Review of the book by A.A. Dmitrievsky “Patmos Sketches. From a trip to the island. Patmos in the summer of 1891."

See also: Patmos essays Professor Alexey Afanasyevich Dmitrievsky This work, according to its original plan, is nothing more than an assembly speech delivered at the annual meeting of the Kyiv Theological Academy in September 1891, and, moreover, a speech written under the vivid impression of the journey just completed. In this speech, which covered the material of the first two chapters of the now published book, the author, according to his own consciousness, offered the listeners his observations and impressions in the form in which they were imprinted on his soul (p. 6). These impressions were very strong, but not so strong as to displace other deeper impressions that the author gained from his repeated travels to the monasteries of Mount Athos. Memories of Athos involuntarily mixed with those of Patmos and provoked the author to many very lively and interesting comparisons, comparisons and reflections. From this it can be understood that the work of Mr. Dmitrievsky is not a methodical study of the history and sights of the Patmos Monastery, but a presentation of research carried out by the author under the pressure of impressions, at different times, gradually, without a strict, well-developed plan in advance. And from the book itself it is clear that it was written and printed over the course of four years, with long intervals and interruptions as the subject material was studied and processed. This, as we will see below, sometimes has an unfavorable effect on the presentation of some points, but in general neither the scientific significance of the work nor the interest and importance of the messages contained in it suffer from this. The importance and interest of a book are determined by the very properties of its subject. Its subject is one of the most curious episodes in the history of Byzantine monasticism and Byzantine monastery in general: - the fate of the monastery of St. I. Bogoslova on about. Patmos. The extraordinary importance of studying the history and life of Byzantine monasteries in modern times is appreciated. One of the newest Byzantologists (Lambros - Byzant. Zeitschr. 1892 p. 197) says that it seems difficult to him even to express the importance of studying the history of Byzantine monasteries. In fact, the history of not only the church, but also art, literature, science and even politics was most closely connected with the life of these monasteries in Byzantium, and therefore, by studying the history of the monasteries, we can expand and deepen Byzantine knowledge in almost all directions. Awareness of the importance of the subject naturally arouses attention to it, and here, of course, one must look for an explanation for the fact that recently scientists have often taken the trouble to promote this study by publishing new documents, or special studies of the history and antiquities of a particular monastery. Unfortunately, to this day there are many often insurmountable obstacles for research of the latter kind: the acts of many, even famous monasteries, have not been published or have been lost, their archives and sacristies are almost inaccessible, etc. The author of the Patmos Sketches was on this side in the most favorable circumstances. He had at hand the acts of the monastery, collected by Sakkelin and published by Miklosic and Müller in the famous collection: Acta et diplomata monasteriorum et ecclesiarum orientis t. III, acts relating to relations between Russia and Patmos, in the Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Moscow, the work of Grigorovich-Barsky, which for the author, in his own consciousness, served as a “positive source in many respects”, and much more, listed in the note on pp. 3–4, and most importantly, he himself was on Patmos, although not for too long a time, had completely free access to the library, skevophilakia and archive there, could freely use archival and other documents and at the same time observe the life of both monks and laity. As a result, we can expect many new, important and interesting observations and messages from him. There are indeed quite a lot of them in the book. It is these that we intend to note further. The order of presentation of matter in Mr. Dmitrievsky’s book is indicated in the first book of the Byzantine Temporary. But we will not strictly follow it. – One of the most important places in the book is occupied by the history of the Patmos Monastery, but it does not represent completeness and coherence. The author dwells in some detail only on some of the more important and interesting moments of this story, and some of the historical data relating to these moments is reported in different places in the book, as if only by chance. In a word, there is no complete and coherent history of the monastery here; to give such a story, apparently, was not the author’s task; but it would still be better for the reader if the historical data were more closely grouped and concentrated. The story is preceded by a description of Fr. Patmos. O. Patmos, always deserted and sparsely inhabited, was a place of exile in the first centuries of Christianity. Whether this link was anything like our link to a settlement, or whether it was a link to hard labor, is difficult to say. Based on the testimony of one ancient writer, Victorinus of Pictavia (303), the latter seems more likely, since Victorinus says that the reference here to St. I. Bogoslova was a reference in metallo, i.e. to work in the mines. This evidence was suspected by most researchers on the grounds that there are no mines on Patmos; but Mr. Dmitrievsky tells us (pp. 32–33) from the words of Guerin and Malandraki that this is not true, that recently metal ore was found on Patmos, which turned out to be suitable for the famous Krupp plant. So, it is quite possible that on about. In Patmos, ore was indeed once mined and at that time there was a population there engaged in this. But then, for some reason, mining stopped and the island little by little lost its population and became completely deserted. Having become deserted and being removed from ordinary sea routes, it was as if forgotten and was not visited even by Christian pilgrims, although the legend that the soil of the island was sanctified by the presence of St. John the Theologian and the writing of the Apocalypse there, was generally known in the church from the very first centuries. This continued until the second half of the 11th century, when on the island. Patmos turned his attention to the Latre hermit St. Christodoulus, who then lived on the island. Kose, and decided to found a monastery there, which became so famous in subsequent times and so greatly influenced the fate of the island. Description of the activities of St. Christodoulos, as the founder and organizer of the Patmos monastery, is one of the best pages of the work being analyzed; only in the presentation of biographical information about St. Christodoule notices inconsistencies and contradictions. This information is presented by the author in two places: in the first chapter (pp. 33, 34, 39) - briefly and confusingly, and in the fourth (The most important churches on the island of Patmos, their decorations and the wealth of the skeuophilacium of the St. John the Theological Monastery, pp. 205-208) - in more detail and in accordance with the documents. St. Christodoulus was born in the vicinity of Nicaea in Bithynia around 1020. Having received an initial education in a pious and ecclesiastical spirit, he became carried away by the ascetic ideal and, refusing to marry, fled to Mount Olympus (in Bithynia), which was famous at that time for its monasteries and the severity of the life of monks. Here he took monastic vows with the name Christodoulus and soon undertook a journey to St. places to Palestine. In Palestine, he became interested in the hermit life of the Jordanian Kelliots and followed their example. But the invasion of Palestine by the Saracens forced him to leave there and he headed to Mount Latra in Asia Minor near Miletus, where there were many monasteries, famous at that time for the extraordinary severity of the life of the monks. Having settled in one of the Latre monasteries, he soon attracted the attention of the brethren with his exploits and was elected abbot, and then became the archimandrite of the entire mountain. Judging by the acts issued by Miklosic and Müller, from that time on he became known in Constantinople at the imperial court as an outstanding ascetic. In the acts he is constantly called the former hermit of Latra. Around 1079, Mount Latra was devastated by pirates and St. Christodoulus was forced to leave from here too. At first he settled on about. Karia, from here I moved to about. Kos around 1085. From this time on, Emperor Alexei Komnenos began to show special favor towards him, allocating him with various lands. In 1085, he confirmed the order of Nicephorus Votaniates to grant the monastery of St. Maria on about. Kose, where St. settled. Christodoulus, various lands; in 1087 he gave St. Christodoulou the whole island of Lipso and several lands on the island. Lero. The emperor's mother Anna, for her part, made similar orders, and in 1088 the emperor finally gave him the entire island of Patmos so that a monastery could be built on it in the name of St. John the Theologian. Was this done only at the request of St. Christodoulus, or also on the personal initiative of the emperor, remains not entirely clear to the author, as well as whether St. Christodoulos was familiar with the island before this time. G. Dmitrievsky in the first chapter of his work (pp. 33–34) presents the matter in this way: “When the famous Latrian hermit St. Christodoulus wanted to visit all the holy places, one way or another connected with the most important events in the life of the first centuries of the Church of Christ, and, by the way, he arrived on Fr. Patmos, where, according to legend, St. was exiled. I. Theologian and where he wrote the book Apocalypse. Amazed by the desolation of the island and the complete absence of inhabitants on it, as a lover of silence and solitude, St. Christodoulus recognized this island as very suitable for establishing a monastery here. Without thinking twice, St. Christodoulus went to Constantinople and in 1088 asked Emperor Alexios I Komnenos for permission to begin the planned construction of the monastery and to make the island itself his property, freeing it completely from all duties for all times. All this turns out to be not entirely consistent with what the author says about St. Christodoulos elsewhere (p. 206). St. Christodoulus went to worship the holy places in Palestine from Mount Olympus of Bithynia and, therefore, had no need to go there through Fr. Patmos; it is most likely that he would become acquainted with this island long after his journey, when he already lived on the island of Kos. About the last years of the life of St. The author of Christodoulus also gives us contradictory information. On page 39 he says that St. Christodoulos, having been forced to leave Patmos as a result of the Turkish attack, “went to live in the Mother of God Monastery on the island of Kos, where, as is known, he soon died.” On page 207 we find something else: “from Patmos the monk withdrew to Euboea (Εὔβοιαν) and died there in 1093 on March 16.” This is more accurate. Obviously, the author has familiarized himself in detail with the biography of St. Christodoulos after the first chapter of his work was written and published, but it is a pity that he did not correct the oversight. However, in the biography of St. For the history of the Patmos monastery, Christodoulus is mainly important only for his activities as the organizer of monastic life on the island. Patmos. By providing St. Christodoulou Fr. Patmos and the right to establish a monastery on it, Emperor Alexei demanded that laymen should not dare to live on the island under any pretext, with the exception of only those who would be hired for a fee for services and work in the monastery, but these should also be celibate or not living with wives and not having children with them. Obviously, it was intended to establish here the same orders that already existed at that time on Athos, but Athos is part of the mainland, and Patmos is an island remote from human habitation. It is not surprising that here soon, contrary to the demands of the emperor, and also, of course, the wishes of St. Christodoulos, the order of things that has been created is just the opposite. There was an urgent need to build a monastery and fortify it with walls, and finding people who would agree to live on the island in celibacy turned out to be very difficult, and St. Christodoulus was forced to allow laymen to settle here with their wives and children in a specially designated place far from the monastery. This was the first core of those curious relationships that so vividly characterize the life of the inhabitants of the island. Patmos - laymen and monks - from the founding of the monastery to the present day. Little by little the secular settlement of Fr. Patmos expanded, settled under monastic management, moved from a distant place to the monastery itself and formed, as it were, one whole with it. It happened pretty quickly. Under the successors of St. Christodoulos, Arsenios and Theodosius, around 1117, the construction of the monastery and its fortifications was completed, which could serve as a reliable stronghold against attacks by pirates, both for monks and laymen. By the end of the 12th century. the city of Patmos was already, apparently, in the same place where it is now. The author does not present the further history of the monastery in detail and consistently, but in places he makes valuable indications of outstanding facts. Here are the most important of these instructions: In 1132, under the Patriarch of Constantinople John IX, the Patmos Monastery was declared a stauropegia, as a result of which, to this day, it recognizes the authority of only the ecumenical patriarch over itself, although in the 12th and 13th centuries. there were repeated attempts to subjugate him by the bishops of Nicaria, Kos, Leros and others (p. 51). – In 1488 Through the efforts of Abbot Theodulus, the Athonite typicon was introduced into the practice of the Patmos monastery instead of the Jerusalem one (p. 57). – In the XV-XVI centuries. management appeared on the island, the same one that remains in force to this day (p. 45). – In 1579 During the abbotship of Macarius, the monks of the Patmos monastery, with common consent, decided to restore the cinobial order of life established by Christodoulus and unknown when replaced by idiorhythmic orders, but this order lasted only two years and was again abolished in October 1581 due to the allegedly high cost of the common meal, burdened by lay guests (p. 211). In particular detail, the author dwells on only two episodes related to the history of the monastery and the island under its control, namely: 1) on the relations of the Patmos monastery with Russia and 2) on the educational activities founded under it in the 18th century. Academy. A description of relations with Russia is placed at the end of the first chapter (pp. 63–87) and is compiled mainly on the basis of archival documents that have not yet been published - and this is the special significance of this section of the book. – In themselves, these relations, compared with similar relations of other eastern monasteries and churches that sought alms and help in Russia, do not represent anything characteristic: the Patmos monks, like the monks of other monasteries, send their authorized representatives to Russia with letters of petition; These letters describe, usually with great exaggeration, the plight of the monastery and praise the well-known charity of the Russian sovereigns to the whole world; along with the letters, various, sometimes dubious, shrines, etc. were usually sent as gifts. However, relations between Patmos and Russia were relatively infrequent and began no earlier than in the middle of the 16th century. The first guests from this island appeared in Russia with a letter dated September 20, 1646. This was followed by embassies in 1697, 1702, 1705, 1707. Despite all the efforts of the intercessors, Moscow alms were, apparently, not as plentiful as the intercessors wanted: in the documents their complaints about the poverty of alms are found. We find a very characteristic feature of monastic diplomacy in the petition of Archimandrite Nicephorus to Peter I in 1704. Having learned about the nature of Peter’s activities and having in mind to better influence his generosity, Fr. the archimandrite volunteers to bring “good people from the islands and from Tsar-grad, captains, craftsmen who make boats and ships” (p. 79). But, as far as we know, no attention was paid to this proposal. Even more important and significant in Mr. Dmitrievsky’s book is his presentation of the history of the Patmos Academy, founded at a monastery on the island of Patmos subordinate to it by the Patmos native Hierodeacon Macarius in 1713 and which was a hotbed of late Greek enlightenment for almost a century and a half. The author even devotes a special chapter to this presentation – the third (pp. 108–168). Here, using authentic, sometimes very rare, documents, which he himself carefully collected, he sets out in detail the pedagogical and literary activities of not only all the most famous didaskals who ruled the Academy, but also those of their best students who acted in the same spirit in other places, outside the island of Patmos. So he examines the activities of the founder of the school, Macarius († 1737), his closest successors: Gerasim the Byzantine († 1740) and Vasily Koutalinos († 1773), Daniil Keramevs († 1801), Misael Margaritis, Paisios Karapatas, Kirill Sgouromalinos, etc., and among the students Academies that operated outside Patmos, with special attention dwells on Macarius’s favorite student, Iakov Anastasevich, who operated in Tripoli and Jerusalem, on Damascene, who founded a school on Fr. Leros, and Grigorovich-Barsky - a Russian student who wanted to apply his knowledge to business in Kyiv, but died prematurely. Since almost each of the didaskals showed very active literary activity, Mr. Dmitrievsky took care to collect as detailed bibliographic information as possible about the works (both printed and remaining in manuscripts), at least the most famous and hardworking of them. Thanks to this, we now have detailed lists of scientific and literary works of didaskals: Macarius (pp. 121–124), Gerasim the Byzantine (pp. 128 and 293, 294) and Daniel Keramevs (pp. 137–140), as well as valuable indications of the works of other didaskals. Mr. Dmitrievsky borrows these instructions not only from various printed publications, but also from manuscripts. For this work, bibliographers and historians of Byzantine literature will certainly be very grateful to him. In close connection with the history of the monastery there should be a study of the influence that it had on the life and worldview of the secular settlement adjacent to it. This influence penetrated here not only through school, but also through private and varied everyday relationships. What was this influence and how was it expressed? In the history of Patmos this question is of particular interest. Here we encounter almost a unique fact of its kind in the history of Byzantine monasticism, as if with some kind of experiment that was created naturally, by the force of things. The lay-family element and the monastic element stand face to face here, being to a very significant extent isolated from other extraneous influences. About the influence of the secular settlement surrounding the monastery on the life of the monks, Mr. Dmitrievsky makes very valuable, although passing, comments in the first chapter of his work (for example, pp. 18–20, 26, 28, 56, etc.) when comparing the life of the Patmos monks with those of Athonite. As for the influence of monastic life on the life of the lay inhabitants of Patmos, he devotes a special chapter to this subject - the last one - under the title: “Morals and customs of the Patmos inhabitants” (pp. 244–282, Chapter VI). Here, partly on the basis of his own observations, partly on the basis of the brochure of Patmiot Malandraki (Ἤθη καὶ ἔθιμα ἐν, Πατμῳ, Ἀθ 1890), he reports many facts characterizing the influence of the monastery on the everyday life and everyday life of the Patmiots. Particularly interesting are the rituals and songs that accompany some church and home celebrations on Patmos, on the occasion of birthplaces, christenings, marriages and burials. It would be very useful to make similar observations of the lay population surrounding other monasteries. In addition to very valuable historical messages, we will find in Mr. Dmitrievsky’s book many even more valuable historical and archaeological messages about various material attractions. Among the attractions, the first place according to sacred memories should be occupied by the Grotto of the Apocalypse - a cave to which legend dates the place of the vision of St. Apostle John. G. Dmitrievsky devotes a special chapter (second) to this grotto, where he describes in detail both the cave itself and the ancient church adjacent to it in honor of St. Anna. Next come the churches of the monastery and the city. Here in the first place is the main church of the monastery (Καθολικὸν) in the name of St. I. Theologian, - small in size, with two narfiks, then adjacent to it on the southern and western sides are paracliss: the Annunciation and St. Christodoulus with his relics, and 5 others located inside the Paraklis monastery. This is followed by the churches of the convent of Patmos (two) and churches in various parts of the city and island. Regarding church building on Fr. Patmos noticed a very interesting fact. There are an extraordinary number of churches on the island; their number reaches an unlikely figure of over 300. They are scattered throughout the surrounding countryside, in vineyards, fields and mountains, are very small in size and were built at the expense of private individuals. These churches are mostly “votive”, i.e. built according to a promise by local merchants, or “burial houses”, i.e. designated for the burial of builders. This is partly reminiscent of ancient classical legends, partly of the ancient Russian custom of building so-called “ordinary” churches. About some of these churches there is a legend among the population that they were built in the 11th and 12th centuries. The author leaves the verification of these legends and, in general, a more thorough study of this subject “to the future historian-archaeologist of the island of Patmos” (p. 222). The author will give more detailed information about the contents and skevophilaky of the Patmos Monastery, stipulating, however, here (p. 196) that he omits many interesting things, leaving the honor of a detailed description “to the share of other travelers placed in a happier position.” With all that, the descriptions that Mr. Dmitrievsky gives are enough to give his book great archaeological importance. He describes the most remarkable icons, vessels, clothes and other liturgical things, and reports genuine facts establishing the time and place of their origin. He pays special attention to icons and notes several remarkable icons of Old Russian writing and the so-called Cretan school. According to his message, the icons of this last school, which constitutes his special discovery (see his Travels in the East and his scientific results. Kiev. 1890, p. 92 et seq.), on Patmos, as well as on Sinai, prevail over the others in number. – True, the author’s descriptions lose a lot from the fact that they are not accompanied by images, but this obviously cannot be blamed on him in any way. According to his instructions, this should be filled by others. For his part, he gives us one image, namely the image of an ancient epitrachelion, and this one image already shows how important it would be to have images of other objects stored in the Patmos skeuofylakia. However, sometimes even simple instructions are of great importance... One of the main attractions of the Patmos Monastery should undoubtedly be its library. This library is well described by the late Sakkelin (Πατμιακὴ βιβλιοθκήκη. Ἀθήν. 1890), with the exception of those books that are stored in the monastery typica. Here Mr. Dmitrievsky found 28 manuscripts that were not included in the description of Sakkelion and described all of them in the most detailed manner in a special chapter (V). All of these are liturgical manuscripts necessary for the celebration of worship. The description of these manuscripts is important and interesting mainly because they contain many rites, sequences, rituals and prayers that do not have a place in church liturgical practice anywhere in the Orthodox East, but constitute a feature and exclusive attribute of the Patmos divine service. The author sets out in detail all such rites: the rite of consecration of water through immersion of St. cross and head of St. Thomas, performed before the departure of ships and during locust raids, the rite of election of the abbot, the rite of the meeting of patriarchs, bishops and nobles, the rite of washing the feet on Great Thursday, the rite of burial. The rite of washing the feet is especially remarkable for its rich dramatic element. – For this description we should be very grateful to the author, but we cannot understand why the author did not consider it necessary to give his readers an idea also about the Patmos Library, actually so-called and described by Sakkelion, - an idea about its history, composition and the most outstanding sights. This is all the more incomprehensible since the author is directly familiar with both the library itself and the description of Sakkelion. About the latter, i.e. about the description of Sakkelion, he even wrote a special article, but instead of introducing his article into the book under review, he placed it in some little-known publication - in the Bibliographer. Notes of 1892 No. 4. In the book “Patmos Sketches” we find only an indication of this (p. 212).