Дмитриевский А.А. Лекции по истории богослужения в Русской Церкви (1 год обучения)

[First lecture by A.A. Dmitrievsky] Not without embarrassment and fear, gentlemen, I enter this pulpit. I am afraid because, due to my youth and lack of experience, I will not be able to satisfy your completely legitimate and fair demand - to hear from me something that was not explained to you or was not told to you at all in the seminary, as a general secondary educational institution - an institution that is bound by the number of lessons and a completely developed, almost forever defined program. in a word, I am afraid that your curiosity, pure and youthfully sincere, curiosity in the sense of the desire for knowledge, would not turn into indifference or - from which God forbid - into outright disgust at my very first steps, perhaps even very unsteady, in the field of an independent lecturer in a higher educational institution in the department of liturgics, or, rather, on the history of worship in the Russian Church. Be gentlemen, be lenient and patient, look not at the beginning of the matter, but at the end of it, and refrain from a quick judgment. For my part, I promise to do everything that depends on me, so that my lectures would not be an extraordinary uselessness, a waste of your precious time, and every time at least they would add small grains to the treasury of your knowledge, really move your mind and encourage you to new and new questions to which you have not paid any attention before. I am embarrassed because it has fallen to my lot to appear before you as a lecturer on liturgics, a role that, although very respectable, is equally difficult and thankless. Indeed, which of you, gentlemen, does not know how disfavored the science I have named is in seminaries? How very often we transferred these antipathies of ours to the teacher of liturgics, although justice requires us to admit that they were not without sin in this. We often applied this hated name to comrades who in one way or another showed sympathy for this science. At least here, even at the Academy, for a long time I bore the nickname from my comrades: “uh, you, liturgics!!” It seems to me that you need to be a great optimist to think that you were attracted to the audience by love and sympathy for science, and not by curiosity, the desire to find out what new I can say, what I am like in myself, and so on. In a word, your laudable desire was expressed in student jargon: “getting to the bottom of me” - that’s what brought you to this audience. But you, perhaps, love the subject itself and are alien to those antipathies towards it that I had to observe in my time in my comrades, and therefore it is my duty, therefore, only to support this love in you. Indeed, [gentlemen], liturgics, or rather, the history of worship in the Christian Church, is far from being such a lifeless, dry, subject alien to meaning and a developing educational element as the compilers of textbooks on this science presented this science to us. It seems to me that our science owes it to these liturgists that her name became a dirty nickname, and she herself caused panic among young people and forever discouraged them from even skimming the dirty pages of these textbooks. In the seminary where I studied, in my time, passing exams in liturgics was characteristically called the time of the Tamerlane invasion, and the end of exams in it was “the overthrow of the Mongol yoke.” Let us enter into a more or less detailed examination of those educational manuals on liturgy, which nourished Russian spiritual youth in our seminaries and continue to nourish them to this day, and see whether they can develop in spiritual youth a love for our science, and at the same time give precise, correct and clear concepts about the highest subject, dear to the heart of every sincere believer - about Christian worship. At the same time, we will understand what is needed so that our science is not alien to those developing and attractive elements that other sciences are endowed with in abundance. The first textbook on liturgics in the full sense of the word can be called the book by the (already mentioned) professor of the Kharkov Theological Seminary A. Chernyaev, published in 1859. Its full title is: “A detailed systematic indication of the composition of liturgics, or the science of the worship of the Orthodox Church.” This loud name alone is enough to see how broad the plans of this liturgist are and how he relates to the works of his predecessors, people many times better than him both in their mentality and in their solid works for their time in the field of liturgics (for example, you can point to Metropolitan Gabriel of Saint Petersburg and his essay “On the ministry and rites of the Orthodox Church”). Greek-Russian Church"). With his title - “A systematic presentation of the doctrine of the divine service of the Orthodox Church” - he directly wants to make it clear that before him there were no such works and he is the first to begin a scientific examination of the subject that interests him - the divine service of the Christian Church. These are sufficient incentives, in the opinion of Mr. Chernyaev, for such a systematic study of the composition and origin of worship. “One of the essential duties of every Orthodox Christian,” says Mr. Chernyaev, “is to have a clear and distinct knowledge of the worship of the Orthodox Church. We must, according to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, serve God intelligently: how can we serve Him intelligently when we do not understand divine services? We must serve God with the greatest attention and reverence, putting aside all worldly cares and directing the eyes of the mind and heart to the one thing above and divine; and the external greatness of church services and rituals, in the absence of knowledge of their inner, hidden meaning, occupies and touches us very little and therefore does not completely detach us from earthly thoughts, does not concentrate our thoughts in the one God,” etc., etc. So, the need to intelligently understand the meaning and significance of Orthodox worship is the motivation for the author to engage in a systematic presentation of the composition and origin of the worship of the Orthodox Church. We are no longer talking about the fact that no systematization will detach an absent-minded person from earthly thoughts and will not concentrate his thoughts in the one God, but in order to understand the meaning and significance of Christian worship, there is no need to resort to an unnatural method - systematization, when both can be perfectly understood from the historical (natural) course of development of worship in the Christian Church. {We can safely say that systematization like the one resorted to by Mr. Chernyaev not only does not give us a clear and distinct knowledge of Christian worship, but, on the contrary, obscures the matter and creates an unimaginable confusion of thoughts in the head of an inexperienced reader. “In order to present the idea of liturgics as clearly, separately and thoroughly as possible,” our author begins his attempt at systematization, “we consider it necessary,” he says: 1) to make a remark about its name, 2) to establish the concept of its subject - the worship of the Orthodox Church, 3) to show the relationship between this subject and others subordinate to it, namely the Christian faith and Christian morality, 4) to determine the importance of liturgics in the series theological sciences, 5) its task and 6) parts.” So, from the very first steps of his systematization, our author turns out to be dependent. In fact, take the trouble to open any textbook on any theological science you like and you will see that the same headings are always displayed on the first pages. Here you will find sections that discuss the name of the science, its position among other theological sciences, its subject, importance, tasks, etc., etc. Thus, our author included completely alien headings on the pages of his liturgics, not because there was an urgent need for them, but because he was not used to seeing a single textbook without them. It was here that a number of difficulties arose for him, which he later encountered when he began to answer each of the headings he had stolen. since the latter were not caused by the substance of the matter and were a direct brake on science, the answers to them either represent a simple set of phrases, or are directly borrowed from those sciences with which the science of worship has the most points of contact and from which the very headings are taken.} The author directly began his treatise “on the relationship between worship and other elements of the Christian religion” with the fall of man, with his loss of true knowledge of God, rightness of will, purity of heart, and derived from there The most particular sections, not without oddities, are “the relationship between 1) faith and 2) activities pleasing to God.” “Is it difficult,” says Mr. Chernyaev, “to be convinced that faith alone, without the prayerful aspiration of our souls to grief, cannot transfer us from earth to heaven, set us up and prepare us for eternal blissful dwelling there with the Lord and glorifying His all-holy name? Can we ascend to some earthly height if we only look at it without getting any closer...,” and so on. In this tirade one hears no longer a liturgist, who may not care at all about these thoughts, but a pure theologian, or, rather, a moral theologian. But all these oddities cannot be paralleled for comparison with the strangeness that we notice in our author when he clarified the subject, task and purpose of the “systematic indication of liturgics.” “The tasks of liturgics,” he says, “are twofold: 1) the main one is the explanation of worship and 2) the secondary one is historical research regarding worship. The main task of Orthodox liturgics is to explain the worship of the Orthodox Church. Explaining the composition and content of church services, liturgics should not for one minute lose sight of the fact that each of them, as the shell of one or another element of the internal composition of the divine service, in one way or another serves to elevate us into blessed communion with the Lord... Whether it explains the Divine Liturgy, it must see in all parts of this divine service the service of reconciliation of the sinful human race with the all-holy righteousness of God. Whether the order of the sacraments will be explained, the soul of the explanation should be the idea that visible actions connected with the performance of one or another sacrament are signs and, at the same time, instruments, conductors into our soul of the invisible grace of the Holy Spirit.” This is where a complete misunderstanding of the essence and tasks of liturgics, as a completely independent science, manifested itself; here it was clearly stated that liturgics is far from being the same as dogmatic or moral theology, that its content cannot fit into the framework, headings and divisions that we see in purely theological sciences. In fact, one must be very naive to begin the matter with a “mysterious explanation of the works of the divine service of the Christian Church, without knowing the works themselves; and strive to prove at all costs that all these works are imbued with one general idea, directed towards the same goal. The latter is obvious even without evidence, and the task of the liturgist is not this at all, but to show how the apostles and their successors accomplished the work the Savior laid the foundation for; how they put together and organized a whole organism, a whole system of services, really imbued with one thought, how they tidied up and adapted all the decent and necessary means and conveniences; in a word, the task of the liturgist is, first of all, to tell the story of their labors, inspired by a deep consciousness of the matter, imbued with one main thought. In this case, the study of the subject will come to the fore, and not grouping it under certain headings, and, moreover, historical study, which is what a science such as liturgics, which primarily deals with historical works, should have in mind. The explanations “sacramental, dogmatic and moral” - which, in the opinion of this author, constitutes the main task of liturgics - will be united here by themselves with such a development of the subject. And the author himself soon realized his mistake in understanding the tasks of liturgics and already on p. 70, treating “the place of historical research,” came to the following conclusion: “that historical research about the worship of the Orthodox Church should not be placed in a separate part of liturgics, but should be presented together with the presentation of the objects of worship.” but once the author took the wrong road, without properly understanding the tasks of liturgics as a science, he could not (although at times, as we have now seen, he had glimpses of common sense) to set up his system of liturgics correctly and completely scientifically. Mr. Chernyaev does not have any idea underlying the division of liturgics into its component parts. It seemed convenient to him - he divided the entire liturgy into three parts. In the first part, he sets out the doctrine of the internal structure of worship, where he included the doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice, the sacraments and prayer, in the second - the doctrine of the external structure of worship, by which he means all types of worship, in the third part - the doctrine of the accessories of worship, where he includes the concept of the structure of the church, of sacred persons, of sacred vestments, times and liturgical books. From this division it is clear that the first part of the “Systematic indication of the composition of liturgics” coincides completely with the subjects of dogmatic and moral theology, which Mr. Chernyaev is aware of, the second and third only, therefore, constitute the field of liturgics, but they are also presented by him in a far from scientific manner. He presented the teaching, for example, about the church in the form of what parts the church is made of, what occupies what place in it, completely losing sight of how the churches were originally arranged, how they gradually reached the form that they have in our time, for what purposes and needs new additions were made to it. The section on liturgical books is presented in the same dry and bare definitions. Thus, this living and vital subject, which had such a living movement and development for many centuries, under the pen of Mr. Chernyaev, took on such a dry and lifeless presentation that makes the reader’s head spin. But the merit of Mr. Chernyaev is that he initiated a number of liturgists, compilers of textbooks on divine services, and called others to similar work. His closest successor was the notorious professor of the Kyiv Theological Seminary Daniil Smolodovich with his “Liturgics, or the science of worship of the Orthodox Eastern Catholic Church.” Although the author does not pretend, like his predecessor, to “detailed systematic exposition” of his chosen subject, you can see from the very first pages that he follows his example. In Smolodovich’s liturgics you do not find a brief note about the name of the science, but you do read the headings: 1) the connection of this science with other theological sciences and the concept of it (this heading in his predecessor is expressed in two headings like this: “a) to show the relationship between this subject and others subordinate to it, namely the Christian faith and Christian morality” and b) to determine the importance of liturgics in the range of theological sciences); 2) you come across a rubric here: the subject of science and its duty (this rubric in Chernyaev is also divided into two: a) to establish the concept of its subject - the worship of the Orthodox Church and b) to define its task); 3) the need and goal of science and 4) division (in Chern[yaev] - “Parts”). Thus, the words are different, but the essence of the matter remains the same. Smolodovich did not depart far from his predecessor in understanding the duty of his science, or - as Chernyaev more correctly put it - the goals of science. “For the proper disclosure of the liturgical order in general, which constitutes the subject of our science,” he says, “the science of worship must: 1) give a certain concept of each sacred thing and each sacred action included in the worship service, as well as of each church service; 2) indicate, if possible, the time of their origin, the reason or sacred intention for their introduction into the circle of worship, and 3) in particular, show their inner dignity and spiritual and mysterious signification.” Thus, although in paragraph 2 Smolodovich treats of the need to “indicate, whenever possible, the reason or sacred intention for the appearance of everything that is part of the divine service of the Orthodox Church,” i.e., as if indicating the need for a historical study of Orthodox worship, this turns out to be not the main duty of his science. in his opinion, the special duty of liturgics is to show the inner dignity of Orthodox worship and its spiritual and sacramental signification. In a word, Smolodovich, like Chernyaev, considers “historical research regarding worship” to be a secondary task of liturgy, and “explanation of worship” as the main one. That this is exactly so and not otherwise is clearly seen further from the definition of “the needs and goals of science.” “The science of worship,” says Smolodovich, “is very useful and necessary for every son of the Orthodox Church. For if a person participating in public worship, through science, clearly understands its mysterious meaning, knows how and why it is performed, then a) as his understanding increases, truly pious feelings can be more successfully aroused and nourished in his soul, b) his service to God can be free from superstition and delusions, to which people who do not know the true meaning of worship are more or less susceptible, and thus science can guide everyone believer to the establishment in the soul of his true faith and true piety, expressed in sacred actions and rites of worship, and, only thirdly, c) the consciousness of the antiquity of the establishment of church services and all sacred rites convinces the son of the Orthodox Church of the integrity and continuous preservation of the unity, purity and holiness of the traditions of the Church and through this inspires obedience to its statutes.” And here, if the author tolerates the presence of a historical element in his science, it is only because he considers it necessary for every son of the Orthodox Church to “recognize the antiquity of the establishment of church services,” and he needs this latter in order to “instill obedience to its statutes” in every son of the Orthodox Church. Thus, history is given a very insignificant role in this textbook, and a completely alien duty is imposed on it - disciplinary. {Mr. Smolodovich’s irresistible desire to explain everything in our divine services in a mysterious sense runs through his entire textbook. On page 6 in § “Properties of the public worship of the Orthodox Church,” he says: “The worship of the Orthodox Church does not have anything superfluous in its ritual, anything too sensual that could suppress the spirit of faith. There is nothing idle and vain in it, serving only to excite the imagination (?), but every sacred act, every ritual, every sacred thing has its own spiritual sign and purpose of spiritual edification: everything is imbued with the spirit of the Christian faith. On the other hand, continues Mr. Smolodovich, the divine services of the Orthodox Church have no shortage of sacred rites and actions. The spirit of the Christian faith is clothed in the divine form of sacred rites to such an extent and to such an extent as is required to edify the pious feelings of those present and those praying. Everything in it is arranged and accomplished so gracefully and orderly that the pious feeling of a believer will always find in it food, joy and tranquility for his spirit.” No matter how florid these phrases are, it is easy to see inaccuracies and even mistakes in them. {To say that the worship of the Orthodox Church has nothing superfluous in its rituals means telling a complete lie. In due time we will see that in the divine service of the Orthodox Church there is a lot of superfluity, and, moreover, such that should have long been beyond the threshold of the church.} It is absolutely true that in our divine service there is nothing idle, vain, but to say that there is nothing sensual in it and to interpret that “the pious feeling of a believer will always find in it food, joy and tranquility for his spirit” - this is positively incomprehensible. The divine service of the Orthodox Church, one might say, both delights the gaze of a true believer, and delights his ears, and gives very rich food to the imagination of the one praying, but all this in due measure, as befits the place of abode of the Lord of glory. Our churches are usually built on a grandiose, majestic scale and, if possible, decorated in a very elegant way, so that by their very appearance or appearance, striking the eyes of the one entering and praying, they would tear him away from the everyday gray environment and remind him of his direct goal 11, of his real purpose. Harmony, harmony and melody in the singing of church liturgical songs are not only not considered alien to Orthodox worship, but are even considered a direct responsibility and actual duty of the shepherds of Christ’s Church. Consequently, a true believer in the church will hear a lot of pleasant things for his ears. As for the imagination, there is especially much food for it in our worship. the entire appearance of our worship, its symbolism, has as its immediate goal to act on the feeling of the person praying and his thoughts, from the visible to draw to the representation, imagination of the Invisible, that which is depicted in the symbol for a possible and accessible representation of Him. But most of all, it is difficult to understand in the above quotation the words: “The spirit of the Christian faith is clothed in the divine appearance of sacred rites to such an extent and to the extent that is required to edify the pious feeling of those present and praying.” It would also be understandable if it were said that the Christian faith (understanding it in the sense of dogma, Christian teaching) is clothed “in the divine appearance of sacred rites,” but to say the same in relation to the “spirit of the Christian faith” is more than impossible.} On page 24 in § “External view of churches” we read the following: “in ancient times, as now, churches were built either like a ship, which means the sailing of the Church in the midst of the world and the direction of its path to a heavenly haven, or like a cross, as a sign of the foundation and firm standing of the Church until the end of the world. Nowadays, churches are built with elevated domes, which can be likened to the vault of heaven. The indispensable and best decoration of churches are crosses, which are erected on their heads, as a sign of victory over the devil and all the enemies of our salvation. Since ancient times, Orthodox churches have been arranged with altars facing the east, because the Church comes from the east, is illuminated by the East from above and strives towards the east of the eternal, never-setting sun.” Here each of the forms of the church is taken as something given in advance, and it is directly explained that it expresses itself in a mysterious sense - completely forgetting that the art of architecture had to go through many stages in order for the church to take the form of a ship, a cross, or the real form in which it appears to us at the present time. And it is not surprising that it may seem to an underdeveloped student or half-educated reader that churches with elevated domes began to be built because they were likened to the vault of heaven; because it was precisely for this reason that churches began to be built towards the east, in order to show that “the Church comes from the east, is illuminated by the East from above and strives towards the east of the eternal, never-setting sun,” and so on, so on. In a word, there is no mention of history in all this. And for a student who is preparing to become a priest, it will be completely indifferent to how the church is built, as long as it resembles one of those forms and with those accessories that are indicated in his training manual. But we have already had occasion to say that Smolodovich is not an enemy of history, and he even tries to use it. Here, as a sample, we take one example of this kind at random. “The Feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord,” he says on page 142, “is glorified by the Church for nine days - from August 5th to August 13th. The words spoken on this holiday are found in the fathers of the 4th century: Ephraim the Syrian, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom, etc., but the beginning of the celebration, of course, goes back further than this time. For the holiday, two canons of St. Cosmas of Svyatogradets and St. John of Damascus." But who will agree that this is the history of the feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord, who will be satisfied that the beginning of the celebration, of course, goes back further than the time of Ephraim the Syrian and others. Can one really think that the inquisitive mind of the young man will not raise more significant questions: how, for example, was there no information about this holiday preserved before the 4th century, why did Ephraim the Syrian and others say words on these holidays, were there any special circumstances and motives for this? and so on. In a word, more detailed historical information is needed and urgently needed, and not what Smolodovich’s liturgics is filled with. In the division of liturgics, Smolodovich went somewhat further than his predecessor. He divided it into two main parts: general and private. “In general, it will be said,” says Smolodovich, “about worship in general, such as: about the beginning of worship, its essence, properties, etc., as well as about the essential and common accessories of worship to all church services; and in the private one various types of church services will be presented.” This division of liturgics has been maintained to this day in all textbooks that appeared after Smolodovich. If we add to everything we have said that the language of this liturgics is distinguished by remarkable darkness, vagueness and peculiar old-fashioned expressions, full of pompous and pompous-cold rhetorical embellishments, which are barely understandable even for very developed people; that all liturgics is divided into many headings and paragraphs, not generalized and not interconnected by one living thought, but invented solely in order to shuffle the material at hand - then it will be clear why this textbook was not tolerated by any more or less zealous students, [n]or dedicated teachers of this science, although with the introduction of the new Charter [in] 1867, it was introduced as a textbook in spiritual seminaries. The educational committee even compiled a program for this science based on Smolodovich’s textbook and sent it out to seminaries for guidance. But the Educational Committee could not help but notice its enormous shortcomings in this textbook and tried to correct it somewhat and supplement it in important places. The lack of historical development of Christian worship was identified as one of the important shortcomings of the textbook we were examining 286. In the “explanatory note” attached to the liturgical program, we read the following: “The educational manual for the teaching of liturgics in seminaries is the approved St. synod book by Archpriest Smolodovich; but this manual, despite its comparatively superior merits compared to other existing textbooks, needs some additions and changes. While recognizing that the presentation and explanation of general accessories and different types of church services in the book of Archpriest Smolodovich is generally satisfactory, the Educational Committee finds the presentation of the theoretical part of liturgics in it insufficient. The information it provides about the beginning, essence, properties and internal composition of worship is too brief and general; the historical development of Christian worship after Jesus Christ and the apostles is not represented at all; the purpose of the service is also not mentioned. Such unsatisfactoriness of the theoretical part of liturgics constitutes an important shortcoming in a book intended for the educational guidance of spiritual students who are preparing over time to become intelligent performers of divine services and for whom it is not enough to know only the composition of church services and the significance of private liturgical actions, but it is also necessary to clearly understand the spirit of worship, the attitude towards it and the mutual connection of its various parts. but such an understanding can be achieved,” the explanatory note adds, “only by a proper study of the general foundations, properties, purpose and historical development of worship” (p. 17). The same note indicates what needs to be done to avoid the shortcomings inherent, in the opinion of the Educational Committee, in the textbook of Fr. Smolodovich. The changes and additions recommended here concern almost the whole of liturgics, but mainly fall on the first general part of this science. As for the history of Christian worship, due to the lack of manuals of this kind in Russian, the Educational Committee limited itself to a simple recommendation of the German liturgics of Luft of 1847 287. How satisfactory the amendments made by the Educational Committee in the explanatory note will be shown by an analysis of textbooks written after the publication of the program on liturgics and on this program 288. The need for a new textbook affected teachers and students equally and prompted the former to begin drawing up manuals specifically in relation to the already developed program. The first textbook of this kind should be considered the book “Orthodox Christian Liturgics. Part 1. Compiled in relation to the program published by the Educational Committee at St. Synod for Theological Seminaries, former teacher of the Caucasian Theological Seminary, class inspector and law teacher of the Caucasian Diocesan School, priest Fedor Khoroshunov. 1877, Stavropol." But if books on liturgics, which came to light as a result of the sole desire of their authors, were unsatisfactory, although they were given full scope in constructing a system of liturgics and a program for it, then in no way could a book for “official necessity” compiled according to a program outlined by others be satisfactory. In Khoroshunov’s book (after explaining that teaching liturgics in seminaries is not an easy matter and requires a lot of work and perseverance in order to navigate the enormous mass of material and give at least brief answers to the questions posed in the program) the main goal of the publication is directly stated - the desire to share liturgical work with venerable performers of Orthodox Christian worship, for whom the historical solution of liturgical issues required by the modern direction of theological n[a]uk, it won’t be useless. Thus, the new liturgics is a complement to the old [textbooks], and the historical solution of liturgical issues, and not a mysterious and speculative explanation of them (as was before), becomes the main goal of the author. The goal is wonderful and quite scientific, but let’s see how our author fulfills it. On page 2, in the division of liturgics, Fr. Khoroshunov interprets that “the science of liturgics should be divided into two parts: general and particular,” i.e., he says the same thing as Smolodovich. “In the general part of liturgics,” continues Fr. Khoroshunov, “the general concepts relating to Christian worship should be outlined (“here,” he adds in parentheses, “the history of worship should also include”), and in particular, the components and types of Christian worship should be considered.” From these words it is difficult to determine exactly what Fr. means. Khoroshunov under the history of worship. These difficulties increase even more if we compare this passage with the definition of liturgics and its tasks made by Fr. Khoroshunov. “Liturgics, as the science of Orthodox Christian worship,” he says, “has the goal of presenting a systematic overview of the formation of the service of the Orthodox Church, its entire composition and individual parts, the way it is performed by priests and its assimilation by society.” Here he speaks “about a systematic review of the formation of the divine service of the Orthodox Church” in general and thus seems to allow the possibility of a historical study of the divine service of the Orthodox Church in all its parts, but then in a completely incomprehensible way he relates the history of worship only to the first - general - part of liturgics and does not allow the possibility of studying by the historical method (with which he distinguished himself from his predecessors) the private (in Khoroshunov’s language) part of liturgics. It is strange that the author completely overlooks the fact that the second (particular) part of liturgics has almost even more rights to historical study than the first. All our liturgical rites, which make up the second part of the liturgics according to the division of Fr. Khoroshunov, did not appear immediately at a certain specific time in their entire composition and did not retain their appearance unchanged once and for all, but on the contrary, appearing in the first centuries of the Church of Christ, first in the simplest rudimentary form (close to how they are set out in the Gospel and the writings of the apostles and apostolic men), then with the course of various historical circumstances and reasons they took on a more and more complex appearance” until they received their real appearance. To know these, so to speak, motivating circumstances and reasons that explain to us the meaning and significance of sacred rites, as constituent elements of any rite, and the reasons for their appearance in the rite itself - in our opinion, is the direct responsibility and duty of the pastor and teacher of this science, so that we can clearly see what in our rites and sacred rites is historically correct, logically consistent and grammatically correct, and what in these rites is devoid of these qualities and exists as anachronism, as something that violates the harmony and logic of the rite itself and leads to vain questions and bewilderments, giving rise to dangerous criticism, tending to the complete destruction of any ritual. It is this historical study of the rites of Orthodox worship that neither Khoroshunov, nor his predecessors, nor even his closest successor Lebedev, whose liturgics was written according to the program of the Educational Committee and is now introduced as a textbook in theological seminaries, lacks. The full title of his book is: “The science of the worship of the Orthodox Church, compiled by the teacher of the Moscow Theological Seminary Peter Lebedev. The Holy Synod awarded the prize of His Eminence Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, in 2 parts. M., 1881" Judging by the review of this liturgy by the Study Committee, one can think that this textbook fully satisfies the requirements of the Study Committee and its program. “Teacher Lebedev,” this review says, “took himself the task of giving feasible answers to the requirements of a normal program in the sense, order and dimensions indicated by this program. His work under consideration represents a very satisfactory fulfillment of this task. Both in terms of subject content and in terms of the systematic arrangement of this content, it corresponds to the requirements of the liturgical program; due to its size, it can be completed with seminary students at the time appointed for this subject. It also deserves approval for its presentation of the subject. The essay is written in correct, precise, clear and simple language; each sentence communicates a certain thought, a certain knowledge, without verbosity, without rhetoric - which is what many works on this subject suffer greatly from. In presenting the subject, the author managed to avoid reporting controversial, fortune-telling information, and through this did not go beyond the boundaries of the textbook of secondary educational institutions. The advantage of Mr. Lebedev’s work is also its proportionality, which he preserved in indicating the practical purpose, historical development and symbolic meaning of various objects and liturgical actions. It is clear to the reader how this or that object, this or that action, which appeared as a result of practical needs or ancient religious customs, entered into an organic connection among Christians with their beliefs and took on a symbolic character.” (Church Herald], 1881, No. 14 and No. 15, p. 70). In a word,” I repeat, “from this review we can safely conclude that Lebedev’s real book said the last word in this science and fully satisfied the program, which - we must admit - was not compiled flawlessly. In fact, from the very first lines of this book we encounter inaccuracies, omissions and inconsistencies even with a normal program. “Liturgics,” Mr. Lebedev defines this science, “is the science of worship in general, as a social, church matter, and of its forms.” And further: “The task of Orthodox liturgics,” he says, “is to present the divine service of the Orthodox Church in the form and meaning as it is performed and understood by the Orthodox Church.” Here the concept of liturgics is given so vaguely that replace the word “liturgics” with some other word (for example, “homiletics”) and you will get “the science of social, ecclesiastical affairs and its forms.” Obviously, the author did not try to look into the depths of science itself, to look at its essence, in order to derive from there a more characteristic, more accurate and clear definition. Next. If the author sets the goal of his science only to present the divine service of the Orthodox Church in the form and sense as it is performed and understood by the Orthodox Church today, then this is such a relatively insignificant goal that there would be no need to compose a special science. In this case, liturgy as a science can be positively mixed with the charter, which is now studied in the fourth grade of theological school. And if we remember that in this institution, next to the rules, there is also an “explanation of worship,” then we can safely say that liturgy, as a special science, for the purpose for which it was created, in the opinion of Mr. Lebedev, is positively not needed, it is a waste of labor and time. Obviously, the author wanted to say something else, but what it is is difficult to determine from the darkness of thought. The definitions made of the subject and purpose of liturgics do not coincide with the desire for an explanatory note with the program; they positively lack the author’s desire to study our worship historically, although only “the history of Christian worship,” in the words of this note, “can give a proper understanding of the high antiquity of the worship of our Orthodox Church and its superiority in this respect over the worship of non-Orthodox church societies,” and the use of Luft’s “Liturgics” is recommended even for this purpose. True, somewhat lower, when the program required an answer to the question “Historical information about Christian worship,” he, willy-nilly, had to deviate from his definition of liturgics and its purpose. “Just as Christianity itself, over the space of centuries, more and more accurately and perfectly defined its external image,” says Mr. Lebedev, “so the same thing should have happened with Christian worship. Over time, new needs arose in the Christian Church, there were new revelations of the Holy Spirit always present in it, significant events and memories took place. All this could not remain without influence on the development and greater education of worship. Educational power and authority in the field of worship have always been considered as the proper right of the supreme authority of the Church, and she acted here with the authority of Divine institution, animated by the Holy Spirit. Thus, Christian worship, having received its beginning from Jesus Christ and the apostles, receives its further formation, on the basis of the original establishment, from the supreme authority of the Church.” The idea is very beautiful, although not entirely accurately expressed, but it is a pity that the author is very close to the history of the development and gradual formation of Christian worship. In his opinion (hardly based on anything), this story ends with the Seventh Ecumenical Council. “The history of subsequent Christian worship,” says Lebedev, “can be divided into two periods: the first embraces the time from the apostolic men to Constantine the Great, the second - from Constantine the Great to the Seventh Ecumenical Council. In addition, the first period is divided into the era of the apostolic men, the second and third centuries." Obviously, here the influence of dogmatic theology and partly the history of the Christian Church affected him. coming from his position that “educational power and power in the field of worship have always been considered as the own right of the supreme power of the Church, and it acted here with the authority of Divine institution, animated by the Holy Spirit,” and the supreme power of the Church, according to the teachings of dogmatics, was especially clearly reflected in the Ecumenical Councils, which completely completed the development of Christian dogmatics, then it is not surprising that Lebedev, along with the cessation ecumenical councils and ends the history of the development of Christian worship, since the latter was often a visual expression of Christian dogmas. But the misconception of this author is that the worship of the Christian Church symbolized not only the dogmas of faith, but often embodied in the images of sacred songs and rituals many phenomena of the religious life of Christians in general. In other words, the history of Christian worship is nothing more or less than a picturesque, illustrated depiction of the history of Christ's Church at all times under all different circumstances. Consequently, it is in no way possible to end the history of the development of Christian worship with the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and, consequently, the further development of worship in the sense of complicating it with sacred rituals and prayers is not only possible, but also completely necessary, since new times require new orders. {In our time and place we will see that the history of Christian worship continues well beyond the Seventh Ecumenical Council}. But we could limit ourselves to the historical material that Mr. Lebedev thought of giving (as can be seen from the quoted tirade), because Christian worship was almost completely formed in the first eight centuries, however, unfortunately, we find in his books a lot of such headings, in which no historical information is reported even during this time. Let's take any paragraph as an example. On page 145 in § 111 “The antiquity of the use of special clothes by clergy during worship” it says: “There is no sufficient reason to think that the sacred clothes of the first centuries were completely different in form from the clothes used by clergy and Christians in general in their social life. There is only no doubt that the peculiarity of sacred clothes lay in their purpose - in the sense that ordinary clothes, once used for the performance of worship, could no longer be converted to any other use, or otherwise: through liturgical use, ordinary clothes became sacred” and so on, so on. In § 123 under the title “Servant. The concept of it and its content. The antiquity of the Missal" is interpreted: "This is the name of the book intended for priests and deacons when they perform the daily church services of Vespers, Matins and Liturgy. It sets out everything that a priest and deacon must do, but only the regulations indicate what is sung and read in the choir. In addition, the Service Book contains the rites and prayers performed with the services of the daily circle.”... It further says: “The main content of the Service Book goes back, without a doubt, to the deepest, apostolic antiquity. But it was brought to its present form only in later times,” etc., etc. In a word, instead of history, we read only guesses, assumptions that, perhaps, are never destined to come true. All this, in my opinion, depends on the fact that Lebedev misunderstood the task of liturgics as a science. Had he said that this task is to present the divine service of the Orthodox Church in the form and sense in which it was performed, is performed, and should be performed and understood by the Orthodox Church, then he would undoubtedly have avoided all these assumptions and guesses. In general, the liturgics of Mr. Lebedev, despite some undoubted merits, in comparison, of course, with the liturgics of Smolodovich, cannot be considered impeccable. The absence of a historical element, over which description prevails to the detriment of the requirement of an explanatory note, inaccuracy and darkness of expressions, many headings and divisions constitute a rather noticeable shortcoming of this book. And if a teacher of liturgics limits himself only to this textbook, which he will have to comment on many times, then we can safely say that he will not force his students to love or at least tolerate this science. “Liturgics” will long remain a dirty word for those who listen to this science. Thus, the first and main reason for the dislike of our science on the part of listeners lies, as can be seen from what has been said, in the unsatisfactory teaching manuals, which provide little food for the mind and overly burden the memory.” The second reason - and, perhaps, perhaps the most important - is that people with little preparation have taken up and are taking up the teaching of liturgics, considering this subject to be easy (remember, gentlemen, in the novel “Mirages” the motives of the new rector who took up teaching this subject). The type of teacher like the one depicted in one of the Delo books for 1882 in the person of Deryugin is quite often found in our seminaries. All such teachers slavishly followed the textbook, gave lectures on them, absolutely not thinking about the words of the textbooks. As a result, it turned out that a living and one of the most interesting subjects turned into a dry subject, devoid of a developing element, in which neither the teacher nor his students were equally interested. So, in order to make our science interesting, attractive and developing its adherents, there is no need at all to resort to an unnatural method of systematization, to the introduction into it of headings and paragraphs alien to this science, the answers to which are stolen from the same sciences from which the very headings are borrowed, we should not consider the explanation of worship the main task of our science, but on the contrary, it is urgently necessary to present the worship of our Church as natural historical way. We consider this way of studying our science to be the only scientific and entirely appropriate, especially at the present time. All other methods of studying the worship of the Orthodox Church do not satisfy many, especially from the so-called educated society. The basis for studying Orthodox worship in all other ways, except historically, is a more or less subjective feeling and view; This is why there is a difference in the explanation of one and the same church rite and the same sacred affiliation. “A theory of church worship that is not based on historical data,” says Bishop. Filaret in his famous work “Historical review of the hymns and hymns of the Greek Church” is a false theory in itself and harmful in its consequences. There is arbitrariness here, casting fogs on the mind and heart. By his grace, in the interpretation of the same ritual action, the same ritual affiliation, you encounter five and six different interpretations - one by Simeon of Thessalonica, another by Cabasilas, a third and fifth by the third and fifth interpreter” (p. 5). Techniques of interpretation or the study of worship through explanation, arising mainly from religious feelings, can satisfy people only truly pious, deeply religious, simple believing hearts. For people with an insufficiently developed religious feeling, they may seem arbitrary and therefore unsatisfactory and forced. In our age of advances in mental development and at the same time the impoverishment of sincere, heartfelt piety, there is a special need in explaining worship to an educated society to turn to another method - the historical one. Only through this kind of interpretation can we force our so-called educated society, which understands our worship very little, to treat it rationally, with conscious, and therefore more lasting respect, if not with deep rational reverence. then, perhaps, there will be fewer cases of mockery of our ancient worship due to a lack of understanding of the historical foundations. Then the liberal baron and half-educated seminarian will fall silent, talking about the need to reform worship in our Church, which, in their opinion, should consist of translating church services into Russian, shortening prayers and some supposedly outdated exclamations and rituals, such as, for example, the exclamation: “Depart from the catechumens,” “doors, doors, let us hear wisdom,” “Let us love one another, that we may be of one mind,” and so on, so on. with a historical explanation of the divine service in our Church, they will understand that this is why our divine service is dear, that it, together with its supposedly excessive exclamations, presents us with a monument of deep Christian antiquity (in many parts of it), taking us back to the first centuries of Christianity, bringing us closer to the pioneer Christians. These protests against the existence of these abnormalities in our worship are equivalent to the same thing if someone wanted to clothe Apollo Belvedere or Diana in a modern costume for an elegant Parisian or Parisian woman, or replace the colorful domes of the Moscow Church of St. Basil, the pride of Russian architectural art of the 16th century, with the shiny domes of the Church of the Savior. Each monument is precious in itself, in its entirety, as an expression, as a symbol of the ideas of its time. In creation we recognize the creator, get acquainted with the character of the era and with the intellectual development of its representatives in general. In a word, an archaeological site is, one might say, a living witness of antiquity, or, rather, a brilliant illustration of the past history of a particular people. From them we read the entire history of the world. Now all this can be applied to the worship of the Orthodox Church. Our churches, our church services are a symbolic image, a living visible representation in images and colors of everything that Christianity has experienced and re-experienced from its beginning, throughout its entire past life. Every event, every important phenomenon in his life - whether a dispute for the truth, or the overthrow of heresy - was imprinted in the composition of our services by writing this or that content of a song, the introduction of this or that service, this or that rite and sacred rite; and the entire history of the economy of salvation received decent expression and disclosure throughout the entire annual and weekly circle of services. This is a great advantage of our worship over the worship of the Lutheran and even Catholic Church. Catholicism, with its falling away from unity with the Universal Church, with the transformation of its liturgical order, with the introduction of miss[als] in the 12th and 13th centuries, has retreated a lot from the historical truth that is preserved in our services and our iconography. In the symbolic and pictorial images and personifications that we see in our church, we can read the entire history of Christianity, all the important moments in the life of the Church, and this way of expanding knowledge is the most convenient, the most capable of arousing religious feelings among the masses of the people. The path of scientific acquaintance with religious subjects is not possible or accessible to everyone; not everyone can discover and learn the meaning of antiquity with the help of science, but in images and visible representations we can convey features that are often elusive to words; [they are understandable] to everyone, even to a small child. Through services, imprinted with the character of historical antiquity, in a visible figurative and symbolic setting, we can transport listeners to the centuries of primitive Christianity, arouse in their hearts that spirit of piety that burned in the first witnesses of Christianity. This opportunity or ability to edify one and all during the performance of services with such completeness and richness of religious content is possessed, predominantly, by our Orthodox Church alone, which, as we have already said, has not lost anything from antiquity, but, on the contrary, has combined and embodied in itself all the Old Testament and New Testament treasures. Having preserved such a precious heritage intact and unharmed, we must value it all the more because its lack is vividly felt and recognized by the best representatives of Western faiths, who have destroyed all these accessories. We should not strive for one dry, bare and lifeless demonstration of the meaning, the origin of the objects of our services, their order and composition, the arrangement of the church accessories, in the presentation of the doctrine about them, in the explanations they offer for the people's understanding, but we must try, as far as possible, with an explanation of the meaning and origin of them to combine the spirit and meaning inherent in them, the living force inherent in them, we must try to resurrect through them the power and life that acted in their first founders and founders. Only through comprehensive historical and archaeological study can we achieve the fact that the worship of our Orthodox Church will be not only a simple form, an empty ritual, adopted by us as an inheritance from our ancestors by tradition, but also a serious lesson, full of the most lively and deep interest, giving the mind abundant food and pouring joy into a tormented and abnormally beating heart. In the church, in a consistent series of sacred rituals and prayers, which the dropout looks at as “an abnormal need of the undeveloped masses,” and this [mass] in turn [looks at them] as the covenant of the fathers, a complex and very intricate (for those not initiated into the secrets of the history of the Christian cult), full of vital drama, gradually unfolds a picture of the eternally suffering bearer of the pure and most sublime ideals of humanity of the Church of Christ. Here, in the church, in the rite of the liturgy, for example, you are transported to that Zion upper room, where the great words of Christ the Savior were first spoken, who said to his disciples: “Take, eat, this is My Body... Drink from it - this is My Blood...”, and that eternal covenant, which must be observed until the end of the world - “Do this in My remembrance.” In the exclamations of “Doors, doors, let us hear wisdom”, “Come forth from the Elites of the Catechumen”, you hear the powerful voice of a still young, but already closely united circle of people, imbued with one common idea, one common consciousness of the holiness and importance of those ideas, under the banner of which they voluntarily stood, a circle of people called by the shameful name of followers of Christ. In these exclamations you hear the independent, completely free voice of this circle, otherwise called the Church of Christ, which was heard with equal force “in centuries long past” both against the powers that be and against persons not listed in the table of ranks. The exclamations we have named will remain forever living monuments of that great moral force that should rightfully belong and once belonged to the Church of Christ - this is on the one hand, and on the other - an everlasting reproach for those who, under the pretext of “allegedly circumstances beyond their control,” illegally and, one might say, in an almost usurpatory manner, appropriated to themselves the rights of others, on the basis of which they began to dispose of what could not belong to them no way. To destroy these exclamations or sacred prayers, imprinted with the character of deep antiquity, which the people’s guardians are trying to do, in my opinion, means the same thing as abandoning forever, completely forgetting about those great powers and sacred rights with which the Church of Christ came out “for its cause.” And the church, its appearance, its interior decoration and location - isn’t this a picture depiction of the past life of the Church of Christ? Here are clearly imprinted the traces of a difficult, disastrous time for the Church of Christ, when it found shelter and refuge for itself in cramped and often stuffy dungeons, crypts and near the graves of its members, who died with honor for the holiness of the ideas stored in this Church. Here you see how the same Church gradually, at first timidly, and then solemnly and clearly, emerged from dark and cramped places into forums and squares and found refuge for itself in places that were in the hands of the government and the people and which served a completely different purpose; how, further, this small society, growing more and more, took possession of the whole world and made such a revolution that the Christian church became the most honorable and sacred building of the cities, a building on which donations of public and private sums poured in, and became their best decoration; how, finally, this church, having gone through many successive stages in the art of architecture, finally took on a striking and deeply impressive appearance on the believer with its massive domed vault, easily and freely rising into the air. In a word, I repeat once again that the church, its accessories, liturgical rites and successions are a kind of archaeological monuments, these are the material remnants of everything immaterial that the Church of Christ has experienced and re-experienced. And the more, therefore, church architects and sculptors (we use the terms of the art of architecture) deeper and more fully understood the idea of the Church of Christ and were more vividly imbued with the consciousness of holiness and its greatness, the more holy, purer, more sublime were the symbols, the external images in which these ideas were expressed, the more vivid and natural the correspondence between the idea and the symbol was, so that it was not difficult to unravel the meaning of what appeared ritual or rite even for a person with little education. Therefore, those prayers and rites that came from the hands of such architects as Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, John of Damascus and Cosmas, bishop. Mayumsky, deeper and more complete in its content, more artistic in its expression, represent a harmonious, beautiful harmony in the whole composition of the service, logically harmonious and coherent in its parts. in general, all this is united by one common thought, the same spirit of the Christian faith and is directed towards one common goal. This is the reason why the rites and prayers compiled by artists, masters of their craft, make a deeply stunning impression even on non-religious people and often bring tears to their eyes and genuine, inexplicable from their point of view, delight, under the spell of which they are even after the picture taking place before their eyes has already been replaced by another. (Remember the impression of our Russian [their] ambassadors in Constantinople at the Greek divine service.) If now, in our time, many rituals are performed apparently without any participation on the part of the people or those present during their performance, then this does not depend at all on the ritual, but on the fact that time, which leaves its mark on everything, has introduced into them something that has obscured their meaning, violated their harmony and introduced into them elements alien to these rituals. In a word, the same thing happened with ranks and successions that happens [with] ordinary monuments of hoary and wise antiquity (for example, statues, buildings), when they fall for restoration into the hands of ignoramuses, people who absolutely do not understand either the meaning or significance of these expensive monuments, but look at their task as just the simple fulfillment of their duty, like a worker or a mason. This is why, [gentlemen], when studying the liturgical rites and sequences of the Orthodox Church, it is necessary not only a historical examination of their gradual formation, but also a critical attitude towards them, in order to isolate from them random elements introduced by people who do not understand the meaning of rites in their being, elements that violate the harmony and harmonious sequence of these rites. Through a historical-critical study of the rites of our worship, we may be able to restore the rites and sequences of our worship in the primitive purity that they had upon leaving the hands of their creators and artists. And this will be of enormous importance for us, as members of the Church of Christ and participants in Orthodox worship, as well as as future teachers of the science of worship or liturgics. This latter will acquire value and significance in our eyes, as a very fruitful and living science, and then we cannot say that it is deprived of its developing significance. Liturgics itself, as a science, will throw off its random cloak, imposed by ignoramuses brought up in the spirit of medieval scholasticism, and will leave the unnatural division into headings and paragraphs, and will set forth a harmonious, systematically consistent history of the formation of the rites and successions of our Orthodox worship. Our coldness towards some rituals and a completely indifferent attitude towards them will be replaced by a clear understanding of their importance and necessity. At the same time, we will acquire a love for liturgical studies and everything related to worship, we will understand the importance and necessity of serious study of this expensive subject, rich in its content and meaning. As you already know, the subject of my readings will not be the history of worship in the Orthodox Church in general, but only part of this history - the history of worship in the Russian Church. For my part, I have already stated in my trial lectures and will say now that there is no Russian divine service, there was not and could not be, and that in divine services we constantly followed the Greeks, who gave it to us ready-made and who constantly vigilantly monitored how accurately our ritual worship was reproduced after them. You will learn later that all attempts at some kind of independent manifestation in the field of worship immediately stopped and a turn was immediately made to “what and how the Greeks do.” Consequently, what vital interest can there be in studying the history of worship in our Church? - this is a natural question that can be heard from many of you. Indeed, at first glance, studying the history of worship in our Church apparently does not represent anything interesting. In fact, if we see that our worship is nothing more or less than a blind imitation of what was performed among the Greeks in Constantinople, if attempts to demonstrate independence in the area of worship provoked protests and censures from the Greek metropolitans and, for the most part, foreigners, then, clearly, our worship could no longer be what it was among the Greeks, or, more accurately, among the Orthodox Christians, i.e. a modern indicator of the general condition and development of members of the Church of Christ at one or another historically important moment. This could not have happened, because under completely different conditions the Russian Church began and existed. She accepted an already developed, definite divine service, and, moreover, at a time when the majority of Russian people had no need for it. The first guardians of worship and its performers were the Greeks. Divine services stood completely apart from the life of the people and therefore could in no way reflect it. The people went to the church, and then more willingly went to the hill to make a sacrifice to Perun or to the dense thicket of the forest, to pray to the Divas under the shade of branchy trees, near a quietly murmuring river and to watch the play of passionate mermaids. In the early days of Christianity, Russian people needed a more magician than an Orthodox priest; he turned to the former before going to the latter. Christianity itself was not a need for the entire Russian people, but only a formal fulfillment of the will of the beloved prince and his minions, who spared “neither fire nor sword.” It is clear that the majority of Russian people were extremely indifferent to divine services. Consequently, for the first shepherds of the Russian Church, who - one can safely say - did not deeply understand the essence of the Christian religion, the first and real need was to create Christians from the Russian people in form, that is, to implant in their consciousness the need for ritual worship, which, as we have already said, was entirely taken from the east. This was also discussed by the first Russian preachers, such as Luka Zhidyata, Theodosius, Abbot of Pechersk, and others. It is clear that no matter how indifferent the Russian people were to Christianity in general and no matter how poorly they understood its essence, nevertheless they could not help but be carried away by the wonderful and harmoniously harmonious order that reigned in the worship of our Church. The church, its splendor and grandeur made a deep, irresistible impression on the superstitious, still half-wild Russian man. Thus, for a Russian person in the early stages of his Christian life, the church with its majestic surroundings, with its ranks and successions, served as the first school in which he studied Christianity, or, rather, in which he slightly and gradually became acquainted with Christianity. And since here he saw only rituals and symbolic actions, the meaning of which no one explained to him, because live sermons had not yet been heard in our churches, or very rarely - and it, perhaps, was not always useful if preachers took up the mysterious explanation of the worship of the Orthodox Church - then the Russian man began to think of Christianity under the form of rituals, mixed dogma with ritual and often attached to the latter a meaning more important than first. It still seems to a Russian person that if he goes to church, receives a priest into his home and donates thousands of poods to the bell (or, as our common people call it, “the voice of God”), then he can be called “Orthodox,” a Christian, etc. For a Russian person—Orthodox—it is completely okay not to know a single prayer or to mix two prayers into one, but for him it is a grave sin to go to bed without having prayed. In a word, for Russian people, the most precious thing has become churchliness and everything that relates to church and worship. The Russian man of old times made his own house a church, the front corner of his hut became a “holy place” where the “pure” had access, where pieces of the stone tomb of Christ the Savior, Jordanian water, sand from holy places, cherubic incense, prosphora from Mount Athos and from the parish church were kept. Rich folds and precious icons in several tiers constituted an integral part of this “sanctuary”. The chief or head of the family corrected the position of canonarch and charterer. He called his household members here for prayer, here he “ruled” the evening service, the midnight office and other church services that did not require the presence of a priest. Russian people of the past (and even now) measured the time of day and night by church services. “This,” he said, “happened before Matins, this happened before Mass, such and such a thing happened after Mass, then [and] we did that before Vespers.” The language of church liturgical books became the language of literature and even colloquial. Those ideas that were embodied in the form of liturgical chants passed into the people’s mouths, became their property and were carried out in life, often even || in very ugly forms. In a word, there is a huge difference between Orthodox worship in the Greek Church and here in the Russian Church. In the first, we saw that life itself influenced the development of the worship of the Orthodox Church and reflected its course, as in a mirror, in its rituals and settings; in our Russian Church we notice the opposite phenomenon: life develops and is directed in accordance with the ideas and concepts that the people take away from worship. In worship in our Russian Church there could not be the freedom that we saw in the worship of the Eastern Churches and, if we can talk about the development of worship in our Church, then only formally, by which we mean the addition of certain prayers to the rites, certain ritual actions and the emergence of new rites. but these innovations were not the creation of the Russian spirit, the work of a Russian writer or poet, but a simple transfer of what was at that time in the practice of the Greek Church, the authority of which undermined at the very root the idea of ​​worship, which should change its forms in accordance with time and be embodied in accessible images, so as not to lose its direct purpose - to edify, teach believers and those present at the service. The excessive care of the Greek Church and its representatives in the person of the Russian Metropolitan from the Greeks positively made it impossible to show even a shadow of independence in the field of worship in our Church, and all attempts in this kind ended at least in the desire to bring [divine services] to the proper form that it had in the Church of Constantinople. This unconditional dependence in the area of ​​worship of our Church, as a phenomenon that is not entirely normal, even made it so that we could not demonstrate independence even where it was required of us. I mean church poetry, church writers, from whom one should have expected complete independence and free manifestation of their poetic creative spirit in the compilation of canons and stichera in honor of the saints of the Russian Church. What do we actually see from our home-grown Damascenes and Mayums? Nothing more nor less than a simple compilation of various lives, compiled in haste, a set of various rhetorical phrases full of nonsense; but all this, apparently, was done according to Greek models, with the goal of not falling behind the Greek writers and creators of church liturgical songs. But what an amazing imitation came out, completely worthy of pity! True, everywhere they begin the canons with prayerful appeals to God, then to the saint, asking themselves for a blessing for the undertaken work of writing songs, but in order to give their canon some relation to the irmos of the day (of course, a Greek work), as was done by Damascene and other creators of the canons, this demand was beyond their strength. And in fact, such a requirement can be a stumbling block for an experienced hymn writer. Let us suppose that in the irmos, by the way, the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt or the miraculous preservation of the Babylonian youths in the fire is sung: the Russian hymn writer in both songs had to write a series of troparions in the spirit of the irmos themselves and even from the outside build his songs on the model of the Greek ones. To convey to his chants some similarity with the irmos, the Russian singer carefully reads them, looking for words and thoughts in them that could facilitate the matter of communication with the established irmos. In the content of the latter, in the spirit and flow of thoughts, he obviously does not find anything suitable for the saint or holiday in honor of which he wants to sing; All that remains is either to write a canon without any correspondence to the irmos, or to pull out several words or expressions from the irmos, give them, if possible, a meaning completely different from what they have in the given irmos, but allegorical, figurative, and, furnishing them with new subordinate words and concepts for this purpose, place them in your work. That's what they did. In the r[u]k[o]p[isi] Menaion of our Bible. No. 548 in the service to Metropolitan Alexy, the irmos were set in the 8th tone: Chariot-driver... Instead of “chariot-driver” there is “armed” here... and the singer, putting aside all concerns about the internal connection of his verse with the irmos, made it a rule to begin songs with its first word - and that’s all. Since the 1st Irmos begins with the word “armed,” then in order to connect with it, he begins each troparion with this word. And having thus subordinated his creative activity to the narrow, too specific concept of this word, he, on his part, gave it the right to direct himself to this or that series of thoughts, and on the other hand, he introduced many unnatural images into his work, filled it with long and often strange allegories and metaphors. “Arm our thoughts, O Lord of grace,” he begins his canon, “clouds overwhelmed by sad intimations and misfortunes, so that we may be guided by Your grace and be able to beseech Your saint.” (The word “weapons”, apparently, does not easily lend itself to the author’s efforts to give it a different, figurative meaning). Another troparion: “Endow us armed with the grace of Christ, Saint Alexis, cleanse your tongue... 2nd trial lecture, given on November 3 Nine centuries have already passed since the light of Christ’s faith illuminated the Russian country and our churches resounded with divine services in their native Slavic language, but we Russians still do not know the history of divine services in our Church. And it’s not surprising, however. Our fathers remember well with what enthusiasm and delight they read the “History of the Russian State” by our famous historiographer Karamzin. Here they first learned the past of their native country, they learned about Rus'. We, their children, remember well the memorable death of another no less famous historian of our Motherland, a worthy successor to the great historian Karamzin - Solovyov, on whose “History” we were brought up. The untimely grave of the great hierarch of the Moscow Church and famous historian of the Russian Church, Metropolitan Macarius, is still fresh, whose work is far from being completed to the desired end. So, if we have recently begun to know the history of our homeland, if we still do not have the complete history of our Church, then, consequently, the desire to have a history of worship in our Church can only be called immodest and premature. We say this not because the thought of the need to have a history of worship in our Church has not yet matured in the consciousness of the Russian person - no, this need has always been inherent in the Russian person, and it is especially strongly felt in our time - but because the powers of the mind are still directed to other aspects of the religious, political and everyday life of the past time of the Russian person. It cannot be said that the question of worship is not interesting and does not deserve due attention. The very fact that almost all historians are ready to consider this question, if not the cause, then at least the immediate cause of that great religious social movement, which divided the Russian people into two camps in the 17th century - Orthodox (Nikonians) and schismatics (Old Believers), should place the question of worship in our Church among the most interesting and most important. And we know that this question sometimes became the subject of scientific research, but attempts of this kind did not go beyond the consideration of one particular rite. Hence, in works on the history of worship in the Russian Church, we notice the absence of a definite system and randomness. Each one takes some particular question from the history of worship that suits his taste, and examines it without any relation to the general system of worship. But besides, so to speak, their accident, snatched from the general system of liturgical rites and performed not by specialists - historians of worship in our Church, but for the most part by polemicists - historians of the Russian schism - works of this kind suffer from one-sidedness and tendentiousness. They very often do not contain a detailed analysis of the rites themselves and do not indicate the real reasons for certain changes in the rites in question. Quite often, polemicists narrow their task and limit themselves to small interpretations of issues that, although related to the history of worship, have very little significance in the overall system of worship. Such, for example, are the discussions about the two-lipped alleluia, about the seven-prosphoria, about the salting walk, and so on. Everyone, of course, will agree that this kind of individual interpretation is not yet history, and polemicists are well aware of this, sending those who want to know the detailed history of worship in our Church to a historian of the Russian Church in general. But historians of the Russian Church also directly admit that a detailed presentation of the history of worship in our Church does not belong to their goal, and that with the current extremely meager development of history in general and the sources of worship in our Church in particular, [this] would, in their opinion, even be impossible. If it is necessary to present this story, then they write it, as Professor Golubinsky puts it, “in a summary manner.” And this totality is reduced by the historians of our Church to a simple list of the features of our rites, and, moreover, a list made sometimes not on the basis of liturgical books directly, but on the basis of episcopal charters and conciliar decrees (for example, in the history of St. Macarius), which often do not exhaust even the essential features of worship in our Church at a given time. But besides the summation, which a specialist historian of worship cannot reconcile with in any way, the historians of our Church make a huge mistake in dividing the history of worship in our Church into periods. Not a single bishop escaped this mistake. Filaret, nor Met. Macarius, not even Prof. Golubinsky, always wanting to say something new in everything. Since all church historians divide our history into three periods: Kiev, otherwise called pre-Mongol, Moscow or after the Mongol yoke, and synodal or St. Petersburg, then the history of worship in our Church is considered by them according to these three periods. Thus, out of the blue, the pre-Mongol period appears in the history of worship in our Church. Reverend Filaret of Chernigov devotes an entire monograph to this period entitled “Divine services of the Russian Church of the pre-Mongol period”, published in “Readings in the Imperial Society of History and Antiquities at Moscow University” for 1847 in No. 7. In the history of the Right Reverend Macarius there is a period after the Mongol yoke and it is interpreted that “the Mongol yoke over Russia was accompanied by harmful consequences for the worship of the Russian Church,” with the limitation, however, that these harmful consequences consisted mainly in the destruction of churches. Meanwhile, such a division of the history of worship in our Church, possible for a historian of the Russian Church in general, does not withstand even superficial criticism from the point of view of a historian of worship in our Church (specialist) in particular. Our church historians completely overlook the fact that the history of our worship is completely separate from other aspects of the historical life of the Russian people and that political happy or unhappy circumstances have too little influence on it, so to say that “the Mongol yoke was accompanied by harmful consequences for the worship of the Russian Church” means to say almost nothing. The Reverend himself Macarius, as well as all other researchers of our worship, who think that under the influence of the Mongol yoke, certain features appeared in our worship that are alien to the practice of the Eastern Churches (they point, for example, to the custom of not bringing female children into the altar during the church service, which supposedly appeared in our country as a result of the gloomy views on women that developed under the influence of the Mongol yoke), do not prove their thoughts with actual facts. On the contrary, all these facts speak against them with an irresistible force of persuasiveness. Church historians themselves will feel the groundlessness and positive impossibility of the division into periods they made only at the time when they begin to survey the state of worship in our Church during the Synodal or St. Petersburg period. In this case, the heading “the state of worship in a given period” will either remain with one title, or most likely, that the worship of this period will be characterized by complete stagnation in development, since officially the history of worship in our Church ended in the previous period, Moscow. The history of worship in our Church has almost nothing in common with the history of the Russian Church in general, neither in its beginning, nor in its development (continuation), nor in its end, and therefore cannot fit into the framework and headings in which the material of our church history in general is distributed. It persistently puts forward its demands for a completely independent place among other historical sciences and requires forces that would devote themselves specifically to the development of the very rich material that is at its disposal. Other historical sciences and, in particular, the history of the Russian schism and the history of the Russian Church in general not only do not challenge this right from it, but, on the contrary, very willingly accept it into their midst and assign a prominent place here, promising to help it in developing its sources with the right to use its already completely ready material, as a quid pro quo, on the basis of a wise everyday rule. So, what is the history of worship in our Church, as an independent science, and in what relation does it stand to the history of Orthodox worship in general? What are its subject and objectives? The general characteristic feature of the divine service of the Christian Orthodox Church is that it did not appear in its present form immediately or suddenly and did not develop uniformly for the entire Orthodox world in any particular place, but on the contrary, the Holy Church always acted with reasonable freedom regarding the rites of worship. She willingly accepted new orders of service, based on their beneficial effect on people, and then freely replaced them with others when she saw that the previous orders were not entirely useful and others were needed. “She,” as Rev. very characteristically puts it. Philaret of Chernigov, in her famous work “Historical Review of the Songwriters of the Greek Church,” as in other cases, did not allow those to whom the apostolic order ordered to be students and not teachers to be judges and rulers: but she did not allow herself to restless sleep, but vigilantly followed the needs of the time and the constant needs of the soul” (p. 5). Hence the presentation of the gradual change and development of those simplest liturgical forms consecrated by Christ the Savior and His saints. the apostles and those in St. The Gospels and the Apostolic Epistles are liturgical forms from which that complex system of liturgical rites was subsequently formed, which is contained in real liturgical books and will form the subject of the history of Orthodox worship in general. And since we, Russians, accepted Christianity precisely at a time when the history of Orthodox worship was far from reaching its end and we had still largely captured it, so that it had to be reproduced among us following the Greeks, from whom we accepted faith and worship, where, strictly speaking, only the development of worship was possible, then, consequently, the history of worship in our Church is no more and no less than a continuation of the general history of the Orthodox worship services. In other words: the history of worship in our Church is the history of Orthodox worship from the 10th century to the 17th century inclusive, when it officially lost the right to this name. {Based on what we have just said, we allow ourselves to make the following, apparently insignificant, but in essence an important amendment. Articles on worship in our Church, as well as sections on the same in the history of the Russian Church, are entitled in most cases like this: “Divine service of the Russian Church” (for example, the mentioned study by Philaret of Chernigov “Divine service of the Russian Church of the pre-Mongol period”, sections on worship in the “History of the Russian Church” by Rev. Macarius), but such a title is inaccurate. The Russian Church did not create its own worship, but almost entirely adopted it from the east and, in particular, from Greece; therefore, the epithet “Russian” is inapplicable in relation to worship. Actually, strictly speaking, it is impossible to say “the divine service of the Greek Church,” because we do not know such a divine service, but we only know the Orthodox divine service, the Catholic divine service, the Lutheran divine service, etc. None of us will say “Italian Catholic divine service,” “French Catholic divine service,” “Austrian divine service,” etc. Consequently, for accuracy and certainty it is necessary to title it as follows: “Divine services in the Russian Church”, and not “Russian Church”.} Having accepted the Christian faith and worship in developed and defined forms from the Greek Church and in its subsequent historical life being in constant dependence on it, as a spiritual daughter from its spiritual mother, the Russian Church quite naturally had to, in the order of its worship, reflect this continuous influence of the Greek Church, which was accomplished either directly through the liturgical monuments of this Church, or through the liturgical monuments of the South Slavic Churches. Hence, therefore, the main task of the historian of worship in our Church is to show what changes, in comparison with the present situation, and what influences worship in the Russian Church has undergone in one or another period of time. In other words, this means that for the historian of worship in our Church we recognize the genetic research method as quite suitable. 289 The accuracy of our science depends mainly on the correct solution of this question. Because only in this way can it be determined: what is correct, accurate, clear and definite in our modern liturgical books, as the main sources of our science, and what is incorrect, inaccurate and superfluous. True, the genetic research method is not without serious difficulties and requires diligent, painstaking and very intense work, since it presupposes a good acquaintance with the primary sources of our worship - Greek and South Slavic manuscripts. And this acquaintance in our time can only be acquired with great effort, since the liturgical monuments of the Eastern Churches are not only not described, they are far from being made known, being scattered among various libraries of our capitals and the capitals of foreign powers. Most of them are found in the place of their origin - in the monasteries of Athos, Sinai, etc. But there is absolutely no reason to avoid these difficulties and be wary of the method of genetic research, and to prefer the comparative method, which historians of worship in our Church have now begun to use. 290 Thus, even if it is necessary to recognize for this last method some right to its existence - a method that is still not devoid of some scientific significance - then it is not otherwise than in connection with the first method. This means that the historian of worship must use the genetic-comparative method in his research, but separately, always giving preference to the first over the second. We noted above that the history of worship in our Church has almost nothing in common either in its beginning, or in its continuation, or in its end with the history of the Russian Church in general, and therefore cannot fit into the framework and headings that are made by historians of the Russian Church in general. Now we can add that even in the general course and direction, both the history of worship in our Church and the history of the Russian Church in general have nothing in common. If in the latter we notice a desire that runs through the entire history of our Church, towards gradual liberation from casual dependence from the tutelage willingly accepted by our spiritual mother, the Church of Constantinople, a desire to demonstrate our independence and even complete independence from the Greek Church, then throughout the entire history of worship in our Church we see, on the contrary, a desire to constantly be in complete dependence on the Greek Church and not to retreat one step from it. If somehow this or that feature appeared in our liturgical practice and the real reason for its origin was lost for some reason, then a heated debate arose between supporters and opponents of this custom, and the matter always ended with the search: like the Greeks? Thus, the historian of worship in our Church urgently needs to make a different division of the history of worship in our Church, different from those divisions that are made by historians of our Church. Since in the history of the worship of our Church we notice the succession of two church statutes, which in their nature have a very noticeable difference, then the history of worship in our Church, if it were necessary to consider it from the point of view of the dominance of one or another statute, can very easily be divided into two periods. 291, received by us from Constantinople, first in an abbreviated form, in the form of additions to the Books of Hours, Octoechos and the Lenten and Colored Triodions, and then by the abbot of the Pechersk Monastery Theodosius, introduced in its entirety in the edition of the 11th century Patriarch of Constantinople (1025–1043) Alexy. 292, which appeared in Rus' even earlier than the 15th century in the form of Menaions and Books of Hours, arranged according to this charter. The division of the history of worship in our Church from the point of view of the dominance of one or another charter into two periods belongs to us, but hitherto it was divided either into three periods (Arch[imandrite] Sergius, now Bishop of Kovensky), or even into four (Odintsov). 293. These three periods in the history of worship in our Church were subsequently addressed by Mr. Odintsov in his study “The order of public and private worship in Russia before the 16th century.” added a fourth, which he characterizes “the development of the statutes of local (or monastic everyday workers) under the dominance of the Jerusalem statute” 294. In our historical-critical study “Divine services in the Russian Church for the first five centuries,” which appeared in connection with the latter’s work, we tried, if possible, to thoroughly show the inconsistency of the divisions made by Arch[imandrite] Sergius and Mr. Odintsov, and to contrast our own division with them, as the only correct and possible one. We now refer those interested in the details of this issue to the named article. But no matter how the division of the history of worship in our Church from the point of view of the dominance of one or another statute may seem to some to be correct or convenient, nevertheless, justice requires one to admit that such a division can be called completely random and even mechanical. In fact, as soon as one had to find some kind of statute that would give one or another tone and direction in worship, a whole period in the history of worship in our Church immediately appeared, characterized by this statute, without asking the questions at all: in what relation does this statute stand to the previous and subsequent statutes and what significance does it have in the general system of worship? This is how Arch[imandrite] Sergius began the period of dominance of the charter of the Mangansky monastery, which he himself calls “unknown,” and for Mr. Odintsov the period of development of local everyday charters appeared. In addition to its accidental nature, the division of the history of worship in our Church from the point of view of the dominance of the statutes is also one-sided; Such a division embraces one side of worship, namely public worship, and almost completely does not affect private worship, which is just as important as the first. This is understandable, because the statute is a regulator of public worship primarily, and if it concerns private worship, then to the extent that the latter has a connection with the former. Consequently, it is necessary, in our opinion, to make another, more significant division in the history of worship in our Church - a division that, relating primarily to the text of the liturgical rites, would equally embrace all aspects of worship in our Church. From this point of view, we consider it quite rational to divide the entire history of worship in our Church into eras, of which we count four. “The first era extends from the adoption of Christianity in Rus' from 988 to the final accession of Metropolitan Cyprian to the Moscow See in 1390; from this time until the hundred-domed cathedral - the second era; the third era embraces the period of time from the Council of 1551–1556, when the Hundred-Glavy Council completely ended, to the great Moscow Council of 1666 and 1667, and from here, finally, the fourth era, which continues to this day. Each of these eras has its own characteristic features that distinguish it from the rest. The first era is characterized by the complete dependence of worship in our Church on worship in the Greek Church, a striking identity in the worship of both Churches. The composition of the liturgical books, their number, the time of the liturgical hours - in a word, everything related to divine services was only a copy of the liturgical practice of the Byzantine Church> 295. If, by the end of this era, the liturgical rites of our books did not represent among themselves the sameness and monotony that struck Metropolitan Cyprian in the early stages of his stay within the Grand Duchy of Moscow, then the reason for all this was the liturgical rites of the Greek Church, which already had a lot of diversity. With the arrival and establishment of Cyprian at the Moscow Metropolitan See (a pure Slav by blood and upbringing), especially since the publication of the rites of the “right and true”, which he himself rewrote and sent to the clergy under his command, we began to gravitate towards the liturgical monuments of the South Slavic Churches and a very noticeable influence of the liturgical practice of these Churches on ours. 296. Metropolitan Cyprian’s successor in the department, Metropolitan Photius, a Greek by blood and by conviction, greatly contributed to this, with his publication of liturgical rites “according to tradition and the legalization of holy orders.” Thus, 297. More specifically, in relation to the order of the liturgy, this era was marked in the history of worship in our Church by the introduction into our church liturgical practice of the order of the liturgy in its Filofeevsky edition. “The Council of the Hundred Heads ends this era with a new attempt to bring worship in our Church into that correct and uniform form that Metropolitans Cyprian and Photius wanted to give it. But this attempt failed just like the previous ones, because the norm for assessing the correctness of this or that rite was not the Greek originals, but the personal taste and arbitrariness of the fathers of this council, who set as a model the ranks known earlier than this Council from the handwritten monuments circulating at that time. The same was true in relation to this or that rank in its particulars, the correction of which was again proposed not by comparing them with the Greek ranks, but according to the personal view of the person proposing this or that amendment. It is clear that all this and much more like this could not be a favorable condition for establishing unity in the rites and uniformity in the general course of the liturgical order in our worship. The variety of liturgical rites continued to reign after this Council. The number of various lists of rites and most liturgical books grew and grew. This was especially helped by the introduction of printing. Printing presses, almost simultaneously operating in Venice, Cetinje, Krakow, Vilna, Pochaev, Ostrog, Moscow and Chernigov and many other cities, supplied the entire vast territory of the Muscovite kingdom with their works in sufficient abundance. With printed liturgical books, new differences appeared in the very rites, which had not been noticed before. Quite often, the printed edition of one or another order of one printing house had very little in common with the publication of the same order in another printing house, because the originals for the publications were different and their choice depended entirely either on the taste of the manager of the printing house, or even on the proofreader. Hence, the diversity in rites, fixed by printing, and the numerous printed liturgical books, according to which services began to be performed at that time, constitute a distinctive feature of the third era. To its characteristics one can add another no less typical feature - this is the complete establishment in the liturgical practice of our Church of monastic “obikhodniks” or local Russian statutes, as a direct consequence of the decisions of the Stoglavy Council regarding the celebration of memories in honor of the new Russian miracle workers - obikhodniks, who for a time from then on became regulators of worship in our Church; it seemed that this order of things was destined to remain for a long time time. And this would have happened if Patriarch Nikon had not appeared on the scene. Being by nature an intelligent person, and most importantly, a highly energetic and persistent person in achieving his goals, Patriarch Nikon decided to put an end to all this. But, realizing the importance of the task he had undertaken and the heavy responsibility for it before the court of public opinion, he took up this task not suddenly, but after quite serious and lengthy preparations. Patriarch Nikon decided not to repeat the mistakes into which Metropolitans Cyprian and Photius and the fathers of the Stoglavy Council fell. The good work of the first, as is known, lacked conciliar authority, and the fathers of the Hundred-Glava Council lacked familiarity with the state of worship at that time in the Greek Church. Patriarch Nikon decided to combine both. Before starting to correct the liturgical books, Nikon in 1651 sent to the East the famous builder of the Kremlin Epiphany Monastery in Moscow, which belonged to the Sergius Lavra, Elder Arseny Sukhanov, so that he would become directly acquainted with the state of worship in the Greek Church at that time. The fruit of his personal observations was his famous “proskinitary”, which is like his travel notes, in which Arseny noted everything that interested him in the east. This “proskinitary” or, more accurately, its tacticon, “even an official, as the Greeks maintain church rites and singing,” is important in the sense that the observations of its author formed the basis for book corrections under Nikon. (This is the first, albeit insignificant, mistake in that case of Patriarch Nikon.) In addition to the proskinitarium, Arseny Sukhanov took from the East a lot of handwritten books, among which - justice requires admitting - books of a liturgical nature make up a small minority and, moreover, of relatively late origin in time. The correction of our liturgical books in most cases took place according to Greek printed books of the Venetian edition, many of which were also exported from the East by Arseny Sukhanov. (This is the second and perhaps one of the main mistakes that Patriarch Nikon made in correcting our liturgical books.) But, be that as it may, the work of book correction was completed, and Patriarch Nikon wished that it be approved by the fathers of the Russian Church and the patriarchs of the Eastern Churches. He himself, due to circumstances unfavorable for him, could no longer take part in this matter in order to completely complete it, but his work received full approval at the Council of 1667. The books corrected by Nikon were sent throughout Russia with instructions that worship should be performed only using these books, and the old liturgical books should be returned. With such a decisive action, the cherished thought of Patriarch Nikon was fulfilled, a monotonous order was introduced into our worship, the hitherto diversity of rites was destroyed, and in its place the rites of one edition were proposed for the entire Russian Church. The corrected books, as one might expect, aroused protest from the conservative party, which, thanks to the overly energetic action of the spiritual and secular governments in this matter (this is the third mistake in this matter), did not want to part with the old order of things. A heated debate arose, and Russian society was divided into two parties - Orthodox and Old Believers. These parties have been in extremely hostile relations for a long time, and there is still no complete reconciliation between them. What the Old Believer religious and social movement did was that from that time on, that is, from the Council of 1667, it seems that the church government hardly (to great regret) forever abandoned any serious attempt at a new revision of the liturgical books and at correcting those errors that were made when correcting them at that time. Thus, complete monotony in worship in our Church and the desire to keep it in certain forms developed once and for all constitute a characteristic feature of the fourth and final era in the history of worship in our Church, which continues to this day.> 298 Having thus defined the subject of our science, its tasks, method and its essential division into eras, we must take at least a cursory glance at the very plan of our readings. Particularly strong evidence is hardly needed to believe that for those who wish to become acquainted with the state of worship in the Russian Church in the early days of its existence, considerable difficulties are presented. These difficulties consist mainly in the fact that very few liturgical monuments from the first time of the existence of Christianity in Rus' have survived, and if some monuments have been preserved, they are either not completely, or they, due to their scattering in foreign and Russian libraries, are inaccessible. That is why for the historian of worship in our Church, in order to fill this deficiency, there is an urgent need to turn to the study of worship in the Churches of the Christian East, that is, in the Churches of the Greek - Byzantine and South Slavic lands for the centuries VIII, IX, X. In the early days of the existence of the Christian Church, our connection in relation to worship with these Churches was lively and close, and our worship is no more and no less than a repetition of what the Christian East had in relation to cult; we, so to speak, only reproduced it after the Greeks. That is why our worship in the early days of our Church is no more and no less than the worship of the Greeks or Slavs of the Balkan Peninsula in the 10th century. And we will not be at all mistaken if, to characterize the worship in our Church during the first time of its existence, we turn to the characteristics of the worship of the Eastern Churches in the 8th, 9th, 10th centuries, to the extent that this (with the meager means that science currently has at its disposal, and to the extent that we personally have material in this regard) is available to us. For us, as historians of worship in our Church, this will not only not be unnecessary ballast and a simple waste of vain labor and time, but, on the contrary, will provide a solid point of support for our practice in finding the paths along which the development of worship in our Church took place. From this characteristic it will be clear to us in what position the Russian Church found Orthodox worship, what it accepted as ready-made and what it did, if only it did anything in this regard, or at least what it should have done. Here we will see under what influences the development of worship in our Church was possible and whether it was accessible to any other influences other than the influence of the Churches of its relatives - the Greek and [land] South Slavic. Since of all the liturgical rites and sequences, the rite of the liturgy occupies a very prominent place, which has undergone great changes, we will begin to review its features. In this case, the Barberine list of the liturgy, published by Goar in his εὐχολόγιον-e 299, will be of great service to us. The Liturgy of Basil the Great according to this list begins with a prayer for the position of bread on the paten in a sentence, i.e. the same prayer that is now read at the end of our proskomedia: “God, our God, heavenly bread...”, then directly the prayers of the first antiphon, the second and the third (the same as now), the entrance with the Gospel, the prayer of entry (but without the note that it should be read secretly), the prayer of the Trisagion, the short prayer of ascension to the pulpit (we don’t have it, but in the Barberine list there is no our prayer before the Gospel “Shine in our hearts...”), the prayer of the special ectenia, the prayer [for] the catechumens, the first prayer of the faithful after the prostration of the antimension, the second prayer of the faithful (but nothing is said about reading it secretly), the prayer of the Cherubic song, the prayer of the proskomedia of St. Basil the Great], after that directly “Peace to all,” “Let us love one another.” (“The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” - no), “Doors, doors”, “I believe”, “Let us become good” (“The mercy of the world” - no), “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ”, “We have sorrow in our hearts”, “Imams to the Lord”, “We thank the Lord”, “It is worthy and righteous”, prayer of gratitude, “Victory song.”, “Holy, holy”, secret prayer “With with these blessed powers" (now it is divided into two prayers), "Dade by His disciple", the secret prayer of today, "Yours from Yours", the secret prayer of invoking the Holy One. Spirit (but without very significant insertions that violate the sequence and logical flow of the current prayer in the modern Trebnik, such as: “God, cleanse me a sinner,” “Lord, who is Your Most Holy Spirit,” “Pure Heart,” “Bless, Master” - without the words of the deacon, repeated 3 times. Our next prayer - “Us all of us” - is a continuation of one prayer of invocation in the list under consideration), “A fair amount about the Most Holy Ones” (with the pronunciation in the exclamation of remembrance of St. John the Baptist and other things that we now read secretly. The song “Rejoices in You” is not mentioned), the prayer of remembrance of the living and the dead (without the insertion only: “about salvation, visitation... about the chambers...”), secret commemoration of bishops “Remember, Lord, all bishopric”, etc., “And give us one mouth,” “And let there be mercies,” etc. It is further noted that the deacon pronounces a litany, the prayer of this litany (ours, the end of it - “And grant us...” - does not form an exclamation, like ours), “Our Father”, “Peace to all”, the prayer “Sovereign Lord, Father of Generosity”, “See, Lord”, δύσκον πρόσχωμεν, “Holy saints" (without the words "God, cleanse me a sinner"), "Only is holy"; the priest, it is further noted, taking up particles of the Holy Body and placing them in the chalice, says: “For the fulfillment of the spirit” - and when everything is invested, he prays, the deacon too (prayer, however, not indicated), the prayer for communion with the exclamation in conclusion “For You are the sanctifier”, the deacon: “Let us go out in peace”, the prayer behind the pulpit, the prayer in the sentence τοῦ σκευοφυλακίου - now “ever consumed by the Holy.” From this rather detailed analysis of the rite of the liturgy of Vasily the Great, you can see that by the time of the adoption of Christianity, its rite was almost completely formed and had not yet received development in the rituals of the priest and deacon, which they perform during certain prayers. The same must be said about the rite of the Liturgy of Chrysostom and the Presanctified Gifts. In the first, compared to the rite of the liturgy of St. Basil the Great, we do not find the three antiphonal prayers, the prayer of the Cherubic song, the prayer behind the pulpit and the prayer of offer. The second, that is, the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, is inscribed as follows: “Liturgy of the Presanctified Herman the Patriarch, sung at the ninth hour.” The priest puts on his vestments and places a piece - or even two - on the saint. paten, filled with Blood from St. rubbing on Sunday and, pouring in a mixture (in Greek the word αἶμα is not entirely accurate - blood) from wine and water, he says: “One of the warriors pierced His ribs and abye came forth blood and water, and he who saw testified and truly is a testimony,” on the censer there is a prayer and then the beginning from the deacon, the people “Amen,” “Come, let us worship,” the opening psalm, during which the antiphonal psalm was read There are two prayers: “Lord, generous and merciful...” and “Lord, do not rebuke us with rage.” The order before reading the proverbs is the same as now. After the first paremia and the second prokeimnon, the priest stands with a candle and censer at the iconostasis and says: “Wisdom. The light of Christ enlightens everyone.” The rest of the order does not differ from the modern order of the liturgy, except for one prayer behind the pulpit, which is not in the current Trebnik. This prayer begins like this: “The hope of all the ends of the earth, O God, who has determined the holy days of Your fasts through the law, the prophets and the evangelists.” The rite of Baptism at this time was also quite developed. First of all, our attention is drawn to the fact that the rite of Baptism in its most ancient lists was added to the service on Holy Saturday. These are clear traces of that ancient Christian custom of liturgical practice, according to which catechumens were admitted to Baptism only on certain days of the year, which can be considered: Christmas Eve and Epiphany, Lazarus Resurrection, Holy Saturday, the entire week of Easter, etc. In the lists of the rites of Baptism - Barberinovo (according to Goar) and Sevastyanovsky in his εὐχολόγιον-th X–XI centuries. - this connection between Epiphany and Holy Saturday stands out very clearly. After the Great Litany, the prayer for the consecration of the water begins directly, followed by a prayer over the vessel of oil and a blessing of the water and the person baptized with consecrated oil, pronouncing in the first case the words “Alleluia” and “Blessed is our God, enlightening and illuminating every person,” and in the second, “The servant of God anoints himself with the oil of joy in the name of the Father.” etc. After the anointing with oil, the baptized person is immersed with the pronouncement of the formula “The servant of God is baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” at which the choir sings “Blessed, for whom sins are forgiven...” and the reading of a prayer on the robe of the baptized person, “Blessed art thou, Lord God Almighty,” after which the patriarch or bishop went “to the exodus” (ἐν τῷ ἀποδύτῳ), which in ancient times replaced our current walk around the font with the singing of the verse “As many as were baptized into Christ...” In conclusion, the newly baptized person was anointed with chrism on the following parts of his body: on the forehead with the words “Seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit”, on the eyes with the same words, on the nostrils with the words “Anointing of the guarantee of smell of the Spirit Holy One,” on the ears with the words “Anointing for participation in eternal life,” on the inside of the hands with the words “Anointing of the Holy Christ God and a sign for liberation from the wiles,” on the heart with the words “Fulfillment of the gift of the Holy Spirit, the armor of faith and truth,” and with the singing “Blessed, to whom sins have been forgiven...” he went to the church to attend the liturgy, during which he received the Holy Mysteries. This is the order of the rite of Baptism according to Barberino’s list of the 8th century. Unfortunately, we cannot reproduce in its entirety the rite of Baptism according to the εὐχολόγιον-y Sebastian[ov] collection of the R[u]k[o]p[isei] of the 10th–11th centuries, because this rite lacks the most important essential sheets, but it must be said that here one can already find all the constituent elements of the current rite of Baptism. The rite of betrothal consists of two prayers: “Eternal God, gathered into union...” and for the adoration “Lord our God, from the tongue of the Church ...” and betrothal, but without the current formula “The servant of God is betrothed...” The Rite of Wedding begins with a litany, quite short compared to the modern one, after which, according to one list of S. Marci, there follows the prayer “Holy God, created from the dust person..." and immediately putting on crowns and intertwining hands. Then adoration, the prayer “Lord our God, in Thy saving sight...”, read now after the Gospel, and the prayer “for the communion of the cup” “O God, who has created all things by Thy strength.” According to another list (Barber[inovsky]), after the great litany there followed the prokeimenon “The Lord is my enlightenment...”, the Apostle from the Epistle to the Ephesians “Brotherhood, as Christ is the head of the Church...”, the end “... let Christ present a pure virgin” and the Gospel of John, and then the special litany was pronounced and the current third prayer before the Gospel was read “Holy God, who created from the dust of man...”, after which the priest laid crowns on the newlyweds, saying the words “The servant of God is crowned with a crown of incorruptibility in the name of the Father...”, etc., and joined their right hands. The deacon pronounces “Wisdom”, and the singer sings “Crown them with glory and honor” with the verse “Thou hast placed crowns on their heads.” Next, the priest says the prayer “Crown them with Your grace, unite them in chastity and purity, bless them in a good old age,” which is somewhat reminiscent of our current first one. Then the priest read a prayer over the cup and gave it to drink first to the husband and then to the wife, and they sang “Glory to Thee, our God” with the verses “Blessed are all who fear the Lord.” The rite ends with the prayer “Lord our God, in Thy saving sight...”, which now stands after the Gospel. The oldest lists of the rites of Repentance and Blessing of Anointing have not been preserved, so it is difficult to say in what state our Russian Church found these rites at the beginning of its existence. One can, however, think that these ranks were already fully developed, although not in the form in which they are contained in our contemporary Trebnik. The same must be said about other minor rites, such as, for example, the rite of burial, the rite of tonsure into monasticism, the rite of blessing of water, etc. In a word, in the 10th century we find the Greek Euchologium already so developed that in it one can find prayers “over those who are tempted in the brush,” “over those who boldly swear,” “over those who are tempted in a dream,” “over those who think.” sail”, “at the beginning of the harvest”, “sowing fruit”, “during an earthquake”, etc. We do not convey all these details so as not to tire your attention, in full confidence that you will take my word for it. After reviewing the ranks and successions in the VIII–X centuries. In the Greek Church, questions from those studying the history of worship in the Russian Church] are far from all exhausted; on the contrary, very interesting and important questions for our science are now coming up: are these rites and in these editions did we accept from the Greek Church? Did they have any significance in the practice of the South Slavic Churches, from which in the very first days of the existence of Christianity in our country we received many liturgical books? In a word, it is very interesting to know the state of worship in the South Slavic Churches in the 10th [century]. But no matter how interesting it is to know the history of worship in the Slavic Churches in the 9th and 10th centuries, we, however, must completely abandon the attempt to depict it, even in general terms, because there are even fewer monuments of South Slavic worship preserved than similar monuments of the Greek Church. We can safely say that these monuments do not exist at all, if we do not take into account the already published excerpts from various liturgical books. Therefore, in the present case, we have to descend to the role of a simple nomenclator of those liturgical books that are known, or rather, about which at least some information has been preserved in historical monuments. A general review of these books will make it possible to pronounce your judgment: how developed was worship in the primal Church of the Slavs and in our country. Divine services in our Church in the early days of its existence were performed in the Slavic language - this is certain. Liturgical books were translated into the Slavic language even earlier than a century, when Rus' was illuminated by the light of Christ's faith, and, therefore, it was not ours in Rus' that translated the liturgical books, but the southern Slavs, who, out of fraternal feelings, provided us with them. Which of the Slavic branches saw the translation of sacred and liturgical books for the first time - there are many completely different opinions about this in our literature. There is a well-known opinion on this matter. <In the middle of the 9th century, the Western Slavic people of the Moravians, who had recently adopted Christianity from the Roman Church, were dissatisfied that their services, as in the Roman Church, were performed in a foreign Latin language, and they had a desire to serve it in their own Slavic. Knowing that the pope would not agree to such a desire, and being confident that, on the contrary, the Greeks would willingly agree to it, the Moravians turned to the latter with a request to translate the Greek liturgical books into the Slavic language for them. The Constantinople Emperor Michael III (842–867), to whom the Moravians turned with their request, indeed accepted it very favorably and immediately entrusted the work of translating the books to Constantine the Philosopher (by his dying monastic name - Cyril), a Greek by birth, who lived around the half of the 9th century, who was one of the then Greek scientists and who, by some chance circumstances, knew the Slavic language. In reality, this was far from the case. In fact, it is difficult to believe that the Moravians, who had just accepted Christianity from the Roman Church, the general custom of which was for the peoples belonging to it to perform divine services in one language, Latin, could protest against this order of things in the Roman Church and openly express the desire to have divine services in their native, understandable, Slavic language. This is something completely contrary to all probability and all historical logic. People (and not peoples themselves, but individual chosen people within them - remember Hus, Wyclef, Luther, etc.) usually raise a protest against existing, illegal and incorrect orders not immediately when they are accepted, but after they become sufficiently familiar with them, realize their inconveniences and become in the position of critics. And this is what the newly enlightened Moravian people lacked. They say that the Moravians were helped in this matter by the Greeks: not being able to come to a protest against the orders of the Roman Church themselves, they were allegedly brought to it by the example of the Greek Church, which allowed all peoples to perform divine services in their own languages. But this is also far from the truth, because the Greeks of our time are not at all like the Greeks of the 9th century. The Greek Church of the 9th century, just like the Roman Church, made it a duty for the peoples who turned to it to perform divine services in Greek, and not in their native, living and spoken language. This is what she did in relation to, for example, the Slavs of the Balkan Peninsula, who lived within the Byzantine Church and accepted Christianity from the Greeks long before the Moravians. Here we do not see even a shadow of attempts to translate Greek liturgical books into the Slavic language. Thus, the Moravians could not at all turn to the Greeks with a request to translate Greek liturgical books for them into their Slavic language. How did it happen that they received a translation of the Greek books? The matter was as follows. The Moravians, who until the 9th century lived, like all other Slavs, separately and without leadership and therefore were dependent on the Germans, at the beginning of the 9th century managed to form into one whole and quite strong state, and at the same time threw off the aforementioned dependence. As a result, a fierce struggle began between them and the Germans, who wanted to conquer them again. Looking for allies against the Moravians, the Germans managed to win over the Bulgarians, who then owned Pannonia (present-day Hungary) and were the Moravians’ immediate neighbors from the east. The alliance of the Germans with the Bulgarians forced the Moravians to seek an alliance with the Greeks, who, being in turn neighbors of the latter, could paralyze their assistance to the Germans. It was for this political union that the Moravians sent an embassy to the Byzantine Emperor Michael III. The political union at that time had to be accompanied by a church union, i.e. The Moravians, seeking to conclude the first alliance with the Greeks, necessarily had to offer themselves dependence on the Patriarch of Constantinople instead of their hitherto dependence on the Pope of Rome. That's how they did it. Upon the conclusion of both alliances, it was necessary to send Greek priests to Moravia, which had been accepted under the authority of the Patriarch of Constantine [of Opole]. Constantine the Philosopher, already known to us, a priest with the rank of priest, was elected as commander over the latter. It was this Constantine the Philosopher, entirely on his own initiative, who decided to give the Moravians Greek liturgy translated into the popular Slavic language. that is, in other words, among the prevailing doctrine at that time between the Greeks and Latins about two liturgical languages ​​- Latin and Greek, Constantine the Philosopher acted as a reformer and innovator, proclaiming the principle of equality of all languages ​​and nationalities of worship and implementing his new teaching in application to the Moravians. Thus, we, the Orthodox Slavs, owe worship in our own language not to the Moravians and not to the Greeks, in which case Constantine the Philosopher would only be an instrument for the execution of someone else’s thought, but exclusively and entirely to this latter. In the Greek Church of the 9th century, as we said, just like in the Latin Church, there was a teaching about one liturgical language, and if this teaching fell, and we did not become its slaves, it was precisely because in the person of Constantine the Philosopher a great man was sent to us, who rebelled against it and, in its application to us, crushed it. Constantine the Philosopher, after he began translating Greek liturgical books into the Slavic language, lived very briefly, namely about four or five years, but, having worked on them very diligently, he “translated the entire rite of the church into the Slavic language, taught his disciples matins and hours, mass and vespers and vespers and the secret service.” After the death of Constantine the Philosopher, on February 14, 869, his eldest brother Methodius remained, who was then Archbishop of Moravia, who died in April 885, who translated the entire Bible (with the exception, for an unknown to us - one might think, accidental - reason, the Books of the Maccabees), the Nomocanon of John Scholasticus and more or less of the writings of the Fathers. The Bulgarians borrowed Slavic liturgical books from the Moravians, and we, the Russians, borrowed them from the latter. Our chronicles do not say a single word about this transfer of liturgical books to us from the South Slavic lands, as if it had never happened at all> 300. Therefore, in resolving the question of when this transition took place, there is considerable scope for all kinds of assumptions and conjectures. 301 the time of transfer of books from Bulgaria to us is believed to be quite late. “It is difficult to guess,” he says, “when and in what ways Bulgar books first appeared or most often came to Rus'. I believe,” says Shaf[arik], “that already in the wars of Svyatoslav with the Bulgars in 967 and 971–2, perhaps even before the death of Olga (969), some of them were taken out as a result of the devastation of the Bulgarian treasuries, churches and libraries, by self-interested, and at the same time disposed towards Christianity, warriors” (Readings in the general history. [and ancient] 1847, VII, 58) 302. But this opinion cannot be accepted without reservations. In fact, even in the time of Igor there were churches in Kyiv and, of course, they did not stand without worship. Grand Duchess Olga, having received instructions from the patriarch about the church charter, prayer and other subjects after Baptism in Constantinople, also built churches and, upon her death, was buried according to the Christian rite by the priest who was with her (Complete collection of chronicles), vol. I, pp. 22, 26, 29). All these circumstances force us to admit the existence of liturgical books in the Slavic language in Russia at an earlier time than Safarik believes - precisely during the reign of Igor and, perhaps, earlier than that. This could be especially facilitated by the frequent relations between the Russians and Byzantium through the South Slavic lands and, in particular, through Bulgaria. As for the time of the reign of Svyatoslav, in which, according to Safarik, the transition of Slavic liturgical books from Bulgaria to Russia began, through the warlike squad of this prince, who, according to the same scientist, played the main role in this matter, it must be said that the historical data that we find in our initial chronicles force us to draw a completely opposite conclusion regarding this. According to these data, the time of Svyatoslav’s reign is the time of the struggle of paganism against Christianity, which began to spread in Rus', and Svyatoslav’s squad is, if not hostile, then at least unsympathetically disposed towards Christianity. Svyatoslav’s response to his mother’s admonition to accept baptism is known: “How do I want to accept the same law? and the squad will start laughing at this” (Complete [collection] of Russian chronicles], vol. I, p. 27). Among the squad, it may very well be that there were no completely Christians, at least we do not find evidence of this in our first chronicles. The only place in which they want to see an indication of the existence of Christians in Svyatoslav’s army is the following expression in Svyatoslav’s treaty with the Greeks: (in case of violation of the treaty) it is said here “Let us have an oath from God, in whom we believe, in Perun and in Volos” (Complete] collection of Russian chronicles. vol. I, p. 31). Under God, scientists who defend the presence of Christians in Svyatoslav’s squad want to see a Christian God, but here it is more correct to see an indication of the main pagan deity of the Russians, Svarog, since it is impossible to imagine that a pagan prince would put the Christian God in first place in his oath and could say “in Him we believe” without any limitation (Russian language Nikifor, p. 16). After the death of Svyatoslav, under his sons Yaropolk and Oleg, who were undoubtedly disposed towards Christianity, the number of followers of this religion increased, and at the same time, without a doubt, the influx of South Slavic liturgical books from the lands increased, so that when in 988 Grand Duke Vladimir, together with his subjects, accepted Baptism, it can undoubtedly be said that he not only had at that time “the Holy Scriptures and books ready translated from Greek into Russian,” but he had, perhaps, all of them already transferred to Russia and he himself contributed to this> 303. <Successors of St. Vladimir very diligently took care of collecting as many books of every kind as possible and mainly, of course, liturgical books. They supported translators and copyists at their own expense, who satisfied the urgent needs of the newly enlightened Russian people. The son of Vladimir, St., became especially famous for collecting book treasures. led Prince Yaroslav. “And Yaroslav,” the chronicler says about him, “loved the church rules, loved the priests greatly, was generous with the monk, and was diligent in books, and I often read at night and during the day, and collected many books and translated them from the Greek into Slovenian letters and copied many books, learning from them Faithful people enjoy the teachings of the divine" (Complete collection of Russian chronicles). T. I, p. 65). Thus, gradually, partly through the transfer of liturgical books in the Slavic language from Bulgaria and other South Slavic lands, and partly through the independent work of Russian translators and copyists, the number of liturgical books in Russia increased more and more, and at the same time the order of worship was more and more established and its volume increased.> 305 In order to have at least a general idea of the order of worship and its volume in the early days of the existence of the Russian Church, it is urgently necessary to make a short list of those liturgical monuments that have survived to this day from this time. In this case, we will try to provide some bibliographic information about each of the mentioned manuscripts, so that later, when one of you has to work independently using first-hand sources, you can freely find information about these manuscripts. Let's start our list with the most important liturgical and sacred books, namely the Gospels. “In ancient times - perhaps you [gentlemen] know - the Gospels were written in two ways: in the complete form of the evangelists, according to their accepted order, and in the form of a selection of liturgical readings from the evangelists, in the annual order of these last, starting from the day of Easter. We called the full Gospels Tetro-Gospels and Tetra Gospels, of which the first name is the Greek τετρ-ευαγγέλιον, Four Gospels, and the second appeared through our rearrangement of its constituent words in a compound word (tetro-Gospel, Gospel-tetro, tetra); selections of liturgical readings were called aprakos (Gospel-aprakos), which is from the Greek ἄπρακτος (from ἀ - not and πράσσω - I do), which in application to days (ἄπρακτος ἡμέρα as opposed to ἔπρακτος ἡμέρα) means a weekly day, a holiday, and which is used in the appendix to our gospels in the sense of selecting readings for holidays. From the Gospels, the aprakos are currently known: 1) Ostromir Gospel. It was written in Novgorod in 1056–57 by Deacon Gregory for the then Novgorod mayor Ostromir, from whom it received its name. Representing the oldest currently known Russian-Slavic manuscript, it consists of 294 sheets, which were written by a scribe over the course of 6 months and 20 days from October 21 to May 12. The selection of liturgical readings that form the Gospel consists of: the Gospels for each day of the week from Easter to Holy Spirit Monday; from the gospels for Saturdays and Sundays from Monday of the Holy Spirit to Holy Week, between which there are 12 passionate gospels for Good Friday, from 11 gospels for Sunday mornings; from the gospels in memory of the saints for the entire year according to the month, starting from September 1st. Currently, the manuscript is in the St. Petersburg Public Library. It was published paleographically and scientifically and philologically by the late Vostokov in 1843 under the title “Ostromir Gospel of 1056–57.” with an appendix of the Greek text of the Gospels and grammatical explanations." 2) Mstislav's Gospel. It was written in the same Novgorod as the previous one, by order of the Novgorod prince Mstislav Vladimirovich, by Alex (Alexei), the son of priest Lazar, before 1117 (in which Mstislav left Novgorod), and was attached by the prince to the Church of the Annunciation, built by him, at the princely Settlement, which is near Novgorod. To decorate the liturgical Gospels with magnificent boards (as is customary), he was sent, by order of the prince, to Constantinople with a certain Naslav. contains the Gospel readings in the same composition as the Ostromir Gospel with some particular differences. Currently located in the Moscow Archangel Cathedral. Articles about him have been published: Nevostruev in “Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences”, vol. 9; Bilyarsky ibid., t. 10 306. 3) St. George's Gospel. Written for the Novgorod Yuryev Monastery by Theodore Ugrints before 1128 (under Abbot Kyriak, who died this year). Currently located in the Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery. The composition of the selection of readings is more complete than the previous two; namely, it contains readings: for Tuesday through Friday of each of the 16 weeks after Pentecost and for Monday through Friday of the 18 weeks of the new summer 307. See about him Sreznevsky, “Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences,” vol. 8. 4) Simeon’s (Dobrilin’s) Gospel. Written in the same Novgorod as all the previous ones, by the clerk of the Church of St. of the Apostles by Konstantin Dobrila for the priest of the Church of John the Baptist Simeon in 1164. Located in the Ru[yantsev] Museum. Vostokov heard about him, described. No. 103, and Kalaid[ovich] “Ioan[n], ex[arch] Bulgarian,” p. 31. 5) Milyatino (Domkino Gospel). Also written in Novgorod for Milyatin Dukinich by the priest of the Church of St. Lazarus “Damkoy” in 1215 or 1230. Located in the St. Petersburg Public Library. See about him Kalaid[ovich] “John, ex[arch of Bulgarian]”, p. 111; Srezn[evsky] “Ancient] monuments of Russian writing and language.” 6) Typographical Gospel, located in the library of the Moscow Synodal Printing House of the 12th–13th centuries, No. 6. The Gospels, preserved not in complete form, but in fragments: Turovskoye, so named because at the beginning of the 16th century. was placed by the princes of Ostrog in the Turov Church of the Transfiguration. A fragment consisting of 10 sheets has survived; the late I.I. Sreznevsky is considered slightly younger than Ostromirov and generally dates back to the 11th century. All that was preserved was printed by Mr. Hildebrandt in Vilna, in 1869, under the title “Turov Gospel of the 11th century” and then by Sreznevsky in “Information and notes about little-known] and unknown monuments”, St. Petersburg, 1876. Novgorod sheets, only two, currently located in the St. Petersburg public library - Sreznevsky, “Ancient Slavic monuments of the Yus letter.” Undolsky's leaves - two from one Gospel and two from another, are currently in the Moscow Rum[yantsev] Museum - Sreznevsky, ibid., pp. 43, 135> 308. <Of the complete Gospels or Tetro-Gospels, only one Gospel has survived from this time - the Galich or Krylos Gospel of 1144. It is kept in the Moscow Synodal Library. Gorsky and Nevostr[uev] described it in their work “Description of the r[u]k[o]p[isey] of the Moscow Synod[al] library,” No. 20. To this one Tetro-Gospel should be added two more, preserved in very small fragments (two leaves from each), both from the 12th century. Sreznevsky], “Information and notes about little-known] and unknown monuments”> 309. “In ancient times, the Apostle was written among us in the same way as the Gospel - in its entirety or in the form of a selection of liturgical readings. The names “aprakos” and “tetro” were also used in addition to its two types, although the latter does not apply to it. Not a single liturgical Apostle of ancient times has survived to us. The liturgical psalter has been preserved in two copies of the 13th century, located in the library of the Novgorod] St. Sophia Cathedral. Both lists are Psalms of the so-called “mixed structure”, in which only half of the verses were written for antiphonal or alternating singing of psalms on both choirs (for one choir), while the other halves were contained in other corresponding books. (Srezn[evsky], “Ancient monuments of Russian writing and language,” p. 59.) From the third list of psalms of the 11th century. only one fragment survives. Srezn[evsky], “Information and notes] about little-known and unknown monuments.” Zap. Ak. N. T. XX, book. 1. Several paremias have survived. We know the XIII century. two in the Typ[ographic] library, one in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra[e] and several in other Russian libraries. Service books and Trebniks of the 12th century. two are known. One is learned by tradition. Anthony the Roman, and the other to Varlaam Khutynsky. Both are in the Moscow Synodal Library. Described by Gorsk[im] and Nevostruev. In our Solovetsky library there is one Service Book of the 12th-13th centuries. under No. [701 (1017)] 310. Three copies of the church statutes have survived. Typographical, located in the Moscow Syn[odal]-Typographical Library No. 285 of the 11th-12th centuries. {Description at the arch. Sergius (now Bishop of Koven[o]) in his work “Full Month[es] of the East”} The Synodal Charter, known under the name of Patriarch Alexy of the 12th century. Description at Gorsky and Nevostr[uev] at No. 380. The Sophia Rule, XIII century, is now in the library of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Academy> 311 under No. 1136. {Acquaintance with this list is possible from Odintsov’s book “Order of public] and private worship in Russia until the 16th century.” and according to Sreznevsky’s article “Ancient] monuments of Russian writing and language.”} <The monthly Menaions, preserved from ancient times, are known: For the month of September there are four lists: two Typographic [a] lists from the end of the 11th and 12th–13th centuries. Nos. 194, 195, Synod[al] library of the 12th century. No. 159, Novgorodskaya Sophia library, XII century. For the month of October there are three lists: Typogr[af] 1096 No. 200, Synod[al] library No. 160 of the 12th century, Novgorod [Sophia] library of the 12th century. For the month of November there are three lists: two Typographic [af] 1097 and 12th century. No. 202 and No. 203 and the Synod[al] library of the 12th century. No. 161. For the month of December there are three lists: Synod[al] XII century. No. 162, two Typographical Bib[liotecas] XII-XIII Nos. 207, 209. For January there are four lists: three Typographical bib[liotecas] of the 10th–12th centuries. No. 210, XII century. No. 210, XII–XIII centuries. No. 209 and Synod[al] library] XII century. No. 163. For the month of February, three lists: two from the Typographical Library] of the 11th–12th centuries. No. 214 and XII–XIII centuries. No. 25 and the Moscow Synodal Library of the 12th century. No. 164. For the month of March, no complete lists are known yet. Sreznevsky found a leaf from the Menaion of this month, which he attributes to the 11th century. “Information and notes about little-known and unknown monuments” – “Notes of the Academy of Sciences”. T. XXII, book. I. For the month of April there are three lists: Typographical lists of the 11th–12th centuries. No. 221, Synod[al] library of the 12th century. No. 165 and Novgorodskoy Sophia library. For the month of May, three lists: Synod[al] library of the 12th century. No. 166, Novgorodskaya Sophia library of the 11th–12th centuries. (Described by Vostok in the “Scientific Notes of the II Department of the Academy of Sciences,” book II, vol. 2) and the library of the “Society of History and Antiquities” of the 12th century. (Sreznev[sky]). For the month of June there are three lists: Synodal XII century. No. 167, St. Petersburg Public Library (small excerpt) and Novgorod Sophia Library of the 12th century. (Srezn[evsky]). For the month of July there are two lists, both from the Typographical Library of the 11th–12th centuries. No. 234, XII century. No. 235. For the month of August, two lists: Typographical library of the 11th–12th centuries. No. 238 and the Synod[al] library of the 12th century. No. 168 (Sreznevsky[sky]). There are two known Festive Menaions: one of the Saint Petersburg Public Library Library of the 11th–12th centuries. (see about it in Lavrovsky’s article “Description of the seven r[u]k[o]p[ises] of the St. Petersburg] public library”, published in the “Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities”, 1858, book 4) and Typographical libraries of the 12th–13th centuries. No. 330. There are five known lists of the Lenten Triodey: Novgorodian Sofia library, two, early 12th century. and the beginning of the 13th century, Typographical library of the 11th–12th centuries. No. 254, Synod[al] library, two copies of the 12th century. No. 278 and No. 319 (the first list actually contains only stichera from the Lenten triodion). Triodey of Tsvetnyi two lists: typographical library of the 11th–12th centuries. No. 255 and the library of the Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery of the 12th century. (Sreznev[sky]). Only one list of ancient Russian Irmologies is known, from the 12th century, stored in the Typographical Library under No. 307. The canon is also preserved in one list from the 12th century. and is currently stored in the Novgorod [odsk] Sof[ia] library (Sreznev [sky])> 312. In addition to the listed liturgical books, in the practice of the primal Russian Church there were also books used that are now non-existent and even the very names of which are unknown to many. Such books should be considered Stichirari, Kondakari and, perhaps, Holidays - books that are now also relatively rarely used. <The stichera, [as] the name itself can see, [these are] books that contained “a collection of everyday stichera for the whole year.” Currently, there are eight copies of the most ancient Stichirares known: {in the Moscow Synod[al] Library there are three - one written in 1157 No. 589, two from the 12th century. No. 279 and No. 572, in the Novgorodskaya Sophia library - written before 1163, in the St. Petersburg public library of the 12th century. (about him in Lavrovsky), in the library of the Academy of Sciences of the 12th century. (East[ov] and Sreznev[sky], “Scientific] notes of the II department of the Academy of Sciences,” book II, issue 2), in the Moscow Typographical Library of the 12th–13th centuries. No. 303 and, finally, Gelsin[g]for (small excerpt) of the 11th–12th centuries. (Sreznevsky, “Information and notes about little-known] and unknown monuments” [in] “Notes of the Academy of Sciences.” T. XX, book 1).} Kondakari contained “a collection of kontakia and other church songs for the whole year.” From ancient times, three lists of Kondakari have been preserved to us: {Nizhny Novgorod Annunciation Monastery, currently located in the St. Petersburg] public library library, XI–XII (Sreznevsky, “[Ancient] monuments of the Russian language and writing”), Trinity - Lavra end of the 12th century No. 23 (Srez-Nevsky ibid., description of the r[u]k[o]p[isey] of this library) and Synodal XII-XIII centuries. No. 777 (Savva and Sreznevsky)}. The books called Feasts contain hymns for the twelve feasts of the Lord and the Mother of God, fixed and moving. From the first centuries of Christianity in Russia, only one copy of the book of Holidays has survived to us {XII-XIII centuries, and it is located in the Moscow Typographical Library under No. 330}> 313. Only after such a long and tedious, but for our purpose very necessary, list can one come to the following positive conclusions regarding the state of worship in the Russian Church during the first period of its existence: 1) That the divine service in the Russian Church was Greek, but translated into Slavic (Moravian-Bulgarian) language. 2) That the full range of liturgical books was known in Rus' very early, almost from the very adoption of Christianity. It was compiled partly through the transfer of liturgical books from the lands of the South Slavs, and partly through translation and correspondence in Russia itself by Bulgarian and Russian scribes. 3) Consequently, the rites and successions, as well as the services of the annual and weekly circle, were undoubtedly all known, and, moreover, in those simplest (compared to their later editions) lists, which we saw in the Greek εὐχολόγιον-e and other liturgical books of this Church. 4) Finally, having become conditionally dependent in relation to everything related to worship on the Greek Churches and the South Slavic lands, we could not free ourselves from this dependence, as we will see below, through the entire history of worship in our Church. therefore, for an explanation of the historical origin of certain features of the liturgical practice of the Old Russian Church, which we will find in our liturgical monuments, it will always be necessary to turn to the practice of the named Churches. Only here, and nowhere else, will we find the correct solution to the questions that arise on this or that occasion regarding worship in our Church. After everything we have said, we move on to the description of the first period in the history of worship in our Church 314. This period (X-XIV centuries), as we have already said in its place, should be called the time of dominance of the charter of the Studite monastery. Indeed, with the adoption of Christianity from Byzantium, it was very natural to borrow from there the dominant church liturgical charter, which could regulate worship in our Church. And such a charter in the Greek Church of Constantinople was the Studian charter, firmly established not only in the practice of this Church, but even in all the Constantinople monasteries that once had their own clitoral charters. This charter, given to the Studite monastery by its famous abbot Theodore († 826), who was called Studite after the monastery, was far from being as developed as the patriarch did. Constantinople XI century. Alexy, was not even enclosed “in writing”, but was introduced only into the life and practice of the famous Studite monastery by deed, nevertheless at this time he had such an enormous influence on the statutes of other monasteries that he completely, as it were, depersonalized them and gave the tone and direction to the life of the church, liturgical and purely monastic life of all eastern monasteries. In subsequent times, the rules of the charter of Theodore the Studite were expanded and replenished by his disciples: St. Simeon, St. Nicholas, St. Clement, Cyprian, Theoctistus and Peter the Studites until these rules were subject to one general edition of the Patr. Constant [of foreign] Alexius (11th century), who collected all these rules into one general charter. <In what form the studio charter was adopted in our Church in the early days of its existence is difficult to say with certainty. One can, however, think (and not without confidence) that it is not in its entirety (as edited by Patr. Alexy), but in fragments, in appendices to the main liturgical books: the Book of Hours, the Octoechos, the Lenten and Colored triodions - books that were very necessary for the conduct of worship in our Church. that it was in this form that the church liturgical charter came to us - this will be partly confirmed to us somewhat below by historical evidence, but now we can only say that there was no need for the full Studite charter, in which more than half of it depicts monastic life, in Rus', especially in the early stages of our Christian life. True, monasticism appeared among us very early after the adoption of Christianity, but monasteries in the proper sense of the word did not yet exist among us until the Ven. Theodosius of Pechersk, founder of monastery hostels. “The monasteries that existed before him should be thought of as nothing other than monastic settlements located near parish churches. Consequently, they had absolutely no need for a special monastic and church charter, since the monks were present at divine services in the parish churches where they lived. But when he became the successor in the abbess of St. Anthony of Pechersk Venerable Theodosius, then, according to the chronicler, “for the time being, there was abstinence and great fasting and prayers with tears, and many monks began to copulate.” He, indeed, soon managed to “couple”, gather around himself up to 100 monks who had lived until now, in all likelihood, in the mentioned monastic settlements, and form a real monastery on the basis of a community. But Rev. Theodosius, who strove to make his monastery a completely real, true monastery and to establish in it a monastic way of life that was as perfect as possible, soon felt an urgent need for a charter that would regulate not only the divine services performed in the monastery, but also monastic life itself. Such aspirations were fully met by the full studio charter, edited for the last time by Patr. Alexy (1025–1043), elevated to the patriarchal see from the ecclesiarchs of the Studite monastery and the founder of his own monastery, for which the charter we mentioned was originally drawn up. It was this charter that was transferred to his monastery (c. 1070) from Constantinople and Rev. Theodosius Pechersky. About how Rev. Theodosius of Pechersk received a studio charter for his monastery, we have two, apparently conflicting testimonies. The chronicler of the year 1051 says that Theodosius, having gathered a large brethren, “began to seek the rules of Chernechsk and then found (in Kyiv) Michael, the monk of the Studiysky monastery, who came from the Greek with Metropolitan George and began to seek from him the charter of the Chernets of Studiysk and found from him both the copy and the rules in his monastery, as singing the monastery song, and bowing in some way, and reading the readings, and standing in the church, and the entire church row, sitting at the meal and what to eat on which day, all with the establishment. Theodosius invented everything and will betray it to his monastery” (Complete] collection of Russian chronicles], vol. I, 69). The same Nestor, but in the life of St. Feodosia tells a completely different story. Here he says that Theodosius “sent a single ambassador from the brethren to Constantinople to Ephraim, and the entire charter of the Studian monastery (therefore, undoubtedly, that before this time there was no complete charter in Rus', which was partly confirmed by the list of articles of the new charter made by the chronicler), having copied it, he will send it to him, who is also our reverend father, commanded that abiye and create and all (sic!) wrote out the monastery charter and sent it to our blessed father Theodosius. Having accepted it (i.e., [the] Student Charter), our father Theodosius commanded honor before the brethren, and from then on he began to build everything in his monastery according to the St. Charter. Studiyskago Monastery. according to the first news, Rev. Theodosius received a ready-made recording of the Studite Charter and, moreover, on the spot, in Kyiv, from Mikhail Chernets, and according to the second, it was deliberately made for the Rev. Theodosius in Constantinople in the Studian monastery itself by Ephraim the eunuch, where Theodosius sent one of his monastic brethren for this purpose> 315. Prof. Moscow D[echological] Academy Golubinsky in his “History of the Russian Church” writes this about these two contradictory testimonies regarding this issue: “Undoubtedly,” he says, “the first (testimony) should be considered the most probable, for, in addition to the undoubted superiority of the authority of the chronicler, as a historical indicator over the authority of Nestor, the first is indisputably more probable than the second in itself.” 316 (vol. I, [part] II, [p.] 373), i.e., to put it simply, prof. Golubinsky wants to say that the Studite charter was translated into Rus' and precisely in Kyiv by a certain Mikhail, a monk of the Studite monastery. While we partly agree with the opinion of the venerable historian professor, we nevertheless cannot help but be amazed at how it is possible and, moreover, “indisputably” to give preference to Nestor as a chronicler over Nestor the biographer, Ven. Theodosius of Pechersk and consider the first story more probable than the second. In our opinion, Nestor must always remain the same and cannot say in one case what is “indisputably” true, and in the second what is indisputably false, but that Nestor the chronicler and Nestor the writer of the life of Theodosius of Pechersk could not speak quite accurately and definitely about the same subject is a completely possible thing. Therefore, the two legends we have now cited about the appearance of the studio charter in Rus', in our opinion, do not exclude one another, but, on the contrary, complement each other and are very easily reconciled with each other by the following more or less probable consideration. Rev. Theodosius of Pechersk, having sent one of the monks of his monastery to Constantinople for the Studian Charter to a certain Ephraim the eunuch and for a long time without receiving any news from him (since the correspondence and translation of the charter required a lot of time), began to look for the Studian Charter from the Greek monks who arrived in Rus', and made a request for the same subject to the monk Michael, who came to Russia together with Metropolitan George. This monk Michael granted his request by translating the Studite Greek Charter into the Slavic language. Some time later, Theodosius received the same charter from Ephraim Skopts. Having checked this last list with the first (“let our father Theodosius receive him,” says the life, “he commanded honor before the brethren”), Rev. Theodosius introduced it into his monastery, from which all other monasteries in Russia later accepted this charter. Prof. himself resorts to almost the same considerations. Golubinsky, when he begins to talk about the form in which the studio charter was adopted by Rev. Theodosius - whether as published by Minem in his “Patr[ologiae] curs[us] complet[us], t. 99" 317, or in the way it was preserved in the edition of the Patr. Alexia in the Slavic translation between the RKP. Moscow Synodal Library. “Which of the two mentioned records was received by Rev. Theodosius, we,” says Prof. Golubinsky, - we don’t know for sure, but we must think that the Patr. Alexy, and not in the monastery itself. Firstly, the recording made in the monastery itself is completely unknown in the Slavic translation, and in this translation we only have the recording of Alexiev. Secondly, and most importantly, the record made in the monastery itself is only a very short record, while Alexiev’s record is a real detailed charter: so that Rev. Theodosius was content with the first, having the opportunity to get the second - this is completely incredible. It may very well be,” adds Prof. in parentheses. Golubinsky, - that the monk Mikhail, to whom Rev. Theodosius inquired about the charter of the Studite monastery; only the monastery’s own record was available, but by seeking a detailed charter, he could have learned from him about the existence of Alexieva’s record, which represents just such a charter, and then through him or not through him, perhaps precisely through Ephraim Skopts, (could) have received it on purpose” 318 (vol. I, [part] II, [p.] 373). obviously, and prof. Golubinsky does not at all consider these two legends about the appearance of the charter of the Studite Monastery in our country as mutually exclusive legends, but on the contrary, like us, he considers them mutually complementary to each other. The Slavic translation of the Studite Charter has survived to this day in six copies 319. Three of them are already known to you - these are the Typographical Library No. 285 of the late 11th and early 12th centuries, and the Moscow Synodal Library No. 330 of the late 12th century. and the beginning of the 13th century. and the third Bible. Sofia (now St. Petersburg] Spiritual Academy) No. 1136 XII or XIII century. In addition to these statutes already known to you, you can indicate three more lists - this is the statute written in 1398 by Monk John, now stored in the Moscow Synod[al] Library under No. 333 (according to the Description - 381), a list of the 15th century. the same Bible under No. 905 (382) and, finally, a list of the 14th–15th centuries. No. 1236, now located in the Moscow Printing Library. The first two lists of the Studio Charter represent the translation of this charter as amended by Patr. Alexy of Constantinople. The best in its completeness should be considered the second list, the synodal one, which bears the following title: “The Charter betrayed by the Ecumenical Patriarch Alexy” and was written in Novgorod, as can be seen from the notes relating to the Novgorod church. Since the statute in this edition was intended primarily for monasteries, the content of the articles included in it is closely related to the structure of monastic life, monastic life in church, liturgical and cell life. The entire charter of the Patr. Alexia consists of two parts, of which the first is, in the proper sense, the rules of monastic worship, and the other is the rules of purely monastic life. since the manuscript begins with the regulations for the service on the Sunday of the Prodigal Son (therefore, the service for the publican and the Pharisee is missing), then in the first part we find services for the Lenten and Colored Triodions, rules regarding the service for the upcoming Lent of St. Apostles, and specifically about singing “Alleluia” instead of “God is the Lord” on the simple days of the week, about readings, about hours and, finally, services for the whole year according to the month. The second part is entitled: “The guide looks at the food industry and about singing in the house and about all other rites, and about being in the church and everywhere else. He was appointed, not according to scripture, to the monasteries of Studite by our reverend father, the confessor Theodore, who was abbot there; dedicated by writing from Alexy, the holy and universal patriarch in the monastery he established in the name of the Divine Mater.” It sets out the rules regulating the way of life of the monks in all details, therefore, among many others, the following articles are included here, for example: about the second meal, that is, about the meal for the cellarer and other brethren who served others during lunch, which is delivered at the end of their table and is therefore called the second, about the evening meal, about how it is not appropriate to attach guilt in any way to the food offered, about the distribution dishes for different seasons, about not keeping pots in cells, rules prohibiting monastic gatherings, about monastic home and sacred clothing, about washing in the bathhouse, about issuing bread and wine on deliberate holidays, and many other articles of similar content. At the end of the charter we find several articles that constitute, as it were, additions to the first part. This additional part is inscribed as follows: “The head of the church rule is similar to the first rule of the various chapters in the church service.” This includes articles: on the singing of the Trinity verses, on the standing of monks in the church, on the singing of kathismas at Matins, on the singing of “God is the Lord” and “Praise the Lord,” on singing at the hours, Matins and Vespers, on simple evening service and in Lent, on requiem services, on bows and other similar articles. This relatively cursory review of the articles included in manuscript No. 330 is enough to conclude that the Studio Charter, introduced in Russia by Rev. Theodosius of Pechersk, was introduced in this edition, or at least very close to this one.> 320 This charter, as shown by the same list of articles included in it, is the most complete and for the most part concerns the life of the monastery, which, with the establishment of cenobitic monasteries in Russia, needed strict and more or less precise regulation, which was achieved completely with the adoption of the charter we examined. It is clear that other monasteries, created following the example of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, tried to imitate their model in everything and were forced to introduce into practice the same charter that was used by the named famous monastery. The news that the Studite charter from the Kiev-Pechersk monastery spread to other monasteries was preserved for us by the same chronicler Nestor, who also testified to the adoption of the Studite charter by the Reverend Theodosius. “Theodosius invented (the charter),” says this chronicler under the same year 1051, “he gave it to his monastery, and from the same monastery he transferred all the monastery’s charter.” Since monasteries, especially in the early days of our adoption of Christianity, were the main educational centers from which bishops of dioceses came out, from where liturgical books flowed, copied by hardworking monks, and in general had an enormous influence on the general church life of Ancient Rus', it is not surprising that the same studio charter, which regulated monastic services, soon after its adoption in Kyiv - the center of the church management at that time - went beyond the monastery fences and became a regulator of worship in general in the Russian Church, i.e. we want to say that 321. 322 <The Studite Charter was formed in Constantinople not without a significant influence on it from the Charter of Sava the Sanctified, which penetrated into Constantinople long before the appearance of the Studite Charter, which partly confirms some similarities between both ancient charters, and mainly the fact that the creator of the Studite Charter, Theodore the Studite, was in relations with the monastery of Sava the Sanctified. The influence of the Jerusalem Rule was reflected with particular force in the synaxal part of the Studite Rule, i.e. Theodore the Studite and his students services in honor of the feasts of the Lord, the Mother of God and great saints were undoubtedly compiled under the influence of the same services according to the Jerusalem Rule. But no matter how great the influence of the latter, in general there are many differences between both statutes. Patriarch Nektariy (XVII century), who saw, in his own words, the authentic church charter of Studius, writes that this charter differs from the charter of Sava the Sanctified mainly in that in the charter of Studius it is shown to read the canons of the Studite fathers, which is why it is not called, adds Nektariy, the charter of Sava or Damascene, but the charter of Studium (Review of hymns, p. 307). but, in addition to this really very striking difference, we can indicate other features in the studio charter. According to the charter, for example, of Sava the Sanctified, on all Sundays and the Lord's holidays, it is necessary to perform an all-night vigil “from evening until morning” and at it to sing the great doxology with laudatory stichera, while according to the studio charter there are no all-night vigils for any day of the year, but throughout the whole year, vespers, midnight, and morning singing must be performed at their own time, and also for not a single day in year, except for Great Saturday, it is not necessary to sing the Great Doxology at Matins, but on holidays, as well as on weekdays, only stichera on praises and on stichera should be read. that the Great Doxology was sung, according to the studio charter, only once a year - we find evidence of this in Synodal Charter No. 330 Met. Alexia. “Morning singing, reksha, Glory to God in the highest,” says this charter regarding the performance of matins on Holy Saturday, “they sing in a hymnal way, which is not the custom to do, just now” (l. 35). According to the Studite Rule, from September 26 until the end of Pentecost, three readings are read at Matins, and from the Sunday of All Saints until September 26, two readings are read. however, in the charter of Patriarch Alexy, from Monday of St. Thomas Week until the elevation, only one kathisma is supposed to be read, and from this holiday until Lent, two kathismas, but on Saturdays there are always two kathismas, as now - 16 and 17 (No. 330, fol. 254 vol., 255). the number of stichera on “Lord, I cried” according to the Studite Rule is the largest - even according to the Menaion on the twelve feasts - six, and when serving according to the Colored Triodion - nine. The celebration of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts should be considered a significant difference between one charter and another. According to the Jerusalem Rule, it is supposed to be sung on those days, as now, that is, on Wednesday and Friday of each week of Lent, on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of Holy Week, in memory of the 40 martyrs and St. Alexy, the man of God, but according to the Studite Rule, which in this case imitated the Rule of the great Church of Constantinople, it is sung on Wednesday and Friday during Cheese Week or Maslenitsa and then during Lent, daily from Monday of the first week until the Friday of Holy Week (No. 330, fol. 5 vol., 10, 32 vol.). Those interested will find more specific differences between the Studite Charter and the Jerusalem Charter in my article “Divine services in the Russian Church for the first five centuries,” published last year in the Orthodox Interlocutor. In general, one must completely agree with the words of F. Tuscany, who worked very hard on the collection and comparison of church and liturgical charter[s] of the Orthodox (Greek) Church, that services according to the Studite charter were generally shorter than according to the Jerusalem one, less solemn, with a significant predominance of reading over singing.> 323 The last difference we indicated causes objections from some researchers (for example, Prof. Mansvetov “Cyprian and his liturgical activity”), but presented their objections, with greater familiarity with the monuments of the period of dominance of the Studio Charter, are not justified by the actual state of affairs. The Studio Charter, after its transfer from Constantinople to Rus', quite naturally, could not remain in the form in which it appeared in the editorial office of the Patra. Alexia, and thanks to some local conditions, was subject to additions and alterations. This “Russification” (if I may put it that way) of the Studite Charter relates primarily to the synaxarion or to the services according to the monthly calendar, which were significantly complicated by the inclusion of memorials in the charter along with services in honor of Russian saints. We can name a representative of this kind of charter the studio charter of the Moscow Synodal Library Library, written in 1398 under No. 333 (381). This charter, like the aforementioned typographical charter No. 285, belongs, in all likelihood, to the category of charters that were in use in rural and urban churches, since it lays down only the order of church service, and there are no rules for monastic life. In this charter we find the following very interesting additions in comparison with the charter of the patriarchs. Alexia: September 28 [November] memory of St. Martyr Vyacheslav, November 4th Consecration of St. Sophia, also in Kyiv, May 3rd - memory of our venerable father Theodosius, abbot of Pechersk, May 23rd - Finding of the body of St. the Great Saint Leonty, Bishop of Rostov, June 5 - commemoration of the philanthropic invasion of the wicked, July 11 - Saint Olga, wife of Igor, Prince of Russia, July 15 - Prince Vladimir and July 24 - the holy martyr Boris and Gleb. Having been subjected to all sorts of additions, the Studiysky Charter did not remain unchanged in relation to the articles included in it. In this case, the studio charter that appeared at the end of the 14th century had a very noticeable influence. and the charter of Sava the Sanctified or Jerusalem, established in the liturgical practice of our Church in the 15th [century]. The just mentioned Synodal Charter No. 333 in the order of its parts has nothing in common with Charter No. 330 as amended by Patr. Alexy, since in the first place it contains the charter of the service according to the monthly word, then the services according to the Lenten and Colored triodions, while in the latter these articles are arranged in the reverse order. The parts are distributed in the same way in the charter of the 15th century. No. 905 (382), but here, in addition, at the end of the charter we find the “statutory on waste” or the charter of monastic life, which in the charter of Patr. Alexia occupied, as we already know, the second and largest part. Having received the church liturgical charter from Greece and introduced it into liturgical practice, the pastors of the Russian Church very naturally had to take care of other aspects of church liturgical practice. In front of everyone, there was a glaring need for liturgical books, of which we had a very large and very noticeable shortage. This, indeed, was the focus of the attention of the Russian archpastors, but their efforts were far from being crowned with the desired success. In addition to the sincere ardent desire of the archpastors, material resources and people were needed who would begin to translate church liturgical and generally spiritual edifying books. And there was a great lack of people. If the first Russian Christian princes, truly devoted to the Church of Christ and working very diligently for its glory, could help the Russian archpastors in the first case, that is, supply them with material resources, then they were almost completely powerless in the second. True, with the help of grand ducal subsidies, translators and copyists for liturgical books could be brought from Bulgaria, but given the very difficult means of communication at that time, this was not easy to do. If Bulgarian scribes, singers and other necessary people sometimes appeared in Rus', as our ancient chroniclers testify to this, then not in large numbers, and therefore they were more our teachers than direct executors of the work for which they were taken out from the east. It is quite natural to think that in the early days of its existence the Russian Church was forced to use books written in Bulgaria, to perform divine services using them, to learn to read and write, and to copy from them. The latter is partially confirmed by our ancient liturgical monuments that have survived to us, in which we find many signs of Bulgarian writing. The acquisition of liturgical books from Bulgaria was not only very convenient, since in this country writing was at that time at a high stage of development, but it could have been very desirable by our ancestors, because the books written here were, without a doubt, the most complete and most detailed, due to the proximity of Bulgaria to Greece or to the original source of services and books, and since the Bulgarians could edit translations from the originals. As for the method of acquiring books from Bulgaria, it was much easier than acquiring translators and copyists from there. Books could be bought there on purpose, or they could be ordered through merchants who traded with Greece; finally, pilgrims who traveled to the East to worship holy places and quite often to Athos, where the monks made a business out of copying books, could take them out. Speaking about sending us liturgical books from Bulgaria and even about performing services based on them, I seem to be contradicting myself, having said in one of the previous lectures that “the first era in the history of worship in our Church is characterized by the complete dependence of our worship on the worship of the Greek Church, a striking identity in the worship of both Churches. The composition of the liturgical books,” I said further, “their number, the time of the liturgical hours - in a word, everything related to the divine service - was only a copy of the liturgical practice of the Byzantine Church.” On this occasion, from one person, very competent in the field of history and spiritual literature, I then listened to the objection that it would be much better to characterize the first era in the history of worship in our Church, as some other historians do, as an era of complete dependence of worship in our Church on the Greek and Bulgarian Churches, and call it “Greek-Bulgarian.” But in my current words and those that I expressed earlier, there is no contradiction, and to characterize the era differently (as, for example, some historians do), in my opinion, there is absolutely no benefit. In fact, just because the Greek liturgical books came to us in translation into the Slavic language, I should have said something other than what I said about the identity of our worship with the service in the Greek Church, and characterize the era in a way that actual data does not allow us to do? We can safely say that the divine service in the Bulgarian Church at this time “was also a copy of the liturgical practice of the Byzantine Church” and the Bulgarians have not yet brought anything of their own to it. Without a doubt, we can be grateful that the Bulgarians provided us with liturgical books in their native language - and that’s all, but we have no right to take away the primacy of the Mother of Churches - the Byzantine Church. No matter how much we extol the Bulgarians, nevertheless, the fact of the dependence of liturgical practice even in all Slavic Churches on the practice of the Greek Church is before everyone’s eyes and is very obvious even not to specialist historians. In addition to the church liturgical charter, or Typica, and other liturgical books containing a statement of various liturgical rites and sequences, we can obtain information about the circle and composition of the services that existed in Rus' in the first time after its baptism from other equally reliable sources, namely from chronicles, from the lives of the first Russian miracle workers and from the teachings of the first Russian preachers. These sources of liturgical practice of our primal Church have the advantage that thanks to them, with the bright colors of actual facts, a picture of liturgical practice as it really was, and not as it should be de jure, is shown to us by liturgical books taken from Greece and translated into the Slavic language by the southern Slavs. Reflection on these testimonies, which were recorded for the memory of distant posterity by a humble monk-chronicler, who decided in conscience not to add anything, not to subtract anything from what had happened and how it happened before his eyes; a monk-storyteller, motivated by zeal and desire to serve the salvation of his own soul and give moral edification to each of his relatives; a storyteller who has used all his diligence and diligence to collect [facts] and tell the life of this or that saint with all the impartiality that was possible for him; a zealous shepherd-preacher, who decided in front of the flock entrusted to him to say the whole will of God - so, the reflection of the spirit of his time in all these testimonies makes them especially valuable and dear in the eyes of an impartial historian. In these monuments we will glean many interesting features not only to characterize the liturgical practice of a given time, but also for the very religious worldview of the Russian people, who, with the adoption of Christianity, had to change a lot, leave a lot, think about a lot, judge, etc., etc. Therefore, to ignore these sources of the liturgical practice of our ancient Russian Church in silence would mean losing a lot [and] valuable for our history. Of the lives of the first Russian saints, we will mainly pay attention to the life of the martyrs Boris and Gleb and the life of St. Theodosius of Pechersk. "In the life of Saints Boris and Gleb, written by St. Nestor, it is told that St. Boris, standing in a tent by the Alta River, on the eve of his death ordered the presbyter who was with him to serve vespers, and in the morning the next day matins, at which the six psalms, kathismas, gospel and canon were read. The same life further tells that Metropolitan John (1008–1035) after the relics of the holy martyrs Boris and Gleb were taken out of the ground and placed in the chapel, he served the all-night singing over them, by which one must mean all the services, starting with Vespers and ending with matins, and after transferring the relics of the holy martyrs to the church newly created by the Great Prince Yaroslav, he celebrated the liturgy in it and after that “... set up the priests and deacons and commanded them to sing evening and morning services in the saint’s church and serve the holy liturgy all day long” (The Tale of St. Boris and Gleb, p. 29) 324 We also find an indication of the same number of daily services and the same succession of them one after another in the teaching of the Novgorod Bishop Luke Zhidyata. This saint, setting out in his teaching the duties of Christians to God and their neighbors and exhorting his flock to fulfill them, among other things, says: “Do not be lazy in church, go to matins, to the liturgy, to vespers.” 325 About the performance of sacraments and other services during the first time of the existence of Christianity in Rus', we find in the named monuments also relatively brief, but nevertheless interesting information. From the life of the Venerable Theodosius of Pechersk we learn that his parents “on the eighth day of the offering to the Holy Hierarch of God, as is the custom of a peasant, they would give the same name to the brainchild, as after 40 days the child was sanctified by the baptism.” <The name of the newborn baby was given, as in the practice of the Greek Church, by the will of the parents, in honor of one of the saints revered by the Russian Church. Therefore, every Russian Slav should have only one name, but in reality it turned out that until the reform of the Russian state by Peter the Great, Russian people bore two names. Even after accepting Christianity, Russians continued to give their children purely folk, Slavic-pagan names, along with Christian names. In this case, the Russian people shared the common fate of all pagan peoples who converted to Christianity. It is known that Greek Christians had a similar custom even in the time of St. John Chrysostom. “When it is necessary to give a name to a baby,” this father wrote in a conversation on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, “not yet calling him by the name of a saint, as the ancients did first of all, but having lit the lamps and giving them various names, they call the baby the name of the one that will burn out the furthest, assuming that the child will therefore live longer.”326 For his confessor, church commemorator or synodiker, every Russian Christian had a Christian name, but in the community, in the regular record and bondage, in the scribe book and in general in non-church monuments, he was called by his folk name. Our first chronicles and the first Russian literary monuments are filled with indications that Russian people bore two names, of which the Slavic-pagan name was called Russian, worldly, nickname or nickname, and among princes it was also princely. Vladimir Monomakh wrote about himself in his letter: “I am a thin grandfather who was named Vasily in baptism by his grandfather Yaroslav, with the Russian name Vladimir.” The famous Russian pilgrim of the 12th century, Daniel, in his famous “walk”, speaks of Russian princes, calling them by two names. “And for this good God I will praise,” our pilgrim writes, “for he has vouchsafed me to write the names of the Russian princes at St. Savva’s in the Lavra and are now commemorated in octenia. These are their names: Mikhail - Svyatopolk, Vasily - Vladimir, Davyd Vseslavich, Mikhail - Oleg, Pankraty - Yaroslav Svyatoslavich, Andrey - Mstislav Vsevolodovich, Boris Vseslavich, Gleb Minsky" 327. In the Ipatevskaya [inventory] for the year 1151 it says: Prince Svyatoslav Olegovich had a son “and named him in holy baptism George, and the worldly Igor.” In Tatishchev’s “History of Russia”, under the year 1192, we read: “On the 25th day of October, Vsevolod, the Grand Duke, was born the seventh son and was named in his great-grandfather’s name princely Vladimir, and in baptism Dmitry” 328. Vladimir the Saint, who took the name Vasily in Holy Baptism, is known in history more by his pagan name than by his Christian name. This Slavic name is still popular, so many people do not know the real Christian name of St. Vladimir. The same must be said about his children Boris and Gleb, who received the names of Roman and David at Baptism.> 329 330. In Kyiv in 1199 there was an artist-architect who was called “among his friends by the name Miloneg, Peter by baptism”> 331. This very interesting phenomenon in the religious life of the Russian people was noted by all historians of our fatherland, but very different opinions were expressed about it, so it takes a lot of work to understand them and choose what is more or less probable. Even at a time when this custom ceased to exist, our historians could not come to the same opinions, and therefore the history of this custom ends with the Mongol period in most cases. Disagreeing with the opinion of the majority, we take the side of the minority (Karamzin and Tatishchev) and will try to present as thoroughly as possible the history of this custom to the end. The phenomenon we noted in the religious life of the Russian people - namely, the adherence of our ancestors to their native Slavic names - depended, in our opinion, firstly, on the fact that the Slavic ear found more charms in its native sounds and these names were easier to remember than names, although also sonorous, but alien to the native language; and secondly, because family family traditions were connected with Slavic names (as one might think based on the above passages from Tatishchev’s “History” and chronicles). but, be that as it may, we will not go into research into all the reasons for the phenomenon we are considering: the obvious fact is that the custom of bearing two names was practiced in Rus' and lasted for a very long time. In the acts of the time of Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible and later, we constantly come across Slavic-pagan names. In the report letter printed in the Kalachov Archive under No. 1 it is written: “The report was written by Bulgak Vasiliev, son of Voksherin” 332, in No. 4 in the same place: “The report was written by Chernets Gavrilov, son of Payusov” 333. In this document, under No. 1, the following names are written down (sic!): Putila Serkov, Istoma Cheglokov, Zloba Feodorov son Pustoshkin. By saying this, we thereby allowed ourselves to disagree with the opinion of His Eminence Philaret that in Russia by the end of the first period only Christian names were found. This opinion was expressed by the venerable historian of the Russian Church, in all likelihood, on the basis that by the end of the first period the number of Slavic-pagan names had decreased significantly or, rather, purely Slavic names - Svyatopolkov, Vladimirov, Yaropolkov, etc. - gave way to names that had a qualitative meaning, which expressed one or another side of the character of the one who bore this name. These are the names: Dobrynya, Neryadets, Snovid, Goryun, Slavn, Dorozhay, etc. That names were given exactly in this way in the 16th century and later can be seen from the cited passages from Kalachov’s archive and from Karamzin’s “History of the Russian State.” Having reviewed the most important and most interesting resolutions of the hundred-domed cathedral regarding the moral life of the Russian people in this era, the historian Karamzin hastens to note in his “History” the following, in his words, some “strangeness”. “Wanting to destroy ancient customs, contrary to the holy faith,” writes our historian, “John and the clergy did not touch upon the custom in Ogoglava of giving people non-Christian names, based on their moral properties. not only commoners, but also noble dignitaries, already considering it a sin to be called Olegs or Ruriks, were called in the state papers Druzhinas, Silences, Istoms, Failures, Masters, only with the addition of a Christian patronymic. This custom,” adds Karamzin, ending his note, “seemed innocent to the Tsar.”334 If we turn directly to the letters and episcopal letters, we will see here that the custom of giving one person two names existed among the Russian people in the 16th century. The later famous Metropolitan of Moscow Macarius, even when he was Archbishop of Novgorod and Pskov, in his 1534 letter to Chud, to the churchyards of Chud, Izhera (sic!), Koporye, Yamsk, Ivanogorod, to villages and monasteries, abbot, priest and deacon - to everyone without cancellation wrote the following about this: “...also, they (i.e., Christians living in the named areas), who have wives, children will be born, and they call the same nasty arbuis (magi) in advance to those of their parents, and those arbuis give their babies their own names” 335 . Theodosius, successor of Metropolitan Macarius in the Novgorod department, in the letter “abbot, priest and deacon of old churches and exhibitions of all without cancellation” dated 1548 to the same areas recalls the message of Macarius in 1534, which, as it turns out from Theodosius’ letter, did not achieve its goal. “And you, abbots and priests,” said Archbishop Theodosius, “according to the commandment of the sovereign and the Grand Duke and the spiritual order of Archbishop Makaryev from such atrocities (including the naming of the newborn baby Arbui), you do not appease them and do not punish their teachings, according to church tradition, and you do not do much.”> 336 Let us move on to the 17th century, and again we see the same thing. Thus, under the year 1614, in the acts collected by the archaeographic expedition, we find the following: 337 Pagan personal names even had such morals that in church rituals and the purely spiritual sphere they sometimes took precedence over the Christian, which is evident from the following fact: it is known that upon entering monasticism or Kalugerism, the old previous name is changed to a new one, but this new name is usually chosen so that it begins with the same the letter with which the previous name began. From the list of tombstones of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, compiled, according to the testimony of Mr. Undolsky, in the 17th century, we see that in the Osoryin family there was a certain Sobota Ivanovich, who died in 7081. This Sobota was named Simeon in the foreign guild. <Thus, the question of dual names among the Russian people even after the Mongolian period of Russian history is resolved contrary to the opinion of the Reverend. Philaret in a completely positive sense, and, in our opinion, there can be no objections. After all this, naturally, two questions arise on their own, caused by the solution of the first: 1) when was another name given to a newborn baby - was it before the Christian one, or after receiving the latter, and 2) who were the people who gave the children Slavic-pagan names? The historian Tatishchev, followed by Karamzin and Matseevich, 338, having at hand mainly the evidence of Polish chroniclers, thinks to attribute the giving of another name to the age of seven or five, when the so-called “first tonsure” ceremony was performed on the child. In our liturgical monuments of ancient times there is also a special prayer for this case, inscribed as follows: “You will be an adolescent for the first time from his birth to be tonsured.” We will say a few words about this ritual in its place. If we now assume that the opinion of respected historians is reliable regarding this (and we have no reason not to trust them), then another question - about the persons who gave these names - is resolved by itself. the first tonsure, as we will see below, was performed in the church and not only by priests, but even by bishops, when the person being tonsured came from a princely family, therefore, one of these sacred persons gave the name to the tonsured person. And if this is so, then the name received by the boy during this ritual must certainly be Christian, the name of one of the saints revered by the Russian Church, because the use of a folk, pagan name in church practice was not allowed. If anyone deviated from the prevailing practice, the highest spiritual authority followed (as we have already seen) pastoral suggestions and took measures to destroy customs that were not accepted by the Church. And among such customs, undoubtedly, was the custom of giving two names, one of which was also Slavic-pagan. Dual names were generally branded in Ancient Rus' with the shameful name of “Latin custom.” Consequently, the testimony of our historians about the giving of a different name at the first tonsure cannot be understood in any other way than in the sense that the name given at the same time was purely Christian. Hence it is clear why some persons in our monuments are found with two Christian names. In questions, for example, Kirik to Nifont, bishop of Novgorod of the 12th century, there is a certain Luke - Evdokim. In the Nikon Chronicle under 1478-339 we read: “a son Timofey was born today to the Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich in Moscow, and he named him Ivan,” and again under 1479: “a son Gabriel was born to the Grand Duke and he was named Vasily of Pariysky” 340 In acts of the 16th century. we find the following: “And Olekeynikova, de Krylov’s daughter Maryitsa, was married to Pavelko, nicknamed Istoma, and from that Pavelka gave birth to a daughter, Ovdotka, and she was married to Viska to Markov, and that de Ovdotka serves with them, and their children: Kuzemka, nicknamed Tomilka, and Trizanko, nicknamed Fedka,” and also: “and Kiryanok gave birth to children Parfiyko and Mikhalka, nickname Pskovitin, and daughter Ogafitsa, nickname Anyutka.” Tsarevich Dimitri, the son of Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible, was sometimes called Uar. We observe a completely similar phenomenon in the life of the Eastern Christian Slavs: Serbs, Montenegrins, etc. Here both names are called “godnames”, but, however, with a distinction: one is a “godname” in the proper sense, and the other is only a “service” or, as it was called in our old days, a “nickname”. One might think that this custom appeared among us and among the Eastern Slavs in contrast to the first (that is, giving two names, but one Christian and the other pagan), which could not have happened earlier than the time when the pagan views of the Slavs gave way to purely Christian ones. A similar opinion is expressed by Slavic writers, for example. Karadzic, Niketic and others, who were engaged in considering this rather curious phenomenon in the religious life of their compatriots> 341. If this opinion has at least some degree of justice, then our other opinion - that one of the Christian names was sometimes given to the baby on the very first day of his birth by the father of the family in honor of one of the ancestors who bore this name - can hardly be doubted. The legends of the Nikon Chronicle, 1st ed., which we have already quoted, tell us quite strongly for this. about the birth of princes Timofey-Ivan and Gabriel-Vasily. This kind of custom was not alien to the practice of the ancient Greek Church. This is what, for example, Gregory of Nazianzus 342 tells in his life about the reason why his sister Macrina received this name. “The name of the maiden Macrina was given by our parents,” says Gregory of Nazianzen, “because in our surname there was a famous certain Macrina, that is, the mother of our father, who suffered during the persecution for the confession of Christ” 343. And in Greece, as with us, the custom of giving names in honor of their noble ancestors was a remnant of the time when not a word had been heard about Christ, therefore Christian shepherds were already denouncing this custom as inconsistent with the spirit of the Christian faith, for example. Chrysostom, etc. Another name, Christian, was given by the priest on the 8th day, and with it the newborn was baptized. As for the folk Slavic-pagan names, it must first be said about them that they were given to newborn babies before they received a Christian name. This is beyond any doubt. The letters of the Novgorod rulers known to us from 1534 and 1548 serve as irrefutable proof of this. “And those arbuis,” these letters say, “give their babies their own names, and after that they call you abbots and priests to those babies” 344. Let us turn to more ancient evidence and here we will find that pagan names often coexisted with Christian names. In Buslaev’s alphabet book one reads, for example, the following passage: “... and demonic names are interpreted for this purpose: since many people come to the sorcerer and sorcerer and receive from them a certain demonic charm, nauses and carry on themselves, and other demonic names are called to the sorcerers and sorcerers and give over food and drink eat a simple child, and thereby destroy the human soul, and for this reason it is written here that every Orthodox Christian will have the name of a wolf, but some ignorant people accept the name of a wolf instead of a lamb through foolishness, thinking that to be a lamb, and thus, instead of light, they will retain darkness and destroy their soul” 345. After all that has been said, it is hardly necessary to add that the persons who gave the Slavic-pagan names were either the Arbui Magi, or the eldest in the clan and family, but we must not forget the fact, reliably known, that the Slavic folk name was given in honor of one of the ancestors in the same way as the Christian second. “The seventh son was born to Prince Vsevolod,” notes the chronicler, “and he was named princely Vladimir in his great-grandfather’s name, and in baptism Dmitry” 346. Thus, regarding the issue that occupies us, we come to the following conclusions: 1) before the very reform of the Russian state, very many Russian people, without distinction of classes, bore two names - either both Christian, or one Christian and the other folk-Slavic; in the first time after the adoption of Christianity by the Russians, it was purely Slavic-pagan. 2) One of the names, whether it be a Christian or a pagan name, was given before the name given to the baby by the priest on the eighth day, with which he was baptized. 347 3) If a different name was given when the so-called “first tonsure” rite was performed on the child, then this name should be purely Christian and, perhaps, the same one that his father gave him upon his birth, so that the name arbitrarily given would be given, so to speak, church sanction. Mentioning the church rite under the name “first tonsure,” it is very natural, in connection with the previous custom, to consider here the essence of this rite, since our chronicles treat it very often. The custom of tonsuring boys who, according to the Polish chroniclers, had reached the age of seven, existed among all Slavs long before they adopted Christianity. Having accepted the Christian faith, the pagan Slavs did not abandon their custom, bequeathed to them by their ancestors, which, it should be noted, is still observed in some Slavic lands, for example. among the Montenegrins. in accordance with their new position, the Christian Slavs were forced - obviously under the influence of enlighteners from the clergy - to make some changes in this ritual, give it a new meaning and put it into new forms. However, as for the forms, they were new only for the Christian Slavs, but in the practice of the Christian Church they had long been ready and formed an entire prayer book, which was almost entirely transferred to the Slavs by their Greek enlighteners. This is how this prayer is presented in our later monuments. at Your right hand, Master; But to the one who lifts up his hair, grant the blessing that you gave to the righteous Simeon, who received the Lord Jesus Christ in the arms, and all the faithful who have gathered here, bless them, O Lord, with a spiritual blessing.” After this prayer the priest says: “Peace to all. Let us bow our heads to the Lord” and reads another prayer: “We pray to Thee, O Lord God of our salvation, Who has blessed Thy goodness from the fulfillment and font.” Then the priest takes scissors and tonsures the boy with the words: “The servant of God is tonsured in the name of the hair of his head, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I’m busy with everything.” The clergy responds to this by diligently singing “Lord, have mercy,” and the priest “takes away his hair with a cross into four parts, placing it on the canvas for the one lifting it and collecting it, sticking it in wax and keeping it in the altar” and performs the usual dismissal of all prayers. Since all Slavic-pagan tonsures were accompanied by a change in the name of the person being tonsured, this custom also did not lose its meaning during Christian Slavic tonsure. The new name was given, obviously, when the boy’s hair was cut. This opinion was expressed by Tatishchev, Artsibashev and Lavrovsky in their article published in Moskvityanin in 1853 No. 3 under the title “On the rite of tonsure among the ancient Slavs” 348. In Rus', the first news of the first tonsure has been preserved from the 12th century. In Tatishchev’s “History”, under the year 1192, we read: “The Grand Duke Vsevolod tonsured his son Yuri on April 25, and on the same day he put him on a horse, and there was great joy in Vladimir” 349. “On the 26th day of October,” it is said about the tonsure of Vladimir’s son Dmitry in 1196, “by the same Grand Duke Vsevolod, in memory of St. Martyr Dmitry, - was tonsured by the Grand Duke Vsevolod to his son Vladimir in the city of Vladimir, the prince of Ryazan who was with his husbands, and was having fun with his father for a month and so parted with gifts of priceless gifts, komonmi, and vessels of gold and silver and ports, and their husband komonmi, fast (i.e., furs) and pavoloks.” Thus, we see that the “first tonsure” had not yet lost all of its pagan elements, which, it should be noted, continued to retain their strength almost until the very reform of the Russian state by Peter the Great. The clergy and even the bishops, present at the performance of this rite, made no attempt to destroy elements of a pagan nature. As for the family solemn holidays that accompanied every “first tonsure,” they were not the exclusive property of the Russian people, but were observed by all Slavs without exception> 350. The last time the “first tonsure” was performed on the children of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, this tonsure was described in detail in his “History” by Tatishchev as a contemporary. “During the reign of Yaroslav, a strange thing was done in the area of ​​the sacrament of Baptism or in relation to it. In 1044, the bones of Vladimir’s brothers Yaropolk and Oleg were dug out of the ground and baptized, after which, as if the bones of people who had already been baptized and became Christians, they were laid next to the remains of Vladimir in the Church of the Tithes. “In the summer of 6552,” the chronicler writes, “I scooped up 2 Prince Yaropolk and Olga, the son of Svyatoslavl, and baptized her with it and laid it in the church of the Holy Mother of God.” We don’t know who took the initiative in this extremely superstitious action, but in any case, we should think with absolute probability that in the end the blame for it falls not on us, but on the Greeks. The custom of baptizing the bones of the dead or baptizing the living for the dead (repeating baptism over the latter) appeared among the Greeks no later than the 4th century, when it was condemned by Rule 26 of the Council of Carthage. After the 4th century we do not find news about him, but it is necessary to think that he remained with them, that Yaroslav learned about him and that in this way he wanted to join his dead uncles to Christianity (probably Svyatoslav himself would have been added to Christianity volens nolens if his bones were not missing). If in 1044 there was a metropolitan in Kyiv and a superstitious deed was carried out with his consent, then this will need to be understood in such a way that some of our Greek metropolitans were capable of allowing absolutely everything (at least in the area of superstition), but it is more likely to think that in 1044 the metropolitan was not in Kyiv and that Yaroslav took advantage of his absence to do a deed for which he could not expect to receive consent from Metropolitan. > 351 352. The chronicles have preserved information about the age of those getting married and about the so-called marriage of children born before marriage. Even if there are children (born before the wedding), let them enter the church.” It is very likely that we borrowed this custom of weddings from the Greeks, but in any case, it was, like us, among the Serbs. St. Savva the Serbian, having been appointed archbishop, sent archpriests throughout the country to solemnize Christian marriages of marriages that were concluded without a wedding, which was initially as common in Serbia as it is with us. At the same time, he commanded that “all children who were born from them without the blessing of the law, having united them under the okril of their parent, so they would be crowned one after the other.”> 354 Based on this kind of facts, we can conclude that those marriage rituals, which caused denunciations from preachers-moralists for the fact that, as one ancient preaching monument puts it: “The fragrant stench, in which people get married in the forest or in the fields and poke around the place” - are beginning to little by little lose their former meaning; they are replaced by purely Christian rituals and customs. Ancient Russian monuments, on the contrary, have preserved for us such news that the newlyweds did not even share a common bed on the first night, since at the wedding they partook of the Holy Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ. This custom was passed down to us Russians from the Bulgarians, who still have traces of this custom to this day. It is known that even today in some areas of Bulgaria it is not the groom who sleeps with the bride on the first night, but the groomsman (in our opinion, the best man), whose responsibility, obviously, is to protect the chastity of the newlywed from the newlywed. The sacrament of Repentance is clearly evidenced by the famous letter of the monk Jacob to the Grand Duke Izyaslav, where Jacob, as a spiritual father, absolves his spiritual son from all the sins he has confessed and teaches him various instructions. Metropolitan Nikifor, in his homily for the Week of the Dead, explains the very conditions of true repentance, urges people to make a sincere confession before their spiritual fathers and to fulfill the penances imposed on them. ‘‘The performance of the sacrament of the Priesthood, that is, the ordination and installation of a bishop, presbyter and deacon to the sacred degrees, is repeatedly mentioned by Rev. Nestor in his chronicle and life of St. Feodosia. Remarkable, in particular, is the ceremony of enthroning newly installed bishops and metropolitans, which was then performed in our country following the example of the Greek Church. This is what this custom consisted of: a few days after the ordination of a bishop or the arrival of a metropolitan from Greece, the new saint was elevated by other saints during the liturgy, after reading the Gospel, to a table or, in modern terms, to a bishop's pulpit, standing in the middle of the church, and was solemnly greeted by the proclamation of his diocese and a kiss. Yes, Metropolitan. Hilarion himself testifies to himself that, upon his ordination, he was appointed. About Metropolitan Nikifor noted that he arrived in Rus' on December 6, and on the 18th of the same month he was placed on the table. It is said about the Chernigov Bishop Theoktistus that he was appointed bishop on January 12th, and was seated on the table on the 19th. “If anyone,” says the chronicler, undoubtedly about the sacrament of the Blessing of Unction, “brought a sick child to the monastery, no matter what ailment he was possessed, or an adult, possessed by any ailment, came to the monastery to Blessed Theodosius, then he commanded Presbyter Damian to say a prayer over the sick one, and immediately as Damian performed the prayer and anointed him with oil saints, those who came were healed”” 355. In the chronicles we find indications of other prayers of the Christian Church and sacred rites, for example. for the funeral service of the dead, when citizens, husbands and wives, dressed in black dresses and black hats, came to “see off the poor woman”, bringing with them a canon or kutya and candles to the funeral service, for the consecration of churches, which was sometimes performed very solemnly by the metropolitan himself and even a council of bishops in a rite similar to the present, for tonsure into monasticism, which is exactly the same as the consecration of churches, carried out by a whole council of bishops, etc. Having accepted liturgical books from the Greeks through the Bulgarians, we should naturally be similar to each other in everything in the order of our worship and be monotonous in our, so to speak, home liturgical practice, whereas in reality this was not and could not be. All the same liturgical monuments that have survived to us speak eloquently for this. The main reason for the existing diversity in liturgical books was their prototypes - in the books of the Greek Churches and the South Slavic lands. It is already enough what Goar did in his εὐχολόγιον-e to draw the conclusion that the Greek Church in the space from the 8th century. Until the 13th century, she used liturgical books in more than one edition. The same, no doubt, was the case in the South Slavic Churches, which were under the strong influence of the Greek Church. in all likelihood, here, soon after the first translation of liturgical books by Constantine the Philosopher into the Moravian language, another translation of the same books was made, but from the originals, which already had many features from the first. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to explain the origin of all those differences in our liturgical books that we involuntarily come across even with a superficial review of them. In fact, it is difficult to agree that, so to speak, with our illiteracy, we were able to translate the same liturgical book in several editions. If for correspondence, as we said, we needed Bulgarian teachers, then in translation, without any doubt, the matter could not have happened without their help. Only if we assume that the Bulgarians supplied us with a sufficient number of liturgical books, and, moreover, of different editions, will the picture become clear 357 This disorder and instability in the liturgical practice of our Church continued to reign until the accession to the metropolitan see of the Russian Church of the famous Cyprian (1378–1406), a native of the South Slavic lands. Brought up on Mount Athos, the center of the then education for all Orthodox Slavs, with a rich supply of information regarding the structure of church practice and church administration - information obtained through theoretical study of all this from books and through practical acquaintance through experience in the monasteries of Mount Athos, with a brilliant example before his eyes in the person of the patriarch. Tarnovsky Euthymius, his uncle, who worked very hard for the Churches of the Bulgarian and other South Slavic countries, Metropolitan. Cyprian, with all the fervor of his southern nature, devoted himself to the service entrusted to his leadership of his native Russian Church. The variety of liturgical books, unrest in liturgical practice and other disorders of a church nature attracted the attention of the zealous archpastor, who decided to destroy them at all costs. First of all, he tried to destroy the old lists of liturgical books and in their place introduce into practice books that, in his opinion, were more serviceable, and to establish uniformity and order in liturgical practice. For this purpose, he personally copied some liturgical rites himself or with the help of his assistants and sent them to the churches of his metropolis. True, he did not succeed (as we will see in his place) to destroy the existing unrest and diversity in liturgical practice and liturgical books, but there were reasons for this, and this in no way diminishes the merits of Metropolitan Cyprian in the history of worship in the Russian Church. It was enough for the personality of Metropolitan Cyprian not to pass unnoticed in history that he was the first, on his personal initiative, to set about organizing worship in the Russian Church, to bring it into proper uniformity and harmony with his prototype - the worship of the Eastern Churches. But we will return to the works of Metropolitan Cyprian and, if possible, examine in detail his merits for worship in our Church, and now let us briefly characterize the activities of Russian metropolitans and bishops regarding worship in the pre-Cyprian period, so that the works of this metropolitan are presented to us in their proper form. Currently, the following works are known concerning worship in our Church in the time before Metropolitan Cyprian: 1) “John, Metropolitan of Russia, called the prophet of Christ, who wrote the rules of the church from the holy books in Kratets to Jacob the Monk” (1080–1089) 358, 2) Questions of Kirik, Savva and Elijah with responses of the Bishop of Novgorod and other hierarchical persons (1130–1156) 359, 3) Resolutions of Elijah, Archbishop of Novgorod, and an unknown Bishop of Belgorod on two occasions during the celebration of the liturgy (1164–1168) 360, 4) Definitions of the Vladimir Council of 1274, set out in the metropolitan’s charter Cyril II 361, and, finally, 5) Answers of the Patriarchal Council of Constantinople, which took place on August 12, 1276, to the questions of the Sarai bishop Theognostus 362. Of the listed works of Russian hierarchs regarding the religious and moral life of the Russian people in general and liturgical practice in our Church in particular, the first two works are especially interesting and deserve serious attention - the answers of John II and the questions of Kirik to Nifont, the Novgorod bishop, because they relate to the very first times of Christianity in Rus', when the Russian people had just moved from a nomadic way of life to a sedentary urban and rural life with a prince at the head, when the ancient pagans the beliefs of the people were alive and more responsive to the needs of a fragile mind than the complex systems of Christian dogma. The picture being drawn of Russian morals and beliefs, representing a mixture of Christianity with paganism, which was difficult for the semi-wild Russian man, living very close to the nature he idolized, to leave, is very clearly reflected in those petty, sometimes scrupulously funny questions that the scribes of the 11th and 12th centuries proposed for the decision of their bishops. Yakov Chernorizets, Kirik, Ilya and others. It is clear that at that time of our infancy, when liturgical practice was not uniform and precisely defined canonically, when the rules of the church canon that regulated the life of the Church in the East were known only to representatives of the Russian Church - bishops and metropolitans - these questions, from our point of view petty and ridiculous, did not seem at all like that to our first hierarchs and they willingly answered each of the questions proposed to them, which then served as rules for a long time, regulating the liturgical practice of our Church, which is proven by the fact that these answers are on a par with purely church canons and the rules of St. father began to be placed in Kormchay since the 13th century. The so-called church canon of Metropolitan John to Jacob the Monk belongs to the category of so-called canonical answers, which were also written in the East by the primates of the Churches to the questions proposed to them. The style of this rule is extremely unintelligible and has almost nothing in common with the style of the works of that time, as, for example, with the teachings of Hilarion, Theodosius and other works. This incomprehensibility depended, in our [opinion], on the fact that the rules of Metropolitan John, written in Greek, were translated into the Slavic-Russian language by a poor translator, who was far from fluent in Greek. The contents of the message are very diverse and do not differ in order: answering the written questions of Jacob the monk, Metropolitan John, obviously, presented them as questions followed one after another. The message is divided into chapters: according to some lists, 27, and according to others, 26 or more, but this division is completely incorrect and was made by an outsider, therefore, if we divide them according to content, then the message will have about 35 chapters, which can be subsumed under four general sections. In some rules, the Metropolitan concerns matters of faith, sacred rites and church shrines, in others - the hierarchy and the clergy in general, in others - matters of marriage, family and household, in fourths - the attitude of the Orthodox towards Latins, Jews and pagans. Of particular interest to us are the rules included in groups one and three. From the rules of John II we learn that Russian people and Christians make sacrifices to demons, swamps, wells, do not go to church and do not receive communion even once a year, in cases of doubt, in difficult circumstances, they turn for help not to God, but to magicians and magicians. When a child is born, and if it is completely healthy, Metropolitan John advises not to baptize until three years of age or more, and otherwise on the eighth day and even earlier than that day; those who returned from captivity from the pagans and those who rejected the Christian faith there should be received through Confirmation, and those who did not reject them should be received with prayer. Only bishops and priests are allowed to sit in the church during the singing of “Rise Up, Lord,” “Every Breath” and “Alleluia.” John allows the establishment of new bishoprics with the consent of the “Russian First See” (i.e. Grand Duke) and the cathedral of the country, ordain subdeacons as deacons - after marriage, forbids a deacon of one diocese to serve in another without the blessing of the bishop, a monk to live outside the monastery, priests to get drunk, attend feasts with games, humming and dancing, to dress in silk vestments, but does not forbid wearing leather clothes in winter. Metropolitan John does not forbid priests from accepting wives defiled by pagans in captivity, but condemns the custom of kidnapping brides and living with them without the blessing of the church, considering it obligatory only for kings and boyars, contrary to St. faith of two or many wives, to marry close relatives, to have a third marriage, to take other people’s wives into cohabitation and some other, less interesting information. No less typical of the characteristics of his time are Kirik’s questions to Nifont. Hieromonk Kirik, who lived in Novgorod, proposed his questions about canonical subjects to various clergy orally and, receiving oral answers from them, wrote it all down. He probably wrote down only for himself, but soon his notes were included, like the rules of Metropolitan John II, in the helmsman’s book and became a guide, if not for the entire Russian Church, then at least for the Novgorod diocese. Kirik's notes have three parts. The first, the most extensive, contains his questions and the answers to them mainly from Niphon, Bishop of Novgorod († 1156), and partly from some Klim, probably Clement Smolyatich, then Metropolitan of Kyiv, Abbot Arkady, who was Nifont’s successor at the episcopal see, the Abbess of the unknown monastery Marina and some bishop and monk Luke-Evdokim. All these questions and answers are presented without any order and in most of the manuscripts are not divided into chapters. The second part contains the answers of the unknown Bishop Sava in 24 chapters or rules. In the third - the answers of the Novgorod ruler Elijah, Arkadyev's successor, in 28 rules. Few answers found between Niphon's answers are repeated in the rules of Savva or Elijah - of course, because the very questions were repeated by Kirik. Taking all these answers, given by different persons, but written down by one, as one whole, as they were included in the composition of the Helmsman, we will consider them together, combining those that are homogeneous in content. In cases of doubt, when it is not known whether a child has been baptized or not, children should be baptized. For the negligence of parents or a priest who did not have time to baptize a sick child, penance is imposed - fasting for 3 years. Catechetical prayers for a Bulgarian, Polovtsian and Chukhonian were performed for 40 days, for a Slav only eight days, and for children both the catechumen and baptism could be performed on the same day, although it would be better to establish some intervals here too. Catechetical prayers were read 10 times. When denying Satan, those being baptized raised their hands to the mountain and the answers of denial were pronounced five times according to the following formula: “There is no evil of yours hidden in me; I don’t keep it anywhere and I don’t hide it.” Before immersing the person being baptized, the priest curled his hands so as not to get his clothes wet. The priest held the child, turning his face towards himself, and immersed him three times in consecrated water. The forehead, nostrils, lips, ears, heart and right hand were anointed with myrrh, after which the priest dressed the newly baptized person in clean white clothes, put a crown on his head and gave him a candle in his hands, with which he stood during the entire liturgy that immediately followed the sacrament of baptism. During all eight days after baptism, the newly enlightened one was present at the liturgy and received Holy Communion, and on the eighth day, white clothes were removed from him, the anointed parts of his body were washed and he was dressed in ordinary clothes. The mother of a newly baptized child should not eat meat or butter for 8 days; she was forbidden to go to church for up to 40 days. The room in which the woman gave birth was not to be entered for three days, after which it was washed everywhere and the priest in it said a prayer read over the defiled vessel.” Those who converted to the Orthodox faith among the Latins were received in this way. The convert went to the church for seven days, where the priest first gave him a name, and then read four prayers every day, each 10 times, and, like a catechumen, did not eat either meat or milk. on the eighth day, after reading the usual prayers, he was anointed with chrism and put on new clothes and a crown, and everything else was done over him as over a child. A priest could perform the Liturgy without having served either the evening or morning services, or only after reading the prayers of these services, but it was forbidden to serve the Liturgy to the priest who performed Matins without the canon. If a priest stood in prayer after dinner until the morning, then he was not forbidden to serve the Liturgy. Clean prosphoras baked by a shameless woman were enough for the liturgy even in extreme need, but if it was possible to have more, then the legal number was always required for the liturgy. For the funeral liturgy, three prosphoras were enough: the Lamb was taken out of one, and the deceased was commemorated in the other two. For the presanctified liturgy, gifts were prepared on Sunday, but if they were not used in one week, they could be used in another. Spare Gifts could only be prepared on Holy Thursday. The priest could not receive Holy Communion in ordinary clothes, nor could he give communion to his wife, except in respectful cases. The priest communed singles for Easter if they abstained from fornication by fasting, people who knock an egg on their teeth only once (but knocking many times is a sin), sick unrepentant sinners and those who have pus coming out of their mouths. The priest went to give communion to the sick without vestments and gave communion according to this rite. First he said: “Blessed is our God,” then the Trisagion, “Our Father,” “I believe in one God,” then “Thy secret Supper,” Glory, “Heavenly King,” “Theotokos,” “Lord, have mercy,” 40 times and prayers for Communion. Then the priest put some of it in the chalice, poured in the wine, and so on, but did not mix the water with the wine. For repentance, each believer freely chose his confessor, but it was impossible to move from one to another without some difficulty. The new confessor was obliged to carefully examine the reasons for such a transition and advise: take the prayer and give the lesson to the former confessor, and with him carried out the correction in secret. The penance should be imposed small, according to the strength of the penitent, and it could be carried by a wife for her husband, a husband for his wife, a brother for his brother, etc. One ordained to the sacred-hierarchical degrees must be clean from carnal sin, like his wife, and he must not be a thief. A priest can serve the liturgy in clothes with a woman’s patch, because what is dirty about a woman? Only monks, but not Balti priests, could take monastic vows. Those being treated must partake of the Holy Mysteries of Christ. Wives who, noticing their husbands' dislike for them, wash their bodies with water and give that water to their husbands, are subject to penance for six weeks, or are not allowed to take communion for a whole year. Husbands who sinned from their wives and then abstained from sin were punished with penance for one year, and if a wife sinned from her husband, then the latter had the right to let her go. It is forbidden to openly keep concubines and secretly sin with many slaves. The Sacrament of the Blessing of Anointing consisted of the following sequence: after the Trisagion, “Our Father”, “Lord, have mercy” 12 times, prayers were read over the sick person: “Holy Father, healer of souls and bodies” and other prayers. Burial was performed even over an infant, if only he was baptized. “It is not for the sake of sins that we sing over the dead,” says Niphon, “but as over the saints; we must consider every Christian a saint, and then God will judge.” For a person who died without repentance, the priest performed a burial without vestments, so that others, seeing, would be afraid and repent. The dead should not be buried after sunset, says Niphon, but try to bury it when it is still quite high, for then he sees the last sun before the general resurrection. To Kirik’s question: “Is it possible to serve magpie and place kutya for a living person if he orders?” - Niphon of Novgorod answered: “It would be better if he instructed his friend to do this after his death and then distribute alms to the poor in memory of his soul. But if he accepts the magpie during his lifetime, then inspire him: brother, from now on sin no more: you see, a dead man does not sin.”> 363 In Nifont's answers to Kirik there are many other rules relating to various aspects of the religious life of the modern Russian people, but all these rules go beyond the scope of our vision. In the letter or, rather, in the teaching of Met. Cyril II, pronounced at the Vladimir Council in 1274 on the occasion of the ordination of Serapion, Archimandrite of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, as Bishop of Vladimir, we find the following rules regarding the rites of the sacraments. “Before we learned about divine baptism,” says Metropolitan. Cyril II, - vaguely and unreasonably mixing the divine muro (sic!) with oil and smearing it all over the body of the person being baptized, the worst of all is foolishness, they do not remember the rules spoken in Laodicea: It is fitting for one who is enlightened by holy Baptism to be smeared in Baptism with muro, the heavenly ointment, and to be a partaker The Kingdom of Christ: muir is an individual, and butter is an individual. According to the announcement, they anoint with wood oil, saying: “The servant of God anoint himself with the oil of joy in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages, amen”; on all trains; {ti} then let them baptize and immerse into three immersions in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and invite: “Amen.” They also smear it with muir according to the feeling of the verb: “The Seal and Gift of the Holy Spirit.” In another place they do not smear it anywhere, except on the forehead, on the eye, on the ear, on the nostril, on the mouth, as in the saints of our father Cyril, it is written in his announced words; He said: “Whoever we anoint with oil, the first joy is betrothal, by whom we are called peasants in truth, God will anoint us as sons of His glory.” So, after Epiphany, we smear our senses with muir only, blocking the first flattery from entering and incorruption being welded by the Most Pure Spirit of God, and keep us safe from the evil enemy, so that our feelings will not move us to evil, our ears to evil-hearing, our eyes to evil-sightedness and our lips to an evil taste, nostrils for the smell of evil, but we are always fragrant and saved, just as the Church of God has been purified, preserved by the Holy Spirit. After baptism, let everyone be honored with God’s Most Pure Body and Honest Blood, either in towns or villages, wherever the person being baptized is. No longer do they pour water on anyone, but let them immerse them: there is nowhere (sic!) where dousing is written, but immersion in court is excommunicated. Let no one be baptized without communion” [RIB. T. 6. Stlb. 93–95]. Regarding the liturgy of Metropolitan. Kirill noticed the following feature, which, however, took place only in Novgorod churches. “The packs were found within the Novgorod region,” said Metropolitan. Cyril II, - the deacons eat the Divine Lamb, and before the priests did proskurmisat, and then the priest who came, after proskurmisat. And I forgot the rule spoken in Frugia 55: “Do not enter the holy altar as a deacon before a priest, nor as a priest before a bishop.” The Nicene Assembly, canon 18,365, was written: “We heard a speech about some, like the deacons of the former bishop, who touched with thanksgiving, with the command that the deacon from here take communion according to the priests.” Let us follow the same Holy Council, henceforth we do not command the deacon to take out the lamb, nor the priest. If anyone finds himself doing this according to our commandment, the bishop of that place will be cast out with indignation, if he knows; If you never know, you will be forgiven. If they do not submit, they say in defiance that all will be overthrown; If people start spreading rumors, let them be cursed” 366. In addition to comments regarding the performance of the sacraments, we find in the teaching we are considering also indications of other religious rites. “We have learned again,” wrote Cyril II, “in the same countries that fruits brought to the church are sanctified unconsecrated, cereals or kutya are given away for the dead, we command from now on that such thing should not be, neither from the deacons nor unconsecrated. It is written in Canon 18 of the Council of Nicaea, like the collection in Taodicea: “I will not consecrate a song, nor an honor on the ambon (sic!), or honor the divine word by people, if I do not have priestly tonsure on the head, I will not receive a blessing from my shepherd, according to the holy rule; Even if he receives it, he will have no other way to sing or honor on the ambon, unless he is clothed in a white sacristy. The small sacristy is verb in Greek “differa” or phelonion. From now on, we command that in all churches neither the apostle of honor, nor the prokeme hymn, nor the unconsecrated person should enter the altar. A clerk, unless he is consecrated, should not touch the consecrated vessel, nor dare to bring the holy censer, unless he is a deacon or a priest, or that great clerk himself. Let the sexton be sanctified by all the pure churches, so that God’s holy altar will not simply be entered by everyone. Let nothing be brought into God’s altar, not kutya or anything else. Let priests and deacons not indulge in idleness or laziness, and let them not disturb the most pure place by entering disorderly” 368. If we add to all this a few accusatory words directed against the vices of the modern Russian people, then the teaching of Met. Kirill II will be completely exhausted by us. The vices that Metropolitan points out in his teaching. Cyril II, relate mainly to the area of ​​folk superstitions, for example, the teaching indicates the custom on holidays of “doing some demonic disgraces with whistling and with a cry and a cry, calling together some stingy drunkards and beating with a dagger until death and taking ports from the murdered” 369, on the custom to lead brides to the water, to the custom of gathering on Saturday evenings for games, be[s] - cold dances and bad acts for men and women together, who “like horses hang and neigh and do bad things”, to the custom of depicting a cross on ice and earth, and, finally, to consecrate water with several crosses tied together. No matter how the church-liturgical practice of the primal Church in Rus' was developed by the questions and resolutions now indicated, there were still many questions in the same area that needed even more precise definition. This was especially necessary for dioceses placed in an exceptional position, which was the Sarai diocese. Containing more infidels and pagans than Orthodox Christians, and not always having the convenience of relations with other Orthodox dioceses and with Russian metropolitans, the Sarai diocese naturally had many difficulties and, in the implementation of the canonical decrees of the Church, encountered many questions about the special cases that presented themselves in it alone, and perplexities regarding the application of the rules of the universal Church to their special local circumstances. We encounter many such questions and bewilderments, especially in relation to various parts of the divine service and the correct performance of the sacraments; there were also bewilderments in the discussion of monastic tonsure, burial of the dead and regarding fasting. During the nomadic life of the Mongols, Christian society had to travel with them. But since Christians cannot deprive themselves of the shrine of their churches, the question naturally arose: is it proper and permissible to move the consecrated altar from one place to another? There were cases when a bishop had to perform divine services without a deacon with only priests, or a priest, with hands stained from war, had to make a bloodless Sacrifice. There was also a shortage of grape wine for the sacrament of the Eucharist. Need sometimes required us to deviate from the correct way of performing the sacraments. Thus, in the absence of large vessels, rivers and lakes, the sacrament of baptism could not always be performed according to the rite of the Orthodox Church through immersion, as well as the sacrament of marriage - with the observance of the conditions regarding the kinship relationships combined. There were sometimes bewilderments regarding the persons performing and receiving monastic tonsure, as well as the conditions associated with it. These and similar cases aroused confusion in the diocese of Sarai about how to proceed in one or another of them. the successor of Mitrofan, who took monastic vows, Theognostus, who ascended the throne of the Sarai diocese in 1269, was one of the most zealous shepherds of that time. Reviewing the internal state of his diocese, Theognostus could not help but notice the above and other cases that required a canonical definition. But besides the questions and bewilderments arising from the special situation of the Saraiskaya flock, its shepherd was presented with many more misunderstandings and general questions that did not arise about the local circumstances of the Saraiskaya Church. It was necessary, for example, either to resolve some new, unprecedented case, or to apply the general church law to a particular circumstance of the Church. So, between the questions there were the following: is it possible to celebrate the liturgy on two Lambs? How many times should one say a prayer when baptizing several persons at once? Can a bishop tonsure a bishop into the schema? Is it possible to eat animals that have been killed in snares? and others. These and similar questions could not help but occupy the shepherd of Saraisky. While he was in Constantinople, Theognostus proposed his questions to the local Council 370. All the questions proposed by Theognost were about 35. For each of them, the shepherd of Sarai received a special answer. The definitions contained in the Council's responses relate to: 1) the performance of the sacraments, 2) the various parts of the liturgical rite, 3) the conditions of monastic tonsure, and 4) fasting. We will mainly turn our attention to the first two groups of regulations. Among the sacraments, the questions of Theognostus drew the attention of the Council to certain conditions for the celebration of the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, Repentance, Communion and Marriage. Questions related to the sacrament of Baptism concern the manner in which this sacrament is performed, partly the persons performing it, and partly the ritual details. The question proposed by Theognost about the manner of performing the sacrament of Baptism was obviously aroused by the special circumstances of the Sarai Church and shows that in his time the Tatars had already begun to turn to the Orthodox Church. Theognostus asked: what to do in the case when it is necessary to baptize the Tatars, but there is nowhere to get a convenient vessel? And I received a conciliar answer that in this case Baptism can be performed through pouring. The council's response shows that in the 13th century. The Orthodox Eastern Church considered dousing to be only a permissible way of performing baptism, and moreover, in cases where immersion was impossible, but that the correct general and most important way of performing this sacrament was immersion. otherwise the doubt and question would not have arisen. The lack of priests in the Sarai diocese, on the one hand, and the sickness of newborn babies, on the other, were probably the reason why some of the newborns died before being baptized. Grieving for these innocent victims, the shepherd of Sarai considered it necessary to propose to the cathedral the question of the persons performing the sacrament of baptism. “Is it possible,” he asked, “to perform baptism on other persons besides the priest?” In case of need,” the council answered, “this sacrament can be performed not only by a deacon, but even by a clergyman.” In addition to these definitions in relation to baptism, the council gave others - in response to questions about the ritual details of this sacrament. What to do, asked Theognostus, when there are two priests and one baptized; Can two of them baptize and how many times should prayers be read in this case? What to do when there are many people being baptized, but there is only one priest, and when there are many children and priests? Answering these questions, the Council determined: in the first case, the prayers must be read once and one priest must baptize, or one priest must read the prayers, and the other perform immersion and other acts of baptism (hence, two priests can perform baptism). in another case, if there are many people to be baptized, but there is only one priest, he can read the prayers once for everyone, and immerse each one separately, and while immersing each one, pronounce the words of the sacrament: “In the name of the Father,” and so on. In the third - if there are many children and priests - each priest must baptize a special child. These questions owed their origin to the fact that in the Sarai diocese many of the non-believers turned to Orthodoxy, perhaps in families, or even several together. Further, from Theognost’s questions it is clear that in his diocese not only Mohammedans turned to Orthodoxy, but even heretics. The Nestorians and Jacobites mentioned in the questions served, according to Philaret of Chernigov, in the Mongol army, and were, without a doubt, from Persia, India and Mongolia. Many of them, having become better acquainted with the Orthodox, probably asked them for church fellowship. Therefore, Theognostus asked at the council about the manner in which they would join the Orthodox Church. The Council determined that the Nestorians and Jacobites should be accepted into communion through Confirmation, demanding that they testify to the sincerity of their conversion by cursing their teaching and teachers. Regarding the substance of the sacrament of the Eucharist, [the Council] also made one very interesting resolution, namely: in the Sarai diocese it was not always possible to find grape wine for celebrating the Eucharist. Therefore, Theognostus asked: is it possible to perform this sacrament on a dry grape branch? If there is no grape wine at all, answered the fathers of the Council, then it can be replaced with juice squeezed, only from a fresh, and not a dry, bunch of grapes, because the latter is sinful. With a large gathering of people for the communion of the Holy Mysteries, one Lamb might not be enough for everyone, and yet there was no special resolution to prepare several Lambs in such cases. This is why Theognostus asked: is it permissible to perform the service on two lambs? The Council allowed the liturgy to be celebrated not only on two, but also on three Lambs, especially when several priests serve. During the ascension, however, the council orders to take only one Lamb - the great one, and the others, it adds, will already receive consecration from him. From which of these Lambs,” Theognostus adds another question, “should it be given to a newly ordained priest when he is ordained during such a service—from the great one or from the others?” From the others, answered the Council, who are on other paten. This means that for several Lambs the same number of paten[s] is needed. Continuing the questions about the Lamb, the Shepherd of Sarai offered another wonderful one: is it possible to perform the liturgy on a Lamb that has been damaged by an animal? Reverent before the holiness of the Lamb, the Council commanded that the liturgy be celebrated on it even if only a quarter of it remained. To another question about unforeseen cases during worship, namely: what to do when the priest forgets to pour water or wine into the chalice and remembers about it during the service - should he continue it or start again? The council gave the following answer: having infused one or the other as soon as he remembers, the priest should continue the service and not return back. It can be assumed that given the small number of St. churches in the Sarai diocese, it was necessary for both Theognostus himself and the priests to sometimes stock up on St. Gifts when they went to places distant from St. churches to teach them to those in need. This is probably where another question from Theognostus regarding Communion arose: is it permissible to take the Body of Christ on the road? The Council answered: not only is it possible, but it must be done. The cathedral, no doubt, had in mind that the extremely sick should not be deprived of the last parting words, even if they themselves could not come to church. Given the small number of clergy in the Sarai diocese, there were cases when St. The gifts had to be taught to the believers, and yet there were no priests. Therefore, Theognostus proposed a question: if neither a bishop nor a priest happens to be with a dying person, is it possible for a deacon to commune him with the Holy Mysteries and, in the event of his death, send a burial over him? The Council answered positively: that in case of need, the deacon can give communion to the sick, perform burial over the deceased and consecrate the kutya, “for a person’s faith,” adds the Council, “attracts the mercy of God.” Fearing to give the sacrament of communion to unworthy persons, the Shepherd of Sarai asked the fathers of the Council of Constantinople: is it possible to give Communion to someone who is “worried up,” as well as to someone who suffers from dizziness or nausea. Answering these questions, the Council determined: the first can be given communion at death, and even then, if the painful condition does not stop, as well as then, if he is free from it for a year, and the second only under the condition that he does not lose consciousness and does not blaspheme. 371 To the last question of the shepherd of Sarai regarding Communion, the Council answered negatively and resolutely forbade the body of Christ to be placed in the hands of the deceased bishop, “beyond this,” adds the Council, “without having established the divine canon.” Regarding the sacrament of Marriage, between the questions of Theognostus there is only one question about kinship relations that do not interfere with marriage. In the diocese of Sarai, as can be seen, the conditions of spiritual kinship under which marriage is permissible and under which it is prohibited were not always observed. Therefore, Theognostus wanted to know whether it was possible for a godson to marry his godbrother’s aunt or auntie, and the Council answered him “if he can’t restrain himself, let him understand.” In the diocese of Saraisk, as a newly established one, it was not always possible to gather clergy of all levels necessary for cathedral services. Often, as can be seen from the questions of Theognostus, the bishop needed to serve, and yet there were no deacons. Perplexed as to whether it was permissible for a bishop to perform divine services without a deacon, Theognostus proposed his bewilderment to the council. Probably drawing attention to the importance and necessity of conciliar service, as well as to the convenience of replacing a deacon with a priest who can officiate without a deacon and, moreover, any sacred rite, the Council determined: a bishop can serve without a deacon with only priests, and one of them must officiate the office of deacon, say, for example, a litany, but only standing in the altar, and not outside it. Priests can do the same if they serve without a bishop and without deacons. To another question, how many times a year should a saint read the Gospel, the Council answered: four times a year: on Maundy Thursday - the first, on Bright Sunday of Christ at Liturgy and Vespers, and on the first of September, on the first day of the new year according to the then reckoning. If necessary, however, the bishop is allowed to read the Gospel on other great holidays, but only when the abbots serve with him. In former times, priests sometimes entrusted deacons to perform proskomedia. Drawing the attention of the council to this circumstance, Theognostus asked: should the abbot himself perform the proskomedia, when many priests and deacons serve with him, or can he entrust this task to someone else. Based partly on canonical decrees, and most of all on the most ancient service books, according to whose testimony, the performance of proskomide from ancient times was the work of priests, the council answered: senior abbots can entrust priests and deacons, but only in the case when they represent the first person in the ranks of servants, and if a bishop serves with them, then everyone must proskomide. To the question of Theognostus: is it permissible for the abbots to carry out the Holy Gifts with ripids and whether they can perform the overshadowing, the Council answered that it allows the abbots to use the ripids, but to perform the overshadowing (dikirium or trikirium), although it does not positively prohibit it, it nevertheless orders that this be done at the will and with the blessing of the bishop, who is given the right to allow or prohibit it. Another perplexity regarding the service of abbots was the following: is it permissible for the abbot, standing in the abbot’s place, to end the service? Resolving this bewilderment, the Council replied that if the abbot is in a robe, then he can end the service standing in his place, and if he is dressed in vestments, he must end as it should be for priests. Based on the statute of Theodore the Studite, the Council allows the abbot to erect a cross if there is no bishop in the city. In this answer, as well as in the question of Theognostus, of course, it seems that the Exaltation of the Cross is on September 14. Given the relationship in which our clergy stood with the enslavers of Russia, it could very easily have happened that priests sometimes unwittingly had to participate in battles and kill opponents. Therefore, Theognostus asked: is it possible for a priest who kills a person in war to perform divine services, and received the answer from the council that this is prohibited by divine canons. Regarding the time of the service, the Council gave a rule according to which on Wednesday and Friday of Cheese Week, as well as on Good Friday, the liturgy should not be performed (neither Presanctified, nor Chrysostom), and it should be celebrated at 11 o’clock at 9 o’clock in the afternoon. Is it possible, the bishop asked. Theognostus, to perform divine services for someone who hangs himself or is “gored” or drowns himself in an unsound mind? Taking into account, probably, the special circumstances of the Sarai diocese, the Council gave Theognost the following answer: it is necessary to carefully examine why the suicide occurred, and if it turns out that it was committed either from demonic possession, or from some great need and misfortune, or as a result of an innocent heavy burden, or violence from nobles and creditors, then in all these cases a funeral service can be performed for the suicides; if suicide arose from their own insane arbitrariness, then they are unworthy of prayer offerings. As if for greater clarity of this question and a clearer understanding of the conciliar answer, Theognostus also asked: when a slave or slave, suffering from the violence of their masters, perishes, is it possible to perform funeral services for them? If, the Council answered, a slave died in his right mind, then he is worthy of church commemoration, and his master must accept a year’s penance; if the cause of his death was demonic possession, then his master is not subject to church punishment, and he himself is worthy of commemoration. Is it possible, Theognostus finally asked, to remember someone who is not in a state of madness and will kill himself? To this the Council answered in the affirmative, if only the suicide had time to repent. There was sometimes a need in the diocese of Sarai to move St. throne from one place to another. Therefore, Theognost’s question followed: is it possible to do this? The council answered in the affirmative, but added: one must be careful in doing so, so as not to damage it or place it in an unclean place. Probably, the Christians who belonged to the Sarai diocese already had mobile movable churches; Only with this assumption is the origin of the question of transferring the throne clear. Another question has a direct connection with this question - about the renewal of church things. Due to age, and perhaps also from the frequent movement of churches from one place to another, some sacred things required correction and renewal. This prompted Theognostus to ask at the Council: is it possible to renew church vessels? If this is necessary, they answered at the Council, then for this purpose they must buy tools from masters, which they then plunge into the depths, so as not to produce anything else with them, for this latter is sinful. Regarding tonsure as a monk, Theognost asked: is it possible for a non-hierarch to tonsure a monk, and what responsibilities does a bishop take upon himself when tonsured into the schema? In response to his first question, the Council answered him that if he was freely disposed and under fear of the death of the person being tonsured, he could be tonsured not only by a white bishop, priest and deacon, but also by a cleric. Answering another question, the Council says that a bishop who was tonsured into the schema during illness must renounce his episcopacy upon recovery and remain in the schema-monastic state forever. To the question: how to bury bishops who have been tonsured into the schema, the Council answered: a bishop who was tonsured into the schema before death is buried in the schema, and an ordinary one in vestments. It was not without purpose that we dwelled for so long on a detailed analysis of episcopal letters, responses and canonical decrees in the period before Met. Cyprian regarding church liturgical practice. From all this, two facts in the church life of our ancestors now stand out for us with particular clarity: 1) the countless variety of lists of liturgical books that appeared in the early days of the existence of Christianity in our Rus', and 2) the desire, at all costs, through decisions of a canonical nature, to get out of those difficult situations into which the parish pastor of that time had to become, willy-nilly, and, as far as possible, to adapt the practice of our Old Russian Church with the practice of the Eastern Churches. In this last respect, as we have already seen, much was done at the Councils of Vladimir 1274 and Constantinople 1276, but in both cases no serious attention was paid to the source of all the diversity in our liturgical practice. Metropolitan Cyprian took upon himself this task. Being a southern Slav by origin and having received a brilliant theoretical and practical education for his time in the center of the then intellectual movement - the Athos monastery, from where 372 Cyprian, having become a Russian metropolitan and fully aware of the abnormality of the situation of church liturgical practice in our Church, decided to achieve by all means what his predecessors were diligently concerned about. For him, placed in an exceptional position, both by upbringing and by blood ties, in relation to the East, this was much easier to do than the rest of the metropolitans, his predecessors. That’s why Metropolitan Cyprian 373 had no difficulty getting to know him. The first and, one might say, one of the main reasons for the discrepancy between our liturgical practice and the Eastern one was, without a doubt, the church charter, which regulated worship in our Church. As is already known, "for the first time, the church charter was adopted in our Studian edition and introduced by St. Theodosius in the Pechersk Monastery. At that time, in Constantinople, this was the most common type of charter, which was followed by both the patriarchal monasteries and lay churches, as can be seen from the type of Patriarch Alexy, who accepted the practice of the Studian monastery as the basis for his presentation, while borrowing something from the Typical of the Great Church and having changed and supplemented something in accordance with the conditions of the monastery he founded. But already at the end of the 11th century, the Jerusalem Charter began to strongly assert its rights in the East, which in the 14th century was finally established throughout the East. But in Russia its dominance began later, and we were at least a whole century behind the East in this regard. The first copies of the Slavic Jerusalem Rule, which were in use by our Church, as we will see in its place, date back to the last half of the 14th century and bear traces of Serbianisms, indicating its borrowing from the southern Slavs, and the first of the known Russian translations appeared at the very beginning of the 15th century and belongs to Afanasy Vysotsky. in practice, this backwardness had very unfavorable consequences. We were in constant communication with the East and received liturgical books from it, but these latter, as is known, obey the charter as their regulator, and changes in the area of ​​the latter inevitably affect the processing and structure of individual service books. It turned out that these newly received books, as edited according to the Jerusalem Rule, did not agree with the Studio Typical that was in force in our country and began to contradict the established practice of the service. These changes also came about through live contacts, as special liturgical customs accepted in the East, but dissimilar to ours. As a result, questions and perplexities arose,” 374 which we saw in Kirik’s questions to Niphon, Bishop of Novgorod, and in the council decrees of 1274 and 1276. It goes without saying that “it was impossible to solve the general difficulty with single palliative measures, because it was inconvenient to wait for an answer from afar for each such case, and such official decisions could in no way correct hundreds and thousands handwritten charters, triodes and missals, according to which the service was conducted. It was necessary to think about the agreement of our church books with the movements of the charter in the east and, first of all, to give the Russian Church this new charter, put it into practice and harmonize the liturgical books of that time with it. Metropolitan contributed greatly to the solution of this problem. Cyprian. Apparently, he was well aware of the practical disadvantages of this state of affairs and wanted to help him familiarize Rus' with the modern Greek rite and transfer it to Russian soil. Unfortunately, he did not have to completely solve this problem and rise to the height of modern church requirements. It is absolutely not visible from anywhere that Met. Cyprian gave this new statute to the Russian Church or approved it with his authority." 375. In all likelihood, he only contributed by all means in his power to the establishment of the Jerusalem Rule in our liturgical practice, but he personally did not take any direct measures on his part, because his attention was drawn to other aspects of liturgical practice and mainly to the text of the liturgical books. But here, too, "taking care of establishing uniformity in the text of the service books, he did not make a complete correction, in accordance with their editors in the East, but limited himself to single experiments of this kind, as far as one person was able. Being in his own way an amorous bee, in the words of the preface to the Jerusalem Charter, he takes from Constantinople the synodikon, which is revered in Sophia of Constantinople, and translates the prayers and canons of Patriarch Philotheus; borrows the statute of the liturgy from the Bulgarian Trebniks, puts it into use in Moscow and sends it to the Pskovites; in the Studiisky monastery he rewrites the Ladder, and introduces Athonite customs into his Psalter (for example, the rite of panagia, the canon of Gregory the Sinaite), in a word, he adopts the most lively news of liturgical affairs from everywhere. But with such fragmentary work, its results turned out to be incomplete, and the desired monotony in the text of the books and the form of the ritual remained “pium desiderium”. Despite the revised liturgiarion in the proper sense of the word, the revised rites of the sacraments that were provided to the Pskovites through the priest Chariton, the issues that Metropolitan Cyprian considered in his letter to Athanasius and in his pastoral epistles were not resolved in practice, and Photius, 14 years later, was forced to repeat Cyprian’s decisions regarding the same issues with which the latter dealt. If the Pskovites continued to adhere to pouring baptism, ate meat on the eve of Epiphany and on the day of the Beheading, and served Mephimon on Holy Saturday, this was not, as they say, abuse on their part, but stemmed from the difficulty in which the Pskov clergy was placed in the existence of two sources of practice, or, better said, in the case when the largest number of sources spoke in favor of the previous, and not the new, decision these questions. In order to take the true path, they had to forget their previous customs, abandon the existing service books and, contrary to their text, contrary to the established order, conduct business according to the instructions of the pastoral letter. But it was impossible to achieve this change immediately: it was necessary to wait until the old edition of the Trebnik and statutes was replaced by a new one. And indeed, when this happened, the misunderstandings stopped” 376. Until recently, the Service Book of the RKP was attributed to Metropolitan Cyprian. Moscow Synod[al] Library No. 601 (according to description 344) and No. 268 (376), Trebn[ik], RKP. same library No. 326 (375), Followed by Psalm, RKP. Moscow Theological Academy, some prayers inscribed with his name, and finally, letters concerning issues of a liturgical nature. In relatively recent times, the same Met. The Service Book of the 14th century was attributed to Cyprian. Moscow Printing Library No. 129. First of all, we must note that so far no direct indications have been found anywhere that the liturgical rites sent by Metropolitan Cyprian to the churches under his control were collected by him or his associates in the literary and liturgical field into one whole and constituted one book like our Missal or Breviary. From the letters that undoubtedly belonged to this metropolitan, we can only conclude one thing: that he worked zealously to correct the text of the liturgical rites, which were sent out in sufficient quantities to the subordinate clergy with the promise to “make it easy to write” the rest of the rites, in which there was an urgent need, so that they too would have them. “What did you hear yourself,” wrote Metropolitan. Cyprian in 1395 to the Pskov clergy - which you do not have the right church rule, then we copied, gave them the charter of the divine services of Chrysostom and the Great Vasily, also the very service of Chrysostom and the priesthood on the first day of August according to the charter, also the right, true synod, which is honored in Tsarigorod, in Sophia Saint, in the Patriarchate; Yes, we added to the way we remember the Orthodox kings, as well as the great princes, both dead and living, just as we remember here in the metropolitan area, as well as the baptism of children and every Christian, then betrothal and wedding. “And what you didn’t have time to write down, what you need,” adds the Metropolitan, “otherwise we want to force you to write it easily, and even then you will have it; and what was copied and sent to you with your brother, that is, everything is right and true” 377. Did Metropolitan fulfill his promise? Whether Cyprian sent those ranks that the Russian churches needed and which the Metropolitan promised to send “with ease” is impossible to say positively on the basis of his letters itself, but it is also quite difficult to categorically deny the possibility of fulfilling this promise, knowing the character of Metropolitan Cyprian. In our manuscripts we find the rite of infant burial and some other rites inscribed with the name of this metropolitan, about which not a single word is mentioned in the letter from Pskov just cited, unless one sees an indirect allusion to them in the promise given here. Therefore, in our opinion, we can think that the promise to send the remaining necessary ranks to Pskov and other regions of the Russian land was fulfilled exactly. But, having admitted the idea that Metropolitan Cyprian exhausted with his pen and the pen of his closest collaborators the entire Missal and Breviary of that time and sent out their rites throughout the diocese, this is proven, nevertheless, another idea about the collection of these rites in one book - let it be called the Prayer Book, Euchologium, Missal or Breviary - will always be subject to great doubt. The fact is that even if we find an indication of the Service Book of Metropolitan Cyprian in contemporary manuscripts, it is very difficult to determine (or better said, positively impossible) the composition of the Cyprian Service Book, the ranks included or included in it - this is on the one hand, and on the other hand, the persistent indication or references to the Cyprian Service Book begin only in the 17th century (for example, protop[op] Avvakum, etc.), when a heated debate ensued on issues of church and liturgical practice between schismatics and Orthodox Christians, but hardly anyone can attach serious importance to this evidence. Dissenters, as is known, often referred to the service book of St. Sergius of Radonezh, supposedly located in his Lavra, but now it has been undoubtedly proven that there is no such Service Book in the library of the Trinity-Sergius Davra. One can therefore think that with the name Metr. Cyprian they did the same as with the name of St. Sergius of Radonezh, that is, that they wanted to justify their thoughts with the authority of this hierarch, although, again, it is certain that they sometimes sought justification in these monuments for such things as never existed in them. With all this, it cannot be denied that the first schismatic teachers could have been misled by their gullibility by such categorical evidence found in manuscripts allegedly belonging to Metropolitan. Cyprian or copied from his manuscripts. Be that as it may, we repeat once again that there are reasons to doubt the affiliation of Metropolitan. Cyprian of the entire Missal or Breviary. Let us now move on to consider each of the named manuscripts separately and see whether they can be attributed to this metropolitan. The basis for attributing Met. Cyprian's Missal of the Moscow Synodal Library No. 601, the following remark of the scribe on page 72 of this Missal served for scholars: 378 and who copied the present Missal from the Missal - the autograph of Metropolitan. Cyprian, which is partly shown by the postscript to this Missal on fol. 72, in which the scribe wants to change personal verbs to impersonal ones (“prescribed” instead of “prepis”) and pronouns (“yours” instead of “my”). For our part, we can only add that the scribe was a Russian and, moreover, a Novgorodian, which is proven by the absence in this manuscript of Serbianisms, which are very often found in Cyprian’s autographs, and the replacement of the letter “ch” - “ts” (instead of “cleanse” - “otsesti”), which, according to scientists, serves as a sign of the Novgorod origin of the manuscript. As for the fact that the real Missal of the Moscow Synodal Library is not even a copy from the autograph of Metropolitan Cyprian, this is evidenced by the internal contradictions of the ranks of this Missal with the instructions that Metropolitan Cyprian makes in his letters to Pskov, Novgorod and other places, and the very postscript on the sheet. 72, on the basis of which the present Missal is attributed to Metropolitan Cyprian. The generally accepted rule of all ancient Russian scribes, according to the custom of scribes of Greek manuscripts, was such that they wrote so-called afterwords at the end of their manuscripts, in which they stated the purpose of writing the manuscripts, the occasion, the time and called themselves by name, while in the present manuscript a deviation was made from the generally accepted rule, the afterword ended up in the middle of the manuscript after the rites of the liturgies and cannot be applied to the entire manuscript relevant. If there is such a note at the end of the manuscript: “This book is the Missal of Cyprian, Metropolitan of Moscow and All Russia; written by his hand, after whom he himself served,” then this note has nothing in common with the scribe’s handwriting and was made no earlier than the 17th century, almost even Patr. Nikon, to whom this manuscript belonged for some time. therefore, if anything in this manuscript can be attributed to Met. Cyprian, then only the rites of the liturgy and nothing more, and everything else cannot be associated with the name of Cyprian in any way. The last thought was recently expressed by Prof. Moscow Spiritual Academy I.D. Mansvetov in his very detailed and respectable monograph entitled “On the works of Metropolitan Cyprian regarding divine services” 379. Regarding the inscription on the l. 72 Mansvetov writes in his monograph: “This signature did not refer to the entire composition of the manuscript, but only to one part of it, which contained the text of the liturgies. Contrary to the custom of scribes of that time to leave a note with a mark of the year and day of completion of the work and place it at the end of the manuscript, where the work itself ended, here the signature is not accompanied by any chronological indications and is read on the sheet. 72, in the middle of the manuscript, and this, in our opinion, says Mansvetov, shows that Cyprian’s autograph was limited to only this part. There were no further articles in the original manuscript, adds Mr. Mansvetov; they were collected and included in the Service Book by a later collector, who included here not only the original works of Cyprian, but also what did not belong to him personally. 380 Turning to the ranks found in the Service Book itself, we find the following features that do not allow this Service Book to be attributed to Metropolitan Cyprian. In his responses to Abbot Athanasius, Metropolitan Cyprian wrote, among other things, in 1390: “You asked me about evening and morning prayers: how many of them are there? And at Vespers there are six prayers, and the seventh is a day off, and the eighth is after Vespers and at the proclamation,” while in the Service Book of the Moscow Synod[al] Library No. 601 there are 10 of them. The weekend prayer occupies 9th place in the series of evening prayers, and the prayer at prostration is 10th place, and places 7 and 8 are occupied by the current prayers 6 and 7. Regarding morning prayers in answers to Abbot Athanasius, Metropolitan. Cyprian says: “And after Matins there are 11 prayers and the twelfth prayer after “Praise the Lord from heaven,” for adoration,” and in the Missal No. 601, although the twelfth prayer is the prayer for adoration (l. 122), but not after “Praise the Lord from heaven,” but after the prayer “to the glory of the highest”: “We give thanks, we sing and praise and give grace.” (l. 121). On “Praise” “The Lord from Heaven” there is a prayer in 10th place as follows: “Lord our God, compose the mental powers according to Your will.” 381 There are even more reasons to doubt the affiliation of Metropolitan. Cyprian of the Moscow Printing Library No. 129, which is attributed to this metropolitan in the form of an assumption (not without probability) by prof. Moscow University A.S. Pavlov on the grounds that it “among other things, contains a “teaching” or pastoral instruction to priests on behalf of Metropolitan Cyprian (fol. 172). It begins with the words: “Behold, child, the Lord entrusts the sacred service,” and the person who issued it says about himself: “I am a humble Archbishop Cyprian, the Metropolitan of Affairs, not an imam,” etc. (fol. 180). But from this (as Professor Mansvetov quite rightly noted) “it still does not follow that the Trebnik itself was copied from Cyprian”” 382. In [the] matter, turning to the rites contained in it directly, we see that, for example, the translation of the rite of the August Blessing of Waters belongs not to Metropolitan Cyprian, but to Bishop Theodore of Rostov. “Water baptism, performed by honest saints, was performed by Fedor, Bishop of Rostov (with) Patriarch Sergei eoulogia (Euchologia).” This is how the rite of the August consecration of water is inscribed in the manuscript we are considering. The mentioned Theodore, Bishop of Rostov, is none other than “the nephew of St. Sergius, the famous founder of the Simonov Monastery. As is known, he traveled to Constantinople on metropolitan affairs several times, and in 1389 we meet [him] here already in the rank of Archbishop of Rostov, received from Patriarch Philotheus. He was on friendly terms with Cyprian, with whom he returned to Russia” 383. Having compared this rite of water baptism with the rite found in the pseudo-Cyprian Service Book No. 601 of the Moscow Synodal Library, one cannot help but notice a significant difference between both in the composition of the prayers included in this rite. Consider the rite of water baptism, copied by Theodore, bishop. Rostov, for the very rite that was sent by Metropolitan Cyprian to the Pskov clergy, is unlikely to be true. The fact is that the rite of water baptism in the service book of the Moscow Typographical Library No. 129 is so characteristic in its features that it stands completely apart from all similar rites of contemporary monuments and monuments of later times. It is impossible that the rite of water baptism, copied by Theodore, Bishop of Rostov, and approved by the authority of Metropolitan Cyprian, would not find its place on the pages of the monuments of its time and would not become, at least for a while, the original for such a rite. That is why we do not want to recognize the list of water baptism we are considering as having general church significance in the sense that it, as authorized by the popular name in the field of church liturgical Cyprian, took place in liturgical practice, but, on the contrary, we think that this rite was the property of one monument and did not go further. Consequently, there is hardly any reason to connect this monument with the name of Metropolitan Cyprian. Other internal signs positively interfere with this. The number of evening prayers in service book No. 129 is seven, instead of the eight recommended by Cyprian. The prayer of entry is not in seventh place, but in sixth place, and the prayer for bowing down is not in 8th place, but in 7th place. As for the morning prayers, their number is exactly equal to that indicated by Metropolitan Cyprian, but the order of prayers, as in the service book of the Moscow Synodal Library No. 601, is different. The prayer for adoration is in 12th place after the prayer “We praise, sing and bless and glorify and give thanks,” which is inscribed like this: “Prayer is the glory of the highest.” In the rite of Baptism on l. 134 we read: “On the 40th day and again the baby is brought into the church, that is, the firstfruits of receiving the entry of the church. The material, which is already pure and purified, is brought to the godfather, who wants to receive the baby for baptism, and so does the godfather. Bow your head together with the youth.” Meanwhile, in the letters of Metropolitan Cyprian, it is very often repeated about nepotism that “it is not right for children to baptize godfather and godfather: it is not worthwhile to baptize two, neither a husband with another man’s wife, nor with his own wife, but one can baptize either from a male or from a female” (R.I.B., [vol. 6], p. 238). Metropolitan Cyprian wrote this in 1395 to the Novgorod clergy. He repeated almost the same thing, but only in different expressions, in his answers to Abbot Athanasius (1390–1405). “And even if many people baptize one child,” says Metropolitan Cyprian, “there is a Latin duty; but the priest honors prayers, but the father of the godfather makes denials and receives Holy Baptism as a child; For this reason, not many godfathers are worthy of being, lower than godfathers and godfathers, as there is something going on here in our land, but only one is worthy of baptism and being named a godfather, either a husband or a wife” ([RIB, vol. 6], p. 254). Given such obvious internal contradictions, hardly anyone will have the courage to say that the manuscript of the Moscow Typographical Library No. 129 that we are now considering belongs to Metropolitan Cyprian. As for the teaching noted in this monument by Professor Pavlov to the newly installed one on behalf of Metropolitan Cyprian, this teaching, in our opinion, rather speaks against Mr. Pavlov than for him; or that this teaching more accurately indicates that the present manuscript has nothing to do with the name of Metropolitan. Cyprian. It is impossible that this hierarch of the Russian Church, who worked so diligently and so much to bring our worship to the level of the state of worship in the Christian East and to make our liturgical books a positive copy of the books of the Eastern Churches, could include the works of his prolific pen in the exemplary, so to speak, Service Book sent out or recommended to the subordinate clergy. The presence of the first-person teaching of Metropolitan Cyprian that occupies us, most likely, in our opinion, speaks for another person. It was this second person (perhaps who stood very close to Metropolitan Cyprian) who could only have decided to place in the described Trebnik the real teaching of Metropolitan Cyprian, which at first was sent out by him, in all likelihood, as a guiding pastoral instruction to the clergy subordinate to him, as was the custom among our ancient Russian metropolitans. As for the language and spelling of the present manuscript, it has nothing in common with the language and spelling of the monuments that undoubtedly belong to Metropolitan Cyprian. Based on some special features in spelling, the present manuscript gives reason to think that its scribe was a Novgorodian unknown to us. “From the letters of Metropolitan Cyprian it is known that he took part in the correction and processing of the Trebnik” 384. In a letter to the Pskov clergy in 1395, as we have already had the opportunity to see, he says that he copied and sent “the baptism of children and every Christian,” “betrothal and wedding,” “priesthood on the first day of August according to the charter,” i.e., the rite of Baptism, Marriage and minor blessing of water, which are currently contained in the Trebnik. But did these ranks and others, later written off by his assistants by virtue of the promise given by Metropolitan. Cyprian to the Pskov clergy, one Trebnik, "has the original Trebnik of Metropolitan Cyprian been preserved to us and is it possible to associate it with any of the existing monuments of our ancient liturgical writing? Such a monument is usually considered synodal manuscript No. 375 (326) and partly Trebnik No. 376 (268). The later one is read here entry: “Written from the Metropolitan with Cyprian’s translation word for word.” And at the end of the manuscript, a handwritten entry from the Cyprianov’s Service Book is repeated with the following addition: “From that Service Book, with the intention and heartfelt desire of his ruler Mikhail Yakovlich, I wrote the many-sinful Sidko Molchanov to his sovereign Mikhail Yakovlich.” The scribe finished his work at 18 weeks, in 1481. Based on these data, the descriptors of the Synodal Library say that this manuscript can be fully recognized as a copy from the Cyprian translation of the Service Book and the Consumer Book (description), section III, I, 204. Other scholars are inclined to the same conclusion, but, without extending their opinion to the entire composition of this manuscript, they think to attribute to Cyprian only the articles common to the Missal, and recognize it as a copy from the latter, made in the 15th century (Holy Macarius, History of the Russian Church). [vol.] IV. [p.] 279). The index for viewing manuscripts of the Synodal Library of Arch[imandrite] Savva speaks in the same sense (p. 259). Now, of course, the next questions are posed: is it possible, and to what extent, can the opinions presented now be accepted?” 385 The solution to these questions will appear by itself if the text of the Trebnik is compared with the text of the Service Book. Such a comparison, and precisely in these types, was made by Prof. Mansvetov in his article, already known to us, “On the works of Metropolitan Cyprian regarding divine services.” We will try here only to outline the essence of this comparison, and for details we refer those interested to the article just mentioned by Mr. Mansvetov. <In the Missal the texts of the liturgies are arranged one after another in their present order, and in the Trebnik No. 375 in the reverse order. The Liturgy of Basil the Great was recorded first, the second – Chrysostom’s, and the third – the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. In Trebnik No. 376, the order agrees with the Missal. In Breviary No. 375, only one service of Chrysostom is placed, but there is no charter; in Breviary No. 376, the charter is appended separately and embraces the entire liturgy to the end. In the missal, the charter of the liturgy is combined with the presentation of the service, but here it is placed separately from it. The presentation of prayers in the Chrysostom Liturgy, with a few minor differences in translation, is completely similar in the Service Book and Breviary Books. As for the presentation of the charter, it has its own characteristics and compiles a list from the Euthymian proskomedia, and not from the Cyprian text. Some of these features are noted in the descriptions of the manuscripts, but they do not exhaust all the differences that are noted in this article by Mansvetov. These features occurred, among other things, because in the Service Book the text of the liturgies was merged with the charter, but in the Trebnik it was presented separately, and therefore it was necessary to add ritual remarks here and there in the service itself. For example, the Service Book sets out in great detail the procedure for the communion and division of the Lamb, but the Trebnik describes it very briefly, since a detailed presentation was placed in a special article and turned out to be unnecessary in the text itself. More differences are seen in the liturgy of Basil the Great and the Presanctified Gifts. All of them are indicated in the mentioned article by Mr. Mansvetov. The evening and morning prayers of the Trebnik differ from those placed in the service book in number, presentation and the addition to them of a brief order or charter of Vespers and Matins. In the Service Book, as we know, there are 10 evening prayers, in the Breviary - 11. The 10th and last is written in the Service Book “for bowing the head”; in the Trebnik, the 10th in a row turns out to be superfluous against the Service Book and is called the prayer of diligent supplication, and the 11th is adoration. As for the rules of Vespers and Matins, they lead to several considerations. It is clear that this order was taken from a later charter and does not correspond to the presentation of the prayers arranged in the order of the antiphons. Contrary to the indication of antiphons, there is not the slightest hint of them in the charter; it is clear that they no longer existed then, and the correspondence of the prayers with them was lost. The Vespers Rule begins with the following words: “After the evening psalm (i.e., the initial psalm) and at the end of the prayer, this is said,” i.e., the initial litany, etc., and this shows that the prayers of the lamp were read in the present way, during the initial psalm, and did not follow the order of the evening psalms or antiphons, as was the case before. In the Service Book, therefore, the prayers remained in the form as introduced from the most ancient sources, and the order of Vespers was added to them later and is in connection with the Jerusalem Rule, as can be seen from the remark: “If there is a vigil.” The same should be noted regarding the rules of Matins. In it, the order of prayers is somewhat different, compared to the Service Book, but the number is the same. In the statute, the prayer before the Gospel and the reading of the Gospel itself are indicated after the polyeleos, and in the Trebnik it is placed 11th after the praises. In the latter case, an indication of the more ancient order of Matins was preserved, when the Gospel was read after psalms of praise and great doxology. This prayer is not in the Cyprian Missal, but instead the prayer “for glory in the highest” is read. The rules of Matins include a prayer of diligent supplication - the same as at Vespers, but it is not in either the Service Book or the Breviary. So, with the same number of morning prayers, the 11th in the Service Book and Breviary is different, and this difference, in turn, is explained by the influence of the most ancient and latest structure of the service> 386. In general, without going into a more detailed comparison of the texts of the same rites in the Trebniks and the Service Book attributed to Metropolitan Cyprian, we will conclude with the following words of Professor Mr. Mansvetov, who made this detailed comparison. “We,” says Prof. Mansvetov, “have compared the text of the Missal and the Cyprian Trebnik in the full composition of the articles common to both of them and have done this with the aim of being able to give a factually substantiated answer to the question about the relationship of these manuscripts to one another and to decide how far the Trebnik No. 375 can justify the entry at the head of it, “that it is copied from the Cyprian Missal word for word.” This is a remark, says Mr. Mansvetov, - turns out to be unfair not only in relation to the full composition of the Service Book, but also in relation to the liturgies, i.e., and that small section of this manuscript, which is concluded with a well-known postscript on behalf of Cyprian. It turns out that even in the most similar articles it was copied from different originals, and was subject to alterations and corrections. Evfimiev’s edition served as such an original for the liturgy. In the Liturgy of the Presanctified and in the presentation of the evening and morning prayers, not to mention the differences in translation, one can also notice the influence of a different charter and a different structure of the service. Sidko Molchanov, who, at the request of his ruler Mikhail Yakovlich, rewrote the Service Book, had at hand a list, above which stood the name of Metropolitan Cyprian and his well-known entry was repeated. But the list was not an exact copy from the Cyprian translation, but was considered so, perhaps because at its head was the liturgy, corrected by him. There is no need that its charter was set out here specifically, as in the Missal of Euthymius, but since it became known to us through the mediation of Cyprian and formed one whole with the liturgy, this was enough for a later copyist to attribute to the same person not only the liturgy, but also other articles that were included in this Missal, partly from the Missal known with the name of Metropolitan Cyprian, partly from other lists of the Euchologia. Less than a hundred years after Cyprian, this misunderstanding occurred, and the name of our metropolitan, a liturgist, found itself at the head of articles that did not belong to him. Breviary No. 375 was written in 1481, and it already includes many services that have nothing in common with the name of Cyprian, while others are so divergent in presentation from his Missal that they can be recognized as at least a new translation and a new edition. The scribes in this case were very illegible and, on the basis of several articles, concluded that the complete collection belonged to Cyprian. Such abuses of the name of the authors were generally not uncommon in ancient writing and were often based on the fame of one or another person in a certain type of literature. for example, Theodosius of Pechersk, Chrysostom and Cyril of Turov, as homiletes; Theodore the Studite as compiler of the Triodion. Thus, after everything we have said, from the manuscripts whose inscription bears the name “Cyprian’s,” it is impossible to determine what exactly in them belongs to Cyprian and what does not, and which of the copies of the Trebnik named after him is closer to his autograph. We, perhaps, can recognize this right for the presentation of the liturgy in the synodal Service Book No. 341 (601), but as for the rites and rituals of the Trebnik, when comparing them with each other, according to different manuscripts quasi Cyprian’s translation, one encounters such disagreements in which it becomes impossible to come to positive conclusions, and therefore the question of the degree of Cyprian’s participation in the processing and correction of the then Trebnik cannot be answered actual decision and can be reduced to more or less probable assumptions. What we have in the three named synodal manuscripts and one Moscow Synodal printing house constitutes, strictly speaking, only material for characterizing church rites in Rus' in the 14th–15th centuries, and not the result of the labors of our metropolitan regarding divine services. Even using this data as ritual material of a certain era is not as easy as it seems at first glance, especially when it comes to summing up and drawing a general conclusion. The fact is that in order to judge the state of the ritual in a certain era, a comparative study of it with the previous one is necessary; because only then can we positively say what new things were developed in a given era and what changes the old things were subjected to. Applying this requirement to our question, we must say that from the 12th to 13th centuries a very small number of service books have reached us, and perhaps the least of them are the Euchologii. For the history of the liturgy, these centuries still provide significant material and make it possible to conduct its history without interruption, but as for the successions of the Trebnik (in the current sense of the word), very few of them have been preserved in the records.”387 Therefore, the final and decisive judgment on the significance of the quasi Cyprian manuscripts we have considered for characterizing the divine services in our Church during the XIV-XV centuries. We do not have enough courage and solid scientific grounds to say this, but we will look only at the material, which, of course, is very valuable for the history of worship in our Church during this time. All the manuscripts that we have so far examined, inscribed with the name of Metropolitan Cyprian and claiming to have a living connection with this remarkable personality in the history of liturgy in our Church, in fact, as can be seen from a critical examination of all these liturgical monuments, these claims can be respected with great effort, and then only for some parts of the above-mentioned manuscripts and in no way for their entire composition in the present form. Time has smoothed out all the irrefutable evidence that they belonged to Metropolitan Cyprian, and the existing evidence by science is not recognized as sufficient and is subject to very strong doubt. But this same harsh time, which covered many of the works of our liturgist with the darkness of obscurity, preserved very strong evidence of the ownership of Metropolitan Cyprian of the Followed Psalter. <This manuscript belongs to the library of the Moscow Theological Academy and was written by Cyprian with his own hand. This is confirmed by two entries, of which the first, cut out from the original manuscript and pasted on an added white sheet, reads: “The metropolitan’s psalter, Cyprian’s letter, without the abbot’s blessing, do not give it to anyone from other monasteries who are tonsured”; and the second - on the lower edge of the 4th or 5th sheet according to the current count - reads: “This is the book of the Trinity of the Sergius Monastery, and the letter of Cyprian.” In its composition, this manuscript most closely matches the Followed Psalter and consists of the following parts. The first, page 144 inclusive, contains 150 psalms with an additional 151 and biblical songs. The second, sheets 145–191, “The Book of Hours,” sets out the order of the daily services from the Midnight Office to the Lesser Vespers and concludes with the legend of the exaltation of the Most Holy One (rite of panagia). The third, sheets 191–264, contains a synaxarion or monthly book with troparia and kontakia for each day and with comments about the service on major holidays. The introduction to it is an article about the differences between large, medium and small holidays. In the fourth part, sheet 264v.–291, the service according to the Triodion is recorded, starting from the Week of the Publican and the Pharisee to the Week of All Saints inclusive. The fifth and last, sheets 291–408 volumes, consists of prayers, canons, various church songs and sequences for various occasions. The end is missing due to the loss of the last pages. The Psalter of Cyprian constitutes a very important liturgical monument and can serve as the oldest example of a complete Psalter. Of the Greek manuscripts of this kind, earlier than this, we know only one copy of the Book of Hours of the Athonite monk Fikara (Synod[al] bib[liotheque] No. 269, 1341), and from the Slavic manuscripts two or three lists of the Book of Hours from the Printing Library, attributed according to the catalog to the XIII-XIV centuries, and the Psalter with the Sixth Day from the Synod, which is very remarkable in composition. libraries no. 431–325. All of them, however, are far inferior to the Cyprian list in the completeness of the service material and conclude: either only psalms with biblical songs, or the order of daily services without the Psalter and many sequences recorded in the Cyprian manuscript. But the main thing that distinguishes this latter is the wide arrangement of the synaxar and especially the triode part. Not only are troparia with kontakia written down here, but entire articles from the charter and many rules about fasting and the peculiarities of the service according to the Triodion are introduced. To characterize the official system of Metropolitan Cyprian’s time and the sources that he used to familiarize Russians with the church orders of that time, the manuscript we are considering has great historical value and gives several positive indications. First of all, it points to the dominance of the Jerusalem Rule in our country and its widespread use in the liturgical practice of that time. The Psalter of Cyprian is most closely connected with this branch, or, better said, with the complete copies of this charter that have come down to us from the 14th–15th centuries. The order of daily services is set out in it in accordance with the general part of the Greek and Slavic charters of that time, coincides with the instructions of Simeon of Thessalonica and with the presentation of handwritten and printed books of hours, both Greek and Slavic, and therefore is called a book of hours “according to the charter of the Lavra of our venerable father Savva in Jerusalem” (sheet 145). The synaxarion, or service according to the month, is set out on the same basis, as noted in the inscription of this section. True, there is no factual data to distinguish the synaxarion of Studium from that of Jerusalem and to draw a firm line separating the composition of memories according to these two sources: in the absence of a positive criterion, the scientific justification of this division becomes impossible. But in the monthly part there is another side, which reflects the influence of the statutes: this is not the composition and grouping of memories, but official comments and rules about fasting, which have a basis in the practice of the Studio and Palestine. So, for example, in the Psalter of Cyprian a vigil is appointed for major holidays and Sundays. Some of them are unconditionally obligatory, others are left to the discretion of the abbot, in accordance with the comments on this matter in the Jerusalem Typical. This feature is even more noticeable in the triode part. Here, in fact, the compiler went beyond the boundaries of the Psalter Followed and made extensive, often literal extracts from the Jerusalem Rule, so we find here not only typical, but also most of the ordinary ordinary rules characteristic of this branch of the Rule, regarding the service of Lent and Pentecost, and we clearly get acquainted with the presentation of the triode part according to the Rule that was in force in the East and here in the XIV-XV centuries. But the Jerusalem Charter (especially in the early days of its spread, as we will later learn in more detail) was adopted and did not operate in its pure form, which, however, has not yet been fully established due to the lack of data, but with additions from the practice of other localities. As a result, in the Cyprian Book of Hours, despite the predominance of the Jerusalem order of service, Athonite customs are mentioned and with the rights of competent customs. These latter contributed a significant share of influence on the processing of the Jerusalem Charter in the 14th–15th centuries. and neutralized his pure type. Under the influence of Athonite customs, the Palestinian rules on fasting were changed or, better said, they were subjected to local revision. A summary table of these rules, compiled by Nikon Montenegrin on the basis of the Jerusalem, Svyatogorsk and Studian Typiks, shows in what they agreed and in what ways they differed. Thus, in the Psalter of Cyprian, the order of daily services is set out in relation to their individual departure in cells in accordance with the structure of skete monasteries and the cell rule adopted long ago on Athos. Therefore, the same service is set out for both general and individual performance, so that when there is no priest, the brother conducts the service. We learn later that the Jerusalem Rule adopted many liturgical remarks from Nikon the Montenegrin, and even in the very form as they are set out in his tacticon. Diverging in many cases from the disciplinary and service customs accepted here and there, they often give a special decision on issues of the charter and give it a unique character. That is why the Psalter of Metropolitan Cyprian, as set out according to the Jerusalem Rule, is in many cases guided by the rules of Nikon the Montenegrin. As for the synaxarion of the manuscript, it is remarkable for the absence of local Studite memories, except for Theodore the Studite, but at the same time it does not exclude anything characteristically Jerusalem, but has a combined, eclectic character, combining memories of Constantinople, Jerusalem and Athonite. Of the Slavic memories, the predominance of South Slavic ones is noticeable in it, and of the Russian saints, only one Peter Metropolitan is recorded on December 21. From the South Slavic recorded: Arseny of Serbia (Oct. 28), John of Rylsky (19th), transfer of the relics of Hilarion of Meglinsky (21st), Savva of Serbia (Jan. 14), Simeon of Serbia (Feb. 13), Cyril the Philosopher, Slavic teacher (14th), Joachim of Sarandopor (August 16[a]). The inclusion of the memory of Metropolitan Peter belongs, without a doubt, to Cyprian, who, as is known, was distinguished by special respect for the memory of the Moscow saint, wrote a service for him and included his name in the prayer of the liturgy. The presence of a large number of Serbian and Bulgarian memories shows that the birthplace of Cyprian's list was the South Slavic lands and Cyprian probably copied it in Hilandar, from some Serbian copy, as indicated by the spelling of the manuscript, some Serbian words and the mention of Sava and Simeon of Serbia in the canon of Gregory the Sinaite. The features in the ritual and in the language> 388 of the Cyprian manuscript are set out in great detail in the well-known article by Prof. Mansvetova. We will try to set out in detail some of the mistakes made by the venerable professor and noticed by us in a critical article about the present work of Mr. Mansvetov, which we are preparing for publication. We refer those interested in details to these articles. In addition to the entire manuscripts that we have examined, some prayers, canons and rites are associated with the name of Metropolitan Cyprian, although they are contained in manuscripts that have nothing to do with Metropolitan Cyprian, but are inscribed with this name. Cyprian owns a prayer of permission, compiled by him to be read over the coffin during the burial of Lutsk Prince Demetrius. In all the lists known to us, this prayer begins with the words: “Sovereign God, Father Almighty, who created man.” Its ownership by Metropolitan Cyprian does not raise any doubts. It was the custom of that time to issue such prayers, and this rule belonged to the bishops, who, at the request of more famous persons, drew up and sent similar letters of permission in their name. Their origin is based in the ancient church discipline regarding penitents and those under penance. It happened that persons bearing penance died without permission; then the question naturally arose: how to treat such subjects, whether to consider them as being in union with the Church or as excommunicated. Due to the leniency that was allowed regarding the permission of persons who were in danger of death, it was natural to be guided by it in those cases when it came to people who were caught by an unexpected death and, as a result, did not have time to obtain permission. In this case, what was not fulfilled during life was fulfilled after death, and the acceptance into communion with the Church of those not permitted was accomplished through a letter of permission or a prayer that was read over the deceased. The Greek lists of the prayer of permission retain an indication of their origin and original purpose and can serve as an echo of the most ancient church order. If we take into account the series of these prayers published by the Gohar, we will see that they are not placed in the rite of burial, where it is a matter of a usual rite and performed over everyone, but in the group of prayers of repentance and permissiveness. They are called εὐχαὶ συγχωρητικαί (from where the Slavic translation is “farewell prayers”) and are appointed to be said over the deceased who is under an oath or excommunication, as well as for the permission of the deceased bound from the bishop. In contrast to the usual prayers for permission to confess, they were compiled especially by bishops for such cases, pronounced by them themselves, or sent in charters with authorized persons. In the first two of these prayers, in Gohar, the issue is about the resolution of an excommunicated person caught by an unexpected death, and in the third one refers to someone who accidentally died from the violence of barbarians. These letters have become more widely and generally used since the time when the right to issue them passed from the bishop to priests, confessors, and was extended to persons famous for their lives. Not limiting themselves to those who died in excommunication, they began to issue them to anyone who wanted to pass on to the next world with greater security for their fate, and as evidence from the confessor that the famous person was not under penance and had received permission. Even further, they ceased to be issued to a famous person and became part of the rites of lay and monastic burial. Persons of outstanding social and ecclesiastical status, however, still had the advantage of having special personal permissions, which were received in the form of letters from the local bishop or metropolitan. The earliest known case of this kind is associated with the personality of Theodosius of Pechersk, who wrote a prayer of permission to Simon, the Varangian of Vladimir. The story [about the burial] of Alexander Nevsky says that he himself extended his hand to receive a prayer of permission from the bishop, in the Trebnik of the 14th century. These prayers are already written down in the funeral rite. In addition to this prayer, there are several other independent translations and, apparently, independent articles attributed to Metropolitan Cyprian based on Slavic manuscripts. It is very difficult to prove the validity of these instructions, and in some cases they cannot but be called erroneous. The reason for associating this or that article, this or that succession with the name of Cyprian, was probably his identical answers to Abbot Athanasius and, in many cases, the abuse of his wide liturgical fame. Scribes of later times, in order to give authority to a new presentation of the rite, to a newly translated liturgical article, placed above it the name of some prominent liturgical figure and at the same time had in mind the analogy between the inscribed article and his truly famous works. It goes without saying that this does not exclude correct inscriptions and indications of genuine works; but in this case other authoritative evidence must speak in favor of the inscription. There is every reason to assert that Cyprian was well acquainted with the works of Patriarch Philotheus and, thanks to his personal relations, had every opportunity to translate his prayers, canons and sequences, and to distribute the previously translated ones for church use. The liturgical pen of Philotheus was richly nourished by the political situation of the then Byzantium, calling him to compose prayers and canons regarding the disasters to which the empire was subjected from enemy attacks, wars, drought and pestilence. such works, of course, could have an application to the then circumstances of the Russian land, which suffered from the Tatars and the horrors of the Black Death, and services to the saints, prayer to the Holy Spirit on Pentecost and at the prayer service on the day of the New Year constituted a very useful addition to the then not yet established Trebnik, filling a visible gap in its composition. But what exactly was translated from this by Cyprian and put into ecclesiastical use in Russia remains indecisive due to the lack of positive indications, and especially since much of Philotheus’s works could have been translated on Athos by Serbian translators and taken by Cyprian in finished form from Hilandar and generally through Athos. Most often, the canon and prayer for the filthy Patriarch Philotheus are inscribed with the efforts of Cyprian. In the Greek synodal collection of Philotheus' works there is no this canon, but only a prayer. But that it was not Cyprian, nor anyone Russian, who was the compiler of the canon, this is clear from its content and structure, which correspond perfectly to the authentic works of the Patriarch of Constantinople and from direct inscriptions> 389. As for the prayer, it undoubtedly belongs to Patriarch Philotheus. <In the canon from the library of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra No. 284 (XVII century) the canon to our Lord Jesus Christ is read... sung about the gobzin of the fruit, the creation of the humble Metropolitan of All Russia Cyprian. There is also a canon of prayer to our Lord Jesus Christ in the local battles of foreigners, the creation of Philotheus, and the labor of Cyprian, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia. The service and canon of Metropolitan Peter, himself, is known from many manuscripts. In the Dionysian Trebnik, Metropolitan Cyprian is credited with translating from Greek special prayers for Vespers, Hours, Midnight Office and Matins, which are inscribed as follows: “From the ancient Trebnik collected...and translated from Greek books by His Holiness Metropolitan Cyprian.” These are the very prayers that Simeon of Thessalonica mentions in his presentation of the song sequence. In the Synodal Trebnik No. 378–898, “following the farewell of a deceased infant” is signed by the work of Metropolitan Cyprian. In the same Trebnik, prayers are called the labors of the humble Cyprian, as befits the sign of a youth. In the Synodal Missal No. 356 (612) the prayer spoken at the opening and after the consecration of the church is called the blessing and sending of Metropolitan Cyprian, in which a person will die a needy death. The last group of Metropolitan Cyprian’s liturgical works consists of guiding articles on various issues of church practice, in the form of messages and teachings, which he issued in response to questions put to him or on his own initiative, to eliminate official disturbances that arose. The first place among these works is occupied by the epistle to Abbot Athanasius and has the right to this both in terms of the amount of liturgical material scattered in it and in the relative importance of the issues discussed in it. Next should be named: a teaching to the Novgorod clergy about church services and a message to the Pskov clergy with instructions on various subjects of ministerial practice. These documents introduce us mainly to the casuistic, detailed side of the ritual of that time and give an idea of ​​the degree of its development and assimilation. Depending on the then church charter, some of these questions were a consequence of the new orders put forward by the Jerusalem charter, others were caused by gaps in the Russian service books, compared with the practice of the Greek Church, but there were also those for which a solution was found in the liturgical sources of that time; only these decisions have not yet received fame and generally binding force. The letter to Athanasius, as can be seen from its first lines, far from exhausts all the questions with which this latter addressed the Moscow Metropolitan, and leaves aside those that related to the cell rule, monastic discipline and the duties of the abbot to the brethren. Postponing the answer to them until a more convenient time, Metropolitan Cyprian deals mainly with liturgical questions and answers the perplexities that arose on this score in the then official practice> 390. Among the rules of Metropolitan Cyprian we find those relating to the sacraments of Baptism, Repentance, Communion, Marriage and other, secondary, rites. In his discussion of the sacrament of Baptism, he determines the method of performing it and some other ritual details. Contrary to the custom of baptizing by pouring, Metropolitan Cyprian orders that this sacrament be performed by three times immersion in water on a river or in a decent vessel. To the question of Abbot Athanasius - whether it is possible to baptize several people together - Cyprian gave the following answer: infants, even of different sexes, can be baptized several together and in one font, based on the example of John the Baptist and the apostles, who baptized many at a time, but prohibitions, denials and, in general, the prayers of the sacrament should be read over each person being baptized separately. The order in the immersion of baptized children was recommended as follows: first the boy was immersed, and then the girl, “for the sake of deanery, the male sex is given a majority,” as Metropolitan Cyprian put it. If adults are baptized, then each of them should be baptized separately, and men should be served by men, and women should be served by women, “serving their own nature for the sake of appearance.” Speaking about recipients, the saint demands that there be one recipient - either a godfather (of course, when a man is baptized), or a godfather (if a woman is baptized), “but it is not right to baptize two, a godfather with a godfather, a man with his own or someone else’s wife.” Speaking about the sacrament of Repentance, Metropolitan Cyprian first of all gives instructions regarding the relationship of the confessor to the spiritual father and determines the method of confession and the principle that should guide the assignment of penances. In the first case, the metropolitan forbids Christians to move from one spiritual father to another. why in his answer to Athanasius he orders that the priests should not accept for confession those who have left their former spiritual fathers. This rule obviously meant those who, being dissatisfied with their spiritual fathers, looked for others. Determining the method of confession, the Metropolitan orders, after the prescribed singing and readings, to test those who repent of all sins, taking into account the rank of those confessing, for example, clergy and monks more carefully than others, and the latter even more carefully than the former. To inquire into sins, it is prescribed to investigate not only about sinful deeds, but also about the reasons for them. In accordance with this, Cyprian also answers the question about penances. He prescribes the imposition of penances in accordance with the properties of sins and with the states of the penitents - mental, healthy and sick, also with their external position, rank and age, so that penances for the same sins for monks should be stricter than for clergy and laity. The first and main rule in relation to the sacrament of Communion is that it should be performed on decent substances - on bread and wine. Metropolitan Cyprian wrote that celebrating the Divine Liturgy without wine is a great lawlessness. In accordance with the greatness of the Eucharist, the saint demands that the bread for it be pure both in composition and in the method of preparation. Therefore, he orders that women involved in baking prosphora must be either virgins or monogamous, and commands that bigamous and trigamous women be excluded from preparing prosphora. Speaking about the first part of the liturgy, about the proskomedia, he gives instructions regarding the prosphora of the “Lamb” and the performers of the proskomedia. The prosphora for the Lamb should be special with a cross, but it can be replaced with another one if it also has a cross. Proskomedia should generally be performed by a priest; The deacon is prohibited from performing proskomedia. Presanctified Lambs can be kept in your church or transferred to another church. The most important rule when celebrating the liturgy is that the Eucharist should be celebrated on a throne consecrated by the bishop or on a solid antimension. Therefore, contrary to the custom of the Pskov clergy, due to the lack of antimensions, dividing them and performing services in parts of them, Cyprian ordered that a whole antimension be placed on the throne. People of all classes, ranks and conditions, he wrote in his letter to Athanasius, should approach the Holy Mysteries with an equally pure disposition, without eating food. Demanding moral purity from those approaching communion, the saint in his letter to the Pskov clergy commands to commune only those who are worthy; that is why he often allowed worthy monks to partake of the Holy Mysteries. Worthy monks, he wrote to Athanasius, can always be admitted, but others are at the discretion of the abbot. Based on the same principle, he commanded that the unworthy should be excommunicated from the sacrament of Communion, the time of excommunication being in accordance with the severity of their sins. Thieves, murderers, as well as those who are disobedient to their spiritual fathers, priests should only grant the Holy Mysteries before death, if only they repent. If any of them, having been worthy to receive the Holy Mysteries, recovers, he must bear penance in accordance with the nature of his sins. When determining the order in which believers should approach the sacrament of Communion, the Metropolitan had in mind the deanery. Therefore, he wrote to the Pskov clergy, men and women should receive communion separately, the former at the royal doors, and the latter at the northern ones; both should begin Communion with their hands folded crosswise. Communion of the Holy Mysteries Cyprian indicates at every liturgy of St. Chrysostom and at the liturgy of St. Basil the Great, and even at the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. As for the divine service itself, the rules of Metropolitan Cyprian determine some of the ritual details of the daytime services. Thus, speaking in general about divine services, he demands that, when performing it, each clergyman conducts his own work, so that a priest, for example, does not serve instead of a deacon, and if there is no deacon, then the priest must serve alone, because “a priest is a priest,” as Cyprian noted, “and a deacon is a deacon.” This rule applies to every divine service, even to a memorial service, and is aimed at maintaining church and liturgical decorum. For the same purpose, the Metropolitan demanded that on Holy Thursday all the Gospels be read by a priest in full vestments and on the throne. Proposing further rules about the composition and some parts of the service, he prescribes to read at Vespers, as we already know, 8 prayers, and at Matins 12, at the prayer service to sing “God is the Lord”, and at the requiem service “Alleluia”, and during the service to read the Explanatory Gospel, and at the meal the Patericon of St. Ephraim, Dorotheus, the Six Days of Basil the Great and the works of John Chrysostom, as well as the festive readings that were not read at matins. When the hours are sung with the liturgy, then the apostle and the Gospel are read outside the altar, and if without the liturgy, then the apostle is read in the middle of the church, and the Gospel in the altar. “Holy God” in the liturgy is sung in the altar only for the last time, and the first three times in the choir. At the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, the vessels are placed and covered without saying prayers. Regarding the sacrament of Marriage, Metropolitan Cyprian speaks only about the performers of this sacrament. Imitating the example of the patriarchs of Constantinople, Russian metropolitans and bishops, and after them monks, sometimes performed marriages. Therefore, Metropolitan Cyprian, in his letter to Abbot Athanasius, makes the following reservation on this score: “It is not worthy for an abbot or a monk to crown a priest: worldly priests are that business, not a monk’s.” the question of the right of a priest-monk to perform a wedding aroused confusion both here and in Greece, but in practice it was recognized in most cases. Cyprian’s negative decision stemmed from the desire to remove monks from participation in worldly affairs and to make the monastery an ascetic institution. Regarding the consecration of churches, Cyprian solves the following questions: how to lay the foundation of churches and with what difference in the vestments of a lay priest and a monk, is it necessary to consecrate chapels and how to use antimensions? The laying of the church, in the answers to Athanasius, is indicated by the expression “cover the church,” which has also passed into ecclesiastical legal language. However, in the Trebniks and in service books in general, this rite is called the rite of founding the church and “weaving the cross.” This rite consists of the actions of the priest during the laying and prayers for this occasion. Known from the most ancient Breviaries, it, without a doubt, was perfectly familiar to Cyprian’s contemporaries, and therefore in the letter to Athanasius it is not about it, but about the vestments of a Balti priest and monk. The monk priest, according to Cyprian, puts on only the epitrachelion during the laying, and the lay priest puts on all the priestly clothing. Judging by the fact that in the article about the need for a priest to put on all official clothes, under full vestments a surplice is also required, one would think that in the letter to Athanasius the surplice, stole and phelonion are meant, but in fact this, apparently, was not the case, because in the handwritten Breviaries known to us it is only noted that the priest, having arrived at the laying site, will put on the stole and felonion. As for the expression “and having given such a prayer, the church taxes,” the use of the singular does not necessarily indicate the use of only one prayer, because they are sometimes read in twos, and, moreover, in service books of the 14th–15th centuries. Is it necessary to consecrate the chapel? “There is no consecration of the chapel; Below in the charter it is written about this, below it is legislated.” In giving such a decision, Cyprian was right in accordance with the letter of the ancient charter, where there really was no rite of consecration of chapels, and he had even more right to do so in view of the very likely misunderstanding, according to which some introduced rites of complete consecration of churches into the consecration of chapels. In fact, houses of worship were founded with prayer and the erection of a cross, and with the blessing of such chapels there was not only a full rite of consecration> 391. Hegumen Afanasy asked the Metropolitan: “How can one bury a lay priest?” This question is not aimed at all at finding out the differences between the burial rites for priests and the burial rites for lay people, but at seeing the difference in the burial of a non-monastic priest from a hieromonastic one. A lay priest, answers Metropolitan Cyprian, bury him, and then it follows how exactly. Then we talk about how to “manage the black priest”; and since this management coincided with the preparation for the burial of every monk, then it is further said how to dress and lay the latter. The question arose due to the following circumstance: in the ancient Slavic list of the Studite Rule (No. 330), in the article on burial, the burial of a monk is referred to, with only a small reservation regarding how to dress and manage a monk - priest and deacon, and not a word is said about how to bury lay people. it is clear that in the charter, designed for monastic life, there was no need to include the rite of secular burial: this latter could be found in the Consumer Book. During the time of Metropolitan Cyprian - and much earlier - it already received a certain form and was presented separately from the monastic one. evidence is provided by the most ancient Euchologies, in which the Beletsky burial rite and the monastic burial rite are recorded separately, as two special sequences. At this point, in fact, the development of the then Trebnik in relation to the rite of burial stopped, and church sources do not speak about a special sequence of funeral services for priests, children, and women. And the monastic order itself in essence differs little from the secular one: both in its basis and in the arrangement of the service material - both of them constitute nothing more than a development and modification of one general theme. What distinguished the monastic following most of all was the introductory remarks about the preparation for burial of the great schema-monks, schema-monks and monastic priests. As for secular burial, there was nothing of the kind, and the question about the method of priestly burial remained unanswered. Only special prayers were placed over the deceased monk, layman, baby and priest. Hegumen Athanasius, wanting to fill this ritual gap, turned to Cyprian with the question: how to bury a secular priest? The essence of the answer given by the latter is that a lay priest should be buried in full priestly vestments; Having placed it in a coffin, pour oil over it in a cross pattern and, at the end of the usual funeral service, bury it in the ground, “like any dead person.” If the Slavic Trebniks contemporary to Cyprian did not give instructions on the burial of lay priests, then the question arises: where, from what sources, did he borrow the data for his answer to Athanasius? He takes them from the ritual over monastic priests and transfers them to lay priests. The earliest and most complete of such instructions is found in the article we mentioned about burial in the Synod. Charter No. 330 (380) and in the Synodal Helmsman of the 13th century. This is what is said here about the burial of a priest-monk: “...whether there is a priest, otherwise everything happens the same way (i.e., as during the burial of a simple monk), both after rubbing him with his lip and after he is clothed in a new retinue... and in a cleansing epitrachelion... and they will clothe him and from above in a phelonion... then I will pour the former oil of the priest in the manner of the cross on the faces, on persekh and on the knee and will be buried.” One had only to exclude from this article what had a special relation to the monk in order to obtain a general rule about the preparation for the burial of a lay priest. And indeed, comparing Cyprian’s answer, it is not difficult to notice that he is entirely based on this article, even repeating some of its expressions. And what is superfluous in this answer was taken from the general monastic rite and was omitted in the synodal article because it was assumed by itself from the monastic burial rite that preceded it. The later Greek and Slavic Trebniks do not add anything new to this article, except for a few details of a secondary nature, and still do not provide a solution to the funeral of priests. About how to manage a monk-priest, Cyprian answers: “like any monk”; but the answer is inaccurate, and one might think from it that, in the opinion of our metropolitan, the monk priest should be buried not in vestments, but in monastic attire, like every monk who has died. But this would be contrary to the established custom in this regard, to the direct instructions of the statutes and Trebniks, and, finally, would be at odds with what was told to them a little higher regarding the burial of lay priests, that they should be buried in vestments, just like a priest-monk. What, then, will this contradiction mean and how can it be explained? We believe that it came from an unfortunate quotation by Cyprian of the passage in the Trebnik where this subject is dealt with. The remark about monastic priests follows here directly after the presentation of the rite of monastic burial and begins with a reference to this presentation: “Even if there is a priest (i.e., a monk), everything else happens the same way.” But the word “also” refers here to the funeral rite, and not to what to dress the deceased monk-priest in, because further on we are talking about dressing him in priestly vestments. Cyprian, apparently, grabbed only the first words of the article he needed, without noticing that they referred to something completely different, and what came out was not what he wanted to say. To prevent such a misunderstanding, in later editions of this article an addition of this kind was made: “if there is a priest, otherwise the whole service will be like this,” and thus the identity is limited to one order of the funeral service. We consider it unnecessary to note that Cyprian’s instructions regarding the preparation for the burial of the monk do not belong to him personally, but are borrowed from the same sources as the previous ones, and our metropolitan, without a doubt, refers to them, saying: “... as it is decreed to eat.” However, Cyprian hardly needed to dwell on the rites of monastic burial in general: this matter was, of course, very well known to Athanasius himself, and that was not what he asked Cyprian. Two short remarks can serve as an addition to the rite of secular burial, but, unfortunately, it remains unknown what question on the part of Athanasius prompted them. First: “If a layman dies, the spiritual father will read a prayer over him, or if it comes in handy in some way, and then put him on the throne.” What kind of prayer is meant here? We think that we are not talking about the funeral rite itself, but about the prayer that precedes it, which, under the name of prayer over a deceased layman, was placed in the ancient Trebniks before the burial rite and was pronounced over the deceased before being taken out. “And then he will put it on his perch.” There is, in all likelihood, an omission or some kind of inaccuracy in general. We think that here we are talking about a prayer that was read by the priest, standing on one leg on the lid of the coffin when lowering it into the grave. And I.D.’s guess Mansvetov, that here we are talking about an icon that was placed on the chest of the deceased, can hardly be accepted without objection. Second note: how to deal with a deceased layman who died without confession and without a spiritual father? Cyprian answers: “...sing over him, also read a prayer over him, and leave the rest to the love of mankind” (i.e., God). The ancient rules for that case were very strict, and those who died without repentance were denied Christian burial. In Kirik's questions, over such persons, in order to intimidate others, the priest performed the service without vestments. How to celebrate a memorial if someone died during Lent in the middle of the week? (i.e. not on Saturday and Sunday). Cyprian answers this question as follows: “As for the coming Great Lent, if it happens that someone from us passes away from this life in the middle of the week, singing over him (i.e., performing a funeral service), he is given over to the coffin, and there is no administration (i.e., no special funeral service), below the requiem (sic!) should be done, dispelled (sic!) on Friday evening, and on Saturday remembrance (i.e. at matins and liturgy); the same on all Fridays of Great Lent except the fifth and sixth Saturdays.” This rule was borrowed by Cyprian from the Greek service books of that time and is read in many Greek and Slavic statutes of the Jerusalem edition. Hence, with some minor differences in presentation, this article was included in the Psalter of Cyprian. Memorial days - both in terms of service and in relation to fasting - were celebrated as holidays. The reason is that the commemoration of the dead was combined with the celebration of the liturgy and offerings, from which agapes were composed; this contradicted the days of fasting, and therefore was abolished by the 51st rule of the Council of Laodicea. Actually, it concerns the days of remembrance of the martyrs, but ordinary commemorations were also celebrated according to their model, and Balsamon was absolutely right when he said the following at the conclusion of his interpretation of this rule: “Note that on the basis of this rule, the commemoration of the dead is not carried out throughout the entire Pentecost, except on Saturday.” Cyprian's remark about what days the funeral service should not be held is based on the rule in this regard of the ancient Greek charter. The general rule about disremembrance on Saturday evening and Sunday is too well known to dwell on it: let us note the source of others, less well known. After Easter, commemoration is celebrated every day except Sundays. This is what it says in the oldest record of the Studio Charter and in Afanasiev. During Lent - only on Friday evening and Saturday, except for Saturdays of the 5th and 6th week - in the charter of Empress Irina. In response to the question of Abbot Athanasius, “peti over the child who passed away,” Cyprian repeats the same remark that was made in his answers to Kirik. Only in Cyprian the requirement for the funeral of the baby is expressed without explanation, and in the answers to Chiriku it is motivated, as we have already seen, by the consideration that the funeral rite is performed on the dead not for their sake, but as over saints. From a comparison of these data, it turns out that in both the 12th and 14th centuries in Rus', funeral services for infants were considered unnecessary, and this opinion was based on the consideration that infants, having no personal sins, die innocent. Perhaps some folk prejudices and superstitions were mixed in with this. It is interesting to note that this opinion was also held by persons from the clergy, and it found a place for itself in service books. Thus, according to the Trebnik of the Trinity Lavra of 1474 No. 224, one prayer is read over an infant who died before 12 months, and a full funeral service is performed for a two-year-old child. Of course, this was not a general custom, and the children of the grand dukes were buried in accordance with a certain rite. But what kind of rite it was, especially at the beginning: whether the order of secular burial was complete, or shortened, or, perhaps, the whole matter was limited to one prayer - without having positive data on this, we cannot decide. Let's just say that the most ancient Trebniks do not know a special rite for infant burial and are limited to one prayer over the deceased baby. Gohar says that he has not seen such a sequence in liturgical manuscripts. According to the Slavic Trebniks, it appears in the 16th century.> 392 As for the rite of infant burial, as we already know, often adopted by our liturgical monuments to Metropolitan Cyprian, this simple inscription needs very serious justification and evidence so that the appearance in our liturgical practice of the rite we are considering can be attributed to the era of Metropolitan Cyprian. From the rules of Metropolitan Cyprian regarding monks, it is clear that in Russia in his time the custom of receiving the schema, especially before death, was very strong. some considered this so necessary that they allowed themselves to be clothed with the schema even by persons who did not have the right to do so, while others put the schema on the dead. Hegumen Athanasius, without denying the importance of tonsure into the schema, did not, however, share common opinions on this matter and did not want extremes to arise from this custom. Exposing his bewilderments to the Metropolitan, he asked: is it possible to tonsure the dead into the schema, and who generally has the right to tonsure? Prohibiting absolutely the first, Cyprian replied that in cases of extreme need only non-schemniks could be tonsured into the schema, but in general this should be done by a schema-monk. He who has been tonsured into the schema, the saint continued, is always obliged to wear the schema and klobuk (doll) and must never leave them behind. Other rules of Metropolitan Cyprian relate to tonsure into the minor schema itself, or ordinary monasticism, and some duties of persons who have already accepted monasticism. As for the tonsure itself, Cyprian indicates the persons who should perform it and defines some conditions for its implementation. These rules, as well as the questions of Athanasius, show that the desire to accept monastic life was very strong at that time, and that the shepherds even tried to moderate it. At the same time, it was noticed that in some places parish priests tonsured monastic vows, several people at a time and often half-dead. Athanasius himself could not solve all this and therefore asked the Metropolitan about all this. Cyprian answered these questions in the same spirit as he answered questions about tonsure into the schema. Prohibiting parish priests from tonsuring into monasticism, the saint says that this must be done without fail and only by holy monks. But holy monks can also do this subject to certain conditions: that the person being tonsured must be alone and that he be in full consciousness; He strictly forbids tonsuring several people, even two at a time, as well as tonsuring dying people when their tongue has already been taken away. These instructions are obviously directed against the false opinion due to which some wanted to tonsure even the dead, thinking that monasticism, accepted without free consent, could of itself save the deceased. To test obedience during the tonsure itself, Cyprian allows the tonsured person to give names to those being tonsured according to his own discretion, and not the saints of the day, but whatever he wants. In response to a question about the method of tonsuring monks and nuns, the Metropolitan says that the rite of tonsure for both should be the same. A strict and prudent shepherd, Cyprian demanded, on the one hand, that the monks, having renounced the world, should not have any relations with him, and on the other hand, he dissolved the severity of the rules of monastic life with prudent indulgence. He expressed this in the following rules for monks. Monks, he answered Athanasius, should certainly confess and receive communion from monks, and from parish priests only in cases of extreme need. Monks must be present at divine services every day and certainly in full monastic attire: they are only allowed to pray in their cells in a cassock and a small hood. According to the force of the first prescription, monks are not given consecration prayers on the Nativity of Christ, Easter and Peter's Day, like the laity. “Whenever it is necessary (it is said about the laity) to come to the church,” Cyprian answered abbot Af[anasius], “but when it is not comprehended, they also do not have the rules regarding food and drink.” But the motive put forward by the author of the letter to Athanasius covers only one side of the matter and loses sight of the main purpose of these prayers as preparatory for Communion. That is why in the ancient Trebniks they are called prayers to spiritual children and mean communicants for whom forgiveness of sins and worthy communion are asked. A hint of this motive is also made by Cyprian when he further says that the monks, fulfilling the constant rule of prayer, “whenever it is time for them to receive communion, having read the prescribed prayers to themselves with Holy Communion,” proceed to the sacrament. In the old days, the laity fasted during all fasts and received communion on all major holidays. Regarding the ritual of erecting the cross on the feast of the Exaltation of the World, Cyprian, in a letter to the Novgorod clergy, says that it can be performed everywhere, in all churches, even if only one priest serves. The strength of the remark lies in the fact that this rite was initially performed in cathedral churches by the bishop, and in large monasteries by abbots. In both cases, a solemn service was assumed, in which many priests and deacons participated. In ordinary churches they did not celebrate it, and the whole affair was limited to the removal and veneration of the cross” 393 . Due to lack of time, we are not able to fully exhaust the entire content of Metropolitan Cyprian’s letters, but we consider what we have said to be quite sufficient to summarize the literary and liturgical activity of this metropolitan and indicate its significance in the history of worship in the Russian Church. 1) Of all the manuscripts that were attributed to Metropolitan Cyprian in its entirety, only one can be assimilated to him - this is the RKP. Moscow Synodal Library No. 601 (344), and not in its entirety, but only in the first half of it, containing the rites of the liturgies until the afterword. 2) Of the prayers and rites inscribed in the name of Metropolitan Cyprian, only the prayer over the tomb of the Lutsk prince Dmitry belongs to him cannot be disputed. As for the remaining prayers and rites, their connection with the name of Metropolitan Cyprian requires great and compelling evidence. 3) Finally, undoubtedly the only letters belonging to Metropolitan Cyprian were addressed at different times to the clergy under his command, in which he showed, [on the one hand,] a lot of diligence and zeal in organizing divine services in our Church according to the order and uniformity for all localities and churches of Russia, and on the other hand, a wide acquaintance with the liturgical writing of the East, from which he transplanted to us very many rituals and rites and follow-up. Thus, if we take into account the number of literary and liturgical works of Metropolitan Cyprian, which undoubtedly belong to him, then at first glance it may seem [that] the significance of this outstanding personality in the history of worship of the Russian Church is not particularly great. One might think that Metropolitan Cyprian actually took measures to organize and bring into proper order the divine services in our Church, but these measures, as shown by the liturgical monuments contemporary to Metropolitan Cyprian, which differ from each other in very sharp features, in practice did not have the proper and expected results. But this is only at first glance, but in fact, after a serious study of the era that preceded the appearance of Metropolitan Cyprian in Rus', and the state of worship in our Church under him, before him and after him, one cannot help but see his, one might say, gigantic labors in relation to worship in our Church - labors that he endured almost alone on his shoulders, having at his disposal only two or three more or less outstanding collaborators, such as, for example, Theodore, Bishop of Rostov, and some others. The main merit of Metropolitan Cyprian was not that he developed the casuistic side of our still simple ritual and, through practical advice, almost always based on the canons of the Councils and the practice of the Christian East, he put an end to the vacillation that reigned in his time in liturgical practice, because a similar role was taken on by some other hierarchs of the Russian Church, for example. John II, Niphon, Bishop of Novgorod, Cyril II and even entire Councils, for example. Vladimir, Constantinople 1276; but the fact is that he was the first, one might say, of the Russian hierarchs to indicate the real cause of the unrest that reigned in the worship of our Church of his time, and outlined the path along which it had to go, so as not to be torn away from the real soil and not to lose its genetic connection. A student of the Athonite Serbian monasteries, where at that time liturgical writing flourished in full force, familiar with the state of worship in the Christian East of that time, having assimilated and become sufficiently familiar with the works of Philotheus, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Euthymius, Patriarch of Tarnovo, he was almost the first to decide to acquaint the Russian Church with the state of ritual in the East. The fruit of his labors, as we have already seen, were ranks, either personally copied from originals of South Slavic origin by himself, or by his closest collaborators. These ranks were distributed to the subordinate clergy. Unfortunately, all the undoubted signs by which it would be possible to assimilate these or other manuscripts to Metropolitan Cyprian have been lost, and those signed with his name and assimilated by him in literature, as we know, arouse a lot of objections that prevent us from recognizing the Cyprian origin of these manuscripts, and therefore it is very difficult to say definitely how great was the significance of Metropolitan Cyprian’s works regarding divine services in the Ancient Rus' and which works of the Eastern patriarchs most enjoyed the sympathy of our Metropolitan, and therefore most of all became known to the Russian people through his works. But it is already enough that the name of Metropolitan Cyprian was very popular in ancient liturgical writing and was abused more than the names of other Russian hierarchs, signing it over the rites and prayers that became known in the liturgical practice of Ancient Rus' long after the death of this metropolitan, so that, without mincing words, we can say that the personality of Metropolitan Cyprian, as liturgist, was surrounded by a brilliant halo, and her fame was not smoothed out by the all-crushing time. Unfortunately, the direction given to worship in our Church did not last long and was not understood even by his successor in the department, Metropolitan Photius, who also worked a lot in the liturgical field. Here, perhaps, lies the reason why the works of Metropolitan Cyprian have not reached our time in its present form. However, we will talk about the direction that Metropolitan Cyprian gave in the history of worship in our Church, and about replacing it with another, in one of the following lectures. We saw with what zeal Metropolitan Cyprian was engaged in organizing and bringing divine services in our Church into the proper uniformity. We further noted that this activity of the zealous shepherd of the Russian Church did not have the brilliant results that Metropolitan Cyprian expected from his activity, because the “right and true” ranks, which he himself rewrote and sent to the subordinate clergy, only 36 years later his successor in the metropolitan department was forced to replace with his own ranks “according to tradition and the legalization of the holy orders.” We finally, although on the side, made hints as to where to look for the cause of this undesirable phenomenon in the history of worship in our Church. Metropolitan Cyprian, as a Slav by blood, as a graduate of the Serbian Athos monastery, as a relative of Euthymius, Patriarch of Tarnovo, who worked so much and diligently on the organization of worship in the South Slavic lands, as, finally, an expert in the worship of the South Slavic Churches in general, having come to Rus' and finally establishing himself at the metropolitan see in 1390, I could not help but draw attention to the state of worship in our Church in general and to our liturgical books in particular. The latter in their features differed so greatly from the liturgical books of the South Slavic that these differences made an overwhelming impression, especially on such beginners and experts in the divine services of the South Slavic Churches as Metropolitan Cyprian was in the Russian Church, especially in the first time after his arrival from his homeland. It is clear that his first thought was to destroy the existing diversity in the liturgical books and harmonize them with the liturgical books of the South Slavic Churches. For us, the disadvantage of such a comparison of our liturgical books with the South Slavic ones should seem obvious, but to Metropolitan Cyprian it did not seem so. The latter did not know well the real reasons for the diversity of liturgical books that existed at that time in our Church, which, as we already had occasion to see, depended both on the fact that not the same charter regulated worship in our Church and in the Churches of the Christian East, and on the difference in the editions of liturgical rites, which were not simultaneously included in liturgical practice, and on many other conditions, but by checking these books only according to contemporary books of South Slavic origin, which he considered - and very naturally - to be a direct copy of the Greek Byzantine books, Metropolitan Cyprian could only testify to the ranks that came before him as “wrong and untrue.” This opinion was supported, albeit for a different reason, by the Russian bishops and priests themselves, who, like, for example, the Pskov clergy, in 1395 directly admitted that they did not have “the right church rule.” It is clear that this was a simple misunderstanding, because the Pskov clergy did not know how to explain to themselves the existing diversity of liturgical rites and establish once and for all the order, shaken through this, in church practice itself, but it was not understood by the foreign archpastor, who, as we have already said, himself vaguely understood the state of affairs that occupied him and the Russian clergy of his day. But, having once turned to the practice of the South Slavic Churches, Metropolitan Cyprian boldly and decisively followed the road familiar to him, which led him to the recognition of the abnormality of the current state of affairs and the consciousness of its possible rapid destruction through the recommendation of ranks of South Slavic origin to the clergy subordinate to him, either in his own lists, or in the lists of his closest collaborators. We already know how Metropolitan Cyprian expressed his protest against the existing order in church and liturgical practice. We will repeat here his own words on this matter in order to see how far his plans extended in the matter of organizing worship in our Church. “And what you have heard,” said Metropolitan Cyprian in the letter we mentioned in Pskov dated 1395, “which you do not have the right church rule, then you, having copied, gave them the charter of the divine service of Chrysostom and Great Basil, also the very service of Chrysostom, and the priesthood on the first day of August, according to the charter, also the synodikon right, true, which is revered in Tsarigorod, in St. Sophia, in the Patriarchate: let us add to the way that Orthodox kings are remembered, as well as the great princes, both dead and living, just as we commemorate here in the metropolis, also the baptism of children and every Christian, then betrothal and wedding. “And what we didn’t have time to copy now,” he added, “what you need, otherwise we want to force you to write it easily, and even then you will have it, but what was copied and sent to you with your brother, that is, everything is right, true.” From here the plans of Metropolitan Cyprian could not be clearer. Unfortunately, we could not determine how satisfactorily he completed them, because, as we now know, very few works that undoubtedly belonged to this metropolitan have reached us, and the opinion established in the literature regarding the ownership of some manuscripts by him was not justified by actual facts; Nevertheless, the facts accessible to our direct observation establish, by the way, a very curious phenomenon: from this very time, in relation to divine services, we have noticed a very strong inclination towards the divine services of the South Slavic Churches. Our liturgical ranks, despite their direct inscription that they are copied word for word “from Greek books,” upon comparison turn out to be ranks that have origins or, rather, similarities with the South Slavic ranks. It is from the 14th century. and especially at the beginning of the 15th century. a significant influx of liturgical monuments from the South Slavic lands is noticed, which for some time seemed to subordinate to their influence the liturgical rites that had taken place in our church practice until that time, and became, as it were, dominant. In relation to the liturgical monuments of our Church of this time, in general, a real influx of manuscripts of South Slavic origin was marked by the fact that several lists of the same rite appeared in our liturgical books. Along with the previously existing ranks, new rites appeared in liturgical practice, which our practice had not previously known, and at the same time, consequently, the diversity in the liturgical practice itself increased. More specifically, in relation to the rite of the liturgy, the activity of Metropolitan Cyprian was marked by the introduction into our liturgical practice of the rite of the liturgy in the Philotheevian edition, which from that time, thanks to its convenience in service practice, finally supplanted the rite of the liturgy that previously existed, and which, although not in its primitive purity, continues to retain its strength to this day. The rite of liturgy, known as Patr. Philotheus of Constantinople, who twice ruled the patriarchal throne from 1362–1365 and 1369 to 1379, or “διάταξις τῆς ἱεροδιακονίας”, published by Gohar in his εὐχολόγιον-e and now printed in the Greek Euchologies, can hardly belong to this patriarch in its entirety. At least at present there is no positive evidence for this, except for the inscription in the title. As for the statute of the liturgy, it can undoubtedly be said about it that it has too little connection with the name of Patriarch Philotheus and was known in the liturgical practice of the Greek Church before this patriarch by almost a whole century. 394. The peculiarity of this rite of the liturgy, from the rite that took place in liturgical practice before Patriarch Philotheus, is that its compiler, based on various Greek copies of Chrysostom’s liturgy, with the intention of establishing uniformity in its performance, tried to determine the details of the rite in as complete a manner as possible, which was not the case before and which presented a wide field to the arbitrariness of the performer. As we already know, until the 14th century. the rite of the liturgy was not distinguished by such detail of presentation as we find in the current Service Books; then they did not write detailed regulations for the liturgy, as they do now; then only prayers were written in full, everything else was either not written at all, or only the first words were written (for example, litanies), but now all this was completed by the rite of the liturgy, now known with the name of Patriarch Philotheus, who developed the ritual casuistic side to the smallest detail. 395, have now huddled together and have decisively lost their real meaning in some cases. This needs to be said about our modern morning and evening prayers. After the death of Metropolitan Cyprian († 1406), Prince Vasily Dmitrievich of Voskovsky directly approached Patriarch Matthew of Constantinople and the Emperor with a request that they elect and send a metropolitan to Russia following previous examples. The Lithuanian prince Vitovt, on the contrary, himself elected a candidate for the metropolis - Bishop Theodosius of Polotsk, a Greek by birth - and, sending him to the capital of Greece, asked: “Make him a metropolitan for us, so that he sits on the table of the Kyiv metropolis in the old way and builds the Church of God in the old way, like ours: because by the will of God, we possess that city Kyiv." Vitovt’s request was not respected; on September 2, 1408, Photius, a Greek from Morea, who had been raised in the desert from a young age under the guidance of the famous elder Akakios, was installed as metropolitan in Kyiv and for all of Russia. A year later, Photius arrived in Kyiv, but the upset Vitovt did not want to accept him and accepted him only when Photius made an oath promise to often visit the Kyiv Church and take care of it. In April 1410 the new metropolitan reached Moscow and on the very day of Easter was solemnly greeted by the Grand Duke and the consecrated Council in front of a countless crowd of people.> 396 The new metropolitan combined with the high virtues of the monk the great zeal of the archpastor and was a worthy successor to the famous Cyprian, with the legacy of whose throne he continued his concerns for the worship of the Russian Church. The state of the Russian Church and the Metropolis gave his zeal for the improvement of the Church the direction, the strength and the limits that it really had. Despite the most attentive care for the Church and the life of Russian society, despite the most extensive church-governmental activities of Metropolitan Cyprian, in the Russian Church, in part, quite a lot of the same needs remained, and in others, many new needs and non-corrections occurred, of which the former urgently demanded satisfaction, and the latter, elimination. The division of the Russian metropolitanate, as a result of the election and installation of the South Lithuanian Metropolitan Gregory Tsamblak, as well as the unrest caused by the Strigolniks in Pskov, constituted one of the very first and most prominent disturbances in the Russian Church, which is why they were the first to attract the attention of Photius, who arrived in Russia. The latter wrote an extensive district message against Gregory Tsamblak, three messages to Pskov against the Strigolniki, nine messages and one teaching about and against the unrest that occurred from the malfunction of the clergy and the self-will of the people. Trying in everything to imitate his worthy predecessor Metropolitan Cyprian, Metropolitan Photius also paid serious attention to the state of worship in the Russian Church, tried to develop as fully as possible the casuistic ritual side of worship in our Church and, if possible, to establish order and uniformity in the rites. In the first case, the fruit of his efforts was several letters addressed to Pskov and Novgorod, the contents of which you will definitely need to get acquainted with for the exam from the article “Orthodox interlocutor” for 1866, book. 1, under the title: “Rules of Metropolitan Photius.” As for his concerns regarding the uniformity of ranks and their correctness, they were expressed by Metropolitan Photius himself in his letter to Pskov in 1431. “If only a priest, a skilled man, would be sent to me,” Metropolitan Photius wrote to the Pskov clergy, “and I will teach him about all the rules of the church and about church singing, and about holy services, and I will send the great holy ointment with the same, and whatever Holy Scripture you need, I will copy it all and send it to you: you need it.” is a true Orthodox Christian, according to the law of life and praise to God, according to tradition and the legalization of holy orders” 397. Metropolitan Photius, like his predecessor, was very much embarrassed by the variety of rites that our liturgical monuments of this time represented, but as a Greek by blood, who even poorly understood Slavic speech, coming to us directly from Constantinople, he held different views than Metropolitan Cyprian on the correctness of liturgical rites. Metropolitan Photius compared our liturgical rites with the monuments of the liturgical writing of the Greek Church of his time, which was best known to him. It goes without saying that such a comparison could in no way be in favor of our liturgical books, even if it were possible in them to destroy the features of the liturgy of the South Slavic Churches, introduced to us by Metropolitan Cyprian. One has only to compare the worship of the Greek Church until the 13th century (for example, according to εὐχολόγ [ιον-y] Gohar) with the state of worship in the same Church by the time of Metropolitan Photius (for example, according to the works of Simeon of Thessaloniki) in order to clearly see what a significant step the service in Greek took in its development Church and how comparatively far behind it the worship in our Church still lags behind. Therefore, it would not seem surprising if Metropolitan Photius, having come to us in Rus' and turning his attention to the liturgical rites of our monuments of ancient editions without the peculiarities of South Slavic worship, began to recommend to his clergy the rites that he himself approved and under his leadership translated from the contemporary liturgical monuments of the Greek Church, as the most faithful and “true” - especially nothing It cannot be strange that Metropolitan Photius, as a Greek, not knowing the real reasons for the variety of features that worship in the Russian Church represented in his time, recommended his rites for its destruction “according to tradition and the legalization of holy orders.” Thus, it is now completely clear why Metropolitan Photius in 1431, i.e. exactly 36 years later, he was forced to send his ranks again “according to tradition and the legalization of holy orders” to the same Pskov region, to which Metropolitan Cyprian sent his “right church rule” in 1395. That is why the ranks of our liturgical monuments of this time, in their features, are closer to the liturgical monuments of the Greek Church of the 14th and 15th centuries. That is why, further, in our liturgical monuments of the 15th century. we often come across two lists of the same rite, of which one, in its characteristics, is adjacent to the rites in the Serbian edition or in the most ancient Greek editions (which in most cases contained only prayers and in which the ritual side of the rites was very poorly developed), and the other rite has a striking resemblance to the liturgical rites of the Greek Church, but in later editions, which formed the basis for the basis of the famous interpretation of the ranks made by Archpastor Simeon of Thessalonica. That is why, finally, it is from this time that we notice such a significant influx of liturgical monuments of the Greek Church, which still occupy a leading place in our best capital book depositories and are many times greater in number than the monuments of the same Church, but of an earlier time. All these monuments had a very strong influence on our ranks, developed the ritual side in them to a significant extent, and opened a free path to possible arbitrary insertions, which were subsequently allowed not only by individual individuals, but even by Councils, such as, for example, the Stoglavs. With this I am finishing my course of readings on the history of worship in the Russian Church, in the full hope that I will have the pleasure of finishing it next year. True, there may be accidents, but now is not the time to talk about them. I will only say that what I have done so far is enough to clarify for myself the course and direction of the development of worship in our Church. The final fate of its history, even if it were not possible to present them to you from the pulpit even beyond hope, anyone interested in this subject will read in my published works. Now, taking advantage of a few free minutes of our last lecture, I will try to summarize briefly everything that has been said by me throughout this entire year in order to have, so to speak, a canvas on which you will have to embroider patterns for the upcoming exam. Having indicated the real place of my history in a number of other historical sciences, as a history that makes up for what is missing in the sciences related to it, I tried to prove that it can be developed completely scientifically only by the comparative genetic method and if, for the convenience of the researcher, it is divided into two periods, characterized by the dominance of the Studite and Jerusalem statutes, and into four eras according to their internal characteristics. After the introduction to science, I outlined the state of worship in the East so that you could see more clearly where worship began in our Church and how far it went in its further history in its development. At this, so to speak, transitional moment in the history of worship in our Church, I introduced you to the works of Slavic enlighteners and their merit for our Motherland. In order to imagine the latter more clearly, I tried to collect all the information that relates to liturgical writing at the first moment of the existence of the Church of Christ in our country and, as far as possible, to give a more or less correct idea about it. Since the main regulator of worship in our Church has been and continues to be the church liturgical charter, its history has occupied our attention for a relatively long time. I tried here to establish the opinion that the original charter in our Church was the Studian charter, although not in its entire form, which came out as such from the hands of Patriarch Alexy in the 11th century, but came to us in Rus' thanks to the efforts of Theodosius, abbot of Pechersk. The latter wanted to introduce the famous Rule of Constantinople for the monastery he founded, for which he sent one of his monks to a certain Ephraim Skopts, but since he did not receive any news from him for a long time, he turned to the monk Michael, a companion of Metropolitan, with a request for the same subject. George. This Michael granted his request, and when Ephraim Skopets sent a list of the charter, then, after reading it before the brethren and after comparing one list with another, [Theodosius] introduced it into practical use in his monastery. This charter subsequently passed to rural churches. But although the charter regulated the worship in our Church, gave the tone and direction to the divine service, nevertheless there was still much in our worship that was not at all foreseen by the charter or that the charter could not have foreseen at all. I mean many customs retained in liturgical practice from the time of our paganism. Our chronicles and archpastoral messages have preserved all these customs for us in all their purity, therefore, in order to get acquainted with that moment in the religious life of our ancestors, when they had not yet completely parted with paganism and had not fully assimilated Christian ideas, we tried to characterize our worship during this time, using the chronicles and the first lives of the saints. In the same regard, we were provided with an invaluable service by the letters of John II, Metropolitan of Russia, Cyril II, the answers of Nifont, Bishop. Novgorodsky, to questions from Kirik, acts of the Councils of Vladimir and Constantinople in 1276. The letters of bishops and conciliar decrees were interesting for us in another respect, namely: they clearly depicted before our eyes with what zeal the archpastors of the Russian Church were engaged in organizing divine services in our Church - on the one hand, and on the other - in what ways and under what influence our worship developed wider and wider and how the ritual side of liturgical rites in our Church was gradually developed. That is why we stopped at the analysis of these charters and conciliar decrees for a relatively very long time. But since the activity of Metropolitan Cyprian has no equal in history, we dwelled on it even longer than on the activity of other metropolitans of the Russian Church. The personality of Metropolitan Cyprian has long attracted the attention of historians, even in the ancient period of the history of our Church, and this interest in her has not only not disappeared, but, on the contrary, is becoming more and more intensified. Almost within our memory, the works of this great archpastor were brought to the light of God from the darkness of archival warehouses, about which in literature and even in life itself they began to talk a lot about “for” and “against”. This circumstance attracted the attention of our lovers of antiquity and hardworking scholars, who devoted entire monographs to the personality of Metropolitan Cyprian and his literary and liturgical activity, of which the monograph of the professor of the Moscow Spiritual Academy Mansvetov “Metropolitan Cyprian and his liturgical activity” attracts special attention due to its solid merits. I introduced you to this monograph over several lectures, but you will have a more thorough acquaintance with it for the exam. From this monograph you will be perfectly convinced that the fame of Metropolitan Cyprian is based more on the broad authority of his name than on the works that personally belong to him, because of all the manuscripts, the origin of which is associated with the name of this metropolitan, he can undoubtedly acquire only one manuscript of the Moscow Synodal Library No. 601 (344), and then not in its entirety, but only the rites of the liturgies until the afterword, written on behalf of this metropolitan. As for the prayers and rites that are inscribed with the name of this metropolitan, then, with the exception of the prayer over the tomb of Dmitry, Prince of Lutsk, all the others need more solid grounds to believe the inscriptions. Thus, only the letters addressed to the clergy subordinate to him at different times can undoubtedly be attributed to Cyprian. But for all this, his merits in relation to worship in our Church should be written down in golden letters by the historian and given them the most prominent place. His very attempt to introduce into the liturgical practice of our Church the Jerusalem Rule, which, in his opinion, was supposed to replace the Studite Rule, places this metropolitan highly. True, he himself did not have to put his idea into practice, but it was carried out according to his instructions after his death. The Jerusalem Charter, having become known in Rus' in 1317, was first translated into Russian in 1401 by the abbot of the Vysotsky Serpukhov Monastery Athanasius, who at that time lived in Constantinople in the monastery of the Mother of God Perivelepto. The prototype of this charter was the Studian charter, which was translated by Nikodim (between 1312–1315), the Serbian archbishop, while he was abbot of the Hilandar monastery under the Serbian rulers Milutin and Dragutin. The Jerusalem Rule was finally established in our liturgical practice at the end of the 15th century. and the beginning of the 16th century. Another important merit of Metropolitan Cyprian we recognize is his desire to verify the truth of our liturgical rites with the rites of the Serbian Church and the Churches of the Christian East in general, as well as the desire to accurately establish and develop to the fullest possible extent the ritual side of our liturgical rites. True, his first aspiration did not succeed and was not understood even by his successor in the department, Metropolitan Photius, who turned to the old road and tried to bring the worship in our Church closer to the worship of the Greek Church of his time, but nevertheless his thought, his idea found suitable soil for itself and was carried out to the end already two centuries after his death by Patriarch Nikon. Whether it was implemented well and whether its results were as expected by Metropolitan Cyprian and then Patriarch Nikon - this will be shown by future readings, and we consider it inconvenient to get ahead of ourselves. Name of Metropolitan Photius and his significance in the history of worship in our Church are still fresh in your memory, and therefore I do not consider myself entitled to abuse your attention by repeating what was said in this lecture. So you, gentlemen, now see that my outline is very narrow and not long; what your patterns will be based on it - this will be shown in the near future. In any case, I leave the pulpit with sincere gratitude for the attention you have given me over the past year, and with the heartfelt wish that the patterns I expect from you will be quite brilliant. Graduated April 7, 1883 Appendix 1. [About the rite of churching] This lecture was supposed to be given on October 28, but due to circumstances beyond my control, this did not happen. This lecture was intended by me instead of the first trial lecture by my own choice. Having received its present form, the modern Trebnik not only did not lose many of its internal shortcomings, but, on the contrary, over time it complicated them even more. Among such prominent shortcomings is the modern rite of churching, which in its present form serves as a stumbling block for many in many respects. The rite of churching is a prayer that is now performed on the fortieth day after the birth of a child. This name is borrowed from the main formula in this prayer book, which begins with the words: “The servant of God is churched,” etc. The name of the ranks from the words of the main formula in the prayer book is not uncommon in our even liturgical monuments. For example, the rite of the sacrament of Marriage, as is known, is divided into two rites, of which one is called the “rite of betrothal” from the formula “the servant of God is engaged,” and the other “the rite of Wedding” from the formula “the servant of God is married.” The Rite of Baptism comes from the formula “The servant of God is baptized.” The rite of tonsure as a monk also gets its name from the formula “The servant of God is tonsured.” The rite of churching in our present Trebnik occupies a place ahead of the rite of Baptism and is actually called this: “Prayers to a postpartum wife for forty days each.” This name has been retained by real prayers for a very long time. In all our handwritten Breviaries, Greek, Serbian, in all early printed Breviaries, you can see exactly this inscription. There are, however, monuments in which the real ritual begins like this: “On the fortieth day the boy is brought back to church,” etc. We find a similar beginning in manuscripts and even in the Trebnik of Peter Mohyla. As for the position of this rite in our liturgical monuments of old times in relation to the rite of Baptism, in some it occupies a place ahead of the rite, and in others after the rite. The above applies indifferently to handwritten and early printed Breviaries. The order of the rite of churching (as it is performed now) is as follows. On the 40th day after the birth of the baby, the mother and the child come to the church. The priest pronounces the initial exclamation and reads: Trisagion, “Holy Trinity”, “Our Father”, after the priest’s exclamation “For Thine is the kingdom”, troparia - absolution of the day and the saint, Glory and now, “Through the prayers of the Lord of all saints.” After reading the troparions, the mother bows her head, and the priest, having made the sign of the cross over the baby and, touching his head, reads the prayer “Lord God Almighty,” in which he asks the Lord God to save His servant and cleanse her from all sin and from all defilement and make her worthy to partake of the Holy Mysteries without condemnation, and then after veneration another prayer: “Lord God ours, who came to save the human race,” in which the priest prays for the same thing, i.e. so that the wife is allowed entry into the church of glory and that she is cleansed from all filth of soul and body. After the first two prayers to the “mother of the child,” the priest reads prayers to the “child” himself: “Lord our God, on the fortieth day the baby was brought to the lawful church,” in which he asks God to bless the child and to increase him in every good and pleasing deed, to drive away from him all resistive force with the sign of the imagination of the cross, to grant him through the Holy Spirit. Baptism receives part of the elect of the Kingdom of God. The first prayer, after the exclamations “Peace to all” and “Bow your heads to the Lord,” is followed by another prayer: “God the Father Almighty, foreshadowed to us by the most great prophet Isaiah,” in which he says at the beginning that the present bringing of a baby to the church is “imitation” (“and we faithfully imitate the grace of the Lord”) of that moment in the life of Christ the Savior when He “according to custom in the holy law, When the days of atonement are fulfilled, the sanctuary will undergo... and in the arms of the righteous Simeon, rush as you please,” and then the priest prays to God again that He would bless this child, together with his parents and adopters, and would grant him “at the time of need both the water and the spirit of birth” (i.e., the sacraments of Baptism) and would include him “with His flock of verbal sheep, called by the name of Thy Christ. “And if the baby is baptized,” we read further in the Trebnik, “the priest performs the churching. Otherwise, he does this after baptism. Here he gives absolution to prayers.” After reading all the prayers, the priest takes the child from the mother’s hands and, “drawing a cross for him in front of the gates of the church,” says: “The servant of God is being churched,” etc. Then, entering the church, he says: “He will enter Your house, bow down to Your holy church,” and in the middle of the church he again verses: “The servant of God will become churched” and “in the middle of the church he will sing to You.” Finally, in front of the doors of the altar, he again says: “The servant of God is churched” “and brings her (that is, the child) into the holy altar,” notes the Trebnik, “if there is a male gender; even a woman’s even to the royal doors,” while reading the prayer of Simeon the God-Receiver, “Now you let go.” “And to this day he places it (that is, the child) at the door of the altar,” the Trebnik says in conclusion, “and so the recipient, having bowed three times, takes it up and departs. And the priest does the dismissal, as is customary.” So, based on the analysis we have made, it is clearer than ever that the entire rite of churching consists of two significantly separated parts, namely: 1) prayers and 2) the act of churching itself. As a matter of fact, in its present form, the rite of churching can very easily be divided even into the following three parts: 1) “Prayers to the postpartum wife, forty days each,” 2) “Prayers for adolescence,” and, finally, 3) the act of churching itself. All these three parts stand completely apart and, as can be seen from our very detailed analysis of the prayers themselves, do not have any internal logical connection with each other. In fact, if we began to deduce the significance and meaning of the rite of churching from the prayers that precede it, then not only, contrary to the internal meaning and historical position of the phenomenon that occupies us, we would not at all clarify the meaning of the rite of churching, but, on the contrary, we would even become in internal contradiction with ourselves and would give a meaning that it never had and could not have. In the rite itself, as we have already seen, the rite of churching is recommended to be performed after the baptism of an infant. “As soon as the baby is baptized,” says our Trebnik, “the priest initiates the church. Otherwise, he does this after baptism.” And now we already know that, for example, in some monuments of the 16th century it was placed, in accordance with the practice of the Serbian Church, immediately after circumambulation of the font and ended with the very rite of Baptism. It cannot be otherwise. In all Orthodox Churches, from time immemorial and to this day, the performance of the rite of churching was and is combined with the bringing of the churched child either into the altar, or, at least, with the offering of him to the royal doors. “And he brings her (that is, the child) into the holy altar,” says our current and Greek Breviaries, “whether it be male or female, even before the royal sex.” In ancient practice, the churched child was even carried around the throne - the boy from all sides, and the girl from three, and sometimes both were carried around indifferently from all four sides. Some, to prove their idea that churching takes place before the sacrament of Baptism, refer [to] the treatise on Baptism by Simeon of Thessaloniki, but this is completely unfair: Simeon of Thessaloniki says the completely opposite. Here are his actual words: If the baby is baptized, then the priest brings him to the throne and carries him around, performing a kind of worship, showing that he is an offering to God and is worshiping the Creator. If the child has not yet been baptized, then, standing at the entrance to the altar and worshiping the altar with the baby and giving it to the mother, he releases it. Thus, if you do not attribute the ceremony of churching to the time after Baptism, then it is difficult to wrap your head around (or is completely impossible) two incompatible concepts - the altar, the holy of holies, where only those who were reborn in the sacrament of Baptism and washed from all filth of body and soul have access, and the bringing in of a catechumen (some want to compare it with a catechumen), which does not even have the right to enter the church. And according to our rite, a person being churched, as we already know, if he is a boy, is certainly brought into the altar. It was this last feature that brought to life with logical necessity the very remark about the transfer of the moment of churching to the time after baptism, which, as we have seen, took place in all handwritten monuments of the Churches of ancient Greek, ancient Yugoslavian and our ancient Russian. This remark was lost only with the introduction of printing in Russia. Neither the old printed editions of our Trebnik, nor even the Trebnik of Peter Mogila have it. It is also not in the Greek εὐχολόγιον editions. Roman 1754 (pag. 124), ed. Viennese 1839 (page 125), in the εὐχολόγιον-th of Goara, in the rite of Baptism, published by Martin in his work “De antiquis ecclesiae ritibus”, in the rite of Baptism, published by Daniel in his “Codex liturgicus”. It is therefore not surprising that Marten et al. do not attach any significance to this remark. But besides the fact that this remark, as we said, is caused with logical necessity by another remark about bringing the boy into the altar, the presence of the note that occupies us turns out to be an urgent need, especially clearly in such a Breviary as the Trebnik of Peter the Mogila. In our current Trebnik there is no definitive indication of where “prayers are read to make the catechumen,” but in the Trebnik of Peter Mogila on page 37 we read the following: “We sometimes bring the catechumen, or bring it, if there is a baby, to the church. The godfather and the person being baptized are standing outside the church doors. The priest, standing at the door, loosens the belt of the one who wants to be enlightened...” A little further on on the same page it is noted: “This happens in the porch of the church doors...” On page 49 it says: “Following St. Baptism. The priest enters the church and puts on all the priestly robes, white and narakvitsa,” etc. So, if even the very announcement up to and including the rite of Baptism is supposed to be done “outside in front of the church doors” or simply “in the porch,” then it is now self-evident that the rite of churching, which requires that the child being baptized be brought into the altar, undoubtedly followed Baptism, and did not precede it, and the existence of that remark, which is in the current Trebnik, in the Trebnik of Peter the Mogila, without any prejudice to the matter, could not be. It was already very obvious. If churching had always preceded the performance of the rites of the sacrament of Baptism, then in the Roman edition of 1754, after the first and second prayers over the child, there would have been absolutely no need to make such a remark: Ἰστέον, ὅτι εἰ τὸ παιδίον ἐβαπτίσθη, etc. (pages 124, 125). Where did the note that interests us come from about the time of the ceremony of churching in our Trebnik? The answer to this is given to us by the proof-reading Trebnik of Peter Mogila, located in the Moscow Printing Library and which undoubtedly served as a prototype for the Moscow Trebnik, printed under Patriarch Nikon. So, churching must certainly take place after the baptism of the baby, because the male baby must be brought into the altar, and the girl to the royal doors, and certainly on the fortieth day, in imitation, as the prayer says, of Jesus Christ being brought into the church and accepted into the arms of Elder Simeon. Consequently, performing the rite of churching in our modern liturgical practice, and precisely on the fortieth day, when Baptism of infants, with very rare exceptions, is performed in the period of time between the first and fortieth day after the birth of a child, is correct, but still not entirely. The latter depends on the fact that if we leave our present rite in the form in which it is performed now, i.e. perform after baptism and on the fortieth day after the birth of a child, then an attentive ear will listen to the following strange passages in the prayers of the rite of churching: “may you be worthy of holy baptism (ἵνα καταξιωθὲν τοῦ βαπτίσματος, τύχῃ τῆς μερίδος), will receive part of the elect of Thy Kingdom,” and again: “Even now, O Lord, preserve the infants, bless this child, together with his parents and followers, and make him worthy at the time of need, both by water and by the spirit of birth: liken him to Thy holy flock of verbal sheep, called by the name of Thy Christ.” (? παιδίον τοῦτο, ἅμα τοῖς γονεῦσι καὶ ἀναδόχοις αὐτοῦ· καὶ καταξίωσον αὐτὸ ἐν καιρῷ εὐθέτῳ καὶ τῆς δι᾿ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος ἀναγεννήσεως。 ποίμνῃ τῶν λογικῶν προβάτων, τῶν ἐπικεκλημένων τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου). These words in the mouth of a praying priest are not timely, because baptism over the baby has already been performed, and prayer about the past as about the future can always seem strange and cause some kind of reflection not in favor of our liturgical rites. That is why, in order to eliminate vain questions in such cases, it is possible to recommend separating from the rite of churching two prayers over children, which, as we said, do not have any logical connection either with the previous prayers “to the wife of the mother for forty days,” or with the subsequent rite of churching, or, much better, leaving two prayers over the child before the rite of churching, which place they occupy now and rightfully, as can be concluded based on their content, and the prayers to the postpartum wife “forty days each” and the rite of churching with the established name “rite of churching” should be placed in the Trebnik after the so-called sequence “washing on the 8th day” or after the rite of Confirmation. About the rite of churching, or, rather, about the prayers of a child and the rite of churching itself, back in 1864 in the “Wanderer” for the month of January, Hieromonk Ambrose wrote: “Since in our country, for the most part, the Baptism of infants and especially the sick is performed before the 40th day, and both rites - the cleansing of the mother and the churching of the baby - are combined; then prudence requires not to say the last two prayers for the youth, but right after the mother’s prayers to begin the churching of the child, which, as Hieromonk Ambrose concludes, “is what is done in practice” (p. 13, note 2). It is possible, however, to leave the rite that occupies us in the number of prayers of which it consists in our present Trebnik, but at the same time, some changes and abbreviations should be made in its very prayers, as was done, for example, in the Greek εὐχολόγιον-th Roman edition of 1754. Here, regarding the first prayer, the following remark is made: ἵνα διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου βαπτίσματος οὗ κατηξιώθη, τύχη...instead of ἵνα καταξιωθὲν τοῦ ἁγίου βαπτίσματος, τύχῃ τῆς μερίδος, etc. (That is, you should know that if the baby was baptized, this is what the priest says: so that through holy Baptism, which he (i.e., the baby) was worthy of, he would receive a portion, etc., instead of the words in the text of the prayer: “So that having been worthy of holy Baptism,” he would receive). There is also a note in the same εὐχολόγιον after the second prayer: ἐβαπτίσθη, οὐ λέγομεν τῆς εὐχῆς ὁ Θεὸς ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ παντοκράτωρ… (i.e. the second over the child) ἢ καταλιμπάνομεν ταῦτα – καὶ καταξίωσον αὐτὸ ἐν καιρῷ… μέχρι τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ σοῦ (or the words of this second prayer were omitted: “And in the time of need grant her, both by water and by the spirit of generation: to make her like Thy holy flock of verbal sheep, called by the name of Christ"). In this form (i.e., when the words of the prayer are shortened and changed), the rite of churching, having been transferred [to] the place indicated by us, i.e. at the end of the rite of baptism, will gain in integrity, will lose the strangeness that amazes the attentive listener and will acquire some external connection, which will be expressed in the idea that this rite is performed in memory of the Mother of God bringing the Baby Jesus to the church on the fortieth day, but again there will be no internal logical connection. So, we have now found: 1) that the act of churching must certainly be performed upon the baptism of the child, 2) that in the rite of churching in the form in which it is performed now, there are some inconsistencies, and therefore 3) we found it very expedient and rational, having made in the prayers of the rite those changes that we saw in the Roman εὐχολόγιον-e, the most move the day in the Trebnik to another place, and precisely by placing it after the sequence “washing on the 8th day”; or leave the prayers over the child unchanged and in the place they now occupy in the Trebnik, i.e. before the rite of Baptism, calling them, along with other clarification prayers, “announcement,” as Simeon of Thessalonica did. As for the prayers to the “mother-wife for forty days” with the ritual of churching, they still need to be postponed until after baptism. Now we need to find out the meaning and essential significance of the rite of churching and, if possible, in more detail, since here we significantly disagree with Martin and others, or, rather, express views that are symmetrically opposite. Let's start by explaining the word ἐκκλησιάζω. According to the philological explanation of almost all the best philologists, the verb ἐκκλησιάζω denotes persons who have received full rights of citizenship in a certain society or church. We take an ordinary Greek-Russian dictionary, published by the department of public education in 1848, on page 515 of part 1 we read: ἐκκλησιάζω means I am in the people’s assembly, I speak in the people’s assembly. The last meaning is especially important for our purpose. Now let’s take a more impressive look at the Greek Latin lexicon “Joannis Scapulae” Lond[on], edit. 1820, on page 293 in column 2 we find the meaning of this word as follows: “I have an assembly or council” (contionem habeo sive, consilium), also “I gather in an assembly”, and “again I reason in an assembly” (delibero in concione). Ἥκομεν, - says Isocrates about the world, - ἐκκλησιάζοντες περὶ τὲ πολέμου καὶ εἰρήνης - (We came to the meeting to talk both about war and peace). The verb ἐκκλησιάζω is used with the same meaning by Plutarch, Synesius and Aristophanes. In the latter, however, this verb has the meaning - I invite you to a meeting, I call you for advice. The verb ἐκκλησιάζω with the meaning “to speak publicly in a public assembly” is also used by biblical writers. In chapter 26 of the prophet Jeremiah in verse 9 it says: “And all the people gathered together against Jeremiah in the house of the Lord” Ἰερεμίαν ἐν οἴκῳ Κυρίῳ)). On this occasion, the people gathered at the instigation of the priests and false prophets to discuss, i.e. with the right to vote, the last sermon of the prophet Jeremiah, spoken by him during the reign of Joachim, son of Josiah, and pronounce his sentence: “let him die by death.” Hence the word ἐκκλησία began to designate the most popular public meetings. For Thucydides and Xenophon, “ἐκκλησίαν συλλέγειν” means to gather the people for a meeting, a council. The same word sometimes denoted the very place where the people's assembly met. Demosthenes uses “ἐκκλησία” with this meaning in his speech (Pro cavona). Among Christian writers, the word ἐκκλησία denotes a public meeting in which all those who profess Christ participate. This word is used with this meaning by St. Paul in the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians. The verb ἐκκλησιάζειν, now according to Ducange’s translation in his glossary on page 363, means “to make meetings”, “to gather” and is equal to the verb συνάγειν, συνάξεις ποιεῖν, “what the faithful do,” says Ducange, “when they come together in church, gather,” are present during the celebration of the sacred liturgy. The fathers of the Gangra Council used this verb with this meaning in canon 6 (If anyone holds special meetings outside the church and, having despised the Church, wants to carry out church needs without a presbyter appointed by the bishop; let him be anathema (p. 27, ed. Kaz[an], 1877); “Εἴ τις παρὰ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἰδίᾳ ἐκκλησιάζοι, καὶ καταφρωνῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας, τὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐθέλοι πράττειν, μὴ συνόντος τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου ". Ἐκκλησιάζεσθαι Daniel in his “Lexicon ecclesiae graece liturgicum”, which he appended to volume 2 of his edition “Codex liturgicum” translates this word - in templum induci. The Ἐκκλησιαζόμενοι in Cotelier's nomocanon are those who are allowed to gather in the church, but with the right to vote in all matters concerning church affairs, to which the οὐκ ἐκκλησιαζόμενοι had no right. Matthew Blastar in chapter 17, chapter 6 of his Syntagma calls the bishop the overseer and guardian of the souls of the churched τῶν ἐκκλησιαζομένων ψυχῶν). So, the Lord calls even the most Christians by the name of the last act performed on them in order to solemnly introduce them into the church and publicly recognize them as legally capable of performing all the duties of a Christian. This is how our Russian liturgical theologians understand churching. The Reverend Benjamin in his famous work “The New Tablet”, ed. [S]Pb., 1838, part IV, p. 9 explains the rite of churching. “Church,” says Rev. Benjamin, - it is to introduce the faithful into the church assembly, to include them in it: to be introduced and included in such a church assembly is to become a church member. Therefore, whoever is brought into the church for the first time, in which sacred rites and prayers are performed and the hearing of the word of God is carried out, is accepted into the church.” (It should be noted that Reverend Benjamin literally took this definition of the rite of churching from εὐχολογιον-a Gohar, where it appears on page 328 in 3 notes under the word ἐπὶ τῷ ἐκκλησιασθῆναι). The famous learned priest Const. Nikolsky in his very solid and thorough work “A Guide to the Study of the Rules of Divine Services of the Orthodox Church,” ed. 2. St. Petersburg, 1865, on page 623, he writes the following about the rite of churching: “On the fortieth day after the birth of the baby, the rite of churching of the youth is performed, i.e. the beginning of his introduction into the church... The churching of adolescence occurs on the fortieth day only when the baby is baptized. Before baptism takes place, churching does not take place.” In general, Nikolsky gives the same explanation for the rite of churching that is given in our current Trebnik. “On the fortieth day,” it is said here, “the boy is brought back to the church, to go to church, this is the beginning of acceptance into the church (ἐπὶ τῷ ἐκκλησιασθῆναι, εἴτουν ἀρχὴν λαβεῖν τοῦ εἰσάγεσθαι εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν). The custom of churching the newly baptized [and] introducing them for the first time solemnly into the community of believers and publicly announcing that from then on they are truly members of the Church originates from the depths of Christian antiquity. “After he has been washed (that is, baptized (note this)), he who has believed and taken a vow of allegiance,” says St. Justin the Martyr in his first apology - we bring him to the brethren - in order to make a common fervent prayer both for ourselves and for the enlightened one, and for all others who are everywhere, so that we may be worthy of knowing the truth, and by deeds be good citizens and fulfillers of the commandments to receive blessedness. Thus, in the ancient Christian Church, churching took place after baptism and through it the newly enlightened person received the right to enter the house of the Lord for general worship (Ambrose, The Sacrament of Holy Baptism according to the rite of the Orthodox Church. Stranger, 1864 St. Petersburg, book I, p. 13). So, calling the rite of churching “an announcement,” as some do, is in no way possible. It may even be interesting for you to know on what basis the rite of churching is called “announcement.” It turns out that this name was used on the basis of the words of Simeon of Thessalonica, who, as we already know, does not call the very rite of churching, but only the prayers over the child, the catechumen. Let's read this place in connection: 398 Publishing in his work the rite of churching from the Greek Euchologia, Marten makes the following note: “Although this title (name), it seems (videatur), denotes nothing more than the rite (ordo) for performing the catechumen, however, from what has been said so far, as it was agreed that catechumens were made through the image of the sign of the cross on their forehead - there is no reason to doubt that this custom, which begins with the sign of the cross, among the Greeks they were numbered among the catechumens. Our opinion,” Martin concludes, “is confirmed by Simeon of Thessalonica, who only partially touches on this custom and makes the following conclusion: “From now on, the baby becomes a catechumen, and the mother, as having been purified, receives the freedom to enter the church and partake of the Holy Mysteries.” But Martin, firstly, does not affirm positively that this rite is a catechumen, and, secondly, he says nothing about the very rite of churching and calls the prayers themselves catechumen, and this is because they are combined with the sign of the cross, which else, perhaps, one can agree with. On the fortieth day, again [the child] is brought to the church and here, as a gift, it is presented to God. The priest, standing in front of the doors of the church (because it is impossible to enter there before prayer) and sealed the mother with the baby, sanctified them with prayers and taught the mother purification from voluptuous and unclean birth (since forty days had already passed after birth, during which the baby was formed and began to play) and, allowing her entry into the church, which until then she was recognized as unworthy, as well as the Holy Communion; and taking the baby in his arms, in the image of Simeon, who accepted the Infant Lord into the arms, he exclaims: “Now you let go,” praying that the baby would be cleansed from sin and see the light - Christ, the revelation of tongues and the glory of the new Israel, being himself begotten by the Spirit and then seeing God. If the baby is baptized, then the priest brings him to the throne and circles him around, performing a kind of worship, showing that he is an offering to God and worships the Creator. If the child has not yet been baptized, then standing in front of the entrance to the altar and having worshiped the child at the altar and giving him to the mother, he releases him. From then on, the baby becomes a catechumen, and the mother, as having been purified, receives freedom to enter the church and partake of the Mysteries when she feels ready and desires (Writings of the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church. T. II, pp. 48, 49 399). “Why in the new church practice has the custom of churching after baptism taken over and what significance does churching have in this case? Let us imagine in response to this,” says Prof. N. Pokrovsky, – the following considerations. Currently, in our country, Baptism almost always takes place before the 40th day after the birth of a baby - a long-standing custom, explained for practical reasons; Meanwhile, prayers to a postpartum wife cannot be read earlier than the 40th day, when, according to the natural law of childbirth, the woman already becomes physically pure; and with these prayers in all the lists of the Trebnik, the prayers of adolescence and then churching itself are inextricably linked. Thus, the postponement of Baptism to one of the first forty days after the birth of the baby had the consequence of the celebration of churching, as closely connected with prayers to the wife on the 40th day after Baptism. But, despite the mechanical nature of such a rearrangement, churching after baptism still has its significance. In the Old Testament Church, circumcision on the 8th day did not exclude the need to bring the baby to the church on the 40th day, together with the purified mother. Christian baptism took the place of the Old Testament circumcision, churching took the place of the bringing of Jewish babies to the church on the 40th day. To be churched means to be introduced into the church assembly, to be numbered among the assembly of the faithful. Such inclusion, in essence, is accomplished through the sacrament of Baptism, in which a person is reborn to a new life and becomes a full member of Christian society; churching is a special expression of this inclusion; it can be compared to an official act by which the new rights of a new member of society are secured and by which he is introduced into the possession of these rights. The baby received rights in Baptism and accepted the responsibilities of Christianity; now, on the 40th day, these rights and responsibilities are clearly expressed; he visibly enters the assembly of the faithful, approaches the altar of the Lord, in which the fullness of Christian grace is concentrated. The ritual, obviously, is not only not superfluous, but also very important both in terms of historical memories of the Old Testament and in terms of its internal Christian meaning” (Church Bulletin No. 9, 1889, p. 165) 400. Appendix 2. A.A. Dmitrievsky. Program of readings on the history of worship in the Russian Church for the 1882/83 academic year for first and second year students of the Kazan Theological Academy (Test programs for I, II and III year students). L. 122–123 May 31, 1883 Program of readings on the History of worship in the Russian Church for the 1882/83 academic year for first and second year students of the Kazan Theological Academy. 1) The concept of the history of worship in the Russian Church in general. Its closest relation is to the general history of the worship of the Orthodox Church. Its position among other historical sciences. The need to separate the history of worship in the Russian Church from a number of these sciences. The importance and benefits of such a selection. Subject and tasks of the history of worship in the Russian Church. Method. Dividing it into periods and eras. General plan of readings. 2) Characteristics of worship in the 8th, 9th and 10th centuries in the Greek Churches and the South Slavic lands from which worship was accepted into our Church. Sources for such characteristics and their insufficiency. The generally accepted opinion regarding which of the Slavic branches saw the translation of sacred liturgical books for the first time. The inconsistency of this opinion. A real look at this matter. Constantine the Philosopher, as the initiator in the translation of Greek liturgical books into the Slavic-Moravian language. Their transition from the Moravians to the Bulgarians, and from these latter to us in Rus'. 3) Safarik’s opinion regarding the time of the transfer of Bulgarian liturgical books to us in the Russian Church. The inconsistency of this opinion. The existence of Slavic liturgical books in Rus' before the adoption of Christianity by St. Prince Vladimir. The unfoundedness of the opinion that Saint Vladimir received liturgical books in Korsun from the Bulgarians through the Greeks. The care of the successors of St. Vladimir about the translation and collection of Slavic books in Russia. 4) Brief bibliographic information about the famous ancient Slavic-Russian liturgical books stored in Russian libraries. First period (X–XIV centuries [c].) 5) The general nature of this period. The liturgical charter preceded the appearance in Rus' of the Studite Charter as amended by Patriarch Alexy of Constantinople (11th century). Brief information about the Greek Studio Rules. Reconciliation of various legends about the time of the appearance of the Studio Charter in Rus'. Characteristics and contents of this charter. Representatives of this charter are for monasteries, rural and urban churches. Russification of the Studio Charter. 6) Characteristics of the first era in the history of worship in the Russian Church. The complete dependence of worship in our Church on the Greek Church. Information regarding public and private worship in our country, borrowed from the first Russian chronicles and the lives of the first Russian miracle workers. The importance of this information for the historian. The concept of duality among the Russian people and the first tonsure. Baptism of the bones of Vladimir's brothers - Yaropolk and Oleg by Yaroslav in 1044, wedding rites, enthronement of bishops, etc. 7) The significance for the history of worship in the Russian Church of the canonical answers of Metropolitan John II to the questions of Yakov Chernorizets, the answers of Nifont, Bishop. Novgorod, on the questions of Kirik and the conciliar acts of Vladimir 1274 and Constantinople 1276. 8) Metropolitan Cyprian and his liturgical activity in the Russian Church. Manuscripts attributed to this metropolitan. The reasons for this and their refutation. 9) The following Psalter of Metropolitan Cyprian. Its significance in the history of worship in the Russian Church and characteristics. Prayers, canons and rites attributed to this metropolitan. 10) Guiding articles on various issues of church and liturgical practice. Epistles and teachings of Metropolitan Cyprian and their significance for the history of worship in our Church. Second period (XV–XIX [centuries]) 11) The general nature of this period. The appearance of the Jerusalem Rule in the Russian Church and the reasons for its appearance. Translation of this charter into Russian. Characteristics of the Jerusalem Charter. The difference between this charter and the Studite charter and the Jerusalem charter of our time. The relationship of the Jerusalem Rule to the Rule of the same name of the Greek Church. The time of conclusion of this charter in an unchanged composition. The causes and consequences of this immutability. 12) Characteristics of the second era in the history of worship in our Church. The direction given to worship in our Church by Metropolitan Cyprian. The influx of liturgical books from the South Slavic lands. Their influence on the liturgical books of our Church. Brief historical information regarding the order of the liturgy as edited by Patriarch Philotheus of Constantinople. Its difference from the rites of the liturgies that existed before this patriarch. Photius' accession to the Russian metropolitan throne. Brief biographical information about him. The activities of this metropolitan in relation to the organization of worship in the Russian Church. The influx of liturgical books from Greece in later editions and their features. The influence of these liturgical monuments on ours. Guiding articles by Metropolitan Photius on various issues of church and liturgical practice. Private Associate Professor Alexey Dmitrievsky For more details, see: Extract from the journals of the educational committee at the Holy Synod with reviews of textbooks and teaching aids recognized as useful for use in theological seminaries and schools // Voronezh Diocesan Gazette. 1869. No. 3. p. 75–87. Luft J.B. Liturgik oder wissenschaftliche Darstellung der katholischen Kultus. Mainz, 1844. 1847. Bd. 1–2. In addition to the textbooks of Chernyaev and Smolodovich, some other works on liturgics are known in our Russian literature, which appeared almost simultaneously with the mentioned textbooks. Let's name: 1) A brief teaching on the worship of the Orthodox Church by the teacher of the Institute of Mining Engineers and the Larinsky gymnasium of St. Al. Rudakova. St. Petersburg, 1862; 2) A guide to Christian prayer in the Orthodox spirit and an explanation, adapted to adolescence, of the more common and especially important prayers, chants, sacred rites and rituals of the Orthodox Church, compiled by the Kharkov Cathedral of the Assumption Cathedral, archpriest, Kharkov Veterinary Institute, teacher of the law, master and cavalier Ioan[n] Gaponov. Kharkov[ov], 1861. 3) About the divine service of the Orthodox Church S.I. Krasnotsvetova. St. Petersburg, 1862. 4) Explanation of the worship of the Holy Orthodox Church. The teachings of the priest. Vladislavleva. Tver, 1862. 5) About church services. Letters to the Orthodox. I. I. Belustina. St. Petersburg, 1862 6) Brief concepts about the all-night service of St. I.Shch. Moscow, 1859 7) A brief teaching on the worship of the Orthodox Church, compiled on the basis of the New Tablet. M., 1862. 8) A brief teaching on liturgical books used in the Orthodox Russian Church. M., 1862 9) Brief teaching about St. church, utensils of St. the church and its servants. Samara, 1862 10) A guide to repeating lessons about church services of the Orthodox Church. Kyiv, 1862. I consider the best of these works to be the book by Fr. Vladislavleva. He very correctly understood that in order to understand the meaning and significance of Orthodox worship, it is necessary to present it not as something incoherent, not having one definite thought, not imbued with one main goal. In his explanations, he tried to recreate something harmonious, organically whole. To better achieve his goal, Fr. Vladislavlev threw aside mystical and mysterious meanings; Under all the symbolic actions, under the content of prayers and chants, he tried, primarily, to restore the historical meaning, however, in such a way that this did not in any way diminish the height or dignity of the divine service. His explanations about. Vladislavlev presented it not in abstract judgments, not in dry and lifeless expressions and figures of speech, but, if possible, in simple and generally understandable terms. Work about. I recommend Vladislavlev, gentlemen, to you as exemplary in his kind. [In the margin there is an inscription: It is especially useful for catechetical teachings.] The works [crossed out: relatively] regarding the divine services of Bellustin and Krasnotsvetov can be considered somewhat less meritorious, but still better than the textbooks we have examined above. They can be especially usefully read and recommended to future shepherds of the common people. [Last sentence crossed out]. – A.A.D. Published in: Dmitrievsky A.A. Divine services in the Russian Church for the first five centuries // Orthodox interlocutor. 1882. Part 1. No. 2. P. 150. Published in: Ibid. pp. 149–150. Published in: Ibid. P. 166. Published in: Ibid. pp. 160–161. See: Odintsov N.F. The order of public and private worship in ancient Russia until the 16th century. St. Petersburg, 1881. P. 11. Published in: Dmitrievsky A.A. Divine services in the Russian Church for the first five centuries // Orthodox interlocutor. 1882. part 1. No. 2. pp. 154–155. Published in: Ibid. P. 156. Published in: Ibid. pp. 156–157. Published in: Ibid. pp. 157–160. This enormous and one-of-a-kind work belongs to the Benedictine monk Jacob Goar, who lived in the first half of the 17th century, who published it under this title for the first time in 1640. Gohar's merit lies in the fact that he compared the rites of worship of the Greek Church of the 17th century. with the rites of former times, having at hand precious handwritten monuments, which scientists attribute either [to] the 8th century. (Barberinovsky list [list]), or to XII–XIII (Crypt[o]fer[atsky] list [list]). Intending his work for Catholics and wanting to introduce them to Greek worship, Goar provided him with extensive notes in which he described the structure of Greek churches, presented their plan, described church utensils, etc. This work is extremely dear to us and deserves very serious attention. I draw your attention to it, I advise you to get to know it well, especially those of you who are thinking of working independently in this field. A better guide for beginners in liturgics cannot be found. This lecture is almost entirely based on it. You can also get acquainted with the work of Gohar from the book of the Most Reverend Benjamin “The New Tablet”, which [is] no more and no less than a translation of the book of Gohar with the difference that in the latter the notes are placed without the Greek text and there is no translation of the rites themselves. – A.A.D. Quoted: Golubinsky E.E. History of the Russian Church. M., 1904. T. 1. Part 2. pp. 326–330. This refers to the following article: Safarik P.I. The flourishing of Slavic writing in Bulgaria / trans. from Czech O. Bodyansky. M., 1848. 23 p. Safarik P.I. The flourishing of Slavic writing in Bulgaria. P. 22 (department ot.). Quoted: Odintsov N.F. The order of public and private worship... P. 18–20. Quoted: Golubinsky E.E. History of the Russian Church. T. 1. Part 2. pp. 330–331. Quoted: Odintsov N.F. The order of public and private worship... P. 21. For the edition of Mstislav's Gospel, see: Aprakos of Mstislav the Great / ed. preparation L.P. Zhukovskaya, L.A. Vladimirova, N.P. Pankratov, ed. L.P. Zhukovskaya. M., 1983. St. George's Gospel 1190–1128 State Historical Museum, Sin. 1003. Quoted: Golubinsky E.E. History of the Russian Church. T. 1. Part 2. pp. 523–526. Quoted: Golubinsky E.E. History of the Russian Church. M., 1901. T. 1. Part 1. P. 884–885 For a description of the service book, see: Description of the manuscripts of the Solovetsky Monastery, located in the library of the Kazan Theological Academy. Part III. Kazan, 1898. pp. 1–3. Quoted: Golubinsky E.E. History of the Russian Church. T. 1. Part 2. pp. 526–527. Quoted: ibid. pp. 527–530. Quoted: Ibid. pp. 529–530. The following fragment (d. 135, l. 50–57 vol.) is based on the material from the lecture “Slavic-Russian Studio Charter” (d. 196, l. 430–438). Used by: Golubinsky E.E. History of the Russian Church. T. 1. Part 2. pp. 370–372. See: Golubinsky E.E. History of the Russian Church. T. 1. Part 2. P. 372. For more details see: PG 99. Col. 1703–1720. Hypotiposis of St. was published here. Theodora Studite. See: Golubinsky E.E. History of the Russian Church. T. 1. Part 2. pp. 372–373. Currently, more than 10 lists of the Studio Charter are known. For more details see: Pentkovsky A.M. Typikon of Patriarch Alexy Studite in Byzantium and Rus'. M., 2001. See the lecture “Slavic-Russian Studio Charter” (d. 196, l. 430 vol. – 435 vol.). Right there. (d. 196, l. 435 vol. - 436). The following fragment (fol. 57 vol. – 59 vol.) is based on the material of the lecture “Greek Studian liturgical charter” (d. 152, l. 23, d. 196, l. 428 vol. – 430). See the lecture “Greek Studite Liturgical Charter” (d. 196, l. 428 vol. – 430). The quote is from the publication: Tales of Saints Boris and Gleb: Sylvester's list of the 14th century. / on behalf of and at the expense of the Archaeological Society, published by I.I. Sreznevsky. St. Petersburg, 1860. P. 29. Quoted: Odintsov N.F. Order of public and private worship. pp. 29–30. The quote is given by A.A. Dmitrievsky, according to the edition: Our Holy Father John, Archbishop of Constantinople, Chrysostom, conversations on the First Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Corinthians. St. Petersburg, 1859. Part 1. pp. 235–236. Quoted from an edition unknown to us. The quote can be clarified by: Abbot Daniel's Journey through the Holy Land / ed. Archaeographical Commission, ed. A S. Norova. St. Petersburg, 1864. p. 187 (w. pagination). Tatishchev V.N. Russian history. M., 1774. Book. 3. p. 301. Published in: Dmitrievsky A.A. Divine services in the Russian Church in the 16th century. Part I. Services of the weekly and annual circle and the order of the sacraments. Kazan, 1884. p. 256–258. In ancient times, as now, Christian Greek names were more or less remade in our own way. At the same time, other names were remade differently than now: Alexey - Alexa or Oleksa, Andrey - Yadrey, John - Ivan and Ian, Konstantin - Kosnyatin, Mikhail - Michal, Anna - Yanka, Miron - Miroshka, Prokopiy - Proksha, Nikolai - Mikula, etc. - A.A.D. Quoted: Golubinsky E.E. History of the Russian Church. T. 1. Part 2. P. 428. Archive of historical and legal information relating to Russia / ed. N. Kalachov. M., 1855. Book. 2. First floor. P. 31. Right there. P. 34. Inaccurate citation; It should be: “The full story was written by Chernets Gavrilov, son of Payusov.” Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian State. St. Petersburg, 1821. T. 9. p. 463. Letter from the Archbishop of Veliky Novgorod and Pskov Macarius to all his dioceses, counties, volosts and villages to abbots, priests and deacons on the eradication of bad prayers and other instructions // Ancient Russian Vivliofika. M., 1790. Part 14. P. 150. Published in: Dmitrievsky A.A. Divine services in the Russian Church in the 16th century...S. 258–260. Quoted with minor changes: Moroshkin M.Ya., priest. Slavic name book, or Collection of Slavic personal names in alphabetical order. St. Petersburg, 1867. P. 102. In the work “Divine Services in the Russian Church in the 16th Century” the surname Matseevsky appears. In the work “Divine Services in the Russian Church in the 16th Century” the year is 1441. The same news in Nikonovskaya let[inventory], ed. 1 is transmitted as follows: On the month of March, at 8 o’clock at night opposite the days of the Council of the Archangel Gabriel, a son was born to Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich by Queen Sophia and was named Basil of Paria (vol. VI, p. 107). We read the first news in this form: previously a year ago on the same day, in memory of St. Apostle Timothy, month of January 22nd day, Great Prince Ivan Vasilyevich was born (vol. V, p. 153). From this comparison of two stories about the same event, we can, in our opinion, draw the following conclusion: one name was named in honor of the saint who was celebrated on the child’s birthday and immediately, obviously, after his birth. This phenomenon is interesting in any case and needs a more solid substantiation on positive data, which we could not do for this lecture. – A.A.D. Publ. in: Dmitrievsky A.A. Divine services in the Russian Church in the 16th century... p. 260–263. In the work “Divine services in the Russian Church in the 16th century” - Nyssa. The second spelling should be considered correct, because St. Macrina was the sister of St. Gregory of Nyssa. Quoted: Epistle on the Life of St. Macrina – PG 46. Col. 960–961. Wed. rus. Transl.: St. Gregory of Nyssa. ascetic writings and letters / ed. preparation T.L. Alexandrova under general scientific ed. A.G. Dunaeva. M., 2007. p. 144. Ancient Russian vivliofika. v. 14. p. 150, 169. Cited: additions and additions to the second volume of tales of the Russian people collected by N. Sakharov // Archive of historical and legal information relating to Russia / ed. N. Kalachov. M., 1850. book. 1. dept. IV. With. 2. The quote has already been given by A.A. Dmitrievsky: Tatishchev V.N. Russian history. M., 1774. book. 3. p. 301. Publ. in: Dmitrievsky A.A. Divine services in the Russian Church in the 16th century... P. 264. Lavrovsky P. About the rite of tonsure among the ancient Slavs // Moskvityanin. 1855. No. 3. P. 33–50. Tatishchev V.N. Russian history. M., 1774. Book. 3. P. 301. Publ. in: Dmitrievsky A.A. Divine services in the Russian Church in the 16th century... P. 313–316. Quoted: Golubinsky E.E. History of the Russian Church. T. 1. Part 2. P. 430. Quoted: Odintsov N.F. The order of public and private worship... P. 31. Quoted: Golubinsky E.E. History of the Russian Church. T 1. Part 2. p. 451–452. Quoted: Ibid. With. 450–451. Macarius (Bulgakov), bishop. Vinnitsky. History of the Russian Church. St. Petersburg, 1857. T 2. S. 196–197. Quoted: Golubinsky E.E. History of the Russian Church. T. 1. Part 2. P. 701. Quoted: Odintsov N.F. The order of public and private worship... P. 11–12. A.A. Dmitrievsky uses this monument according to the publication: Russian Historical Library. St. Petersburg, 1880. T. 6: Monuments of ancient Russian canon law. Stlb. 1–20. Macarius (Bulgakov), bishop. Vinnitsky. History of the Russian Church. St. Petersburg, 1857. T. 3. pp. 194–195. Compare: Odintsov N.F. The order of public and private worship... P. 94. N.F. Odintsov’s rule is 67 instead of 55, and 23 instead of 18. Russian Historical Library. T. 6. Stlb. 96–97. Macarius (Bulgakov), archbishop. Kharkovsky. History of the Russian Church. St. Petersburg, 1866. T. 4. pp. 287–288. Quoted with minor changes: Russian Historical Library. T 6. Stlb. 98–99. The time when this Council took place was not known with certainty, but based on the fact that in the manuscripts the name of Metropolitan was associated with this Council. Russian Maxim, who ruled the metropolis from 1283–1305, it was designated the year 1301. All historians called the patriarch the primate of this Council. John of Constantinople, who ruled the Patriarchate from 1294–1303, but this is completely incorrect. In 1301, Bishop Theognost of Sarai was no longer alive, and his place was taken by Ishmael, mentioned in the chronicles under 1296 and 1312, therefore, bishop. Theognostus could not propose these questions to the Council of Constantinople in 1301. Recently opened ep. Porfiry (formerly Chigirinsky) authentic acts establish the fact that this Council was not in 1301, but in 1276, which is also justified by the Nikon Chronicle. Under the year 1279, it is written here: in the same summer, Bishop Theognost of Sarai came to the third of the Greek lands from Constantinople, and his Eminence Kirill, Metropolitan and Tsar of the Horde Mengutemir sent him to the Patriarch and Tsar Michael Palaeologus. John mentioned in the acts is none other than Patr. John Veccus (1275–1282) – A.D. In the margin to the right of this footnote there is an inscription in pencil: This is necessary necessary. Perhaps further A.A. Dmitrievsky missed a phrase like: “Finally, Theognostus asked whether it was possible to entrust the Cause of Christ into the hands of a deceased bishop.” Quoted: Mansvetov I.D. Metropolitan Cyprian in his liturgical activity. M., 1882. S. 1. Quoted: Ibid. S. 2. Quoted: Ibid. pp. 2–3, 5–6. Quoted: Ibid. pp. 6–7. Quoted: Ibid. pp. 7–8. Letter from Metropolitan Cyprian to the Pskov clergy with instructions on performing various sacred rites // Russian Historical Library. T 6. Stlb. 239–240. Quoted: Mansvetov I.D. Metropolitan Cyprian in his liturgical activity. M., 1882. pp. 13–14. This refers to the work of I.D. Mansvetova: About the works of Metropolitan Cyprian regarding divine services // Additions to the works of the holy fathers. 1882. Part 29. Book. 1. pp. 150–205; Book 2. pp. 413–495; Part 30. Book. 1. pp. 71–175 (department: Metropolitan Cyprian in his liturgical activity: historical and liturgical research. M., 1882. IV, 202, XXXVIII p.). Quoted: Mansvetov I. D. Metropolitan Cyprian... P. 14. About this Mansvetov on p. 50 and later, on p. 153, writes, but in other words and briefly. Quoted: Mansvetov I.D. Metropolitan Cyprian... pp. 57–58. Quoted: ibid., p. 52. Quoted: ibid., p. 45. Cited: ibid., pp. 45–46. Cited: ibid., pp. 47–51. Cited: ibid., pp. 55–56, 58–59. Cited: ibid., pp. 66–73. Cited: ibid., pp. 101–105, 107–109. Cited: ibid., pp. 111–114. Cited: ibid., pp. 128, 145–147. Cited: ibid., pp. 114–125. Cited: ibid., pp. 130, 151–152. Quoted: ibid., p. 18. Cited: ibid., pp. 19–20. Macarius (Bulgakov), archbishop. Kharkovsky. History of the Russian Church. St. Petersburg, 1866. T 4. P. 85–86. Message from Metropolitan Photius to Pskov with instructions to the laity on the fulfillment of Christian duties, and to the clergy on the correct performance of the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation // Russian Historical Library. T 6. Stlb. 498. And a big omission, a note in the margin: pp. 48, 49. After the omission, there is the following note in the margin: Martin also makes a similar explanation of the rite of churching in his work “De antiquis ecclesiae ritibus,” which is especially remarkable, since Martin also refers to the same place of Simeon of Thessalonica, which misled our opponent. This refers to the publication: Writings of the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church relating to the interpretation of Orthodox worship. T. II: works of Blessed Simeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica. St. Petersburg, 1856. The fragment beginning with the words “Why in the new church practice...” was added by A.A. Dmitrievsky in different inks and much later in composing his lecture on churching.