Review of the book by A.A. Dmitrievsky "Divine services of Holy and Easter weeks in Holy Jerusalem according to the rules of the 9th-10th centuries"

See also: Divine services of Holy and Easter weeks in St. Jerusalem IX-X centuries. Professor Alexey Afanasyevich Dmitrievsky New book by A.A. Dmitrievsky is devoted to the study of a newly discovered, very important and curious liturgical monument, namely: the charter of church services performed in the 10th century. in holy places in Jerusalem during Holy Week and Holy Week. Easter. Jerusalem, a city full of memories of the life, suffering and resurrection of Jesus Christ, especially since the 4th century, when sacred monuments were opened and decorated, constantly attracted many Christian pilgrims who gathered here from all over the Christian world, especially at the time of year when the memory of the last days of the Savior’s life falls. During the pilgrims' stay in Jerusalem, their pious exercises consisted of visiting places marked by sacred memories and refreshing these memories for themselves through prayer and readings. The Jerusalem church came to their aid in this case. Back in the 4th century. she developed a rather complex and dramatic ritual of worship for these significant days. Reliable evidence of the existence of such a ritual in the Jerusalem church in the 4th century. gives us one Western pilgrim Sylvia, who lived in Jerusalem for about 3 years (from approximately 385 to 388), was keenly interested in the liturgical rites of the Jerusalem Church and described them in detail in her Peregrinatio (see ed. Prav. Palest. General. 1889, issue 20, edited and translated by Prof. I.V. Pomyalovsky). Judging by her description, the Holy and Bright Weeks in Jerusalem were filled with almost continuous and very complex worship, consisting of a harmonious and symmetrical alternation of readings from St. Scripture, prayer and chants, as well as solemn religious processions or lithiums in the direction from the central shrine - the Holy Sepulcher - to the surrounding shrines located in Zion, Olivet, Gevsemane and other places. The pilgrim points out with delight the careful elaboration and expediency of all these sacred actions. This gives us the right to assert with complete certainty that the worship described by the pilgrim was performed by the clergy of the Jerusalem Church with the assistance of a written manual or charter, which contained both the text of numerous chants, prayers and readings, and a description of the order of the sacred actions that accompanied them. In a word, in view of the information from both Jerusalem services reported by the pilgrim, we are confident that in the Jerusalem church already at the end of the 4th century. there was a written rule of worship in general and in particular for Holy and Holy Weeks. In this case, this circumstance should be of great importance, especially if we take into account what we generally know about the method of drawing up and forming church statutes and what we already had the opportunity to talk about regarding the statute of the Church of Constantinople (see Chronicle of the Historical and Philological Society at Novoross. Univ., vol. II, p. 170). Church statutes or typikons, with the possible exception of some private or patronal ones, are not the works of any one specific author, but are the result of the activities of many individuals, mostly church charterers, over many centuries. This should especially be said about the statutes of the great cathedral churches, such as: Constantinople and Jerusalem. Having once been compiled by the clergy of these churches under the leadership of one of their most competent members, they then became, as it were, the common property of this clergy and mainly the charterers, who then, in accordance with changes in practice, made changes and additions to the text. These changes and additions were made for the most part quite mechanically. As an examination of the manuscripts shows, they were first noted in the margins and then transferred to the text during correspondence, and the old practice was not always erased. For the most part, it was done in such a way that if, for example, it was necessary to introduce a new chant into the text, then the old one was left, and the new one was added to it with the mark: ἄλλο; if it was necessary to introduce a description of a new ritual, then they did the same thing, adding to the old one the remark that it was like this in the old days, but now it’s different, etc. As a result, what happens is that in the text of the ancient statutes, along with the new practice, one can find quite clear, unerased, traces of ancient and multi-period practice, so that these statutes sometimes resemble notebooks, covered with numerous and multi-temporal amendments and erasures, because of which it is still possible, although with great difficulty, to distinguish between the original foundation and many of the further layers. Such charters include those issued by A.A. Dmitrievsky Charter of Jerusalem. The text of this charter deserves careful and detailed study, not only in view of the importance and diversity of the rituals described in it, but also in view of the opportunity to note facts related to the history of the origin, development and complications of these rituals under the influence of various circumstances. In particular, with regard to determining the time of origin of the edition contained in the edition published by A.A. Dmitrievsky text, i.e. its latest edition, then this can also be done mainly on the basis of analysis and study of the text, and not the age of the manuscript: the manuscript can be very late and nevertheless reproduce a very ancient monument; it is only necessary that the reproduction be as accurate as possible. Therefore, A.A. Dmitrievsky acted absolutely correctly in turning to the text of the monument itself for resolution of the issue, in addition to the postscripts. Unfortunately, the text that was in his hands and published by him is of very low quality: it does not accurately reproduce the original and does not provide all the details useful for resolving the question of the origin of the edition, and on some other issues it can even be misleading. Let's see what kind of text this is. The monument in question has survived to this day: 1) in the parchment manuscript of the Holy Sepulcher Library, written in 1122 by a certain Vasily, a reader of the Church of St. Resurrection, by order of George, the chief and judge of St. hail, chartophylax and great skevofylax of the church of St. Resurrection, and 2) in a manuscript of the same library from 1804, containing a history of the city of Jerusalem and all of Palestine, compiled by Archimandrite Maximus Simeo, former didaskal of the Jerusalem Theological School in the Monastery of the Cross. Here, as an appendix, is a copy of her said monument. In the literature, some information about this monument has been known since 1877 from the publication of Veniamin Ioannides: Προσκυνητάριον τῆς ἁγίας γῆς. An excerpt from it about the deposition of St. fire on Holy Saturday. In 1886 prof. V.G. Vasilievsky used it in his comments to Epiphanius (Prav. Palest. Collection, issue II, p. 38). But in its entire form (with the release, however, of the text of the readings and many chants) it became known only when A.A. undertook its publication. Dmitrievsky. In January 1888, while studying manuscripts in the library of the Monastery of the Cross in Jerusalem, he found this monument in a copy of Simeo and, as a specialist in liturgics, immediately understood its high significance. Since, despite all his efforts, he was unable to find the original, he was content with a copy, which, having rewritten and provided with a preface and brief notes, he then sent to the editorial office of the Orthodox Interlocutor. The preface, containing general information about the monument and the time of its origin, was published in the same 1888 in the July book of the Interlocutor; but further printing was delayed for some time, due to the fact that the editors demanded a translation from the publisher. Meanwhile, Mr. Papadopoulo-Keramevs, who was then engaged, on behalf of the former Patriarch of Jerusalem Nicodemus, in the systematic analysis and description of Palestinian manuscripts and already knew about Dmitrievsky’s search, soon found the original itself. This original has now been published under his editorship Prav. by the Palestine Society in its entirety and was published almost simultaneously with Mr. Dmitrievsky’s book. Thus, we now have both a copy and the original at hand - a very gratifying circumstance and very favorable for the most fruitful study of this curious monument. It should only be noted that the fruitfulness of this study will be facilitated mainly by the original, and not by the copy. Although the copy was published with a translation and with many scholarly notes, this did not improve the text and remained very faulty. The publisher himself admits that his publication should naturally be overshadowed by the publication of the Palestine Society, but believes that it should not lose scientific interest, since the copy published by him, in his opinion, represents “one of the attempts to read the codex of 1122, distinguished by defects and paleographic difficulties, an attempt belonging to one of the most educated Greeks of the beginning of the last century.” We understand the desire of the publisher to draw attention to the value of the monument he published, but this cannot be achieved by concealing its true nature. The copy of Simeo published by him cannot be called a copy in the proper sense. Simeo more or less accurately reproduces only the text of prayers and chants (the latter, however, are difficult to judge due to the absence of their complete text from A.A. Dmitrievsky); As for the description of liturgical actions, this is a free retelling, sometimes deviating very far from the original - it is not a copy, but, as the copyist himself puts it, a renewal - ἀνανέωσις - of the text, consisting of replacing some turns and even words with others, in rearrangements, abbreviations and similar more or less important deviations from the original. There are so many such deviations from the original in Simeo’s text that if anyone needed to list them all, he would have to reprint both texts almost entirely one against the other. It is true that all these deviations are aimed at making the text more understandable and giving a feasible interpretation, but they, nevertheless, one way or another distort the text. In a word, Simeo’s copy is not so much an attempt at reading as an attempt at interpretation, which is confirmed by the nature of syntactic and lexical changes and additional explanatory phrases (For example, Dmitrievsky, p. 170. Cf. ed. Papadopoulo-Keramevs, p. 179). In terms of interpretation, Simeo's work is, of course, quite interesting; but it could have been very useful if it had been made by a person who fully understood the content and importance of the monument. Unfortunately, Simeo, apparently, belonged to those Greeks at the beginning of our century who treated the ancient monuments of church literature in the most unceremonious manner and, trying to correct and popularize them, spoiled the text of a huge number of them. What is most important in this case is that many of the deviations Simeo made from the original text not only do not clarify it, but on the contrary obscure it, and even distort it in a very significant way. From a scientific point of view, the mentioned distortions are of particular importance where Simeo, whether through misunderstanding or for some other reason, wipes out and erases the precious features of time and place for researchers, which determine the true character and significance of the monument. Let us list here the distortions that seemed to us the most important, and we will compare both published texts. What follows is a description of the vigil before the canon. Then: In the above two places we are talking about Latin monks of the Benedictine order, who lived for a long time near St. The grave in the monastery of the so-called St. Mary Latin or, in Greek, Σπουδαίων. At the time the Charter was drawn up, they were obviously in communion with the Orthodox Church and took part in Orthodox worship, although they also had their own charter. This is quite typical for the monument. Simeo, omitting from the text, apparently due to misunderstanding, the word: Σπουδαῖοι and leaving a remark about their removal from the church, after performing certain actions, to their monastery, caused great confusion in the text. According to its corrected text, it turns out that the Orthodox, having begun the all-night vigil in the Basilica, continue it here only until the canon, and then go to the Spudeev monastery and finish it there. Meanwhile, from the further presentation it is clearly clear that the Orthodox remain in the church and, after the 6th song of the canon, go to St. To the coffin. From here they perform litia on St. Golgotha ​​and around St. Sepulchre, after which the patriarch and clergy retire to Katikhoumeni until the dismissal, and after the dismissal, a large liturgy is undertaken on the Mount of Olives, to Gesemania and back through the Sheep Font, or Holy of Holies, in the Church of Constantine, where everything ends with the liturgy and litany of St. Coffin. In a word, for the Orthodox there was neither time nor the slightest need to go to the monastery of St. Our Lady of Spudeev and end the vigil there. The name Spudeev erases Simeo in other places, namely: 3) After Matins on Good Friday. 4) At Matins from Good Friday to Saturday. In these two passages from the erasure of the name of Spudeev, although such inconsistencies do not occur as we saw in the first two, however, μοναχοὶ Σπουδαῖοι turn into μετὰ σπουδῆς, the original character of the rite is distorted in a very significant way and the matter does not seem to be as it is stated in the original. Simeo also has other, very important perversions concerning other subjects. For example: 5) At the beginning of the service on Holy Monday, a note: What is important for us in this passage is that, according to the original, it indicates two rules for the sticology of the Psalter. According to the first, the verse of the Psalter ends at the Hours on Maundy Thursday, and according to the second (ἕτερος τύπος) at the Hours on Holy Wednesday. In the following presentation, it is precisely this second charter that is meant, as can be seen, among other things, from the remark at the Thursday Hours: σ. 96. 2–3. The first charter, placed at the beginning of the mentioned remark, is obviously more ancient. Simeo omits it and thus deprives researchers of the opportunity to reconstruct one of the ancient features of the monument. 6) On Holy Tuesday after the litany of Olives: Here we are talking about the reverse litany from the Mount of Olives, where the ninth hour and vespers were celebrated, in the Church of the Resurrection for the celebration of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. Simeo, probably believing that if Vespers is celebrated on Olivet, in the church, then it is more convenient to celebrate the subsequent Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, if not in this church, then in the nearest one at the site of the Ascension, reads ἐπὶ τὴν Ἁγίαν Ἀνάληψιν. But from the edition of Mr. Papadopoulo-Keramevs it is clear that the original does not inspire any doubt about the reading and the publisher does not hesitate to read Ἁγίαν Ἀνάστασιν. It seems to us that the last reading should be considered correct, also because it corresponds to the meaning of the remarks found in the original text on pp. 49. 2-3 and 185. 30-33. From these comments it is clear 1) what in St. There is no liturgy on the Resurrection only on Good Friday, and that 2) on Great Tuesday there is a liturgy of the presanctified gifts here in the same conditions as on Great Monday and Wednesday. This is about Great Wednesday. Simeo reads the letter ϑ´ not ἐννάτη ὥρα, but ϑεία λειτουργία. Meanwhile, from what follows it is clear that the liturgy (of the presanctified gifts) takes place on this day, as on the previous two, on St. Resurrection, not St. Constantine. In the original, under the word: κονδάκιον, of course, obviously, a special scroll containing the rite of St. world without any omissions with the full text of the prayers pronounced by the clergy, similar to those scrolls of the liturgies of St. Basil and Chrysostom, many of which have survived to this day. But Simeo understood these words in the sense of a certain kind of chant, and in his text something appeared that was not at all in the original. Many other distortions can be indicated in this text, [and we will also indicate some of them further]; but the examples given, it seems to us, are quite enough to convince us how little one can rely on Simeo’s text when determining the meaning and true nature of a newly discovered, very important liturgical monument; and if A.A. Dmitrievsky had at hand not this, but the original text, then of course he would have preferred it and would have avoided some erroneous conclusions and judgments. Let us now turn to the question of the time of origin of the prevailing edition of the monument. By resolving this issue A.A. Dmitrievsky deals with the preface to the monument he published; but his conclusions currently require verification, since with the publication of the original a slightly different solution appeared, proposed by Papadopoulos-Keramevs. A.A. Dmitrievsky believes that the time of compilation of the sequence he published in its present form, that is, in the edition contained in the Jerusalem manuscript of 1122 and in its later presentation by Simeo, “is determined more or less accurately by the end of the 9th century or the first half of the 10th century.” (prev. XV) based on the following features found in the text of the monument itself: 1) in one of the litanies in the service for the week of Vai (p. 30) it is mentioned “about the most holy and God-protected Patriarch of Jerusalem Nicholas.” And according to Palamas, Nicholas was the Patriarch of Jerusalem from 932 to 947. But Papadopoulo-Keramevs (Ἀναλ., προλ. σ. γ´, η´) tries to weaken the significance of this very precise chronological feature by indicating that at the time of writing the manuscript (1122) another Nicholas could have been Patriarch of Jerusalem, for example, the one who signed the acts of the Council of Constantinople in 1156 g. However, for this case, this Nicholas will be too problematic a person, because the patriarchs of Jerusalem who preceded him are known from catalogs with other names. According to these catalogs (see Sergius Poln. Month. T. II, p. 210) in 1122 the Patriarch of Jerusalem was Savva, and he was followed by: Eucherius, Macarius, Arsenius and others. As for the fact that the manuscript of 1122 mentions as a living patriarch of the first half of the 10th century, there is nothing particularly surprising in this. In liturgical monuments, thanks to the oversights of the scribes, such references are often found. As a rather expressive example, we can point to the Esfkhigmensky list of some liturgical rites of 1306. Here, in one of the litanies for vespers, there is a petition about the contemporary writing of the manuscript to the sovereign Andronik, and then - the same petition about his predecessor, who had already died, Michael (Materials for the Historical Liturgical Liturgy, issue I, p. 8. Kazan 1889). This last one was obviously copied here by a scribe from an old manuscript due to inattention. In a word, the name of Patriarch Nicholas, in our opinion, contains a very reliable chronological indication, and specifically for the first half of the 10th century. 2) The second sign of the origin of this edition of the monument in the first half of the 10th and even at the end of the 9th century. A.A. Dmitrievsky sees in the names of the authors of the chants placed in the text of the charter as follows: John of Damascus, Cosmas of Mayum, Patriarch Photius and Mark, Bishop of Otranto. In his opinion, among these authors there is not a single one who died later than the end of the 9th century. He apparently considers the latest of them to be Patriarch Photius, who “died in 887” (in 891). But here he makes a big mistake, for Mark of Otranto, whose death for some reason he believes at the beginning of the 9th century, wrote his canon on Vel. Saturday at the beginning of the 10th century. in Constantinople at the prompting of Emperor Leo the Wise, and died, they think, around 912, and maybe later. On this basis, we place the date of origin of the edition in question at the end of the 9th century. no way possible. First half, 10th century there is a term, earlier than which the edition with the canon of Mark could not have appeared. 3) The third sign, also very important, is contained in the topographical indications of the monument about the state of the holy places in Jerusalem contemporary with its origin. The buildings at the sites of the suffering and resurrection of Christ are spoken of here as one can speak, only by name, in view of the construction of Patriarch Modestus in the first half of the 7th century. Particularly important is the frequent mention here of St. garden (ἁγ. κῆπος) and the church of St. Constantine τοῦ Κυρίου Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χρίστοῦ), which seems to be one of the most important shrines and is even called a basilica. Meanwhile, it is known that at the beginning of the 11th century, in 1010, under Caliph Hakem, this church was completely destroyed and after that it was no longer restored in its previous form and volume either under Constantine Monomakh or under the Crusaders. Since this final destruction, the church with the name: “St. Constantine" in the descriptions of Jerusalem shrines, according to scientists, is no longer mentioned. If this is true, then the year 1010 should be considered a date after which the liturgical monument in question could not have appeared. Thus, all three 1 listed signs agree on the 10th century, namely the patriarchate of Nicholas, as the time when the edition began, which in the monument that has survived to our time occupies a dominant position, representing the result of an apparently fairly broad and thorough revision of the old edition of the charter that existed before that time. This revision and the resulting transformation of the old edition were apparently caused by the influx of new liturgical material from Byzantium and were generally carried out under the influence of Byzantine liturgical practice, which received especially wide development under Constantine Porphyrogenitus. This is proven by the names of Patriarch Photius and Mark of Otrantus found in our monument and the indication of the Romanian or Romanian charter (see Ἀναλ σ. 106. 21. Dmitrievsky, p. 106 – Οὕτως ὁ τύπος τῆς Ἁγίας Ἀναστάσεως, ἡ δὲ τῆς Ῥωμανίας τάξις λέγει), with which, therefore, the editors were familiar. Now the question arises: has this 10th century edition survived? to our time in the manuscript of 1122 in its pure and unchangeable form, or during the 11th century. was subjected to new changes and additions, was edited again, and we have it in this changed form? Some traces contained in the text of the monument force us to answer this question in the sense that we already have it in an altered form, that during the correspondence in the 12th century, and perhaps earlier, changes were made to it, the extent of which, however, is very difficult to determine. Here are the signs we noticed of later editorial attempts, or at least traces indicating that the later scribes were not simple copyists: 1) In the service for Great Friday we find the “Sequence of the Hours and Troparions” ἀρχαίου καὶ φιλοσόφου (Ἀνάλ. σ. 147. 14–15. Dmitrievsky, p. 146). Here in this inscription one cannot help but pay attention to the word: τοῦ ἀρχαίου, apparently redundant, and therefore probably omitted by Simeo, but significant. Why was it necessary to indicate in the inscription that the “Clock” belonged to Sophronius the ancient? Obviously, so that someone does not confuse him with Sophronius the new or the second, who was the Patriarch of Jerusalem from 1046 to 1079. It follows that this explanation, and perhaps the entire inscription, was made by an author who lived after the death of Sophronius II, at least at the end of the 11th century. 2) We find a second indication of an even later time in the description of the processions for the week of Vai: Προβατικὴν. Ἀλλ’ ἡμεῖς νῶν λιτανεύομεν ἐκ τὴν Ἁγίαν Γεϑσημανὴν εἰς τὸ Ἱερὸν, ἤγουν εἰς τὰ Ἅγια τῶν Ἁγίων (Ἀνάλ. σ. 18. 33. 19.1–9: Dmitrievsky, p. 16). A.A. Dmitrievsky in note 34 (p. 245), having mentioned this change in detail in the direction of the litiya, is at a loss as to what motives can be used to explain the change from an ancient custom to a new one and believes that this can only be explained by assuming unfavorable circumstances that forced the Jerusalem Church to do so, such as: fire and destruction of the church that was on the site of the Sheep Font, its taking away by the Saracens, etc. circumstances. Meanwhile, the explanation here is very simple. The existence or non-existence of a church on the site of the Sheep Pool has nothing to do with it. What matters here is the accessibility or inaccessibility of a famous place for Christian processions. Since the conquest of Jerusalem by the Mohammedans, the place known as the “Holy of Holies” was built up with the Mosque of Omar and became inaccessible to Christians; After the expulsion of the Mohammedans by the crusaders, the Omar Mosque was turned into a Christian church and became accessible to Christian processions. The Jerusalem Church hastened to take advantage of this circumstance, directing the litiya of the week of Vai not to the Sheep Font, but to the neighboring, more important place: “The Holy of Holies.” So, the indication of the charter to change the direction of the litiya in this case is an insertion or editorial amendment made after the conquest of Jerusalem by the crusaders, not earlier than the beginning of the 12th century. That this is an insertion can be seen from the further text: after performing the actions prescribed by the charter in the Holy of Holies λιτ[ανεύοντες] ψαλλο[μενου] τοῦ "Ὁ τοῖς Χερουβίμ", μέχρις οὗ (σ. 19). The later editor, having made an amendment in the above place, here, through an oversight, did not make a corresponding addition to the text, and thus revealed himself. This oversight is corrected by Simeo: after the word: Προβατικὴν he adds: ἡ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἱεροῦ ὡς εἴρηται (p. 18) and thus, erasing traces of their origin from the messages of the monument, made it possible A.A. Dmitrievsky looked for the reasons for this change not in the rule of the crusaders, but in other unfavorable circumstances of an earlier time. From the analysis of the two texts we have indicated, it is clear that the 10th century edition in the manuscript of 1122 has reached us not in its original and, so to speak, inviolable form, but with amendments and additions made by an unknown person who revised the charter at the end of the 11th and beginning of the 12th centuries. But how far do these amendments extend? Perhaps he is limited to these only two places? An exact answer to this question can only be given after a detailed analysis and study of the text, which we cannot do now; but even with the familiarity with the text that we already have, we could point out a few more places where we can with high probability at least suspect later corrections. We will dwell somewhat on those places that contain topographical indications relating to buildings at the Holy Sepulcher, since these indications, apparently, completely contradict our assumption about later amendments. In fact, we know that the Church of St. Constantine, built by Patriarch Modestus, was completely destroyed by Hakem in 1010. and then was not restored in its previous form during the era of the later editing of the charter, i.e. at the beginning of the 12th century, this church did not exist, and yet our monument represents this church as existing and attaches to it those names that, according to ancient evidence, were characteristic of precisely the church that was restored by Modestus - βασιλική, Ἅγιος Κωνσταντῖνος, ναὸς τοῦ Ἁγίου Κωνσταντίνου, ἐν ὧ ευρέϑη ὁ τίμιος καὶ ζωοποιὸς σταυρὸς τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χρίστοῦ (σ. 26). If in the 12th century. corrections were made, then how could these indications of a church that no longer exist be left unchanged (and even with reservations)? It seems to us that this could very well have been done due to the fact that it was possible under the ancient name to mean, although no longer the ancient Modestovsky church, but a very important part of it, namely the underground church of St. Helena, where exactly the crosses were found. In the Church of Constantine, this underground church, in the form of a crypt, occupied its eastern part and, as an underground church, could not be completely destroyed when the above-ground church was destroyed. In the 12th century. it existed in a restored form, and the “Small Church”, which the pilgrim Daniel mentions, was, in all likelihood, a chapel above the descent into the underground room. John Phocas in the second half of the 12th century. designates this church in this way: ὑπόγαιος ναὸς μέγας, ἐν ᾧ εὕρηται ὁ τίμιος καὶ ζωοποιὸς σταυρὸς τοῦ Δεσπότου Χρίστοῦ (Pal. Collection. Issue 23, p. 14). What under the name of St. Constantine, our monument refers to this particular church, as can be seen, in our opinion, from the way it marks the entrance and exit to it. Speaking about the entrance to this church, the monument constantly uses the verb: καταβαίνω - καταβαίνουσι, καταβαίνομεν, etc., and for exit ἀναβαίνω. It is unlikely that this method of designation could be applied to the church built by Modest. St. Constantine Modestus in relation to the Church of the Resurrection did not at all occupy such a lowly position that it was necessary to descend into it; on the contrary, he apparently occupied a more exalted position. Patriarch Sophrony named this church: βήμα (see note by Prof. Vasilevsky, Pal. Collection, issue 11, p. 41); according to Zewulf, the place on which this ancient church stood, in relation to the surface of the courtyard or garden adjacent to the Resurrection, was elevated - paulo surerius (Pal. Collection, issue 9, p. 273). Therefore, it seems possible to think that the expressions: καταβαίνουσι, καταβαίνομεν, etc. are later amendments made in relation to the position of the underground Church of the Finding of the Cross 2. Another topographic designation, apparently contradicting the assumption of later amendments in the text of the monument, is the word: κῆπος, indicating a garden or open area that existed in the buildings of Modestus between St. Resurrection and St. Konstantin. According to the general opinion, after the pogrom of 1010, references to this garden in literary monuments ceased and, therefore, according to this, it should be erased from our monument. But in this case there was no need for this. If the word really is: κῆπος in the 11th and 12th centuries. was no longer used by pilgrims and in other literary monuments, this does not mean that the open area, previously designated by this word, no longer existed; on the contrary, it existed at this time, at least until the half of the 12th century, when the crusaders began to build their buildings on it. At the end of the 11th and beginning of the 12th century. this site should have been even larger in size than it had been before Hakem’s pogrom, since it was now adjacent to the empty space previously occupied by Saint Constantine. As for the indications of our monument on the position of other buildings: Golgotha, prison, St. Resurrection, etc., then these instructions can equally be applied to both the buildings of Modest and the buildings of Constantine Monomakh. Regarding St. Resurrection, one can even say that the data that our monument reports about him are more applicable to the buildings of Monomakh than of Modest. According to the monument ἡ ἁγία Ἀνάστασις or St. Resurrection, there is a round church, in the middle of which is the Sepulcher of the Lord - τοῦ Κυρίου τάφος; at the top of it is κατηχούμενα, where the patriarch ascends in some cases; against St. The coffin, to the east - τὸ ἅγιον βῆμα - an altar, apparently of large size, since it has a σύνϑρονον on which the patriarch ascends, and in front of him is a solea and an ambo (Ἀνάλ. σ. 199, 200:184). Such testimony regarding the altar is obviously much more consistent with the testimony of pilgrims of the 6th and 7th centuries. for example, Daniel the abbot, than with the pilgrims of the 6th and 7th centuries, such as Arculf and Bede. Daniel speaks clearly and in detail “about the great altar” that was located opposite the doors of St. Grob to the east (Right Pal. Collection, issue 9, p. 133) in the church of St. Resurrection, rebuilt by Monomakh; Arculf and Bede say nothing about such a large altar, but talk about three altars: in the south, north and west, which does not agree with our monument. True, Bede even speaks of two altars to the east of the doors of the Sepulcher, but these altars are small (Right. Pal. Collection, issue 20, p. 177). Moreover, the news about these two altars also does not agree with our monument. How can we explain this disagreement if our monument refers to the buildings of Modest? In our opinion, this most likely arose from later amendments. In general, based on the indicated signs, one should think that the amendments made in the text of the 10th century. by later reference workers, were quite significant, but not consistent and systematic: some places were corrected, while others, parallel to them, were left without correction; some places were not corrected at all, although they no longer corresponded to current practice and circumstances. It is remarkable that traces of editorial work can be discovered almost exclusively in the original text, and not in the copy of Simeo, who carefully, although unintentionally, erased them. This is the monument published by A.A. Dimitrevsky. Let us now move on to consider other aspects of its publication. In addition to the Greek text and the preface in the book by A.A. Dmitrievsky we find a translation of the text into Russian, notes and additions. All this was compiled and printed by the author, obviously with the goal of making it easier and more accessible to understand the very important monument he published, and it largely achieves its goal. The translation has all the merits that one would naturally expect from a translation made by a person specially familiar with the peculiar liturgical language and with the very difficult and confusing liturgical terminology. However, there are also oversights in it; We will not dwell on them, since the most important of them are corrected by the translator himself in his notes and corrigenda, while others can easily be corrected by every reader, because the original text is obvious here. More important are those in which omissions of words from the original are noticeable. So, on page 178 we read ἀνέρχεται εἰς τὸ φωτιστήριον; in the translation the word: δίδωσιν εὐχὴν are omitted, obviously due to an oversight, and we pay attention to this omission only because, as a result of it, the procedure for translation is not presented in its original form. There are similar omissions in other places. But more attention should be paid to some other features of the translation, namely: the method of rendering some liturgical terms found in the monument. Here we sometimes encounter translations that are unstable and insufficiently substantiated, and therefore provoke objections and reflection. Thus, the term is very often found in the monument: στιχολογία in the appendix to the psalms, indicating a special way of reading them verse by verse with a refrain after each of them. On page 4 we read: Ἐξομολογήσομαι σοι, Κύριε; translation: “reading the second kathisma: Let us confess to You, Lord.” Somewhat lower: στιχολογία τοῦ τρίτου καϑίσματος; translation: “verse of the third kathisma.” The last translation is correct and we should dwell on it, explaining in a note what poetry is and what types it comes from; but the translator then completely leaves it, and the word στιχολογία is translated either by the word: reading, reading kathisma, or by the word: kathisma. Examples: p. 34–35 – τοῦ ψαλτηρίου στιχολογία = reading the psalter, στιχολογία οὐ γίνεται = reading kathisma does not happen; pp. 36–37: στιχολογία τὸ· Κύριε μὴ τῷ ϑυμῷ σου, καϑίσμα ἦχος πλ. δ´ = kathisma: “Lord, let not Thy wrath”, sedal, voice 8; pp. 42–43: στιχολογία εἰς τὴν ϑ´ ὥραν οὐ γίνεται = there is no kathisma at the 9th hour; pages 74–75: Εὐλογητὸς Κύριος, ὁ Θεός = we read kathismas: “Praise the name of the Lord” and “Blessed is the Lord my God.” We see the same thing in many other places. Translation of the word: στιχολογία in words: reading kathisma, as well as identifying this word with the word: καϑίσμα, in our opinion, introduce into the text at least ambiguity and uncertainty. The translator, apparently, had in mind the interpretation introduced into the original text by Archimandrite Simeo, who in the first two texts above (pp. 4–5) added τοῦ δευτέρου to the word: στιχολογία καϑίσματος and τοῦ τρίτου καϑίσματος. But this later designation by the word kathisma of the branches of the Psalter, consisting of a certain number of psalms, is very little characteristic of our monument; Kathisma here always refers to the stichera that contain the verse of a particular psalm and is translated in our language: sedalene. Kathismas in our sense are indicated only by the initial words of the first psalm. Therefore, in types of accuracy, the word: kathisma, as a later explanation, it was better to put in the translation in brackets after the word: versification. But where the word: στιχολογία is not in the text, the word: kathisma can hardly exist. Therefore, it seems to us incorrect to translate ψάλλομεν τὸ Κλῖνον Κύριε, τὸ οἶς σου through: “we sing kathisma: Incline, Lord, Thy ear,” for there is no word here: στιχολογία. In any case, in the rendering of the term: στιχολογία, complete uniformity should be observed, and, in view of the importance and wide use of the term, one or another rendering of it in Russian should be motivated. Even more objectionable is the translation of another term, new, hitherto unknown, but often found in our monument. This is τὸ ἐπακουστὸν. At the beginning (see pp. 8–9) the author did not attach terminological meaning to the word: τὰ ἐπακουστὰ and the phrase: εἶτα ψάλλουσι τὰ ἐπακουστὰ εἰς ἦχον γ´ translated: “then they sing separately in tone 3,” but then everywhere he translates this term with the word: ipakoi. To justify such a translation, on page 225 he makes a note in which he explains that the word: ἐπακουστὸν is little understood by him, but that, obviously, it denotes short chants that differ from other chants by the peculiarity of their melody or tune. Then, referring to the sameness of the root in the verbs: ἐπακούω and ὑπακούω, he believes that nothing will be strange if he identifies the word: τὸ ἐπακουστὸν in the word known in liturgics: ὑπακοή, which means not only the name of a certain type of stichera, but also a refrain to antiphonal psalms, a verse from a psalm, etc. As a result, he translates the word everywhere: τὸ ἐπακουστὸν - ipakoi, understanding this word not in the current, highly specialized meaning of stichera with a known content and position in worship, but as it was understood in ancient times. It seems to us that no matter what meaning we give to the word: ὑπακοή, it cannot in any way be recognized as corresponding to the word:. And in general, it is strange to convey one obscure Greek term to another Greek, and even less understandable, one that is found in the same monument in application to hymnological works of a different kind. Liturgical terminology in general and, in particular, hymnological terminology is very complex and difficult to explain. Many of our most commonly used hymnological terms, for example: irmos, kontakion, ikos, etc., having been inherited from ancient times, now to a large extent represent something of a philological and archaeological riddle; their true meaning and origin is now very difficult to determine, which is proven by the hitherto existing disagreement on this matter between scientific researchers; Therefore, it is difficult to translate them into Russian quite accurately, as a result of which they remain without translation. The features of those plays that are designated by these terms are usually explained, so to speak, in a descriptive way, by indicating the form of their content and position in the system of worship and church chant. It seems to us that the same should have been done in this case, i.e. leave the word: ἐπακουστὸν without translation, and explain the features of the chants it denotes by observing the text of the monument in which this word appears. These observations could lead, as it seems to us, to a clearer and more separate understanding of the new term, something that we get by replacing it with the word: τὸ έπακουστὸν is found most often in the second part of the monument - in the description of church services on the days of Bright Week. So at vespers on Bright Resurrection after the prokeimenon and sedalna τῶν πτωχῶν καὶ τοῦ στεναγμοῦ. Καὶ ὁ διάκονος· «Καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ καταξιωϑῆναι ἡμᾶς τῆς ἀκροάσεως.” Καὶ ὁ πρωτοπαπᾶς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωάννην (p. 198, Ἀνάλ. 205). Then, in the same combination, i.e. before the Gospel, ἐπακουστὸν appears constantly later in the description of the morning service. So at Matins on Bright Monday after stichera “on praise” ἐπακουστὸν [εἰς] ἦχ. [ον] β´ Φῶς ἀνέτειλε τῷ δικαίῳ καὶ τοῖς εὐϑέσι. Εὐαγγελιον δ´ κατὰ Λουκᾶν (p. 198. Ἀν. σ. 211). The same goes for Matins on Tuesday and Wednesday. On Thursday ἐπακουστὸν appears in the same place with a special verse: ἐπακουστὸν· ἦχος· Ἀνάστηϑι, Κύριε ὁ Θεός μου· ὑψωϑήτω ἡ χείρ σου. Στίχος· Ἐξομολογήσομαι. Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ἰωάννην (p. 208. Ἀν. σ. 235). In exactly the same way, that is, with the verse, ἐπακουστὸν appears at Matins on Friday and Saturday of Bright Week (pp. 212, 214. Ἀνάλ. σ. 244:959). From this it is clear that ἐπακουστὸν is something like a prokeimenon or even a real prokeimenon, only under a different name; it occupies almost the same place that the prokeimenon currently occupies at Matins before the Gospel and is similar in form to the prokeimenon. Above in the same monument, in the description of the service on the morning of Holy Saturday (p. 168. Ἀνάλ. σ. 176:177) there is even one place that allows us to assert this almost with certainty. It says that after the stichera "on praise" ἁγίου τάφου. Μετὰ τὴν συναπτὴν ἦχος β´· «Ἕνεκε τῆς ταλαιπωρίας τῶν πτωχῶν καὶ τῶν στεναγμῶν τῶν πενήτων, νῦν ἀναστήσομαι λέγει Κύριος (see the same above). Στίχ. Σῶσόν με, Κύριε, ὅτι ἐκλέλοιπεν ὅσιος. Ἕτερον ἐπακουστὸν· ἦχος δ´· Ἀνάστα, Κύριε· βοήϑησον ἡμῖν καὶ λύτρωσαι. Στίχ. Σὐ εἶ αὐτὸς ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ ὁ Θεός μου· Τὸ αὐτὸ προκείμενον, ἦχος δ´. Ἀνάστα, Κύριε· βοήϑησον ἡμῖν καὶ λύτρωσαι ἡμᾶς ἕνεκε τοῦ ὀνόματός σου. Στίχ. " Further reading from the prophet Ezekiel. Here, therefore, the compiler of the statute himself identifies the word: ἐπακουστὸν with the word: προκείμενον and uses both terms indifferently as meaningless. Therefore, if it was necessary to replace the term: ἐπακουστὸν with another, then it would be better to replace it with the word: προκείμενον, and not ὑπακοή. Ἐπακουστὸν, in all likelihood, is either an old term that has not yet fallen out of use, or a local one, and indicates a method of singing by ear, as we see today when singing the prokeimenon: the prokeimenon is first pronounced by the reader in the hearing of everyone, and then the singers sing it from his words. As for: ὑπακοή, this term appears in our monument several times with its special meaning and is attached to some stichera included in the canons. About the singing of one of these stichera, namely the ipakoi from the Easter canon, an interesting detail is reported, from which it may be possible to extract something to explain this obscure term. The singing of this ipakoi: Προλαβοῦσαι τὸν ὄρϑρον αἱ περὶ Μαρίαν (Those who preceded the morning about Mary) should take place in a special situation that disposes and calls listeners to special attention: ἀναβαίνουσιν οἱ ψάλται ἐπὶ τοῦ ἄμβωνος, καὶ ὁ δομέστικος ἀλλαγμένος καὶ μετὰ χειρ... χρυσᾶ, καὶ ὁ ψάλτης, ὑπακοὴ ἦχος δ´· (p. 186 Ἀνάλ. σ. 192). In addition to the term: ἐπακουστὸν, our monument also contains another term, also new and incomprehensible: ϑέσις. What this term means and where it comes from is difficult to determine. A.A. Dmitrievsky translates it with the word: chaos, but does not explain why. True, ϑέσις has similarities with katavasia in the sense that it is the irmos of the canon, but the similarity is not complete. It is curious that the term: irmos, one of the oldest and most commonly used, does not appear at all in our monument, although the design of the canons seems to be fully developed in it in other respects. The term: καταβασία is also not found in Simeo’s text, but in the original text we meet it once, although not in the usual place, in the dismissal of the Rite of Washing the Feet at Vespers on Holy Thursday (Ἀνάλ. σ. 115). Here the well-known troparion at Matins on Maundy Thursday is called katavasia: Whenever the glory of the disciples: “Νυν απολύεις” Καταβασία. "Ότε οι ένδοξοι μαϑηταί." Below (σ. 116) in the Rite of the Passion (τάξις... τῶν ἁγίων παϑῶν) the same troparion is called sedal - κάϑισμα. Ὅτε οἱ ἔνδοξοι μαϑηταὶ, and above (σ. 83) in the Rite of Matins - troparion - τροπάριν ψαλλόμενον εἰς τὸ Ἀλληλούια. The new terms include the word: σύνϑημα in application to some kontakia. So on the canon on Maundy Thursday (p. 84. Ἀνάλ. σ. 87) Εἶτα κονδάκιον ἦχος πλάγιος δ´. Σύνϑημα ἰδιόριελον. A.A. Dmitrievsky translates this passage as follows: “Kondak, tone 8, “Creation” is self-vocal.” In accordance with this, the translation of another similar place should be corrected (p. 56. (p. 56. Ἀνάλ. σ. 56): ἄλλο κονδάκιον· ἦχος πλάγιος δ´· ἰδιόμελον καὶ καλεῖται σύνϑημα. the translator takes the initial words of the self-vocal kontakion and translates it as follows: “the other kontakion, voice 8, is self-vocal: “And the sign is pronounced” is self-vocal”; but it is more fair to attribute these words to the inscription. Let's move on to the notes now. There are a lot of them; they take up almost half of the entire book (pp. 220–426). The numbers indicate 137 notes; but in reality there are many more, since the numbers indicated are accompanied by many other notes indicated by the pages. These notes touch on so many important and interesting issues: topographical, chronological, archaeological and liturgical that there is no way to dwell on all of them with equal care, especially if we keep in mind that many of these issues are dark and controversial and, in view of the current state of archeology, should remain so, apparently, for a long time. Therefore, we will turn our attention only to some points and aspects of the author’s research in these notes. However, the author himself makes a general assessment of these notes in terms of the tasks, techniques and results of the study in his “afterword” (pp. 423–426). “In these notes,” he says, “thanks to our personal acquaintance with the liturgical writing of numerous eastern and western book depositories, we wanted, first of all, to remove the customs and rites of the ancient Jerusalem worship described in the monument we are publishing from the exclusivity that strikes the reader from the first time, which, apparently, is inherent in them, due to our little acquaintance with the monuments of worship of this church in general. By comparing the liturgical features of this monument in numerous notes with similar customs of ancient liturgical practice in other monuments, we tried to establish its historical authenticity... and to finally confirm in liturgical science the fact of the existence of an independent patriarchal charter of the Jerusalem Church, or, rather, the charter of the Church of the Resurrection.” Next... “with excerpts from numerous liturgical manuscripts in small passages, often in connection with the evidence of monuments of patristic writing, and sometimes more or less in integral extracts of individual rites and sequences in the form of appendices (there are four of them in our book) and often in different editions, we wanted to fill in and clarify what was not said in the published monument, or was only slightly outlined, in view of the detailed and thorough presentation of the same rites and prayers in other liturgical books, undoubtedly used in the practice of the Jerusalem Church at the same time as our monument of a statutory nature. All this, undoubtedly, will more fully and clearly imprint in the minds of our readers the grandiose and majestic picture of the Jerusalem service of the most important weeks of the church year, which our monument embraces.” Then drawing attention to the remarkable coincidence of many religious ceremonies, rites and rites described in the recently discovered pilgrimage of Silvia of Aquitaine in the 4th century. with similar rites and ceremonies set out in our monument, the author came to the idea - “all these customs, ceremonies, litanies, etc. put them into a genetic connection, consider them in the process of historical movement and those natural layers that appeared in them under the conditions of a different time and other circumstances in the life of the Jerusalem Church.” From here came a special kind of notes in which the author tried to bring together dark and not entirely clear passages of one monument of an earlier era and of a narrative nature and explain them with similar passages from a later liturgical monument and vice versa, and in some cases achieved happy results. “When solving questions of the topography and archeology of Palestine, we took advantage,” says the author, “of the Russian and foreign pilgrimage literature available to us, but on all these types of issues we spoke with our best word only in those cases when an urgent need was felt: 1) when a positive gap was noticed in the existing and already rich literature on Palestinian studies; 2) when, with our considerations and facts available to us, we wanted to confirm the considerations and hypotheses of our predecessors in solving the same issues and clarify what was left unsaid by them and 3) finally, when we could not share existing theories, hypotheses and positions on a particular issue we raised. In those cases when we had to repeat the thoughts and facts of our predecessors, so as not to needlessly increase the volume of our book, we preferred to refer our readers directly to the thorough research on these issues by our famous Palestinian scholars, Professors V.G. Vasilievsky, I.V. Pomyalovsky, A.A. Olesnitsky, Archimandrite Antonin and others... When explaining technical words and names of officials of the Byzantine language, Ducange’s dictionary, notes by Reiske, Gohar, and others provided us with an invaluable service.” This is the general description of the notes that their author himself gives us. We accept it completely, since indeed the scientific apparatus at the disposal of the author is very extensive and solid, and the tasks he set for himself are completely scientific and extremely interesting. It remains for us to pay attention only to some of the particulars of these notes to supplement their general characteristics. First of all, one cannot help but pay attention to the fact that the “notes” of A.A. Dmitrievsky are not of the same size and not of the same dignity. Some of them are extensive and learned excursions into various areas of liturgics, Palestinian topography, etc. - excursions furnished with numerous extracts from inaccessible manuscripts and supplied, in addition, with extensive appendices; others are extremely brief, sometimes so brief that they consist only of references to the works of V.G. Vasilievsky and others. For example, note 117 (p. 413) reads: “The topographical position of the Patriarchate in Jerusalem is determined by Prof. Vasilievsky in his book” and further only links. Fortunately, there are not many such notes. The author justifies himself by the fact that he did not want to needlessly increase the size of the book, being sure that the use of works published in the widely distributed Right. Palest. The collection will not present any particular difficulties for readers. However, the expensive publications of the Palestine Society can hardly be considered widely distributed, and even if they were, rummaging through them to obtain brief information would be a great difficulty for readers. As for increasing the volume of the book, a brief communication of the results of the research indicated by the author on the topography of the patriarchy and other subjects would have a very slight effect on this increase. Moreover, this increase could be balanced by some reductions. So, in the note to page 124 (pages 352 et seq.), without prejudice to the matter, it would be possible to publish several pages where the author gives us a detailed interpretation of the Gospel texts relating to the Savior’s farewell conversation with his disciples on the night from Thursday to Friday. Interpretation is good, but in this case it could easily be dispensed with. In addition to the overly brief notes, there are other types of notes in the book, from which it is clear that the author, when publishing his work in a spiritual journal intended not only for scientists, but also for the rural clergy, did not particularly care about the convenience of his readers. These are notes, statements from one selection of ancient texts without explanation or even translation. For example, note 11 (p. 224) on the Holy Sepulcher and 15 (p. 229) on the Church of the Resurrection. The last of these notes begins: “The Church of the Resurrection was built in Jerusalem in the 4th century. but we have a detailed description of it only from the 7th century. (about 670). This is how this church is described in the “Relatio de locis sanctis” to Bishop Arculf.” Next follow two extracts from Arculf and from the Venerable Bede in the original, and nothing more. The author forgets here, firstly, that the described Arculf and Bede do not refer to the Church of the Resurrection, which was built in the 4th century. and to the one that was restored by Patriarch Modestus in the 7th century, and secondly, that the texts of Arculf and Bede are rather dark, incomprehensible, and that in order to derive benefit from them, it is necessary not only to translate and interpret them, but also to agree with the data of the monument for which they are given for interpretation. Otherwise, these and similar texts can only arouse bewilderment in readers. Fortunately, there are also few such notes dating back to the early period of their compilation. In most of the subsequent notes, the author completely frees himself from this kind of inconvenient techniques for readers and gives clear and convincing interpretations. This inequality in the merits of notes is explained quite simply by the author’s inconvenient habit of conducting several scientific works simultaneously and intermittently, and starting printing his works before they are completely finished. This had a rather detrimental effect on the work published by the author last year: “Patmos Sketches”; we see the same thing in the latest book, which has been in print for at least six years. The notes, written later, are noticeably of higher dignity and reveal a significant increase in the scientific apparatus in the possession of the author. Regarding the scientific positions and conclusions expressed by the author in various places in his notes, we cannot speak in detail here, since there are too many of them and they are too diverse. We consider some of them to be erroneous and have already had the opportunity to point this out above (regarding the notes to page 8, notes 34 and 91). Let us point out here one more of the author’s provisions, which also seems erroneous to us. In note 54 (p. 320) the author deals with the question: who was the author of the stichera: “Lord, even the woman has fallen into many sins” regarding its inscription in the monument in the name of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople. This inscription is quite unexpected, since ancient church tradition attributes the composition of this stichera to the maiden nun Cassia, who was among the maidens from whom Emperor Theophilus was to choose his wife. The name Photius appeared here probably due to the fact that thanks to him it was this stichera that penetrated into the liturgical practice of the Church of Jerusalem. Photius, who himself was involved in the composition of liturgical chants and patronized liturgical poets, probably sent the mentioned stichera to Jerusalem as one of the outstanding hymnological news, but without the name of the author. A.A. Dmitrievsky also does not find it possible to attribute the mentioned stichera to Patriarch Photius, but at the same time denies the church tradition regarding the authorship of Cassius. His basis for such denial is 1) the fact that in one of the manuscripts of the 13th century. In the Sinai Library this stichera is inscribed as follows: ποίημα Ταϊσίας τῆς πόρνης and, therefore, its composition is attributed to Taisia ​​the harlot, and 2) the fact that such a stichera was supposedly more decent and easier to compose for a harlot than for the noble and virgin Cassia. It seems to us that both foundations are very shaky. If in one manuscript the name of Taisia ​​appears above the stichera, then in other manuscripts there are other names above it, and most often the name of Cassia; On what basis should we prefer one name to another? A.A. Dmitrievsky believes that the name of Taisia should be preferred to the name of Cassia on the grounds that “The philosophizing and virgin Cassia was hardly able to understand, much less so perfectly depict those deep feelings and sensations that the repentant harlot experienced, shedding tears at the feet of the all-forgiving Savior, because in her past life there was nothing such that these feelings were accessible to her, and to portray herself in the role of deeply a fallen sinner - she was hardly able by her character” (p. 322:323). The reasoning is very strange! Applying it, one would have to think that in order to depict, for example, the feelings of a repentant robber, or the feelings of a mother who has lost her son, the church poet must first personally experience these feelings and situations. But the advantage of poetic talent is that the person who possesses it can guess and perfectly depict feelings that are not determined by the circumstances of his personal life. And what special feelings, supposedly inaccessible to the understanding of the young nun, does the author find in the mentioned stichera? Incitement of fornication? Couldn't it be typical of her? If we stand on the basis of considerations, then in this case, in our opinion, considerations of a different kind can be given, indicating a greater likelihood of the authorship of Cassia, and not Taisia. The aforementioned stichera, written in elegant language and belonging to one of the best works of Greek liturgical poetry, reveals an author very educated and well acquainted not only with the language, but also with the forms of liturgical chants. Cassia, undoubtedly, should be counted among such authors. It is known that she was an educated woman and wrote many liturgical chants. Was this what Taisiya was like? She was Egyptian. The question arises: did she know Greek and received a good education? The circumstances of her life show that she hardly had the opportunity to receive any kind of education, since at a very young age she was sent to a house of debauchery and, moreover, by her own mother, and then, while in seclusion, she hardly had the opportunity to write liturgical chants. Thus, its authorship seems almost incredible. Moreover, Taisiya lived in the 4th century; How can we explain the fact that the stichera mentioned above and supposedly composed by her only from the 9th century. begins to come into church use in Jerusalem, as shown by the name of Patriarch Photius, placed on it in our monument? In general, it seems to us that the respected author, in order to defend his hypothesis against the generally accepted opinion, had to stock up on other more significant data compared to those on which he is based. However, the strength of the author and the dignity of his book do not lie in the hypotheses and conclusions, but in the facts and materials that he lavishes with extraordinary generosity in his notes. Here we find precious information and more or less extensive extracts from numerous ancient and rare manuscripts of the library: Sinai, Cairo, Jerusalem, Patmos, Athens, many Athos, Vatican and others. In addition, we encounter here the publication of entire, new and hitherto unpublished liturgical monuments, namely: in the appendices to the notes and in the text itself they are published: 1). Sinai Library No. 957 (Appendix I, pp. 254–260); 2) The order of the liturgy of the Apostle James according to two Sinai manuscripts (Appendix II, pp. 270–285); 3) ?? manuscripts (Appendix III, pp. 303–309); 4) according to the Jerusalem and Sinai manuscripts (Appendix IV, pp. 112–317). In addition, in the text of some notes there are also several new lists of other rites, namely: “song vespers” (pp. 287:290), “compline” (pp. 311:312), “washing of the feet” in three lists (pp. 343–348). All this is already a luxury: each of these newly published monuments could be the subject of special research and publication. All the more honor to the author that he does not hide the texts obtained with great difficulty in his portfolio, but makes them available to everyone. Let us hope that capable hands will be found to develop the newly published, very important liturgical material. Let us also hope that other materials collected in huge quantities by A.A. Dmitrievsky during his numerous and difficult travels will soon see the light of day. Prof. N. Krasnoseltsev, Kazan, 1894 In note 91 (p. 398) A.A. Dmitrievsky points out another new chronological feature. Noting that according to the monument, the monasteries of St. Savvas, Chariton and Theodosius seem to exist safely and with numerous brethren in each of them; he believes on this basis that the charter was formed much earlier than the 9th century, since in the 9th century. These monasteries were devastated by Saracen robbers, and some of them (for example, the monastery of St. Theodosius) were even destroyed to the ground. It is true that at the beginning of the 9th century. (807) these monasteries were almost completely destroyed, but the author forgets that they were later restored at the beginning of the 12th century. apparently flourished. Our pilgrim Daniel about what was destroyed in the 9th century. supposedly before the founding of the monastery of St. Theodosius says that it is “decorated with a city on the mountain, visible from Jerusalem. And there is a stove on that mountain, in the middle of the monastery: in that stove you made oxen for the night, when you turned away from Herod; there now lies St. Theodosius and the holy fathers lie in abundance” (pp. 55, 56 according to Sakharov’s edition). Consequently, the indication of the monument can also be attributed to a later time. In the sense of indirect confirmation of our guess, the following, obviously damaged, place of Greek is very interesting. (Ἀνάλεκτα σ 26. 19–20): Εὐϑὺς μετὰ τὸ κοινώνεῖν τὸν λαὸν καταβαίνομεν εἰς τὸν ἁγίον Κωνσταντίνον ἐπὶ τὴν Ἁγίαν Ἀνάστασιν. From the connection of speech it is clear that it was necessary to leave St. Constantine, and not enter it. Arch. Simeo (Dmitrievsky, p. 32) corrects: Ἀνάστασιν. Isn't one amendment enough here: ἐκ τοῦ Ἁγ. Κωνσταντίνου? Then the word: καταβαίνομεν can be looked at as a remnant of the old, pre-correction way of denoting the exit from St. Constantine in St. Resurrection. You might be interested in: