Simeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica

Contents I. Brief information about the life of Simeon of Thessalonica and a general overview of his literary activity II. Simeon of Thessaloniki as exegete of the divine service Simeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica, occupies a leading place among the later writers of the Greek Church; his literary activity is determined, on the one hand, mainly by numerous treatises, almost exclusively devoted to the explanation of modern Greek-Eastern worship, and on the other, by works concerning the Orthodox doctrine in connection with deviations from it by Christians of other confessions and mainly Catholics. As much as the latter are distinguished by their brevity and generality, and are of relatively secondary importance, the former contain a detailed interpretation, extending to almost all liturgical actions. Such a comprehensive completeness and breadth of worship is not found in any of the Eastern and Western exegetes of worship, and in the best way they complement the few and insignificant historical data on the state of Greek-Eastern worship during the period of its final formation and firm establishment. The latter circumstance is the reason for the outstanding phenomenon that all the best researchers of Orthodox worship, both foreign and our Russians, in their writings on this issue very often turn to the help of the exegete of Thessalonica. For example, it is enough to point out from foreign authors Lev Allatsiya and Goar, and from Russians - to Veniamin, Archbishop of Nizhny Novgorod and Dmitrievsky. Thus, Leo Allation in his essay “De libris ecclesiasticis graecorum” - in the section on the charter (one of the liturgical Greek books) says: “The history of the charter and its changes over time was outlined by Simeon of Thessalonica in a dialogue against heresies. His words, since they have not been published (now they have already been published), I will be all the more willing to copy them out” and then gives several quotes from the works of Simeon of Thessalonica 1. Similar borrowings from the works of the writer Solunsky can be found in Allation and in other places, for example, in “De aetate ordinum” pp. 42 et seq., 136 et seq., in “De consensu” pp. 1139, 1256, 1259, 1276, etc. Gohar in his famous “Euchologium sive rituale graecorum” did not limit himself to frequent excerpts from the works of Simeon of Thessalonica, but along with other lists of the liturgy, he included his entire treatise on the church and an explanation of the liturgy 2. Our compatriot Veniamin of Nizhny Novgorod, in the preface to his work “The New Tablet,” directly notes: “Of the writers who contributed with their explanations to the composition of this book, they were mainly: Simeon, Bishop of Thessaloniki or Thessalonites,” 3 etc. Indeed, the name of the Archbishop of Thessaloniki and passages from his works are found in the “New Tablet” in almost every paragraph. Another of the above-mentioned Russian scientists, Dmitrevsky, in his work “Historical, Dogmatic and Mysterious Explanation of the Liturgy,” also very often bases his explanations on the data of the exegete of Thessalonica 4 and, like Gohar, at the end of the said book, appends a treatise on the church and an interpretation of the liturgy of Simeon of Thessalonica in a Slavic translation with a Russian paraphrase 5 . Even our schismatic teachers, who generally like to base their church ritual differences on the testimony of ancient church teachers, quite often use for their purposes the liturgical works of the exegete of Thessalonica. In the well-known work, for example: “The denunciation of schismatic untruth, shown in the answers of Vygotsky’s empty saints, to the questions of the honest hieromonk Neophytos, sent to them by the Holy Governing Synod to exhort and call them to the Holy Church,” the third argument of the schismatics’ position about the roundness of the seal on the prosphora directly cites the testimony of Simeon of Thessalonica. “The holy eastern teacher Simeon of Thessalonites, it is said there, in the chapter of the 88th book of his book, reveals in the eastern church 'on the prosphora the seal will be visible roundly' 6 . In a similar way, the schismatics refer to Simeon of Thessaloniki in confirmation, for example, of their teaching about the seventh prosphoria at the proskomedia. In the same work we read: “Simeon of Thessalonites says: in this way the priest ceremoniously removes that leavened bread from the middle of the bread, revealing in this that the Savior was incarnate from our nature, and not from another being. Then in another chapter: the priest himself, having received another prosphora from those in the middle of the seal, takes out one particle with a spear, and in honor and in memory brings the Mother of God, and places this bread on the right hand, also in the paten. Then in another chapter: another, the angels and saints of all who have the second rank, then others bring particles: first speaking about the bishop, then about the entire priestly rank, then about the faithful kings, who care about the piety and salvation of them and the Christ-loving people. Then the abbot, still in the monastery, is done about the brethren, also in a certain church, about the one who raised, or commemorates, and about those nearby, and also about those who brought, and about those whose gifts were brought. And successively about Christ the departed, and the entire consecrated rank and monastic order, and all the Orthodox - the faithful who have died. This holy reckoning agrees throughout with the seven-prosphora liturgical service” 7 . Quite frequent references by schismatics to the works of Simeon of Thessalonica can be seen, for example, in the so-called “Pomeranian answers” ​​(see manuscript of the library of the Moscow Theological Academy No. 149). Despite their purely scientific significance, however, the works of the exegete of Thessalonica have not yet received even the most cursory study, not only in foreign literature, but also in domestic literature, for which they, due to the indicated use of them by the teachers of religion, receive, in addition, obvious practical importance, not to mention the fact that, as affecting Orthodox worship, they should represent and indeed do represent a special, primary interest for our Orthodox Church. This essay aims to fill, at least a little, this gap in our spiritual literature, and most importantly, to provoke a more serious and comprehensive study of the works of the writer Solunsky. I. Brief information about the life of Simeon of Thessalonica and a general overview of his literary activities Biographical information about Simeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica, is very brief and uncomplicated. Almost everything that is positively known on this subject is found in the work of Allation - “De Symeonum seriptis diatribe” (pag. 185–192) and refers to the last days of the life of Archpastor Thessaloniki 8. However, this is enough to judge the personality of the latter. In this case, two quotes cited by Allatius in “De Symeonum seriptis diatribe” are of particular importance - one from the Synodikon of Thessaloniki, the other from the work of the reader John - “Narratio de postremo excidio Thessalonicensi”. Based on them, as well as with the help of the well-known works of Simeon of Thessaloniki, it is possible to compile an approximately complete description of him, on the one hand, as a private person, on the other, as a public figure. In the first respect, Simeon of Thessalonica is, first of all, one of the most learned and educated people of his time - “externae et spiritualalis sapientiae super humanum captum repletus.” How does the author of Thessaloniki Synodik speak about him 9. The expression is “externae et spiritalis sapientiae super humanum captum repletus” in connection with the corresponding one in the Greek text “τοῦ τῆς ἐκτός τε καί τῆς πνευματικη σοφίας…. γενομένου” obviously indicates the multifaceted education of Simeon of Thessaloniki, his good acquaintance with all the main branches of the then Greek philosophical and theological education. And indeed, in his literary works, Simeon of Thessaloniki reveals a remarkable knowledge of the Holy Scriptures and especially of Russian literature. It is enough just to count the names of church writers directly and indirectly mentioned by him in his writings, whose works he had to use, to be fully convinced of how extensive his theological erudition was. Dionysius the Areopagite, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Amphilochius of Iconium, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose of Milan, Gregory Dvoeslov, Isidore Pelusiot, Maximus the Confessor, Athanasius the Great, Sophronius of Jerusalem, Herman of Constantinople, John Climacus, Nikephoros the Ascetic, Diodorus of Fotikiy, Simeon, the new theologian, Callistus of Constantinople and Ignatius, Eustathius of Thessalonica, Nicholas Kavasila - these are the authoritative personalities under the influence of whose works Simeon of Thessalonica wrote his works. Not to mention his numerous borrowings from canonical cathedral rules and legal civil decrees of the Greek emperors, his good acquaintance with church history and partly civil history, and the extensive information that he possessed regarding worship, especially regarding church regulations and other things. It was not for nothing that Simeon of Thessalonica enjoyed such enormous authority in the eyes of his contemporaries that even high-ranking persons, such as the Metropolitan of Pentapolis 10 and entire Christian societies, such as the Christians of Crete 11, turned to him for solutions to various issues; It was not for nothing that his name had such power that, on his orders, additions and additions were made to the very church rites 12. Only Allatius, completely contrary to the positive factual data, could doubt the significant scientific education of Simeon of Thessalonica. In his opinion, “From the writings of Simeon (in the words of Allation) it is clearly revealed that what he (Eugenicus Nomophylax - author of the Synodikon of Thessalonica) conveys about the learning (of course, of Simeon of Thessalonica) is false and unfair” 13. Together with excellent mental development and multifaceted scientific education, Simeon of Thessalonica combined in himself a deep, complete devotion, an irresistible desire to fulfill the highest requirements of the Gospel law of morality, “he became famous for his ascetic or better angelic way of life and behavior, he led it in the most perfect way with the greatest virtue and praise... and more than anyone else, he showed the most perfect love for God and neighbors,” the same Solunsky says about him Synodik 14. The ascetic beliefs of Simeon of Thessalonica left an indelible mark on his writings; they immediately catch the eye when reading the liturgical treatises of the Solunsky writer, when, for example, he talks about the establishment, purpose and essence of the sacrament of marriage, about repentance, about prayer. Both of these qualities - scientific education and strict ascetic life - attracted the attention of his compatriots to Simeon of Thessaloniki, and so, according to the general desire of the citizens of Thessalonica, in 1416 he was installed as Archbishop of Thessalonica, successor to Archbishop Gabriel 15. In the rank of archbishop, Simeon of Thessalonica becomes known in history as a courageous defender of the external - political and internal - religious independence of his flock. The fifteenth century (actually the first half of it) is the most troubled time in the history of the Greek church: the Greek state, on the one hand, was constantly devastated and ruined by external enemies - the Turks, on the other hand, it was agitated by religious movements regarding the unification of churches 16. Thessaloniki, as one of the significant cities of the Greek Empire, naturally underwent the same participation in political and religious relations. Under the leadership of Amurat, it was besieged by the Turks. Two parties formed among the besieged citizens: one wanted to expel the Latins and voluntarily hand over the city to the enemy, the other held completely opposite opinions. The wise archpastor, in the interests of his fatherland, took the side of the latter and made every effort to defend the freedom of his native city. In vain did Amurat, either with merciful promises to Thessalonica or with terrible threats, persuade Simeon to surrender Thessalonica; nothing could shake the intrepid shepherd, and the enemy was forced to lift the siege. Only six months after the death of the blessed archbishop, on March 29, 1430, Amurat managed to take Thessaloniki with a secondary attack 17. This time he betrayed the city to terrible devastation. “After taking it (Solunya) by storm,” says Kedrin 18, too much freedom was given to the army, and therefore within a day not only private houses, but even churches were devastated, and some walls were overthrown. Murat, wanting to leave this place in desolation, promulgated the Turks to turn the best monasteries into Mohammedan churches.” The party, which advocated the voluntary surrender of the city to Amurat, blamed the archpastor of Thessaloniki for these disasters, but John the Reader, an eyewitness to the conquest of Thessaloniki by Amurat, quite thoroughly justifies him. In his above-mentioned work, he says, among other things: “If someone, remembering former times, objects to us and attributes the cause (of the disaster) to a shepherd who did not want and did not care about the same thing as those who wanted to betray themselves, such, I think, will accept the opinion of the unreasonable. For, first of all, it is indecent for an archetype to engage in military affairs and despotically expel one power and introduce another in its place and be the culprit of murder, harm and everything that happens when there is a change of power. For they place him not on the royal throne, but on the throne of Egypt, on the throne of the meek Lord, who bequeathed peace, whom he must imitate in every possible way - both in word and deed. Then, what did he do? Is it that he urged us to remain firmly in the laws of God and advised us not to abandon piety? - Did he teach you not to resist your bosses, but to love them as if they were appointed by God? And what befitted one to whom God had entrusted the souls of people?” 19. An even more zealous champion is Simeon of Thessalonica in relation to the internal enemies of Orthodoxy and mainly the Latins, who tried by all means to attract the sons of the true church to their errors. Adhering in his convictions to the strictly Orthodox party, which in every possible way avoided rapprochement with the West, he saw all the evils of the then unhappy situation of Byzantium in the retreat and evasion of Orthodox dogmas and ancient church customs, and therefore to support both, as far as possible, he considered it his duty, his essential responsibility. In the words of the synodik of Thessalonica: “with his instructions, like the sun, he enlightened not only his most glorious metropolis, but the whole world... Every day he abundantly filled with the sweet moisture of his teaching, attracted everyone to himself and held (them) with convincing and pleasant speeches and honey-like eloquence... and through this (by the way) he encouraged all people who professed a faith differently than we accept it, to fear, wonder, praise and gloriously great God in everything" 20. The fruit of this kind of activity of the Archpastor of Thessaloniki are strong, convincing, thoughtful and, in places, truly eloquent essays. In some of them he directly directs his speech against the Latins and those who are erring in general, in others he primarily has in mind the edification of the Orthodox; but even in these last works one can see everywhere his strict zeal for Orthodoxy, an intense desire to protect and defend it in all its purity and inviolability; wherever the Thessalonica writer had to encounter the opinions and innovations of those who had departed from Orthodoxy, he did not miss the opportunity to say a strong word in denouncing those who were false. That is why, by the way, in the light of the works of Simeon of Thessalonica, one can easily and successfully supplement historical data about the religious life of the Eastern Church of his time, especially about the attitude of the latter, represented by its zealous followers, towards the Western Church. The best and most remarkable literary work of Simeon of Thessalonica is usually considered to be the work known for the most part under the abbreviated Latin title “De fide, ritibus et mysteriis ecclesiasticis,” i.e. “On faith, rituals and sacraments of the church” 21. It was written regarding the questions of a certain cleric, who, having it in mind, would form a clear and definite concept of Christian doctrine, and also wanting to know the meaning and significance of various liturgical rites and actions, addressed for this purpose on behalf of his church to the Archpastor of Thessalonica, who was famous at that time for his theological erudition 22 . The cleric offered his questions to the latter gradually, and therefore this work in its entirety did not appear immediately; it was put together as questions were proposed and answers to them, and only after the completion of both of them did it form a single whole. A fairly clear indication of this can be seen, for example, in the following words of the cleric: “Having already received instruction about the true faith, we ask you to teach us about the mysteries of the church; how many are there, and what are they, and what is the strength of each of them, and what do we get from them? 23; or, for example, in the words of the Thessalonica writer himself: “For the sake of love, I will not hesitate to answer your question, as much as my meager information and my poor mind will allow me” 24. Having conveyed as briefly as I could about divine baptism, I wrote this to you, beloved” 25; “So... this was done for the sake of you, who very often questioned us, and for the sake of some others from the brethren, who from time to time (κατά καιρόν) encouraged us to do this” 26, etc. Satisfying the curiosity of the cleric, Simeon of Thessalonica wanted at the same time that his interviews would, if possible, have a general edifying significance for Orthodox Christians. For this purpose, he asked his interlocutor to pass on his answers to the other brothers for reading: “For my part, I beg all those who converse in love to accept this (written) for the sake of love and give it to the brethren to read if what is written turns out to be useful in any way and is said in accordance with the divine teachers of the church” 27 ; or: “May He (God in the Trinity) make what has been said useful for you and beneficial for all brethren, and may he turn it to his glory and to our salvation through his love for mankind and goodness” 28. According to its content, the essay: “Defide, ritibns et mysteriis ecclesiasticisu” falls into two components, corresponding to the twofold subject of study: the first embraces a polemical treatise entitled “Διάλογος κατά πασών τῶν αἰρέσɛων καί περί τῆς μόνης πίστεως τοῦ Кυρίου καί Θεοῦ καί “Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησού Χριστοῦ”, directed against heretics and generally erring people and corresponding in the abbreviated Latin title to the expression “De fide”. Its subject is Orthodox doctrine in connection with the opinions and deviations on one or another issue of those who have departed from Orthodoxy; the presentation of the former and the refutation of the latter constitute its entire content. The second part is entitled: “Διάλογος περί τῶν ἰερῶν τε καί μυστηρίων πάντων τῆς ἐκκλησίας”, corresponding to the Latin – “de ritibus et mysteriis ecclesiasticis”, deals with the private and public worship of the Eastern Orthodox Church; a consistent explanation of both forms its essential content. This last part is in turn subdivided into several smaller sections with their own special titles. This includes the following treatises: “Περί τῶν ἰερῶν τελετῶν, or De sacramentis - on the sacred rites” thirty-eight chapters - from the thirty-third to the seventieth inclusive, “Περί τῆς ἰερᾶς τελετῆς τοῦ ἀγίου μύρου – De sacro ritu sancti unguenti – on the sacred rite of the holy world – eight chapters from seventy-one to seventy-eight inclusive, “Περί τῇς ἰερᾶς λειτουργίας - De sacra liturgia - about the sacred liturgy" twenty-two chapters - from the seventy-ninth to the hundredth inclusive, "Περί τοῦ ἀγίου ναοῦ καί τῆς τούτου καθιερώσεωϛ – De sacro templo ejus consecratione – about the holy church and its consecration” – fifty-five chapters – from one hundred and one to one hundred and fifty-five, “Περί τῶν ἰερῶν χειροτονίων – De sacris ordinationibus – on sacred ordinations” – ninety-five chapters – from one hundred and fifty-six to two hundred and fiftieth, “Пερί μετανοίας – De roe-mtentia – on repentance” twenty-five chapters – from two hundred and fifty-one to two hundred and seventy-five, Пερί τοῦ τιμίου νομίμου γάμου - De honesto et legitimo conjugio - about an honest legal marriage" - seven chapters - from two hundred seventy-six to two hundred eighty-second, "Пερί τῆς De sacro ritu sancti olei sive euchelei – about the sacred the sacred rite of holy oil or about the consecration of oil - eleven chapters - from two hundred and eighty-three to two hundred and ninety-third inclusive, “Пερί τῆς θείας προσευχῆς - De sacra precatione - about divine prayer” - sixty-five chapters - from two hundred and ninety fourth to three hundred and fifty-eighth and end “De fine et exitu nostro e vita et de sacro ordine sepulturae et qua pro memoria defunctorum solent fieri” - o our death and about the sacred rite of burial and about the commemorations that occur (performed) according to custom - fourteen chapters - from three hundred fifty-nine to three hundred seventy-two inclusive. In close and inextricable connection with the second part of the work “De fide, ritibus et mysteriis ecclesiasticis” (actually with the departments - “De sacra liturgia” and “De sacro templo ejus consecratione”) is in its content the treatise of Simeon of Thessalonica: “Έρμηνεία περί τε τοῦ θείου ναοῦ καί τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ ἰερέων τε περί καί διακόνων, ἀρχιερέων τε καί τῶν ὧν ἓκαστοϛ τούτων στολῶν ἰερῶν περιβάλλεται. Οὐμήν ἀλλά καί περί τῆς θείας μυσταγωγίας λόγον ἑκάστῳ διδοῦσα τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ τελουμένων θείωϛ καί τοῖϛ ἐν Κρήτῃ εὐσεβέσι ζητήσασιν ἀποσταλεῖσα", i.e. an interpretation about the divine church and about the priests, deacons and bishops (serving in it), about the sacred vestments in which each of them wears, as well as about the divine sacrament - explaining each of the divine actions performed at it (the liturgy), sent to the inquiring pious (Christians) of Crete. Translated into Latin, this treatise bears the following title: “Expositio de divino templo et de sacerdotibusejus ac diaconis episcopisque ac de sacris stolis quibus horum quilibet induitur, necnon de divina missa ubi singulorum quae in ilia divino ritu peraguntur, ratio redditur. Transmissa viris piis Cretensibus qui earn dari sibi petierunt.” Fabricius, in his work “Bibliotheca graeca”, even considers it an integral part of the work “De fide, ritibus et mysteriis ecclesiasticis”: The parts of this work (De fide etc.), he says, are as follows: “'Ερμηνεία περί τε τοῦ θείου ναοῦ" etc 29. However, it should be noted, contrary to Fabrizia, the treatise “'Ερμηνεία περί τε τοῦ θείου ναοῦ"……. in its essence constitutes a completely separate and independent work of Simeon of Thessalonica. Evidence of this lies in the most mentioned works of our writer. While the last of them is stated in a dialogical form and everywhere breathes a polemical character, the first, so to speak, is in a monological form and only in one place 30 concerns the deviation of the Western Church from the Eastern - in the doctrine of the time of the transubstantiation of the holy gifts 31 On the other hand, if we compare the following remark of Simeon of Thessalonica at the end of the treatise “'Ερμηνεία. “We had the intention of talking about what happens in a sentence (at proskomedia), but since this is also explained by them (i.e. from the fathers and the best teachers of piety), then we don’t need to talk” 32 with a detailed explanation of the proskomedia in the essay “De fide, ritibus et mysteriis ecclesiasticis 33”, again it is necessary to recognize the complete mutual independence of both these works of the Thessalonica writer; otherwise the author would have fallen into complete contradiction with himself, first resolutely refusing to explain the proskomedia for a well-known reason, and then in the same work, only a little lower, presenting a detailed interpretation of it. Finally, in favor of the independence of the treatise “'Ερμηνεία περί τε τοῦ θείου ναοῦ”…….. Another consideration can be made that in the work “De fide, ritibus et mysteriis ecclesiasticis” there are its own sections (we mean “De sacra liturgia” and “De sacro templo ejus consecratione”) with content that is completely consistent with that in the named treatise; It is strange, therefore, that one and the same work contains such a significant tautology, and this is all the more so if we take into account the constant desire of Simeon of Thessalonica to follow the strictest possible order, not only in the general arrangement of parts of the work τῶν αἰρέσεων", but also in the particular development of their content 34. As a completely independent work, the treatise “'Ερμηνεία περί τε τοῦ θείου ναοῦ”…….. and was written by Simeon of Thessalonica much earlier - “Ἐκκληιαστικόϛ διάλογοϛ κατά πασῶν τῶν αἰρέσεων"….. A clear indication of this is given by the Thessalonica writer himself, when, in a conversation about the sacraments, he refers the reader to the above-mentioned treatise, as to his already well-known work: “I will briefly talk about each of them (the sacraments), although without much detail we talked about them when it was necessary, and in the explanation of the divine liturgy - ἐν τῇ τῆϛ θείαϛ λειτουργίαϛ ἐρμηνείᾳ" 35 or: "as for the sacred liturgy ....., we talk about it as much as we can in other places, as well as about the church, about sacred vestments and about sacred occultism - καί περί τῆϛ ἰερᾶϛ μυσταγωγίαϛ” 36 and also: “then (after the initial exclamation of the priest at the Liturgy of the catechumens) the service follows in the usual order, which we, to the best of our ability, have explained in more detail in the interpretation of the liturgy - ἐν τῇ ἐρμηνείᾳ τῆϛ λειτουργίαϛ” 37 The above comparison regarding the explanation of proskomedia also applies here. Of the other literary works of Simeon of Thessaloniki, his answers to the questions of Metropolitan Gabriel of Pentapolis are more closely related to the two indicated. This work by Fabricius ranks second among others (first after “De fide, ritibus et mysteriis ecclesiasticis”) and bears the following title: “Άπόκρισις πρός τάς ἐρωτήσεις τοῦ - Responsiones ad interrogata sanctis- simi metropolitae Pentapolitani Gabrielis, - i.e. answer to questions from His Eminence Metropolitan of Pentapolis, Mr. Gabriel 38; it is also found with the same name in Allation 39, who, as in other cases, used it in his writings 40. John Molyvdus 41, and after him Ming, placed it almost at the very end of their editions of the works of Simeon of Thessalonica under the title: “Τοῦ αὐτοῦ Άποκρίσεις τινάς πρός ἐρωτήσεις Άρχιερέως ἠρωτηκότος αὐτόν”, i.e. his (Simeon’s) answers to some questions from the bishop who asked him (Simeon). According to Allaius and Fabricius, 42 all the answers given by Simeon of Thessalonica to Metropolitan Gabriel in the said work were eighty-five, but in the editions of Molyvdus and Minya there are eighty-three of them, if you count by the number of questions, and only seventy-nine, if you do not take the latter into account. Some of the answers are directly related to liturgical practice, resolving certain puzzling cases that may arise, as well as touching on and explaining some liturgical rites and customs, others concern the canonical, moral and dogmatic aspects. Questions and answers to them are preceded by a preface (προοίμιον – progemium); in it, the author, as usual, first expresses his humility and insignificance, and then, by virtue of brotherly love and obedience, having before him the example of Amphilochius and Basil the Great, “of whom one (of course, Amphilochius) proposed questions, and the other (i.e. Basil the Great) gave answers, decides, “leaving without attention the worries and sorrows that burden him,” to answer those proposed to him Metropolitan questions. The expression - “leaving without attention the worries and sorrows that burden us - κατοιγωρήσαντες" - in turn makes it clear that this work was written by Simeon of Thessalonica in the late period of his social activity, perhaps even at a time when Thessalonica was besieged from all sides by the enemy, when the Archbishop of Thessaloniki, according to the testimony of John the Reader, "daily laying down his soul mercilessly for the flock,... alone brought comfort in these disastrous times and in such an unhappy state of affairs” 43 and when, therefore, he was especially burdened with worries and sorrows about the well-being of his fatherland. The later origin of the work under consideration is also indicated by the fact that it was written by Simeon of Thessaloniki after the famous work “De fide, ritibus et mysteriis ecclesiasticis”, which brought him general fame and was formed gradually - over a significant period of time. The basis for this is the remark of the Thessalonica writer himself in response to the seventy-ninth question of Metropolitan Gabriel. Speaking about the foundations and purpose of establishing the seven-day number of praises, Simeon of Thessalonica expresses himself, among other things, as follows: ἠμετέραν εἰρήκαμεν, ἀπό τῶν Πατέρων λαβόντεϛ” 44 Obviously, here we mean the department “De sacra présatione, part of the composition “De fide, ritibus et mysteriis ecclesiasticis,” where, indeed, the theory of the sevenfold number of praises is discussed in detail. And if so, then in relation to the last position the corollary is self-explanatory: it gives it an affirmative meaning. In conclusion of the general review of the literary works of Simeon of Thessalonica, I must say a few words about his other four works, which have comparatively less, secondary significance, so that in this way we may have a complete understanding of the literary activity of our writer. Of these, first of all, one should point out the treatise on the priesthood, which serves as an excellent characteristic of the general views of the Archpastor of Thessalonica on pastoral ministry. This treatise, among other works of Simeon of Thessalonica, is placed in the above-quoted work of Fabricius “Bibliotheca graeca” in third place under the title: Μοναχῶν ἰερᾶϛ δακονίαϛ ἠξιωμένων, ἔτι καί τοῦ ἀρχιερέως εἰς τόν τοῦ Πρεσβυτέρου τελοῦνος τότε βαομόν – De sacerdotio ad quemdam pium monachum sacro ministerio insignitum, adhuc pradsule in presbyter! ordine existente" 45; Allatius 46 gives it exactly the same name; Min in - “Patrologiae cursus completus” conveys the latter somewhat differently: “Περί ίερωσῦνηϛ πρόϛ τινα τῶν εὐλαβων μοναχῶν ἰερᾶϛ δακονίαϛ ἠξιωμένων, ἔτι καί τοῦ ἀρχιερέως εἲς τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου τελούνος τότε βαομόν – De sacerdotio ad piorum monachorum quemdam sacro diaconi munere ornatum nec non ab episcopo deinde evectum ad gradum presbyteri.” The meaning of these variations of one common title is different: if we adhere to the literal Greek text, the latter should be translated as follows: “On the priesthood to one of the God-fearing monks, awarded (according to Fabricius) or awarded (according to Min) to the sacred ministry, also about the apxiepe, ordaining a presbyter to the rank of presbyter”; but the Latin text gives a different meaning: “On the priesthood to a certain pious monk, distinguished by sacred service (according to Fabricius and Allatius), to some of the pious monks, adorned with the sacred gift of deacon, and then elevated by a bishop to the rank of presbyter” (according to Min). Taking into account the very content of the treatise on the priesthood, in which everything is aimed at clarifying the importance and difficulty of the pastoral ministry, at indicating the duties associated with it, at the conviction to carry it out in a worthy manner, and says too little “about the apxiepe, ordaining a presbyter,” it seems necessary to give preference to the Latin translation of the title in Min. In the tone of its presentation, the treatise on the priesthood is very similar to a sermon and, perhaps, was delivered by the Archpastor of Thessalonica from the church pulpit after the ordination of the monk mentioned in it to the clergy. Three other works of Simeon of Thessaloniki –1) Έρμηνέια συνοπτική εἰς τό… ϑεῖον καί ἰερόν Σύμβολον; 2) ἒκϑεσις περί τῶν τοῦ ἰεροῦ Συμβόλον ρήσεων"…. and 3) “Περιεκτικά "…. 47 belong to the dogmatic area and should be placed along with the department: "" The Christian doctrine is set out in them according to the members of the creed, and in the first two it is shown which dogmatic teaching of the church is affirmed by this or that expression of the creed, whose and which wicked - heretical opinions are refuted by it, and from which places of the Holy Scriptures the expressions of the Divine symbol were collected by the fathers. According to the time of their origin, they all belong to the period of the archpastoral activity of Simeon of Thessalonica. II. Simeon of Thessaloniki as exegete of the divine service The immutable truth lies in the generally accepted position that every literary work always and inevitably reflects clear traces and bears the indelible stamp of its time. This general law, equally applicable to all particular cases, finds its full justification in the liturgical works of Simeon of Thessalonica. Embracing almost all Orthodox worship, both private and public, the latter everywhere reveal the spirit and character of the trends that dominated the literature and life of that time. As is known, scientific theological literature in the age of the Palaiologans lived almost exclusively a past life: collecting the works of the ancient Greek fathers and teachers of the church, carefully studying them and compiling them on the basis of their new works, with very significant borrowings from them - this is all that the Greek learned theologians of that time primarily focused their attention on and in which they saw all the scientific interest. Constant attempts to unite churches most of all contributed to such an attitude towards the matter. Some of the writers wanted to find in the paternal writings a justification and a means to reconcile the religious and ritual differences that separated both churches, others, quite the opposite, saw in them a complete impossibility and decisive obstacles to any kind of agreement. The result of all this was the absence in literature, with very few exceptions, of living independent activity and the predominant dominance of compilation. The same feature is strikingly striking when reading the liturgical works of Simeon of Thessalonica. The author himself quite frankly and repeatedly admits that his works represent a collection of everything that was done in the field of church liturgical exegesis by his predecessors.” So, he says, for example, in the treatise “Έρμυνεία περί τε τοῦ ϑείου ναοῦ”, as much as we could learn and as much as was given to us, the worst and humble, we, having collected information mostly from the fathers, lovingly answer you what you asked of us, considering us to be something” and a little lower: “From them (the above-mentioned church fathers), as from the fathers, having received nocobye, and having received information about other things from our predecessors, we write to you, placing our trust in the grace of God” 48, or for example, in the section “Διάλογοϛ περί τῶν "to the cleric's request to "explain each of the sacraments separately, interpret the sacred rites and show what power lies in each of the sacred rites performed,” Simeon of Thessalonica notes: “This is beyond my strength..; but since trust in God can do everything;... then we will try, out of obedience in the love of Christ, to fulfill your request and about each of the sacred rites we will say what we ourselves learned from the holy scriptures, and what our fathers taught us, setting forth as much as we were able to learn” 49. Among the ancient Greek church fathers, on the pages of the liturgical treatises of Simeon of Thessalonica, references to Dionysius the Areopagite 50 are most often encountered. The name and works of this writer were enjoyed in the church, especially the Greek, with deep respect and constant attention, and his book “On the Church Eparchy” became for subsequent exegetes-liturgists a model of a symbolic understanding of Orthodox worship. The Seventh Ecumenical Council, defining as its second rule to test the ordained bishop, “whether he has the diligence to read the sacred canons, and the holy Gospel, and the books of the divine Apostle, and all divine scripture, and to act according to the commandments of God, and to teach the people entrusted to him,” directly refers to the doctrine of the epiphany of Saint Dionysius, as completely authoritative and completely sufficient justification for this decree, and calls it great. “For,” adds the aforementioned council, the essence of our epiphany consists of God-given words, that is, the true knowledge of the divine scriptures, as the great Dionysius spoke.” Obviously, the council here has in mind the book of Dionysius “On Church Epapxia,” for which even interpretations were compiled; Among such interpreters, the most famous are Maximus the Confessor (662) and George Pachymer (1310). In general, “for the Greek church, according to the fair remark of Gass, it was very important to have a writer who, with the greatest pleasure, dwelled on the view of the epiphany and worship as the work of God. This, by the way, aroused activity among the Greeks that sought to connect philosophical views with the institutions of the church and helped to deepen into the mysterious meaning of sacraments and cult.” It is clear after this that the Thessalonica writer, having set out to provide his interlocutors, and through them, other Christians with a clear and correct “to the best of his ability” concept of Christian worship, could not help but submit to such an influential and authoritative person, especially since the liturgical creations of the latter, in their basic mystical tone, corresponded perfectly to the depth of feeling and strictly religious, ascetic mood of the former. Hence, the mystical worldview, which completely dominates in the book “On the Church Hierarchy” of Dionysius the Areopagite, is visible everywhere in the liturgical works of Simeon of Thessalonica; its expression is the desire for a mysterious understanding of church rites and customs, which prevails in both of these writers. For example, it is enough to point out both explanations of the three-fold immersion during baptism in the image of the three-day burial and resurrection of the Savior, the symbolic meaning of the anointing of the baptized person with myrrh as a sign of fragrance in the sacrament of anointing, the bringing and falling to the throne of the clergy being ordained to one degree or another to signify the complete devotion to God of the priesthood consecrated in the sacrament 51 . Simeon of Thessaloniki especially persistently cites the favorite thought of Dionysius the Areopagite about the superiority and advantages of Hierarchical persons in general over ordinary laity, and in particular over other clergy. These advantages consist in the fact that epapxia, as a direct and immediate divine institution, serves as a mediating link between God and man, that it leads people, thanks to the known means bestowed upon it, to the goal of their existence - eternal salvation “through the deification of those captured”, that the very means of deification, or all sacred rites, depend on the highest epapxa in particular, so that none of them could be performed if there were no iepaxa, and all degrees of the priesthood depend on epapxa, so that if there were no epapxa, other ranks of the hierarchy could not exist 52. Even in the very arrangement of his liturgical material, Simeon of Thessalonica followed, of course, as far as possible for him, the book “On the Church Epapoxy” of Saint Dionysius. In addition to the external order of the sacraments in the department “Διάλογος περί τών ίερῶν τελετῶν τε καί μυστηρίων παντῶν τῆς εκκλησίας”, there is the Solunsky writer’s own evidence of this. Starting to explain the liturgy, he says: “Καί λοιπόν ἀκόλουϑον ἄν εΐἠ, περί τῆϛ φρικτήϛ καί ϑείας λειτουργίας διαλαβεῖν. Οὓτω γάρ καί ὁ μέγας ἐκτίϑησι Διονύσιος, μετά τήν τελετήν τοῦ ϑειοτάτου μύρου περί ταύτηϛ εἲπων" 53 . And indeed, following the example of Dionysius, he moves further to the exegis of the liturgy. In the same way, for example, in the sacrament of the priesthood, in order to justify our position: “we will begin with that gift that seems smaller, so that little by little we can reach the most perfect,” Simeon of Thessalonica notes: “Τοῦτο δέ καί τώ μεγάλῳ καλόν εγνώσϑη Διονυσίῳ καί ἀπό τοῦ διακόνου ἀρξάμενοϛ, εἰϛ τόν ἐπίσκοπον ἧλϑε. Καί ἡμεῖς τοίνυν περί τῶν ἄλλων ἐρεῖν βουλόμενοι ἀπό τοῦ πρώτου τῶν τῆς ἰερωσύνης χαρισμάτων ἀρξώμεϑα" 54 . However, despite all this, the Solunsky exeget did not understand the spirit of the interpretation of Dionysius the Areopagite: not having fully grasped the philosophical - speculative principle of the latter, he stopped only at the first stage of the church liturgical mystical exegesis of his famous predecessor, on the rite in the proper sense and did not go further than the external side - the form of the rite itself. Together with the aforementioned work of Dionysius the Areopagite “On the Church Eparchy,” Simeon of Thessalonica used the works of many of his other predecessors, exegetes, when compiling his exegetical treatises on Orthodox worship. Explaining this or that liturgical action, defining the meaning and significance of this or that church rite and custom, he sometimes directly notes: “Chrysostom speaks about this, as the great Gregory of Nyssa also says, as we were taught from Athanasius; as the divine Basil says” 55, etc. etc., and sometimes only hints at his borrowing in the most general terms: “As the fathers write; our fathers say; as we were taught from our fathers; as we learned from the fathers” 56, etc. In all such cases, the very works of the church writers mentioned directly or indirectly are almost never indicated, which, of course, puts the reader in great difficulty if he wants to check more or less thoroughly the quotation of the exegete of Thessalonica and thereby determine the degree of his independence. The exception is seven or eight places in all the liturgical works of Simeon of Thessalonica, where he, and sometimes inaccurately, means what exactly he used. This includes indications in the treatise: “'ερμηνεία περί τε τοῦ ϑείου ναοῦ"….on the epistles of Isidore Pelusiot on the order of the liturgy and the “Occultism” of St. Maximus the Confessor 57; in the section “Διάλογος περί τῶν ίερῶν τελετῶν τε καί μυστηρίων πάντων τῆς έκκλησίας” on three words of Chrysostom “On Prayer”, on the words of Basil the Great and Gregory “On Baptism”, on the book of Callistus and Ignatius, known as “Τῶν ἐν μονοτράποις ἐλαχίστων Καλλίστυυ καί Ἰγνατίου τῶν Ξανϑοπούλων μέϑοδος καί κανόν άκριβής, καί παρά τῶν ἀγίων ἒχων τάϛ μαρτυρίαϛ περί τῶν καί πολιτείας καί διαίτης αὐτῶν, καί περί τοῦ ὂσων ἠλίκων ἀγαϑῶν "and in "'Аπόκρισις πρός τάς έρωτήσεις τοῦ ίερωτάτου Μητροπολίτου πενταπόλεωϛ κῦρ Γαβριήλ" on the "Apostolic Constitutions, the Ladder of John Climacus and the same book of Igntius and Callistus 58. This difficulty is further aggravated by the fact that in the liturgical writings of Simeon of Thessaloniki there are often borrowings about which the author is completely silent and which, therefore, at first glance, at a cursory glance, can easily seem to be thoughts that belong to him personally. Such, for example, are many interpretations of the rituals of the liturgy and the material accessories of the church (the holy meal, the offering, the high place, the ambo, etc.), taken by Simeon of Thessaloniki from the word “On the Divine Sacrament” of Saint Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem; such are his explanations on the named subjects, borrowed from the treatise “Consistent presentation of church services and rituals, and a mysterious speculation about their meaning” by St. Herman, Patriarch of Constantinople 59 . Only through the most rigorous analysis of the liturgical works of the exegete of Thessaloniki - through an exact comparison of them with the writings of early church writers - can one form an approximately correct understanding of the influence that he experienced from his predecessors. In this case, it is quite enough to limit ourselves to one general result of such a comparative analysis, expressing it in the following position: in his liturgical treatises, under the pretext of humble self-awareness, Simeon of Thessaloniki borrows much and even very much from the writings of his predecessors, partly literally, such as, for example, the definition of the sacrament of baptism: “The most sacred baptism is rebirth, and re-creation, and purification, and enlightenment, and sonhood, and a gift, and sanctification,” quoted verbatim by Nicholas Cavasilla in his second word on Christ 60, partly in paraphrase, such as numerous comments of a canonical and legal nature, taken mostly from the writings of Greek jurists (Matthew Blastari, Balsamon, Zonara, etc.) 61 and partly only from thoughts, such as, for example, the above view of epapxia, which runs through all liturgical creations of Simeon of Thessalonica and borrowed by him from Denisius the Areopagite, or, for example, an explanation of the meaning of the church, taken from the “Mystery” of Maximus the Confessor 62. On the other hand, it would be completely vain to think and assert that the liturgical works of Simeon of Thessalonica represent an exclusively mechanical compilation of everything that was written by his predecessors on the issue of Christian worship. Already the expressions: “Having received nocobye; having stated as much as they were able to assimilate,” found in the above quotes, they deprive the right to such a conclusion, pointing to the purely conscious and reasonable attitude of the Solunsky writer to his work. If we take a closer look at the latter’s liturgical creations and deeply analyze his church and liturgical exegesis, then the rational formulation of the matter will become completely obvious. Let's take for example Simeon of Thessaloniki's treatise on the sacrament. How did our exegete react to the enormous mass of material on this issue? Quite freely and correctly. First, he establishes a general point of view on the church sacraments: he defines the dogmatic essence of each of them and indicates their historical justification; He performs both freely, briefly, concisely and at the same time accurately and clearly: “Baptism regenerates with the Spirit: since we have destroyed the first passionless birth and are already conceived in iniquities and in sins, as David sings, the mat gave birth to each of us” 63 - this is the complete and essential definition of the sacrament of baptism; “He (Jesus Christ) himself was the first to be baptized in the Jordan from John 64 ​​- this is the first, so to speak, historical basis of baptism. Having drawn up general concepts of this kind about the essence and foundations of all Christian sacraments, Simeon of Thessalonica then proceeds to a particular liturgical analysis of them. Here he not only sets out the procedure for performing this or that sacrament, nor does he present mere bare interpretations of the rituals, but successfully combines both, supplementing his explanations in places with canonical remarks and practical, everyday instructions and advice. Starting, for example, to explain the sacrament of baptism according to the rite of his time, Simeon of Thessalonica prefaces short instructions about the time of the sacrament of baptism, the position of the celebrant at baptism and the choice of recipients 65; or, for example, speaking about the water of baptism and the oil of anointing, he gives the following advice regarding their consumption after the completion of the sacrament itself: “Let the priest not use haphazardly the remnants of the holy oil of joy, but let him keep them and consume them in the altar lamp, keeping them in a special and consecrated vessel..... let him also guard the divine water of baptism..... and pour it out in a sacred place, so that, having been poured out, as happened, it was not trampled upon by those who did not know that this was water from the sacrament” 66. In the very church and liturgical exegesis of Simeon of Thessaloniki, a desire is noticeably visible not so much for compilation, but for a combination of the exegetical works of his predecessors and, in places, for independent creativity. The author does not passively relate to the liturgical works of the church writers who came before him, he does not merely mechanically and slavishly use what was done before him, no; from the entire mass of material that was at hand, he selects only the best, the most expedient, completely suitable for his task, and sometimes successfully supplements this borrowed with personal judgments and conclusions, in a word, with all his imitation, he appears in his liturgical treatises to some extent, even quite a significant one, as an independent thinker. The latter is especially noticeable where we are talking about deviations and deviations of heterodox Christians in certain church rites and customs. Such places are particularly inspiring; the word flows somehow more freely, the thought flows much smoother and more evenly, and the evidence becomes more thorough, more convincing and more fascinating. “Analyzing, for example, the opinion of the Latins about performing the sacrament of anointing only on the dying, Simeon of Thessaloniki reaches, as they say, a pathetic state in its refutation. “Oh, madness! - he exclaims. The Brother of God says: the prayer of faith will save the sick man and the Lord will raise him up, but the Latins say that he will die. Look, the dependent (word) always refers to the following saying: - if you have committed sins, they will be forgiven - obviously, so that you will be healed and rise. This is also shown by the Savior, who said to the paralytic: your sins are forgiven. Get up and walk. And behold, you are healthy: let no one sin, lest it be worse (John Y, 14). And they think contrary to the Savior and His Apostles, and say that (oil) should be taught not to those who can rise, but to those who are dying……. The Holy Gospel says: many sick people were smeared with oil, and many were healed (Mr. YI, 13), and they say that it should be taught not so that (the sick) would be healed, but so that they would be incurable and die. Human! You do not know the meaning of the sacraments and, to your detriment, you are mistaken. For the Gospel and the brother of Him who gave it say that this oil is (given) to the sick so that they, having received forgiveness of sins through the anointing, will arise, as it was said to the first and second paralytic: because the Savior said to the two: your sins are forgiven, showing that illness occurs due to sins” 67 . The second significant characteristic feature of the era of Simeon of Thessalonica is the predominance of a contemplative, ascetic direction in life. It was the age of the dominance of internal, subjective feeling, the age of mystical worldview, when everything that was comprehended by the strength and warmth of individual feeling was given form and visibility by the imagination, manifesting the inner outward in a symbol, when every thought was translated into images, in any phenomenon the inner meaning and ideal content was sought through all kinds of analogies and interpretations. It is clear that in this regard, too, our exegete, as a true son of his age, could not help but pay a completely fair tribute to his time. Hence mysticism, entirely based on the data of sacred scripture and paternal authority, permeates the liturgical works of Simeon of Thessalonica everywhere. Its expression is the symbolic-allegorical exegesis of Orthodox worship in the form in which it existed at the time of the Thessalonica writer himself. Usually, when it comes to the mystical understanding of church liturgical cult, they mean by it some kind of false, completely unfounded theory of worship, where complete arbitrariness reigns, casting a fog on the mind and heart. This position, although not without some significant amount of truth, is far from absolutely correct. There is no doubt that the mystical interpretation of Christian worship, like mysticism in general, resting partly on the principle of subjectivism, contains in itself some rudiments of arbitrariness, but on the other hand it constitutes a completely natural, inevitable and necessary phenomenon, entirely based on the very essence of the Orthodox Christian liturgical cult. Christian worship, embracing the personal mutual relationship between God and man, therefore itself contains two elements - external, visible, natural and internal, invisible, mysterious. The first consists of various kinds of prayers, rituals, symbolic actions, in a word, external worship of God and expresses a person’s attitude towards God; the second is in the actual reconciliation of man with God, in the real union with Him through the receipt of divine grace and the assimilation of the redemptive merits of Jesus Christ and means the opposite relationship, that is, God to man. Both of these elements are connected with each other in the most intimate and inseparable way, so that in the absence of any one of them, Christian worship as such is positively unthinkable. Destroy the inner side of Christian worship, and it will descend to the level of a pagan cult; take away its external side, and it will become just an abstract theory, never realizable in practice. As a result of this, every rite, every liturgical action always and certainly presupposes a certain relation to the designated substantive idea of ​​the Christian liturgical cult, to the internal, mysterious, mystical side of it, serving as a material sign, external form, a visual image of one or another of its particular contents. The latter is especially noticeable in the Christian sacraments, where external signs or sacred actions constitute the necessary outer shell of the communication to believers of the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit, forming symbols of the union of man with God. Thus, the internal, mysterious side of Christian worship in its close and inseparable unity with external ritual is the real basis, so to speak, the point of departure of mysticism in the exegesis of church rites and customs. Representing the essence of the Christian religion in general, it is the essential content, the main idea on which the entire external Christian liturgical cult is based and from which it receives all its true meaning, its real significance. That is why the general church consciousness, throughout its historical existence, has constantly maintained a moderately mystical view of Christian worship and, even for the most part, at the very emergence of one or another church liturgical action, hastened to connect with it a certain symbolic meaning. Proof of this, in addition to a number of exegetes of worship - mystics, is Christian worship itself. It is enough, as an example, to point out the performance of proskomedia: all of it, from first to last, is surrounded by mysterious symbolism 68 . From what has been said, in turn, it becomes clear that the essence of mysticism in general in its application to Christian worship consists in the desire for the direct perception of that inner vital force, spiritualizing idea - the idea of ​​​​a close personal relationship and mutual unity between God and man, the expression of which, as noted above, is Christian worship with all its external rituals. Depending on what principle is based on this aspiration, the divine service itself receives one or another symbolic meaning. Here lies mainly the makings of that arbitrariness for which the exegetes of divine services—mystics—are so often and mercilessly reproached, although, we repeat, the mystical understanding of Christian worship is in itself a completely natural and legitimate phenomenon. Coming from the same church-wide moderate-mystical view of Christian worship as an external, visible means to the internal, mysterious union of man with God, Simeon of Thessalonica sets the immediate, essential task of his church liturgical exegesis - to show, on the basis of the Holy Scriptures and the liturgical works of his predecessors, what is the particular thought of one general basic idea of Christian liturgical cult is expressed in one or another external liturgical action 69. His usual method for this is symbolism, based on various kinds of parallelisms and analogies and consisting in the position that each liturgical action is only an external form, a visible shell, a material sign, a sensory image, under which its internal, mysterious content is hidden. To visualize the matter, we will provide explanations of some baptismal rituals. “The taking off of the robe and the loosening of (the catechumen), who remains naked, with only a girdle, says, for example, our exegete, means that he rejects all malice and is freed from the bonds of sin, and naked from error and corruption comes to Christ - just as the fact that before he was naked, having fallen into error, destroyed his former clothes, which he now comes to take upon himself through baptism more bright. He turns to the east, seeking the true light, which is the Trinity and one from the Trinity - Christ incarnate, who came from Feman, that is, from the east - seeking also the paradise lost in ancient times, which was planted in the east. He receives a breath from the bishop, for the sake of the first breath, which is renewed. The threefold breath takes into the image of the divine action of the life-giving Trinity, by which it was created and is being created. It is sealed with a cross, by the hand of the apostle, for the sake of the fact that the hand of God - the Son and the Spirit - created us... On the forehead, firstly, the person being baptized is sealed, in order to sanctify his mind, escaping from error. Secondly, on the lips, so that the word is sanctified and confesses the truth. And thirdly - on the Persian, so that he would become pure in heart and see God, and not having any hidden (evil) in himself, live and be passionate and exist about God. After this, the bishop blesses God, because it is righteous to bless Him for the recovery of the lost and for human salvation. Then follows the laying on of hands for the communication of grace and re-creation" 70 . Obviously, all these explanations are based on the dogmatic idea of ​​baptism as a sacrament, regenerating and creating from sins into eternal life. Hence, the simple act of removing clothes from the person being baptized, caused by the natural necessity of the latter's upcoming threefold immersion in water, leads the exegete to a similar idea of ​​liberation from the clothes of sin and the return of heavenly innocence (Col. III, 9) which becomes the main thought of this action, and this latter is its sensory carrier; the appeal of the newly enlightened person to the east, from where the sunlight comes and where, according to the teachings of the church, there was an ancestral paradise, according to the same law of analogy, leads the interpreter to the thought of Christ - the invisible sun - and the heavenly paradise, which a person achieves through baptism, and thus again is a symbol of the desire of the catechumen for true unity with God and abiding with Him, etc. In the same way, Simeon of Thessalonica explains the ritual side and, in general, all private and public church services, but his passion for mystical contemplation already reaches the extreme, reaching, as they say, its apogee in the exegesis of the material accessories of the Christian liturgical cult. In the latter case, analogies and comparisons are given the most extensive place by our exegete, not constrained by almost any definite limits: the appearance of this or that sacred object, the substance from which it is prepared, the composition and properties of this substance, random numerical coincidence, in short, every smallest detail and feature - all provide the most abundant food for symbolism. Thus, the Christian church, with its two-part composition - an altar and a compartment for all the faithful, recalls the two natures of the Savior and thus becomes a symbol of Christ; the pre-altar pulpit, due to its external shape, means the stone rolled away from the tomb of Christ; the sentence (πρόϑεσιϛ), being arranged in a semicircular recess in the likeness of a cave, depicts the Bethlehem cave; the preparation of an omophorion from wool evokes the idea of a lost gospel sheep 71, etc. It is self-evident what consequences such an intense desire for symbolization should have led to in the matter of church liturgical exegesis in general: it had as its natural result arbitrary and strained interpretations based on completely random coincidences and relationships between the fact being explained and the fact that explains it position. Answering, for example, the question he usually posed to himself - “Why does the apkhiepey (at the consecration of the church) put on a sarbita and gird himself,” Simeon of Thessaloniki says: “On top of them (the bishop’s clothes) he (the apkhiepey) puts on a white sarbita (σινδόνα), from the shoulders reaching to the feet, in an image the shroud of Christ in the tomb: for he must set up and consecrate the tomb of Christ, that is, the sacred meal, and, as if recalling what was in the tomb, forms the buried Christ. Srachitsa is girdled with three belts for the glory of the Trinity: on the back of the neck for the sake of intelligence and as a sign of slavery before God, under the arms on the chest - for the sake of verbal power, on the back - for the sake of purity and strength; the first to the glory of the Father, the second to the Son, the third to the Life-giving and Most Pure Spirit. He also places cloths on his hands, like armlets, connected with sarbita, and he also ties them with three belts in the image of the all-effective Trinity. For this is how David cries to the Father: Thy hands, that is, the Son and the Holy Spirit, create me and create me. Nevertheless, nine belts make nine knots, forming nine ranks of angels, preaching the Trinity in threes” 72; or, for example, this is how he explains the meaning of the wax sacrificed by believers to God: “The wax brought and burned signifies our purity and the innocence of the offering; as used for printing, it is brought to mean a divine sign; as gentle and obedient - as a sign of repentance for perseverance and obedience; as capable of taking on any image - as a sign of re-creation; as communicated from flowers - to depict the grace of the Spirit; as collected from many flowers and from almost all - as a sign of an offering from everything; through unity with fire and radiance with the help of fire means deification, and by what connects everything and constantly preserves it means the unity and constancy of love and peace” 73 . Such explanations are found in the Thessalonica exegete quite often, and this constitutes a significant shortcoming of his church liturgical exegesis. However, the latter is abundantly rewarded by those numerous interpretations which, resting entirely on the very essence of the Christian liturgical cult and its external affiliation, reflect its spirit and character and in which therefore mystical symbolism, without leaving its true limits, is distinguished by its complete simplicity and naturalness. This includes all explanations of church prayers and chants, as based on their content, for example, explanations of prayers during the catechumen, prayers during the consecration of the world, songs - Holy God, glory to the Father... 74, etc., as well as explanations of most church rites, having as their real justification either the main idea of a certain rite, as can be seen in the given example of the exegesis of some rites at baptism, or the prayers accompanying them, which eg an explanation of the ritual of vestment and the meaning of sacred clothing, based on the content of the prayers read at the same time 75. The interpretation of divine services on the basis of the content of prayers and, in general, church rites itself constitutes a completely new, hitherto unprecedented phenomenon in the history of symbolic church liturgical exegesis; the honor of its discovery in all fairness belongs to our writer, who was the first to use this method of explanation in its entire breadth in his liturgical works. In achieving the main goal of his church and liturgical exegesis through the just indicated symbolic method of interpretation, Simeon of Thessalonica did not follow one strictly defined guiding principle. Hence, in his interpretations there is noticeable diversity, lack of consistency and strict consistency in principle. In most cases, in different places of his liturgical treatises, he even pursues completely heterogeneous principles. So, for example in the liturgy, the explanations are first based on the principle of Sophronius and Herman, that the liturgy is a visual symbolic image of the earthly life of the Savior 76, from the removal of the catechumens, or better yet, the beginning of the liturgy of the faithful, the interpretations are already based on the eschatological thought of Maximus the Confessor, where a parallel is drawn between the known liturgical actions and the states of the future life 77 - finally, from the song “Holy, Holy, Holy"….. explanations based on the very content of the Eucharistic canon 78. This formulation of the matter is explained by the fact that in his liturgical writings Simeon of Thessaloniki touched upon all Christian worship in general, both private and public; with symbolic explanations of one service or even several similar ones, it is easy, of course, to focus on a certain basic, guiding thought, on a certain principle, as interpreters of divine services did in previous times, but the same cannot be said when one has to deal with the most diverse services; here you already need special skill, great talent, significant art; Moreover, our exegete had no model for himself in such a matter: from his predecessor exegetes he inherited only interpretations of some, sometimes even far from complete, church orders, which interpretations, as is known, he used as needed. Due to the heterogeneity of the principles laid down by Simeon of Thessaloniki as the basis for his interpretations, the latter, by the way, received excessive, unnecessary stretching: often the same object, the same thing, the same church custom and rite are given several completely different meanings. The lighted lamp offered, for example, in the service of the apxiepe means in the Thessalonica exegete both “The radiance of grace abiding in the apxiepe, and the power of teaching it through it to sacred persons and all other believers, and the gift of teaching, spreading the light of the knowledge of God and virtues, and the angelic, divine, pure and bright life of sacred men, and the fact that Apxiepey guides to the light, imitating Christ - the light of the World, and much more, depending on how one is able to reason about (things) divine 79; or, for example, saying the prayer three times: “Lord, have mercy” when vesting a newly tonsured monk in the clothes characteristic of his new rank means for him “that (the initiate) finds protection for himself in the Trinity” and that “that the grace of God is upon him” and, finally, “that that prayer is primarily appropriate for a monk” 80. Borrowing principles for his symbolic interpretation for the most part from previous exegetes of worship, Simeon of Thessaloniki sometimes gives these principles a broader meaning; so, for example, he further draws a parallel between Sophronius and Herman between the second priest and his actions at the beginning of the liturgy, on the one hand, and the baptist and his ministry on the other 81. In order to give greater strength and authority to his church-liturgical exegesis, Simeon of Thessalonica, as noted above, tried to substantiate it, together with exegetical works, on the worship of his predecessors and on the Holy Scriptures. Thanks to this, his liturgical works are everywhere dotted with biblical quotations with allegorical interpretations of them. In most cases, the author cites the texts of the Holy Scriptures completely at the right time, as if the Bible itself came to his word, and this constitutes an outstanding feature of his works among other church works of the Middle Ages: the latter are also most overflowing with passages from the Bible, but very often almost without any ability to use exegetically correct biblical data. As for now the actual external, formal side of the exegetical works of Simeon of Thessaloniki, in this respect they have significant literary finishing: lightness of style, fluency of thoughts, simplicity and clarity in presentation are their distinctive advantages. Their only drawback in formal terms is the lack of strict consistency in places. The intense desire for general intelligibility in revealing the content often prompts the Thessalonica exegete to forget about the form itself; hence he very often comes across repetitions of the same thing and sometimes almost to the point of literal similarity. An explanation, for example, of the meaning of the song “Alleluia” in the section on baptism is given almost literally in the treatise “On the Church” 82; the idea of ​​maintaining order during communion is expressed three times, almost over and over again 83; the removal of particles at the proskomedia is mentioned twice in a row 84, etc. The consistency in the explanation is also violated by numerous inserts of a polemical nature against certain “innovations” of heterodox Christians in the performance of worship, and sometimes by direct deviations from the subject under study. The latter include, for example, the rite of the crowning of the Byzantine emperors, artificially placed among the explanation of the structure of the church and the meaning of its material accessories in the section “De sacro templow”, a description of the rituals and ceremonies of the Byzantine court when explaining the sacrament of the priesthood 85 and others. De libris ecclesiasticis graecorum, pag. 4–6. Euchologium sive rituale graecorum, pag. 212–232. New Tablet, thirteenth edition, Koroblev and Siryakova, p. XIY. See eg. Pages 7,9,24,39,53,54,59,62,63,67,69,75,77,83, etc. The Slavic translation of the work of Simeon of Thessalonica, cited by Dmitrievsky, under the title: “The Book of the Church and Interpretation of the Liturgy” belongs to the Miracle monk Efemius and was made in 1686–89 with the blessing of Patriarch Joachim. See "Writings of St. fathers and teachers of the church related to the interpretation of Orthodox worship T. 2nd, pp. 7–9. Exposing schismatic untruths, ch. 3, sheet 65 on the reverse and 66. Exposing schismatic untruths, ch. 3, l. 71, argument 4th. According to the testimony of Dmitrievsky (see Premeditation to the above-mentioned work) “Simeon, Metropolitan of Thessalonites, was born and raised in the city of Thessalonica or Thessaloniki. He spent his youthful years writing off the sciences, and at the end of his studies he took on the image of a monk.” De Symeonum Scriptis diatribe, pag.186. Yid. Reponsa ad Gabrielem Pentapolitanum – Patrologiae cursus completes – Migne, t. 155, pag. 829 et seq. Yid. Expositio de divino templo, ibid. pag. 697. De sacra precatione, ibid. pag. 556.688. De Symeonum scriptis diatriba, pag. 187. De Symeonum scriptis diatriba, pag. 186. See also the warning to Dmitrievsky’s work cited above: “De Symeonum scriptis diatribe, pag.185, 187–188. See eg. History of the New Testament - George Kedrin, century XV-e. Allatii, De Sym. script, ditr. p. 188; Fabricii, Bibliotheca Graeca, volumen undecimum, pag. 300 A 328. History of the New Testament, page 111. Allatii De Symeonum script. Diatr. P. 189–191. Note The full Latin title of the work reads as follows: Dialogus in Christo adversus omnes haereses et de sola fide “Domini et Dei et Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi, necnon de sacris ritibus et singulis ecclesiae mysteriis, cujus auctor nihil de suo addidat, sed omnia e sacris scripturis et patribus quaeritando collegit et pro viribus composuit respondens ad singuios pro tempore interrogantes"; it is a literal translation of the corresponding Greek title ?? Χριστοῦ, τών ίερῶν τελετῶν τε καί μυστηρίων πάντων τῆϛ ΄εκκλησίαϛ, οὐϐεν αὐτοῦ ἴδιον κεκτηένοϛ, ἀλλ΄ἐκ τῶν ἀγίων Γραϕῶν, καί τῶν Πατέρων ἐρανισθείϛ ἀυτῶ καί σοντεθείϛ κατά δύναμιν, ἀπολογίαϛ διδούϛ ἑκάστω τῶν κατά καιρούϛ ἠρωτηκότων” and means: “a conversation in Christ against all heresies and about the one faith of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ about the sacred rites and all church sacraments, which does not contain anything of his (i.e. Simeon of Thessalonica) own, but from the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers he collected to the best of his ability, giving an answer to each individual answer from the questions proposed from time to time.” This work of Simeon of Thessalonica received special attention and approval in scientific literature: it is praised, for example. Francis Turrin in his scholia on the Apostolic Constitutions (cap. 7 et 8), where he quotes and writes out much of it; John Morinus calls it “an excellent work: “Simeon, Archbishop of Thessalonites, he says, wrote an excellent, excellent work - volume egregium - on the seven sacraments of the church (Vid in Antigius Paenitantialibus, pag. 125); Peter Arcudius (Corcyreus) in his work “Concordia Ecclesiae Orientalis cum Occidentaie” also borrows a lot from the said dialogue of the Thessalonica writer (Vid, p. 6,7,19 etc.), noting among other things that Gabriel of Philadelphia also used the same dialogue (page 10) Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah in his second answer The Wirtemberg theologians (Sar.4) again conducts and quotes the same work of Thessalonica; finally, Allatii, Gohar and others refer to it (Vid. Fabrici - “Biblioteca graeca”, volume undecimum, pag. 332 et Allatii “De Symeon. Seript. Diatr”. p. 193. Note Who the cleric was who proposed questions to Simeon of Thessaloniki is absolutely unknown; but judging by the fact that in the explanation of ordinations he is content with the information provided about the first two degrees of the priesthood and remarks: “We have learned about everything sacred that concerns us” (Patr. curs. compl. t. 155 Migne, p. 396), one must assume that he belonged to the rank of the lower hierarchy and had the rank of presbyter. On the other hand, if we compare the following remark of Simeon of Thessalonica: “You know that I approved that in the cathedral churches the mentioned rite (offering of bread to the panagia) should be performed daily, Vladyka, it is truly necessary, useful and necessary for everyone, we do this all the more willingly because you commanded and handed over this matter to us and we perform this in the cathedral churches by your order (ibid. p. 668–669), it can be assumed with a significant degree of probability that the interviewed cleric was the presbyter of one of the cathedral churches of the Thessaloniki archdiocese. Patrologiae curs. Compl. Migne, t. 155, p. 176. Bibliotheca graeca, volumen undecimum, p. 332. This kind of argumentation on this issue was given by Allatius: “Some, much earlier, he said, not badly noticed that this is the second work αἰρέσεων...) is completely different and different from the first (ἐρμηνεία περί τε τοῦ θέιου ναοῦ ....), because in the first nothing is said against heresies and it is not written in the form of a dialogue, unless we want to call that a dialogue. what is written in response to the question of others” – De Symeonum scriptis diatriba, pag. 193. Patrologiae Cursus completes – Migne, t. 155, pag. 748. Patrologiae Cursus completes – Migne, t. 155, pag. 733–740. Vid.Curses. compet. Migne, t.155, p. 253; 333–336; 356 etc. De Symeonum scriptis diatriba, p. 193–194. De purgatorio, pag. 31.140.214; Contra Hettinger, p. 8. John Molyvdus - the most learned notary of the Great Church, the first to publish all the works of Simeon of Thessalonica in Iasi in 1683 with the assistance of John Ducas, the governor of Maldowallachia and with the blessing of the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus; the latter appended two prefaces to this edition, of which in the first - “ad Ioannem Ducam” - he praises the care and assistance of John Ducas in the work undertaken, and in the second - “Ad Iectorem” - he reviews the very works of Simeon of Thessalonica. “One of them (the church fathers), he says, by the way, is the writer of this book (published in Iasi), Archbishop of blessed and glorious memory Simeon of Thessalonica, in the best and most faithful manner, compiled a review (σύνοψιν or abbreviation - compendium) of the Scriptures and the Fathers, so that the uneducated could easily learn, and those who study would learn, and the learned would retain in memory (see the Iasi edition of the works of Simeon of Thessaloniki, p. 4. Subsequently, the works of Simeon of Thessalonica were translated into Latin by Minem in). his famous work Patrologiae Cursus completus, t. 155. Allatii De Symeonum. scriptis diatribe, pag. 194. Fabricii – Bibliothecae aeca, volumen undecimum, pag. 332. Allatii De Symeonum. script. ditr. p. 189–190. Patrologiae Cnrs. Compl. Migne, t. 155, p. 940. Bibliotheca graeca, pag. 332. De Symeonum scriptis diatribe, pag.194. For the full title of all these works, see the Iasi edition of the works of Simeon of Thessalonica in “Patrol. Curs. Migne, t. 155, as well as in Biblioth. graec. Fabricii volumen undecimum, p. 332–333 and in – De Symeon. script. ditr. – Alatii, p. 194. Patrologiae cursus completus – Migne,t. 155, pag. 701. Ibid. p. 201, 212, 228, 241, 252, 253, 257, 288, 300, 340, 364, 376 etc. Comp. Liturgical writings of the church fathers, vol. 1, pp. 43, 167 and Patrol. courses. compl. Migne, t. 155, p. 228, 229, 388. Wed. Lit. pis. father churches, vol. 1, pp. 9–16 and Patr. Curs. Compl. Migne, t. 155, pag. 248–252. 364 etc. Patr. Curs. Compl. Migne t. 155, p. 253. Ibid. p. 276, 481, 573, 576. Ibid. p. 521, 560, 573, 580. See Liturgic. Pis. father church vol. I, pp. 266 et seq. and Patr. Curs. Compl. Migne, t. 155 – departments: “De sacra liturgia; Expositio de divino templo" and "De sacro templo". Patr. Curs. Compl. Migne, t. 155. p. 221 compar. Nicolai Cabasilae – de vita in Christo Iibri septem, pag. 30. Ibid. p. 305 – 308, 372, 385, 396, et seg. 481 etc. Ibid. De Sacro templo cf. Liturgical written father church vol. 1, p. 304 et seq. Patr. Curs. compl. Migne, t. 155. p. 177. The very historical fate of the Christian liturgical rite can be recognized as an external motivating and at the same time quite sufficient basis for mysticism in the matter of church and liturgical exegesis, at least in some particular cases. It is known that over time, many liturgical actions in the broad sense of the word managed to de jure lose their original practical purpose and, however, continued to exist de facto. As such, they had to receive some kind of explanation, so as not to remain otherwise unfounded, devoid of any positive meaning, and so in relation to the main idea of ​​the Christian liturgical cult - the idea of ​​redemption, they begin to be given, and quite naturally, one or another allegorical meaning. Thus, the small entrance to the liturgy with the Gospel, which got its start in ancient church practice, where it was caused by the need to transfer at a certain time the Gospel from the container or deaconium (σκευοϕυλάκιον, διακονικόν), in which it was stored, to the middle of the church for reading, being retained in subsequent liturgical practice, when the Gospel was kept on the throne and there was no need to transfer it, it now receives a symbolic justification in the sense of the first coming of the Savior into the world (see Interpretation of Herman - Liturgical Scriptures of the Church vol. 1, p. 379). The same should be said about the current prayers for the catechumens announced at the liturgy, about the great entrance of the faithful to the liturgy, etc. "Καί ἰδού ἐγχειροῦμεν δί ὑπακοήν ἐν ἀγάπη Χριστοῦ ἐκτελέσαι τήν ὑμετέραν αἴτησιν. Καί περί ἐκάστου τῶν ἰερῶν συμβολων ὂπερ ἒγνωμεν έκ τῶν ἰερωτάτων Γραϕῶν ἐροῦμεν. Καί ὂπερ ἂν ἡμᾶϛ οἱ Πατέρεϛ ἡμῶν ἐδίδαξαν λέξομεν, καϑόσον έξισχύσαμεν γνῶναι" κομπαρ. with the following words of the cleric: “Λεύμεϑά σου, ἒκαστον έκϑεῖναι τῶν μυστηρίων, καί τά ἱερά ἡμῖν ἀναπτύξαι σύμβολον, καί διδάξαι ἡμᾶς τίς ἐκάστον τυγχάνει τῶν τελουμένων ἡ δύναμιϛ” – Patr. Curs. Compl. Migne, t. 155, p. 208. Patr. Curs. Compl. Migne, t. 155, pag. 216–217. Patr. Curs. Compl. Migne, t. 155: De divino templo, p. 704, 708; De sacro templo, p. 348: De sacra liturgia p. 260. De sacro templo, pag. 309. Patr. Curs. Compl. Migne t. 155, p. 217–220; 244–248; 573–580. De sacro liturgia, p. 256–261 compar. De divino templo, p. 712–716. De sacro liturgia, p. 256 et seg. De divino templo, p. 717 et seb. compar. Liturgical pis.father church T. 1, pp. 274 et seq. 369 et seq. De sacro liturgia, p. 296 et seg. De divino templo, p. 725–732. compar. Liturgical pis.father church T. 1, pp. 327 et seq. De divino templo, pag. 732 et seg. Ibid. De sacra liturgia, pag. 257. Ibid. De Pacnitentia, pag. 497. Ibid. De sacra liturgia, p. 261 et seg. Compar. Liturgical written father churches. Vol. 1, pp. 276 and 374. Patr. Curs. compl. Migne,t. 155, p. 225 compar. p. 316. Ibid. pag. 352–356; 428 et seg.