How we ruled Typicus and Menaion

Materials for the history of book reference in the 17th century based on papers from the archives of the printing library in Moscow The beginning of the article in the IV book of additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers for 1883. We said that the charter of 1682 was the first attempt at systematic legalization of our type, and this edition was based on certain requirements, which can be summarized in the following three provisions: a) correction of the text according to Greek models, b) agreement with the corrected service books and c) exclusion from its composition of articles of a local and personal nature. In the preface, the first and last conditions were placed in the foreground, and the second comes naturally from those instructions and references with which we dealt in the last article. But it’s another thing to set conditions and another thing to fulfill them. Therefore, in relation to each well-staged and carried out publication, it is natural to ask: to what extent does it justify the requirements placed on it, and does it stand up to the task that the publishers assumed for themselves? Upon closer examination of the text of the charter in question, it becomes completely obvious that none of these requirements were carried out consistently, and the correctors, losing the guiding thread in places, went astray. This resulted in contradictions and oversights, which are striking upon careful reading and can cause difficulties for the sender of a church service. In other service books they are not so noticeable, but much more visible in the charter, as a publication that combines the contents of other church service books and regulates their use. We will see further that these deviations were not caused by any special considerations of the publishers, but occurred either from an oversight or from respect for the letter of the text, which did not have any special reasons on its side. In other cases, such places were corrected, or simply crossed out, but here for some reason they were left untouched, contrary to the accepted methods of correction. The compilers of 1682, as we have seen, set out to exclude from the type everything local, personal, and accidental, and on this basis they removed the personal considerations of the compilers of the type, local rituals and rites. But having sacrificed articles from Russian everyday life for this purpose, they withheld several comments of such a personal nature. Eg. Chapter 31, - about the duties of the alarm clock, is accompanied by the following remark: “this does not happen now and is not found in many statutes: we think that our diligence is due to laziness, and we do not tolerate reproof with love. For this reason, some have kept silent.” This remark is read in some Greek charters, and from here it passed into its Slavic lists (some) and printed publications. The personal opinion of the compiler of this article: “οιμαι δε δια το ραϑυμιαν επιρρεπες ημων” did not give it any special weight or special advantages. In chapter 35, taken with abbreviations from Nikon Montenegrin, an addition was introduced about the ritual of raising the panagia at a meal, according to the custom of Russian monasteries, with the following remark: (fol. 24 vol.) “Here is the custom of imams to act as deacon.” The remark is all the more inconvenient because the reader remains completely unaware of what area we are talking about here, and where this entire article was borrowed from. Ch. 37 “about singing, it is not appropriate to sing especially outside the cathedral” is also taken from Nikon and begins with the words: “this is also worthy of being told, as if it were foretold about singing.” Not to mention the personal nature of this remark, Nikon made a “forecast” reference to one of the previous articles, which is actually read in his tactics, but was not included in our charter. In Chapter 40, about the rituals by which monks who do not want to live in the monastery are expelled, the remark is made: “We learned about this and something else and quite a lot in the grief of St. Auxentia bonpol of Constantine city, in the monastery of the verb Cyrus Antoniev. (l. 61) Taken from Nikon Montenegrin. Under the name of John the Faster, a rule is given not to sing “may he be corrected” on the day of the Annunciation at the liturgy. On behalf of the unknown compiler it is said here: “And this was not determined by any morality; I applied a lot of things out of arbitrariness and ignorance. As far as I’m concerned, this won’t be tolerated.” (l. 300). Regarding the singing of the Great Doxology at Matins on September 23, the charter refers to some kind of “write-off from the charter.” (fol. 104 vol.) about which “we have spoken above.” The reference is taken from a Greek printed type, where the following is read: “εξεστι γαρ ως το τυπιϰον συγγραϕομενος (sic) λεγει.” What kind of charter, or its cancellation, of course, remains unknown here, and since it was not indicated anywhere above, the addition “as if above the word” does not make sense. In the current charter, this passage has been somewhat corrected: “perhaps it is, as the charter states.” But what charter it expresses and where remains unclear. The rules on fasting according to the statutes of various monasteries are given from Nikon of Chernogorets without reservation or indication of the source from which the excerpts are taken (fol. 461). On l. 463 rev. The following remark, coming on behalf of the unknown editor of the charter about the service of the first week of Lent, was left unchanged: “behold, as one day of holy fasting has been prescribed, having diligently experienced it, offering it to your love.” Ιδου ουν ως προγεγραπται μιαν ημεραν των αγιων νηστειων αϰριβως εξετασοντες παρεϑηϰαμεν τη αγαπη υμων. On Monday of the 2nd week it is said that “the Nice people honor (on this day) the legend of the miracles... of the Mother of God... even performed by the most pure icon of her, even as the Romans were accustomed to call them names” (fol. 475 vol.). The personal opinion of Nikon Montenegrin about the one-time consecration of water on the eve of Epiphany is given, without any reservation as to where it was taken from and against whom it is directed. “Now we see someone doing this from the evening and the morning, and he did not obtain a testimony about this from the scriptures.” Having further said that neglect of church rules is very dangerous, the compiler continues: “even more so now (i.e., during Nikon, in the 11th century) it is impossible to follow the divine scripture in the language of tradition” (l. 224 vol.). Without touching on the historical fate of this custom, which aroused many rumors and was set out differently in the charters and other official books, here we will only note that the prohibition of the double consecration of water (on the eve and on the very day of Epiphany) contradicts the resolution of the Moscow Council (1667), which allowed, destroyed, and imputed to nothing the command and oath that Nikon, the former Patriarch, about the effect of consecrated water on holy epiphanies, which act uniformly at eternity (Material for historical edition vol. 2, p. 237). But in the charter of 1682 only the blessing of water is spoken of on the eve of Epiphany, and the well-known remark from the tactikon is cited to justify this custom. In the following editions of the typical, this article was excluded and a double blessing was introduced. We have already determined the attitude of the reference workers to the Greek charter and proved with a number of extracts from the corrected copy that the Greek type was the main source by which they were guided when publishing the charter of 1682. The desire to get closer to the type of the Greek charter was completely in the order of things and makes itself felt in the edition of other official books. In the preface to the Lenten triodion of 1672 it is directly stated that this triodion was translated from Greek books, and only Markov’s chapters were published from old printed Moscow ones, “before the charter had not yet been translated from Greek.” Thus, ten years before the publication of the governed charter, its character had already been outlined and its relationship to the Greek type had been determined. All that remained was to carry out this assumption, but then difficulties began, in the face of which the inspectors turned out to be powerless. The fact is that our charter of that time was compiled from sources of different times and different characters and had very heterogeneous content. He took most of it from the ancient Greek charter, then it included articles from the Old Slavonic charters that had no place in Greek (for example, disciplinary rules from Nikon the Montenegrin, about food and fasting - according to Russian sources) and finally extensive excerpts from monastic everyday life and local Russian ranks. All this was translated or presented in relation to Russian customs and special conditions, among which worship was performed in our country. As a result, next to technical expressions from the Greek church language there were words and phrases of local Russian origin, where the foreign ritual and its presentation were comprehended and, to a certain extent, reworked in the Russian way. This diversity of content greatly complicated the task of the surveyors and placed them at a disadvantage relative to the Greek typology. Every now and then they had to deal with articles that were either not in the Greek charter at all, or that were stated differently in it. Guided by one Greek text, they could either cross out such articles or translate them from Greek again, as they did in the vast majority of cases. But having sacrificed Russian rituals and excluded a whole series of articles of local Russian origin, they did not carry out this beginning quite consistently and stopped halfway. To complete the matter in this direction, they would have to exclude about half of the first part of the charter, significantly reduce some articles in the second and third, and, in replacement of those deleted from the first part, introduce several articles of disciplinary content from printed Greek typicals. Thus, the statute of 1682, both in presentation and in composition, was far from approaching the structure of the then Greek type and was, as it is now, something in between both. The correctors, of course, knew very well and could not help but notice that the articles from Nikon Montenegrin and the studio charter were not in the Greek printed and handwritten types, but they nevertheless retained them, only with some abbreviations and changes against the previous edition. Chapters 34–46 of the first part remained in this form. The correctors withheld the incorrect translation of the Greek “ϰελευσατε” with the word arise, the mention of the image of Christ and the Mother of God near the royal gates in the article on censing, the rite of panagia in Chapter. 35, article from the rules of St. The Apostle and the Holy Fathers about the Great Pentecost (chapter 32), about the resolution of the whole summer (chapter 33), - expressions: there is a waste, in poor countries we drink beer (l. 202), the ringing of the bell in two, about the removal of the shroud on Great Saturday, and many others. etc. They did not reach a complete agreement with the then printed publications. We corrected service books gradually: books were corrected one after another as they were prepared for printing. Most of all, the charter of 1682 diverged from the menaions, which were corrected after it was published: but in addition, the cathedral rules were given in it according to the Old Church Slavonic uncorrected translation. There were even more editorial oversights and contradictions. By this name we mean the very presentation of the rituals and the text of the sequences included in the typology. As a book assigned to the manual during the performance of services, explaining the order and methods of their performance, the charter requires special accuracy in presentation, elaboration of terminology and complete agreement in its content from beginning to end. There should be no misunderstanding here regarding the use and meaning of a known word, but each liturgical term should have one specific meaning. Charter 1682 is far from flawless in this regard and leaves much to be desired in terms of the presentation of the text and the elaboration of the liturgical language: in comparison with previous editions of the type, this charter, of course, stands much higher and has undergone more rigorous editorial work, but this quality is not maintained everywhere, and the lack of strict processing is felt all the more strongly since the charter of 1682 was used as the basis for its further editions and, with a few exceptions, is still reprinted no changes. Thus, the mistakes and oversights of the first corrected edition remain to this day, 200 years after its appearance. Let us note some of the larger ones, explaining how they appeared and how they can be corrected. First general part of the statute In the corrected charter, the names tree and beat are replaced for the most part by the word campan or kamban, i.e. bell (campana). At least in the presentation of the general order of the service, this expression is used constantly, but in the monthly and triode parts it alternates with the names bell, tree and beat. The correctors of the charter deviated in this regard from the Greek text, where ξύλον, σήμαντρον, βαρέα are used, but the Campanians are not mentioned. Why was it necessary to use and still retain this bookish, little understood name, when we already existed and were accepted in the 17th century. expressions: bell, ring the bells, ring the gospel, ring the bells, etc.? We find these expressions in the everyday language of that time and in everyday life of that time. The inspectors themselves allowed them in the charter (see, for example, l. 455–457) for the obvious benefit of presentation. Before the start of Great Vespers, the paraecclesiarch places a lighted candle on the candlestick “directly at the royal doors.” A few lines below this candle is called standing in the middle of the church. (Kandilovzhigatel is the receptionist of the candlestick, standing in the middle of the church). In the Charter of 1641, this place is stated somewhat differently: it says that the candle burner places a candle “in the middle of the church right next to the royal door.” According to this designation it is further said: “in the midst of the church”; but in the corrected edition the words “in the middle of the church” and “close” are omitted. Remaining consistent, the clerk should have further omitted the words: “in the middle of the church,” but he did not do this, and a misunderstanding arose: where should this priest actually stand? Adhering to the Greek text, it turns out that he stands in front of the royal doors ϰατενωπιον των αγιων ϑυρων, and the words “in the middle of the church” are not there. Further, what is meant here by the royal doors? Comparing this passage with the Greek original, where it says “ϰατενωπιον των αγιων ϑυρων”; it is clear that we are talking about altar doors. But it is known that the name of the altar doors royal is not accurate: in Greek they are called holy doors, and the name royal - βασιλιϰαι πυλαι - was assigned to the gates that led from the vestibule into the church. And indeed, in the further course of the service, the altar doors are called holy. This name is retained by them until the prayers of the lamp, for the reading of which “the priest comes before the royal door.” The matter is obviously about the altar doors. Having performed the blessing of the loaves, our charter says, “he will stand before the royal gates in vain towards the west.” At the beginning of Great Vespers, the priest “censes the holy meal in the shape of a cross around and around the entire altar.” It is now customary for us to call a proposal an altar, and one might think that we are talking about it in this place. But this is not true. More precisely, it should be said: St. censes. the meal... and the entire altar. The misunderstanding arose from the unsuccessful translation of the word ϑυσιαστήριον with the word altar. According to the terminology of the Greek service books, ϑυσιαστήριον means altar. In the charter of 1641 this place was stated correctly: “the entire St. altar" and was left unchanged in the corrected copy, but in the 1682 edition a literal translation from Greek was allowed, where it reads: "ϰαὶ ὅλον τὸ ϑυσιαστήριον." “Great Vespers begins with the candle burner (note by the way that a few lines below he is called paraecclesiarch; in other places - clergyman, church minister and candle burner - ϰανδηλάπτης) proclaiming: “Arise.” The translation is not correct. It should be translated: “command,” according to the Greek original, where “ϰελευσατε” appears. This word means turning to a higher person for permission or consent to begin any action. In liturgical language, this word asks for the blessing of the bishop, abbot of the monastery and priest to begin any action or proclamation. This word is translated correctly in the episcopal official, in the rite of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, and in many other places, so that its translation in the charter constitutes a difficult to explain exception from a whole series of correct translations of this technical term. Didn't it happen for this reason? to avoid asking for a blessing twice, since after this the priest exclaims: “Lord bless?” Preferring an incorrect translation, some of our ancient handwritten statutes were nevertheless aware of this incorrectness and added an explanation to the usual “stand up”: command the rexha according to art. With this addition, the word ϰελευσατε was translated by the referees of the charter of 1682, as can be seen from the corrected copy, but in the printed edition it was left as before: arise. In other copies of the Slavic charter and its earlier printed editions, ϰελευσατε remains without translation: kelefsate or keleusanite. The singer of the right face sings the following verse of the pre-reading psalm, “easy with the voice.” In Greek it says: “αργως μετα μελους”, and therefore it should be translated: “slowly with singing”. The statute wants to say that this verse should not be sung fluently, in recitative (χυμα), but in chant. The old Russian expression fits this: “sing for divorce.” Expressions are often found: to draw a cross with a censer, to mark with a censer, etc. Here the preposition “with” (μετὰ) is completely unnecessary due to the nature of the Slavic language, where an action through something is expressed by the instrumental, without a preposition. The translator of the charter unnecessarily stuck to the letter, the Greek text, where it says “μετὰ τοῦ ϑυμιαματος.” This Greekism is repeated many times and runs throughout the charter. While singing “quiet light,” the priest enters the altar, “and the holy doors are closed.” The Greek Rule does not say anything about closing the altar doors at this time; This remark is not in the charter of 1641 and in the corrected copy. This addition first appears in the statute of 1682 and is borrowed from ordo, patr. Philotheus, where at this point the following is read: “ϰαι ϰλειονται τα αγια ϑυρια.” In our country this rule is not observed, and the royal doors are closed after the prokeimenon “the world is quiet.” After the stichera of verse, the candlesticks are supplied “to the pre-adorned quadruped, on which lies a dish with wheat and five loaves, which is the custom of the imams to bring to church.” In the Greek printed type this passage is read as follows: ο δε ϰελλαριτης προτιϑησιν εν αναλωγιω αρτους ε’ εξ ων εσϑιομεν εν τη τραπεζη, and literally means: “the cellarer, by analogy, offers five loaves, from which we eat at the meal.” The handwritten statutes sometimes speak of only three loaves, sometimes of five. The inquirers were obviously guided by some other source 1, and most likely the ordo of Philotheus, where this verse reads: “ϰαι τα μεν μανουαλια τιϑενται παρ εϰατερα του ??? αρτων δισϰος, ων εχομεν εϑος προσϕερειν εν τη εϰϰλησια.” From a comparison of the Slavic and Greek texts it is clear that “adorned with the quadruped” is a literal, although not intelligible, translation of the Greek expression “προευτρεπισϑεντος του τετραποδιου”, which actually means prepared in advance four-legged table. Further, it is indeed called a table. The pronoun “hedgehog” (imams’ custom of hedgehogs) apparently refers to the word dish and raises the question of what kind of dish we are talking about here. But according to the reference with the Greek text, it turns out that instead of “hedgehog” there is “ὧν” in Greek, referring to the five loaves, and the Slavic translation was made incorrectly. The statute wants to say that for the blessing at Vespers, it is not the bread served at the fraternal table, “εξ ων εσϑιομεν εν τη τραπεζη” that is brought, but special ones prepared for church use. The transition to Matins, or better to say, to the reading of the Six Psalms is presented in this way: at the end of the reading from the acts of the apostles, the paraecclesiarch leaves and slanderes: “Now the primate has risen and to all the brethren begins Amen, glory to God in the highest.” There are two questions here: who begins, and is it possible to begin with the word amen, which, according to church custom, always ends with a well-known exclamation or prayer? From the same charter (1682) it is clear that reading the Six Psalms is the responsibility of the abbot (chapter 7, l. 21). At weekday matins it is called the usual work of the rector (“the primate says the six psalms, as is custom”), which the ecclesiarch sometimes shares with him. In the charter of 1641, the abbot begins the six psalms, and this remark was left unchanged. What exclamation does amen refer to? Now he ends the priest’s appeal to the people: the blessing of the Lord be upon you, etc. But in the charter with which we are dealing, this appeal is separated from the Six Psalms by the consumption of the blessed bread by the brethren and the reading from the Apostle. In the article on all-night vigils (chapter 7), there are 52 of them per year according to the number of Sunday days, and in addition, “on the lord’s holidays there is a vigil every month. Together with slaughter and frost there is a whole summer of vigils 68.” Nowadays, in our country, the main holidays in honor of Christ the Savior are called lord’s or master’s holidays, but in the Greek charter, under the name δεσποτιϰὰς ἐορτὰς, the main annual holidays are understood: Christ’s, the Mother of God and the special Saints. In the article on all-night vigils, they are listed among 15 and include, in addition to the two Forerunner feasts and the Apostles Peter and Paul, also the memory of Anthony the Great. Thus, all of them will be 67, and not 68, as shown not only in printed, but also handwritten Greek and Slavic charters, from where this incorrect total was transferred to the edition of 1682. Now it remains unnoticed because the holidays on which all-night vigils are scheduled are not listed. The note about what the rector reads at services and what the reader reads was made in relation to the presentation of the daily service and does not coincide with the order of the Sunday service. Chapter 9 begins with the words: before the evening, the little kandilov-burner... marks the camp for gathering for the service of the 9th hour. In Greek this place reads: προ του λυχνιϰου μιϰρον ταχυτερων i.e. a little earlier than Vespers, while the Slavic translation gives a slightly different meaning and means: “shortly before evening.” l. 25. “You must eat and know, because after releasing it it is not appropriate for a monk to have conversations.” What does the word "her" refer to? Since Compline was discussed above, there is no doubt about it. In this case, the pronoun is inconsistent in gender with its noun. The addition to chapter 10 (fol. 31 vol.) about when the liturgy of Basil the Great, John Chrysostom and the Presanctified Gifts is celebrated was not edited accurately. It says here that the Basil Liturgy is celebrated “in the weeks of Holy and Great Lent.” It should be added: with the exception of the week of color, since this week is also part of the Lenten triodion. The second occasion when it is performed is “on the eve of the Lord’s holidays of the Nativity of Christ and the Epiphany.” According to current custom, mention of the eve of the master's holidays should be excluded. These words came from the ancient lists of the rules, when Basil’s Liturgy was performed on the eve of all major holidays, as fasting days, and according to this custom, the rule itself is stated in Greek in this way; “ιστεον οτι εν ταις ϰυριαϰαις της μεγαλης μ’ ϰαι εν ταις νηστειαις των δεσποτιϰων εορτων η του μεγαλου Βασιλειου λειτουργια τελειται" (For details, see our work. Metropolitan. Cyprus. p. 133). In addition, it is not mentioned that this liturgy is celebrated on Maundy Thursday and Saturday. The rule about the Liturgy of the Presanctified is also incorrectly stated, that it “is sung exactly in St. Pentecost on Wednesday and Friday." Let us now move on to the articles of disciplinary content, which contain rules on fasting and monastic life. By the time the first printed editions of the charter appeared, the rules on fasting existed in our country in different versions and represented a whole series of articles and notes, borrowed partly from Nikon the Montenegrin, partly from Greek charters and articles of Slavic-Russian origin. The task of the revised editions of the charter should have been, first of all, to revise this material and select from it such articles that could have guiding significance and a generally binding nature. Then they had to be edited, agreed among themselves and published in the correct presentation. This goal was not immediately achieved by our publishers - reference workers, and the first printed edition of the statute remained very far from it, and the subsequent ones, approaching it little by little, have hardly achieved their goal even now. Many similar articles of Russian origin were introduced into the statute of 1610, and constituted one of its essential features. Next to them were extracts from Nikon Montenegrin, disciplinary articles from Slavic statutes and notes from Greek - in the monthly and triode parts. In this way, very complex material was collected, but, selecting it mechanically and guided by the thought of “what not to leave out,” the exponent of our first printed charter left it without processing and did not lead to agreement. As a result, there were quite large contradictions between different articles, especially between the content of the Russian article “from the rules of the holy fathers and from the apostolic traditions about fasting” and between extracts from Nikon’s Tactikon on the same subject. These contradictions cast a bad light on the entire publication and, perhaps, served as the reason for the harsh verdict that was pronounced on this charter and its publisher, Patr. Filaret. The charter of 1633, issued after the ban that befell the charter edited by Login, was directed against its weaknesses and, indeed, eliminated many of the shortcomings of this editio princeps. The composition of the disciplinary articles was reduced, they were agreed upon among themselves, and the contradictions between them were mostly eliminated. The reductions affected not only the number of articles, but also their very volume, which is especially noticeable in excerpts from the tacticon. But the main thing that was done by the charter of 1633 in this regard was the exclusion of the article “from the rules of St. father" and a return to the spirit of the Greek rules about fasting. These abbreviations, simplifications and corrections of the text give the statute of 1633 a noticeable advantage over its predecessors and reveal serious critical tact in the correctors. But unfortunately, the next edition of 1641 not only did not go further along this path, but took several more steps back and revealed a turn to the type of first-printed charter. Most of the published articles have been reintroduced, extracts from Nikon have been increased in volume; But along with this, several new corrections were made, for which one cannot but give justice to the publishers. The text of the disciplinary articles underwent more serious alterations when they were revised for the printed edition of 1682. His task was to exclude, if possible, everything superfluous and irrelevant, to harmonize excerpts from different sources with each other and with established practice, to revise and present all this in a more accessible form. The work was conceived broadly and carried out much more consistently than before, and therefore the result was a text that was filtered, so to speak, where misunderstandings were circumvented, contradictions were eliminated and the matter was put on more solid ground. But even this edition did not completely solve its problem: the charter of 1682 turned out to have quite a few mistakes, and quite large ones. Thus, the duration of the Dormition Fast is not determined exactly (chapter 33, l. 53): “in the fast (in the 1867 edition there is a proofreading error “on the heels”) of our Holy Lady Theotokos of the Dormition for 15 days, except for the Transfiguration, we fast,” it is said here. Even if we count from the first to the last day without deductions, then the duration of this fast will not be 15, but only 14 days. In ch. 35: “a discussion about eating and drinking on Saturdays and weeks... and about the refectory arrangement,” (borrowed from Nikon the Montenegrin) instead of two meals per week and the lord’s holidays, three meals are prescribed (l. 54), but this amendment exposes itself and stands in contradiction with what is read slightly lower (l. 58 vol.), where it is said: “per week... there are two boiling, if Christ comes... it is appropriate to eat and third... according to need. “It’s not worthy of being accepted into the charter.” In ch. 36: “about sochiva and vegetables” (from the same place), following the indication to what extent vegetables should be distributed to the brethren during the table, it reads: “like slaughter and from clothes” and an excerpt about the quality of monastic clothing from Basil the Great is given; but then again it is about the quality and quantity of food. The comment about clothing appears to be out of place and appears to be an insertion that contradicts the entire content of this article. In the Slavic translation of the taktikon (the head of the bib. of our Academician) at this point it reads: “Rizhe everyone is equal, always the essence of the brew is predicted.” It turns out that here we are not talking about vestments (clothing), but about rice (wheat grain), which is assigned to be distributed equally, but without specifying the exact measure. The Slavic translator mistook the rice for a chasuble and the result was completely different. In the same chapter (fol. 58 vol.) it is said that “in the week, at the 3rd hour, the reksha (i.e.) at the end of its lepo is to put a meal.” But this definition of the time for the Sunday meal is somewhat at odds with the article on liturgies (chapter 8), where it was said that in the week, at the beginning of the 3rd hour, the liturgy should begin, as if the meal would begin at the beginning of the fourth hour.” l. 59. On great holidays, which include, among other things, the beheading of the Forerunner, no matter what day of the week it happened, it is prescribed to eat food as on Sunday; but this contradicts the rule of the same charter about fasting on the day of beheading (l. 432-vol. - 433), and the article on the permission of the entire summer (chap. 33 and 52 vol.), where it is prohibited to eat fish on the day of beheading and exaltation. The lenient edition in the article about Sochiva and vegetables corresponds to the text of the tacticon, when the rule about strict fasting on this day has not yet been established (details in our work. Metropolitan of Cyprus, p. 197 next). Ch. 39 “about clothes and vows” (from Nikon Chernogorets), next to the mechanical repetition of the Old Slavic translation, contains a significant alteration of the text, which, however, is not always successful. So having said that it is necessary to choose clothes that are locally made and cheap, the charter continues: (l. 60 vol.) “if (clothes) are obtained from another country and the essence is of little value and is simple and unruly and unadorned (then the least valuable, simple, modest and unornamented should be used) and it is appropriate to wear the most convenient in everything.” In the Old Church Slavonic translation, the matter is presented differently and this whole passage is read in this way: “if they are found from another country and the essence is of little value, and simply the unruly and unadorned and the most inconvenient should be persecuted in everything.” That is, in a word (and simply) one should strive in everything (to drive) towards the modest, undressy and uncomfortable. The corrector took the word persecute in the opposite meaning - to reject, to avoid - and remade the original text in this sense. “In the same way, it is appropriate to have an upper mantle from the poor and simple waves, as if they serve the winter.” In the Old Slavonic translation, this place is read differently: “also the upper mandia is from the poor, the covers are one, as if they serve the winter.” There is no word here about woolen robes, but about covers that are used in winter. “You must have a single hat and a blanket.” Under the cap here we mean the lower head cover (subcap, as this word is explained in the margins) of the monks, and under the scarf is a piece of wool or some other material that serves as a cover for it. These inaccuracies and contradictions have not yet been eliminated and continue to remain in printed publications. To correct them, the text of the disciplinary articles should be revised again, compared with each other and the contradictions resolved. Next, it is necessary to more strictly determine the volume of extracts from the tactikon and restore their correct reading in accordance with the original. This, of course, does not in the least exclude those changes in the text that would be necessary for the agreement of Nikon’s rules with the instructions of the Jerusalem charter and other sources. To achieve an accurate edition of these articles, it is necessary to take into account both the Old Slavonic translation of the tacticon and the ancient lists of statutes, which included these extracts. Greek measures, technical names of table objects and clothes, local Greek everyday and liturgical terms should be explained in the margins, or in footnotes and, where possible, replaced by corresponding, more understandable, expressions from the language of the general church and local Russian. Our investigators paid attention to this side of the matter, but did not complete the task, limiting themselves to half measures. The matter still remains in this state of being started, but not finished, and the current printed type does not satisfy either the correct publication of the original text of these articles, or their publicly accessible, intelligible presentation. In the service according to the month, the removal of the cross and veneration of it on the feast of the erection are presented in this way: on the eve “during the evening” and, as will be seen later, precisely before the start of Little Vespers, “the priest enters the vessel and places the honorable cross with fragrant cornflowers on the altar, on the altar.” Then follows the small vespers, at the end of which “the ecclesiarch with the priest, deacon and paraecclesiarch enters the altar... and incense the honorable cross... takes it with a dish onto the head, brings it into the altar... and places it... at the holy meal in the gospel place.” In this way, two transfers of the cross are made: one from the repository (skeuophilakia, sacristy) to the altar before Little Vespers, and the other, from the altar to the altar and to the altar, after Little Vespers. How to look at this double transfer and did it really happen? Neither handwritten nor printed statutes, both Greek and Slavic, know of such a custom, and we believe that it never existed, just as it does not exist now. The mentioned sources speak of only one transfer of the cross from the vessel preserver to the altar, after Little Vespers, and this rite is presented as follows: “τυ αυτη ημερα (September 13) μετα την απολυσιν του μιϰρου εσπερινου απερχεται ο ιερευς ϰαι ο εϰϰλησιαρχης συν τω χανδηλαπτη το ϕερουσιν αυτο εις την εϰϰλησιαν ϰαι τιϑεασιν επανω της αγιας τραπεζης" (That is, on the same day, after the dismissal of Little Vespers, the priest and the ecclesiarch come with a candilo-burner to the vessel depository... they take the honorable wood of the cross and carry it to the church and place it on the holy table. The container, where the church utensils were preserved, was located outside the altar and had no connection with it, and therefore, for transferring the cross from it to the altar, it was necessary to walk with it through the church). This is what it says in the printed Greek charter. Ancient manuscripts, both Slavic and Greek, agree with him, with the possible exception of the Synod. Charter No. 330, according to which the removal of the cross from the skevophilakium was performed after the sixth psalm and with some special rituals. How can we explain the appearance of a double transfer in our charter? It was probably our custom to transfer St. cross on the altar before Little Vespers. This custom was recorded in the charter in its local coloring, as can be seen from the word misa, and by the altar, where the cross was transferred, one must understand nothing more than an altar, according to the Greek ϑυσιαστηριον. But according to the Greek charter, the cross was transferred after Little Vespers. Despite the fact that this is essentially the same ritual, it was also included in the charter and recorded separately. And since the cross was already taken to the altar before Little Vespers, then after Vespers it is transferred from the altar to the altar. Thus, thanks to the mixing of the same rite, only performed at different times, a double transfer of the cross was formed in our charter: to the altar and to the altar. In essence, these are one and the same thing only under different and, moreover, inaccurate names of altar and altar. To restore the course of this rite in its present form, one should refer to the presentation of the removal of the cross on the week of the veneration of the cross and at Matins on August 31. There is no such contradiction there, and the matter is limited to the transfer of the cross from the skeuophilakium to the altar. At the end of the holiday, on the day of its dedication, the cross, as stated in the charter, is transferred from the church to the altar and left on the throne. It turns out, therefore, that the cross, which was kept in the sacristy and transferred from here for veneration, does not return to its place of storage and remains on the throne. This contradiction arises from the fact that our charter mixes the ancient rite of the exaltation of the cross with the later one. According to the most ancient, more complex custom, observed in cathedral and large monastery churches, a special cross from the skevophilakium was indeed brought out for veneration, and later they began to use St. the cross lying on the throne. The ritual mentioned on the day of donation stands in connection with the latter custom. Let's move on to the triodion service. About how to bow during prayer to St. Ephraim: “Lord, the Master of my life,” it is said: after these (i.e., three large bows) we do the other 12 “out of light fatigue for the sake of” (l. 456). In Greek, the last words read: ἀργως διὰ τὸ ἰσάζειν πάντας, and therefore they should be translated: slowly to equalize everyone (i.e., to put them on everyone at the same time). So indeed they were translated into l. 463: “and we create inertia (I am inert), so that everyone can be equal.” The incorrect translation occurred, perhaps, because the translator read ἡσυχάζειν instead of ἰσάζειν, or followed some lists where it reads “for the sake of corruption.” About the singing at the 1st hour of the troparion: in the morning, hear my voice, it is said that the first time it is sung by an appointed reader or priest, standing in the middle of the church, and then by both faces, and the singer speaks verses to him (l. 456). Here, apparently, a new person is introduced, but in fact the singer is the same reader or priest mentioned above. And in fact, at the third hour the singer is no longer mentioned, but at the sixth it is said: “the reader speaks and verses.” На конце 9 часа «иерей: Боже ущедри ны и поклоны 3 великия и прочыя 12 , яко же многажды указася» (л. 460). It's about bowing at the prayer of St. Ephraim; но число их означено не верно: должно быть не 15, как здесь, а 16. Ошибка эта исправлена в уставе о преждеосвященной литургии, где упоминается на этом месте о 16 поклонах (л. 468). Таким образом, между двумя изложениями одного и того же места оказывается разность. В первом случае удержана греческая редакция текста, а во втором он приводится в исправленном виде. О времени окончания повечерия на 1-й неделе великаго поста сказано: «егда повечерия отпущают быти знамению дне сиречь прежде сомрака». По сличении с греческим текстом, где это место изложено: υπαρχειν αϰμην ημερας ηγουν προ του σονοψιασμου, следовало бы перевести так: быти еще дню that is to say... (fol. 463 vol.). A few lines below: “the bows imagined from the holy fathers... are not to be despised below the great lawgiver.” In Greek: “τυποϑεισας απο των αγιων πατερων μετανοιας ας ουϰ εξεστιν " According to another reading, the last two words read: “τον αγανοϑεστατον,” which would mean: to the greatest ascetic. We stand for the last reading, since here we are talking about maintaining uniformity in the number of bows and prayers, from which even the most active of the monks should not deviate. The word “imaginary” should be translated: positioned, depicted.” Before the service of the 4th week of Lent, the following remark was made: “The last ones determined the petition to follow St. John of the Climacus" (l. 484). Who is this last one? According to the reference to the Greek printed charter, it turns out that we are talking here about later types: τίνα δε τῶν μεταγενεστέρων τυπιϰῶν. On the heel of the fifth week in the evening “we sing the canon of the dead voice in the tomb” - one should say in a tomb or cemetery, according to the Greek “ϰοιμητήριον”. At Matins on Saturday of the fifth week, the akathist is read in four stages of six stanzas or sections in each. The Akathist, as is known, consists of 24 stanzas arranged alphabetically, of which 12, ending with the word “Alleluia”, are now called kontakia, and those ending with “Rejoice” are called ikos. But in ancient times both those and others were called indifferently ikos. Therefore, in handwritten and old printed Greek statutes, only ikos are spoken of, numbering 24, and the matter is presented in this way: according to the Six Psalms, six ikos are read, after the immaculate ones the next six, according to the third canto six further, and after the sixth - the remaining six. Και αναγινωσϰομεν απο των οιϰων εξ, it is said in the Greek charter about the reading of the first part of the akathist. In the Slavic printed text this passage is stated in relation to the later division of the akathist into kontakia and ikos: “we honor the six ikos and kontakia” (l. 488). In addition to the uncertainty of this designation (whether three kontakia and ikos are read per department, or six of both), further words contradict this reading: “these ikosi are in alphabetical order 24.” If there are 24 ikos, then there is no place for kontakia in the akathist. These words constitute a literal translation from Greek: “οι αυτοι δε οιϰοι ϰατα ᾶβ (αλϕαβητον) ηγουν ΚΔ’.” To eliminate the contradiction, you need one thing: either remove the word “kontakion” from the previous verse, or add it to the last one, which only talks about ikos. Then another reading will come out: these ikosi and kontakia are in alphabetical order siest 24, which will correspond to the current division of the akathist. Further it says: let us honor from the word of the akathist (of course the legend about the non-sedal) for two donations, that is, in two steps. In Greek stands "δωσιν μιαν". The following was noted about fasting during Holy Week: (fol. 498 vol.): “at the meal we eat dry food and are satisfied with this. And just as in the first week of this holy fast, on these days too: on Great Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday it is proper to fast.” Thus, the fast of the first three days of Holy Week is equal in severity to the fast of the first week and, therefore, must consist of complete non-eating until Wednesday evening. But this is contradicted by the first words of the written rule, where only dry eating is prescribed for these days. According to the Greek charter, dry eating is also prescribed until Maundy Thursday, as can be seen from the following words: ξηροϕαγιαν μεχρι της μεγαλης πεμπτης.” Nothing is said about the equation of the fast of Holy Week with the first. On Maundy Thursday after the liturgy, “we enter into the meal and eat the stew with oil, drink wine and other dry foods, and then alleluia is sung.” (fol. 503 vol.) Why is it said here about dry eating, when at the same time it is said about the use of boiled water at meals, and even with butter and wine? Indeed, there must be one thing: either hot food with butter for the sake of the holiday, or dry food for the sake of the fast day, “before alleluia is sung.” Here, in fact, two rules and two different customs are combined: one strict, the echo of which is dry eating, based on the 50th rule of the Council of Laodicea, according to which “on the fourth of the last week of Pentecost it is not appropriate to allow fasting... but to fast with dry eating 2 , and the other is soft, the representatives of which are the ancient statutes: Studite and Jerusalem, according to which on these days allowed for wine and two boils with butter. In the Holy Saturday service, the troparia added to the verses of the immaculates are first called laudations (according to the Greek τὰ ἐγϰώμια), and then refrains. However, in the Greek charter there is no specific terminology on this subject, and these troparia are called either ἐγϰώμια, then τροπάρια, then στιχοὶ. “After dismissal (the liturgy of Great Saturday) we leave the church for a meal and each one will sit in his place” (fol. 513 vol.). So it is in the Greek charter. But in the Slavic triodion it is different: we do not leave the church, but sit in our own places. About the time of breaking fast on Holy Saturday, reference is made to the wills of St. Apostle (513 vol.). Of course, the Apostolic Decrees. The name of their wills is a remnant of the Old Church Slavonic translation and, as it is not common now, can give rise to misunderstandings. In general, this entire article, starting with the reference to the Apostolic Decrees, is borrowed from Nikon the Montenegrin and is not found in the Greek charter. It is edited far from satisfactorily. “There is nothing else to eat,” it says, but bread and vegetables and a little wine (sic) as I remember.” There is a full stop here, but in the original the speech continues, and the expression: “as I think” refers to the words that follow it, crossed out by the inquiry officer: “for the hell of it you cannot reach the Apostolic and Catholic Churches.” In the charter of 1641, these words are actually read and excluded, contrary to the logical connection, already in the charter of 1682. The rule of leaving the altar doors open during the entire duration of the liturgy during Bright Week is read in this form only from the statute of 1682, and in previous editions it is expressed with the following limitation: “let it be known that the royal doors are not opened during the entire Bright Week, but everywhere in the churches they are closed exactly at the prosphyromas and after the transfer” (Constitution of 1641. l. 45 fifty). To confirm that cheese and eggs brought for blessing on Easter Day should not be brought into the church, the 3rd Apostolic Rule and 99 of the Council of Trula are cited, but they are given in the Old Russian translation, which does not agree with the original. It is necessary to set them out according to the rule book. The order and method of reading the prayers of kneeling at Vespers on the day of Pentecost are presented as follows: after the prokeimenon at the evening entrance and the invitation by the deacon to kneel, “the priest reads the prayers in the altar publicly.” But only the beginning of the first one is indicated; as if the composition of the kneeling prayers of the first group is limited to this alone; in fact, in the ancient and new missals, according to which these prayers are read, there are two of them in the first group, two in the second, and three in the third. According to this, the count of prayers at the beginning and end of each group should be corrected. So eg. instead of: “the priest reads the second prayer,” you need to say the third; for the first prayer of the second group is the third in the overall count. At the third genuflection, the priest no longer reads the third prayer, but the fifth, to which two other prayers are added. This inaccuracy, however, is not a feature of the Slavic edition of the statute, but originates from Greek typologies and is not eliminated even in its printed editions. The reason for its appearance was the fact that in the most ancient times of church rite, when the first foundations of the church service were being laid, at Vespers of Pentecost only three prayers were actually read, according to the number of antiphons, and the rest were added later and remained in the charter without counting. But no matter how this presentation came about, it has now become inaccurate and diverges from the text of the missal, where each prayer is written down separately, and the total number of them is much more than three. The next printed edition of the statute was published in 1695 and completed the process of correcting our type. What was undertaken and done in this regard further, up to the last edition of 1877 (inclusive), is limited to minor changes in the text and proofreading amendments, leaving the text of prayers and sequences unchanged. Even the mistakes and oversights made by the inspectors of 1695 have not been eliminated, and the matter remains in almost the same situation as it was 180 years ago. On the editorial side, our current charter also has not moved far forward and, with a few exceptions, is a reprint from the edition of 1695. This latter, called in the preface “the second in the correction,” was published with the blessing of Patriarch Hadrian and was agreed “in the monthly with the newly published menaions in the troparia and kontakion and in everything that follows.” From this it is clear that, in comparison with the charter of 1682, Adrian’s edition was distinguished by the revision of the monthly part and its agreement with the corrected menaions of the last issue. Therefore, in order to judge the features of this type, you need to first get acquainted with the printed edition of the menia, published after the charter of 1682, and determine what their correction consisted of. The first printed edition of service menias was undertaken in Moscow, under Patriarch Hermogenes, and in 1607 the September book of menstruation menias was published from the royal drukarny. As can be seen from the preface, pre-printing, the patriarch of the council testified to “a worldwide circulation (circle) of books for twelve months menya.” The reason for this revision was that “for many years these books, always translated from Greek into Slovenian,” were damaged by translators and copyists, as a result of which very unsatisfactory editions appeared, in which much was lost, mixed up and sinned 3 . But what aids were used during this conciliar witnessing of the mena, and how the matter of their revision was generally carried out, remains unknown. It can only be seen that the correctors did not have Greek lists at hand, but made do with Slavic lists alone. The second, third and subsequent editions, ending with the post-Nikon edition of 1666–1667, were published under the same conditions and repeat, with minor changes, what was said in the afterword to their first edition. This continued until the patriarchate of Joachim, during which, together with the systematic editing of the charter and other service books, the first edition of service menias, reviewed and corrected according to Greek models, was undertaken. This publication was closely connected with the charter of 1682 and constitutes an era in the history of the text of our monthly menyas. It was conceived on a large scale and transferred to a special commission of investigators, headed by Elder Euthymius, already known to us. This was in 191. But his work, as we have seen, was unsuccessful and was banned, bringing the editor-in-chief into royal disfavor and removal from the post of reference officer. (Appendix to TV. St. Ot. 1883, book IV 534, 535). The Menaion, ruled by Euthymius, came out in three months, from September to November, in 198 earlier than June, because the royal decree by which this publication was stopped and prohibited took place on June 1, 198. A few months later, precisely on December 11 of the same year, a new edition of them was started, 4 which ended in printing and was published on the 30th day of September 200. (Ibid 573). Under such circumstances, the first corrected edition of service menias appeared, attributed by our bibliographers to the year 1689–1691. In the preface to his September book, very interesting indications were made about what considerations prompted this case and what guided the investigators in their work. “These books,” says the notice for the September Menea, these books have been printed anywhere in the Slovenian language for many years 5; which, before this, the menstrual and general menaions were printed from handwritten, also first printed, and whoever found a translation where, it was printed without correction. For this reason, in many places there were discrepancies between them: they were from unskilled writers, and at that time they did not have the ability to correct books.” As a result of this, “these books of the 12 mina were ordered to be edited from the translations of the Greek and Slavic-Russian written and printed books and in the correction of existing books... and in agreement with the statutory conciliar type printed in the summer of 7195” 6. Skilled men of the clergy worked on this matter in the patriarch's house under the special supervision of bishops and archimandrites. Fulfilling the requirement expressed in the royal decree regarding the Euthymian case, the investigators brought each case of correction to the attention of the patriarch, pointed to the source they followed, and after the report, having received permission, made these amendments to the text and sent them to print. In addition, they brought the text of the Menaia into agreement with the previously corrected books, such as: the Lenten and Colored Triodion, the Octoechos, and the Irmoses were compared with the printed Irmology. “And some Greek or Slavic sayings, or corrected verses are spoken in the notice, and from which books, everything is specifically written in the translation, which is now a true testimony to everyone at the printing yard in the royal book depository chamber.” Some of these translations (unfortunately, not all) have survived to this day in the printing library in the form of corrected copies with the handwritten notes of the reference workers. Thanks to them, we had the opportunity to visually familiarize ourselves with the conduct of this business and with the means at the disposal of the publishers of mines 1689 and subsequent. 7 years old In essence, they differed little from their predecessors in the edition of the charter of 1682, except for greater accuracy in indicating sources and caution in changing the text. Notes are made in the margins of the book in cinnabar, in small, very illegible handwriting, and with large abbreviations. Places to be corrected are crossed out and appropriate corrections are made above them, and in the margins opposite them it is noted where they were taken from. From these marks it is clear that the surveyors most often used the Greek printed menaia and the Slavic charter, and then they consulted the Greek triodion and psalter, the Lviv trefology, the printed ohtai, the penticostarium, the six-day and general menaion, and the service to St. Nicholas the Wonderworker (May 9) was ordered to be written from the book of his life. If this mass of corrections is grouped according to the sources that the references were guided by, it turns out that most of the corrections were made on the basis of the Greek text of the menaion and the Slavic type of 1682. There remains a relatively small number of references for other manuals. Using the Greek menaions, we checked the composition of the services, the text of the stichera and canons, and restored the acrostics. When there were no stichera or any other chants in the Greek original, or there were others in a different translation, the reference made a note in the margin: “this stichera...”, or simply, “this is not in the Greek.” Places of this kind are mostly crossed out, but sometimes remain untouched, accompanied by a note indicating that they are not found in Greek books. Unlike the statute of 1682, and perhaps due to the unsuccessful use of the Greek text by Euthymius, these references were very rarely taken into account and did not serve as an obstacle to retaining such passages in the revised edition of the menia. This makes it clear that the rule according to the Greek text was not carried out consistently, and was applied to the correction of the text of the service mena, and not their composition. Since the charter of 1682, the following were edited: troparia, kontakia, Markovian chapters, and the composition of the memorials was checked. Where it was necessary to comply with this source, the reference officer put a mark in the field: “write from the charter,” or simply, “charter”; and in one place the following is read: “not to be for what is not in the charter.” That these references meant the edition of 1682 can be easily seen from a comparison of the corrected passages with the text of the said charter. With very few and unimportant exceptions, the troparia and kontakia are literally similar to their translation in the 1682 charter, and the editors of the menia apparently copied them from here word for word. But this can be seen even more clearly from the following link, placed under May 8th. If, it says, the feast of St. John the Theologian happens on the week of Myrrh-Bearing, the Paralytic, or the Blind, then the rule about the service on this day is assigned “to be written from the charter of the book.” 335, and in which services the troparion or stichera of a saint are written, write the apostle instead.” According to the certificate with the charter of 1682, it turns out that on l. 335 talks about how to conduct the service if the memory of the Great Martyr George occurs in one of the named weeks. A reference was made to the same article, under May 8 (fol. 346), and in later statutes it was moved under May 8 and applied to the service of that day. In connection with this transfer, the director’s remark about changing the name of the Saint to the name of the Apostle in the stichera and troparia becomes understandable. Finally, the Lvov trephology also had a significant share of participation in the management of the Minya. Although in the preface to the menaions it is not mentioned among the manuals on the right, references to it now and then litter the margins of the corrected copies and thereby give an idea of ​​the significance of this source in the matter on the right. Let us not forget that the Lvov Trephology was adopted as one of the main guidelines when the charter was published in 1682, and his name occupies a prominent place among the manuals that were given to the guides of the enquirers. What kind of publication is this - Lvov Trephology, and what right did it have to such wide use? Lvov trefology (more precisely, tropology) 8 or anthology is nothing more than a festive menaion, with some additions from the charter. The first edition of this book was published in 1632, in Lvov, and was the third corrected edition of the service menaion 9. As can be seen from the preface, this trefology was edited according to Greek models, then reviewed and approved for use by four Eastern patriarchs. In the words of the preface, this book “is filled with the heavenly dew and reliably recounted from the Greek truth and corrected by the third, by a conciliar command and blessing not only ancient, but also by a new written statement from the four-throne shepherds of the ecumenical, brought to you by my true son and given for the benefit of your soul.” Since this edition has undergone a major revision and in many ways turned out to be different from the previous ones, the publishers found it necessary to turn to readers with an explanation of where these differences came from and how to look at them. “Also, don’t be fooled,” they say, blaming this, because much of what is new here is more than the first and second printed essence, but let them know that they are not new, but old in execution: for the essence of the mysteries of God is hidden and is not known to everyone everywhere. Even though they are not found in some Hellenic and Slovenian publications, they are still found in others around the whole month, which you have diligently searched for. Someone will ask from you: how has it not been found before, then you understand, beloved children in Russia, as the day of days is belched by the verb and the night of the night is proclaimed by the mind: but laziness, for the sake of diligence and impoverishment of the fruits, is the guide and brevity for the sake of all this that happened "10. Thus, at a time when service books in Great Russia and Moscow were published based on Slavic manuscripts and printed publications, in Southern Rus' the need to use Greek models was already recognized, and this idea found its implementation in a number of publications 11, among which the Lvov trefology occupied an outstanding place and did great service to Moscow inquiry officers. It was with these corrected menaia of Hadrian’s edition that the statute of 1695, the “second revised” edition of our statute, as the preface says about it, was agreed upon in the monthly part. It differs from the statute of 1682 in the presentation of the service according to the mena, and in the general and triode parts it almost everywhere agrees with them verbatim. The reference books slightly changed the composition of the memorials, introduced new troparia with kontakia for some saints, and corrected others and presented them in a different translation. In all these cases, they were guided by the finished text of the Menaia of 1689–1691, so that wherever there is a difference between the statutes of 1682–1695, it has a basis in the text of the Menaia and represents a surplus by which the corrected Menaia differ in the monthly text from the statute of 1682. We will group these differences in a special appendix, to which we refer the reader [see below], and here we note only that the monthly book under the charter of 1695 included 12 or so new memorials, compared with the edition of 1682, and more than half of them were Russian Saints. Our enquirers, in the person of Hadrian's mena and the charter, made a kind of turn away from the exclusively Greek direction that was adopted in the charter of 1682. In addition, several commemorations were excluded and between them, on May 14, the memory of St. Euphrosynus of Pskov, and 27 – St. Nicholas Kachanov. As for the translation of troparions and kontakia in the charter of 1695, the advantage of greater correctness and accuracy in many cases should remain with the charter of 1682. The compilers of mena, guided by this latter, in places found it necessary to change and update the translation of church hymns. As a result, differences in presentation ended up in the menaia, which increased even more due to the fact that their publishers had at hand a Greek text of a different edition than the reference books of 1682. These changes were included in the charter of 1695 without verification, and in this form the troparia and kontakia are printed in the charter to this day. Let us note some of these features of the translation and compare them with the text of the Greek menaia of the Venetian edition of 1647, with the anthology of 1672 and with the book of hours of 1676. The kontakion to Simeon the Stylite in the charter of 1695, and the current one reads: seek the highest, copulate with the highest. In the statute of 1682, the lower ones copulate; in print Greek – τὰ ἄνω ζητῶν τοῖς ϰάτω συναπτόμενος. The idea is that the monk, having ascended the pillar (τὰ ἄνω), did not interrupt communication with the human world, responding to its spiritual needs. In Greek Kondakar from the Synod. bib. "τοῖς ἄνω"; in glory Kondakar Tipogr. bib. XI-XII centuries “copulate with the highest”; in the 15th-16th century. Synod. bib. “lower” (lyrics: Arch. Amphil. Kontakion, p. 52). Kontakion to the Hieromartyr Anthimus (September 3). In the charter of 1695 and the present: having lived piously in the priesthood; 1682 – known to have lived; in Kondakar Synodal. ἐυσεβῶς, in the book of hours 1676 ἀϰριβῶς. Troparion of the pre-celebration of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary. In the charter of 1695: with joy everyone rejoices and is renewed: heaven and earth rejoice, praise the language of the fatherland; 1682 - in the same way, all that is being renewed rejoices, and heaven and earth rejoice, and the language of the fatherland is praised. In Greek anthology: χαρᾶ γὰρ χάιρει ἡ συμπάσα ϰαὶ ϰαινουργεῖται. ? τῶν ἐϑνῶν. In the book of hours 1676 – Διὸ ϰαὶ χάιρει ἡ συμπάσα ϰαὶ ϰαινουργεῖται συγχάρειτε... ἀινοῦσι. Kontakion of St. Gregory the Illuminator (September 30). In the charter of 1695: let us praise the cheerful shepherd and teacher Gregory, the universal lamp; 1682 - let us praise Gregory the shepherd and teacher of the bright lamp. To the synod. kondakare: ευϕημησωμεν γρηγόριον ποιμένα ϰαὶ διδασϰαλον τὸν ἔϰλαμπρον ϕωστὴρα τὸν παγϰόσμιον; in the calendar of 1323 - τὸν ἕϰλαμπρον γριγόριον; in the Book of Hours 1676 as in Kondakar. (Amphil. 61). Kontakion to Amphilochius of Iconium (November 23). In the charter of 1695: divine thunder, trumpet of the spirit, faith to the gardener and slaughter of heresies to the hierarch; 1682 - divine thunder, spiritual trumpet, faith to the planter and cutter of heresies, the saint. But the Greek "πιστῶν ϕυτουργὲ ϰαὶ πέλεϰις τῶν αἱρέσεων." (Μην. Νοεμβζ. ενετίης 1644). Kontakion Rev. Savva (December 5). In the charter of 1695: Blessed Savva, the gardener, having been pious, the deserted citizen was worthy of praise; We also call you: Rejoice, rich Savvo; 1682 - Blessed Savvo, before your existence you were the leader... the desert dweller is worthy of praise; I also call you: Rejoice, Father of everlasting memory. According to Greek Σάββα μαϰὰριε τῷ δὲ πρὶν γεννηϑῆναι επισταμένο εχρημάτισας ὁσίων εγϰαλλώπισμα, πολιτής τε τής ἐρημου ἀξιέπαινος, διὸ ϰράζω σοι. χάιροις πάτερ αοίδιμε (Orolog. 1676). Σάββα μαϰὰριε ϕυτουργὸς εχρηματισας εὐσεβέιας, ὂϑεν πέϕυϰας ὁσίων ἐγϰαλλώπισμα χάιρε Σάββα πανόλβιε (Anfol. 1672). Kontakion of St. Patapia (December 8). In the charter of 1695: the healing of ailments is asked to make decisions in the lives of sinners: you are the representative of all those in need; in the charter of 1682 - asking for the healing of ailments and the resolution of their sins: you are an intercessor for everyone in need; According to Greek ἵασιν τῶν νοοηματον λαβείν άιτβντα·. λυσιν τε των έν τω βίω πλημμελήματα)ν. συ γαρ πάντων των εν αναγκαις προστάτης. (Ibid. μην. δεκεμβρ) So to the synod. kondakar. Kontakion much. Marina (July 17). In the charter of 1695: miracles of enlightened healings, you piously accepted the honor of victory to the martyr; 1682 - you were enlightened by miracles and healings and the honor of victory was received by the martyr by the grace of your creator. Greek ϰαὶ τῆς νιϰῆς τὰ βραβεῖα ἐδέξω μάρτυς χειρὶ τοῦ ϰτίστου σοῦ. (Orologist.) Ἐυσεβῶς μάρτυς εδέξω βραβεῖα τῆς σῆς ἀϑλήσεως (Anthology.). Kontakion much. Dometius (August 7). In the charter of 1695: not wanting to honor Christ the true God; 1682 - does not want to honor the image of Christ. Kontakion to Maximus the Confessor (August 12). In the charter of 1695: the tri-illuminated light that has settled in your soul, the vessel chosen to show you all-blessed, revealing the divine to be the end of inconvenient understandings, you say blissfully and preach the Trinity to all Maxima clearly, the pre-existent without beginning; 1682 - a tri-radiant light has entered your soul, a vessel has been chosen to show you all-blessedly, telling the divine end the inconvenience of reason; You preached the Trinity to everyone, clearly to the most blessed Maxima, subsisting and without beginning. According to Greek ϕῶς τὸ τριλαμπὸς οἰϰῆσαν ἐν τῆ ψυχῆ σοῦ σϰεῦος ἐϰλεϰτὸς ἀνεδει ξε σε παμμάϰαρ σαϕηνίζης τὰ ϑεῖα τοῖς πέρασι δυσεϕιϰτων τε νοημάτων την δήλωσιν μαϰάριε τριάδα πᾶσι μαξίμε, αναϰηρύττων τρανῶς ὑπερούσιον ἄναρχον (ibid). Let us note the inaccurate translation of the kontakion for the week of Orthodoxy, which reads in the 1682 and current charter as follows: the indescribable Word of the Father from you to the Theotokos is described as incarnate (it should be incarnated σαρϰούμενος i.e. Λόγος) and the defiled image in the ancient imagining divine goodness of the mixture (to the divine goodness of the admixture, τῶ ϑεῖω ϰάλλει συγϰατέμιξεν). Thus, the difference in the translation of troparia and kontakia depended on the different texts used by Slavic translators, and sometimes on the unequal rendering of the same Greek expression. But on what the preference of one text over another was based - we have no positive information about this and are forced to be content with assumptions. We can express only one wish: that the text of church songs in the charter be subjected to a strict revision, verified with Greek sources and, if necessary, corrected. We had at hand a corrected copy of the April, May and June menaia from the library of the Synodal Printing House No. 1316 and 1144. For the correction, the menaia of the Joseph edition were taken, and notes and corrections were made on them by the hand of the reference. And on the first page of the April Menaion the following note was made in cursive cursive writing: “ruled in 192 and 196.” It follows that on the right, the menya began two years after the publication of the charter of 1682 and coincides with the time of the establishment of the Euthymius commission. Here are the original documents for the history of the preparatory works for the publication of the minya of 1689 and 1691. To familiarize yourself with them clearly, let’s make a few extracts from here. In the Joseph edition, under April 2, three stichera were placed, beginning with the words: that I call you... that now I prophesy... that now I will call you wonderful. Instead of them, three new ones were written and at the end of them it was noted: “corrected from the Greek,” and in the field opposite the previous ones - “instead of these, write stichera stichera with haratain (?), and these stichera of February in the 18th day to Leo the Pope of Rome.” Thus, in the previous editions of the menya, due to an oversight, they ended up in the service of St. Titus stichera in memory of Leo the Pope. To the canon of Nikita of Midice (April 3) added in July “his own acrostic, besides the Mother of God: I honor your all-blessed life, father.” A troparion was added to his first song with the remark: “Greek. har." Against the canon to Joseph the hymn writer (April 4) - “this canon in Greek. carry." In mina 1690 withheld. 13 Apr - “in Greek. there is no service for Artemon to carry a printed menage.” 14 Apr the service to the Lithuanian martyrs: Anthony, John, Eustathius was crossed out with the remark: “this service cannot be written because it is not there” (i.e. in the charter). 19 Apr Kontakion Rev. To John of the Old Cave: “by abstinence, father”, crossed out and in the margin it is noted: “not to be for what is not in the charter and is laid down on the 18th day.” Indeed, on the 18th this kontakion is read and placed on John, the disciple of St. Gregory Dekapolit. 23 Apr the stichera to the Great Martyr George, laid out at Little Vespers, were crossed out and assigned to the praise, and instead of them, others “from the Lvov trefoloy” were written on a special piece of paper; to the stichera on the verse one “from the charatean menaion” was added; the stichera at Great Vespers are corrected “from the Greek. harat. and Lvovsk." On May 2, the service for the transfer of the relics of Sts. Boris and Gleb, and the service was left to Athanasius of Alexandria alone. At the end, however, there is a service for our martyred princes, but it is crossed out with the note: “there is no service,” according to the charter of 1682. On May 7, the memory of St. Anthony of Pechersk, according to the charter of 1682 and in justification it was noted: “clean; Here we do not write the service because in the charter of this saint the memory is laid down on the 10th day, but write the service from the Lvov trefoloy.” May 12, about the stichera of St. Epiphanius: “this stichera in Greek. and harat. carry." But in the menea of ​​1691 they were placed and have remained to this day. Against the canon: - “to ask about this canon.” May 14 commemoration of Rev. Euphrosyne of Pskov was crossed out, and before the service it was noted to him: “there will be no such service.” Indeed, in the menea of ​​1691 it was excluded, just as it is not in the charter of 1682 and subsequent ones. Celebration of Rev. Euphrosyne was approved at the council in 1549, and the service to him was compiled much earlier. The reason for its exclusion from our service books was probably its content, which extols the praises of St. Euphrosynus as the establisher of a special alleluia, and the custom of double alleluia seems Orthodox and approved by the Patriarch of Constantinople. For example: as this matter is stated in the verse sticheron to glory: “whenever, in favor of God, the Venerable Euphrosyne, bursting with spiritual desire about the divine mystery of the most holy Alleluia, you reached the reigning city and were honestly accepted from the Holy Patriarch and were granted blessings and accepted the scripture from him about the most pure Alleluia; Then you yourself see with your wise eyes in the cathedral church the most holy alleluia is spoken twice, and from there we send back to our monastery, carrying peace and blessings to the brethren with us. In the same way, your monastery will receive you with love, like a father, in it you labored for many years in fasting and abstinence and labor, hedgehog to God, and having betrayed the scriptures of the brethren and peace and blessing, you go to the Lord, praying to him to be saved, who sing thee in love.” On the 6th song of the canon of tropes. 3rd: “John Chrysostom followed the zeal of the Reverend Father Euphrosyne: he was imprisoned by the queen for the sake of grapes, but you, from the pillar of the philosopher, suffered much humiliation and annoyance from foolish people about the most pure alleluia, and you put him to shame by God’s grace.” On the 7th canto, the troparion: “after the divine repose, Father Euphrosyne, I am writing to the writer your life and the miracles that you did about Christ and in bewilderment I told him about the divine alleluia, but you, the God-bearing fathers with the Most Holy Theotokos and with the Archangel, appeared in a vision and commanded without hesitation to write to Christ mystery, crying out: Blessed be the God of our fathers.” On May 20, on the day of Metropolitan Alexy, an all-night vigil is to be held. Instead, it is written: “a vigil in his monastery and in the great church, everywhere the polyeleos.” So it is in the charter of 1682. On May 26, the memory of the discovery of the relics of Macarius of Kolyazinsky and the service to him were crossed out with the following remark: “there will not be this service, but there will be a service for him on the 17th of March.” Appendix B. New memories and troparia with kontakia in the charter of 1695 compared with the charter of 1682 By placing under this heading a condensed list of memorials and troparions with kontakia, which make up the surplus in the charter of 1695 before Joachim’s edition of the type, we mean to clearly explain what was the agreement of the charter of 1695 with the menaions of the last issue “in the monthly, troparia and kontakia,” as noted in the preface. Without exhausting all the differences of this kind, we outline only the main ones and highlight the most important side of the work with which the editors of Adrian’s edition of the charter were busy. It turns out, upon comparison, that about 30 Saints were given second troparia, or kontakia; namely: special ones are added to the general troparions, and kontakia are written after the 3rd and 6th songs of the canon. On 17 or so memorials there are different troparions, or kontakia, compared to the charter of 1682, and between them there are several memorials, which in the previous charter had neither troparions nor kontakia. The following new memories have been introduced: September 3 – Rev. Grigory Pelshemsky. October 2 – Andrei Yurodivago (in the charter of 1682 he is mentioned in the service, but not indicated in the month’s word of the charter). November 26 – Commemoration of the consecration of the Church of St. George in Kiev. November 27 – Rev. Palladia. February 4 – Blessed Prince Georgy Vsevolodovich Vladimirsky. March 2 – Arseny Tverskoy. March 24 – Like our Father Artemy in the Saints, Bishop. Thessalonite (this is St. Artemius of Seleucia, converted into Thessalonica due to the incorrect reading of his name by the scribes (see Arch. Sergius Hagiologist. II. March 24). May 16 – Rev. Efrem Perekomsky. May 19 – Cornelius of Komel. June 26 – Tikhvin Icon of the Mother of God. July 3 – Metropolitan Philip. July 8 – Procopy of Ustyug and the sign from the icon of the Most Holy. Mother of God. August 4 – Rev. much Evdokia. The following memories are excluded: June 3 – Anatoly Patriarch. June 27 – Rev. Nikolai Kachanov. All these differences were transferred from the corrected mines of the last exit. Indeed, in the charter of 1641 this place is read in accordance with the Greek. printed text and left unchanged. The current reading was introduced in the 1682 edition. In the same charter of 1682, ch. 32 the following reads: “On Maundy Thursday, the statutes also command that the oil be broken up, but it is not done for the honesty of the days.” The same stern view is shared by Nikon Chernogorets: “on Maundy Thursday, he says, the food should be boiled without oil and other dry eating: sing alleluia” (Tact. Ch. 1). Stroev. Description old man book Thick. No. 517. “In the past, in December 198, on the 11th day... at the book printing yard, the books of the twelfth menaion began to be printed... from September for three months.” Their last publication was in 1666–1667, therefore 22 years ago That is, they agree with the printed type of 1682. For the meaning of the word tropology, see Pitra. Analecta Sacra I. 1876. p. V.VII. Reliably from the truth of the Hellenic word and corrected in tertiary form (Preface to Trefol. 1632). We used the Lvov trefology of 1632 from libraries. M. D. Academy. Sl. Sopik. I. No. 55. Next editions ibid No. 57, 58, 62. Anthologist. 1643 see p. No. 100. Eg. Octoechos of Lvov in 1630 was entrusted for correction by a prudent and skilled man in the Greek-Hellenic language (ibid No. 80). The Teaching Gospel (Kyiv 1637) was translated from Greek and Slovenian into Russian (No. 86). Octoechos of Lvov in 1639, with great diligence, dangerously resolved and corrected the Hellenic laws (ibid No. 91). The service book of Peter Mogila (Kyiv 1639) was printed from the text of the truthful Greek and old-time Russian and Moscow service books (No. 93). Wed. Trefology Kuteinsky and even earlier editions, such as. Anthologion of the Kyiv press 1619 (ibid No. 63), teachings of Abba Dorotheus (No. 75), etc. How its printing was carried out, the following is recorded in the papers of the archive of the Printing Court: in the past, in August 202, at 7, by decree of the great sovereigns John Alekseevich, Peter Alekseevich of All Great and Little and White Russia, autocrats and with the blessing of the great master, His Holiness Cyrus Adrian, Archbishop of Moscow and all northern countries, Patriarch, on the book printing yard began printing books charters in ten Nikitin alphabet in the chamber, in four camps around the plant 1200 books, and those book charters went out of business this year in April 203 at 30, in the book there are 85 notebooks... And in business there were 1113 books at 2 rubles. 23 altyn, 2 dengi book in tetratech. Four people as a book reference for a book with flowers, three people as a clerk, a reader and two scribes for a book in tetratech. On the excerpt of the litter of clerk Andrei Mikhailov: 204 September at 11, by decree of the great sovereigns and the Holy Patriarch to give books to the world at a price per book of three rubles in tetratech. The four book inspectors mentioned in this entry were probably the four persons who, under the year 202, signed up to receive salaries for the position of inspectors: Hieromonk Karion, Hieromonk Matthew, Hierodeacon Theophanes and Monk Aaron.