On the question of the meaning and significance of the so-called XIII rule of the Council of Laodicea

(Regarding the article by Prof. I. S. Berdnikov: The meaning of the XIII Council of Laod. Orthodoxy. Interlocutor June-July 1908) In the May and July books of the Orthodox Interlocutor, an article by Prof. I. S. Berdnikova: The meaning of the XIII rule of the Council of Laodicea. In terms of its content, it represents a set of opinions expressed in the press on the issue of the meaning and significance of the so-called. Rule 13 of the Council of Laodicea. The author set out to, having critically weighed the opinions of the parties polemicizing on this issue, summarize everything that was expressed by them and, adding to this some of his own research, express his authoritative opinion and thereby put an end to disagreements on this issue. The goal is very respectable and we admit that we read this article with great pleasure and grateful surprise: we were surprised by the hard work of the venerable scientist and his attentive attitude to our little work on this issue 1 . However, having carefully delved into the illumination of the rule, which the venerable canonist gave it himself, we came to the conviction that it was somewhat vague, and, in any case, far from the proper accuracy and certainty, and therefore we considered it necessary to compile this present one in the form of an appendix (appendix) to our previous work with the sole purpose of bringing more light to the occupying monument of deep canonical antiquity. But before we begin our work, we consider it necessary to express our thoughts on the reasons why, in our opinion, Mr. Berdnikov failed to fulfill the task he had taken upon himself properly. These reasons boil down to the lack of unity of motives and partly to the insufficiency of the research method in his article The fact is that the author’s motive was not exclusively scientific exegetical, objective, with the goal of revealing the exact meaning or “reason” of the church law that occupied him, but at the same time another no less noble one - to protect his native Kazan Academy from reproaches for the inaccuracy of its translation of the “Acts of Local Councils (ed. 1878 and 1901). This second motive everywhere overpowered the first, and did not respond quite favorably both to the author’s own scientific research, and, in particular, to his attitude towards the opinions of the polemicizing parties: the author presents opinions favorable for the defense of the Academy as true, and tries with all his might to criticize those who are not favorable, while very openly expressing his personal sympathies for some and antipathies for others, sometimes raising the tone of his speech so much that it becomes very inconvenient for scientists explanations and completely inappropriate: for the truth is well known: “Are you angry? Therefore, I was wrong!” Nothing else, and it is precisely this motive that can only explain the author’s efforts to defend the opinions of Prof. M.A. Ostroumov, sometimes clearly untenable. There is also a third motive - which also had a very unfavorable effect on the work of Mr. Berdnikov; This is a motive - partisanship. The author divides the polemicists into two sharply hostile parties: he calls the opposite side “renovationist,” in which, according to him, a prominent place is occupied by N. Aksakov, A. Papkov and their inspirer, Prof. N. Zaozersky (p. 597, May), and his own, to which prof. M. Ostroumov, B.V. Barsov and others - strictly Orthodox zealots of the canons, completely conscientious (p. 772). The author accuses the “Renovation Party”, for example, of the following horrors: a) Papkov and Zaozersky with their writings wanted to “discredit a rule that was unpleasant to them and, if possible, reduce its significance to zero” (p. 747, June); b) their speeches about the form of the XIIIth rule are an idle and amusing game of discovery (748 pp.); c) in their interpretation of the rule, they do not take into account conscience and follow the principle that the end justifies the bad means (p. 722). I would not point out this shortcoming of Mr. Berdnikov’s article if I had in mind something like a complaint to the readers that this is how he unfairly offends me and my party! I have nothing to complain about; for I consider it a high honor for me to bring my name closer to the names of the gentlemen. Aksakov and Pankov. As for the question of who inspired whom among us, I am positively perplexed how a venerable professor could take upon himself the courage to declare in print such knowledge of human hearts and thoughts... I point out this shortcoming of Mr. Berdnikov’s article solely in scientific interests: if he had the courage to renounce these lawyer and party motives and would have set himself only one goal - properly, scientifically and objectively - to illuminate the form and meaning of the XIIIth rule Laod. cathedral - as a monument of deep canonical antiquity, he would have delivered with his work something incomparably more valuable than what his work gives in its present form and, it seems, he would have even better defended his native academy. The first, smaller half of Mr. Berdnikov’s article, which took up the pages of the May book, is devoted to the question of; is there a so-called Rule XIII Laod. Council definition, canon, or just the title of a canon that has not survived? The author himself did not bring anything to the clarification of the question except the following harsh sentence. “If Mr. Zaozersky... considers it an immutable truth that the XIIIth rule is not a rule containing a certain canonical norm, as was previously thought, but is the meaningless title of a lost rule; then, if you like, this is really scientific news, but news of a special kind, which belongs in the field of scientific curiosities” (p. 608). I would have nothing to say about this sentence if it had been expressed in an even more severe form: but why did Mr. Berdnikov need to bring up an obvious falsehood and untruth against me? Where did he get the idea that I consider the table of contents of Rule XIII to be meaningless? Isn't it the other way around? Was it not towards the clarification and precise definition of its content that my main work was directed? In any case, this accusation forces me to literally reprint the following lines from my previous article: “The meaning of the so-called. XIIIth reign of Laod. Council should define this: Fathers Laod. The council established only the norm for the active participation of the laity in the election of persons elevated to the degree of priesthood, determining that in the future they would not be allowed to make such elections alone without the guidance of the presbyterium. Probably, they saw repeated cases of abuse by the laity of their original right to actively participate in the election of candidates for the priesthood and cases of inaction of the clergy (as indicated by St. Basil the Great) and so they issued their decree. We say – probably – because we do not know their decree itself, but we judge only on the basis of the table of contents of this decree that has been preserved for us under the name of the XIIIth rule” 2. Who is the author of the scientific curiosity about the meaninglessness of the title of the XIIIth rule? The second and larger half of Mr. Berdnikov’s article is devoted to the question of the meaning or content of the so-called. XIIIth reign of Laod. cathedral Outlining, as in the first half, the opinions of the politicized on the issue of the content of the rule, or its interpretation, Mr. Berdnikov, for his part, introduced some new data to illuminate the meaning or “reason” of the rule. 1) Interpretation of Pidalion to the XIIIth rule of Laodice. personal (p. 764). 2) Quotes from Stephani: Thesaurus (766). 3) Quotes from Cod. Theodosianus with comment. Gotofreda (p. 767). 4) Quotations from Momsen (B. III: Romische Staatsrecht) (p. 767). 5) Several quotes from Kuhn: Die stadtisch und. burg. Verfassung d. k. Reich (pp. 767 and 768). 6) A message about who was the editor of the translation of Acts. personal and how the matter of translating them by the Kazan Academy was carried out (pp. 768–770). 7) Quotes from Gieseler: Lehrbuch d. Kirchen geschichte 1844 (p. 772), from Eusebius: life of Constantine and pamphlet: “The truth about the elective principle in the clergy” 1871 (p. 722). From our point of view, this positive side of Mr. Berdnikov’s arguments deserves only one thing - approval, and if he were to further increase the number of such contributions to the coverage of the issue at hand, it would be even better. This is not what we should say about his critical techniques applied to the assessment of our arguments and about the conclusions he came to on the issue at hand. Mr. Berdnikov finds our philological research unsatisfactory both in formal - methodological and material terms. So he reproaches us that in the sources of law we selected and focused on only what “seemed useful to us” (p. 756) and were dismissive of what was not useful to us, for example, the Spanish Latin translation of Greek rules (p. 764), in short - that we acted “unilaterally.” Further, Mr. Berdnikov confronts us with the incompleteness of our research. He claims that we tried to clarify only the “root philological” meaning of the terms of canon law and in this regard actually achieved some satisfactory results (p. 757), but he reproaches us for losing sight of the requirement of scientific philology, according to which terms, especially technical ones, cannot be understood only in their root philological meaning, but must pay attention to how they were understood in ordinary word usage and in literary monuments famous, specific era. (Page 755). Regarding these reproaches, I consider it necessary to make the following explanations: 1) As for the reproach for the one-sided use of sources of law, in this regard I submit entirely to the judgment of the readers: even if they find me guilty in this regard, I do not see a big problem in this, neither for myself personally, nor in the interests of the best interpretation of the XIII rights. Laod. cathedral I called the Spanish translation of the Greek rules ignorant in comparison with the translation of Dionysius the Less and I really did not study it. Of course, a jealous philologist will rightly blame me for this, and will accuse me of an ignorantly frivolous attitude towards a monument of philological antiquity: even if it is ignorant Latin, for a philologist it is a precious find. But I’m not a philologist! As for my immediate task - to explain the Greek words of Rule XIII, which have a technical canonical meaning, even now I declare without hesitation that for this purpose the Spanish translation “does nothing good”, but can only harm the matter. 2) Regarding the reproach for the incompleteness and insufficiency of my method of philological research of monuments of canon law, I must state the following: on the part of Mr. Berdnikov, here I will allow you to point out some misunderstanding. It is completely in vain that he ascribes to me claims to philology and even claims that I managed to indicate the root meaning of some Greek terms more or less correctly. Of those who argued with me, such claims were made by Prof. M.A. Ostroumov, not me. I frankly admit that, as someone who has not received a thorough philological education, I am positively afraid to come out in print with any purely philological explanations; I admit it not out of modesty, but out of prudence, following the rule: know your nest... The only sphere for philological exercises I chose for myself was the sphere of monuments of canon law of the Greek-Russian Orthodox Church, and in this sphere, which was quite closely limited by myself, I acquired some skill, I even boast - such that I consider such authorities as, for example, Ducange not quite sufficient for myself... But I do not go beyond this sphere, and if I do, it is with considerable fear. I'm afraid to even embark on philological research into the New Testament language. Philology is so demanding nowadays! Therefore, even within the limits of my special philological field, I try to comprehend the language of monuments, adhering not so much to the rules of philology, but to the purely legal principle that the language of laws is best understood from the laws themselves. Therefore, if I recognize myself as having the right to claim knowledge of any language, it is not Greek, Latin or Old Russian and Slavic, but only the “canonical language” of the peoples who left canonical monuments. Now, if Mr. Berdnikov had pointed out to me any shortcoming, incompleteness, etc. in my knowledge of this language, I would have gratefully taken into account even the most severe reproach... But I did not find such indications in the entire article. It is true that in the above quotes from Mr. Berdnikov there are valuable additions that are quite closely related to my special field, which I did not use. This is the interpretation of Pidalion. I admit that I made an omission without addressing it, and this omission is all the more significant because it fully confirms my understanding of the XIIIth rule, and not the understanding of my opponents and Mr. Berdnikov himself. Thank you for this instruction and I will try to give it an equally important instruction at the end of the article. As for other quotes - from Momsen, Kuhn, etc. - then, in my opinion, they are less valuable. What light, for example, can the following reference by Mr. Berdnikov to Momsen shed on the question of the meaning of the word όχλος: “the word όχλος had a meaning parallel to δημος and πληθος, only with a shadow shade”? (p. 767). Now, if this very shade were indicated - then it’s a different matter. Now, and after this reference, we have to guess about the quality of this shade, while the same use, according to the reference, of the word όχλος had towards the end of the Roman Republic - the distance is quite far from the time of the publication of the rules of the Council. The same should be said about quotes from Kuhn and others. In our opinion, they do little to clarify the meaning of the current rule. This is in our opinion. But maybe Mr. Berdnikov was able to use these data better than us? May be. Let us make a further assumption: maybe all the shortcomings we noted in his article were indicated incorrectly by us, that in general his method of research and his criticism, and his own research are correct in everything, and it’s all my fault? Let's assume all this, and let's see what conclusions Mr. Berdnikov came to in his article? Strictly speaking, in Mr. Berdnikov’s article there are no definite conclusions that provide an answer to the topic posed - that is, about the meaning of the XIIIth rule of the Council of Laodicea. After reading his entire article, you come to the conclusion that it was not this topic that occupied the author, but a more, so to speak, specific one, namely: who better translated the word όχλος, in the XIII rule, Prof. Nekrasov, Holy Synod, or prof. M. A. Ostroumov? The issue is resolved in favor of the latter. This is an interesting solution, which we will quote literally in the words of Mr. Berdnikov: “In view of the facts we cited above,” says the author, it is absolutely clear that this translation (Mr. Nekrasov: όχλος – community) corresponds to the meaning of the speech. And is there, in the terminology of Prof. Is there a significant difference between Nekrasov and the terminology of ancient Greek and Latin texts? Is it the same to say: urban people, or urban society? Isn’t there one meaning in the words: the people subordinate to the bishop, the bishop’s flock, or, as Mr. Zaozersky puts it, the worldly element of the flock? 3. Thus, if we recognize that the expression οί όχλος must correspond in its meaning to the expressions o ί λαοί, τά πλήθη, populi, plebs 4, i.e., it must mean the population of a certain area, part of the bishop’s flock, or constituting his entire flock, then the translation of this expression by the term “community” will be essentially correct. Only the very expression “community” does not quite suit the municipal system of that time, to which the 13th rule of the Council of Laodicea refers. Then the terms were used: city, municipality, people, curia, college, plebs, etc. Community is a phenomenon of modern times. And then in the expression community, used in the translation of the Kazan Academy, there is another reciprocity, namely the one that is not indicated, which community - church or civil, of course? If it had been said: church community, then it would have been clearer and more correct. After all, the pagan community chose priests only in pagan times, as we will see below 5; in Christian times, she could no longer exercise this right, although she took some part 6 . Thus, the term “community” used in the translation of the 13th rule of the Council of Laodicea can be considered unclear and inappropriate for that time, but it better conveys the meaning of this rule than the expression “assembly of the people” adopted in the Book of Rules, and even before it - by the interpreters of Pidalion in the sense that by οί όχλος is meant the permanent Christian population of a certain area, a known urban district in its entirety, or in a certain part, and not a random gathering of people” (p. 771). These are the conclusions, or results of Mr. Berdnikov’s scientific research. It turns out that the word όχλος or οί όχλος can be translated by the words: 1) people subordinate to the bishop, 2) the bishop's flock, 3) city, 4) municipality, 5) people, 6) curia, 7) college, 8) plebs, 9) community, 10) church community, 11) permanent Christian population of a known area. Each of these meanings corresponds to the word όχλος, but the most corresponding meaning is the last one, which belongs, we will add, to Prof. M. A. Ostroumov 7. But it is by no means possible to translate the word όχλος with the word “crowd”, or “gathering of people”. It would not be uninteresting, I think, to reproduce the conclusions to which we came, adhering to our method of explaining individual words of the rule on the basis of the rules themselves. Our research resulted in the following, so to speak, dictionary: Όχλος, όχλοι = turba, multitudo, crowd, people (in Old Russian usage, i.e., the same as a crowd). Λαος = populus, plebs, people, people (Old Russian) or nation, people in modern usage. Λαος and λαοί x οι = πληθος = parishioners, or worldly element of the flock; the same as the face, in contrast to x λήρος hence τάγμα λαί x ον and τάγμα x ληρι xov, or ιερατι xov. Therefore, the word όχλος in the 13th rule of the Council of Laodicea should be translated by the word “crowd”, or “assembly of the people”, but not by the word “community”, parishioners, laity, etc. In short, our conclusion prompted Mr. Berdnikov to create a counter-conclusion, something directly opposite in all respects. Of course, not on the side of Mr. Berdnikov, but as a renovationist pariah... And how close Mr. Berdnikov was to the truth! After all, she was hot on his heels, so to speak; he had only to look around once and he would have seen the straight road from which he had deviated. But, carried away by party interests, he stubbornly walked forward along his narrow back street until he came to a dead end, so to speak... As noted above, Mr. Berdnikov expressed an absolutely correct idea that in understanding the terms of the monument being interpreted, it is more correct and reliable to adhere to other monuments of the same era... To what era do the rules of the Council of Laodicea belong? They were written approximately in 360, but another canonical monument, translated by the Kazan Theological Academy into Russian in 1864 under the title “Ordinances of the Holy Apostles,” also dates back to approximately the same era. In this monument, the words όχλος, λαος, πληθος, etc. appear very often and in such combinations that, better than any Ducange, clarify the meaning of these synonyms and their use in the canonical monuments of this era. It was worthwhile for Mr. Berdnikov to check the philological structure of Prof. from this monument. M.A. Ostroumov, based mainly on illiterate Latin translations of some Spaniard of the 4th or 5th century. and on Du Cange's dictionary, and he would have seen with his own eyes that it was no good. Here are some passages from this monument that can serve as a true criterion for conviction of this truth. We will present them in three texts: 1) in Russian according to the translation of the Kazan Theological Academy in 1864; 2) Slavic and 3) Greek. Apostolic Constitutions. Let Messrs. Berdnikov, Ostroumov and their entire party, or one of the readers will take the trouble to correct the Russian translation of the Apostolic Constitutions according to the dictionary of the late prof. Nekrasov, or according to Mr. Ostroumov’s interpretation, precisely the translation of the word ὅχλος. What will happen? I admit, I find it difficult to predict anything good. It is enough for me that with my canonical dictionary I will not get into an unpleasant situation. The only place that seems dangerous for me is the book. VI 6:1: “Therefore also the people of Judah (ὅχλος) had evil heresies.” But I do not consider this a great danger: for I would translate here the word ὅχλος with the word “narodishko”, or “people” - to express my displeasure towards this people, which, I think, the author of the Apostolic Constitutions felt towards them in this place 8. But perhaps the Apostolic Constitutions call the laity as “the flock obedient to the bishop” with the word ὅχλος, as Messrs. propose to do. Berdnikov, Ostroumov, Barsov and the deceased Kazan prof. Nekrasov? - No, they don’t call it; they call it either λαος, or λαϊκοί or νλῆθος. Let me give you the following example: We have in mind our article: The meaning and significance of the so-called. 13th rule of Laodice. cathedral Theological Bulletin 1907, book. 1. There is also a separate print. Page 1–23. See our brochure, pages 21, 22. Let us note from ourselves the concept: the bishop’s flock includes both the clergy and monasticism; therefore, the “bishop’s flock” and the “secular element of the flock” are not identical. Let us note on our own, but shouldn’t οί όχλος correspond to the words: turba, crowd, mob, gathering of people? If so, what Greek word should be used to designate these terms? Unfortunately, the author ends the article below and says nothing about this matter. Unfortunately, Mr. Berdnikov’s article does not contain any precise indications of this remarkable fact in the life of ancient Christians. See Church. Vedomosti 1907, No. 2. I base my guess on the consideration that wherever the author of the Apostolic Constitutions talks about the Jews as God’s chosen nation, he invariably uses the term λαός. There are a lot of such places in all 8 books of the Regulations, so this place represents the only case of such an unusual use of the word όχλος. We will no longer quote from the Apostolic Constitutions simply to avoid the danger of boring the reader. Let readers who are deeply interested in the question take the trouble to study the Apostolic Constitutions themselves. We personally recommend them for the Slavic text of RFL. Kiev-Sophia Library No. 63, for Greek – Funk’s edition (Funk: Didascalia et constitutions Apostolorum. Vol. I. Paderbonae, 1906). You might be interested in: