About the cave action (Rite of remembrance of the burning of three youths)

Comments and amendments to the article by M. Savinov In the first issue of the Russian Philological Bulletin for the past 1890, there was an article by M. Savinov under the heading: “The rite of the cave action in the Vologda St. Sophia Cathedral. Historical-literary-archaeological study" (pp. 24–54). This article, as can be seen from the correspondence published in the same issue of the Russian Federation, page 150, was read out at one of the meetings (11/10/1890) of the Kharkov Historical and Philological Society, where it aroused some objections. But these objections, with the exception of one, which pointed to the insufficiency of clarifying the origin of the rank, were aimed at unimportant and secondary details. Meanwhile, Savinov’s article contains quite important errors and inaccuracies that require correction. Otherwise, it may mislead some readers of the RFV regarding the current state of the issue of cave action in our scientific literature, which is not desirable. The author says that his task was “, among other things, to describe as fully as possible the course of the cave action, and thereby make up for the gap noticed in articles about this subject. (p.25). Further, he cites, in his opinion, “insignificant literature on this issue,” which, however, includes as many as 15 titles. He does not pretend that his list is complete and asks for guidance. Directions are possible; It’s just a pity that he didn’t bother collecting them before writing his article. Then he would have avoided some mistakes, and perhaps he would not have written his article at all, because he would have learned that the gap he intended to fill had already been filled. It turns out that the author did not consult the History of the Russian Church by Professor Golubinsky, published back in 1881, and with the book of Archpriest Nikolsky entitled “On the services of the Russian Church that were in previous printed liturgical books.” This last book was published back in 1885, and in 1888 it was awarded the Makaryev Prize. A review of it was published in Christian Reading 1888 No. 11–12. If the author had consulted this book, he would have found in it a description of the cave action that was more detailed and thorough than what he was privileged to compile himself. This is very natural, since Archpriest Nikolsky had more solid and more abundant primary sources at hand. In addition to the text placed in the Ancient Russian Library, he also used other texts, printed and handwritten, as well as something else. But let us turn, however, to correcting the errors and inaccuracies made by the author. 1) on pp. 27–28 he says: “the ritual of the cave action, in my opinion, could have directly arisen on Russian soil without any borrowing. Perhaps that adolescent teacher who plays an inconspicuous role in the performance of the ancient rite was its first author.” Others thought so too. It might be flattering for Russian pride to prove the purely Russian origin of the cave action; however, this is impossible due to the fact that in the 15th century. The Greeks undoubtedly had this action, and, of course, no one would argue that the Greeks borrowed it from the Russians, and not vice versa. We have clear and irrefutable evidence of the existence of cave action among the Greeks from a Greek writer of the 15th century. Simeon Archbishop of Thessalonica. In his “Dialogue against Heresies,” reproaching the Latins for abusing sacred dramatic representations and eliminating a similar reproach from his opponents, Simeon says: “The Latins who reproach us for the cave of the youths will not strike us; for we do not light stoves, but use lighted wax candles and offer incense to God; According to custom, we also make an image of an angel, but do not send a person; We ordered the children only to reverently chant the devotional song that the three youths sang. These youths can only be depicted by youths who have been sealed and sanctified,” i.e. belonging to the clergy, tonsured (Dialog. contra haereses, p.23; Migne, Patrol. t.155, p.113). Although the author of this testimony is apparently trying to present the Greek rite in such a way that the reproach of theatricality and indecency cannot be applied to it, it is clear, however, that we are talking about the very same rite that existed among us. There was probably a written charter for performing this rite among the Greeks, and it is a pity that this charter has not yet been found. If it were found, then it would be possible to determine in detail what in our ritual was directly taken from the Greeks and what constitutes the result of independent development. It may even be that those simple, but to some extent vulgar in expression, dialogues that we encounter in the rank of our cave action have their basis in the Greek text, and not in the original Russian work. 2) The author says (p. 28): “The earliest indication of this original idea is in the books of accounts of the Novgorod bishop’s Sophia House.” This instruction refers to December 24, 1548. The expense record states that “the Chaldeans of Dvema were given the Moscow hryvnia.” Until now, this was indeed considered the earliest, but now the border of documentary fame of the “cave action” should be pushed back to an even earlier time. In the manuscripts of the Novgorod Sofia library (in the St. Petersburg Theological Academy) we found the oldest list of the cave action. It contains a tribute to the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily Ivanovich for many years. Consequently, the cave action took place in Novgorod earlier than 1548, at the very beginning of the 16th century. 1 We made a report about this list at the Moscow Archaeological Congress in January 1890, i.e. somewhat later than Mr. Savinov’s composition of his article. Therefore, it goes without saying that when making an amendment on this point, we do not at all mean to reproach the author, but only to provide scientific benefit. 3) Speaking about the Chaldean oven (pp. 31–32), the author reports a description of the Vologda pulpit from the Inventory of 1663 and a description of the Novgorod pulpit, built by Bishop Macarius in 1533, from the Sophia vremennik, and then states that “with a high probability it can be assumed that the pulpit of Bishop Macarius subsequently, when they began to annually perform the rite of the cave action, could fulfill the purpose of the Chaldean oven." “He also asserts with “even greater confidence” regarding the pulpit in the Vologda Cathedral on the grounds that in the income books of the bishop’s house there is not even a hint of the existence of a stove specially built for the ritual.” As can be seen from the descriptions, the ancient Russian pulpits had a round shape, belonging to the type of Byzantine pulpits, examples of which are presented to us by the monuments of the city of Ravenna, and indeed, in case of need, they could be adapted, although not without difficulty, to perform a cave action. But in fact, this was hardly the case even in the “consequences,” especially in Novgorod. In the Inventory of the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral, compiled in the middle of the 17th century. (Eaves. Archaeol. General, vol. III, p. 366) the “wooden lattice” oven is especially mentioned. And in the texts of the 18th century, containing a description of the cave action and printed by Nikolsky, the stove and pulpit are clearly distinguished. For example, “and after mass the sacristans order the sextons and bell-ringers to move the pulpit from its place and place it behind the left choir, and in that place they put a cave” (Nikolsk, p. 192). Or: “they read the Sunday Gospel in the cave instead of the pulpit” (198). Or finally: “and after Matins the cave is removed, and a pulpit is installed in that place” (207). 4) After setting out the order of action, the author says (p. 51) that “after matins there was a break until two o’clock in the afternoon, when the gospel for mass began,” and that this break “was necessary as a rest for all the clergy,” and so on. Although this is a trifle, we note that this break was nothing special. This is the usual interval between matins and mass, and it must be borne in mind that the church counting of hours is different from what is customary among us today. Two hours corresponds to approximately 8 o'clock in the morning, since the counting of these hours begins according to the charter at sunrise. As for the early table for the youths and Chaldeans, the most ancient editions of the cave action do not mention it; but he was probably allowed before mass for the reason that after mass the youths and Chaldeans had to be present at the ceremonial table, but not as persons taking part in it, but only for the ceremonial setting as spectators. In conclusion, we cannot help but express regret that even today the results of Russian scientific works are sometimes very little known, and that the results of these works very slowly enter into general circulation, and sometimes are completely forgotten and lost. As a result, it is sometimes necessary, instead of moving forward, to spend time researching issues that have already been studied and resolved. Nikolsky’s book mentioned above, as far as we know, has attracted very little attention in scientific literature, and yet for the history of Russian and civil culture it should be quite useful. But habent sua fata libelli. Golubinsky in “History of the Russian Church”, II, p. 781, also has the following indication: “In the Ipatian Chronicle under 1146, 2nd ed. p. 228 is called the governor of one prince, Ivan Haldeevich. This lets us know to some extent that at that time we already had a custom of the cave ritual.” You might be interested in: