Research in the field of Russian science of canon law

The year 1892 has given Russian canonical science some research that, due to its properties, deserves both greetings and attention. A number of them opened with a very valuable monograph by A. S. Pavlov: Imaginary traces of Catholic influence in the most ancient monuments of Yugoslav and Russian church law. M. 1892 c. 1–50 k. In its external form, this is - so to speak - a counter-book to the books of Prof. I. S. Suvorova: “Traces of Western Catholic church law in the monuments of ancient Russian law”, Yaroslavl, 1888, and in essence - a deeply scientific study of some hitherto almost untouched issues relating to the sources and monuments of Orthodox church law. These monuments of law, which have now served as the subject of the scholarly attention of the venerable author, are: 1) The Commandment of St. father; 2) The law of judgment for people; 3) Questions of Kirik, and 4) Church statutes of Vladimir and Yaroslav. What has now become the subject of scholarly attention in these monuments is the question of their dependence on foreign influence. That dependence really exists is indisputable; that further these monuments were formed under the influence, in particular, of the Byzantine - and this was the position before the appearance of the above-mentioned study by prof. I.S. Suvorov, was generally accepted in science and to some extent was even scientifically substantiated by the research of A.S. Pavlova. But about four years ago, Prof. Suvorov “managed to make one very interesting discovery... a striking similarity between one medieval Latin penitential and a small Slavic penitential, bearing in the manuscripts a blank inscription: “To the Zapotniks, after all, St. Father" 1 Having accepted the Latin penitential as the original monument of Russian law from ancient times, Mr. Suvorov naturally came to the idea that other monuments of our church law are in the same dependence on Western penitentials. Comparing both, Mr. Suvorov actually came to the conclusion that the above-mentioned monuments of ancient Russian law bear undoubted traces of Roman Catholic influence. This idea, externally scientifically argued, is the center of gravity of his above-mentioned book, which prompted the pro. Pavlova wrote his counter-book last year, which we are now considering. This book subverts both the main idea and the arguments of Mr. Suvorov’s book. The reviewer, of course, does not have the opportunity, and he hardly has the right, to depict the details of this overthrow: since in the latter case, much would have to be borrowed entirely from the book under review. Therefore, leaving aside the details of refuting the opponent’s arguments, we will limit ourselves to pointing out the positive conclusions that Prof. came to in his research. Pavlov in relation to the above-mentioned monuments of law. Recognized by Mr. Suvorov for the original “Commandments of St. Father" Latin penitential, called Poenitentiale merseburgense, is essentially the same translation of the lost for from the Greek penitential, as is the "Commandment of St. Father: both of these multilingual monuments (i.e. Latin and Old Slavic) originated from one common Greek source. (Page 22). Commandment of St. The father, being essentially a penitential or, in Byzantine terms, a canonary (a collection of articles defining penances for various sins imposed on the confessor by the confessor) stands in a natural connection with the “rite of confession” - the exomologitarium - to express it in Byzantine. Taking into account this connection and finding the eastern canonary (the above-mentioned) to be borrowed from the Latin penitential, Mr. Suvorov was naturally led to the idea of ​​seeing in the ancient eastern rite of confession - exomologitarium - a borrowing of a Western church institution. He actually carried out this idea in his book. According to Eastern Church tradition, the first author of the exomologitarium (as well as the canonary) was the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John the Faster (at the end of the 6th century). But the fact is that at present there are copies of exomologitarium with the name of I. Postnik from the most ancient XI-XII centuries. no, and the well-known ones - original and translated Slavic ones - exist in various editions, so that in science there is a very fundamental doubt about the authorship of I. Postnik. G. Suvorov in the above-mentioned book went as far in this regard as anyone, it seems, had gone before him. He claims that even around the half of the 9th century. for sins there was no definite order of confession and canonary developed, and that the later developed exomologitaries and canonaries, adorned with the name of John the Faster, bear undoubted traces of Catholic influence, as compiled under the leadership of the Latin ordo paenitentiae (change of order) and penitentials and that even the very name of John the Faster appeared in the Greek exomologitaries as nothing more than an opposition or counterweight John Cassian (about half of the 5th century), sermo de poenitentia (Sermon on Repentance) with which some Latin penitentials, in particular Merseburg, begin. (Pages 32–35). Prof. Pavlov in his book refutes this opinion and its argumentation with a scientific thoroughness that is impossible to resist and then express the following on one’s own behalf as a positive and scientifically substantiated opinion: “Thanks to Postnikov’s Slavic translation of Pomocanon 2, we get the opportunity to get an accurate idea of ​​what kind of edition the Greek original had at the time of the appearance of this translation, i.e. approximately in the second half of the 9th century. At the beginning, the translation does not agree with any of the three editions of the Greek text printed by Morin 3, then it begins to follow the text of the first edition, published under the title Ἀκολουθ᾿ α κὰ τάξις ἐπὶ ἐξομολογουμένων συνταγε ͂ σα ὑπὸ τοῦ ὀσ ί ου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ιωάννου τοῦ Νηστευτοῦ, but here he makes significant omissions in the beginning and middle, then transfers most of the text to the third edition, entitled Morin: Ἰ ωάννου μοναχοῦ καὶ διακ ό νου ends according with the text of the first edition, i.e. the same prayer that stands there at the very end. It goes without saying that the fact that Postnikov’s Pomocanon appeared in the Slavic translation made for newly converted Bulgarians serves as proof of the extensive and long-established use of this book in the practice of the Greek Church itself. So, little by little, we are approaching the era when there lived the hierarch whose name this wonderful monument of Eastern church law bears. However, from here it is still far from being able to recognize this monument - at least in those editions with which we have dealt so far - as an authentic work of Patriarch John the Faster. In these editions one comes across such features that could not have come from the hand of the said patriarch, for example. Quote from John Climacus († 606) and mention of monks and nuns of the Great and Lesser Schema... However, as for anachronisms, we have already had the opportunity above to point out the well-known fact that in monuments like Postnik’s nomocanon, interpolations and other changes to the original text constitute a common and, one might say, historically necessary phenomenon... For a more solid solution to the question of the authenticity of Postnik’s nomocanon, or at least about the era of its origin from anyone’s hand, it would be necessary to compare all its contents according to the older and better copies of Greek church writers VI-VII centuries... Regarding in particular the place in the nomocanon of Postnik, in which prof. Suvorov saw a “trace” of Catholic influence, then, upon reference to the original, it turns out that it is not read exactly as its venerable author sets out - for the highest, of course, agreement with the Latin penitentials. Yes, even if there were complete agreement between the Eastern penitentiary and the Western ones, then we, looking back, would have the right to say: here is another borrowing from the East, which is a luxury for the West, especially in those days when it was busy compiling its own penitentiaries” 4. Not to mention people familiar with the history of the so-called. penitential discipline, for whom the value of the provisions expressed here is completely clear, the latter should attract the attention of every Orthodox Christian, because the hitherto practiced rite of confession with its penances stands in a genetic connection with the so-called. Nomocanon of I. Postnik. G. Suvorov saw traces of Catholic influence in the so-called. “The Law of Judgment People” (can be read in Korchma’s book, Chapter 45) Deep, specially historical and legal research aimed, so to speak, at smoothing out this imaginary trace and indicating the true ones, i.e. Byzantine sources of this Bulgarian compilation occupy pp. 50–107 in the book under review. With full scientific thoroughness, detailed sources in Byzantine literature are indicated here for some provisions, which, according to Mr. Suvorov, have their original in the Latin penitentials and some church institutions of the Western Church (for example, Testes synodales) and are presented as the closest sources for the law of judgment: the eclogue of Leo the Isaurian, election from the law given by God through Moses to the Israelites and the commandment of St. father. In general, the view developed here was already expressed by Prof. Pavlov much earlier in his study: “The original Slavic-Russian nomocanon” is only more fully developed here; but at the end of the chapter, the author for the first time introduces us to his opinion, which is of great value, about the internal connection between the “Ekloga” and “election from the Law of God.” “In Western literature on the history of the sources of Byzantine law,” he says, “only the bibliographic fact is firmly established that lists of the famous Greek “Elections from the Law Given by God” usually stand in various legal collections next to or in proximity to the two most important monuments of the legislative activity of the iconoclast emperors Leo the Isaurian and Constantine Copronymus - with the eclogue and the Agricultural Charter... but none of them had to pay attention to the internal relationship of the eclogue from the Mosaic laws to an eclogue from the former Roman laws, undoubtedly published by the first iconoclasts. The latter, even by their most dogmatic views, should have had special respect for the “God-given” Mosaic laws, in which they found a prohibition of the veneration of icons. On the other hand, having broken in many respects the connection with the ancient Roman (Justinian) law, which in the eclogue already contains a significant admixture of new, often barbaric elements, the iconoclast legislators were all the more willing to turn to the Mosaic legal books, since here there were quite a few norms that turned out to be completely suitable for modern social relations and completely in agreement with the legal views of the barbarian and semi-barbarian masses who made up the vast the majority of the then population of the Byzantine Empire. These are the historical reasons that established an internal connection between the legislation of the emperors of the Byzantine dynasty and the legislation of Moses. This connection can be observed with particular clarity in the eclogue and the “Agricultural Law” with the “election from the Law of God” given to the Israelites through Moses.” The preface to the Ecologist is replenished with biblical passages about justice, among other things, such as are found in the 1st chapter of “Elections from the Law of God.” In the decrees of the Eclogue themselves there are verbatim quotes from various priests. Books of the Old Testament. As for the “Agricultural Law,” some of its articles are almost literal extracts from the Mosaic legal books. But since neither the Eclogue, nor the Agricultural Law, nor other legislative acts of the iconoclasts embraced the entire law of the Byzantine Empire in force at that time, then along with them, various additional compilations were necessary for practice, extracted partly from the sources of the former Roman law, to the extent that it still remained in effect partly from the Mosaic legislation, from which the emperors themselves drew material for their laws. This is how a special extract from the Mosaic legal books took place, compiled, if by a private person, then, in all likelihood, not without an impulse on the part of the legislative power itself. The same one - i.e. the external and internal connection of the Byzantine Eclogue with the legislation of Moses - can be seen in the Bulgarian legislative work, known as the “Law of Judgment” 5. In Kirik’s “Questions,” Mr. Suvorov saw traces of capitol influence except for the “Commandments of St. father” also in the following elements: in ordering liturgies as a replacement for penance and in the prayer of permission, which was part of a special rite of repentance or reconciliation. G. Pavlov indicates in the Greek penance books both the ordering of liturgies as a feat of repentance and the original of the prayer of permission, which misled Mr. Suvorov. (Pages 114–119). The book in question is a very valuable historical and legal research, chap. 4 where we are talking about the so-called. Charter of Vladimir. The reason for them was, first of all, Mr. Suvorov’s opinion about the origin of Vladimirov’s Charter in Western Rus': the Moscow Metropolitan Cyprian, when he was there, could have been the author of this forged charter. “Metropolitan Cyprian, according to Mr. Suvorov, spent quite a bit of time in Lithuania before settling in Moscow. And we must not forget the importance of the historical era that southwestern Rus' experienced at the end of the 14th and the first half of the 15th century. The Lithuanian princes, to whom southwestern Rus' submitted, after a short-lived hesitation between paganism, Orthodoxy and Catholicism, from the time of Vytautas (1386) decisively sided with Catholicism. The close proximity to the Catholic Church, which had judicial competence defined by canon law and recognized by the state power, and the need to petition the princes of other faiths to guarantee the ecclesiastical court of the Orthodox Church to a certain extent, within precisely defined boundaries, and not with only vague indications of the Greek nomocanon, could serve as a sufficient reason for the Western Russian Orthodox hierarchy and for the Western Russian scribes to historical legends about the covenant of Vladimir and existed until the 14th century. put the practice into the form of a written charter” (p. 129). In contrast to this fantastic assumption, Prof. Pavlov points out a number of facts about the application of Vladimirov’s charter in the 13th century. in northern or generally Muscovite Rus' (pp. 124–136). Mr. Suvorov saw traces of Catholic influence in the charter of Vladimir, which supposedly took place in Western Rus', in the first place, in church tithes from princely estates and income, and in the second place, in the inclusion of St. Vladimir was included in the circle of persons of the church department of all “people of almshouses, who in the West were called personae miserabiles and were under the special patronage of the church and, three, entrusted to the spiritual authorities with supervision over the correctness of trade measures and weights. Here, in addition to polemical interest, the reader’s attention is particularly drawn to the substantiation of the opinion that the church tithe of Vladimir’s Ustav could have originated from the local state tithe, established, perhaps, back in the era of the calling of the first Russian princes “from across the sea.” Such state tithe in Byzantine law and among the Yugoslav peoples was a) a customs duty and b) one of the land taxes. There is an indication of state tithes in the older edition of Russian Pravda (Akadem. 41st Art.). The Bulgarians and Serbs knew only state tithes, and church tithes appeared to them in the form of a grant to one or another church institution of this particular state tithe or in the form of a benefit, which consisted in the exemption of church and monastery lands from the state tithe collection. This means that state tithes in Bulgaria and Serbia preceded church tithes and were a model or, better to say, a source for the latter. The same thing happened in ancient Rus': Russian church tithes were taken not from the Western model, but from their own - the state one (p. 144). The last point of discrepancy between the studies of our venerable learned canonists is the church charter of Prince Yaroslav 1st. G. Suvorov noticed in this monument of law traces of not direct, immediate influence, but only indirect and mediocre - through the “commandment of St. father" and "the law of judgment of people." But Mr. Suvorov makes up for this lack of material for developing his main topic with another question - about the time and place of origin of the Yaroslav Charter. According to Mr. Suvorov, the charter of Yaroslav occurred in Western Rus' at the end of the 15th century. under undoubted Catholic influence. This issue was also addressed by Prof. Pavlov devotes the last chapter of his book (pp. 149–159). The richness and weight of the argument in favor of the antiquity of the eastern edition in comparison with the western edition of the charter, which characterizes this chapter, completely eliminates the idea of ​​​​the Western origin of the Yaroslav charter. Its western edition is a late and rather pitiful alteration of the eastern one, and Mr. Suvorov, who regards the first as the source of the second, is placed in the impossible position of explaining: “how from the Western Russian “Yaroslavl scroll”, in which the language is not ancient, and the money is counted on a relatively late coin, could have originated in Muscovite Rus' approximately around the half of the 15th century. "The new church charter of Yaroslav - one in which the language is replete with various archaisms, and the money in most articles is considered not to be Moscow or Lithuanian coins of the 14th-15th centuries, but Kyiv coins of the 11th-12th centuries?" (p. 156), At the end of the book there is an appendix containing the Slavic text of the “Commandments of the Holy Father” according to the Rumyantsev copy with discrepancies of the Sinai Euchologion, published by Heitler 6 and in parallel with it the Latin text of the Mersenburg Penitential, according to the edition of Wasserschleben 7 . The entire book, including the appendix, is 174 pages long. It is so small and so rich in content! In truth - non multum, sed multa! In addition to its scientific significance, for which, of course, the author’s name alone speaks more than our review, it has an ecclesiastical and social significance: for it contains an elucidation of obscure questions about the origin and value of the most precious in terms of antiquity and significance of the beginnings and memorials of Russian church law. We wanted to draw the attention of especially the clergy to this side of A. S. Pavlov’s book, who in our time very often have to be prepared for serious answers regarding church statutes and regulations. A. S. Pavlov, Imaginary traces of Catholicism. Influences, pp. 1–2. The oldest Slavic translation of this pomocanon is contained in the famous Rumyantsev helmsman, a copy of which is, by the way, a manuscript from the Moscow Library. Spirits. Academy No. 54. The Greek text corresponding (though not quite) to the beginning of the Slavic translation can be read by Pitra in Spicilegium Solesmense T. IV, p. 437 under the heading: exolia ejusdem canonarii edutione. Note A. S. Pavlova A. S. Pavlov, Imaginary traces of Catholicism. influence, pp. 45–48 Geilter, Euchologium glagolski spomenik manastira Sinai brda. Zagreb. 1882. 188–195. Wasserschleben, Bussordnungen der abendländischen Kieche nebst einer rechtsgesehichtlichen Einleitung. Halle. 1851, s. 391–401. You might be interested in: