the latter to faint and die immediately. Another, the hieromonk of the Styrian (τοῦ Στειρίου) monastery, was deposed because he responded so insultingly to an offensive word spoken to him by a certain monk that the latter fell with a groan and immediately gave up the ghost. The rules of Basil the Great set out in these articles about those who renounce the faith in later church practice were softened by the effect of the synodal decree of Patriarch Methodius (842–846), which was given by Vlastar in his edition of the Postnikov nomocanon (Σύντ. IV, 433). It is this edition that the compilers of our Nomocanon refer to in the last words of the 12th article: Ζήτει περἱ τούτων τἡν διόρθωσιν (i.e., a softening interpretation of the cited rules of Vasily V.) εἱς τὸν ἅγιον ’Ιωάννην Νηστευτήν. The Vlastar sets out the contents of the Methodius Decree as follows: “if someone in childhood is taken captive by the infidels and renounces the faith out of fear, or out of ignorance and misunderstanding (of the faith), then, having come of age, returns again to the Christian people and to the Orthodox Church, he is accepted through repentance and confession: for seven days, let the priest read the established cleansing prayers over him; then on the eighth day let him gird him with ribbon, anoint him with holy myrrh and honor him with divine communion, as happens with the newly baptized. Those who renounced the faith, even at an advanced age, but were forced to do so by torment, also deserve leniency. Let such first fast for two days of forty days, abstaining from meat, cheese and eggs; on three days of every week (Monday, Wednesday and Friday), in addition, let them not eat wine or oil. Then the same rite of purification must be performed over them as over those who fell away from the faith in childhood” (Σ. IV, 433. 434. For the original text of the original (unsoftened) edition of the Methodius Decree, see Pitra in Iuris eccles. graec. hist, et monum. t. II, 362. 363); Slavic translation - in the printed Kormcha (chapter 55) and in the Great Trebnik (chapter 97). According to the 65th and 72nd rules of Basil the Great, those who repented of magic or the preparation and harmful use of magical medicinal potions (φαρμακείαι), as well as those who betray themselves to the dark art of the Magi, are subject to the same penance as free murderers, i.e. excommunicated from the church for 20 years (cf. law 56). The reason for this comparison is explained in another (8th) rule of the same St. father, where it is said: “If anyone gives someone a secret drink (even if it was for some other reason) and kills him, we recognize him as a free killer. This is often done by wives, attempting to use certain charms and enchantresses to attract others to love themselves and giving them medicinal compounds that cause darkness of mind. Although such, having caused death, did not do what they intended, however, for magic and forbidden activities, they are considered free killers.” In general, canonical sources bring magic and murder under one general concept of murder. Our Nomocanon complements the rules of Vasily V. cited in this article. in that 1) he indicates the most commonly used natural instruments of magic, which were wax and tin (κηροχύτης, μολιβδοχύτης); 2) calculates the following magical actions: imposing pendants on domestic animals so that they are not eaten by a wolf, sorcery that produces a storm or performed during a storm (see below note 2 to Article 20), and finally, the separation of husband and wife. Remarkable rules about this last manifestation of the malevolent power of magic are contained in the pseudo-Zonarin nomocanon: “Whoever, with the help of magic spells, brings someone else’s wife to himself and separates her from her husband, there is no forgiveness for him either in this age or in the next. God will release the fornicator and the robber, but He will not release the separator of husband and wife. Such a one commits a triple murder: against himself, over the seduced woman and over her husband” (vv. 217, 219 and 457). In the same sense and with the same faith in the real power of magic, the newest scholiast Pidalion speaks about this (see note to 61 rights of the Trullo Council). The expression of our Nomocanon: to bind spouses (άποδένειν άνδρόγυνα) indicates a magical way of taking away from them the ability of ad coitum by tying knots during the marriage itself; at least that’s how my Greek acquaintances in Odessa explained this expression to me. In canon 36 of the Council of Laodicea we read: “It is not fitting for the sanctified or the clerics to be magicians (μάγους), or charmers (έπαοιδοὑς), or number-tellers (μαθηματικοὑς), or astrologers, or so-called guardhouses (φυλακτήρια), which are the bonds (δεσμωτήρια - binders) of their souls. We commanded those who wore them to be thrown out of the church.” Thus, our Nomocanon rightly says that by this rule, clergy who indulge in magic are not only deposed, but also excommunicated from the church, i.e. bear double punishment (cf. also Art. 196). For a closer acquaintance with the various types of magic counted in the conciliar rule, the compilers of the Nomocanon refer readers to the alphabetical syntagma of Vlastar and, for their part, cite from it a definition of sorcerers (γόητες), called in the Laodicean rule charmers (έπαοιδοί, incantatores), and It is recommended to read Zonara’s interpretation of this rule. Following these instructions, the Slavic translator of Nomocanon supplemented his work with rather extensive extracts from Zonara and Blastar, which are not in any of the copies of the Greek original that we have at hand. Let us present these additions in parallel with their Greek sources, which, however, do not always coincide verbatim with the Slavic text and not all of them have been found by us: The Trullo Council in its 61st rule says: “those who give themselves over to magicians... in order to learn from them what they want to reveal to them, in accordance with the previous paternal decrees about them, are subject to the rule of six-year penances.” Here, obviously, is the 83rd (and not the 80s, as official publications erroneously show) rule of Basil the Great, which is subsequently cited in the Nomocanon. This last rule says: “those who practice magic and follow pagan customs, or bring others into their homes, for the sake of seeking sorcery and for the sake of purification, are subject to the rule of six years.” The apparent contradiction of this rule with two other rules of the same St. father (65 and 72), cited in the 13th and 19th articles of the Nomocanon and subjecting him to 20-year penance for magic, is thoroughly resolved already in the interpretations of Zonara and Balsamon. They (especially the latter) rightly establish a distinction, firstly, between the magicians themselves: for some, magic is not only a profession or a profitable trade, but also a religion; they believe that the whole world is in the power of good and evil spirits (δαίυονες, δαιμόνια), having surrendered to them soul and body, a person will learn all the secrets of nature and become omnipotent: this is already a clear and complete renunciation of the Christian faith, paganism; This is what St. is talking about. father in 65 and 72 of his rules. Others, whom rule 83 refers to, are, as it were, dual believers: without renouncing Christianity, they are also pagans - in the precise sense that they believe in the existence and beneficial or harmful activity of mysterious demonic forces for man, as if limiting the omnipotent power of the Lord God, with which, therefore, man must directly deal. Such “double-believers,” instead of the previous purely pagan tools and forms of magic, usually use for their dark work objects sacred to Christians (for example, biblical books, icons, particles of holy relics) and perform actions characteristic of Christian worship (the sign of the cross, invoking the name of saints, the Mother of God and even the Holy Trinity). Secondly, the above-mentioned interpreters establish a distinction between those who turn to the Magi: Rules 65 and 72 speak of those who have given themselves over to the Magi, i.e. to think the same with them, actively participates in their soul-destructive art, for example, uses spells to the detriment of others (see art. 19), while rule 83 refers to those who resort to the magicians only out of their cowardice and false faith in the beneficial power of their spells and spells (Σύντ. IV, 250. 251; cf. 233). The correctness of this distinction is fully confirmed by the 3rd canon of St. Gregory of Nyssa; here we read: “Those who come to sorcerers, or soothsayers, or to those who promise to bring about some kind of cleansing or aversion of harm through demons, are asked in detail and tested: whether, while remaining in faith in Christ, they are drawn by some need to such sin, in the direction given to them by some misfortune, or intolerable deprivation, or by completely despising confession, from us to them entrusted, resorted to the aid of demons? For if they did this with a rejection of faith and in order not to believe that God is worshiped by Christians, then without a doubt they will be subject to condemnation with apostates. If unbearable need, having taken possession of the weakness of their souls, brought them to this point, seducing them with some false hope, then let love for mankind be shown to them too, in the likeness of those who, during confession, could not resist torment.” In our Nomocanon this distinction is not made with sufficient clarity, so in this (and the 20th) article a 6-year penance is defined, among other things, for this type of harmful magic (άποδένειν άνδρόγυνα), for which in Art. 13 and 19, quite rightly and in accordance with the exact meaning of the rules cited there, a 20-year penance was prescribed. It should also be noted that the rules specified in this article of the Nomocanon say nothing about priests guilty of practicing magic or communicating with the magi. Nomocanon mentioned their deposition, obviously following the example of Zonara, to which in the next article, indeed, the reader is referred. In his interpretation of the 61st rule of the Trullo Council, the said canonist notes that the six-year excommunication determined by this rule for communication with the Magi should be understood specifically about the laity; sacred persons are subject to deposition for this: “for where the laity are excommunicated, there the sacred persons are deposed.” Thus, the above-mentioned difference in canonical definitions of magic is also maintained in relation to clergy: where the laity are subjected to 20-year penance (Articles 13 and 19), the clergy are not only deposed, but also excommunicated from the church (Article 14); and where a 6-year penance is assigned to a layman, there the cleric is only deprived of his rank. Gypsies - these all-world soothsayers and healers, called in our Nomocanon Egyptians (Αίγπτισσαι), have long been known to the Byzantines under the name Atinganok ('Αθίγγανοι). The emperors themselves did not disdain to use their art 118. Church writers, for example Timothy, presbyter of Constantinople (VI century), in his famous work “on the difference between those who come from heresies to the pious faith,” classified Atingan as one of the Christian heretics accepted into the church through baptism 119 . A special formula was drawn up for them to renounce their heresies, in which they mainly cursed witchcraft and astrology 120. Interpreters of church rules also mention gypsies and gypsies, namely Balsamon and Vlastar (Σύντ. II, 445. 458; VI, 242), but not Zonara, to whom (at the end of Article 16) our Nomocanon 121 refers. Both now and before, gypsies cast their spells mainly on beans and barley. However, Blastar, to whom Article 17 of the Nomocanon refers, speaks only about divination with barley (μετἁ κριθῶν) and, in accordance with the 24th rule of the Council of Ancyra, assigns penance to such soothsayers for five, not six years (Σύντ. VI, 358). Zonara also mentions fortune telling on ashes μέλλοντα. IV, 232), but does not explain by whom and how this fortune-telling was performed. In this article one cannot fail to notice some inaccuracy or ambiguity in the Slavic translation of the modern Greek expression άπὁ βότανα. The corresponding Slavic expression “from poisons” makes one think that it is talking about magical means that protect against poisoning, while the exact meaning of the original is undoubtedly the following: “wearing protective amulets made of herbs or something else.” The following were especially used as such protective means: henbane (ύοσκύαμος, see Psellus in the work περἱ ένεργείας τῶν δαιμόνων, ed. Boissonade, p. 247), rue (πήγανον, see in Korais ''Ατακτα, vol. IV, p. 52), garlic (σκόροδον, see in Scarlat Κωνσταντινούπολις, vol. III, p. 584, ed. 1869), turquoise (γαλαζόπετρα - ibid.) and red threads (βάμματα, see article 20, note 5). In the first two Moscow editions, at the end of this article, it was added: “And there is another evil of sorcery, even here in Great Russia: they make very brutal roars, like a bear, and a wolf, and so on, bestially in every way, and with bird voices and songs (in the Joseph edition: songs) to torment, and womb torn apart from attachment to secret udah, and all these murderers are subject to the same rule of the Great Basil. In the same way, he who believes in Lopar, where he is in the fires, may he accept penance.” It is clear that this refers to the so-called corrupted ones, which are still not translated by our common people. The canonical meaning of this article is explained in the additions to Art. 13 and 15. Here we only note that the reference in the Slavic text to the 56th rule of Basil the Great (about murder in the proper sense) does not directly go to the point: it needs to be corrected according to the Greek text by indicating the 65th rule. This article is far from being a literal extract from Vlastar. It departs from its source both by gross incorrectness of word composition, which are repeated in all our Greek lists, and by several additions to the list of popular superstitions indicated by Blastar. The Nomocanon lists the following types of superstition and its bearers, active and passive: 1) Leaders of bears or, more precisely, she-bears (οί τἁς ΄ςρκούδας συρόμενοι). The Greeks combined this folk entertainment with a special kind of propaganda of superstition. Namely: the she-bear’s leaders hung brightly colored ribbons and threads (βάμματα) around her body, which, together with scraps of the animal’s fur, were sold to women as a preventative against diseases and bad eyes. (Zonara in the interpretation of the 61st rule of the Trullo Council: καἱ γἁρ βάμματα 122 ἑξαρτῶσιν αύτῶν, καἱ τρίχας κείροντες ἑξ αύτῶν διδόασι γυναιξἱν, ώς φυλακτήρια, καἱ ώς τάχα ἑν νόσοις ἥ βασκάνοις όφθαλμοῖς λυσιτελεῖν τι δυνάμενα. II, 443–444). 2) Cloud eliminators (οἱ τἁ νέφη διώκοντες, νεφοδιῶκται). According to the explanation of Valsamon (in the interpretation of the 61st rule of the Trull Cathedral), the harbingers were so called by the appearance of the clouds, especially at sunset, when they take on a crimson color and various bizarre shapes. For example, a cloud that looked like a dove meant that the fortuneteller was in danger of unexpected misfortune; a cloud resembling a man drawing a sword predicted an imminent war, a cloud in the shape of a lion foreshadowed new orders from the government, etc. But according to other, more ancient and probable evidence, cloud chasers were magicians who, with a prophetic word, caught up and drove away clouds, raised and tamed a storm, and generally commanded atmospheric phenomena. So already in one essay attributed to St. Justin Philosopher (Quest, ad Orthod. n. 31), the following question is put into the mouth of a pagan: “Why do the so-called cloud-catchers, with certain spells, gather clouds where they want, and instantly produce storms and strong winds?” (? κατασκευάζονται, ἕνθα βούλονται χαλάζας καἱ άμέτρους ύετοὑς άκοντίζειν;). 3) Believers in fate. The Byzantines first called fate by classical names: τύχη (mainly in the sense of a happy fate), είμαρμένη (in the sense of fate, predestination in general), and then in a barbaric way: ῥιζικόν (from the Italian risico). Vlastar does not yet know the last name: it belongs to our Nomocanon and was kept without translation (“ryzik”) in the Kyiv and first two Moscow editions; in Nikonovsky - it is simply thrown out of the text. Since fate, according to general belief, was determined by the good or evil influence of those days and constellations in which and under which someone was born, the Nomocanon further condemns those who believe in genealogy (γενεθλιαλογία), i.e. in astrological calendars, according to which the happy or unhappy fate of a newborn person was predicted. 4) Fortunetellers using a written oracle (ῥικτολόγιον, from the modern Greek ῥίκτειν, to cast, especially to cast lots; in the Slavic translation - “metnosloviya”). The books of St. usually served as such oracles (among the Greeks and our ancestors). scriptures, mainly the Psalms and Gospels 123. The method of fortune telling using them was twofold: either the fortuneteller opened the sacred book and in the first words that caught his eye found the answer to his plan 124; or for divination, two books were taken: one (the Gospel) was hung on a stick, and from the other (the Psalter) something close to what was hidden was read, and it was noted on which words and in which direction the hung book began to turn, and from this one or another conclusion was drawn. Pope Nicholas I already speaks about this last method of divination in some detail in his famous answers to the questions of the newly baptized Bulgarian Tsar Boris Michael (Responsa ad consulta Bulgarorum, cap. 77. See also Valsamon’s interpretation of the 61st rule of the Trullo Council). The second Kiev publisher of the Nomocanon noted at the end of this article a purely Russian variation of the same method of fortune-telling: “whoever writes names on charters and puts keys in the Psalter, from there they prophesy falsely.” 5) Preparers and bearers of amulets. Amulets or talismans (φυλακτἁ, φυλακτήρια) usually consisted of a variety of bindings (ancient Russian “nauzes”) and pendants that were worn on the hands and neck. Hence their Greek names: δέματα, περίαπτα, περιάμματα in our Nomocanon: ἁποδέματα, σχοινία. The most ancient and widely used talisman was the red thread. Already Chrysostom, in one of his conversations, mentions the custom of imposing such a thread (κόκκινος στήμων) on newborn children, to protect them from all harmful influences 125. Zonara and Balsamon, in their interpretations of the 61st rule of the Trullo Council, also speak of some kind of βάμματα (tincturae), which were sold by the leaders of the bears and other manufacturers of amulets (φυλακτήριοι). Vlastar, paraphrasing these interpretations, replaces βάμματα with a more specific and understandable έρυθρἁ ύφάσματα - red fabrics (Σύντ. VI, 357). In our Nomocanon, the same word is explained by the modern Greek κάνουρα (βάμματα, τουτέστι κάνοτραις), which is also retained in the Slavic translation, and in Berynda’s edition it is explained by the floor gloss: “wave motley"; but in the well-known lexicon of the same Berynda, this word is given a different meaning: “kennel - a thread of a red seam, barely (Polish iedwab - silk) red." In this case, the lexicographer refers to the book of Genesis, ch. 38, art. 28 and 30, where the Greek saying κόκκινον, translated in the Slavic Bible, is used twice: scarlet - red thread 126. Purses or amulet were also made from such threads (for Balsamon πουγγία), in which were carried: a) various incantations, psalms of David, apocryphal prayers, especially a prayer for the “undead” - fever (εύχἡ ῥευματικοῦ) 127 and, finally, some mysterious marks called in the Nomocanon χαρακτῆρες 128; b) roots and leaves of famous plants (φυλακτἁ έπὁ βότανα, see art. 18), and c) some precious stones, mainly turquoise. Superstitious and protective means of Nomocanon and its sources also include: wearing snakes in the bosom and rubbing the eyes and lips with their skin (this is reminiscent of the famous amulets - serpentines); then one Nomocanon speaks of piercing earrings for children on Maundy Thursday, and the second Kiev publisher of the Slavic text supplemented his original with a mention of the Russian custom of tying knots according to the number of the 12 Gospels, read, on Good Friday. This increase will be retained in all further editions. 6) Witches, sorcerers, cliques and those who resort to their help. The occupation of the first was to treat diseases through whispers, incantations, injections, pendants, etc. Valsamon, in his interpretation of the 61st rule of the Council of Trullo, cites the following words of Chrysostom about these healers: “you use not only protective pendants, but also incantations (ἑπῳδἁς), and are not ashamed to bring drunken and insane people into your house old women, saying in their apology: “after all, this woman is a Christian; in her spells she does not utter anything other than the name of God.” That’s why I especially hate her, because she uses the name of God and, calling herself a Christian, does what is characteristic of the Hellenes” (Σύντ. II, 445). But - Balsamon stipulates in his interpretation of the 72nd rule of Basil the Great (Σύντ. IV, 233) - if healers (γητευτρίαι), instead of the name of God, call on demons, then they become sorceresses and are punished on an equal basis with sorcerers and wise men (κατἁ τοὑς μάντεις καἱ μάγους ἑσχάτως ἑπιτιμηθήσονται). About fortune tellers III, 67), which were called upon primarily to discover some kind of loss (“proclaim the lost”), see notes to art. 16 and 17. Our Nomocanon calls Klikush “having the spirit of the Pythons” and ζαλιζαρίαι. The first name, as the Kyiv publishers rightly noted, is already found in the book of the Acts of the Apostles (chapter 16, art. 16; cf. interpretation of this place in one of the letters of Patriarch Photius, published by Valletta, pp. 368–369); the latter comes from the modern Greek ζαλίζομαι - I go berserk, I go into frenzied ecstasy. In the printed editions of the Slavic text of the Nomocanon there is no word corresponding to this saying; and in the older Serbian lists it is translated not entirely clearly in the following phrase: “an inquisitive spirit (πνεῦμα Πύθωνος) to those who have, that is, to the windy believers.” Most often, cliques make themselves known at religious processions and in churches during divine services, which is apparently hinted at by the words of Nomocanon: “wives crouching to holy icons and from them strengthening prophecies of the future.” These prophecies are usually shouted out in a wild and inarticulate voice, hence another name for the cliques: ventriloquists (ἑγγαστρίμυθοι). Wed. 1 book. Kings, xxviii, 7; Ἄτακτα Korais under the word: κεφαλοτρέχουσα (IV, 230). 7) Clerics who turn the shrine into an instrument of magic. So, for example, the above-described (item 4) divination on the books of St. Scripture, as can be seen from the Nomocanon and its sources, was primarily the work of the clergy. It also happened that priests used St. Maundy Thursday bread, as a means of convicting someone suspected of theft. There was a belief that a thief could not swallow this bread. (Cf. Acta Patriarchatus, ed. Miclosich et Müller, t. I, p. 595). A similar belief existed in ancient times among us, as can be seen from the decree of Archbishop John of Novgorod (1410) on the opening of the tabba by eating prosphora, consecrated at the liturgy by taking out particles in the name of Sts. martyrs Guria, Simon and Aviv 129. Βουρκόλακοι, βουλκόλακα, βρυκόλακες (otherwise σμερδάκι, γούστρελος) 130 – mythical creatures of Slavic origin (“wolkolaks, wolfhounds”), which, through the Bogomils 131, having passed into the folk beliefs of the Greeks, partially changed their original nature 132. The Greeks call this the dead vampires who, rising from their coffins, wander through familiar houses and places, attack the living and suck the blood out of them. The fate of becoming a vurkolak upon death awaits all vicious and criminal people, especially those who died under a church or popular oath (cf. note to article 147). The bodies of such people, as a sign of the curse placed on them, remain indestructible (ἅλυτα) and become hard as metal 133. Therefore, wandering vurkolaks make a sharp and dry sound as they move, like a tympanum; hence their other name - τυμπανικοί, τυμπανῖται 134. The only way to get rid of the dangerous wanderings of a vurkolak, according to popular belief, is to dig up its corpse, burn it and fumigate itself with the smoke coming from it 135 . This is precisely what is prohibited in our Nomocanon, under pain of 6 years of excommunication from the church. But since the popular belief in the Vurkolaks found support in the teaching of the Greek hierarchy itself about the indestructibility of the bonds of the church curse, which triumphs over the general law of corruption 136, the clergy, condemning the custom of burning such non-rotting corpses, proposed to perform the rite of church release from the oath over them. On the other hand, in view of the fact that popular rumor often announced as vurkolak such people who died in alliance with the church, it was necessary to establish an exact difference between the belief of the people and the teaching of the hierarchy itself. In the second part of the Nomocanon, now no longer published under the Trebnik, to the question: “if a dead man, our word for the underworld, is found, what year will there be?” (? γενέσθαι), the following answer is given 137: So, the folk vurkolak are nothing more than “demonic ghosts,” and the unrotting bodies of those who died under the church oath are real signs of the curse lying on them. The former are driven away by spells laid down in the rite of baptism; the latter are resolved by special prayers, which are called destructive prayers after death (εύχἡ συγχωρητικἡ είς τεθνεῶτα 138). In the pseudo-Zonarin Nomocanon, it is prescribed that in the event of any demonic phenomena at the grave of a recently deceased person, not to perform a church commemoration for him. If he was obviously a pious man, then sing four requiems over him; Moreover, persons who have seen a ghost must perform six funeral liturgies for the soul of the deceased within forty days (chapter 75). The scholiast of Pidalion, in a note to the 66th rule of Basil the Great (about grave-diggers), repeats the same instructions as set out in the above canonical answer of Joasaph, but recognizes it as necessary that those who burn vurkolaks be subjected to penance not only as grave-diggers, but also as murderers. The Law Book of the Serbian Tsar Stefan Dusan contains the following decree “about heretics whose dead bodies are slaughtered”: “people who take something from the coffins with arrogance, they are slaughtered, then the village is to pay for the enmity, and some are to be punished. And if there is a priest, send him, and let me take the priesthood” (v. 20). The sources of this article are indicated in the footnote to Article 153. Here we only note that we also have a custom of inviting the first person we meet to the godfathers in the belief that the child he receives will remain alive. For example, Nikephoros I (802–811), about whom Theophanes notes in his chronography: τελεταῖς αύτῶν έπιχαίρων. Edit. De Boor. Lipsiae 1833, p. 488. Cotelerii, Monum. ecclesiae graecae, t. III, p. 392. Here are excerpts from this formula, published by Bandini according to a copy of the 11th century: φαρμακείαις, καἱ γοητείαις, καἱ δι’ αύτῶν καἱ βλάπτειν, καἱ ώφελεῖν, άνθρώπους έπαγγελλομένους. ’Αναθεματίζω τοὑς έπικαλουμένους δαιμόνιά τινα, ὦν τἁ πρῶτα καλοῦνται Σωροὑ, καἱ Σοχἁν, καἱ ’Αρχἑ, καἱ δι’ αύτῶν τἡν σελήνην δῆθεν ἕλκοντας πρὁς έαυτοὑς, κα έρωτώντας αύτἡν περἱ ὦν βούλονται. ’Αναθεματίζω τοὑς έπιτιθέντας τοῖς άστράσιν άνθρώπων όνόματα, καἱ διἁ φαντασίας δαιμονιώδους κινεῖν αύτοὑς κατ’ άλλήλων στρατευομένους, καἱ οὕτω φημίζοντας, ώς ό τοῦ δεῖνοσ τοῦ δεῖνος ἕσβεσε, καἱ δεῖ πάντως εἶναι κραταιότερον τόνδε έκείνου, καἶ εύτυχέστερον (Catalogus codd. Mss. Bibliothecae Laurentianae, t. I, p. 320; cfr. p/ 401, n. XLV). The Kyiv publishers of the Slavic text took this reference as an indication of the pseudo-Zonarin Nomocanon known to them, the 175th chapter of which, in the Slavic translation, actually speaks of sorcerers or “enemies”, without directly calling them gypsies (“whoever has ruined something of theirs, the people called the enemy ask, 4 years, let them repent, 60 bows”). In the publication Mosk. General Loves. Spiritual Enlightenment, under the title: “Rules of St. Apostle, etc. with interpretations” the word βάμματα is translated: “vessels with liquids” - incorrectly (see vol. I, issue 2, p. 477). According to the best lexicons. such as the famous Thesaurus Stephanie, βάμμα generally means paint (χρῶμα), and also dyed matter. In our Nomocanon βάμματα is used as a synonym for the following κάνουραι and μετάξια See paragraph 5 below. See Ducange under. in the word ῥικτολόγιον. Korais in his Ἄτακτα (t. IV, p. 475) gives the following definition: ’Ρικτολόγιον, ἥ ῥιπτολόγιον, τὁ βιβλίον περιέχον τἁς έξηγήσεις τῶν κλήρων. Εἱς τἁς μαντείας ταύτας έμεταχειρίζοντο οί λαοπλάνοι καἱ αύτὁ τὁ Εύαγγέλιον, άνοίγοντες καἱ σύροντες τἡν μαντείαν άπὁ τον άπαντώμενον ῥητόν. This is how Vladimir Monomakh guessed from the Psalter. See his teaching. To relieve fortunetellers, the necessary interpretations of the texts were assigned in the margins of the book itself. For the Russian Psalter with such postscripts, see Sreznevsky in “Maloizv. and unknown monuments" No. XXXIV. Migne, Patrol. _race.t. LXV, col. 105. 106: Τί ἅν τις ἕποι τἁ περίαπτα... καἱ τὁν κόκκινον στήμονα... Κρόκη δἑ καἱ στήμων καἱ τἁ ἅλλα περιάμματα τἁ τοιαῦτα τοῦ παιδίου έμπιστεύονται τἡν άσφάλειαν. This custom is still followed by the Greeks. See Scarlata Κωνσταντινούπολις, vol. III, p. 589, ed. 1869 We received a very interesting message about the meaning of the word κάνουρα from the private associate professor of Novorossiysk University S. D. Papadimitriou in a letter to us dated December 27, 1895. According to this message, the word κάνουρα is still used in Macedonia and means a bundle of woolen yarn (δέμα μαλλίνης κλωστῆς), the threads of which (probably dyed) are now used as magical precautions. Additions and amendments: On the other hand, in the dictionary of the modern Greek dialect of Cypriots we find the word κάννουρος, as a synonym for κανναβούρειος, which means painted in the color of cinnabar, i.e. in red (Σακελλαρίου, Κυπριακά, 1891, vol. II, p. 573). So, the mysterious κάνουρα of the Macedonian modern Greek dialect can be derived from the ancient Greek κιννάβαρι? For Slavic examples of apocryphal prayers, see F.I. Buslaev in History. Essay, Russian. folk, verbal I, 115–116; by I. Ya. Porfiryev in the Proceedings of the IV (Kazan) Archaeologist, Congress; Greek - in Vasiliev’s collection of monuments of Byzantine literature, vol. I, pp. 323–332. Two examples of these characters are in Vasiliev, p. 341. Russian Histor. Bibliography, vol. VI, column. 305–308. In the interesting Greek pamphlet Περἱ τῶν άναστεναρίων, ed. in Constantinople in 1873, these last names are explained as follows: ἵσως βούστρελος, έκ τοῦ βοῦς καἱ οἶστρος καἱ έλαύνω (?), ώς οίστρηλατῶν καἱ ταράττων καἱ πνίγων πολλάκις τἁς βοῦς καἱ τό ρῆμα “γουστρελιάζω” = βρυκολακιάζω = έξαγρυπνῶ (p. 17). Under Patriarch Michael Oxite (c. half of the 12th century), two bishops who were bogomilized were condemned, among other things, for tearing out of their graves the corpses of people recognized as sinners, and saying that demons lived in them (τὁ έξανασκάψαι καἱ λείψανα χριστιανῶν τεθαμμένα ἕξωθέν τε καἱ ἕσωθεν τκκλησιῶν, άμαρτωλοὑς εἶναι λέγοντες τοὑς τελευτήσαντας, καἱ δαίμονας έγκατοικεῖν τοῖς σώμασι τῶν τελευτώντων (Σύντ. V, 86) For details about Slavic wolfhounds, see Afanasyev’s essay “Poetic Views of the Slavs on Nature,” especially Vol. III, pp. 527–532. An excellent study of the Greek Vurkolak vampires is found in Schmidt's Das Volksleben der Neugriechen und das hellenische Alterthum. I Theil. 1871, pp. 157–171. But even now the article Allation: De quorundam Graecorum opinationibus, which collects a lot of precious material for the history of the folk Greek belief in the Vurkolaks (ed. 1645, p. 142 sq.), has not lost its significance. See Ducange and Gohar in Euchologion, ed. 1647, pp. 688–689, where a letter from Patriarch Kirill of Alexandria is placed with the following spell: άφωρισμένοι είσἱν άπὁ Θεοῦ παντοκράτορος, καἱ κατηραμένοι καἱ άσυγχώρητοι, καἱ μετἁ τὁν θάνατον ἅλυτοι, ἑν τῷ νῦν αίῶνι καἱ έν τῷ μέλλοντι, καἱ τυμπανικοί. The same letter from the Patriarch of Constantinople Maxim (1476–1482) to the Kyiv Metropolitan Simeon (†1488) was printed in the Trebnik of Peter the Mogila (vol. I, l. 807). The spells of these letters were repeated in the act of the Great Moscow Cathedral of 1667. See “Materials for the history of the schism”, published by the editors of “Brotherly Word”, vol. II, p. 220. According to the author of the above-mentioned brochure περἱ τῶν άναστεναρίων, the custom of burning vurkolak is still practiced mainly in Bulgarian villages (p. 27). This teaching was solemnly proclaimed in the patriarchal charters, among other things, in the charter of Patriarch Philotheus (1370) to the Smolensk prince Svyatoslav. See in Memory, Russian. canon, rights. App. No. 21, p. 124. It is set out in particular detail in the nomocanon of Malax. See Appendix No. III in the first edition of this work and Allations in the said work, pp. 149–151. This answer is among the 56 canonical answers that have the following inscription in the manuscripts: ’Ιωάσαφ ίερομονάχου καἱ μεγάλου πρωτοσυγγέλλου άποκρίσεις πρὁς τἁς έρωτήσεις, ἅς ήρώτησεν ό εύλαβέστατος έν ίερεῦσι κύριος Γεώργιος ό Δραζῆνος. Lists of these answers are already found in manuscripts of the 15th century (See Zanetti, Graeca divi Marci bibliotheca. Venetiis 1740, p. 294, cod. 556). This approximately determines the time when the author of the answers lived. Then from the printed edition of them, rarer than the manuscripts, published in 1574 in Venice as an appendix to the book: ’Η θεῖα λειτουργία μετἁ έξηγήσεων, it is clear that Joasaph subsequently became a metropolitan Ephesian (Προσεθέμεθα δἑ καἱ πρὁς τῷ τέλει τοῦ βιβλίου, says the preface to the said book, τινἁς άποκρίσεις άναγκαιοτάτας τοῦ κυροῦ ’Ιωάσαφ, μητροπολίτου ’Εφέσου πρός τινα Γεώργιον ίερέα Δραζῆνον, ἅνδρα τῷ ὅντι θεοσεβέστατον See. E. Legrand, Bibliographie Hellénique (XVI siecle, t. II, p. 203). Finally, from Lenkien's Oriens Christianus (t. I, pp. 691-692) we learn that this Joasaph was the closest predecessor in the Metropolitan See of Ephesus of the famous opponent of the Florentine Union, Mark. The Greek text of the answer we gave about the Vurkolaks (in the manuscript of the late Archbishop of Kerkyra Efstafiya Vulisma, 1756, the word καταχθόνιος is directly explained: ἥγουν βουρκόλακος) was published by me according to Tübingen list of Nomocanon (pp. 249–252), and the Slavic translation is based on Kopystensky’s edition. See these prayers in Gohar in the Euchologion, ed. 1647, pp. 684 et seq. The main request of these prayers, read, according to the Euchologion, by the bishops, is expressed in the words: τὁ σῶμα αύτοῦ έξ ὧν συνετέθη διάλυσον. You might be interested in: