Explanation of the Liturgy, compiled by Theodore, Bishop of Andida

See also: A brief discussion on the mysteries and images of the Divine Liturgy, compiled at the request of the God-loving Basil, Bishop of Thytia (Monument of Byzantine spiritual literature of the 12th century) In 1855–1857 The St. Petersburg Theological Academy published a collection of appendices in Christian Reading entitled: “The Writings of St. fathers and teachers of the Church relating to the interpretation of Orthodox worship”, in three volumes. In this collection, which now apparently constitutes a bibliographic rarity, there are placed in Russian translation: A book on the church hierarchy of Dionysius the Areopagite with notes by Rev. Maximus the Confessor and interpretations of George Pachymer, Excerpt from the words of St. Sophronius of Jerusalem on the divine rites, Mystery of St. Maximus the Confessor. A consistent presentation of church services and rituals and a mysterious speculation about their meaning, Herman of Constantinople; then in the second and third volumes of the collection are placed: all the works of Simeon of Thessaloniki, an Explanation of the ecclesiastical succession of Mark of Ephesus, an Explanation of the Divine Liturgy of Nicholas Cabasilas and a Brief Explanation of the Liturgy of Paisius of Constantinople. Although all the works included in the collection, with the exception of the Excerpt from the Word of St. Sophrony, were known in Russian literature earlier, but mainly only from incomprehensible Slavic-Russian translations, which, moreover, existed only in manuscripts and therefore were very little accessible not only to the majority, but also to scholars interested in church rituals. The idea of ​​publishing all these works, very important for understanding the true spirit and meaning of Orthodox worship, in one collection and in an easy-to-understand Russian translation was truly a very happy and fruitful thought. Unfortunately, this Collection did not include everything that could and should have been included in it from the writings of the fathers and teachers of the Church regarding the interpretation of the divine service 1 . In all likelihood, this did not happen because the publishers did not care about completeness, but from other reasons - mainly, perhaps, from the fact that they did not have at hand everything related to the content of the collection they published: this would not be surprising in our time. Be that as it may, some works of ancient Greek writers, very important for the interpretation of divine services, still remain unknown to the Russian public. Among such works we should include, especially and first of all, the Interpretation of the Liturgy of Theodore Bishop of Andida, which we publish below in Russian translation, written by him at the request of Basil, Bishop of Thytia. The Greek text of this interpretation was published by Cardinal May in the Nova Bibliotheca Patrum (t. VI, p. 545) and then reprinted from there by Min in his Patrology (t. 140. Ser. gr. p. 413). From this latter we took it for translation. This interpretation is one of the most ancient Greek works of this kind, and is very remarkable, both in its edification and in its special completeness and harmony. It is, moreover, very important from a historical perspective, since it contains many indications that are very valuable for the history of the liturgy and its interpretation, and in any case fully deserves to be made known and accessible to Russian readers. Bearing in mind the high merits of this interpretation and its antiquity, one cannot help but regret that there is not only detailed and thorough, but even the most brief and necessary information about the life and work of its author. It is not known what was remarkable about this Bishop of Andida, Theodore, to whom another bishop turns for instructions and explanations; It is not even known for sure where he lived and when, at least not known with complete accuracy. The first news about Theodore of Andida and his Interpretation of the Liturgy was published by the famous Greek scholar and librarian of the Vatican Library Leo Allatius, back in the 17th century, in the articles: De Theodoris, Contra Creygtonum, etc.; but this news is extremely scarce. From the messages of Allius one can only learn that Theodore of Andida, even in the time of Allius, was not a modern writer, but quite ancient (non receptem, sed satis antiquum). Later, Lequeni, the author of the famous work Oriens christianus, based on the messages of Allius, tried to determine at least the place where Theodore lived and bishop, as well as the place where Basil was bishop, at whose request Theodore composed his work. The episcopal see of Basil - Fitia Leken definitely points to the so-called happy Phrygia (Phrygia salutaris); Regarding the episcopal see of Theodore, he could not give direct instructions. He believes that the title of Bishop Theodore should be read not Ἀνδίδων, but Σανδίδων and that, therefore, Theodore was the bishop of the city of Sandida, which existed in the second Pamphilia (secunda Pamphilia). But the publisher of Theodore's work, Cardinal Maillot, thoroughly notes that Lequesne's amendment cannot be accepted, since in all copies of Theodore's work the reading: Ἀνδίδων is seen quite clearly. Thus, the place where Theodore was bishop remains without an exact definition. As for the time of his life, Lequesne had no data to determine it. The publisher of Mayo's work had some information about this; Based on them, he resolves the issue, although only approximately, but correctly. These data are partly external, partly internal. The first are the manuscripts from which the text of the work was published. The publisher had at his disposal three manuscripts from the Vatican Library: Nos. 856, 430 and 632. The first of them, written in bombicine, according to the publisher, dates back to the time bordering the 12th century. 2. Consequently, the work was written no later than this century. As for the internal foundations contained in the work itself, the publisher pays little attention to them; he points only to one fact, namely, that Theodore mentions the interpretation of the liturgy, known in his time under the name of Basil the Great, i.e., the very interpretation that now exists in the widespread edition and is attributed to Herman of Constantinople. This mention is very interesting, but it does not provide any basis for resolving the question posed, for it is not known exactly when the widespread, unknown to Theodore, edition of the work now inscribed in the name of Herman appeared, and when this widespread edition superseded the abbreviated version known in Theodore's time under the name of St. Vasily. Meanwhile, in the text of the interpretation we publish there are several indications that are more suitable for determining the time of its writing. Thus, the author often refers to the liturgical practice that took place in the great church, that is, in the church of St. Sofia in Constantinople. This shows that the author lived in the Patriarchate of Constantinople and, moreover, at a time when Constantinople was still the capital of the Byzantine Empire and had not been conquered by the Turks. Then, the author never enters into polemics with the Latins, as later writers do, for example Nicholas Kavasila and Simeon of Thessalonica, although he had occasions to do so; instead, he speaks in very harsh terms about the Euchites as contemporary heretics and very strong ones. This circumstance already quite clearly indicates the time of writing of the work and confirms the consideration based on the age of the Vatican manuscript, Mayo, that this work in all likelihood appeared no later than the end of the 12th century. We said above that Theodore's work is very important for the history of liturgical interpretation. Having in mind to compose a special discussion on this subject, we will briefly indicate here only the main point. Theodore's work is the first experience in interpreting the liturgy in the sense of a holistic symbolic representation of the events of the entire earthly life of the Savior and the entire economy of our salvation, starting from the conception of Christ and ending with the Ascension and His second coming. Among other interpretations, it should be placed immediately after the work of Maximus the Confessor and the brief edition of the work known under the name of Herman 3, but before the current lengthy edition of this work and even before the so-called Excerpt from the Word of St. Sophronia on divine rites. Comparing these last two works with the work of Theodore, we see that the work of Sophronius is almost entirely in the work of Theodore and that a significant part of the work of Herman is also literally similar to it. These passages of Theodore’s work, which are literally similar to the works known under the names of Sophronius and Herman and suggest special, sometimes quite important, considerations, we mark below with a special sign, and for the convenience of comparison with the works published in the above-mentioned collection, we leave for these passages the translation of the collection with very few exceptions. Theodore Bishop of Andida, a brief discussion on the mysteries and images of the Divine Liturgy, compiled at the request of the God-loving Basil, Bishop of Thytia. It is also a pity that some of the writings included in the collection are unnecessarily abridged and abridged in places. We indicated something regarding this in the description of the handwritten translation of the works of Simeon of Thessaloniki, stored in the former Solovetsky library (see Description of the hand. Sol. library, vol. 1). In the Passage of St. Sophronia is also something similar. Migne, Patr. curs. s. g. t. 140, p. 413: ferme duodecimi. Mayo does not indicate the reasons why he attributes the manuscript to this time: but here we must rely on the authority of the learned cardinal and librarian, who published such a huge number of monuments of Greek literature. In addition to those listed by Mayo, we came across in the Vatican Library during our studies there with manuscripts two more lists of the works of Theodore, Nos. 640 and 1151. In the latter it is placed under the name of Nicholas of Andida. The name: Nicholas instead of: Theodore is also read in No. 430. Mayo explains this as an error of the scribe, who, having first rewritten the work of Nicholas Cabasilas, wrote his name on the subsequent article. We also hope to publish the text of this essay soon. You might be interested in: