Глава Пятая. Богослужение

Section one. Churches or churches. Number of stone churches and their architecture; wooden churches. Bell tower(s) and bilny(s). The internal structure of churches (chambers or choirs, kuteyniks, storehouses, forges). Internal accessories of churches (altars, icons with iconostases, paintings, pulpits) and in them accessories for worship (robes, antimensions, etc.). Their external and internal decoration (gilded domes, marble floors, metal doors). External church and liturgical accessories (bells and beaters). Throughout all the time that is subject to our consideration, as in the pre-Mongol period, our ordinary urban and rural churches throughout all of Russia were wooden churches; Stone churches at all times continued to represent nothing more than an exception, although as such they may now have begun to appear not only in cities, but partly also in villages, which is especially likely about the villages of the Novgorod-Pskov region. These latter churches, being taken for magnificent churches - in the sense of splendor not real, but conditional, in our time, as in the pre-Mongol period, firstly, were considered a necessary decoration and a necessary accessory to the grand ducal capitals, - secondly, they enjoyed dominance and predominance in some cities that occupied an exceptional social position. In the pre-Mongol period, a relatively large number of stone churches were built in the capitals of the great reign - Kyiv and Vladimir Klyazemsky and in the city that occupied an exceptional social position - Veliky Novgorod. In our time, they began to be built in the capital of the Grand Duchy of Galicia, Kholm, and were indeed built in the capital of the Moscow Grand Duchy, Moscow, and in cities that occupied an exceptional social position - Novgorod and Pskov. The Grand Duke of Galich Daniil Romanovich, having moved the capital of his great reign from Galich to Kholm, began to decorate the latter with stone churches, building three or four such churches 452. But his successors immediately after him fell into disrepair and, it seems, stopped even having a definite capital 453, so that the matter hardly stopped with these three or four churches. Moscow replaced Vladimir as the capital of the northern great reign not immediately after the Mongol invasion, but 90 years later. During these 90 years, the local great princes, it seems, did not add a single stone church to the stone churches previously built in Vladimir. First, quite significantly - for some time after the Mongol invasion, the great princes had no time to build stone churches. Then, they changed very often; finally, soon after the invasion, they developed such a state view as to see their real capitals not in the capital of the great reign, but in the capitals of their clan fiefs. The first stone church in Moscow, founded four and a half months before the death of St. Peter, was built when it (Moscow) had not yet become, but only strived and hoped to become the capital of the great reign instead of Vladimir. Immediately after this, Moscow’s hopes were realized, and it, as the capital of the great reign, began to be decorated with stone churches. Grand Duke Ivan Danilovich Kalita and successor of St. Peter, Metropolitan Theognostus made their deliberate efforts about this, although due to the lack of funds from the Grand Duke, the efforts could not be expressed in too many ways. Whether or not the five successors of Ivan Danilovich before Ivan Vasilyevich III made such efforts is unknown to us; but in all likelihood one must think that yes, and, in any case, it is undoubtedly that after Ivan Danilovich Kalita, the number of stone churches in Moscow increased with one degree or another. This can be seen from the fact that in 1476. Only in the Kremlin and behind its wall there were more than 20 stone churches 454. Ivan Vasilyevich III, who had not yet decided to accept the title of Tsar, but was already fully aware of himself as one, having created the walls and towers of the present Kremlin, decorated the latter with those monumental churches that constitute its decoration to this day - the Assumption, Annunciation and Archangel Cathedrals (finished after him, but begun by him), and in addition, in general, he built many stone churches in Moscow 455. Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich built at least 14 stone churches in Moscow, which are directly listed in the chronicles 456. Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich IV distinguished himself in our respect to very few. But to this very few belongs such a beautiful monument of church architecture as the Intercession Cathedral or St. Basil's Church. The great princes were helped in decorating their capital with stone churches by the founders and abbots of monasteries, private wealthy people and parish communities. The fruit of the general zeal for the church decoration of the capital of the state, which was then considered the most important decoration, was that by the time of the death of Metropolitan Macarius there were more than fifty stone churches in Moscow and, perhaps, significantly more than 457. During the pre-Mongol period, the exceptional and exceptionally rich Novgorod not only did not lag behind Kyiv in terms of the number (though not the quality) of stone churches, but even surpassed it. Similarly, in our time, Novgorod not only did not lag behind Moscow in this regard, but also significantly surpassed it. During our time, about a hundred new stone churches were built in it, not counting the restored ones. Novgorod's younger brother Pskov, during the pre-Mongol period, was content with only two stone churches, one of which, moreover, was built not by the citizens of the city themselves, but by the Archbishop of Novgorod (in the Mirozhsky Monastery by Archbishop Nifont). But in our time, starting from the beginning of the 14th century, he appeared as a zealous competitor of Novgorod in relation to stone churches, and during this time, up to forty stone churches were built in it. So, Moscow, Novgorod and Pskov - these are three cities that, throughout our time, have been decorated and flaunted with many stone churches. As for the rest of the cities of Rus', one city is known in which there were up to five stone churches, or perhaps no more than five, and then - very few of them had stone churches in the plural from two to three or four, very few had one, while the vast majority had none at all. The only known city that had up to five stone churches, or perhaps several more, is Tver. Like Moscow, being a new city and becoming the capital of a special fief either just before the invasion of the Mongols or immediately after it, Tver, earlier than Moscow, began to think about becoming the capital of a great reign instead of Vladimir. And then for some time she fought with Moscow because of dominance and for a very long time did not abandon her, so to speak, ambition (high opinion of herself). The princes of Tver, like the princes of Moscow, declared their political dream, by the way, by building a stone cathedral, and this was 40 years before Moscow in 1285. But then, for some reason that is not entirely clear, the princes did not show any jealousy for the beautification of their appanage capital with stone churches, so Tver rose above other cities only by that conventional multitude of our churches, that there were more of them in it than in other cities. – There was another city in which we would have expected to find our conventional set of stone churches and in which we do not find it; this is Pereyaslavl Ryazan, present-day Ryazan, the capital city of the Ryazan inheritance. The local prince Oleg Ivanovich, who occupied the throne for 50 years, constituting the second half of the 14th century (1350–1402), sought to make his inheritance independent of Moscow and a strong great reign. But with this desire of his, Oleg Ivanovich did not combine concerns about decorating the capital of his inheritance with stone churches. The stone churches built by the great princes in Kyiv appeared primarily as churches of the ancestral or family monasteries they established in the latter. The princely stone churches of Vladimir were also almost half built as monastery churches: as for Kyiv, every significant princely family that had its representatives on the throne of his great reign wanted to have their own family monastery in it, and in Vladimir the princes belonging to the same family built their own special monasteries one after another (there were exactly two such princes in Vladimir: Andrey Bogolyubsky and his brother Vsevolod). In Moscow there could not be the first, because the great princes were of the same family, but the second did not become a custom at all; and therefore here, with the slight exception of monastic and non-monastic churches of the court or palace proper, stone churches were built by the great princes, in the likeness of Novgorod and Pskov, as parish churches. At the same time, one should hardly imagine the matter in such a way that the great princes built parish churches really at their own expense. It is more likely, I think, to imagine it in such a way that the princes, taking care of the beautification of the capital with stone churches, forced the parishioners of rich parishes to build these churches, and that for their part they only provided more or less assistance to the parishioners. The peculiarity of our time compared to the previous one in relation to stone churches is that now, in addition to cities (and partly, perhaps, villages), they appeared in deserts. In our time, monasteries were established not only in cities, as was almost exclusively the case in the pre-Mongol period, but also mainly outside them, in remote and desert areas. The founders themselves or subsequent abbots of some of these desert monasteries took care to erect stone churches in them 458. In the pre-Mongol period the architecture of our stone churches 459 was Byzantine, and, if not in the Kyiv region, about which nothing can be said due to the lack of monuments (in fact, their lack of preservation in their original form), then in the Novgorod and Suzdal-Vladimir regions it had some particular differences from the well-known Byzantine architecture. Some of these differences were their own in one region and their own in another, so their architecture should be divided into two classes - Novgorod and Suzdal-Vladimir. For most of our time, the old architecture remained with us, namely, in Novgorod and Pskov, pre-Mongolian Novgorod, in Moscow, which should mean all of northern Rus' with the exception of Novgorod and Pskov, pre-Mongolian Suzdal-Vladimir, and then in the second half of the 15th century a new architecture appeared among us, which can be called properly Russian and which, not having supplanted the previous architecture, it began to exist together with this latter. Byzantine-Suzdal or Byzantine-Vladimir architecture in its essentials - in relation to the plans and frames of churches - remained in Moscow throughout our entire time exactly the same as it was in the pre-Mongol period in Suzdal - Vladimir: the reader will take the trouble to look at this in the first volume (2 half of chapter five, section 1). But in relation to the unimportant, we find in it in Moscow in our time some features and differences from the pre-Mongol Suzdal - Vladimir. These features and differences are as follows: Altar apses began to be built lower than they were in the pre-Mongol period. In the pre-Mongol period, they were usually arranged in such a way that they did not reach the height of the churches themselves (see vol. 1, half of p. 54/62); at the time we are considering, they began to be built a third and a half lower than the churches themselves 460. Instead of three altar apses, churches began to have five of these apses. However, only one church with five altar apses is known in our time, this is the Moscow Assumption Cathedral. The vestibules or tribunes of the domes (cfr I vol. 2 half, p. 30/34) began to be made narrower (thinner) than in the pre-Mongol period, so that they take the form of simple sub-main necks 461. Bogolyubsky introduced the decoration of the outer walls of churches using bas-reliefs (I volume 2 half pp. 38/43 and 49/56). We do not find these bas-reliefs, which are so characteristic and characterize churches so much, on Moscow churches. In large churches of the pre-Mongol period, which were at the same time the most important in importance (princely, cathedral-episcopal), porches were installed (ibid. pp. 60/69). Nowadays, we do not find these porches at large Moscow churches of Byzantine architecture. The Moscow churches of our time differ from the pre-Mongol Suzdal-Vladimir churches in relation to the so-called lizens that made up the external cutting of church walls (about which ibid. p. 36 sqq/41 sqq). In the pre-Mongolian Suzdal-Vladimir churches, lizens, which are separate areas of walls with semicircular tops, separated from one another by pilasters or columns, are divided in width by cornices into two equal fields - upper and lower, of which the first is deeper than the second (represents a large stove, so to speak) and of which the second in the churches of Bogolyubsky and the following are suspended under the cornice rows of speakers placed on human heads or animals. In the Moscow churches of our time we find the following differences regarding the lyzens versus the Suzdal-Vladimir pre-Mongol ones: with the same division into two equal fields, the lyzens sometimes have an intermediate cornice between the latter, if there is one between them, of its own special shape; The columns, which are not always suspended under the eaves, are also somewhat of their own special shape; sometimes lysenes are divided not into two equal, but into two completely unequal fields; sometimes they are divided not into two, but into three or four fields. The cornice in the Suzdal-Vladimir churches consists of lines of triangular stoves formed by placing bricks on an edge; the cornice of some Moscow churches consists not of one line, but of three lines, representing: either patterned weaving carved on stone (similar to the weaving of ancient book headpieces) 462, or lines of the aforementioned stoves in connection with a carving line 463, or lines of paths in connection with the same carving line 464. The columns under the cornices in the Suzdal-Vladimir churches are real columns, having round trunks as such and somewhat thinner on top against the bottom, having real bases and capitals under and above them; The columns of Moscow churches in general are not so much real columns as balusters of staircase railings, and sometimes even these latter ones: even if the condition is met that they should be thinner at the top opposite the bottom, then the condition that they be round is not met, and sometimes neither the first nor the second condition is met. (Instead of being truly round, they are either round with hewn sides or quadrangular, somewhat rounded along the edges); instead of real bases and capitals at the bottom and top of them there are cubic ankle shapes - either in the true form of cubes or cubes with truncated corners (prisms). The columns of the speakers are sometimes fitted with nuts in the middle in the form of flattened balls or in the form of thick rings 465. Lyzenes are sometimes divided into two completely unequal fields in Moscow churches in such a way that their upper fields, forming semi-circles and small pechura, are contained only in the space that makes up their semicircular tops 466. The lysenes are divided into three and four fields in such a way that the upper field is formed from the now indicated semicircle, sometimes with some capture and further, and that the remaining area is divided by cornices (belts) into two or three parts 467. In addition to the lizen, Moscow churches of our time differ from the pre-Mongol Suzdal-Vladimir ones in the decoration of their domes, namely their vestibules or stands, and altar apses, the shape of door columns and door superstructures. The decoration of the domes on the Suzdal-Vladimir churches consists of: a three-strip cornice 468 and below it from what constituted the decoration of the lower field of the lysen - from a frieze representing the lines of closed arches, and from a series of columns placed under the ends of the arches (arch joints). On the domes of Moscow churches we find that the length of their vestibules is not always taken as one whole, as is the case in the Suzdal-Vladimir churches, but sometimes it is one whole, sometimes it is divided into two parts; in the first case, the windows in the vestibules are cut through their entire length, in the second case - only in the lower half of the length, and the upper one remains blank, representing precisely a special part from the lower one. As for the decorations, some of them, such as cornices, are on all domes, but for the most part they are of different shapes than on the domes of the Suzdal-Vladimir churches 469, others of them, such as friezes and columns on some domes are (namely, either both together or the first one) 470, on others there are no 471, and on those there are, a different form against domes of Suzdal-Vladimir. In the event that all the decorations are found, the last two of them (friezes and columns) are placed differently on domes, the vestibules of which are taken as one whole, and differently - on the domes, the vestibules of which are divided into two halves. The cornices that we find on the domes of Moscow churches are the following: a rather wide, but barely protruding, descent from the wall (as if slightly extended by the abacus of the capital at the columns of the Doric order) and under it two stripes of patterned weaving (corresponding to the three stripes of weaving that make up the cornice, which is located between the fields of the lysen) 472 one strip of patterned weaving between two semicircular rims, the whole sometimes appearing to be identical with the cornices separating the lysens 473 ; triple easy descent from the wall, which is a ladder turned upside down (or, as it were, the base of columns of the Ionic and Corinthian orders, turned upside down) and under it, close to it or at some distance from it, a semicircular rim 474; triple light escapement without rim 475; three semicircular rims located so that the top one is under the roof itself and that the second and third ones are almost connected to each other at some distance (through a certain strip) from the top 476; one semicircular rim under the roof itself 477. The friezes in their form are for the most part the same as on the domes of the Suzdal-Vladimir churches, lines of closed arches, but sometimes a line of arches with a line of triangles running above it 478, and sometimes without arches, deprived of only the last 479. The columns in their general appearance are columns, but in reality they are even further from real columns than the lysene columns: they are semicircular sticks, at the upper and lower ends of which, instead of bases and capitals, there are cubic or prismatic ankles. Columns are sometimes placed under the friezes in the same way as on the domes of the Suzdal-Vladimir churches - there is a column under each end of two connected arches, sometimes (as is the case on pre-Mongol altar apses) they are placed across the end, i.e. there is a column at one end, not at the other, a column again under the third, etc. 480. If the vestibules of the domes are divided into two parts - the upper blind part and the lower one, in which windows are cut, then the friezes are above the windows themselves, and the columns are between them, the decoration of the upper blind part consists of the fact that three, two and one semicircular hoop or rim is put on it 481. The decoration of the altar apses in the Vladimir-Suzdal churches is that under the cornice, which is the same as between the fields, there is a lizen. (Line of triangular stoves), - a frieze of closed arches and under the ends of the arches of the frieze, partly columns the entire length of the apse, partly those columns that are in the lower field (the first - in the corners of the apse and on the sides of the windows, the second - between the first). We have in the drawings and know in reality too few altar apses of our Moscow time to speak about their decorations with unconditional positivity. But, speaking with conditional positivity, with the implication: as far as we know, we find the following to be said: the cornices, as in the pre-Mongol period, or the same ones that are between the fields are lysen (i.e., the lysen of our Moscow churches) or, at least, of the same character as them, and, in the latter case, for the most part more refined and complex than the cornices between the fields. The large columns in the corners of the lysen (actually long and thin) remain in use, although far from common, while the use of small columns is not at all visible. Beveled door cutouts are placed in Suzdal-Vladimir churches in columns interspersed with triangular projections, and in the semicircular tops of the cutouts they are placed on columns and projections of the corresponding arc shape (I volume 2 half, p. 36/41). So it is in the Moscow churches; but the difference between some of these latter from the churches of Suzdal-Vladimir is that the columns have in the middle, as it were, balls put on them, faceted (expensive) along or across (? in the first case, very similar to melons) 482 and that the superstructures have tucks at the top, so that they appear similar to the foreheads of those barrels that were used in wooden architecture and which we talked about in the first volume ( 2 half pp. 121/143 ) 483 . The origin of some of the features we have now enumerated is clear in itself; the origin of others can be indicated with greater or less certainty, and finally, the origin of others can only be spoken of with probability, or the question about it must be left completely unresolved. If the lysen columns look very little like real columns and completely turn into balusters used in railings: then it is clear that the beginning of this transformation is in the reluctance to carefully finish the columns, and that its end is in the actual confusion of our columns with balusters - in taking them for the latter. If the columns of the domes do not look like columns, but nothing more than semicircular sticks, then the clear reason for this is the desire to simplify things as much as possible. The same reluctance to work hard on ornamentation should also explain the absence of bas-reliefs on our Moscow churches. The churches known to us from the end of the 14th - first half of the 15th century do not have our lizen-domed columns 484, and we again find them only on the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, built in the second half of the 15th century. One might think that in our time the columns were, at first, completely abandoned, and that the builder of the Assumption Cathedral again restored them because he built the cathedral on the model of the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral. The builder of our cathedral does not reproduce (not particularly in a perfect form) the columns of the Vladimir Cathedral - only the columns are lizen without the columns of the domes (for the domes of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, as we said, do not have columns). But the last columns are reproduced (in the form of sticks) on the Moscow Cathedrals of the Annunciation and Arkhangelsk, built after him: And therefore, the builders of later churches, imitating one and other cathedrals, again decorate the first with these and other columns (reducing the Lizen columns more and more to simple balusters and, in all likelihood, precisely in the form of closest approximation to balusters, having introduced into the custom put nuts on them). However, the builders of some churches of the first half of the 15th century, leaving or removing the columns, as an ornament difficult to execute, replaced them with another ornament, no less difficult to execute - cornices on the lizens of the walls, on the domes and on the altar apses, consisting of strips of weaving carved on stone 485. What prompted our builders to replace one difficult thing with another equally difficult one, and where they got the latter from, is a question to which no positive answer can be given. If one difficult thing was replaced by another difficult one, then it should be assumed that the second difficult thing was considered easier for themselves: but if we did not have craftsmen capable of carving columns from stone, then why on earth and where could there be craftsmen capable of carving weaving from stone? Perhaps the matter should be understood in such a way that, with the same technical difficulty, the weaving seemed easier for our masters, since they represented what constituted our national ornament, and the columns were something alien to us and in their bases and capitals something incomprehensible to our masters. We cannot decide whether the figure (pattern) of the weaving was taken specifically from our national ornamentation or whether it was borrowed from outside, and then, in any case, the question remains: where did the idea come from to make cornices, domes and apses from weaving? Regarding the double question (personal and impersonal), it seems most likely to us that the weaving was not borrowed from anywhere from outside and that our builders here applied to the stone churches the ornament that was used in our architecture of wooden churches and our wooden buildings in general. The custom of building low altar apses (a third and a half lower than the churches themselves) can be explained either by imitation of wooden churches or borrowing from the West (through foreign masters: if we are not mistaken, the custom began no earlier than with the construction of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral by Aristotle Fioravanti). And most likely, it should be explained by the desire to free up space at the top of the eastern wall of the church for painting images of saints (in semi-circular stoves), which actually began to be done. The vestibules of the domes began to be built thinner (narrower) than what they are on the churches of Suzdal-Vladimir, as is most likely to be thought, for the reason that, without covering them according to their spheres, but placing pear-shaped domes on them, they wanted them to look not like vestibules of domes, but like the necks of domes, i.e. they wanted to bring the domes of stone churches closer to the domes wooden. (For clarity, let the reader compare in the 2nd half of Vol. 1, pp. 18/21 and 123/144–145). From the 16th century, only from a time somewhat later than the one we took, we know of one church, the vestibules of the domes of which are not thin, but at the same time disproportionately high or long, this is the Assumption Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, completed construction in 1585: why and for what purpose the disproportionate, very little beautiful, height is not entirely clear to us). The vestibules of the domes in some churches are divided into two halves through the cut of windows (window openings) in them, not in their entire length, but only in the lower half of the length, as one must think, for the reason that these domes, due to thinning, come out disproportionately high and that, if windows were cut in them the entire length, the latter would represent too long narrow slits (for the windows in the old days were very narrow). Large churches of our time, of which the oldest known to us is the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, began to be built without porches because Aristotle Fioravanti built this Assumption Cathedral without them, which served as a model for subsequent large churches 486. And the cathedral was built by Aristotle Fioravanti without porches, either because the latter were not common in the West, or more likely because the Vladimir Assumption, from whose model he built, in his time no longer had its own porches. Of churches with five altar apses instead of three, as we said, we know of only one, namely the Moscow Assumption Cathedral. The purpose for which Aristotle Fioravanti added two extra apses is completely understandable. At the old cathedral there were two chapels (positions of the chains of the Apostle Peter and St. Demetrius of Thessalonica), which they wanted to have in the new cathedral; In order not to make extensions to the cathedral chapels, which would disfigure its façade, Aristotle built five altar apses instead of three, so that chapels could be placed in the outer ones between them on both sides. (Another church known to us with five apses, not from our time, but from one closest to our time, is the Assumption Cathedral of the Trinity Lavra. There are five apses here - because the cathedral is a copy - in the plan of the church itself, but not in the form of domes, from the Moscow Assumption Cathedral). During the pre-Mongol division of the lizen into two fields, they began to make the upper field very small, limiting it only to the semicircle itself, as one must think, in order to write images of saints in the stove-shaped semi-compasses, which our fields represent in this case. The introduction of dividing or cutting lysen instead of two fields into three and four fields should most likely be adopted by the Western masters who appeared in our country under Ivan Vasilyevich III, for in the West the cutting of church walls into a large number of ornamental fields was very common 487 . Regarding the cornices on the domes, it seems likely to us to think that in this decoration, difficult to see with the naked eye and, therefore, not subject to the control of the guardians of tradition and custom, our Russian masters and then Western masters gave free rein to their imagination (which, however, required very little in this case), and composed them as anyone liked and as they pleased. We have listed several types of these cornices; but, in all likelihood, in reality there were much more. About the door superstructures with tucks, which seem similar to the foreheads of barrels used in wooden architecture, in all likelihood one must think that they precisely reproduce these foreheads 488. Where the balls (melons) placed on the door columns were taken from and where they were produced from is a question to which we cannot answer anything, and with which we only allow ourselves to a priori refer to our wooden architecture. Having characterized the stone churches of Byzantine-Moscow architecture of our time according to the very few examples known to us, we may very well have characterized them far from completely. But, firstly, in the absence of a larger number of known samples (from not a particularly large number and actually preserved), one must, of necessity, come to terms with this; secondly, we think a priori that we have characterized them more or less fully, because there is every likelihood of accepting that the churches were very monotonous and that plans - their facades and in detail, for the most part, were not drawn up, but were taken from a model. Byzantine-Novgorod stone churches of the pre-Mongol period, in relation to their composition or their structure as buildings, were divided, like the Suzdal-Vladimir churches, into two classes: churches to which porches or porches were attached, and churches that were built without porches or porches 489. Regarding the plan - facade, some differences between the Novgorod churches and the Greek churches of well-known Byzantine architecture consisted in the same thing as the Suzdal-Vladimir churches: in the form of laying out the vaults and with them in the form of roofs and then in the method of cutting the outer side of the walls, which in our country was the so-called lysen. Regarding these individual differences, the Novgorod churches were again divided into two classes: the differences of one class of churches are almost the same as the churches of Suzdal-Vladimir - the same form of vaults and roofs and the same form of lizen, but only the latter are not divided across two fields and are completely undecorated. The other class of churches had their own special differences from the churches of Suzdal-Vladimir: the laying of vaults and walls and the covering of roofs on them on four triangular pediments, lyzens - the so-called triads with a peculiar decoration (I volume 2 half, p. 32 sqq / 36 sqq). During the time we are considering, large churches were built in the Novgorod-Pskov region, which most likely should have porches, and only one, this is the main Pskov Cathedral of St. Trinity, the building was completed in 1365. But whether it actually had a porch, we cannot say, because it has not survived to this day, having been replaced at the end of the 17th century by a new one 490. To resolve the question of how much the Novgorod-Byzantine architecture of stone churches of our time differed from the same architecture of the pre-Mongol period, we have at our disposal an extremely small number of surviving or at least known to us from surviving churches of our time 491. These churches make it clear that the architecture of our time did not differ at all from the pre-Mongol one, continuing to remain completely the same in every detail. But from a very small number of churches it is impossible to draw a general conclusion, and this latter must be built only a priori. The most probable a priori conclusion is one and the same with insufficient posterior evidence of reality. That no changes of any importance (substantial) were made - this must be assumed because all our Russian masters were not learned architects, but only craftsmen, and that as such they could not independently compose plans, but could only reproduce and copy samples. They had the opportunity to make changes in the unimportant - in the decorations (ornamentation) of walls and domes. But since there were so few of these decorations in Novgorod architecture and they were so simple that there was absolutely nothing to subtract or simplify here, then in relation to the unimportant, one can only assume that the Novgorod masters of our time added something and made some improvements. However, it is very unlikely to assume the latter. And if we can assume this, then about the masters only from Pskov, without our own Novgorod ones. One piece of evidence from the second half of the 15th century tells us that, having the opportunity to learn their craft from the Germans due to their proximity to the latter, the Pskov masters were comparatively skilled in it 492: with their comparative art, perhaps they introduced something new in ornamentation. We said that in the second half of the 15th century we had a new architecture of stone churches, which can be called our own Russian or our national one. This architecture consisted in the fact that we began to build stone churches according to the model or from the model of our wooden churches (“for wooden work”, just as, on the contrary, wooden churches were built for “stone work” 493. We could not have our own stone architecture at all, because only learned architects who know the science of architecture can draw up plans for churches, which we did not have at all. But wooden architecture, due to the special properties of its building material, is possible even without its scientific knowledge, and we really had it and flourished very much: we had wooden churches that were very distinguished by their patterning (intricate or intricate beauty); We had wooden churches that were truly magnificent. And in the second half of the 15th century. and we decided to build stone churches modeled on wooden churches. However, it is necessary to think that we owe this so to speak national architecture of stone churches not to our Russian masters, but to the Western masters who appeared among us under Ivan Vasilyevich III, starting in 1475 494. In order to build stone churches according to the model or from the model of wooden churches, it was impossible to act in such a way as to reproduce the model from a simple visual, but it was necessary to compose their (stone churches) plans, for stone and wood, as building materials, are significantly different (it is another thing to cut down a wooden dome and a completely different matter to build a stone one); Meanwhile, our masters, as we said, were not at all capable of drawing up plans for stone churches. In any case, positive irrefutable proof that we owe our national architecture of stone churches not to our Russian masters, but to Western ones, is given to us by the fact that a Western Gothic element is seen in the ornamentation of this architecture. It is necessary to imagine the matter in such a way that Western craftsmen, having seen our wooden churches, were carried away by the original and original-beautiful form of some of them, and that the Russians, for their part, expressed their consent to the fact that stone churches were built on the model of wooden churches (it seems to us very likely to think that in the West, Gothic originates from the local (Gotland, which makes up the southern part of Sweden?) wooden churches). We know very few stone churches built “in wood” from our time, and we will list them all. If our information is correct, then the first such church can be considered to be built in 1482. at the Moscow Kremlin courtyard of the Trinity Sergius Monastery, the Church of the Epiphany 495. The late Snegirev in his “Russian Antiquity” assures that the church, which no longer exists at present, was similar to the church of the famous royal village of Kolomenskoye near Moscow (located 10 miles from Moscow, on the Moscow River, not far from the Serpukhov highway), built by Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich in 1532. 496. This last church has survived to the present day. It is a low octagonal tower with a high tented top, consisting of two halves - the smaller lower one, representing an octagonal tribune, and the larger upper one, representing its own, also octagonal tent or cone. The walls of the church are decorated along the edges of the edges with columns and above the windows, located at the very edges with sharp triangles, which are undoubtedly the triangles of Western Gothic churches (the so-called [Spitzbogens] only in a simplified form) 497 the base of the top is decorated with those foreheads of barrels that were used in our wooden architecture (I volume 2 half, p. 121/143 - two and three foreheads one above the other interspersed) and which, as in wooden churches, make it look as if it (the top) is lying on barrels. On the sides of the windows of the tribune there are columns, and on its top there is a frieze, consisting of a line of closed foreheads, or better yet, of lines of arches, shaped like those door superstructures with tucks that we talked about above; between the faces of the cone, along their seams, convex ropes or edgings are laid, and the fields of the faces are decorated with saks (quadrangles placed so as to look like sags), the stripes of which are made up of balls and which, undoubtedly, should be taken for our own ornament 498. The second stone church known to us, built using wood, is the Moscow-Kremlin Annunciation Cathedral, founded by Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich in 1484. and consecrated in 1489 499 . The very frame of the church in its shape or figure belongs to stone architecture, although it was equally used in wooden architecture, namely, it is a square quadrangle, surrounded on three sides by porches 500; but its top represents a combination of stone and wooden architecture, with the latter predominant. The vaults of the church are decorated on the outside so that they have the shape of a chest placed on barrels (cfr I vol. 2 halves pp. 121/143 and 125/147). Above the chest of vaults, on the four pillars of the church, there is a dome, finished on the outside at the base of the tribune as if it had been placed on a new small chest with barrels. On the eastern and western sides of the dome, two domes are placed on the vaults on wide (thick) tribune-shaped necks. At the four corners of the porch there are four quadrangular towers, the roofs of which are barrel-shaped, and the same domes are placed on them as on the vaults of the church 501. The third chronologically known stone church made of wood is the church in the village of Kolomenskoye, which you described above, built in 1532. 502. The chronicler says about it that “that church is wonderful in its height and beauty and lightness, (and that) such has never happened before in Russia” 503. The fourth stone church made of wood is the Moscow Intercession Cathedral, otherwise and primarily called the Church of St. Basil the Blessed (St. Basil the Blessed) 504, built by Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible in memory of the capture of Kazan (October 2, 1552), founded in 1553. and completed (without complete completion of the interior decoration) after nine years 505. Who hasn’t heard about the most original, original, beautiful and wonderful St. Basil’s Church? One foreigner speaks of her that she is “the most incomprehensible and wonderful building that a person’s imagination can produce,” 506 and although this is said much more than just a little too much, for it was said by a sanguine Frenchman, nevertheless, the epithet of wonderfulness belongs to her to the fullest extent. You see a church that does not represent anything unusual in its body, but on this building in front of you is a forest of domes - domes so original and bizarre, so original and beautiful that you involuntarily exclaim: however, this is a truly wonderful and charming work of architecture! It would be very difficult to describe the Church of St. Basil the Blessed even with drawings in hand 507, and without drawings it would be even more difficult to give some idea about it. The shape of the church body is a quadrangle, in which there are no eastern altar apses, as such, but in which on all four sides, in the middle of the latter, extensions are made like altar apses - on each side there is one such extension, only not the round ones, which were attached to stone churches, but multifaceted, which were attached to wooden churches. Inside, the structure of the church is completely unique, although the quality of the aforementioned wonder does not belong to it at all, relating exclusively to the appearance. Nine domes 508 rise above the church; but these domes do not hang in it on pillars and vaults, but are constructed completely differently; four domes stand on four apse-shaped extensions to its sides, which we mentioned, and five domes represent the tops of the five towers placed in it (the church). This may sound a little crazy to the reader, but that’s exactly how it is. Inside the church or on the square of the quadrangular space enclosed by its walls, there are five towers: one in the middle of the church and four in its corners, but [not] close to the latter, but so that between them (the towers) and the walls of the church there was a narrow passage; the roof of the church hides the towers inside it, and on top of the roof remain the tops of the towers, which make up its (church) domes. If the reader writes five circles inside a quadrangle, one in the middle, and four to the corners, but not close to them, but as indicated above, and likewise not close to the middle circle; if he imagines that the lines of the quadrangle are the walls of the church, and the circles are the towers located in the church, then he will receive a quadrangular room, inside which there are five small rooms with passages and spaces between them and with a circle around them along the wall, that is, along the wall. This is what St. Basil's Church really is inside. Inside she is not at all strange, but, on the contrary, extremely strange. It consists inside of five small round compartments (rooms) with gaps between them and a narrow passage around them along the wall, and of four small semicircular compartments in those apse-shaped extensions to the walls that we spoke about. Judging by the appearance of the church, you expect to find something unusual inside it, and upon entering you are extremely amazed, seeing in front of you something truly extraordinary, only not of the kind in which you expected: they lead you through a labyrinth of small well-shaped rooms, dark alleys and back streets, and you do not find a church at all, that is, a more or less extensive free space. The church is divided into two floors, because if it were one-story, then the high towers would look like real deep wells, and at the same time they would be very dark wells, since they receive light only from above. In the lower floor there are the bottoms of the towers, in which not a single throne was built (and due to the darkness could not be built), so it is a simple basement. On the upper floor there is a throne in each round and semicircular compartment, so that there are nine thrones in all. We are not competent in the technique of architecture and [do not] know how to say whether the matter with domes could or could not have been arranged differently. If it could not be arranged otherwise, then our St. Basil's Church must be ranked among those many Western churches of Gothic architecture, the care of the builders of which was exclusively concentrated on their appearance (there are many Gothic monumental churches that are amazingly and indescribably magnificent on the outside and which inside are nothing more than bare large barns). But if St. Basil's Church is something very strange inside, then, we repeat, outside, in its domes, it is something extremely original and wonderful, something extremely beautiful in its own way. However, this praise must come with a very significant caveat. Some Russian people, belonging to those “blessed” Russian people who believe that all the best in the world is with us, as a people who are supposedly the first among all nations, are firmly convinced that the Church of St. Basil the Blessed is the best church in the entire Christian world. Such a belief is something very “Russian,” that is, something very ignorant. In the West there are quite a few churches with which our church cannot be compared in any way or the slightest, with which comparing it means the same as comparing a fly with an elephant. The truth about our church is that in itself it is extremely wonderful and beautiful, and that in the West there are precisely such churches, i.e. in the same way, there really are none, just as there are no more of them in Russia (the Russian people we are talking about would do well to remember that we owe our miracle of church architecture, as well as our other similar miracles, not to ourselves, but to foreigners, and that, for example, our famous Moscow Kremlin belongs to us more as property than as the work of our hands...). We said that there are nine domes on St. Basil's Church: five above the church itself (representing the tops of the towers standing in it) and four on the apse-shaped extensions to it. The domes, which have domes on their tops, are very original and beautiful in shape, very original and beautifully ornamented: and this, so to speak, a whole forest of original beautiful domes, together with their domes, which have the same original beautiful shape, represents something truly wonderful in the sense of original beautiful. Repeating what has been said that you need to see the church in reality, or at least in a drawing, in order to form an idea of ​​​​the original beauty of the domes and their whole, we will try here to describe them as much as possible. The domes have a triple shape: their shape is the main dome, rising above the middle of the church, their shape is the four domes rising above the corners of the church, and their shape is the four domes standing on figurative extensions to it, and they represent the same triplicity in relation to size and height, namely, the main dome is much larger (wider) and higher than all the others, the four standing on the apses are slightly higher than the four located on the church itself. The main dome has a tent shape and consists of two parts - a very high, relatively octagonal tribune and a tent or cone itself with a neck at the top, on which there is a small dome; the domes standing on the apses have the shape of octagonal towers in two floors, of which the upper one is thinner and lower (shorter) than the lower one, with domes at the top, which are planted on them without necks; the domes located at the corners of the church, representing a connection of the dome in essence and the sub-main neck in appearance, inside they are domes - hollow spaces (let the reader compare the first half, pp. 18/21 and 123/144–145), consisting of spheres covering the towers standing in the church, and of vestibules above the spheres, i.e. above the round holes made in them, and on the outside there are round sub-head necks standing on spherical bases (the sphericity of which, however, is hidden under the ornament, which is discussed below), with heads on them, planted in the same way as on the previous four domes (that is, without the aid of real, deaf necks) 509 . Regarding the decoration or ornamentation of the dome, churches represent the same tripartite as regarding the external appearance or shape: their own ornamentation for the main dome, their own for the four domes located on the apses, and their own for the four domes located at the corners of the church. We find it useless to describe the ornamentation in detail for the reader, who, without having the drawings in front of him, would not have formed a clear idea, no matter what efforts we made in the description, and given our ignorance of the technical language of architecture, we find it impossible for ourselves. This ornamentation, extremely abundant and extremely complexly variegated, is primarily what gives the domes their real effect and their real original charm. If it were not for this ornamentation, if the walls of the domes were completely bare and completely smooth: the effect would be very small; but this abundant, originally graceful, variegated decoration: and the effect of the same domes is greatest and extraordinary (just like two two-story or generally equal-story houses, one with bare and smooth walls, and the other elegantly decorated by laying out in the walls and by means of stucco decorations on them will be: one is absolutely nothing remarkable, the other is such a beauty). The types of ornamental figures that are used to decorate domes, after the cornices laid out in them, running along their bottoms and tops and separating their floors 510, are very few, namely, there are only two of them: the Gothic triangles in a simplified form, which we talked about above, and our Russian barrel foreheads in two forms - in the original form of the foreheads and in a slightly modified form trump cards or umbrellas 511. The fields of the domes standing on the apses and shaped like two-story turrets are decorated with triangles. Barrel foreheads are decorated with the spherical bottoms of the domes located at the corners of the church (and precisely with three, one above the other rows of foreheads, so that the necks of the domes appear to be standing on the fires of barrels) and the bottoms of the upper floors (upper lanterns, knees) taken for the sub-main necks on the domes located on the apses (so that these floors appear to be standing on barrels). The lower half of the tent or cone of the main dome is decorated (furnished) with trumps - three dense lines of them, tightly placed one on top of the other, and with intermediate small peaks between the large trumps, on which there is another line of decorations on top of the trumps, namely, a line of the same trumps, but not semicircular, but quadrangular-oblong in shape, with semicircular pinched tops, located so that from of every three trump cards, the middle one rises somewhat above the outer ones and that each triplet represents, as it were, a special whole (very similar to copper icons - folding ones). What is the point of our trump cards, we do not undertake to say. It would seem that they are window casings, since they are very similar to real window casings, and that they should be taken for false window casings. But they are installed so often that real windows are not cut at all, and false ones are not made at all. Currently, the dome tent lacks one additional decoration to the trump cards, namely, small columns or towns (in the sense of those towns that are played) with pear-shaped heads, placed on the upper semicircular trump cards 512: and it seems probable to think that the purpose of the trump cards was precisely to serve as bases for our posts with heads or, in general, for the figures that were actually placed for some reason only on some of them. The idea of decorating the dome tent with many of the aforementioned columns or figurines in general could very easily have come to the mind of a Western church builder, such as he was, for in the West in Gothic architecture this was a very common method of decoration, and he could use trump cards in stands for columns or in general figurines from the example of Russian wooden churches, for we actually know Russian wooden churches in which trump cards serve our purpose (see the church of the Kizhi Pogost on Lake Onega, which we talk about in vol. 2 half of p. 125/147, and on the dome of which 23 cupolas are placed precisely on our trump cards). With the help of very few ornamental means (elements), although we have not described the cornices, which play a very important role as a means of decoration, the greatest and most original beauty was created. How this is done, let the reader look in kind or in drawings, because to try to explain it in words would mean wasted words. The domes on the domes of the church from the first time, as now, are covered not simply, but with a variety of intricacies, 513 so that they represent a deliberate decoration that complements the original beauty of the whole. The cathedral is surrounded by a porch, which is currently blank, but was originally open, with a roof on pillars 514. We think that with the original porch the church was much more beautiful and original than it is now, namely, that its very building looked more characteristic than now. That the famous church is the work not of a Russian master (architect), but of a foreign one, is as certain as it is certain that a learned book cannot be written by an unlearned person: a church could only be built by a learned architect, and we did not have one. And for those who are unconvinced by this generality, they must be convinced from the most particular that the architecture of the church shows in its builder an undoubted close acquaintance with Western Gothic architecture. Unfortunately, the name and nationality of the famous architect remain completely unknown 515. We said above that the stone churches of our own or national architecture represent a combination of the architecture of our wooden churches with Western Gothic architecture. As for our particular church in particular, regarding the invention of its general plan (actually the type) by its architect, one must think that he wanted to build a multi-main church, as was quite common in our wooden architecture. And regarding the decoration, one must think that he wanted to decorate the multi-domed structure with the variegation with which the tops of Gothic churches were decorated (but in his own style, although with the borrowing of decoration elements from Gothic architecture) 516. The fifth, known to us, stone church of our architecture is the now non-existent cathedral of the city of Staritsa, Tver province, which began construction in 1558. and completed in 1561. (dismantled in 1803). We cannot say anything about the inside of the church, which was surrounded on all sides by a huge porch, but on the outside it had five domes made of wood, namely, with octagonal stands and with hipped tops 517. Our architecture of stone churches made of wood appeared and came into use in the Moscow region itself, understanding the region as we indicated above; but partly it was transferred by the Moscow people to the Novgorod region. In 1535, a church was built in the Khutyn monastery, about which the chronicle says that it is “about a single versa, velmi chudna, as such are not the case in the Novgorod region: a wall around the church, having eight angles, and five doors, velmi high in height, and on it in the versa there are Ustavish bells” 518. It is clear that the church (currently defunct) 519 was built using wood. Its builder was the abbot of the monastery, Theodosius, and he was from Moscow. So, in the time we are considering from the invasion of the Mongols to Metropolitan Macarius, we had two types of architecture of stone churches: Byzantine-Russian architecture, inherited from the pre-Mongol period and remaining throughout the entire time, and, regarding particulars (external ornamentation), some innovations were made in it, and our own Russian architecture, which appeared in the second half of the 15th century and consisted of the fact that Western masters began build us stone churches in the manner of our wooden churches. Since the masters, when introducing a new type of architecture, were guided by the impulse that our wooden architecture had some similarity with Western Gothic architecture, and since they partly introduced Gothic ornament into the new architecture, it can to some extent be called Russian Gothic 520. At the time we are considering, we began to make extensions to churches (both stone and wooden), which were called refectories and which were something so to speak non-architectural: they were always built in the same form of a somewhat oblong quadrangle, covered on two slopes (in stone churches along the vaults, in wooden ones - along the rafters above the flat ceiling). The purpose of the meals was to set up warm churches in them for winter service, since their own churches (with the advent of the meals received the name “real” - so, at least in some places) were always cold 521. The name of the meals was taken from the monastic meals or dining rooms, because in monasteries (as this must be understood) it has long been the custom to set up warm churches for winter services in their meals or dining rooms. When they began to organize meals at parish churches in the Moscow region, we have no information; in Novgorod, the first such meal was built in 1538. 522, and in Pskov - in 1544. 523. Regarding the material used for the construction of stone churches, and regarding the technical methods of construction, some changes have occurred in our time, partly improvements compared to the pre-Mongol period. In Suzdal-Vladimir Rus', stone churches were built in the pre-Mongol period not from brick, as in Kievan Rus', but from stone (I volume 2 half, p. 76 fin. sqq/88). This continued in Moscow Rus' until the second half of the 15th century (and this is why brick churches are still called stone churches in our country), and from the second half of the 15th century they began to build from stone and brick together or from one brick 524. The Pskovites, having begun to compete with the Novgorodians in the construction of stone churches, began to build them not from stone and brick together, as was the case in Novgorod (ibid. p. 77/88), but from one stone, as was the case in Moscow 525 (and precisely - not from shapeless stone slabs and blocks, as in Novgorod, but from stones hewn into regular squares, as in Moscow, although the method of cladding was borrowed not from Moscow, but from the neighboring Germans 526. From the end of the first quarter of the 16th century, churches began to be built in Pskov together from stone and brick 527. Before Aristotle Fioravanti, Moscow craftsmen did not know how to prepare lime for cement well - they diluted it too liquidly, so it came out unadhesive (not strong). Aristotle introduced the proper preparation of lime 528 . He, Aristotle, began to make bricks of a new shape compared to our previous ones (narrower and longer than the previous ones) and of better quality than our previous ones (harder: “when they break a brick, they soak it in water”?) 529 . He, Aristotle, introduced wall ties made of iron strips instead of the oak beams we had hitherto used for this purpose; and also introduced the custom of placing these iron ties inside the walls themselves 530. We said above that the Grand Duke of Galicia, Danilo Romanovich, began to build his capital city of Kholm with stone churches. Let's talk about the architecture of its stone churches. Of the three or four stone churches built by Danilo in Kholm, not one seems to have survived to the present day. But judging by the description of the churches in the chronicle, it can be assumed that he wanted to introduce a special type of Byzantine architecture, namely Athos architecture, with the borrowing of ornaments from Western architecture. In any case, from the details reported by the chronicle, and from its general assurances, it follows that the churches were of elegant Byzantine or, perhaps, Byzantine-Western architecture. About the Church of St. St. John Chrysostom, she says: “he created (Danilo) the church of St. Ivan, red and stucco; the building was its size: there are four mosquitoes, from each corner there is a translation, and their standing on four human heads was sculpted by a certain knucklehead; three windows are decorated with Roman glass; entering the altar there are two pillars from the whole stone, and on it mosquito, and the top is decorated with golden stars on the azure; the inside of the platform is clear of copper and tin, as if shining like a mirror; its two doors are decorated with white and green Kholm stone (marble), hewn, dug by a certain knight Avdiy, stuck with all the balls (colors) and gold, on the front ones. 531 (at the doors) the Savior was not made, and at midnight Saint Ivan, as if he were amazed at all those who saw” 532 . About the church of Saints Cosmas and Damian, the chronicle says: “he (Danilo) created the church of the holy unmerciful Kuzma and Demian (y) in honor, having four pillars from a whole hewn stone, holding the top (further written with errors and incomprehensible: “from the same (pillars?) another (top?) and (like?) into the altar of the Most Holy Dmitry, standing in front of the side doors (pillar?) is red, brought from afar." 533. About the Church of the Mother of God, the chronicle says: "He (Danilo) created a great church in the city of Hill in the name of the Most Holy Ever-Virgin Mary, with majesty and beauty no less than those of the ancients" 534. Placing domes on columns carved from marble instead of pillars made of stone or brick is a feature of Athonite architecture. And if Daniel really wanted to introduce this architecture, then another feature of it should be assumed - the so-called crosshairs, about which see in the 2nd half of volume I, pp. 68/79. It is not clear how to understand the fact that in the Church of St. John Chrysostom the dome stood on four human heads - is it true that entire columns had human figures and were caryatids, or, what is much more likely, that the capital of each column was carved in the likeness of four human heads, connected together and facing four directions. But this or that, in any case, is from Western architecture (architectural ornamentation). Equally from the West are Roman or colored, painted window glass. When the chronicle says about the Church of the Mother of God, the main one in the city 535 and, therefore, the cathedral-episcopal one, that its majesty and beauty was no less than the ancient churches, then most likely this should be understood to mean that in size and decoration it more or less approached the monumental churches of the pre-Mongol period. In addition to three or four stone churches in the Hill itself, Danilo Romanovich built another stone church in the city of Dorogichin (or Drogichin, located on the Western Bug, below Brest-Litovsk, now a provincial city in the Grodno province, Belsky district). The chronicle calls this Dorogichinsky church, dedicated, like the main Kholmsky church, to the name of the Mother of God, a beautiful church 536. In the time we are considering, as in the pre-Mongol period, stone churches represented only an insignificant exception in the total mass of all our churches, which now, as then, consisted of wooden churches. We cannot add anything about the architecture of wooden churches to what we said in volume 1 (2 half p. 106 sqq/126 sqq), because after its publication, our information, unfortunately, did not increase at all 537. We can only repeat our most ardent desire for our gentlemen archaeologists to pay special attention to the still fairly sufficient remnant of these churches and bring it to possible fame 538. Wooden churches represent exactly what we have used in architecture to show our national spirit and our national creativity: it would be very sinful for us, not to say much more, if we let these churches perish without a trace. (ABOUT! If only the gentlemen archaeologists who organize congresses, instead of organizing these congresses, from which, of course, there is a lot of pleasure, but hardly much benefit, equipped expeditions to describe wooden churches, with a description, by the way, of many other things included in the field of church and civil archaeology! They would have done a truly good deed and would have immortalized themselves much more firmly than through congresses). There is also a very important practical motivation for bringing the wooden churches to the forefront. Currently, some of us are concerned about restoring the national style in architecture. But what is this national style, those who care know as little as those who do not care: barrels with tucks and ridges on the tops of buildings, as everyone knows from the many times published drawing of the former royal chambers in the village of Kolomenskoye, and then Russian - they say everything is colorful (and with the absurd assumption that our architecture was borrowed from the architecture of the Moorish, Indian and almost hundreds of others, we are ready to look our motley all over the world). Bring to fame wooden churches and study the Russian style from them (and then, if God has endowed you with talent and creativity, build and develop it and give it movement forward...) 539. (This was written in 1881. Now we must say with sincere joy that recently wooden churches have attracted the attention and concerns of architects - archaeologists. In 1895, the Imperial Academy of Arts undertook the publication of Monuments of Ancient Russian Architecture by the hands of Academician V.V. Suslov: in the seven hitherto printed issues of Monuments, along with photographs from stone churches, 11 beautifully made photographs from wooden churches in the Arkhangelsk and Vologda provinces). The churches are complemented by bell towers and bell towers. The bell towers were built of stone and wood; The bilges, as most likely one must think, are exclusively wooden. In the pre-Mongol period, we did not have stone bell towers, and only the bell tower of the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral can be attributed to it (see I volume 2 half p. 134 sqq/157). At the time we are considering, these bell towers began to be built in our country and were built, but to what extent their structure became a custom and to what extent they were numerous by the end of the reign of Metropolitan Macarius, we cannot say anything yet. Stone bell towers were built in two forms: Novgorod, the prototype of which was the bell tower of the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral, and Vladimir-Moscow, which represented some modification of the Novgorod form. Both forms are described by us in Volume I (2nd half p. 133/155 Wooden bell towers and bell towers were built in the form of towers of two types: octagonal, blind, with a high tent on pillars above the platform on which bells and bells hung, and quadrangular towers of several floors, with large spans and with one or another low top. The shape of the first towers, as one can and should think, was taken from our house towers, and only some changes were made in accordance with the purpose (an open area for bells and beaters); the shape of the second towers was taken from the Greek towers (see I volume 2 half pp. 137/160–161). In later times, we began to build stone bell towers, just like churches, “for wooden work” in the form of the now indicated octagonal and quadrangular towers; but this happened after half of the 16th century 541. In the pre-Mongol period, wooden bell towers and bell towers, as special and deliberate buildings, were not located at all churches and, most likely, they were located only at the smallest part of them. Regarding our time, we must think that, not yet becoming a common and indispensable property of all churches, they came into use in a comparatively more general way (how and with what the real bell towers and bell towers were replaced, see about this in vol. 2, half of pp. 137/161 542. (Chapels partly replaced churches - see in the life of Savvatiy Solovetsky the chapel on Vyga, where he was given communion by the abbot. Lavra manuscript No. 692, sheet 344. - On the purpose of chapels (singing hours in them without a priest), - Epiphanius' life of St. Sergius of Radonezh. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 644, sheet 282. - In the chapels, church services were performed by uninitiated persons, - Historical Acts vol. I, No. 101, p. 144. About home worship (in chapels?) See the teachings of Metropolitan Alexei: “do not say: let us sing at home,” - Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers, part V, pp. 35 and 36. - Chapels at home, - Life of St. Sergius, sheet 41). We turn to the internal structure of churches and their internal accessories. In the pre-Mongol period, in our stone churches, following the example of the Greeks, the so-called polati or choirs were always built (I volume 2 half, pp. 207 fin/.241–242). In later times, these polati or choirs disappear from our stone churches. We cannot say positively when the disappearance began; but we think with probability that from the time of the construction of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral by Aristotle Fioraventi. Aristotle did not make floors in the cathedral either because they were not in Western churches or, what is more likely, because he received an order from the Grand Duke not to make them, since it was from them (from the shoot on them made in the wall) that the cathedral built in front of him fell 543. One might think that, following the example of our cathedral, they began to stop organizing ceremonies in stone churches 544. Regarding wooden churches, we have evidence that, at least sometimes, roofing was made in them 545. But how often, we cannot say anything (and how replaceable the plats were in wooden churches, see I volume 2 half, pp. 208/242) 546. In Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich’s questions to the Stoglavy Cathedral, the latter’s attention was drawn to the fact that while in Novgorod and Pskov all churches have a southern side section at the altars, called kuteynik, into which kutia and eve are brought for health and peace, and on Easter and other days, cheese, eggs, baked ripples, rolls, pies, pancakes, loaves and all sorts of vegetables, in Moscow there is no such department and everything now indicated is brought into the altar or into the altar, which is prohibited by the rules of the holy apostles and holy fathers 547. The Council in its instructions strictly prohibits bringing any kind of waste and human treasures into the altar or altar 548; but as for the kuteynik, probably finding its arrangement not convenient in all churches, he does not give a direct instruction about this, but only explains that if there is a southern side compartment in the church at the altar, brushes and vegetables should be brought into it, as designated specifically for this purpose 549 . 339 The Council of the Hundred Heads itself drew attention to the fact that in many wooden churches there is no storehouse in the altars, something for the priest to wash his hands of (who did not get a job, obviously, for fear of rotting the churches) and not to hold a forge with coal, in which to heat the dill needed to influence the holy chalice (which was not done, obviously, for fear of fires 550. The Council commands for the future, that everywhere in the altars there should be storehouses, attached to the wall in three planks, and that everywhere the dill needed for worship should be prepared in the altars on forges, and should not be brought from houses 551 The council motivates the last instruction by the fact that water brought from the house and taken from a pot at the stove may be unclean (and as for the danger of fires, the council specifies). take precautions). From the case of clerk Viskovaty, it is clear that in Moscow until the middle of the 16th century, altars were always built smaller in size than the thrones and were always placed close to the wall, for Viskovaty most strongly protested against the altar built in the Annunciation Cathedral, which was made equal in size to the throne and was moved away from the wall 552. The Council, which judged Viskovaty, based on the fact that altars built “in that model”, like the new Annunciation, existed in other places in Russia except Moscow “from ancient years,” recognized the controversial model as not containing “any doubt or difference” 553. We speak in detail about the pre-altar iconostases, which during the time we are considering, as in the pre-Mongol period, were called not iconostases, but deesis (and partly, according to their Greek name τέμπλον, - tiables) 554 we speak in detail in Volume 1 (2nd half, p. 171 sqq/199 sqq ), and here we will only make some additions (and corrections). The iconostasis, after it appeared and developed, was in ancient and old times our current iconostasis, but without its lower so-called local icons. At the time we are considering, these local icons already appeared in front of the altar, but were not yet placed under the altar arch itself and placed against the altar wall itself, in one line with the upper icons (with the Deesis), but stood in icon cases separately and separately, more or less in front of the arch and wall. These icons were taken from a sample of wall and tabletop icons. In ancient times, there were three classes of all icons in churches: firstly, a set of several rows or shelves of icons located in the altar arch and on the altar wall and constituting the so-called deesis; secondly, one or another small number of small-sized icons that lay before the altar on lecterns “in bow” and were called local or local, which name cannot yet be satisfactorily explained 555. Thirdly, a greater or lesser number of large icons located on the walls and pillars of the church and placed in icon cases 556. At a later time, unknown to us, and for reasons unknown to us, they began to make local icons instead of small ones, which were placed on analogues, like the large ones on the wall, and like them, they were placed in icon cases 557 . These are large local icons, standing in icon cases in front of the altar at some distance from its wall, having been moved close to the latter for the reasons that we indicated in volume 1 (2 half, pp. 185/216, end on the note page) and were the current local icons, which made up and have one thing in common with the old Deesis 558. But, we repeat, at the time we are considering they were still standing in front of the altar at some, greater or lesser, distance from its wall, and the movement only happened much later 559. Among the Greeks, their above-altar Deesis was arranged in such a way that one row of its icons, namely the twelve holiday ones, was written on separate boards for each icon, and that the other rows of icons were mostly written on one large shield made of boards, which was called τέμπλον ’om, from where our tiblo (I volume 2 half, p. 176 sqq/205, 179/209). With this arrangement among the Greeks, their deesis row of twelve-festive icons could only be placed either under the templon or above the templon, and could not exchange place with any row of icons of the templon itself; and since there was no place for it above the templon, and due to the shape of the top of the latter (ibid. p. 177 beginning/206 beginning) it could not be placed above it, it was always placed under it. For us, icons of all types of our Deesis were written on separate boards - each icon of each row on its own board (cfr ibid. pp. 181/211), so that we could exchange between rows or rearrange them. And indeed, in later times, it became the prevailing custom among us to place in the first place from the bottom not a row of twelve holiday icons, but a row of apostolic icons with a triform icon - the Savior, the Mother of God and the Forerunner, or that row, which, as a row, was called deesis (for the use of the word deesis in the sense of a separate icon, a row of icons and the entire set of rows of icons or their entirety, see I vol. 2 half, pp. 182/212 and 186 note/217 note, and also at the end of the following note) 560. The iconostasis arose and gradually developed in such a way that in the altar arch, on the architrave located on the columns of the altar barrier, one icon was placed, - that to this one icon other icons were added (to the icon of the Savior with the Mother of God and the Forerunner, the icons of the apostles), - that under this row of icons another row appeared (the twelfth feasts) and that above this row Two more rows appeared (prophets and forefathers). Five rows of icons (festive, apostolic, - or, as we mostly have in later times: apostolic, festive, prophetic and forefathers) made up a complete iconostasis, beyond which he did not go 561. In addition to this increase in height, the iconostasis also increased in width. Initially, rows of his icons were located in the altar arch. Then they came out of the arch onto the walls that separate (or block) the altar and deaconium from the church and spread along them to the south and north right up to the outer walls of the southern and northern churches. The row of icons of the iconostasis, called the deesis or apostolic (and, if possible, apostolic-saintly), is the row from which it began; and this is the answer to the question about the time of appearance of this series. The appearance of the festive series, if not with complete certainty, then with full probability, should be attributed to the pre-Mongol period. This leaves the question of the time of the appearance and distribution of the two rows of the later complete iconostasis - the prophetic and the forefathers. To answer this question, we have several pieces of information relating to the second half of the 15th – first half of the 16th centuries. In 1481 In the newly built Moscow Assumption Cathedral, the Deesis was written on both holidays and prophets 562. In 1509, the Deesis and the feasts of St. Novgorod were added. Sofia 563. In 1547–48, during the Moscow Annunciation Cathedral, which was restored after a fire, in addition to local large icons, Deesis, holidays and prophets were painted 564. From the evidence now given, it follows that for the Moscow Assumption and Annunciation Cathedrals, iconostases were painted that consisted of three rows of icons (deesis, holidays and prophets), and that for the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral - an iconostasis that consisted of two rows of icons (deesis and holidays); in other words, it follows that in the second half of the 15th century - the first half of the 16th century. An iconostasis consisting of three rows of icons was considered a complete iconostasis, but even in such important churches as the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral, they found it possible to be content with an iconostasis consisting of two rows of icons. One would think that with the completeness of the later completeness, already achieved by the iconostasis by the second half of the 15th century and then generally known to everyone, the chronicles and acts from which the news we have taken are not expressed precisely or in detail, forcing the reader himself to imply - together with the third row of icons and the fourth, and with the second - the third and fourth. But we have the opportunity to believe whether the chronicles and acts say accurately or not, and after verification it turns out that they speak accurately. In the description of the Moscow Annunciation Cathedral of 1680. we read about its iconostasis: “and the Deesis is three tiblas: on the first there are 36 images (apostles and saints), in the other tibla there are twenty holidays, in the third there are eight images of the prophets” 565. (For final verification, it is desirable that a description of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral be found and made known, which could serve for this) 566. Regarding the increase in width of the iconostasis, through the protrusion from the altar arch, onto the walls of the altar and deaconium, and through the extension in both directions to the outer walls of the church, southern and northern, we can only say that we have evidence of it as a real fact dating back to the end of the time we are considering; but when it happened during our time and whether it happened even earlier, before, in the pre-Mongol period, we cannot answer anything about this. In 1537 Archbishop of Novgorod, subsequent metropolitan, Macarius covered 13 icons of the larger Deesis or main (apostolic) belt in the iconostasis of the St. Sophia Cathedral with silver gilded vestments. Since the altar arch of the cathedral has a width of two fathoms and a half or seven and a half arshins, and yet it is necessary to accept that each icon had a width of about an arshin and no less than three quarters: then from this it is clear that 13 icons could not fit in the altar arch 567. Iconostases gradually (or not gradually; they increased in volume not as a result of any instructions from the church authorities, but as a result of the voluntary desire of their organizers for this. Therefore, when we talk about iconostases that were recognized as completely or sufficiently complete, we do not at all mean completeness that is equally obligatory for all churches - in this case there was no obligation at all, but we mean completeness, so to speak, ideal, as it was understood precisely and only by those who created it. At the present time The iconostases in our churches are very diverse in relation to their volume or completeness, which depends on the size of the churches, on the means of the iconostase builders and on their tastes. The same must be thought regarding the time we are considering, only regarding this last time it must also be understood that the number of poor churches that did not have the opportunity to acquire a sufficient number of icons for themselves was incomparably greater than now, and that the acquisition of icons itself for most churches was incomparably more difficult than at the present time. We cannot answer positively to the question about the average supply of churches with icons at the time we are considering and can only express the hope that it will be answered to some extent later. There are so-called Scribe books, which contain censuses of the population of famous places with land in their possession, made for the purpose of imposing taxes. In some of these books, when describing churchyards and villages, their churches are described in such detail that, among other things, the number of icons located in the latter 568 is precisely indicated. When such Scribe books are examined for our purpose, then the possibility of some positive answer will appear. In the realm of assumptions, it should be accepted as most likely that the average supply of churches with icons at the time we are considering is considered more or less insufficient. There is no doubt that with a huge number of parishes, the percentage of poor parishes was very, extremely large, and likewise the number of non-poor parishes, but who, due to the circumstances of that time, were in difficulty regarding the acquisition of icons, which is now discussed below, should be assumed to be very large. But about the poor parishes and about the parishes that found it difficult to acquire icons, one must think that they, without thinking about establishing entire iconostases, recognized it as possible to be content with the number of icons in general for the entire church: more - one heel, and less - even one 569 . The question of how we dealt with supplying churches with icons at the time we are considering equally covers icons for home use, of which an incomparably larger number was required than the first icons. We can answer this question as little positively as the previous one. Regarding the pre-Mongol period, it seems most likely to think that it was mainly the Greeks who supplied us with icons, although we partly had our own masters. Regarding the time in question, it does not seem likely to think this. Delivering icons from Greece to Kyiv by water was very easy and cheap, but transporting them from Kyiv to Moscow by dry route was very difficult and expensive, so it is very doubtful that the Greeks could find it profitable to trade icons with northern Muscovite Russia 570. Placed in a greater or lesser need to supply itself with icons, northern Muscovite Rus', of course, did this in some way. It is very likely to assume that there were special areas whose population was deliberately engaged in the production of icons, as we see today; but we cannot not only directly name, but also approximately indicate these areas. It would seem probable to assume that the skill of icon painting more or less flourished in the monasteries, and that the monks, learning it, partly painted icons in the monasteries themselves, and partly, turning into wandering artisans, went to parishes to paint icons locally: however, we cannot at all support this probable assumption with sufficient positive evidence 571. Icon painting should flourish among parish priests, as a side activity most suitable for them; but even if we have evidence that there were icon painters among the priests, then the evidence is only isolated and does not give any right to make general conclusions 572. Regarding its internal or artistic merit, the iconography of the time we are considering should be divided into two classes: ordinary iconography, with which most churches were supplied (and with which most individuals supplied themselves) and better, exceptional iconography, which could be the property of churches and individual exceptional people (among the latter - princes, rich boyars, especially zealous for icons, etc.). No examples of ordinary icon painting have been preserved to this day (that is, in fact, perhaps they have been preserved, but there is no way to distinguish what belongs to ours from what belongs to a later time), so we can only talk about it a priori. Judging a priori, it is necessary to think about her that she was of the most and extremely low dignity. Ordinary icon painting should be represented not as an art that has been studied in any way theoretically or practically and with any concern for the thoroughness of the work, but as a simple skill, with the speed of the latter standing in the foreground and being the only concern. In general, it is necessary to think that it was the same in relation to good icon painting of its time, which is now in relation to our good icon painting - the so-called Suzdal (Mstero-Kholuy) desecration of God. Some, a few, examples of the best icon painting have been preserved in the Moscow Cathedrals of the Assumption and Annunciation - in both cathedrals there are four icons 573. Since all our icons are not covered with vestments and only the faces (and also the hands) are accessible to consideration, we can speak about the iconographic dignity of only the faces. In the first quarter of the 15th century we had an icon painter who was considered an absolutely exceptional icon painter, like a Russian Raphael. This is the monk of the Moscow Andronikov Monastery Andrei Rublev, who died in 1430. 574. If we could have in our hands the icons that belonged to Rublev, then we could judge what constituted the ideal in icon painting for our ancestors of the time we are considering. But, unfortunately, this possibility is something very controversial. There are several known icons that are believed to have belonged to the famous icon painter, but no one can guarantee that they really belonged to him. (Our icon painters did not have the custom of signing their names under the icons and did this - not by signing under the icons, but by identifying themselves on their back sides - only very rarely, and in particular, Andrei Rublev, who was supposed to be humble in his monasticism, did not have our custom). Secondly, about none of the icons reputed to be Rublev’s, no one can guarantee that they were not renewed at a later time 575. In the half of the 16th century, Novgorod and Pskov icon painters were considered the best, which is evident from the fact that they were called to Moscow to paint icons in the court Annunciation Cathedral, which burned down in the great Moscow fire of 1547. (Viskovaty’s case). It should be said about our icon painting in relation to the composition of its subjects and in relation to the freedom of composition of the latter by icon painters. The original Christian icon painting before the 6th Ecumenical Council, not yet being, so to speak, regulated by the church and not yet under its deliberate control, allowed itself very great freedom in relation to the subjects and their composition (to talk about this would mean to deviate to the side; let us recall the depiction of Jesus Christ under various symbolic images, the depiction of Him in the form of the pagan god Apollo and the pagan musician - the wonderworker Orpheus). Beginning with the 6th Ecumenical Council, which forbade the depiction of Jesus Christ in the form of a lamb (implying the Old Testament, which served as a prototype of Jesus Christ) with the Forerunner pointing a finger at him (Rule 82), it was established as a rule that icon images, being the same as in the ordinary life of people, portraits of the deceased persons they revered (Damascene in the letter to Copronymus), should be, as it were, portrait images of the Savior, the Mother of God and the saints (if the word portrait sounds a little strange to the reader when applied to the Savior, the Mother of God and the saints, then let us remind him that the Greek word icon - εὶκών, εὶκόνα, in Russian means exactly portrait). That is, it has been established as a rule that in icon painting there should be nothing symbolic, allegorical or generally composed, but that the Savior, the Mother of God and the saints should be depicted on icons in the exact form that they had, and each of those painted with those exact facial features and with the entire appearance that belonged to each according to positive evidence or tradition 576 . Moreover, as for the three persons of the Divinity, the Son of God was depicted on icons in His describable bodily form, which He took upon Himself not ghostly, but in reality, but God the Father and the Holy Spirit, since They did not reveal themselves to people in an actual describable veil, but only under visible images, were not depicted on icons 577. But in later times, Greek icon painting deviated from the established rule and, having regained the freedom of the original time, again allowed itself symbolism and allegorism, which were very attractive to people, and especially to the poorly educated. Our Russian icon painters also borrowed symbolic-allegorical icons from later Greek icon painters. We learn about this existence of symbolic-allegorical icons in our country at the time we are considering from the protest raised against them by clerk Ivan Mikhailovich Viskovaty, which we conveyed above (1 half of this volume p. 841 sqq). From Viskovaty’s protest it follows that most of the symbolic-allegorical icons that existed in our country at the time in question, and precisely all those against which he protested, until his very time, Viskovaty’s, were known only in Novgorod, but not in Moscow, for if the icons had existed earlier in Moscow, then he could not have protested against them as against innovations that did not agree with the council’s provisions 579. The same follows from the defense of icons by the council that judged it, which, proving that the icons were painted from ancient models, refers to the existence of such models in Novgorod, and not in Moscow. How to explain this somewhat mysterious circumstance to ourselves, we do not dare to say positively, but we think that, attributing the appearance of symbolic-allegorical icons in Rus' only to the Moscow time (when earlier than the 15th century. they appeared in Greece, we don’t know), and not yet to Kyiv, the reason for the disagreement in this case between Novgorod and Moscow should be considered the difference in control over icon painters by the church authorities in the first and in the second: in Novgorod it could be less strict, so that later Greek innovations penetrated here, and in Moscow it could be more strict, so that the path to innovations was blocked here. Be that as it may, Viskovaty protested against the following symbolic and allegorical icons: 1) against the icon called “The Ancient of Days” and on which God the Father was depicted in the image of King David, dressed in holy clothes and standing behind the cross, and Jesus Christ in the form of a young youth, dressed in royal clothes and sitting on the cross 580; 2) against the icon of the Holy Spirit, on which He is depicted standing especially (without adding any other images to His image on the icon) in an unknown bird form. (“The Holy Spirit is written as standing in an unknown form as a bird”); 3) against the icon of St. Trinity with an act, namely, against the image of St. Trinity in the form of three angels with the placement on its sides of the so-called “act” 581, which consisted of images of biblical stories about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob 582. Regarding this icon, Viskovaty rebelled not against the very image of the Trinity in the form of three angels - in this form the icon, there is no doubt, was as ancient in Moscow as in Novgorod, although, as we saw above, it was subject to controversy from some (Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Illuminator, Artemy?) 583, but against the placement of the act on it; 4) against the icon “Come, ye people, let us worship the Trinitarian Divinity”; 5) against the icon “The Only Begotten Son, the Word of God,” which depicted God the Father in the form of an old man with the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove in his bosom, and then Jesus Christ in three forms: in the form of a youth sitting on cherubs in a circle, which is supported by the same cherubs, in his own icon form, standing in a tomb and kissed by His Mother, and in the form of a youth in military armor sitting on a cross 584 ; 6) against the “Eternal Council” icon, on which [the Lord Jesus Christ was depicted resting in the bosom of the Father on cherubim] 585; 7) against the icon, which depicted God’s creation of the world and man 586; 8) against the icon “God rest from His works on the seventh day,” which depicted God the Father in the form of an old man resting on a bed and surrounded by images of the creation of people, their fall and their redemption by Jesus Christ, and there was a lot of symbolism in the images 587; 9) against the icon “Carnally in the tomb,” [which depicts the position of the Savior in the tomb] 588. 10) against the icon “I Believe in One God,” that is, against the image on the icon of the symbol of faith, with the 1st and 8th members about God the Father and the Holy Spirit 589. In addition to the icons we have now listed, there are also icons belonging to our class, such as those that we had until the middle of the 16th century: The Undying Eye, the Holy Spirit in Power 590. How much of the composition of the icons we have listed is simply borrowed from the Greeks and how much belongs to our own icon painters, we are not able to say. Be that as it may, but contrary to the council, which judged Viskovaty and which defends the majority of our icons on the basis that they were painted from samples, moreover, it (the council) with extremely blind faith accepts all the samples as ancient, it is impossible not to attribute to a much larger part of what we see on our icons the review of Zinovy \u200b\u200bOtensky, which he makes about one of the icons, namely, about the icon called “Godfather of Hosts” and which was a variant of the “Ancient of Days” icon. Far above the blindly conservative cathedral, which shared an attachment to the symbolic-allegorical with the ordinary crowd 591, Zinovy says about the icon: “it is clear to us that both the model and the legend of this icon (the composition, the drawing of the icon and the interpretation of its symbolism) are far from the wisdom of the holy cathedral apostolic churches and in every possible way alien pious faiths and thoughts and much annoyance at the divine nature and against our Lord and God Jesus Christ is untruth, as the prophet says: ““and spoke untruth against God.” 592. The icon on which the Holy Spirit was depicted especially standing in an unknown bird form, as it seems, was destroyed by order of the council, for he promised to look for evidence about it, of which, of course, he didn’t find it 593; but Viskovaty speaks of it that, as it is written, he is horrified to even remember it (“but about Saint Dus it is so visible, like in an icon, and I am horrified to remember it”). Our symbolic-allegorical icons were for the most part very complex (multi-figured), and, therefore, expensive; and therefore one must think that very few rich churches were decorated with the most ignorant wisdom personified in them (which some archaeologists are delighted with) (so that the real thing comes out: you and the books in your hands...). The too strong inclination of the Novgorod and Pskov icon painters towards icons of symbolic and allegorical content is visible from the fact that they not only borrowed them from Greece, but also tried to get them from the West: they acquired drawings from paintings of our nature, belonging to Western painters, and icons were reproduced from them. One of the special experts on our old icon painting says that on the icon “The Only Begotten Son” we find a drawing by Cimabue, and the icon “In the Carnal Tomb” was painted without changes from the drawing by Perugino 594. The symbolic-allegorical icons that we just talked about were composed without any need, solely because of the human inclination towards the symbolic-allegorical (and because of the human inclination to exercise their petty wit). But there was a symbolic icon, to compose which some real motives seemed to exist. This is the icon of Sophia, the Wisdom of God, in whose honor we built famous churches. To whom did Constantine the Great dedicated his first church to St. Sophia, whether the abstract property of God - wisdom (and the Divinity in general) or the second person of the Holy Trinity - the Son of God, remains unknown; but in later times the latter was accepted. Of course, the Son of God could be depicted in churches dedicated to Him with the name Sophia, and in his true form as a son of man, that is, in his true human image. But they wanted to have icons that, in accordance with the name of the Son of God Sophia, would distract from ideas about Him as a person, and would speak about Him more as about God and God’s wisdom. We do not know any reliable evidence that the Greeks had an icon of St. Sophia, but we know evidence that speaks of her existence among them, but it is not completely reliable 595; and therefore we cannot decide whether the desire was fulfilled by the Greeks, but we, for our part, only borrowed from them, or whether we acted in this case independently. Be that as it may, but in the Novgorod Church of St. The icon of the same name appeared to Sophia, it is unknown when before the half of the 16th century 596. The icon, which remains to this day, depicts the following: in the lower half of it the Savior is depicted in the form of a beardless and winged youth, with a fiery face and wings, dressed in a royal robe, with a crown on his head, with a long staff in his right hand (on the top of which: according to the descriptions - a cross, and according to the drawings we have - a trident) and with a rolled up scroll in his left hand, sitting on a throne, which besides the legs, it is supported by seven pillars (Wisdom built herself a house and established seven pillars, Prov. 9:1) and placed in a large radiant star, surrounded in turn by starry circles; on the sides of the Savior are the Mother of God and the Forerunner, of whom the first holds on her chest a small round image of the same Savior, sitting on a radiant star surrounded by a star circle, and the second has her right hand raised in a folded manner 597, and in her left hand she holds an open scroll with the words: “Repent,” etc.; On the sides of the Savior’s head (it does not mean that of the Mother of God, but the main one) there is an inscription: “Saint Sophia.” On top of our Savior, depicted as a winged youth, is a waist-length icon of the same Savior in His own (icon) form, represented standing or sitting again on a star, surrounded by a star circle, and having both hands outstretched in a folded manner. On top of the waist-length icon of the Savior is a rainbow strewn with stars, on which stands a throne with a book and a cross placed on it and signs of the Passion of Christ (a spear and a vessel for the otsta) placed next to it or placed next to it on a small table (stool); on both sides of the throne on the rainbow there are angels falling towards it, three on each side 598. We cannot say how ancient the composition of our icon is; but judging by the comparative small number of figures on it and the absence of too much ingenuity in its composition, it is likely possible to assimilate its relative antiquity (as for the very ancient symbol of the Savior - the throne with a book and a cross placed on it, it says absolutely nothing, for the ancient, known in Novgorod painting, see I volume 2 half, pp. 167/195, could have been taken and later writer) 599. The Greek Church does not allow the use of sculptured statues in churches along with icons, as the Latin Church allows. However, in Russia we had (and still have) statues in some use, with the difference in material terms from Catholic statues that they were carved from wood, and not carved from stone (marble). They were called (and are called) in our country, as we will call them, carved icons (images). The oldest carved icon in our country should be considered the icon of St. Nicholas of Mozhaisk, making up the church icon of the Mozhaisk St. Nicholas Cathedral (the city of Mozhaisk, a district town of the Moscow province). Saint Nicholas is carved from wood to his full height (2 arshins and a half in height), wearing a saintly phelonion and a miter (which should be considered a later addition), having a sword (wooden) in his right hand, and in his left a five-domed church surrounded by a fortress wall. The icon, placed in a wooden icon case arranged in the form of a canopy, stands in the cathedral on the right side of the royal doors 600. About the origin of the icon, about which nothing positive is known, the local Mozhaisk legend says that “in distant times, during the invasion of enemies on the city of Mozhaisk, St. Nicholas, to encourage the inhabitants of the city and to fear the enemies, miraculously appeared in a formidable form standing in the air above the cathedral (of the city) and holding a sword in one hand, and in the other a model of a fortified cathedral, as a sign of protection him - that as a result of such a miraculous appearance of St. Nicholas, the frightened enemies actually fled, and the citizens, in grateful remembrance of the powerful intercession of the saint for them, made a carved image of his miraculous appearance” 601. Allowing oneself not to be embarrassed by the legend (written down only in modern times) 602, or at least that part of it that says that the icon was carved in Mozhaisk itself, with full probability one should think that The icon was brought to Mozhaisk from neighboring Orthodox Lithuania, in which carved icons in imitation of the statues of Catholic Poland could come into use and about which our history gives evidence in this regard, which is now discussed below. After the icon of St. Nicholas of Mozhaisk, whose appearance in Mozhaisk should be attributed to the continuation of the 15th century 603, is found in the chronicles under 1540. news of the first appearance of carved icons in Pskov. Precisely - in the 1st Pskov Chronicle under this year we read: “That same summer, to the Dormition, the elders, migrants from other lands, brought the image of St. Nicholas and Holy Friday on rezi in the churches; and the Pskovites were unaware that in Pskov there were no such icons on rezi, and many impolite people put it up for foolish worship, and there was great rumor and confusion among the people; and the simple children began to speak as priests, and the priests went to the governor and clerk of Pskov from the cathedral about those holy icons, and there was great confusion among the people - and sent those elders with those holy icons, and sent those holy icons to the archbishop in Great Novgorod; and Vladyka Macareus himself celebrated those holy icons and sang a prayer service to them in congregation and gave honor to them and escorted them to the ship himself, and ordered the Pskov elders to have those icons of the udder (i.e. buy, for our expression was used instead of buy) and ordered the Pskovites to feast the holy icons together with everyone, and on which day to meet those icons, with tomorrow (i.e., so that on that day there would be matins in all churches)” 604. Under the elders, migrants from other lands, i.e. under the monks who came from a foreign land lands, it is necessary to understand the monks who came from neighboring Lithuanian Rus', because there is no one else to understand, and the matter should be understood in such a way that the monks brought to Pskov for sale carved icons that were in use in Lithuanian Rus' If the Archbishop of Novgorod at this time was not Macarius, but another, then it is very possible that our carved icons would not have been recognized and accepted, and that, such. Thus, this special type of icons would not have come into use in Pskov and beyond in Novgorod. As for Macarius, he was from the archimandrites of the Mozhaisk Luzhetsky monastery, i.e. he knew that the Mozhaisk carved icon of St. Nicholas was not only accepted, but also highly revered, as the latter really was in his time. From the above it follows that carved icons (wooden statues of saints) came to us from Lithuanian Rus', which, as one must think, borrowed them from Catholic Poland. One should not imagine things in such a way that after recognition in the Moscow region, St. Nicholas of Mozhaisk began to make carved icons and all sorts of other saints in this area, and so that, perhaps, they only made copies of this particular icon 605. The same should be thought about Pskov and Novgorod. In later times we find carved icons and some other saints. But the most likely explanation for the appearance of these later icons should not be that in our later times it was recognized as permissible to make carved icons of all saints in general, but that for the later known icons the originals were obtained from outside, from the same Lithuanian Rus. As a possible exception in this regard, only large crosses with the Savior carved on them can be recognized. The Greek Church also allows bas-relief or semi-convex carved images of the Savior on crosses (small altar crosses and large altar crosses, roadside crosses, etc.) 606: but from semi-convex images they could extend the permissibility to completely convex images. Crosses with the latest images became very numerous and very common among us in later times. We cannot say anything about how they were used in our country at the time we are considering. [The most numerous carved images are the image of the “Savior in Prison”. These images were usually cut to length and were very heavy to lift. They were painted and especially realistically depicted dried droplets of blood falling from under the crown of thorns on the head of the Savior. The face of the Savior was always given a mournful expression, and the entire statue was given a pose of meek suffering, which symbolizes the crown of thorns placed on the head of the Savior. Most of the images are designed for external vestments, but sometimes there are also images with sculptured clothing. The languishing in prison is symbolized by the imposition of shackles on the Savior’s feet. Some of the images have now been removed from churches and therefore they are deprived of the environment in which they were previously located; but many churches have preserved the “dungeons” in which they are enclosed; These “dungeons” are of various shapes and are often decorated with beautiful carvings; many of the statues located in them are dressed in special, uniquely cut clothes. – For image snapshots, see in Dunaev’s article “Wooden architecture of the north-east of the Kostroma province”: figures 91 and 92 on page 328, on table LV - three and on table LVI five. Wed. article Η. N. Soboleva “Carved images in Moscow churches”, placed in the 2nd issue of “Old Moscow” (M. 1914), pp. 87–118]. [In addition to wooden carvings, there were images of saints on stone. Such are, for example, images of St. Great Martyr George: one now located in the Moscow Ascension Monastery, and previously on the Spassky Kremlin Gate, made in 1464 by V. D. Ermolin; the other is in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, on the southern wall of the Peter and Paul chapel at the tomb of Metropolitan Theognost, brought to Moscow from Veliky Ustyug in 1678, made in the 16th-17th centuries, perhaps in northern Russia] 607. Icon in Russian means portrait. In Greek icon painting, it was accepted that images not of allegorical persons (figures), but of actual saints (including the Savior and the Mother of God) should be their portraits. But in order for icon painters to be able to paint icons of saints to some extent as portraits, it was necessary for them to know what external appearance this or that saint had. To guide the icon painters in this case, descriptions of the external appearance of the saints actually began to be compiled, the source for which, as one must think, was partly direct messages from the biographers of the saints, partly traditions preserved or compiled between icon painters, partly the images of saints on icons, which were recognized as authoritative in relation to our question. These descriptions, on the one hand, were placed in Prologues, and on the other hand, for the special purpose of providing guidance to icon painters, they were compiled into special and deliberate books, which in our Slavic language were called Podlinnikov. At the same time, for a more perfect aid to icon painters, collections of the very images of saints (made in small size, in the form of drawings) appeared (were made), so that the first could, so to speak, directly copy icons from them, to which collections we gave the name Obverse Originals. Along with the descriptions of the external appearance of the saints in the first Originals and their images in the second, place was given in both to descriptions and images of historical events that served as subjects for icon painters and painters (in the first place here are holidays), and then a place was given in both to all kinds of iconographic and pictorial subjects composed (symbolic-allegorical icons. Original means original, and in relation to icons - the original image from which the icon is or should be painted. One must think that the name Original was first given to collections of images or drawings, and then was transferred to books in which the appearance of saints is described). The Front Script first appeared among the Greeks no later than the first quarter of the 11th century, and perhaps much earlier; Likewise, their descriptive originals began to be compiled no later than the same time, and perhaps also much earlier 608. When our Russian icon painters borrowed the Originals from the Greek icon painters remains unknown; but there are some indications on the basis of which one can think that even in the pre-Mongol period 609. Be that as it may, regarding the writing of icons by our icon painters, one should think that while they did not have the Originals, they painted icons from the sample of the Greek icons, and when they received it, they began to use it, and, of course, they did not refuse the manual and the icons themselves, for whom this was possible. Very early on, the Greeks began to compile, passed down from them and to us, manuals for the technique of icon painting, which they and we added to the descriptive Originals in the form of their special part 610. In the acts of the Stoglavy Cathedral one reads the decrees concerning icon painters and icon painting. It remains for us to talk about these decisions. The Council made, firstly, a general resolution on icon painters and icon painting, and secondly, several specific resolutions on icons relating to certain classes of the latter or to known, separate ones between them. Among the tsar’s questions to the cathedral there is one, deliberately “about holy and honest icons”, in which it is given to him – to the cathedral in appearance – on the one hand, that holy and honest icons should be painted in the image and likeness and in every essence (i.e., in accordance with recognized models or originals), and on the other hand, that it is worthy to have great care “so that The icon painters were living in every feeling and virtue and would teach their students to essentially paint the perfect images of God” 611. As a result of this reminder sentence, the cathedral made its general decree on icon painters and icon painting. He establishes official supervision over icon painters by the spiritual authorities, entrusting it in the highest authority for each diocese to the bishops themselves, and for direct supervision, ordering that diocesan inspectors be elected in each diocese from among the best icon painters themselves; then he decrees: icon painters should lead, as far as possible, an impeccable Christian life (as required, he means, by the cathedral, theirs, icon painters, should be a sacred occupation); paint icons for them with great care, in the image and likeness - essentially, looking at the image (example) of ancient painters and signify (reproduce) from good ancient models, and do not describe the deities from self-thinking with your guesses; They, icon painters, should teach their disciples, on the one hand, a pious Christian life, and on the other hand, with all zeal and with all the unconcealed knowledge they have, to their art and, reporting their behavior and successes in skill to the bishops, not to pass off the good as the bad out of envy and for reasons of kinship, the bad as good. Those icon painters who have a good Christian life and are skilled in their craft and meticulous in their work, as well as their disciples, will be paid, cared for and honored by the king, bishops, nobles and ordinary people. Those icon painters who, despite their skill in icon painting, will lead a shameful life, given over to drunkenness and carnal impurity, are completely prohibited from practicing their craft; those icon painters who, while living a good Christian life, paint icons without having learned the art of icon painting well and sell their poorly painted icons at a cheap price to foolish peasants 612 are ordered to study, and if they turn out to be capable and learn, to allow icon painting, and if not, to prohibit; of the students studying with icon painters, allow the painting of icons only to those who turn out to be capable of mastery and learn it, and strictly prohibit those who turn out to be incapable 613. The Council prescribes that icon painters should paint icons in the image and likeness, looking at the example of ancient painters, and reproduce their icons from good ancient samples or originals, and should not paint from self-thinking. From what we said above, it is clear that he gives a broad meaning to the expression: “ancient models”, meaning not only ancient models in the proper sense, but also not very ancient models, only those that existed before him - the council, in other words, he recognizes as ancient models all the models that existed before him, whether ancient or not at all ancient. Without being at all critical of existing models and recognizing them all equally as ancient, the council in no way clears icon painting of the self-will introduced into it before, for it does not suspect it, but only prohibits this self-will, that is, actually further self-will, for the future. There are two specific decrees of the Stoglavy Council relating to entire classes of icons: one refers to the liturgical quality of icons, so to speak, the other is an answer to one perplexed question in the area of ​​their composition. The first decree is an order that those of the icons in churches that have become old should be renewed, and those that are slightly oiled should be again covered with drying oil 614. In the second resolution, the cathedral answers the question: is it possible to write on icons, when this is required by their subjects, hosts (cathedrals) of unholy people, represented as praying by the saints depicted on them. In one of the king’s questions, it is presented to the council that on the icon “Come, ye people, let us worship the three-part Divinity,” as well as on other icons, it is written “kings and princes and saints and people who live” (i.e., who are represented on the icons as still living on earth), and the question is asked: “Is it worthy to write the living and the dead on the saints?” icons of those praying” (by those praying)? The cathedral answers the question in the affirmative, and refers to the ancient saints, father tradition and to the notorious Greek and Russian painters and to the example of icons on which not only Christian Orthodox kings and saints and princes and other peoples are seen painted together with the saints (the cathedral indicates icons - the Exaltation of the Cross and the Protection of the Mother of God), but also many infidels and various faces from all languages (indicates icon of the Last Judgment) 615. Of private decrees relating to well-known individual icons, one can read in the acts of the Stoglavy Cathedral, concerning how to paint the icon of St. Trinity. The Tsar presented to the cathedral in his questions: “For the Holy Trinity they write crosshairs ovi at the middle one, and others for all three, and in old letters and in Greek they sign: “Holy Trinity,” but they don’t write crosshairs for a single one, but now they sign for the middle one: Jesus Christ” and “Holy Trinity” and judge about that from the divine rules, how to write now.” The tsar answered: “The painter should paint icons from ancient images, as the Greek painters wrote and as Andrei Rublev and other notorious painters wrote, and sign: “Holy Trinity,” and do nothing from your plans.” 616. The history of our church painting for the time we are considering is as little known as the history of our icon painting. Painting cannot be brought from another place, like icons; and based on this circumstance, as we said above (I vol. 2 half p. 193 sqq/226), and its history in our country for the pre-Mongol period should be presented differently than the history of icon painting: while about icons we need to think that they were mostly brought to us from Greece, about painting, on the contrary, we need to think that the need for it created our own Russian masters, of whom it was predominantly produced, Greek painters did not so much come to us themselves to look for works, but were deliberately invited to paint famous exceptional churches. That in the course of our time it could not happen that Greek painters would take precedence over our own is self-evident; but we have evidence that until the beginning of at least the 15th century, our own painters could not completely displace the Greek painters among us, that is, in other words, that until the indicated time, at least, the latter continued to be considered better than our own, and continued to be invited 617. We read in the chronicles positive evidence that our Russian masters learned from Greek master painters 618 . The above-mentioned Andrei Rublev, who enjoyed exceptional fame as an icon painter, enjoyed the same fame as a painter 619. In the middle of the 16th century, the best painters, as well as icon painters, were considered the Novgorod and Pskov masters, which must be concluded from the fact that these masters, summoned to Moscow to paint icons in the Annunciation Cathedral, were entrusted with painting the royal chambers, which were also burned out in the fire of 1547. The part of what is known to us, written in Moscow by the Novgorod-Pskov masters makes it clear that in painting, as in icon painting, they were fans of the symbolically allegorical: from the case of Viskovaty, we learn that in the middle of the vault of the large royal chamber or the present Faceted Chamber, they depicted one “parable” or allegory, which, not without probability, one can think, belonged to the number of their borrowings from Western icon painters 620. Between the subjects of the church wall images there is one, complex in composition, in the reproduction of which the painters allowed themselves and continue to allow themselves more or less freedom and variety regarding details and particulars. This plot is the Last Judgment, the future reality of which the gospel describes only in general terms, leaving the details to people’s own imagination. We don’t know whether comparing perhaps a sufficient number of images of the Last Judgment would lead to any interesting results in any respect; in any case, we do not undertake this work 621. [Review of wall paintings in surviving Byzantine and Russian monuments from the 6th to the 15th centuries. indicates in them, on the one hand, common typical features, usually repeated in them, on the other, variable features, the origin of which is explained by the personal considerations of the artists who were in charge of the decoration of the church. Both in Byzantine and Old Russian churches, the paintings of the altar and the dome are most typical: this depends on the comparatively greater importance of these parts in the sense of theoretical symbolism, partly also on the stability of their architectural forms, which were repeated in most of the churches with remarkable uniformity: stable forms of architecture are easily complemented by stable forms of iconography. In the altar apse there was an image of the Mother of God with or without the Eternal Child; Eucharist in the form of distribution by the Savior to the Apostles of St. bread and St. bowls, with the presence of angels serving with ripids, saints and deacons. On the pillars separating the altar from the middle part of the church, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary; on the arches - Deesis. In the dome is the Lord Almighty, angels, apostles, prophets and forefathers; in the sails of the vaults are evangelists. On the walls of the church and vaults are the most important holidays of the Orthodox Church; on the western wall is mostly the Last Judgment. On the pillars and in the arches there are separate images of holy martyrs, saints, stylites. It is difficult to say anything definite regarding the painting of the vestibules, because we have too few paintings of them]. Throughout the time we are considering, the Greek pulpits that we had in the pre-Mongol period and with which our current so-called pulpits have nothing in common continued to remain in our churches. To what was said about pulpits in Volume 1 (2nd half, p. 197 fin. sqq/231) we have to make some addition here. Firstly, to the evidence about pulpits given there (p. 202 fin/.236) we can add one more, read in “The Word of the Chosen Scriptures from the Saints, in Latin,” which we talked about above (pp. 212–213) 622. Secondly, we came across evidence from the 17th century, from which it turns out: on the one hand, that our pulpits were built as high as the episcopal thrones in the altars (about them, volume 2 half, p. 151 fin. sqq/176 sqq); on the other hand, that they were organized in our country only in cathedral churches, and it is not clear in the testimony whether in only cathedral-bishop cathedrals or all of them 623. (/Royal doors - heavenly doors, XIV century, News of the Academy of Sciences, vol. VII, p. 269, No. 8). [Wed. 2 halves of Volume I p. 899 for 2nd edition]. ("Krylos", in the sense of the place where singers and readers stood, in the act of the cathedral of 1503 about widowed priests. The priests of the cathedral churches sang in the choirs, - Vivliofika VI, 209; ibid. 388 (priest's choir); XI, 6. Choir, - Metropolitan Macarius History vol. XI, p. 370). Regarding liturgical paraphernalia, we have very little to add to what we said in Volume I (2 halves, p. 213 sqq/ 249 sqq). The bishop's liturgical attire - sakkos - belonged to the Greeks, at least until half of the 15th century (before Simeon of Thessaloniki), not to all bishops, but only to patriarchs and the most elected metropolitans. Since our metropolitans of the pre-Mongol period did not belong to the number of the most elected metropolitans, we must think that they did not enjoy the right to wear the sakkos. After the invasion of the Mongols, our metropolitans began to use sakkos no later than from the time of Photius, from whom two sakkos have survived to this day (kept in the Moscow Synodal sacristy), and, in all likelihood, precisely from Metropolitan Theognostus, who, as we said above, should be considered the first of the Russian metropolitans ranked among the ranks or elevated to the rank of elected metropolitans of the patriarchate 624. Simeon of Thessalonica says that the sakkos does not have sleeves, but the sakkos of his contemporary Metropolitan Photius have sleeves; therefore, one must think that in the time of Simeon they were used both without sleeves in the ancient way, and with sleeves in a new way. (In 1346, the Metropolitan gave Archbishop Vasily of Novgorod baptized vestments, - 1 Novgorod Chronicle, p. 83; 3 Novgorod Chronicle, p. 225; 4 Novgorod Chronicle, p. 57; Sofia 1, 225; Nikonov III, 182–183; Bethany chronograph I, sheet 285 turn col. 2. When he was elevated to archbishop, the Patriarch gave Dionysius of Suzdal a phelonion with four crosses, - Typographical Chronicle p. 182, Collection of Chronicles VIII, 48). [Wed. 1 half of this volume pp. 186–187, 308–309]. (It is said that when Jonah was elevated from bishop to metropolitan, an omophorion was placed on him. Consequently, then only the metropolitan wore an omophorion among us). (The miter, located at the tomb of St. Metropolitan Peter, is the cap from which the miter was formed and which we talk about in Volume 1 (it is colored). The miter differs from the cap in that it does not have ermine (from Nikon) - New Chronicler p. 200. In 1558, the cap of John Chrysostom and vestments of Nikita, Bishop of Novgorod (isn’t it Vasiliev’s hood?), - 2 Novgorod, p. 159). [Wed. 2 halves of volume I pp. 230–236/268–275, 909–910]. (Isidore is reproached for carrying a silver club; therefore, our bishops did not carry silver staffs?). (/The offering before the bishops of the cross was allegedly taken by Nikon from the Latinists, - Solovyov, XI, 324 fin.. The Greeks have a lamp, - Rally and P., V, 329). (/Robes of bishops with tablets: a story about Mityai’s quarrel with Bishop Dionysius of Suzdal. Decree on the mantle of patriarchs or archbishops and bishops and other dignitaries - Makaryevsky Cheti-Minea on August 31). [On the white hood, see the first half of volume I, pp. 585–588 and in the article by N.V. Pokrovsky in volume I of “Proceedings of the XV Archaeological Congress in Novgorod 1911.” “Ancient sacristy of the St. Sophia Novgorod Cathedral”, where there is a phototype photograph (table XXII) of the white hood of Novgorod Archbishop Leonid, 1571–1575]. (A sufficient number of priestly chasubles or chasubles without the current cutouts in the front have survived from the time we are considering, starting with the chasuble of St. Sergius of Radonezh 625. (Ancient priestly chasuble, without a cutout on the front, - Notes of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. X, p. 53 col. 2. Robes and surplices of priestly linen, - Acts of Western Russia, vol. I, no. 115, p. 136 col. 2, 137 col. 2. Robes and surplices of linen and unpainted canvas, - Legal Acts of Kalachov, vol. II, no. 218. In the 17th century, vestments and surplices made of canvas, - News of the Imperial Archaeological Society vol. II, p. 330). (In the 17th century, priestly skufias were quarter-set, edged, had three lines. For a description and meaning, see Synodal manuscript No. 850, sheet 70 verso. The priests did not want to wear skufiyas - Belyaev’s manuscripts according to Lebedev’s Description, p. 94). (/Church belt with girdle, - History of the Hierarchy VI, 128). (On the olar deacons, - Legal Acts of Kalachov, vol. II, p. 638 fin.). We said in volume 1 that our readers and singers or clerks began to use the deacon's surplice instead of their own minor penitentiary, in all likelihood, from a very early time (2nd half, pp. 229/267). But in one of the drawings attached to the travel of Olearius, depicting the religious procession in Moscow to the Place of Execution 626, the clerks are represented not in surplices, but in small phelonions (in the form of the latter, as we described it ibid. pp. 228/266). Therefore, we must think that up to and including the first half of the 17th century, to which the drawings belong, their own phelonies were partly used by clerks (perhaps they were used by them in those cases in which priests used them in ancient times, about which see I volume 2 half, pp. 222/259). (On church metal utensils, see Zabelin’s article: “On metal production in Russia until the end of the 17th century.” in Volume V, 1st section, Notes of the Archaeological Society, St. Petersburg, 1852 (church utensils p. 45 sqq). At the beginning of the 17th century in Novgorod rural churches, church vessels (i.e. chalice, etc.) were mostly wooden - News of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. III, p. 359 sqq. Tin vessels and painted covers in the aisles of the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral in the 17th century, - News of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. III. (Exalted cross of Vladimir Vasilkovich, - Ipata Chronicle, p. 608 fin., 609, 610. Exalted cross - altar cross, - Historical notes on the Krivoyezersk desert of Hierodeacon Philumen, pp. 14 and 15; Tikhonravova Vladimir collection p. 153 col. 2, 157 col. 2). (For what Jerusalem or Zion is, see Zabelin’s article On metal production in Russia until the end of the 17th century, p. 53 in the Notes of the Archaeological Society, vol. V, department 1; also his About enamel and valuable production in one of the books of the Notes of the Archaeological Society. [Compare 2 halves of volume I pp. 148–149/173–174 and in A.P. Golubtsova Cathedral officials and features of service according to them. M. 1907, pp. 217–218]. (About censer (what it means spiritually) - Bychkova Description of collections p. 214. Kondiyka - candeya - Zakrevsky). (In 1602, in one church in the Tver region, “there was scarlet taffeta around the throne under the canopy of curtains,” see the book: Mikulin Chronicle, compiled according to ancient acts from 1354 to 1678, Moscow, 1854, p. 49. [Compare 2 halves of the first volume, p. 149–150/175–176]. Curtains with Vladimir Vasilkovich’s shotgun, – Ipata Chronicle, p. 609 beginning). Images were depicted on the regimental banners (which means the banners were exactly the same as the banners in churches now) - 1 Sophia, vol. V Ι, p. 11. Did each parish have its own banner? Or were there banners in the old days not in all churches?). (As we have already said (2 halves of I vol. pp. 155–160/181–187), in the past, due to the vastness of our dioceses, it was not possible for us that the bishops themselves would certainly consecrate all the parish churches, and therefore we made it a custom, instead of our own episcopal consecration, to place in the parish churches antimensions consecrated by the bishops. When It has become our custom to place antimensions on all altars, that is, on those consecrated by bishops - we cannot say. Antimensions were prepared mainly from canvas and linen. In their shape, they are very small quadrangles or quadrangular flaps, and they are square, having a quarter, a quarter with a small length and width (and sometimes 9, 11½ widths and 7 and 9½). length). All images on the antimensions (in the absence of any inscriptions) consist of the outline of three small crosses, which is usually made not with a painter’s brush or paints, but with pen and ink (similar to the art used to make inscriptions on postal bales sent in canvas). Crosses were depicted with 8, 7, 6 and 4 points. If you show a person who does not know an ancient antimension, then, seeing a very small square piece of rough white linen, he will not think that this is what it really is 627. We know about the abuses that were committed in our country in relation to some of the liturgical accessories, namely antimensions, airs and vestments. Since abuses in relation to airs and vestments were connected with well-known church services, we will talk about them below, when we talk about services; and here we will only talk about abuses in relation to antimenses. Metropolitan Cyprian, in one of his letters to the Pskovites, reports with great condemnation that the Archbishop of Novgorod, having transferred the supply of antimensions to the choir of the Trinity Pskov Cathedral for distribution in the Pskov part of the Novgorod diocese, ordered the choir residents to cut each antimension in four 628. Whether the order was a single order of the Novgorod Archbishop for that one time that Cyprian speaks of, or whether the custom of cutting antimensions was general, whether in the Novgorod diocese only or in other places, and how to explain the single order or custom, we cannot say anything yet (the archbishop handed over to the Trinity choir the antimensions consecrated by the metropolitan himself during his time in Novgorod: didn’t he, therefore, attach a quadruple meaning to antimensions, so to speak?). In the pre-Mongol period, the decoration of churches consisted of: mosaic or simply marble and copper floors 629, entrance doors more or less artistically and richly made, and gilded tops (domes). The same decorations remained at the time we are considering. The Grand Duke of Galich Daniil Romanovich made the floor in the Church of St. John Chrysostom, which he built in Kholm, cast from copper and pure tin and shining like a mirror 630; Bishop of Rostov Ignatius in 1280 made the floor of his cathedral church from red (that is, it may not be red in color, but of excellent quality) marble 631; in the Nizhny Novgorod Spassky Cathedral until 1377. there was a wonderful floor (copper or tin, because it burned down 632. - Grand Duke Daniil Romanovich built in the aforementioned Church of St. John Chrysostom two doors, decorated with an artistically decorated overlay of white and green marble 633; Prince of Galicia-Vladimir Vladimir Vasilkovich merged into Lyubomlskaya (city, now town, Lyubomlya, 60 versts from Vladimir Volynsky) Church of St. George, copper doors 634; Bishop Vasily of Novgorod built in St. Sophia's two copper (actually copper-lined wood) gilded doors 635; Bishop Theodore of Tver in 1343 and 1357 built two copper doors in his Spassky Cathedral 636; in the Nizhny Novgorod Spassky Cathedral until 1377. there were marvelous doors, built with gilded copper 637; Metropolitan Jonah built in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral (at its main entrance) gilded gates, created by cunning, that is, more or less magnificent 638. - The aforementioned Bishop Theodore of Tver in 1352. erected a gilded cross on his cathedral, and after him in the same year gilded crosses were erected on two more churches in Tver 639; Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich in 1550 gilded the top of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral in 640, and in 1556. top of the Trinity Cathedral in the Sergius Monastery (Lavra) 641. (For the instructions of the Stoglavy Council on crosses on churches, see the Kazan edition, pp. 74, 171). The bells, which we borrowed for use not from the Greeks, but from the Latins during the pre-Mongol period, being, as one must think, all the time received exclusively from abroad 642, were still very rare among us: They were found at the churches of princes, cathedral-bishops, rich monasteries, and from ordinary parish ones, excluding areas located on the westernmost border, only in very few, and Moreover, only in such central trading cities as Kyiv and Novgorod. At the time we are considering, from the end of the first half of the ΧΙ 5th century, the casting of bells was established in northern or Moscow Russia 643, and they began to spread more or less quickly among us, becoming very popular among the people, so that by the end of our time, as can be judged by further evidence closest to it 644, they ceased to be a rarity even for rural churches, although they had not yet become completely widespread and although bells continued to remain in some churches, partly as the only instrument for calling people to prayer, and partly as a tool in conjunction with bells 645. Until the second quarter of the 16th century, bells were generally small in size, although the most important churches had bell rings consisting of comparatively large and small bells already from the end of the 13th century 646 . With the Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich, those very large bells that constitute our later and present glory appear in Moscow: in 1532. he poured a bell worth 500 poods, and the next year, 1533. – in 1000 poods 647. There were no very large bells in Novgorod until the archbishop, subsequent metropolitan, Macarius. Macarius merged in 1530. to his St. Sophia Cathedral a bell of 350 poods 648, about which the chronicler says: “in Veliky Novegrad they poured out a bell of great velmi, as such a majesty is carried in Novegrad and in the entire Novgorod region, as if it were a terrible trumpet sounding” 649. About beaters or rivets, we can add to what we said in volume 1 (2nd half of p. 135 fin. sqq/158) only that at the time we are considering they were sometimes used made of clay 650. Our churches of the pre-Mongol period, in relation to the decency of decoration and in relation to the abundance of liturgical accessories, should be presented in such a way that a very significant majority of them in the first case were distinguished by extremely rude simplicity, and in the second case by extreme poverty. It is probable that at the time we are considering there was gradually some improvement in both respects. However, it cannot be assumed that the improvement is very large. There were no less, if not much more, poor churches in our time than in the pre-Mongol period, because there were so many churches. But why on earth would the village parishioners of poor parishes, deciding on self-sacrifice, so to speak, take care of the proper decoration and proper provision of their churches with accessories, when no one deliberately encouraged them to do this, as in fact was the case? The extent to which the bishops cared little about improving the decoration of churches is evident from the fact that throughout our time the antimensions in the church were issued by them in rough linen (and to what extent they cared little about ensuring that the churches were sufficiently equipped with icons is evident from the fact that at the end of the 15th century we find a village belonging to the metropolitan, in the church of which there was only one icon 651. And thus, extreme poverty icons and books, wooden service vessels, wooden candlesticks, iron or clay censers, canvas vestments, etc. - this is what should be represented about a very significant part of our churches of the time we are considering, as well as the pre-Mongol period. At the time we are considering, as we said, it became our custom to attach so-called meals to churches in order to build warm churches in the latter for winter services. We don’t know whether it was always or often, but at least sometimes it was that these meals were heated using the so-called black smoke stoves, which until not very long ago were ordinary house stoves among our peasants 652 . Anyone who has ever seen black peasant huts and who has an idea about them can imagine what “black” churches were like... I. Masters (architects). The craftsmen who undertook Metropolitan Philip to build the Assumption Cathedral: Ivan Krivtsov and Myshkin, – Collection of Chronicles VI, 194 sub fin.. Semyon Tolbuzin with Anton Fryazin (about him Karamzin VI, 38 fin., 46, 50), sent to Venice in July 1474, - Nikon Chronicle VI, 58, in March 1475 brought Aristotle Fioraventi, - ibid. 59 fin. and Collected Chronicles VI,199. Aristotle brought with him his son Andrei and the boy Petrusha, - Collection of Chronicles ibid. I wanted to escape from Russia - ibid. 235 start. Under 1487 Mark Fryazin (Chamber of Facets). – Nikon Chronicle VI, 122. Under 1488 Anton Fryazin (what is higher than the ambassador?), - Nikon Chronicle VI, 122 (Kremlin). Dmitry and Manuel Ralev, sent in 1488. to Rome, Venice and Milan, - Nikon Chronicle VI, 123 beginning, brought in 1490. masters Fryaz wall and ward and others, – ibid. 125 (The architect Peter Anthony from Mediolan is given, see below, his student Zamontonius and others, including the kaplan from the white monks, - Karamzin to vol. VI note 104, col. 25 sub fin.). Under 1490 and 1491, Peter Anthony (Solarius, Medilanets: inscription on the Spassky Gate at Snegirev, in the Index of Archimandrite Joseph), - Nikon Chronicle VI, 126, 127, 129 (Kremlin). Under 1491 Mark and Peter Anthony (Chamber of Facets), - Nikon Chronicle VI, 129 beginning. Manuil Angelov the Greek and Danila Mamyrev, sent in 1493. to Venice and Mediolan, - Nikon Chronicle VI, 136, brought in 1494. Aleviza (from Mediolan - ibid. 157), wall master and other masters - ibid. 140. (Cf. 2 Sophia, p. 254). Dmitry Ivanov Ralev, sent with others in 1498. to Italy, - Nikon Chronicle VI, 156 fin., brought in 1504. many masters, including wall painters - Karamzin to volume VI, note 104, col. 26th start. Rubrukvis found a Russian architect among the Mongols - Karamzin IV, 38 fin.. On Western architects in Russia, see L’art russe by Stroganov. Piles were driven under the quarry, - Collection of Chronicles VI, 195 beginning. The craftsmen who built the Assumption Cathedral for Metropolitan Philip “did not understand the strength in that (construction) work: I dissolved the lime liquid with sand, otherwise it was not gluey, but inside the same small stone it was mixed, and inside the wall it was poured and lime was poured, like dough mortar, because the work is not strong” - ibid. 195 start. They faced it smoothly, -ibid. 198 fin.. Pskov craftsmen praised the smoothness of the cladding, but blamed it for the liquid lime: that means they knew how to do it themselves, - ibid. 198 fin.. Aristotle began making Russian bricks, but longer and harder, - ibid. 200 start. Before Aristotle, connections were made of oak beams; he was made of iron. He also placed iron strips inside the walls of the Assumption Cathedral, - ibid. 205. They began to build brick churches in Moscow instead of stone ones in 1483, - Collection of Chronicles VI, 234 sqq (see p. 233 about the Church of the Trinity Metochion). Nikon Chronicle VI, 59. The cockroach built a brick chamber. Metropolitan Geronty too. In Novgorod, the first warm parish church in 1538: Sofia Vremnik Stroeva, II, 400. In Pskov, the first church with a refectory (wooden) in 1544, Collection of Chronicles IV, 306. In 1420 in Novgorod and Pskov there were no craftsmen who knew how to cast lead boards for roofing churches; was in Moscow with Metropolitan Photius, - Karamzin to vol. V note 254, col. 110, year 1420. The construction of churches according to the model, see the Life of Mikhail Klopsky in Nekrasov in the Origin of National Literature, appendices p. 4. “Dungeon” chapel: Karamzin vol. VI note, col. 93. In 1301 a storm erupted from the foundations of four churches in Rostov: Academic Chronicle. Have you been on chicken legs? In Pskov, the first stone and brick church - 1524. – Collection of Chronicles IV, 296. III. Stone churches. In Moscow. 1. Assumption Cathedral. Laid out on August 4, 1325, - Chronicles: Trinity, p. 229, 3 Novgorod, p. 223 (and completed), 4 Novgorod, p. 50, 1 Sophia, p. 217, Resurrection, p. 199 (the first stone church in Moscow, on the square, and Peter laid the coffin for himself), Nikonovskaya III, p. 130, Bethany chronograph part 1, sheet 274 ver. col. 2, the same as Voskresenskaya. In 1329, Metropolitan Theognost added a chapel to St. Peter (worship of chains), - Chronicles: Trinity page 230, 4 Novgorod page 51, Resurrection page 202, Nikon III, page 151, Bethany chronograph part 1, sheet 27 ver. col. 2. In 1459, Metropolitan Jonah added a chapel of the Praise of the Mother of God, - Degree Book vol. II, p. 25, 1 Sophia p. 272 (Degree Book I, 403 fin.: Yuri Danilovich in 1325 “laid in the church of the Holy Great Martyr Dmitry, which is now the chapel of the great church.” When, Metropolitan Philip dismantled the cathedral, “then they took out from the wall of the church of the Holy Great Martyr Demetrius the relics of Prince Yuriev Danilovich, the Grand Duke of All Russia”: Nikon Chronicle VI, 40 beginning; cfr ibid 108 fin.. Before the Assumption Cathedral there was a wooden church of St. Demetrius, in which Yuri was buried and in the place of which, after its destruction, a stone chapel was built next to the cathedral that was built, and Yuri’s coffin was moved to the latter? (See Archangel Cathedral). The new cathedral was built under Ivan III. The Deesis was written in it by order of Vassian of Rostov in 1482, - Collected Chronicles VI, 233. The pulpit in it, - Nikon Chronicle VI, 137. In 1547. the roof of the cathedral was wooden, - Degree Book II, p. 248 beginning; Royal book p. 137. Its top was gilded in 1550, - Nikon Chronicle VII, 70 fin.. - In Snegirev’s Monuments of Moscow Antiquity, with plan, facade and section, p. (after introduction) 1. 2. The Church of St. John Climacus was founded under Metropolitan Theognost in 1329, - Chronicles: Trinity p. 230, 4 Novgorod p. 51, Voskresenskaya p. 202, Nikon Book III, p. 151 (Ivan Danilovich in 1326, in memory of Ivan Climacus, had a son Ivan, - Voskresenskaya p. 199). In 1505 - new and in a new place, see below. Ivan the Great with Snegirev in Monuments p. 109. 3. The Savior on Bor was founded by Ivan Danilovich in 1329 - the Chronicles are the same as those about the foundation of John Climacus. (According to the Nikon and Resurrection Chronicles, a monastery was built at the same time; but in 1 Sophia, Collection of Chronicles V, 215, the monastery is mentioned in 1320, in the legend about Mikhail Yaroslavich Tverskoy). In 1527 – new, see below. Snegirev in Monuments, with plan, facade and section, p. 121. 4. The Archangel Cathedral was built in 1334, - chronicles: Trinity page 230, 4 Novgorod page 53, Resurrection page 204, Nikon Book III, page 160. (According to Nikon Chronicle III, 129, Yuri Danilovich was buried in the Church of the Archangel Michael in 1325). In 1505 - new, see below. In Snegirev’s Monuments of Moscow Antiquity, with plan, facade and section, p. 61. 5. John the Baptist on Malaya Lubyanka was originally built in 1337. (Archimandrite Joseph's Guide. Wooden?). 6. Epiphany in the Epiphany Monastery was founded in 1340. – Description of the Epiphany Monastery of Bishop Nikodim (Belokurov) page 7 beginning. 7. The Church of the Savior Not Made by Hands was founded in the Andronikov Monastery around 1360. (History of the Hierarchy and Description of the Monastery). 8. Archangel Michael in the Chudov Monastery was founded by Metropolitan Alexei in 1365, Nikon Book IV, pp. 7 and 8. In Snegirev’s Monuments, p. 131. The Church of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary in the Simonov Monastery (new or second, - Stroeva Hierarchs col. 153) was founded in 1376, consecrated 29 years after its foundation in 1405, - Nikon Chronicle VI, 313. N.B. Was a stone church built by Metropolitan Alexei in the Alekseevsky Monastery? 9 . All Saints on Kulizhki was built by Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy after 1380. for the commemoration of the soldiers killed in the Battle of Kulikovo (Archimandrite Joseph’s Guide. Mentioned (Collected Chronicles VI, 238 under 1488, not stone) under 1493, - Karamzin to volume VI note 106). 10. Nativity of the Virgin Mary with the chapel of St. Lazarus was placed in the Kremlin at the palace in 1393. in place of the wooden spouse of Donskoy Evdokia, - Nikon Chronicle IV, 254 beginning. Signed in 1395, - ibid. 257 (masters are called, cfr ibid. III, 181). In 1514 – new, see below. In Snegirev’s Monuments, p. 221. 11. The stone Dormition on Kuchkovo Field, mentioned under 1488, - Collection of Chronicles VI, 238 fin., in the Sretensky Monastery, which was founded in 1395 (Nikon Chronicle IV, 263 fin.)? 12. The Annunciation Court Cathedral was built by Vasily Dmitrievich (1389–1425, see below under 1484 about the second cathedral, earlier 1404 - Karamzin to volume V note 249). In Snegirev’s Monuments of Moscow Antiquity, with plan, facade and section, p. 83. 13. The Ascension in the Ascension Monastery was founded by Donskoy’s wife in 1405, and completed in 1467, - Nikon Chronicle VI, 3 sub fin. sqq, 2 Sofia building 187. Dismantled in 1518. , – Karamzin to volume VII note 383 col. 61 sub fin.. In Snegirev’s Monuments p. 205. 14. The Annunciation on Dorogomilov was staged by Gregory, Archbishop of Rostov until 1413, - Nikon Chronicle V, 45 beginning. 15 of the Robe laid out by Metropolitan Jonah in 1450. in the stone chamber he built, - Nikon Book V, p. 217, Degree Book II, p. 25, 1 Sophia page 270. Metropolitan Gerontius erected a new chamber and with it a new church of the Deposition of the Robe, - Collection of Chronicles VI, 198 fin., Nikon Chronicle VI, pp. 119, 121, 2 Sophia page. 236. Zosima built three stone cells, Nikon Chronicle VI, 138. In Snegirev’s Monuments, p. 159. 16 The courtyard (house) erection by Vladimir Khovrin was erected in 1450. in place of the burnt stone one (which in 1440? Cfr Guide of Archimandrite Joseph). 17. Epiphany at the Trinity Metochion in 1460, - Nikon Chronicle V, 287 fin.. New - in 1482, see below. 18. John the Baptist at the Borovitsky Gate in place of the wooden one. Erected in 1461, - Nikon Chronicle V, 288 fin.. In Snegirev’s Monuments, with plan, facade and section, p. 153. 19. The Transfiguration of the Lord on Bolvanovka was originally built in 1465 (Archimandrite Joseph's Guide. Wooden?). 20. Dormition on Lubyanka, at the Nikolsky Gate, where the icon of the Grebnevskaya Mother of God is, in 1472. (Initially wooden, and later stone, according to the Guidebook of Archimandrite Joseph). N.B. In 1476 in the Kremlin there were more than 10 stone churches, and more than 20 wooden churches, Nikon Chronicle VI, 61 fin.. 21. John Chrysostom's church was founded by Ivan III in place of a wooden (merchant's) one in 1478 - Nikon Chronicle VI, 107, Collection of Chronicles VI, 221 (/in the dungeon - chapel, Nikon ibid. 108 fin. - 109 beginning). Epiphany at the Trinity Metochion in 1482. (second), - Collection of Chronicles VI, 233. It was similar to the Ascension Church in the village of Kolomenskoye: Russian Antiquity by Snegirev and Martynov, notebook 3, about the Ascension Church. In 1482 The Grand Duke built many churches: 22. Christmas in the city with the chapel of St. Onuphriya and many others, – Collection of Chronicles VI, 233 fin.. 23. The Savior in Chigas (brick) was founded by Abbot Chigas in 1483, - Collection of Chronicles VI, 234 fin. (Chapel of Kirik and Ulita, 1539, - Guide by Archimandrite Joseph). 24. Metropolitan Alexei was laid to rest in the Chudov Monastery by Archimandrite Gennady (with a new meal) in 1483, - Nikon Chronicle VI, 118 beginning, Collection of Chronicles VI, 235. The Annunciation Cathedral was founded by the Grand Duke in 1484, destroying the previous one, built by Vasily Dmitrievich, - Nikon Chronicle VI, 119 beginning, Collection of Chronicles VI, 235. Consecrated in 1489, - Nikon Chronicle ibid. 122 start. Masters of Pskov, Collection ibid. 198 fin.. Signed in 1508, Collection VI, 247 fin., Nick. 182 fin. (Is the roof on it iron or wooden in 1547? - Royal Book, p. 137). 25. The introduction into the Kremlin courtyard of the Simonov Monastery at the Nikolsky Gate took place in 1491, Nikon Chronicle VI, 128 fin., 130 fin. (Archimandrite Spassky Athanasius founded the stone Church of the Transfiguration on Novy, in the spring of 1491, - Nixon Chronicle VI, p. 128. Sacred - ibid · p. 150). 26. Great Martyr George on Bolshaya Dmitrovka was built in 1493. (Archimandrite Joseph's Guide). 27. Church of the Presentation on the Field under Ivan III, – Collection of Chronicles VI, 198 fin.. 28. Cosmas and Damian in the city, opposite the Chudov Monastery, was founded in 1504. in place of the stone one - Nikon Chronicle VI, 171. A church (cathedral) was consecrated in the Chudov Monastery in 1504, - Nikon Chronicle VI, 170 beginning. Founded in 1501, - Karamzin to volume VI note 629, col. 102 fin.. In 1505 new ones: the Archangel Cathedral (finished in 1508 - Nikon Chronicle VI, 180) and John Climacus (in a new place), - Nikon Chronicle VI, 171 fin. – 172 beginning. 29 Metropolitan Peter in the Petrovsky Monastery in 1505 (Guidebook of Archimandrite Joseph). 30. St. Nicholas of Linen (Gostunsky, brick) built in 1506, – Collection of chronicles VI, 245 fin.. In Snegirev’s Monuments of Moscow Antiquity p. 115 col. 2. 31. Nativity of the Virgin Mary on Old Simonovo in 1509 (Guidebook of Archimandrite Joseph). Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich ordered the foundation and construction of stone and brick churches: 32. Presentation of the Virgin Mary at Bolshoi Posad at the auction, 33. St. Vladimir in Sadekh (Old near the Ivanovo Monastery), 34. Annunciation of the Virgin Mary in Vorontsovo, 35. Nativity of the Virgin Mary with the chapel of St. Lazarus in his yard, 36. St. Leontius of Rostov behind Neglinnaya, 37. Annunciation of the Virgin Mary on Vagankovo, 38. ↓ Alexei the man of God in the nunnery behind Chertorje, see the facade in Stroganov’s L’art russe, sheet XI. N.B. For woodworking (the one currently existing in the Conception Monastery is the latest), 39. John the Baptist beheading, which is called near Bor, beyond the river (Moscow), 40. Peter the Wonderworker of All Russia, behind Neglinnaya, 41. Presentation of the Virgin Mary on Sretenskaya Street. The master of all these churches was Aleviz Fryazin, - Collection of Chronicles VI, 254 fin., under 1514. 42. St. Barbara (on Varvarka) was built in brick by Vasily Bobr and his brethren, - ibid. under the same year. 43. Athanasius of Alexandria, the brick building at the Frolovsky Gate was erected by Yuri Bobynin, - ibid. under the same year (taken for Athanasius and Cyril on the Sivtsov enemy, Guide by Archimandrite Joseph). On Red Square? Snegireva Monuments of Moscow Antiquity p. 344 col. 2. 44. Does All Saints have a real church from 1515? 45. In the Novodevichy Monastery there is a cathedral church of 1525 (4), Nikon Chronicle VI, 231. The current one was built under Boris Godunov, see the inscription in Russian Antiquity by Snegirev and Martynov, notebook XV. In 1527 The Grand Duke erected three churches: 46. Transformations in your yard, 47. Martyr George at the Frolov Gate, 48. Boris and Gleb on the Arbat, - Nikon Chronicle VI, 233. In 1531 A church (wooden, stone?) was erected to the Venerable Parascovia and the martyr Parascovia, named Friday, near the Intercession of St. Mother of God, on the new (on Red Square, near St. Basil's? Snegirev Monuments of Moscow Antiquity p. 344 col. 2, 345 fin.), - Nikon Chronicle VI, 244. 49. ↓ 1 2 The Ascension in Kolomenskoye took place in 1532, beautiful, - Nikon Chronicle VI, 248. 50. In 1532 in the Kremlin near Ivan Climacus, the Church of the Resurrection of Christ, built by Fryazin Petrok Maly, - Snegireva Monuments of Moscow Antiquity, p. 111 sub fin.. 51. In Kotelniki the church (real) 1547? 52. In 1553 sacred is the church of St. Nicholas of Gostunsky, - Karamzin to volume VIII note 587 col. 79. 53. ↓ Intercession Cathedral (St. Basil's Church) was founded in October 1544, - Nikon Chronicle VII, 232 fin. sqq and 238 (it is unclear about the construction. Karamzin has note 587 for volume VIII from the same Nikon Chronicle). In Snegirev's Monuments, with a facade, but without a plan, p. 342. “For woodworking”: Epiphanies at the Trinity Compound, - above p. 395, Annunciation Cathedral, [see above, ibid. ], (Alexey the man of God in the Alekseevsky Monastery, No. 38), Ascension in Kolomenskoye, No. 49, Intercession Cathedral, see above No. 53, Staritsky Cathedral [see. below p. 400 and p. 402]. Even in the Khutyn Monastery [see. below p. 398, no. 89]. There was a cathedral in Mozhaisk until 1303, see Soulful Reading 1872, III, 410 note 1 (Semyonov in the Dictionary the word Mozhaisk). Soulful Reading 1872, part 3, about St. Nicholas of Mozhaisk until 1303. In 1380 sacred cathedral church of St. Trinity in Serpukhov, created by Grand Duke Vladimir Andreevich - Resurrection Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VIII, 34. In 1380 A stone church, almost completed, built by Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, fell in Kolomna - Resurrection Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VIII, 34. In 1392. signed (newly created by the Grand Duke), - ibid. page 62. In Zvenigorod there is a cathedral, probably built by Yuri Dmitrievich, see plan and facade in the Bulletin of the Society of Old Russian Art, 1874 books 1–3, Mixture, p. 14, also in Stroganov’s L’art russe, sheet V. ↓ 1 2 In the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery and Posad: In the monastery: Trinity Cathedral in 1422, another Trinity Cathedral in 1476, in 1512. stone gates and a church on them. In 1552 St. Nicholas Church was attached to the Trinity Cathedral. Rebuilt in 1623. In 1559, on the site of the second Trinity Cathedral, the Church of the Holy Spirit was founded. [Pyatnitskaya and Vvedenskaya churches “at the Podolny monastery” in 1547]. In the Savvin Storozhevsky Monastery between 1400 and 1407 (similar to the Trinity Cathedral Lavra). In the Joseph Volokolamsk Monastery it was built by the Monk Joseph, therefore, before 1515. In the Serpukhov Vladychny Monastery it was allegedly built in 1360. and supposedly still preserved (Guidebook of Archimandrite Joseph). In the Serpukhov Vysotsky Monastery - ancient. (Guidebook of Archimandrite Joseph). 1. In 1292 Archbishop Clement laid St. Nicholas on Lipne, - 1 Novgorod Chronicle. In 1292 They began to build St. Theodore, who collapsed, - 1 Novgorod. 2. In 1296 Archbishop Clement built the church of St. Resurrection at the gate - 1 Novgorodskaya. 3. In the Yuryev Monastery in 1297. The Church of the Transfiguration was erected on the gate - 1 Novgorod. 4. In 1300 laid St. Mikhail on Mikhailova Street, 1 Novgorodskaya. In 1302 laid the foundation for the collapsed Church of Boris and Gleb - 1 Novgorod. 5. In 1308 The church of saints 318, like in Nicaea, was erected at the prince's courtyard, Yakimova Stolbovich, - 1 Novgorod. 6. In 1310 A church was erected on Kolmovitsy, - 1 Novgorod. 7. In 1310 placed the Intercession of the Mother of God on Dubenka, - 1 Novgorod. 8. In 1311 The Church of St. was erected by Archbishop David. Vladimir at the gate from the Nerevsky end, - 1 Novgorodskaya. 9 . In 1312 Archbishop David founded the Church of St. St. Nicholas at the Nerevsky end in his courtyard (and next year a monastery was built with her), - 1 Novgorodskaya. 10. In 1324 The “Church of Christ” (Savior) was completed - 1 Novgorod. 11. In 1335, Archbishop Vasily founded the Church of the Mother of God in Menagerie, 1 Novgorod. 12. In 1335, Archbishop Moses founded the Church of the Resurrection in the monastery, on Derevyanitsa, 1 Novgorodskaya. 13. In 1336 founded by Bishop Vasily the Church Entrance to Ie pysa lim, where the Teremets was, - 1 Novgorod. In 1342 Bishop Vasily founded the (again) ruined Church of the Annunciation on the Settlement, - 1 Novgorod. In 1345, the collapsed Pyatnitsa was founded - 1 Novgorod. 14. In 1345, the Church of Kozma and Damian was founded, on Kuzmodemianskaya Street, 1 Novgorodskaya. In 1350 Three stone churches were erected: 16. Cosmas and Damian on Serf Street, 17. John Chrysostom, – Nikon Chronicle III, 194. 18. In 1352 the church of St. Simeon, – Nikon Chronicle III, 203 fin.. 19. In 1352 The Church of the Assumption was erected by Bishop Moses on Volotovo, - 1 Novgorod. Signed in 1363. 20. Sign on Ilyinaya Street, 21. St. Michael on Skovorodka, - 1 Novgorodskaya. In 1356 churches erected: 22. St. George on Lubyanitsa, and Forty Martyrs (the second in place of the previous stone one), - 1 Novgorod. 23. In 1357 Church of the Holy Spirit in the monastery, - 1 Novgorod. 24. In 1359: St. Procopius at the prince's court, and 25. St. John at the German Court, - 1 Novgorodskaya. 26. In 1360 Church of St. Feodora on Fedorovaya Street, 1 Novgorodskaya. 27. In 1362 Annunciation on Mikhailova Street, 1 Novgorodskaya. 28. In 1362 Bishop Alexei erected the Church of the Nativity in the Entrance, - 1 Novgorod. 29. In 1365, Bishop Alexei erected the Church of the Presentation on the gates of the Antonov Monastery and 30. Lazuta St. Nikola on Latka, - 1 Novgorodskaya. 31. In 1367 St. Peter on Slavnaya Street, - Nikon Chronicle IV, 18. 32. In 1369: church on Yaryshevaya Street, and 33. St. Hypatia on Rogatitsa, - 1 Novgorodskaya. 34. In 1374 Spasa on Ilinaya Street, 1 Novgorodskaya. Collection of maps, plans, sheet IX. 35. In 1377 Church of Boris and Gleb in Plotniki, - 1 Novgorod. 36. In 1378 the Church of St. Image on Dobrynaya Street, 1 Novgorodskaya. 37. Our Lady of Michalica and 38. Flora and Lavra on Lyudogoshchaya Street, 1 Novgorodskaya. 39. In 1381 St. Dmitry on Slavkova Street, 1 Novgorodskaya. 40. St. Philip on Nutnaya Street, and 41. St. John in Radokovichi, - 1 Novgorodskaya. 42. In 1385 the Church of St. Clement on Ivorovaya Street, - Nikon Chronicle IV, 150 (1 Novgorod under 1386). 43. In 1387 Intercession on the gate, - Nikon Chronicle IV, 158. (Intercession Church in the Novgorod Kremlin, built in 1389, but perhaps later remodeled, roundish, pillar-shaped, with two side chapels and with protruding three semicircles; one dome with a special tribune; wall-shaped bell tower. Macarius Description of church antiquities in Novgorod, I, pp. 111 and 112 (crosses are embedded in the altar in the wall; altars are in the recesses of the windows). 44. In 1389, the Church of Constantine and Helena on Yaneva Street, - Nikon Chronicle IV, 194. 45. In 1389, Constantine and Helena on Rostkina Street, - Nikon Chronicle IV, 194. 46. In 1391 Church of Simeon the Stylite, - Nikon Chronicle IV, 241 (1 Novgorod under 1392: St. Simeon on Chudintsevaya Street). 47. In 1394 Church of St. Demetrius, delivered by the Danslavians, - 1 Novgorod (Nikonovskaya IV, 255; 308: signed). 48. In 1395, the Virgin Mary on Fox Mountain, - Nikon Chronicle IV, 255. 49. In 1396 archangels Michael and Gabriel in the Arkaz monastery, - Nikon Chronicle IV, 257. 50. In 1397 Church of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary on Tithes, - 1 Novgorod. 51. In 1398 Church of the Resurrection on the gate, - Nikon Chronicle IV, 277, 298 (signed). 52. In 1398 Church of St. Nikola, end of Chudintseva Street, - Nikon Chronicle IV, 277 fin.. 53. In 1399, the Church of the Intercession in Menagerie, - Nikon Chronicle IV, 279. 54. In 1399, there was a chapel at the Virgin Mary Martyr Catherine and Alexei, the man of God, - Nikon Chronicle IV, 279. 55. Great Martyr Barbara, and 56. Three Youths, chapel to St. Michael on Prusskaya Street, - Nikon Chronicle IV, 308. (NB. Below is a quick look at Karamzin’s extracts). 57. In 1413 Church of the Conception of the Forerunner on Tithes, - Karamzin to volume V note 254, col. 107. 58. In 1414 St. Euthymius in the Carpenter's End, - Karamzin to volume V, note 254, col. 107. 60. St. Athanasius, - Karamzin to volume V note 254, col. 108 fin.. 61. On Kolmovo St. Nikola, 62. Mines on Danslau Street, 63. Andrei on Shchitnaya Street, 64. Anton Ia in Khutyn, and 65. St. Nicholas on the Serf Town, - Karamzin to volume V note 254, col. 109 start. 66. St. Vlas on Chernitsyna street, 67. St. Sava on Kuzmodemian Street, 69. Resurrection common monastery, and 70. Nikola on Pidba (five?), Karamzin to vol. V note 254, col. 109. 71. Nativity of the Virgin Mary in the Yuryev Monastery, and St. Trinity on Klopsk, - Karamzin to volume V, note 254, col. 110. 72. In 1423 two churches: Our Lady on Kolmovo, and 73. St. John on Luzhishchi, - Karamzin to volume V note 254, col. 111. 74. St. Luke on Lubyanitsa, and 75. St. Boris on Gzen, - Karamzin to volume V, note 254, col. 111. 76. In the same year, Bishop Euthymius erected the Church of the Merciful Savior behind the altar of St. Sofia, - Karamzin ibidd. 77. Myrrh-Bearers in the Courtyard, and 78. Nikola on Legoschaya Street, - Karamzin to volume VII note 383, col. 60 fin.. 79. In 1520 sacred church of St. Clement on Ivorovaya Street, - Karamzin to volume VII note 383, col. 62. 80. In 1521 Church of Elijah in the Nikolin Monastery, in the vestibule, - Karamzin to volume VII note 383, col. 62. 81. In 1524 updated Friday at the Market, - Karamzin ibidd. 82. In 1525 the Church of St. Trinity on Kolomtsy, - Karamzin ibidd. 83. In 1526 sacred church of St. Philip on Nutnaya Street (stone?), - Karamzin ibidd. fin.. 84. In 1527 the Church of the Sign was remodeled, - Karamzin ibid., col. 63 start. 85. On Kolmovo Assumption, 85*. Two chapels at Nikola’s on the Dvorishche, - Karamzin ibid., col. 63, 86. Evangelist Luke on Lubyanka, – ibidd.. 88. Conception. Both are on Pavlova Street, - Karamzin ibid., col. 63 fin.. 89. In 1535, a wonderful church (octagonal) was erected in the Khutyn Monastery, - Collection of Chronicles VI, 296. Like the church in the village of Ubory-Spasskoye, Zvenigorod district, the image of which is in the book of Archimandrite Leonid: “Moscow Zvenigorod and its district”? 90. In 1553 laid a church over the tomb of Nikolai Kachanov, - Karamzin to volume VIII note 587, col. 79. (Partly based on the History of the Principality of Pskov, Metropolitan Eugene, III, 134, where there are no citations, partly based on 1 Pskov Chronicle, which is in the Collection of Chronicles in volume IV). 1. In 1310, the Church of the Virgin Mary on the Mountain was founded - 1 Pskovskaya (at Metropolitan Eugene: Nativity of the Virgin Mary over the Pskova River from Kstova, near the Peter and Paul Church, p. 135). 2. In 1339, the Church of the Archangels Michael and Gabriel was founded - 1 Pskov. 3. In 1365, the Trinity Church was founded (a cathedral in place of a stone one) and took three years to complete - 1 Pskov. 4. In 1370 The church of St. George on the Swamp, - 1 Pskovskaya. 5. In 1373 the church of St. Vlasia, - 1 Pskovskaya (at Metropolitan Eugene: moved from the square to another place in the Domantova Wall). 6. In 1373 Church of “St. Timothy, Prince Domant” - 1 Pskov. 7. In 1377 “Vasiliy on Gorka signed” (stone?), – 1 Pskovskaya. In 1383 three churches were founded: 8. Cosmas and Damian on Gremyachaya Mountain, 10. Holy Spirit (at Metropolitan Eugene: in the Domant Wall), - 1 Pskov. 11. Savior by the old fire, and 12. Exaltations at the prince's court, - 1 Pskovskaya. 13. In 1385 the Church of St. Theodora behind the Wall, - 1 Pskovskaya. 14. In 1388 The Church of the Holy Nativity was founded (at Metropolitan Eugene: of Christ) behind the Wall (at Metropolitan Eugene: in the Domantova Wall), - 1 Pskov. 15. In 1389, a stone porch was erected at St. Vlasiya at Torg, - 1 Pskovskaya. 16. In 1391 Resurrection took place behind the Domantova Wall, 1 Pskovskaya. 17. In 1397 Church of St. Epiphany (stone?), – 1 Pskovskaya. 18. In 1398 Pokrovskaya in the Domantova Wall. 19. In 1415, Sophia in the Domant wall. 20. In 1415 Sophia, Faith, Hope and Love. 21. In 1415, Basil the Great on Gorka at the Petrovsky Gate. 22. In 1438 Transfiguration at the Old Fire. 23. In 1438 St. Afanas Ia in the Domantova Wall. 24. In 1446 Bogoslovskaya at the courtyard of the Snetogorsk monastery. 25. In 1446 Praises to the Mother of God from Polonische on Romanova Hill. 26. In 1483 St. Afanas ia. 27. In 1493 St. St. George the Great Martyr from the Swamp. 28. In 1494 St. Georgiy from Vzvoz. 29. In 1495 Varlaam Khutynsky. 30. In 1508 Alekseevskaya behind the Domantova wall. Rebuilt in 1518. 31. In 1527 Varlaam Khutynsky on the square. 32. In 1534 Dmitry Vskaya from the field. 33. In 1537 Odigitrievskaya at the Pechersk Compound. 34. In 1546 Stephen the Archdeacon in the Mirozhsky Monastery. 35. In 1546 Myrrh-bearing women on Skudelnica. 36. In 1547 Ioanno-Bogoslovskaya on Milyavitsa. 37. In 1548 Great Martyr George in the Domantova Wall. In the Novgorod-Pskov region. In 1371 The Church of St. was erected in Ruse. Nikola, - 1 Novgorodskaya. In 1371 completed the church of St. Nikola "at Vopoka", - 1 Pskovskaya, i.e. in Opoka? (Yes, see Semenova Geographical Dictionary “Opoki”, III, 658, col. 1). In 1403 The Novgorod merchants erected the church of the martyrs Boris and Gleb in Ruse - Nikon Chronicle IV, 308. In Torzhok in 1364, see Tver and Tver region. In the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery began in 1496, - History of the Hierarchy IV, 390 (stone work cost 250 rubles). In Tver and Tver region. 1. In 1285, Prince Mikhail and his mother Oksinya founded the stone church of Cosmas and Damian in Tver and gave it the name of the Holy Transfiguration, - Laurentian Chronicle under 1285. In 1399 the cathedral was renewed - Nikon Chronicle IV, 283 (details). 2. In 1322 The church of St. was completed in Tver. Theodora, created by the abbot of a certain Ivan Tsaregorodets, – Nikon Chronicle III, 127 fin.. In 1364 The Church of the Transfiguration was erected in Torzhok, - 1 Novgorod. (At that time Torzhok was still Novgorod). ↓ In 1398 in the Tver New Town (Staritsa, because on the Volga and Staritsa. In Stroganov’s L’art russe, sheet XI, facade of the Staritsa Cathedral 1558) the church of the Archangel Michael, - Nikon Chronicle IV, 278 beginning. In 2 Sophia under 1396. In 1403 in the Tver town the Church of St. Nicholas, - Nikon Chronicle IV, 307. See Borzakovsky, page 32 sub fin.. 3. In 1404 The Church of the Assumption was founded in Tver, - Nikon Chronicle IV, 312, 316 beginning. In 1403 in Opoki the Church of St. Nicholas, - Borzakovsky, History of the Tver Principality, p. 39. 4. and 5. Churches in Tver: St. Demetrius and Introduction, on which in 1352. gilded crosses were erected - Nikon Chronicle III, 203, were they made of stone? Rostov – Vologda – Suzdal – Nizhny Novgorod – Ryazan. The cathedral in Rostov was rebuilt, see Part I, Part 2. Image of the current Rostov Cathedral in Stroganov’s L’art russe, sheet VII. In the Borisoglebsky monastery on Ustye, near Rostov, churches were built (all of them made of stone) between 1522 and 1542, see the Bulletin of the Society of Old Russian Art of 1874. books 1–3, Mixture beginning, with drawings. In 1351 a stone church was built in Nizhny Novgorod (it is not said which one), - Nikon Chronicle III, 198 (before the spiritual Magnusha). Transfiguration Cathedral, see Macarius Nizhny Novgorod Antiquities pp. 2, 67. (Here also about the Archangel Cathedral. A photograph from the church built by Metropolitan Alexei in the Annunciation Monastery of Nizhny Novgorod ibid. between pp. 168 and 169, special, remarkable architecture). Church of the Intercession (Sergius of Radonezh) in Balakhna, 16th century. see Macarius Nizhny Novgorod Antiquities, p. 283. In the village of Paltse, Nizhny Novgorod district, the Kuzmodemyansk Church of the late 16th century. (remarkable, from the very base there is one hipped vault, the height is 3 fathoms), - Makaria ibid. page 307 fin.. In the village of Krasnoye, Kostroma district, 1592, see Archpriest Belyaev Statistical description of cathedrals and churches of the Kostroma diocese, St. Petersburg, 1863, No. 20. Ancient, no year indicated: 1. cold cathedral in Kostroma, built in the 13th century, but later remodeled; 2. in the former Zaozerny Avramievo monastery, Galich district (No. 92); 3. in Kineshma, Meeting Cemetery (No. 8); 4. in the village of Lavrentyevsky, Chukhloma district (No. 28); 5. in the village of Vysoko Soligalichsky district (No. 19); 6. in the village of Resurrection on Vocha, Soligalichsky district (No. 31); 7. in the village of Neyskoye, Kologriv district (No. 9). Unknown year: a. Kostroma district (No. 10, 21, 25, 27, 38, 66, 70, 72, 74–77, 82); b. in Galich (nos. 4 and 8); V. Galich district (No. 93); the city of Kineshma district (No. 32, 46, 55, 71, 72); d. in Nerekhta (No. 2, 7); e. Nerekhtsky district (No. 32, 48, 55, 61, 123, 136); and. Yuryevets district (No. 42); h. Buysky district (No. 5); And. in Chukhloma (No. 2); i. Soligalichsky district (No. 13, 18, 39); village of Kologrivsky district (No. 26); l. Makaryevsky district (No. 13, 26, 44, 61). In 1481 the Church of the Savior was built in the monastery on Kamenny (on Lake Kubenskoye), - Borzakovsky History of the Tver Principality p. 33. A stone church was founded in the Suzdal Euthymius Monastery in 1352, - History of the Hierarchy IV, 98. About stone churches in Ryazan in the 15th century, - Ilovaisky History of the Ryazan Principality p. 253 (there were few churches; which ones are not indicated). About the churches of Suzdal by Anania Fedorov in Vremnik, book 22 (XXII): the tops of the cathedral church were rebuilt in 1528, - page 44 fin.. Metropolitan Hilarion destroyed the choirs in the cathedral and enlarged the windows, - page 49 (No about other churches?). Plan of the cathedral in the collection of maps, plans and drawings for the Proceedings of the First Congress, sheet XXIII. Image in Stroganov's L'art russe, sheet VIII. Daniil Romanovich created in Drogichin (on the Bug, below Brest-Litovsk) the Church of the Beautiful Holy Mother of God (after the Tatar invasion), - Ipatskaya p. 524. He also created Danilo Romanovich in the Hill of the church: St. John Chrysostom red and stucco, - Ipatskaya p. 558 sub fin. (description). The Great Mother of God, – ibid. 560 start. Cosmas and Damian, – ibid. 559. Vladimir Vasilkovich created the Church of St. George in Lyubomlya (60 versts northwest of Vladimir Volynsky), - Ipatskaya p. 609. Images (drawings) of churches of the XIII-XVI centuries. Zvenigorod Assumption Cathedral in Russian Antiquity by Snegirev and Martynov, notebook III. The stripe dividing the lysenes into two fields represents three lines of weaving. Platbands above doors and above windows with tucks. Church of the Ascension in the village of Kolomenskoye, ibid. notebook III. See above, p. 394, No. 49. Tower-shaped with a hipped top; top on many barrels. Church of the Nativity of the Virgin on Stary Simonovo, 1509, ibid. notebook V. There are semi-circular stoves under the roof; the stripe separating the lysenes is triple. Vvedenskaya and Pyatnitskaya churches in Trinity Posad, ibid. notebook VI. Church of the Grebnevskaya Mother of God in Moscow, ibid. notebook VII. The stripe separating the lysenes is very simple. Church of the Miracle of the Archangel Michael in the Miracle Monastery, ibid. notebook VIII, 1501–1504. Semi-circular stoves under the roof. The posts are not suspended from below to the strip separating the lysenes, but are placed on it. The stripe is simple (separating the lysenes). Cathedral in the village of Mikulino Gorodishche, Tver province, XIV century, ibid. notebook XI. Semi-circular stoves. There are no stripes separating the lysenes. Church of the abolished Snovidsky monastery near Vladimir, ibid. notebook XIV. It must have been no earlier than the end of the 16th century. The eaves under the roof are very western. ↓ Cathedral in the city of Staritsa, begun in 1558. and ended in 1561, ibid. notebook XIV, in Stroganov’s L’art russe, sheet XI. Five domes are octagonal vestibules with hipped tops; there is a huge porch all around the church. Novgorod-Pskov churches. St. Nicholas Church on Lipne, built in 1292. In Filimonov's Archaeological Research on Monuments. Church of the Transfiguration on Ilinaya Street, built in 1374. In the Collection of maps, plans and drawings for the Proceedings of the 1st Archaeological Congress, sheet IX. There is a Pskov church of the 13th century. in Niva 1878 No. 35. Ivan the Baptist on Opoki, current year 1453. Section two. The most divine service. Orders and regulations of public worship. The history of public worship from its beginning until our adoption of Christianity, as we briefly presented it in Volume 1, was as follows. ↓ In the early days of Christianity, each private church in the sense of the episcopacy was allowed to create and maintain its own rites of worship: when monasteries appeared, each of these latter was granted to create and maintain its own rites of worship, with the exception of the rite of the liturgy. As a result, in the earliest and most ancient times there was great diversity regarding the rites of worship. In place of the original diversity, uniformity began to gradually establish itself in such a way that the churches of the lower administrative districts began to adopt the ranks and statutes of the higher districts (the bishoprics of their metropolises, the metropolises of their patriarchates) and that ordinary monasteries began to adopt the ranks and statutes of the outstanding, most famous monasteries. The gradually established uniformity was not such in the proper and closest sense of the word. In certain localities, well-known authoritative ranks and regulations came into general use; but since at the same time each church that received them remained free regarding their particulars, which could change, supplement and reduce on the basis of the ranks and charters of their local, former ones, and in general any other ranks and charters that were at its disposal: then the uniformity was such only in general with more or less significant diversity in particulars. The ranks and regulations that came into general use, while maintaining diversity in particulars, on the other hand, had a movement forward, namely, they did not remain forever in the form and volume in relation to the general in which they initially appeared, but over the course of time they expanded and were generally formed. We accepted Christianity from the Greeks at a time when in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which was for us our own source of ranks and regulations, uniformity was established between one and the other, although not yet completely complete. As a result of this, from the very beginning of Christianity, we have had uniformity of ranks and regulations, although also not completely complete. But at the same time, the particular variety of uniform (in general) ranks and regulations that existed among the Greeks was also reproduced among us, having been transferred from Greek manuscripts to our Slavic ones. Therefore, the further history of our ranks and statutes should consist in the fact that we reproduce the gradual change in both in the sense of expansion and in general education that took place with them in Greece. But in fact, it consisted of more than just that. In relation to the public vespers and morning services or to the services of vespers and matins, the Greeks of the Patriarchate of Constantinople had the extraordinary case that their own charters and ranks of these services, which had come into general use, were then replaced by the charter and ranks of others, borrowed from another patriarchate (Jerusalem). Following the Greeks of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, this adoption of the new charter and new ranks of the above-mentioned services also took place here in Russia. We turn to the rites of our liturgy for the time we are considering 653. The history of the gradual formation of the liturgical order in Greece does not exist at all, as such, and it can only be reproduced from the surviving manuscripts of the liturgies themselves. In the same way, there is no history at all of the gradual borrowing from the Greeks by us - the Russians (directly or through the Bulgarians and Serbs) of what they added and changed over time regarding the order of the liturgy, as well as what we ourselves added - and here, as there, the only source of information is the surviving manuscripts of the liturgies themselves. From the pre-Mongol period, two service books have been preserved to the present day, adopted by the Monk Anthony of Rome and Varlaam of Khutyn, and dating back to the end of the 12th century. In these two missals we have liturgies in the same edition, which, despite being identical in both lists, only presents some differences in them regarding particulars 654. One must think that this Anthony-Varlaam edition of the liturgy, so to call it, was, if not the only, then the predominantly widespread edition of them during the pre-Mongol period, and that after the invasion of the Mongols it remained with us as their edition until Metropolitan Cyprian, who introduced their new edition with us. This assumption is based on the fact that in the later lists of the liturgy (in the later missals) we find, together with the Cyprian edition of the latter, only our one edition. However, since the later lists of the liturgy, on the one hand, are known (i.e. in fact, a fairly sufficient amount has been brought to light up to now, but on the other hand, it cannot be said that the amount is huge: then the assumption can not be considered as firm in a completely unconditional manner. As for the difference between individual lists of the same edition in particular, this difference is very great: it is difficult to find two lists that would be completely similar to one another. Regarding the origin of the differences, one must think that they were not only directly transferred to us already ready, being brothers from the Bulgarian and Serbian Slavic manuscripts or through their own translation from the Greek manuscripts themselves, but that they were, to a greater or lesser extent, produced by our own scribes of liturgical books, who, like the Greek scribes, arrogated to themselves the right to be their editors. Metropolitan Cyprian introduced the so-called Filofeevsky service book for us. In Greece, it is unknown - by whom and where - one can probably think that on Athos, no later than the second half of the 13th century 655, a redaction of the liturgy appeared, in which they are streamlined (and, so to speak, consolidated) through their deliberate order (διατάξις) and which represented a new redaction against the one that existed in our country in the pre-Mongol period. In the second half of the 14th century, Patriarch Philotheus of Constantinople (who occupied the see during 1354 and 1855 and again from 1364 to 1376) took this edition in the form in which it was used in his time on Mount Athos and, having brought it into greater or less agreement with the contemporary customs of the Patriarchal Church of Constantinople, introduced it into use in this latter 656. The Greek missal, edited by Patriarch Philotheus, and translated by Metropolitan Cyprian for the Russian Church into the Slavic language 657. Having translated Philotheus's service book, Metropolitan Cyprian did not make efforts to officially introduce it into general use among us in place of the previous service books, but allowed it to spread on its own. With the existence of manuscript writing of books, and not printing, 658 it was impossible to force all owners of previous missals to replace them with new ones, because due to the high cost of manuscripts, this was impossible for many, and most importantly, and in any case, manuscripts could only be produced extremely slowly, and not immediately in as many as were needed. Thus, the service book of Filofeev or, according to the translator, Kiprianov could only spread among us with very slow gradualism. But even at the same time, one should not think about previously existing service books in such a way that with the advent of a new service book, their further proliferation will completely cease. If the scribes of liturgical books, satisfying the demand for new service books, had deliberately wanted to write lists only from the Filofeev-Kiprianov service book, then they would not have had the opportunity to do this due to the impossibility of so many of them getting the desired original. But such intentionality cannot be assumed at all, but it must be assumed that even after the appearance of the Filofeev-Kiprianov service book in our country, book scribes, without at all caring about the latter in an intentional manner, copied new lists simply from the originals that they had at hand, i.e., in other words, with the distribution of the lists of the new service book, they continued to multiply the lists and service books of the old (previous) ones. And thus, the matter should be presented in such a way that Metropolitan Cyprian introduced the Filofeev service book among us - that this service book began to spread among us after him, but that he did not at all displace the service books that existed before him from use. So with his appearance, the rites of the liturgy began to exist in two editions. At the same time, there is every possibility of accepting a certain something regarding the sphere of distribution of Cyprian’s missal, namely, with all probability it should be assumed that the bishops and the most noble monasteries first of all took care to borrow it from the metropolitan and from the metropolises, and that thus in general it spread mainly to the church, so to speak, top. Cyprian introduced us to the Filofeev service book not in several forms, but in one specific form. Having deliberate concern that the service book was copied by the scribes without any changes, he strenuously admonished them regarding this in the appendices to his lists 659. However, his edition of the liturgy was diversified in the lists regarding particulars to the same great extent as the previous, pre-Mongol edition 660. Regarding the origin of this diversity, one must think that in part it is a reproduction of the diversity to which the Greek edition was subjected in its original, and that in part it is the work of our Russian book scribes. So, during the time we are considering, the rites of the liturgy existed in two editions - pre-Mongolian and Cyprian, and both editions represented in their individual lists a very large variety in terms of particulars. But to these two editions there must be added a third, mixed one, namely, consisting of the combination into one by our book scribes of two previous (actual) editions 661. Not being able and able to personally undertake research on the liturgies that were in use in our country at the time we are considering, based on manuscripts dating back to this time, we will use Odintsov’s special work “The Order of Public and Private Worship in Ancient Russia until the 16th Century” (St. Petersburg, 1881) to report on them. We will give this account of the pre-Mongol or initial edition of the liturgies through direct extracts from Mr. Odintsov’s book 662. Only we will bypass in the extracts the number of prosphoras (actually particles) on the proskomedia, which we will say from ourselves. But since it is inconvenient to interfere with your speech with someone else’s, we will now say what is indicated not in the proper place, but after the extracts 663. "Before the liturgy of Chrysostom in the 13th century, as in the 12th, the priest read three prayers: the first two were the same as in the previous century, and the third was different from them 664. Then, without any prayers, the vestments of the clergy followed, and the proskomedia began. The main attention and all instructions in this century, as in the previous one, were focused on the first prosphora intended for the lamb. Withdrawal the lamb was performed with the utterance of the same words that are spoken at this time and at the present time, with the difference, however, that before cutting the prosphora the priest read a prayer: “I praise Thee, Lord, for you have made me worthy to receive the holy body”..., after which, baptizing the prosphora with a copy, the priest said: “We make a remembrance of our Lord Jesus Christ at His last supper, in the name of the Father and Son." When the lamb was in position, the priest said: “The lamb of God is laid down, take away the sins of the whole world, now and ever.”... There was no perforation of the lamb. With particular detail and significant differences from the current succession of the liturgy, the missals of the 13th century describe the influence of water and wine in the cup. According to these service books, pouring wine and water into the cup, the priest said: “The union of the Holy Spirit”; then, pointing to the cup, he also said: “One of the warriors pierced His ribs.... and having seen and testified and truly is his testimony, for three are testifying: spirit, blood and water, three are one: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever.”... “When covering the paten, the priest said: “The Lord reigns”..., and when covering the cup: “To Thy house befits holiness”; there was no general covering of gifts. “The proskomedia ended in the same way as in the previous century, that is, with a prayer for the offered gifts; there was no leave for the proskomedia and no prayers before the liturgy. "The order of the liturgy itself at the time in question differed from its order in the centuries preceding and present, first of all, in the reading of antiphonal prayers. These prayers were read as follows: the prayer of the first antiphon was read before the proclamation of the great litany, the prayer of the second antiphon - before the first small litany, and the prayer of the third antiphon - before the second small litany, so that during its proclamation no prayer was read. “There was no blessing of the high place and no prayer before reading the gospel. "From the further features of the order of the liturgy of Chrysostom in the 13th century, the description of the great entrance is remarkable. According to the testimony of some liturgical monuments of the time we are considering, at this moment of the service the 50th psalm was read, which was read in the previous century at the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, and according to the testimony of others, after the washing of hands, which preceded the transfer of the holy gifts, the great entrance was performed and after it the immediate reading prayer: “Heavenly King” and after it, as in previous times, there was a long service of the eldest of the clergy. symbol of faith, the priest, raising the air, also read the symbol of faith or, if he knew it by heart, the prayer of the revelation of gifts: “Lord our God, show us in this second altar”..., then he read it. “During the consecration of gifts, as in the 12th century, the words “Lord, like Thy Most Holy Spirit” were not uttered; while singing “Our Father” in the choir, the priest was supposed to raise his hands and read the same prayer at the altar. "The communion of the clergy in the 13th century during the liturgy of Chrysostom took place with some peculiarities compared to the previous century. The influence of warmth into the chalice occurred with the utterance of the words: “It will fall like rain on the fleece and like a drop on the ground.” Before communion, in addition to the prayer recited in the previous century, the priest also read the prayer: “Lord, I know that I am worthy, but come under my roof.” then, having kissed the deacon and baptized himself, he said: “How can I gain Thee, Lord.”... When receiving the Holy Communion, the lesser priest, giving the elder communion, said: “Let us pray to the Lord: in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” and the one receiving communion: “The cup of salvation.”... After communion, if there were many communicants, the clergy kissed while saying the words: “peace in Christ,” and read the prayer: “I believe, Lord, and I confess,” and when only one priest and deacon received communion, the deacon, upon accepting the gifts, said: “peace in Christ,” and the priest answered: “and to your deaconry,” and directly after that, both of them read two prayers, one of which is the same one that was read after communion in the 12th century, and the other: “Body and blood, I have already received”... “After communion directly, with or without incense of the holy gifts, the exclamation followed: “With the fear of God.”... The clergy answered: “To Christ the King, our God,” and the priest, turning with the cup from the royal doors to the throne, at that very time said: “Passing from strength to strength, we sinners will praise Thy kingdom, now and ever.”... “There was no cry: “Save, O God, Thy people.” The prayer of thanksgiving, currently read by the clergy immediately after communion, was read after the transfer of the holy gifts from the altar to the altar. “The liturgy at the time we are considering either ended with the prayer “blessing the vestments”: “Lord our God, accept our tender prayer,” or in this way: after the prayer behind the pulpit, the deacon exclaimed: “Let us pray to the Lord,” the priest: “The blessing of the Lord is upon you,” and distributed the antidoron, after which, entering the altar, I read the prayer: “Having finished the divine secret service”..., and the usual prayer “for the consumption of gifts.” “The two other liturgies of Basil the Great and the Presanctified Gifts, while retaining the features of the liturgy of Chrysostom in common parts with it, in themselves represented few features at the time we are considering. “In the liturgy of Basil the Great, at the proskomedia above the censer, a prayer was read, which is in the Greek liturgy of the Apostle James and is inscribed in it “the prayer of incense at the entrance of the people”: “God, accepter of Abel’s gifts”... “In the very liturgy of Basil the Great, the antiphons were sung: 1) “It is good to confess to the Lord”..., 2) “The Lord reigns, clothed with beauty”... and 3) “Come, let us rejoice in the Lord”... “At the blessing of the gifts, as in the previous century, there were no words: “Transferred by Thy Holy Spirit,” and another prayer behind the pulpit was also read. “The order of the celebration of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, compared with the order of the same service in the previous century, presented only one feature, namely, after the prayer: “Of the ineffable and invisible mysteries, O God,” it is said: “And the priest will bow down and reveal the holy gifts” 667. "Of the features of the order of performing the Liturgy of Chrysostom in the 14th century according to its old edition 668, which we did not encounter in the centuries preceding, in the time we are considering, first of all, our attention is drawn to the appearance of entrance prayers, that is, prayers that were supposed to be read by the priest at the entrance to the church before the liturgy. In addition to the prayers read by the priest before the liturgy in the previous time, we find here a whole series of prayers that subsequently, replenished more and more, they constituted a certain part of the service, which must necessarily precede the liturgy. But it must be said that at the time we are considering, these prayers constituted in the liturgical practice of the Russian Church an exception to the general order established in the previous century, and we find them only in two service books that have survived to us from the 14th century, and moreover, they were combined with the prayers prescribed to be read before the liturgy in the previous time. According to one of these service books, the priest, entering the church, had to read: “Rejoice, door of God” and “The impenetrable door, secretly marked, blessed Mother of God”; Arriving at the royal doors: “To Your Most Pure Image,” and entering the altar he had to read Psalms 14 and 20, the Trisagion and the Our Father, “Lord have mercy on us,” Glory and now, “The Source of Mercy,” and the troparia of the daily saint and the church. This was immediately followed by washing the hands with the singing of Psalm 50 and reading the same three prayers that were supposed to be read first by the priest before the liturgy in the 12th century. According to another service book, before the liturgy, the priest had to read: “To Your most pure image,” “The impenetrable door,” Psalms 14, 22 and 50, the Trisagion and the Our Father, “Have mercy on us, O Lord,” and the prayers: “Lord, send down Your hand” and “O Lord God Almighty, who do not want death as a sinner.” In addition, in the prayers read before the liturgy, we find in the century we are considering one more feature, which was also not universal, namely, after two prayers read in the previous time: “Lord Lord Almighty, I do not want to die as a sinner” and “Lord Lord our God, now we want to begin the most terrible and wonderful mystery,” the priest read a third prayer, which was not read before: “God Almighty, the great Lord, who has given us entrance into the Holy of Holies,” and after reading it he bowed three times at the throne, reading: “To the Heavenly King” 669. “When vesting a priest in the century we are considering, as in the previous ones, no prayers were required, and only in some places in the Russian Church did it become customary to read the prayer on this occasion: “I pray to Thee, Lord, take away my iniquities from me.” “Before performing proskomedia in the century we are considering, it was the custom to wash the priest’s hands with the reading of the words of Psalm 25: “Judge me, O Lord, for I have walked in kindness” and, bowing before the altar, read the prayer “To the King of Heaven.” Among the particular features of the procedure for performing proskomedia, it should be noted that instead of the previous prayer before preparing the lamb: “I praise Thee, Lord, for You have made me worthy to receive the Holy Body,” the prayer was read, in some, however, only places of the Russian Church: “Accept, Heavenly Father, this sacrifice,” and after preparing the lamb: “Lord Our God, the trusting lamb himself is blameless.” There was also a custom at the time we are considering in some places of the Russian Church to read this last prayer at the end of the proskomedia before the covering of gifts, as its very inscription, found in one of our service books of the century under consideration, shows: “prayer for covering the gifts.” “After the performance of the proskomedia, as in the previous century, censing was required; but besides this, at the time we are considering, another action was performed, namely, the blessing of the gifts with a censer with the pronunciation of the words: “Let us pray for the honest gifts offered to the Lord our God,” after which the usual prayer was read: “God, our God, heavenly bread.”... The reading of the prayer was followed by the covering of the gifts. At this moment of worship in the century we are considering, along with the practice of the old time, some change also occurred, which consisted in the fact that the previous words pronounced when covering gifts with patrons were joined by words when covering them with air and when placing an asterisk, so that the general appearance of the covering of gifts in the time we are considering was as follows: when placing an asterisk, the priest said: “The canopy of the Holy Spirit, now and ever,” when covering the paten: “Lord enthroned, clothed with beauty,” while at the covering of the cup: “The Lord clothed himself with strength and girded himself,” and at the covering of both: “Holiness befits Thy house.” In some missals, during the last words, it is necessary to incense the gifts, and in others, to bless them. Before the start of the liturgy, only one prayer was read: “To the Heavenly King,” and not everywhere, as can be concluded from the small number of monuments in which it is found. Regarding the deacon’s request for a blessing from the priest before the start of the liturgy, different service books differ: “and the priest and the deacon will bow three times before the holy meal and the deacon will say: Lord, bless, and the priest blesses,” it is said in some service books; “And they kiss the throne,” we read in other service books, “saying: it is time to celebrate the Liturgy of the Lord, bless the Father, and they say repentance” (probably Psalm 50); Finally, in the service books of the third category, at the end of the proskomedia, we read: “Both (the priest and the deacon) will bow three times before the meal, and the deacon, too, will lift up a blessing from the priest and say: Bless, Vladyka.” “In the very rite of Chrysostom’s liturgy there were the following features: “The timing of the reading of the antiphonal prayers was twofold: according to some of the service books they were read at the same time as they are read now, and according to others - in the same way as we already indicated in the 13th century when discussing this subject. “The song “Holy God” was sung only one last time in the altar, and the rest times in the choir. “The prayer of the high place, which appeared in the liturgical practice of the Russian Church, as can be judged on the basis of the liturgical monuments that have survived to us, only in the ΧΙ V century was read somewhat differently from the present one, and was preceded by the reading by the priest of the prayer: “To the Heavenly King.” “The prayer before the Gospel: “Live in our hearts” was not read, but instead of it, in some places of the Russian Church, another prayer was read: “For these words, for the sake of the saints, grant me forgiveness, O God.” “For the repose of the dead, at the special litany, only one petition was read, after which “Lord have mercy” was sung forty times. “Before transferring the holy gifts from the altar to the throne, “walking along the gifts,” the prayer was read: “Benefactor of all creation, Creator of all things,” the same one that in the 12th century was read for those entering the church; and after the transfer of gifts, which was preceded by washing and which was performed while reading Psalm 50, or the prayer was read: “O Lord, life-giving, giver of good things,” found in the liturgy of St. Jacob, or, while burning the gifts, the priest only said: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts” and read the prayer: “To the King of Heaven.” “After the exclamation: “Let us love one another,” the priest, just as in the previous time, said the response verse: “Father and Son and Holy Spirit,” and while singing the symbol of faith, the priest, raising his hands, read the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, creative and giver of love.” This prayer in the breviaries of the 14th century, in accordance with the Greek copies, is inscribed: “prayer for love, which is peace.” “After the prayer, however, not everywhere, as we can conclude from the paucity of liturgical monuments, the prayer of “revelation of gifts” was read, the same one that was read in the previous century. In some places of the Russian Church, the revelation of gifts, also in accordance with the practice of former times, was done when the priest uttered, during the deacon’s cry: “Let us become good,” the words of the song: “Holy God.” “The further following of the liturgy of Chrysostom, according to its old edition, is completely consistent with its following in the 13th century, with the exception of a few differences in the prayers during communion of the clergy, namely, in addition to the prayers read in previous centuries, it was necessary to read either a short confession: “I believe in Thee, Lord, for Thou art the Son of God,” or, in addition to the prayer “Dawn” “me, Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, deliverer of the human race,” a prayer not found in the service books of previous times: “Lord, behold, I will take up Your flesh and blood,” or finally, in addition to other prayers, “Thy secret Suppers.” When the St. gifts into the chalice after communion, the clergy were supposed to read the following three prayers: “Body and blood, I have received, Holy Master”..., “Thy holy body, Lord, be in my eternal life” and “Be with me, Lord, for the remission of sins”; of these, the last two are the same ones that were read at the communion of clergy in previous centuries. The influence of heat into the chalice at the time we are considering was not a particularly widespread custom in the Russian Church, as we can conclude based on the singularity of the monument testifying to its existence. The priest only said: “Filling of the Holy Spirit.” “The liturgy of Chrysostom ended in the 14th century in the same way as in the previous century, with the difference, however, that at the end of it at that time one special prayer was read, which we did not see in the service books of the previous time, namely, according to the consumption of gifts it was supposed to read: “Now you let go” and “a prayer to bow”: “Bow your knees and our heads.” to the earth, we pray to the sinners, asking for the remission of sins”... "All these features of the ancient edition of the liturgy of Chrysostom in the 14th century necessarily existed in the liturgy of Basil the Great in those parts of this latter in which it is literally similar to the first. But in addition to these general features, the liturgy of Basil the Great had its own in the 14th century, some of which were the same as those found in previous centuries, and others were new, which did not have a place in the service books of the previous time. The first includes: reading a special prayer over the censer: “Lord our God, accepter of Abel’s gifts,” the absence of words when blessing the gifts: “By offering by Thy Holy Spirit,” and finally, the reading of a prayer different from the current pulpit prayer: “O Lord, Lord Jesus, our Savior, who has made us worthy of His glory to be a fellow-companion”; to the second: reading two prayers over the prepared gifts: “Lord Jesus, the living Bread” and “Sovereign Lord, life-giving, good Giver” and reading a special prayer of the trisagion: “Holy of holies, our God, rest on the holy alone.” “From a detailed examination of the features of the liturgy of John Chrysostom and Basil the Great according to their ancient editions,” the author concludes, “we can clearly see that in these liturgies, compared with the order at the present time, there was a complete lack of: prayers when vesting the deacon and priest in sacred robes, prayers before the very beginning of the liturgy, with the exception of the prayer: “Heavenly King,” which is supposed to it was to read the exclamation: “Lord, save the pious,” prayers before the Gospel: “Look in our hearts,” three times the priest read the Cherubic song while singing it in the choir, and the commemoration of the prince, bishop and those present during the great entrance; There was also no reading of the troparions for the placing of gifts on the throne after the great entrance: “Noble Joseph,” “In the carnal tomb,” and “Like a life-bearer,” and also the words of the psalm: “Please, O Lord,” the priest’s proclamation: “I will love Thee, O Lord, my fortress,” immediately following the exclamation: “Let us love thee, my friend.” friend”, the prayer: “Lord, like Thy Most Holy Spirit” and verses of Psalm 50 read with her, as well as the commemoration by the priest of the deacon after the blessing of the gifts, reading at the omission of St. gifts into the chalice with songs: “Having seen the Resurrection of Christ,” “Hallowed, holy, new Jerusalem,” and “O great and most sacred Easter, Christ,” the exclamation: “Save, O God, Thy people,” and finally, there were no prayers read at the present time when the clergy were exposed” 670. Not being able to do now [given from Odintsov’s book] regarding the lists of Cyprian’s missal, in relation to this latter we will limit ourselves only to the fact that, according to the guidance of the Description of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev, we will indicate the features of the liturgies as they are read in it itself. The features of the liturgy of John Chrysostom are as follows: Of the entrance prayers, there is only one: “Lord, send down Your hand”; when vesting, putting on the epitrachelion, the priest says: “Eating Jesus and binding him”...; there is no mention of washing one’s hands before the proskomedia; (after the removal of the holy lamb from the prosphora, it was noted: “if the prosfura is not warm, it turns it prostrate; .. if... the prosfura were warm, the holy lamb does not turn it prostrate, as if not to miss the water, lying on the holy platter, but so as a sign to perforate it, and stand there even before the transfer of the great and then, even though it is moved holy, lift up the little cover and turn the lamb on its face and so lift it up onto its head”); the prosphoras at the proskomedia are not spoken of quite clearly, so there remains room for the question of their number, which is discussed below; the exclamation: “Lord, save the pious” is omitted and not mentioned, and the prayer before the Gospel: “Shine in our hearts, O lover of mankind”; (when showing the place where the priest should stand when the deacon comes out to the pulpit to read the Gospel, it is noted: “if there is no place (at the holy meal) for the sake of the altar, and he (may he stand) before the holy meal”); the two litanies for the faithful are divided so that the first contains the first three petitions of the first liturgy at the beginning of the liturgy, and the second contains the three at the end, after the petition for the kings; during the transfer of the holy gifts, the priest only says: “May the Lord God remember you all in his kingdom,” but does not remember anyone by name (the air during this transfer is placed on the deacon’s gum frame, and not on the left); after the transfer of the holy gifts, “having lowered the priest’s phelonion and putting his hands in a cross shape to his chest, he bowed his head before the holy meal and said: Bless, holy ones, and the deacon, bowed his head to the priest, said: The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you”; (the remark is made that while singing “Father and Son” it is enough to kiss one holy meal, following the example of the great Church of Constantinople, but kissing of the holy gifts is also required); during the deacon’s proclamation: “Let us become kind,” the priest “lifts up the air from the saints little by little, lifting it up and saying: Holy God, holy mighty, holy immortal, have mercy on us”; Before communion, the celebrants say the same prayers as they do now (only shorter?), but which part of the body of Christ should be communed, which one should be put into the Holy Spirit? chalice, not said; when adding particles of St. no verses are placed in the chalice upon communion; at dismissal, instead of “Glory to Thee, O God,” the priest exclaims: “Through the prayers of the most pure Thy mother and all thy saints, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us, amen”; at the end between the troparions there is no mention of the troparion to John Chrysostom 671. The liturgy of Basil the Great contains features: the litanies preceding the “prayers of the faithful” are both exactly the same and have the form of small litanies; before the consecration of the holy gifts there is no mention of the prayer: “Lord, like Thy Most Holy Spirit,” and in the blessing of the holy gifts there are no words: “transferred by Thy Holy Spirit”; the influence of heat is not mentioned; The service ends with the prayer “ever holy.” The Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts contains the following features: at the end of the paremias, the priest, standing in front of the holy meal, facing east, with a censer in his hand, marks the censer in a cross shape on the holy meal and loudly proclaims: “the light of Christ enlightens all of us”; “Let my prayer be corrected” is ordered to be sung by the priest 672. Regarding the number of particles and the number of prosphora on the prosphora, which we consider necessary to say deliberately, the service books of St. Anthony the Roman and St. Varlaam of Khutyn leave us in complete uncertainty, for the first of them, after speeches about the lamb prosphora, speaks about further prosphora in a muted manner, which will be prosphora prosfumised by the priest, and the second says absolutely nothing about this further prosphora. During the time from the Mongol invasion to Metropolitan Cyprian, we know of five service books. In these service books we find that they do not talk about the number of prosphoras: in one, dating back to the 13th century, there are the same muffled speeches about further proskomisana after actions on the lamb prosphora, as in the service book of St. Anthony the Roman: “the same proskumisane” 673; in the other four - speeches about taking out particles, without indicating the number of prosphoras, and precisely - in one, dating back to the 14th century, two particles: in honor of the holy day and all saints and for the dead, for whom the liturgy was sung 674: in one, dating back to the same 14th century, three particles: in honor of the holy day, for the living (the living, about whose health the liturgy was sung) and for the dead 675; in two service books, one of which dates back to the 13th century, and the other to the 14th century, there are four particles: in honor of the Mother of God, in honor of the Saint (day), about health and for the repose of 676. Cyprian's service book speaks not only about particles, but also about the prosphora from which they are taken. The particles are ordered to be taken out: in honor of the Mother of God, in honor of John the Baptist and other saints, for the living and for the dead. As for the number of prosphoras from which particles are taken, the service book allows for some uncertainty in this regard: from the second prosphora after the lamb’s one, the priest is commanded to take out a particle in honor of the Mother of God; from the third prosphora - particles in honor of the Baptist and other saints; from the “other” prosphora, i.e. the fourth, - a particle for the entire bishopric and for the local bishop, and then it is further prescribed: “the same (priest) receives the same prosfura” for the kings and other living people, “and again the reception of the prosphora” takes out for the dead. Indefinite “packs of prosfuru” can be understood: either in both cases about the same previous prosphora, or in both cases about two special prosphoras, or, finally, in one case about two special prosphoras, and in the other about the same one. Thus, in the Cyprian missal there may be either four prosphoras (one for all the living and for the dead) or five prosphoras (one for all the living and one for the dead) or six (two for the living and one for the dead). Since it seems incredible to assume that Metropolitan Cyprian had six prosphoras, we must understand that he had either five prosphoras or four prosphoras. He usually understands the five-prosphora, referring the first “pack” to the preceding fourth prosphora, and the second “pack” as referring to the fifth special one. But it is much more likely to mean not five-prosphoria, but four-prosphoria, understanding both “packs” of the “other” or fourth prosphora preceding the first of them. The rite of proskomedia of Patriarch Philotheus, translated by Metropolitan Cyprian, was the rite of the Patriarchal Church of Constantinople. But in this latter, four prosphoras were used at the proskomedia, and not five prosphoras, at least until the second half of the 16th century 677. Very soon after Metropolitan Cyprian, and perhaps even during his lifetime, a five-prosphora appeared among us, assigning two special prosphoras for the living and for the dead, 678 which can be understood either as an independent innovation of some primates (representatives) of our church, who found that it was more decent to take out the particles for the living and for the dead from two special prosphoras, or can be explained by an example Holy Mountain: on Athos during the time of Patriarch Philotheus there was not a four-prosphoria, as is the case in the Patriarchal Church of Constantinople, but a five-prosphoria, and precisely the same one that we find here 679. Soon after the five-prosphoria, we also had a six-prosphoria, which ordered the removal of particles for the living from two special prosphoras - one for the bishop with all the consecrated persons, the other for kings, princes and all Christians 680. Since in Greece they did not go beyond five prosphoras 681, it is already obvious that it was our own innovation; in all likelihood it should be explained in such a way that the two vague “packs” of Kiprianov’s service book were understood to mean two special prosphoras. Finally, if you believe the existing evidence, then back in the 15th century the semi-prosphora appeared among us, through the division of the second prosphora for the living into two more, namely, through the appointment of a special prosphora for the kings 682. If we rely on the accuracy of the evidence, it will follow that in the field of the church, we adopted the title of kings to our sovereigns much earlier than they themselves formally acquired it for themselves, and the matter must be explained in such a way that either the church itself directly wanted to root in society the view of sovereigns as kings, i.e., as successors of the Byzantine emperors, or the sovereigns wanted to achieve this through the church 683. Particular instructions of the Stoglavy Council relating to the rites of the liturgy are that in relation to what is loudly proclaimed at the latter, it establishes in some cases the correct reading, as it found for its part. These instructions are the following: in the first or great litany, “Let us pray to the Lord in peace,” speak not “about our archbishop named after him and about his honorable presbytery, as they said hitherto in Moscow (“here”), but “about our archbishop named after him, his honorable presbytery and about Christ the diaconate” 684 . In the eighth member of the creed, do not say: “and in the Holy Spirit, the true and life-giving Lord,” but either without the “true” say: “the life-giving Lord” or without the “Lord” say: “the true and life-giving” 685. In the proclamation: “First remember, Lord,” you need to say: “Give him” or “Grant him,” but not “You gave him” or “Give him,” as some say out of their own free will 686 . In the litany: “Having remembered all the holy things,” you need to say: “Unity (now: Union) of faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit, having asked (for) yourself and each other,” and not “asked from Christ (for) yourself,” that is, without adding after “asked” the word: from Christ 687. In the litany: “I have received forgiveness,” it should say: “I have asked for the whole day to be completed,” again without adding the word: from Christ 688. In its instructions regarding correct readings, the council was based, as it makes it known, on reliable translations 689, that is, on the most authoritative lists of missals. In his first prescription, he actually indicates the incorrect reading instead of the correct one; but in some authoritative service books, such as Cyprian's, we actually find the reading that the council accepts as correct. As for the 8th member of the Creed, before the Council of the Hundred Heads we actually find those readings that indicate, that is, either the Lord without the true or the true without the Lord 690. (Stoglav’s instructions regarding proskomedia, - pp. 57, 87, 92, 174, chapter 41, § 11. The priests do not remove particles from the prosphora served by Christians, leaving the prosphora to speak over them - p. 57 fin.. The number of prosphoras is vague ibid., but if each one is considered a special prosphora, then seven. On the celebration of the liturgy, chapters 8, 9. The beginning of mass, - page 88 sqq. “The Father and the Son” should be sung, not read – page 73 fin.. About the service of the cathedral dinner - page 198. About the bell for mass during the time - page 50 beginning, 83, 416, chapter 7. About the royal doors. Open the royal doors: on vacation after the hours, then they never open, only for the exit and for the exodus and for the kissing of the Gospel and for the holy mysteries and for the lips to be filled - pp. 97 and 98. About the cuff at the royal doors. At the liturgy, after the dismissal of the hours, it is opened until the gifts are transferred - p. 93 fin., 97). In addition to the particular instructions regarding the rites of the liturgy made by the Stoglavy Council, we have such instructions regarding them from previous times. We will set out here together all our known instructions. Since there are not so many of them that it is impossible to understand them without systematization, we will present them in order not systematically, by content, but chronologically, by time of appearance. Metropolitan Kirill III in the acts of the Vladimir Cathedral of 1274. writes: “In the borders of Novgorod, deacons have been found eating divine lambs, and have created procurmisation of former priests, and then the priest who came after proscurmisat; and having forgotten the rules said in Frugia 55: “as a deacon before a prosbyter, do not enter the holy altar, not by a priest before.” bishop"; The Council of Nicea canon 18, it is written: “Having heard a speech about certain deacons like the former bishop touching thanksgiving (the Eucharist), we command the deacon to take communion from here onwards”; We will follow the same holy council, henceforth we do not command the deacon to take out the lamb, nor the priest; If anyone does this according to (against?) our commandment, the bishop of that place will erupt with indignation; if he knows (the bishop), if he does not know (someone does it out of ignorance), he will be forgiven; If you don’t submit, and speak in defiance, then everyone will be overthrown; If people start spreading rumors, they will be cursed” 691. Regarding the boundaries of Novgorod, which are constantly indicated in the acts of the council of 1274, we have already said above that, in all likelihood, here we should see an amendment to the original text of the acts of the council, made by the Archbishop of Novgorod when he promulgated the acts in his diocese (above, the first half of the volume, pp. 77–78). That the true text of the acts of the council spoke not only of the boundaries of Novgorod, this can be seen from the words read in the Novgorod edition known to us: “by the indignation of the bishop of that place, let it erupt.” The custom of deacons taking away the lamb came to us from Greece, along with the custom of priests taking it away, as a remnant of the custom that originally existed in the church 692. The cathedral is very strictly armed against custom because it understands the conciliar rules it cites as speaking against it, when in fact they are not actually against it (the rules do not speak about skeuophilaky and not about the preparation of prosphora for the liturgy in it, but about the altar and the Eucharist already consecrated). When the metropolitan says that in our country the lamb was taken away and the deacons did the proskomisa first, and then the priests came and proskomisa, then his speech remains not entirely clear to us. Perhaps it should be understood in such a way that the deacons performed proskomission and that the priests who came after them took out particles for the living and for the dead, for whomever they wanted (as in the custom of performing proskomisa, priests were allowed to do this last deacons) 693 . In the responses of the Patriarchal Council of Constantinople to the questions of Bishop Theognostus of Sarai, proposed in 1276, we find the following questions and answers: "Question. If there are many priests and deacons, is it appropriate for the abbot to proskomise or not? Answer. If there is an eldest abbot, then send a deacon; and if a bishop is to be with them at the service, let them proskomise everything." Question. Are two lambs worthy to serve? [ Reply. Not only are we one, but also two and three, it will happen to many to be priests; but when there is a holy offering, let one great lamb take it, and by that offering all are sanctified. Question. If the saint happens to serve the liturgy, and there is no deacon, and there are many priests, is it right to serve him? Answer. If there is a need, and there is no deacon, let him sing from the priest. (The strange question of Theognostus of Sarai: is it possible to serve a bishop without a deacon. How to understand that a bishop could not have a deacon? In Greek, even πολλακις). Question. If there are many priests together, and there is no deacon among them, is it worthy to serve them? Answer. Worthy; The only one who can speak from them is an octenation, standing in the altars, and not leaving. Question. If the presbyter forgets to pour wine or water into the chalice and remembers during the service, should he start again, or chant in a row? Answer. Yes, when you remember and pour in wine and water, and perform the service: you don’t start again. Question. Is it proper, after consecrating a meal, to carry it from place to place and litorgisate on it? Answer. It’s appropriate to eat whenever you need it. Walking people have no resting place; but be careful with fear and trembling: place it in a clean place and serve on it. Question. If a mouse begins to become a lamb, is it worthy to serve them, or not? Answer. Worth it, at least a fourth of it remains, and thus serve. Question. Is it appropriate to serve with dry staphylia, or not? Answer. If there is no wine in which there is no land, then bend a new stafil and serve, not dry; If you have to serve, you have sin from God”] 694. [Metropolitan Cyprian, in his answers to Abbot Athanasius, among other things, touches on the same issue that the Vladimir Council of 1274 speaks about, namely the performance of proskomedia by deacons, and resolves it negatively: “a deacon cannot proskomedia: a servant is a priest, not a peer.” Here he obviously refers to the existing custom of serving the Liturgy and writes not on wine: “Even if you serve the Divine Liturgy besides wine, there is great iniquity: for, speaking, our Lord Jesus Christ receives the cup from the fruit of the vine, and having blessed and sanctified, give to His holy disciple and Apostle, the river: drink from it, all of you. For this reason, if there is nothing else but wine serve, the enemy is the Lord’s command: for blood and water flowed from the side of the Lord; for this reason we, pouring in wine and water, serve.” In one of the holy teachings of the 15th-16th centuries. we find a similar prohibition; “Yes, so that people do not serve mass without wine, and they do not mix anything with wine, neither honey, nor kvass, but water; and whoever tries to serve like this without wine, or whoever mixes it in, and I will excommunicate him from the priesthood, and from God the court is inexorable to accept such, and in future centuries endless torment, even if it is criminal. and heresy is terrible.” In the same answers to Athanasius, Metropolitan Cyprian also gives the following instructions: “Proskura are crosses, or dora, there is some difference in this; even if there are crosses on a dora, the proskura dora is worthy of being, for the sake of the lamb.” - In the sacred service, when distributing the debts, he does not say something, but having covered and shown, he performs the service. Even if the lamb remains, then it will be preserved again, it will never grow up, in that church or in another, there is no promise in that of Maundy Thursday to take out the lamb from the trap, and then keep it long ago”] 695. [From the beginning of the 15th century. (after 1410) a special decree of John the Archbishop of Novgorod is known - “a decree on the procuration of the holy three confessors of Guria, Samon and Aviv”, denunciation of the abductors through prosphora. "I hear here,” the Archbishop writes to the Sofia peasants, that you go to the cross about great destruction and about small ones; otherwise you do not act according to God’s law. Here God gave us a sign from the Holy Confessor; Guria, Samona and Aviv the deacon 696; otherwise, by the grace of God, there is a right to rule, but to blame for execution. And we sent an icon to you saints, confessor to the church of God. And what you go to the cross, otherwise we take away from you, but go to the sign of God's saints, the priest to serve the Holy Liturgy, and write the name of God on the bread and give it to everyone who comes to the name of God, he is right; And whoever does not go to the bread will be guilty without God’s judgment and without worldly things. Otherwise, it is written about our death and about yours that they are taking advantage of us. And this letter was given to you for use; and whoever does not listen to this letter will be condemned and executed without trial. But you, priest, do not let the bread of God go to the company, and do not disobey our word. And I bless you, the priests and all Christians." - Attached to this document was the following decree about "proskurmisaniya": "Whenever something is stolen from someone, or someone is in the wrong, you order the priestess proskura to bake a cross, and order four crosses to be imagined on it. And the priestess, entering the church, first say the prayer of St. a confessor; and another: having entered the church, before the icon of the holy confessor, sing a prayer service; and the third: and at the proscomidia, say, listening to the prosphira, this prayer: “Pray, holy confessors of God, Gurie, Samona and Aviv the deacon; as by the mercy of God they returned the maiden to their city of Edes, and now the holy three confessors, Gurie, Samone and Avivo, and Avidan, and Abraham, and Athenius, perform your miracle for those who come to you with faith, help the destroyer, expose the guilty, close the throats of the mischievous. Isaac - bind V17;: Jacob - and block their paths and make them dark on all sides, so that their paths may creep, and the angel of the Lord may chase them." Also, Lord, have mercy 12. And then, take out the first cross, say: "The whole name of God is written on the bread, through the prayers of the saints of God, confessor, for honor and glory St. Guryu”; and the second cross is taken out, the verb: “in honor and glory of St. Samon”; and the third cross is viimaa, gaagoli: “in honor and glory of St. Aviv the deacon”; and the fourth cross was taken out, say, remembering you by name, whom you eat, the guilty for reproof”] 697. [In his letter to the Pskovites (August 12, 1419), Metropolitan Photius sets out in detail the order of preparation of St. lambs for presanctified liturgies; This one of the essential parts of the charter or decree of the service of the presanctified is set forth, notes one special researcher, apparently for the first time, because it seems to be a completely new and unknown matter] 698. [In the canonical questions and answers, belonging to an unknown person and dating no later than the 15th century, the following questions and answers are read: 1) Having not attended matins, did you sing mass? Even if you need it, you can sing it, and bow down to everyone. 2) Anyone who desires to go to mass under the Gospel. In the same way, if a deacon honors St. The Gospel is on the way out, otherwise then go. 3) And serving the priest to St. litorgy, and commit fornication, what is opythemia? And he was deprived of the priesthood the same summer and from the approach of his friend. 4) On Annunciation Day, should the lamb be taken out for storage? Sometimes it’s a week, sometimes it’s taken out, but sometimes it’s not there. 5) If you forget to give the lamb something to drink, should you serve them? For the sake of need, serve, and not for the sake of need, do not serve; and he himself will not serve as a priest for 6 weeks, dry and eat. 6) What if the priest forgets to pour the wine into the pot? And he does not serve for a year and eats and eats dryly. 7) Should you give the lamb something to drink by putting some of it into the pot? Ino invest. 8) What can wine be used for? Ino not to serve. 9) Should we take the Mother of God bread out of the proskura? Take it out. 10) Should they serve as three proscuras? For the sake of need, to serve. 11) After washing, should you take out the bread of the Mother of God? For the sake of it, take it out. 12) Why should my bottom bleed from the nose, should I sing to him? Otherwise, don’t sing mass to him; Likewise, either a crumb will appear in your mouth, or a hair, otherwise you won’t sing mass; and if it happens out of need, then sing. 13) Are the Apostles 3 at mass of honor? Two betrayed essence from St. Father - to the day and the Most Pure One, or to the day and the Holy One, or for the repose; according to the charter, as it is written, only two are honored] 699. (What was the state of the liturgy under Macarius? This question has no place. If they had Macarius’s service books, they would know how his liturgies were, but in other places they were different. In general, diversity). (Bishop's Liturgy of the 16th century, - Synodal manuscript No. 366. - Charter of the service of the hierarch and on the establishment of the priestly rank, - Makarievsky Chet-Minea, under August 31, sheet 1486 ver., in the Index of Father Joseph col. 479). (For some unauthorized changes in the liturgy, see Makarievsky Synodal Menaions No. 183, August, sheet 524). (Dora, Dornaya prosphora - the prosphora from which the lamb is taken out - Izvestia Akademii vol. VII, p. 266 beginning, 270). (Proskury misati (proskumisati). Misati – missa Latin? Serve mass at the prosphora?). (The Liturgy of the Presanctified is assimilated in the inscription to Epiphanius of Cyprus, Grigorovich’s manuscript according to Viktorov’s Description, p. 27). (How the liturgy is celebrated conciliarly by several priests - Synodal Manuscript No. 850, sheet 267 ver. sqq (in the monastery, there are special features). There are also different statutes (sheet 282 about anointing with oil from a lamp). (The litorgy should be celebrated at the 3rd hour; at 3 o’clock the gates of heaven are opened by the gift-bearing angel. If anyone is late for the litorgy, then the gift-bearing angels will take honorable gifts and wait for the morning until 3 o’clock, and then the oath will swear. And evil is the brethren, accepting vows even from angels. Lavra Golden Chap, No. 11, The teaching of the right faith is beneficial to the soul, sheet 40, back - 41). We turn to other public services. In what form we accepted these services simultaneously with the adoption of Christianity, and in what state they were in our country at first, this is covered in the darkness of complete uncertainty, which can be somewhat dispelled only through assumptions - which is what we did in the first volume; and then, through the Pechersk Monastery, the 700 charter of our services, the Studian, in its edition belonging to the Patriarch of Constantinople Alexei, came into general use among us. The further history of these services in Russia is that the Studian charter remained with us as a generally accepted charter until the second half of the 14th century, and that from the second half of the 14th century, simultaneously with the service book of St. Philotheus, it began to replace it and then completely replaced the Jerusalem charter (actually Savvinsky, which came out of the monastery of St. Savva the Sanctified), which we borrowed from Constantinople, where it was adopted instead of our own charters around the first half of the 13th century. The Studio Charter, as we said in Volume 1, was not an independent charter, but was the same Jerusalem Charter of St. Savva the Sanctified, only subjected to some alteration by the Monk Theodore the Studite, who introduced it in the Studio Monastery. And therefore, its differences from the Jerusalem Charter in relation to the very rites of the services are very insignificant and can be equated to the differences between two editions of the same charter) 701. Its significant differences from the Jerusalem Rule concerned not the rite of the services, but the manner and time of their performance - they consisted in the fact that while according to the Jerusalem Rule all-night vigils are appointed for Sundays and for the Lord's feasts, the Monk Theodore also for these days, as for all others, appoints Vespers and Matins to be performed at ordinary times, and that whereas according to the Jerusalem Rule the presanctified liturgy is sung only according to On Wednesdays and Fridays of the first six weeks of Great Lent and on Monday - Wednesday of its last week or Holy, the Monk Theodore appoints to sing it on Wednesdays and Fridays of Cheese Fat Week, on all consecutive fast days (Monday-Friday) of the first six weeks of Great Lent and in Holy Week - on the same fast days, with the exception of Maundy Thursday or with the addition of Monday-Wednesday of Great Heel 702. The lists of the Studite Charter 703 that have survived to this day differ from one another in particular differences 704, i.e., they testify that in relation to our services these particular differences had the same place as in relation to the liturgies. And here, just as during our time there, the differences should mainly be derived from the Greeks, but in part they should be assimilated by us ourselves. In addition to the Studite Rule, other rules of worship were also transferred to us 705: of these other rules, those that were put into use only privately, in some individual monasteries, or were not even put into use, but remained simply in manuscripts, and the Studite Rule could be supplemented with us, or subjected to some changes on the basis of them. In Constantinople and its patriarchate, according to the testimony of Simeon of Thessalonica, the Jerusalem Charter was adopted instead of its local charters around the first half of the 13th century 706. From Constantinople in the first quarter of the 14th century, the Serbs 707 borrowed the charter, and at the end of the 14th - beginning of the 15th century, we also borrowed it. In the lists of the charter preserved from the 14th-15th centuries, three special translations of it are found, representing three special editions 708. One of the translations should be taken as the Serbian translation transferred to us 709, which transfer, as one can probably think, was the work of Metropolitan Cyprian; another translation was made in Constantinople in 1401. our Russian monk Athanasius, in whom they usually see the famous Athanasius of Vysotsky 710; the third translation, also our Russian, belongs to an unknown person. It may seem strange and not entirely clear that we, the Russians, were apart from the Greeks of the Patriarchate of Constantinople for too long regarding the statute, i.e., that for too long we did not bother to introduce the Jerusalem statute, following their example. This strangeness, in all likelihood, should be explained by the fact that the difference between the statutes of Studite and Jerusalem, being not particularly significant, was not strikingly noticeable, and that for this reason it did not attract the attention of our ancestors for a long time. The agreement between us and the Greeks in some of those points of differences that were noticeable, which difference was the annual days of the celebration of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, as we saw above, began very early. Just as the new missal began to be introduced among us from the time of Metropolitan Cyprian, not through any official instructions from the church authorities, but solely through voluntary assimilation, so the new charter was introduced solely in the same way. The new service book, having been introduced for our use, during the time we are considering did not at all supplant the old one, which at all times continued to remain together with it. Likewise, the new charter did not supplant the old one. However, one must think that the old charter went out of use faster than the old service book. As for the latter, after the introduction of the new missal, not only those manuscripts that had been written before continued to be in use, but new ones continued to be written; In contrast to the new manuscripts of the old charter, it seems that very little was written on the introduction of the new charter. However, we base our assumptions solely on the surviving manuscripts, and the matter may be completely random. The Jerusalem Charter, as we said, was introduced in our country in three editions. And, therefore, it was introduced in our country with triple diversity in relation to particulars. We cannot say how much diversity the editors presented in their attitude to particulars; and equally we cannot say what happened with these editions further: whether it was so that they were distributed by all three together or that one of them took precedence over the other two. If the latter, then, in any case, there is no doubt that one edition did not maintain uniformity, but also diversified, in each individual manuscript representing a special private edition (introductions from other editions and from the Studio Charter). Descriptors of the manuscripts of the Synodal Library make the following remark regarding the changes to which the Greek original of the Jerusalem Charter underwent in the Slavic translation. “Since the charter attributed to the Monk Sava included many chapters of Markov 711 and also many chapters from Nikon the Montenegrin, and the latter were included in the same translation that existed in the Slavic language earlier: it is obvious that the Savvin Charter in its original composition was not so extensive and that significant applications to it were already made in the Slavic churches; “This,” the descriptors conclude, “partly explains the diversity in the content of the charter in different lists” 712. The main difference between the Jerusalem Rule and the Studite Rule, as we said, should be considered to be that in the former a different, fewer number of days of the year are assigned for the presanctified liturgy than in the latter, and that on Sundays and great holidays, instead of the usual Vespers and Matins, all-night vigils are appointed (according to the currently adopted edition of the Rule or according to the current Rule of obligatory all-night vigils throughout the year are appointed 68, – chapter 6, cfr in the Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 383, sheet 10, list of the charter of the 14th century, where the same number is assigned). In relation to these differences from the Studite Charter, we did not fully accept the Jerusalem Charter: regarding the days of the celebration of the presanctified liturgy, from its Charter, by adoption, we adopted exactly the practice that it prescribes; As for the all-night vigils, they were not introduced among us as an obligatory matter, but became an arbitrary matter, so that in relation to vespers and festive matins, the matter appeared in such a form that room was left for free choice between one and the other by the statute 713. We are talking about the Studite and Jerusalem statutes, as those that were in common use among us. However, there are questions about the limitation of this general use in the sense of full or incomplete performance of services on them. The Statutes and Jerusalem Statutes are monastic statutes, and as such they offer services and prescribe their performance in the latter’s monastic quantity. Meanwhile, not all monastic services were obligatory for secular churches, by which we mean cathedral-episcopal ones. The composition of the daily public services, which the Christian Church established as such and which happened even before the appearance of monasteries in it, consisted of three separate services: Matins, Liturgy and Vespers (what comes after: Vespers, Matins, Liturgy). The monks, after they appeared, in addition to these three services, introduced new services in their monasteries, namely, the hours of the 1st - 9th, Vespers and Midnight Office. As long as the secular churches had their own charters for our services, separate from the monasteries (which in Russia, as we said, lasted probably no less than until the end of the pre-Mongol period), monastic services could not at all be obligatory for them. (Although, on the other hand, as this should naturally imply, they were not positively prohibited). But what happened in this regard when the parish churches adopted the monastic regulations: did they begin to perform according to these regulations only those services that they had in common with the monasteries, or did they accept all monastic services as obligatory for themselves? Another question relates to the full or incomplete performance in parish churches, according to monastic charters, of those services that they, the churches, had in common with the monasteries. The own matins and vespers of the secular churches were shorter in scope than the same services in monasteries, and precisely - as for the cathedral-episcopal churches, their matins did not have the last part of the current matins, which constitutes the canon, for the canons, representing a special prayer singing attached to the matins, were introduced by the monks as the same surplus against the secular churches as the services mentioned above; and as for the parish churches, their matins did not have the same canons, the readings of kathismas with the exception of fasting, and vespers, it seems, did not have festive lithiums 714. To what extent were the monastery matins and vespers adopted by the maritime churches - without those parts that they did not have before or with these parts? We are not able to answer the questions now asked in a completely satisfactory manner; What is certain, however, is that in our country, as well as in Greece 715, not the entire number of monastic services was necessarily adopted by the lay churches and that Vespers and Matins were celebrated in the lay churches not in their full monastic capacity. As for the number of services, it is clear from the acts of the Stoglavy Cathedral that the hours before mass were not read in all churches. The cathedral prescribes: “and before mass, in the cathedral churches and in all churches there would be a clock announced at what time the priest should perform the proskuromisa” 716. In another of its instructions regarding the clock, the cathedral makes it known that in Novgorod and Moscow the custom of reading them was more universal 717 and thus gives reason to assume that in general it was, if not predominant, then significantly widespread in secular churches. As for the extent to which monastic vespers and matins were performed in secular churches, it is clear from the acts of the Stoglavy Council: firstly, that in Moscow, or, as it seems more likely to understand the council, in all of Russia there was no custom of singing lithium, - secondly, that here there was no custom of singing psalms: “Praise the name of the Lord,” “Confess the Lord” and “On the rivers of Babylon” at the time prescribed for them by the charter. Regarding the litia, we read in one of the tsar’s questions to the cathedral: “The statute says: on Saturday evening, also on the feast of Christ and the Mother of God and the saints, there are deliberate chanting of the litey, and on all days for the repose of the repose there is a singing of the litey after matins and vespers, and here in the cathedral churches they do not sing that” 718. Regarding the psalms, we read the king’s question to the council: “In the charter it is written to sing week by week from the Exaltation of the Holy Cross to cheese weeks: “Praise the name of the Lord” and “Confess the Lord,” and the third psalm “On the river of Babylonia” is to be sung three times a year - on the week of fornication and meat-eating and raw food: which is why they don’t sing here for the sake of guilt?” 719. A not entirely definite expression: “here (here)” can be understood either about Moscow or about all of Russia (here - in our country); the latter is much more likely, because if they did not fulfill the charter in Moscow, but fulfilled it in Novgorod, then the tsar would not fail to point out this, as he does in other cases. Regarding the canons, we have the testimony of Metropolitan Photius, from which it is clear that in his time, at least, they were already promulgated in secular churches. In one of his messages to Pskov, he gives an answer to one perplexed question regarding their singing, which was addressed to him specifically by lay priests 720. Thus, from what has been said it is clear that before the time of the Council of the Hundred Heads, the monastic charter was not carried out in our secular churches in its entirety in relation to the number of services and their volume, but that this incompleteness was insignificant. It is necessary, however, to distinguish between what was considered to be due and what actually happened. We will talk about this last one below. [Public services include the blessing of water on the eve of Epiphany and August 1. About the divine service on these days, see I. D. Mansvetov Metropolitan Cyprian in his liturgical activity, M. 1882, pp. 52–53 and Church Charter (Typik), M. 1885, pp. 111, 156–159, 212–213, 238, 416–417; A. A. Dmitrievsky Divine service in the Russian Church in the 16th century, Kazan 1884, pp. 188–189]. [In the time before the Council of the Hundred Heads, we have the following instructions regarding our services]. [In the responses of the Patriarchal Council of Constantinople to the questions of Bishop Theognostus of Sarai, proposed in 1276, we find the following question-and-answers: “Inquired. On Kia days and in years of honor the saint should receive the gospel? Answer. Four times in the summer, during the Holy Week, on Holy Thursday, the first gospel, and on Easter at the litorgy and on vespers, and on the first day of September, when you go with the abbot on great holidays, there is no need to honor them. - Question. Is it decreed by the Holy Fathers that there should be services on those days? - Question. Then neither the Lenten service nor the Midsummer service is sung, but at 9 o’clock the vespers are sung. - Question: If there is no bishop in the city, should the abbot raise the cross? Answer. [Metropolitan Cyprian, in his 1395 teaching to the Novgorod clergy, solves the question proposed to him about the time of the celebration of the Liturgy of Basil the Great: “The service of St. Basil the Great begins in the second weeks of Lent; and on the week of Chrysostom, Chrysostom’s service, as well as on the week of collection, before the collection of the synodik is honored, dividing Chrysostom's service; and from the second week of Lent on every week of Great St. Basil, the service is served; and on the canon of the Nativity of Christ, and on the canon of the baptism of St. Basil the Great, there is a service of many honors for dividing the Great Basil and on his feast day there is no service. only hours with vespers; also on Good Friday” 721. – In the letter of Metropolitan Photius dated September 23, 1417. To the Pskov clergy we read 722: “And what, sons, do you write that the Meeting of our Lord Jesus Christ, or the Finding of the venerable head of John the Baptist, will take place on Wednesday or on the heels of the raw food weeks: otherwise in those days, according to the divine charter, the liturgy of the celebration of the Great John Chrysostom was told. And what do you write about the Annunciation Most Holy Theotokos, even on Good Friday: another liturgy of St. Chrysostom, also on Colored Week, and on Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday; And in another letter 2 years later (dated August 12, 1419), Metropolitan Photius wrote to them: “And on Wednesday and on the Friday of Cheese Week, we did not return to Palestine, nor in the Holy Mountain, below in the reigning Constantinople, we did not return on these days, we decided on Wednesday and the Friday of Cheese Week, below the performed liturgy, below the pre-sanctified one; similar and especially on the great heel of the crucifixion of Christ, neither the liturgy nor the pre-sanctified service was performed.”... Here he gives detailed instructions on how to conduct the service, “if the eve of the Nativity of Christ or the Epiphany happens on Saturday or in the week”] 723. [“On Great Saturday, evening,” wrote Metropolitan Cyprian in 1395 in a teaching to the Novgorod clergy, “there is no way to carry Mephimon.” Metropolitan Photius wrote about this to the Pskov clergy on September 23, 1417: “And why, my sons, do you write about Mephimon, what to sing on Great Saturday: otherwise, according to the charter, Mephimon is not sung in churches on Maundy Thursday evening, and on Maundy Friday, and on Maundy Saturday, but the vespers are sung in the cells; and on the night of Great Saturday the Acts of the Apostles are read in churches all night long, and the funeral canons of Savior and readings”] 724. [Concerning the erection of the Cross of the Lord, the question of which was raised by Bishop Theognostus in 1276, we find the following instructions from Metropolitan Cyprian and Photius. The first, in his 1395 teaching to the Novgorod clergy, writes: “And for the Raising of the Honest Cross in every church, throughout the land where Christians live, raise the cross, even if there is one priest, for the glory of the Honest and Life-giving Cross.” “And the cross,” Metropolitan Photius writes to the Pskov clergy, first raise it to the east, to 4 countries, and then raise the fifth pack to the east, and speaking of every erection, about Orthodoxy, “Lord have mercy,” 100”] 725. [Among the answers of Metropolitan Cyprian to Abbot Athanasius we find one about where to read the apostle and the gospel in the case when the hour is followed by mass and when it is not supposed: “Whenever there will be a liturgy of peti, the hours of the brethren in the narthex sing, and the apostle and the gospel are read there; if there is no narthex, then in the middle church. And without mass the hours are sung, then the apostle is in the midst of the church of honor, and the gospel is on the holy throne.” - Here we read: “You ask: how are the angels of Holy Thursday honored and where? And be aware of this, as on the holy throne all the angels are venerated, from the first to the last, but the priest is clothed in all his vestments.” - You asked me about the evening and morning prayers: how many of them are there? at Vespers there are 6 prayers, and the 7th is a day off, and the 8th is after the performance of Vespers and after the proclamation; and at Matins there are 11 prayers and the 12th prayer after “Praise the Lord from heaven,” at bowing down” 726. In the message of Metropolitan Photius dated August 12, 1419 to the Pskov clergy, we read instructions: about singing “God the Lord has appeared to us” at Matins, about the celebration of January 30 to the three saints Basil the Great, John Chrysostom and Gregory the Theologian - “do not be lazy to celebrate this holiday in every possible way.” and adorn it with solemn praises and all-night vigils of praise,” and the regulations on the singing of canons] 727. [In the canonical question-answers, belonging to an unknown person and dating no later than the 15th century, the following question-answers are read: 1) to the priest without stichorion in a single phelonion, is Vespers or Matins sung? Petit. 2) Do you sing to yourself while riding a horse? Petit. 3) What happened at the church, at matins, but at home when you sang? Ino peti] 728 . (The 100-Glavny Council, in relation to divine services, sought to achieve in its instructions: that all church services, general and private, should be performed in full and strictly according to the rules; that they should be performed correctly; that public worship should take place in an orderly manner in the sense of the orderliness of its performance by those singing, and in the sense of the orderliness of the presence of those praying at it; so that the text of liturgical books was freed from those contained in it errors; so that these liturgical books are as correct as possible in their preparation by the scribes; so that uniformity and correctness are established in church rites). (Instructions of the Stoglavy Council: a) regarding permissiveness: to sing matins all day long, after matins there are prayers for the health of the king and the hours, and mass whenever possible and appropriate - pp. 81 and 82 fin., cfr pp. 130, 197 (in monasteries), 200. The Tsar said: “Now we see and hear, in addition to the divine charter, many church rites are not fully performed, not according to the sacred rules and not according to the charter,” - page 50 beginning. The general answer: “to serve the divine liturgy and other church singing in full and according to the order of everything, according to the tradition of the holy apostles and holy fathers, according to the divine charter and according to the sacred rule, transforming nothing,” - pp. 78, 81. b) regarding the correctness of the instructions relating to all services: About church clothes. Before the cathedral, the priests sang Matins and Vespers without vestments, wearing only stoles; they also performed baptisms, marriages, buried babies, sang prayers and memorial services - page 66. Definition: baptize children, marry weddings, bless water on the eve of Epiphany and on Epiphany and on the Origin of the Honorable Cross in the entire priestly rank; vespers and requiem services and vespers and midnight offices and prayer services to be sung in stoles and vestments, except in monasteries, which have their own rules - page 101 fin.. About the royal doors. The royal doors never open except for the beginning and exit and vacation - page 96 fin.. About the veils on the throne, page 93. Altar, altar and throne. Do not bring anything into the altar or altar except candles, incense, service wine, prosphora, dill and books; do not place anything on the throne or on the altar except the gospel, the cross, vessels, coverings and airs. Ordinary people and second-weds should not enter the altar - page 99. c) Regarding decorum: so that the priests properly prepare for the service - p. 368 fin., having gotten drunk the day before, do not serve in the morning; so that priests do not serve drunk and during the service do not swear or fight - page 66 beginning, 81, 128 729; so that the clerics in the choirs do not read and sing twice or three times - pp. 65 fin., 105, 107; for those praying to stand quietly and not talk - pp. 65, 106, 156 fin.; they did not stand in tafyas and hats, - page 65. In ancient times, we stood in church in hats, - Karamzin II, note 126 (princes in hoods). d) regarding the text of liturgical books: does not insist on perfect uniformity of reading, then there is one force, p. 94 fin., 96 beginning. d) regarding books. The Tsar said that scribes write from uncorrected translations (samples, copies), but having written them they do not correct them - page 52 fin.. Wed. p. 124). About “God Establish” – page 194. At Sunday and holiday vespers “Holy Glories” and at the same matins, the Doxology should be sung, not read – page 73. About the Great Doxology and after it - Chapter 41, § 29. Doxology and chaos to sing at gatherings - page 105. In “It is good to confess” you need to say: proclaim in the morning your mercy and your truth for every night, and not for every day or for every time - p. 95). (Together with the differences noted above in the divine service compared to the present one, consisting in the difference and lack of prayers and prayer exclamations, in the lack or excess of ritual actions, one important difference should also be implied, consisting in a different voice performance of what is equally present both in the ancient service books and in the present one. This last difference extends not to one liturgy, but to all services, public and private. In Nowadays, in all services, public and private, singing is used in some cases where in ancient times reading or, more precisely, speaking was used; these cases are: in relation to all services - prayer appeals in litanies: “Lord have mercy” and “Lord grant” in relation to the liturgy - “I Believe” and “Our Father”. In church, as in ordinary life, what was actually intended for singing was sung - sacred songs and poems (sacred poems), and everything now indicated is in no way one or the other: the indicated prayer appeals are precisely prayer appeals, “Our Father” is a prayer, “I Believe” is a confession of faith. With all this in mind, the correct thing to do is for the reader or primate to proclaim with a speech (prayer), and all the people present in the church repeat after him with a speech (the same). “I Believe” and “Our Father” are not sung among the Greeks to this day, but are proclaimed (reading) by the rectors of churches or the elders of those present in them and repeated after them by the people (similar to how we do with the sacrament prayer: “I believe, Lord”). “Lord have mercy” and “Lord grant” The Greeks are now already singing (perhaps, not entirely successfully carried away by our example), but they did not do this at all in the middle of the 17th century: Arseny Sukhanov repeatedly testifies in his Proscinitary that among them “people say: “Lord have mercy” and “Lord grant”, and by singing on octenas “Lord have mercy” and “Lord grant” are not sung anywhere, less so on holidays (Moscow view!), but everyone (always) says it in conversation” 730. When it became our custom to sing “Lord have mercy” and “Lord grant”, we have no positive information, but we think with confidence that not in the pre-Mongol period, but after 731 . Regarding “I Believe” and “Our Father” we have the positive information that the custom of singing them originally appeared in Pskov in the first half of the 16th century and that Novgorod and Moscow adopted it from Pskov sometime after the beginning of the second half of the 16th century. (We find information from Zinovy ​​Otensky in his “Truth Testimony”, which was written in 1566. One of Zinovy’s interlocutors, with whom he conducts debates and speeches in his book, Zakharia Shchechkin, told him that in Pskov they sing “Our Father” at mass and are going to sing “I Believe,” and asked him why they don’t sing in Novgorod. From the fact that in Pskov they sang “Our Father” and were going to sing “I Believe,” it is clear that the first custom appeared not long before. What was not sung in Novgorod is made clear by Zechariah’s question. And what was not sung in Moscow, this must be concluded from Zinovy’s answer: he so sharply rebels against the custom of singing “I Believe” and “Father,” which he would never have allowed himself to do if it were already a Moscow custom - MDA manuscript No. 61, p. 813 sqq) 732. (Regarding the performance of the divine service, in order to speed it up, we have introduced the most outrageous custom of singing at once in both choirs and reading at once in several voices - in 5, 6 and even more. Against this custom, Metropolitan Photius in vain wrote in one of his letters to Pskov (in the same one in which about the threefold song of the alleluia). “And I write about the canons: If 2 or 3 happens, and one priest sings a canon, and another priest sings another canon, and a third priest sings a third canon: and we don’t know where such a custom and tradition came from, even though it is inappropriate and goat-like, for this reason he sings his canon in his own voice, but in another voice, in a different voice, and this is shameless”... (In Pavlov’s Monuments col. 412). In vain did the Stoglavyi Cathedral make its decree, - Stoglavyi Cathedral, chapter 16, second half, Kazan edition p. 105 sqq). (The consecration of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, August 12, 1479, gave rise to heated debates between Grand Duke Ivan III Vasilyevich and Metropolitan Gerontius about how to walk with the procession during the consecration of the church - against the sun or in the direction of the sun. After the consecration of the cathedral, some charmers slandered the Grand Duke about the metropolitan, that the latter acted incorrectly, walking around the church with crosses not in the direction of the sun. The Grand Duke, convinced by unknown charmers that the Metropolitan had indeed acted incorrectly, was angry with him, saying that for the sake of such errors, the wrath of God comes. the sun or not according to the sun; but there were many speeches and disputes) 733. [The question of the “hallelujah song” also aroused a lot of controversy and speeches]. (The song or song proclamation “alleluia” passed along with the book of psalms from Jewish worship to Christian worship, no doubt, from the very first time of the existence of Christianity, for, according to the instructions of John the Theologian in the apocalypse (19:1-6), the heavenly church of the New Testament glorifies the Lord with the same song. (The Slavic form of the word - alleluia is the Greek form - ἀλληλούϊα; its own Hebrew form is: galeluia or with the semivowel e galluia. The word means: praise, glorify God; it is composed of two words: galelu or gallu - praise, glorify, from galal - praise, glorify, and Iya (Jah), which is an abbreviation of the word Jehovah - God) 734. Among the Jews, the song of alleluia was a song of joy and triumph, which is why it was sung mainly on the holiday of Easter (psalms 113–118, which have in their inscription: alleluia, were sung on the holiday of Easter; they accept that the Savior, after celebrating the Old Testament Passover and the New Testament Last Supper before his suffering, went with his disciples to the Mount of Olives, “which was sung,” Matt. 26:30, Mark 14:26, namely the song of alleluia). In the Western or Roman Christian church, the song of alleluia retained its Jewish meaning as a song of joy and triumph; why did it become a custom there not to proclaim it during Lent and at funeral liturgies with other funeral services (but to loudly proclaim it on the day of Easter and during Pentecost) 735. On the contrary, in the Eastern, Greek Church, the song of alleluia acquired the meaning primarily of a song of propitiation and repentance, reminiscent of the second coming of the Lord for the judgment of the righteous and sinners and that sinners should try to avoid condemnation through repentance 736; why in the Greek Church it is sung throughout the year, but mainly during Lent, as well as at funeral services. Regarding the two ways of proclaiming the song of alleluia - triplicate and doubling, until recently we accepted that the only way to proclaim a song among the Greeks, since ancient times, was triplicate, and that doubling is an arbitrary novelty, either our Russian or Serbian. But according to the latest archaeological information, it turns out that this is not so, namely, that doubling is as ancient among the Greeks as triplicity, and that both methods of proclaiming a song were used jointly or in the same way by them until later times. How was it with this duality of the way of proclaiming the song - is it so that triplicity and doubling began to be used at the same time, or that before (first) one of them, and then the other, and if we assume the second case, then which is relatively older or more original: we cannot answer these questions due to the lack of positive data. The oldest evidence known to us about the method of proclaiming a song, dating back to the end of the 5th - half of the 9th century, speaks of tripling 737, and this seems to give us some right to consider it older than doubling. But on the other hand, it is not at all impossible that we are dealing here with a simple accident, that is, that regarding the doubleness of the alleluia song there is as much ancient evidence as about triplicity, but only so far remains unknown to us. Be that as it may, starting from the first half of the 11th century, we have a number of evidence that the Greeks, along with the triplicity of the alleluia song, also used doubling, in other words, that they used both forms of exclamation simultaneously and jointly - both tripling and doubling. The first evidence of the use by the Greeks of the special alleluia together and simultaneously with the trebuba is found in the so-called Studite Charter of the Patriarch of Constantinople Alexei, who occupied the see from 1025 to 1043. and the charter of which, having been transferred from Greece to Russia through the efforts of the Venerable Theodosius of Pechersk, became our Russian Studio Charter 738. Patriarch Alexei is followed by Nikon the Montenegrin, who lived in the second half of the same 11th century, in whom, along with the injunction to triple the song of alleluia, we find an injunction to double it in the first word of his Tactikon 739. Then, in Metropolitan Cyprian, in his Followed Psalter 740, which has survived to this day, we find the intensification of alleluia as the only way to proclaim the song 741. Since we positively know that the doubling of the alleluia was a Greek custom that existed together with the triplicity, the assumption that Cyprian brought the Serbian novelty to us is, of course, unfounded. But from a comparison of Cyprian, in whose psalter we find a double alleluia, with his successor Photius, who in his letter to Pskov commands to triple the alleluia, another conclusion follows, namely, that in the time of our two metropolitans, double song was the prevailing custom on Athos, of which Cyprian was a monk, and triple song was the prevailing custom in the rest of Greece, or at least that part this rest of Greece, to which Photius belonged by origin, i.e. the Peloponnese. – At a short distance from Cyprian († 1406) we find an instruction to double the song of alleluia in some cases by Simeon of Thessalonica († 1429) 742. That the special alleluia passed from the Greeks not only to us - the Russians, but also to the Bulgarians and Serbs, this must be assumed by itself, and, in any case, this is positively evidenced by the Bulgarian and Serbian liturgical books 743. And that in Russia the special alleluia was not only a feature of Moscow, but until later times was also in use in Kyiv, this is evidenced by Kyiv or South Russian liturgical books. The Kyiv liturgical books also give us the opportunity to indicate the time when among the Greeks the three-pronged alleluia became decisively dominant over the august or dominant one. In the Sryatinsky Breviary of Gideon Boloban, 1606. the only way to proclaim a song is to double or deepen it. And since Gideon Boloban prepared his missal for printing, deliberately correcting it according to the Greek lists, deliberately requested from the Greek authorities (from the Patriarch of Alexandria Meletius Pigas when the latter was locum tenens of the Patriarchal See of Constantinople): it is clear that in his time the three-part alleluia had not yet decisively prevailed among the Greeks over the purely alleluia 744. From what has just been said, it follows that the three-lipped alleluia received a decisive predominance among the Greeks over the august one or became dominant among them during the half-century from Gideon’s printing of his missal to Nikon’s undertaking of his correction of books, in other words, during the first half of the 17th century. However, even by the time of Nikonov’s correction of the books, as we learn from Arseniy Sukhanov’s Proskinitary, the three-pronged alleluia had become just dominant and predominant among the Greeks and was recognized by the church authorities as having to be used exclusively, but in fact it was not yet exclusively used: Arseny more than once notes in the Proscinitary that under the dominance of the Greeks, the three-pronged alleluia (and with the voice of the church authorities for it, one thing, like this The Patriarch of Alexandria told him in response to his question) others still continue to double it 745. Thus, the history of the method of proclaiming the alleluia song among the Greeks was that in an ancient time unknown to us, until the end of the 5th century, they established either simultaneously, or one after the other, two methods of proclamation - triangulation and aggravation (assuming the latter case regarding time, triangulation should be recognized by the elders). - That these two methods existed together for a very long time, no less than until the beginning of the 17th century (one was used by some, the other by others, and by others, perhaps, it was indifferent to one or the other) and that during the first half of the 17th century it became decisively dominant among them, and then became the only one 746, triplicate song 747. For us Russians, the method of proclaiming the song of alleluia should have the same history as that of the Greeks, that is, so that during the same time with them (a very long time) we used or accepted both methods of proclaiming the song - triangulation and aggravation, and then, after them, we remained using the first one. But we developed a special view of church customs, which did not allow that any custom could exist in two forms, and according to which the existence of any custom in two forms meant that one form of it was correct and Orthodox, and the other was incorrect and heretical. As a result, the question arose in us: which of the two ways of proclaiming the song of alleluia is correct and Orthodox and which is incorrect and heretical. If it happened that the question was decided in favor of trinity, then we (by chance) would remain in agreement with the Greeks regarding the song of alleluia; but it happened that it was decided in favor of duality, and we separated from them regarding the song. The question of how to proclaim the alleluia song was first raised in Pskov 748 during the reign of Metropolitan Photius. Regarding how disagreement in the proclamation of the Alleluia song appeared in Pskov, which gave rise to the question or forced the Pskovites to raise this latter, with a very high probability one should think that before Photiev’s predecessor Cyprian, the Pskovites all uniformly transcribed the Alleluia song, but what about the breviary they received from Cyprian, and probably the charter or the following psalter, which the Metropolitan I took the trouble to send it to them when I found out that they did not have the right church rule 749, and the double song went to them. Be that as it may, Photius, in a message to Pskov dated August 19, 1419, answered the Pskovites to the question they addressed to him about the proclamation of the alleluia song, that it should be triplicated or said three times three times (the triple alleluia should be pronounced three times with Glory to Thee, God) 750 One cannot help but regret that Photius, wanting to give an answer to the Pskovites that would reassure and satisfy them, through this inadvertently seemed to sanction and recognize our Russian incorrect view of the subject. The Pskovites, asking Photius which of the two exclamations of the song should be used, understood: which of the two exclamations of the song should be recognized as correct and Orthodox and which as incorrect, heretical. Metropolitan Photius did not at all think of saying that one of the two proclamations was correct and Orthodox, the other incorrect and heretical, but understood the question of the Pskovites in such a way that in the proclamation of the song they want to adhere to uniformity, and therefore, satisfying their desire, he prescribes for uniform use one of the two equally correct and Orthodox methods of proclamation (for with two equally correct methods, whether both of them or one of them is used is all the same, and in the latter case what is correct never ceases to be correct): but, of course, he was understood by the Pskovites in their own way. If Photius, instead of definitely prescribing to the Pskovites one of two equally correct and Orthodox ways of proclaiming a song, had left it to them to make a choice, directly saying that both methods are equally correct and Orthodox: then this could have eliminated our disputes about alleluia, and we would have later learned the uniformity of triplicity from the Greeks (although, of course, we would not have learned it before the Greeks, i.e., although such an accident would not have occurred that among us, before the Greeks, that same uniformity regarding the proclamation of songs was established, which was then established among them). However, it is more than likely that our own view of church customs would have triumphed over the authority of Metropolitan Photius and that, despite his clear statement that both ways of proclaiming the song of alleluia are equally correct and Orthodox, in the end, the teaching that only one method of proclamation would be correct and Orthodox, and that the other way is incorrect and heretical. After Fotiev’s decree and on the basis of it, a uniform trio of the alleluia song was established in Pskov. But 35 years later, from Fotiev’s decree, a defender of the double song appeared among the Pskovites. This was a certain monk Athanasius, who traveled to the East and is, in all likelihood, one and the same person with that Tver hieromonk Athanasius, who, according to manuscript records, is known as a man who lived more or less long in the East, namely on Athos 751. Having founded a monastery in the Pskov region (St. Nicholas, currently non-existent and located unknown where), 752 he introduced into it the custom of doubling the alleluia song, which he had learned on Athos, as it was dominant there and was accepted by him, in contrast to the Pskovites, as the only correct and Orthodox way of proclaiming the song. When the Pskovites learned about the innovator who had appeared among them, they became very worried and began to cruelly revile him. One unknown Pskovite, who belonged to the number of zealous admirers of the strict monastic life of Athanasius, wrote him several letters in which he strongly urged him to abandon doubleness, as a heresy, recently allegedly borrowed by the Greeks from the Latins, and diligently, with the help of carefully collected evidence, proved to him that the only correct and Orthodox way of proclaiming a song is triplicity 753 . Athanasius, citing the example of Athos, the Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople and all the ecumenical patriarchs 754, remained adamant. That on Athos Athanasius found, if not exclusively dominant, then predominant the custom of doubling the alleluia song, this is very possible, for we have later data that really makes us assume that doubling, if not exclusively dominant, then predominated there; It may even be that Athanasius met monks on Athos who, in their theological views were the same as our ancestors, that is, not higher than them, strongly condemned triplicity, but for Patriarch Joseph to tell him that the song of Alleluia should be doubled is completely incredible: the patriarch could only tell him that Athonite doubling is just as Orthodox and acceptable as triplicity, which is what the patriarch’s answer to him could have been misunderstood by them. Be that as it may, Athanasius spoke out against the tripling of the Pskovites for his doubling, citing Athos and Patriarch Joseph. He was a very respected man, a desert ascetic and the builder of his own cenobitic monastery, so the Pskovites could not suspect him that he was lying about the Greeks or that his reference to them represented any misunderstanding. But, of course, they could not think about Metropolitan Photius, whose instructions about the song of alleluia were understood by them in such a way that the only correct and proper way of proclaiming it was trinity, prescribed for them some other method of proclamation, and not the one that was in his time among the Greeks. Thus, the reference of Athanasius to the Greeks in defense of the doubleness of the alleluia song must have been understood by the Pskovites to mean that the Greeks, after Metropolitan Photius, adopted a novelty regarding the proclamation of the alleluia song. It remained, therefore, to resolve only the question: where could the Greeks get the novelty from? In the period of time between Metropolitan Photius and the speech of Athanasius against the Pskovians with his statement that the Greeks were double the song of alleluia, the Council of Florence took place (1438–39), at which the Greeks accepted a union with the pope: how could the Pskovians not think that this council and the union were to blame for the novelty of the Greeks, or that the Greeks borrowed the latter from the Latins? True, they knew that Patriarch Joseph, to whom Athanasius referred, did not return from the council to Constantinople in order to be able to introduce Latin innovations there, but died at the council itself (which they themselves directly spoke about in disputes with Athanasius); but, not coming up with another source from which the Greeks could have borrowed novelty, and at the same time not at all doubting that it was a matter of novelty, they probably imagined the matter in such a way that Joseph began to borrow novelties from the Latins even before the council and before the adoption of a formal union with them. One way or another, the Pskovites answered resolutely and in the harshest tone to the defender of the double alleluia song, who referred to Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople and the Athonite monks, that he was referring to people who had already become corrupted regarding the faith and had turned away from the truth (rejected). Patriarch Joseph, - the Pskovites told Afanasy, - with the Russian Metropolitan Isidore and the Pope of Rome in these years (“in these years”) held the 8th (ecumenical) council in the Fryazhian city of Florence, which should not have been at all, and for this the patriarch soon received vengeance from the righteous judgment of God, did not return to his table; This council was the beginning of the destruction of the Greek land, for at it the Greeks turned away from the truth to their destruction. And why do you cite the words of Scripture: “For out of Zion the law will go forth, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem,” then these words refer to the apostles and their successors - the holy patriarchs; now we must expect from Jerusalem only the Antichrist with his destructive teaching; you have become corrupted from the Greek land, but it was not proper for you to accept the new teaching and believe the corrupted Greeks, but it was proper for you to believe the holy fathers and Cyrus Metropolitan Photius, who wrote to us in the house of St. Trinity in Pskov (that is, regarding what the song of Alleluia should sound like). The people of Pskov declared Afanasy a heretic. Then the latter filed a complaint against the Pskovites to Archbishop Euthymius of Novgorod (2nd, Vyazhitsky, who occupied the see from 1434 to 1458). But the answer of the archbishop, who still held the proper view of the subject and recognized as equally correct and Orthodox both one and the other way of proclaiming the song, did not protect him from his detractors 755. Then Archbishop Athanasius addressed a complaint to Metropolitan Jonah 756. The Metropolitan, without resolving the dispute on the merits, wrote only an admonition to the Pskovites so that “there would be no disagreements among them in the churches of God and in the Orthodox Christian faith” 757. Not having time to overcome Afanasiev’s stubbornness, the Pskovites ended the matter by writing a decree or, as it were, a sentence, in which it is ordered to triple the Alleluia song in honor of the three persons of the Holy Trinity, as written in the Theologian, i.e. in the apocalypse of John the Theologian, and which says that whoever doubles the song separates the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son and sings so to his own sin and to condemnation 758. Thus, having been greeted by the Pskovites at its first appearance among them after Metropolitan Photius, the extreme alleluia little by little then began to acquire defenders among them, so that after another 35 years from their campaign against it in the person of Athanasius, disputes arose about it among themselves 759. Then one of the defenders of the special alleluia decided to bring it triumph over the trebuba through the fictitious life of one of the Pskov saints and through the composition of supernatural revelations to himself - we mean the life of the Monk Euphrosynus of Pskov, that is, the first life of the unknown, which was later literary reworked and partly remade by the priest Vasily 760, and the vision of the Mother of God to the author of the life. This life of Euphrosynus is nothing more than a falsification or forgery, which appeared in such a way that data from the History of the monk Athanasius, about whom we spoke above, was transferred to Euphrosynus. By itself, without any positive indications, life should be taken for fiction. During Euphrosinova’s youth, says the author of the life, there were disputes in Pskov about the Alleluia song; These disputes aroused in Euphrosyne a desire to find out the truth about our song, that is, about whether to triple or double it, and to find out the truth he went to Constantinople to the Ecumenical Patriarch 761. But Everosin’s youth falls precisely during the reign of Metropolitan Photius 762. Why on earth would he go to Constantinople to the patriarch, when in Moscow the patriarch’s representative was a Greek like himself, and when, without going to Constantinople, he (Euphrosynus) could get the answer he wanted from the metropolitan? Why on earth would he go to Constantinople to see the patriarch, when the people of Pskov turned to the metropolitan with this very question and received a direct answer from him? In general, it would be completely incredible and completely untenable to assume that during the reign of Metropolitan Photius, Euphrosyne or anyone else would address our or any other church and liturgical question besides the Metropolitan to the Patriarch, because this detour of the Metropolitan would be completely incomprehensible and could not be explained in any way. Be that as it may, the fact of fiction and falsification of the life of Evfrosinov should be recognized as a positive fact. The unknown defender of the alleluia song had at hand letters from an unknown Pskovite to the monk Athanasius and, in general, all the documents relating to the latter’s dispute with the Pskovites about the alleluia song. The letters convey the assurances of Athanasius that he was instructed to double the song of alleluia from the Patriarch of Constantinople Joseph, in general from the ecumenical patriarchs and on Athos 763. These assurances are not at all called false in Pskov’s letters; they only eliminate Athanasius’s reference to the Greeks by saying that one should not listen to the latter, since recently they allegedly turned away from the truth and became infected with heresies. But the defender of the double alleluia was sufficiently educated to see the inconsistency of this elimination: from the Council of Florence, at which the Greeks could and, according to the author of the letters, actually became infected with heresies, Patriarch Joseph did not return (as is stated in the letters themselves). Consequently, it was clear that Athanasius saw Joseph and was supposedly taught from him to double the song of alleluia even before the Council of Florence, otherwise - even in good times, during the inviolability of his Orthodoxy. Thus, the defender of the double song could have formed a sincere belief that Athanasius was taught by Patriarch Joseph to double the alleluia song, with the recognition, it is implied, of triplicating the song as an incorrect and unorthodox custom, or a sincere belief that the Greeks, before the damage to their Orthodoxy by the Council of Florence, doubled the alleluia song, and, therefore, he could have formed the sincere conviction that there must be two songs. With this sincere conviction, our defender of the double song decided to fabricate the life of the Monk Eupherosynus and to boldly compose the apparitions of Euphrosynus and the Mother of God to himself (internally justifying himself, of course, by the fact that he was deciding to lie in order to bring triumph to a just cause). Of course, they did not have any memory of the monk Athanasius, who at one time was proclaimed a heretic by the Pskovites, so to refer to him in defense of a purely alleluia would mean to refer to a person who had no authority in the eyes of the Pskovites, and whose name was an empty word for them. But the Monk Euphrosynus was a famous ascetic, who founded a strictly communal monastery and raised disciples who founded several similar monasteries; in a word, he was for the Pskov region almost the same as the Monk Sergius of Radonezh for the Moscow region. There could not have been a more authoritative reference than to him for the Pskovites. And so, wanting to give the special alleluia a triumph over the trebuba through the greatest authority that could be invoked before the Pskovites, our defender of the special alleluia, putting Euphrosynus in the place of Athanasius, wrote about him that he went to Constantinople to find out the truth about the alleluia, that he was taught by Patriarch Joseph to double it, that he had a heated debate about it with by the Pskovites and as if, without having time to teach the latter the truth, he was declared a heretic by them in their blindness. This work or this composition of the life of Evfrosinov is clearly revealed from its comparison with the letters of an unknown Pskovite to the monk Athanasius, on the basis of which, with other documents, it was composed. In general terms, the story of the Monk Euphrosynus is completely the same as the story of the monk Athanasius, as the latter is indicated in letters to Athanasius from an unknown Pskovite. Euphrosynus went to the East and there he learned to double the song of alleluia; upon returning from the East, he founded his monastery, in which he introduced double song; The Pskovites rebelled against him for this and, not having time to force him to abandon the double song, they proclaimed him a heretic: the same is true for Athanasius. Two completely identical stories take place at the same time: Euphrosynus argued with the Pskovites during the reign of Novgorod Archbishop Evfimy Vyazhitsky, who occupied the see from 1434 to 1458; Athanasius argued with them (as can be seen from the letters of an unknown Pskovite to him) several years after the Council of Florence, which took place in 1438–39, and very shortly after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, which happened in 1453. Doesn’t this complete simultaneity of two completely identical stories indicate that in two stories one should see one story divided into two in such a way that from one person with whom it actually happened, it is transferred to another person as a fiction? But we have a particular feature common to both stories that finally convinces us of this. According to the life, at the head of the Pskovites who rebelled against Euphrosynus for the special alleluia, there was the leader of Job, who ruled all spiritual and civil affairs in Pskov and was nicknamed by the Pskovites the pillar, whom Euphrosynus called the pillar of the bloodworm and whom the author of the life himself calls Judas the traitor for abdicating his priesthood for the sake of a second marriage. From the letters of an unknown Pskovite to Afanasy, we know that it was Job who was at the head of the Pskovites who rebelled against the latter, and that he, Afanasy, called him Bloodworm and Judas 764. Apparently, there is a significant particular difference between the history of Euphrosynus and the history of Athanasius: Euphrosynus, according to his life, was only in Constantinople and refers only to Patriarch Joseph, and Athanasius, according to letters to him from an unknown Pskovite, also referred to Athos. But why the author of the life is silent about Athos in relation to Euphrosynus is completely understandable: in his monastic charter, Euphrosynus makes it clear on one occasion that he has not been to Athos 765. So, there can be no doubt that the life of Euphrosynus is nothing more than a fiction, which appeared in such a way that the story of the monk Athanasius was transferred to him. We said that the author of the life used not only letters from an unknown Pskov resident to Afanasy, but also other documents. In the appendix to the life there is a letter to the Pskov clergy under the name of Euphrosyne ("Our Lord the priest of the gathering of the Holy Trinity and others, the entire priestly rank", sheets 112-117 ver.), in which the author strongly scolds Job, calling him the pillar of the bloodworm Ievkos, the mark of Christ and the second Judas (in handwritten sheet 116 rough misspelling: “noted by Christ and echoes”), and in which he proves at length that he considers it his duty to listen not to them - the Pskovites, but to the cathedral church. Since Euphrosynus had no need to write to the Pskov clergy, and his life does not say that he wrote, since from the letters of an unknown Pskovite to Athanasius we know that he wrote defamatory messages to the Pskov clergy, cursing in them mainly Job 766 and since in the message, assimilated by Euphrosynus, there is literally what, according to Pskovich, Athanasius wrote 767: then we have no doubt that the message does not belong to Euphrosynus, but to this latter. Unfortunately, the epistle is read in an unfinished form (it is interrupted mid-sentence), the reason for which incompleteness, in all likelihood, is that later in the epistle something was said that would not at all go to Euphrosynus, for example, that Athanasius further referred to Athos 768. – We said above that the author of the life had at hand the letter of Athanasius to Euthymius and the answer of Euthymius to Athanasius and only reworks the second of them (assimilating the first to Euphrosyne). Here are the reasons for our assumption. The people of Pskov are represented in their lives as rebelling against Euphrosynus for a special alleluia, when he had already built a monastery and when there was already an abbot in the monastery. But the author of the life himself says that the first abbot was installed in the monastery by Archbishop John, page 51, ver., which is obviously a typo instead of: Jonah, and Jonah was the successor of Euthymius. This contradiction of the author to himself can only be explained in such a way that he speaks about the appointment of an abbot on the basis of the latter’s installation letter, in which the name of Archbishop Jonah appeared, and in the messages he retained the name of the archbishop that appeared in them, i.e., he did not transfer the name of Euthymius to the name of Jonah 769. But for our defender of the special alleluia, the main thing was not to compose the life of the Monk Euphrosynus, but to compose the appearance of the Mother of God to himself, for which the life of the Monk Euphrosynus was only a visible reason and pretext. The special alleluia contains the great mystery of the resurrection of Christ; this secret remained hidden for the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets, and equally remained hidden for the entire New Testament host of holy men, so that not a single ecumenical council could or dared to reveal it; Saint Euphrosynus himself, who from his youth devoted himself to the revelation of the mystery, died in ignorance of it, since in Constantinople he was only commanded to double the alleluia, but they could not say anything about its meaning: and finally, through the prayers of the Monk Euphrosynus, the Mother of God appeared to the writer of the life to announce to the Church of God the hidden secret of the special alleluia. Such a great and, so to speak, universal instrument in relation to the great mystery of the profound alleluia was destined to serve as a humble Pskovite who hid his name! And if this modest Pskovite had not decided to write the life of Euphrosynus, then the great secret of the special alleluia could still remain a secret for the church 770. The question of where the writer got his teaching that the special alleluia contains the mystery of the resurrection of Christ can be answered with two assumptions - or that it was suggested to him by the stichera of the service of St. George, in which, after the proclamation of the alleluia itself (three times), instead of: Glory to Thee, O God, it is added: “Glory to Thee, Christ the giver of life,” “Glory to Thee, Christ the benefactor,” “Glory to the risen Christ” 771, or that he took it (the teaching) from the Latins, who actually proclaim the song Hallelujah in honor of the risen Christ. Perhaps the first assumption is more likely, but the second is not at all incredible: due to the border of the Pskov region with the Latin land, the author could be familiar with the teachings of the Latins, and he himself directly hints at this familiarity 772. The life of St. Euphrosynus, composed by an unknown zealot for the special alleluia, did not achieve the immediate goal for which it was designed - it did not bring about the triumph of the special alleluia over the trebuba in Pskov and the Pskov region 773; but it achieved another, much more important goal, for which it was not designed: on the basis of its 774 The Council of the Hundred Heads sentenced: throughout the Russian land, the alleluia should be sung, but the tributary one should be left as the Latin heresy (chapter 42). Metropolitan Macarius is subjected to strong and cruel reproaches for his definition of a special alleluia, made on the basis of such a bad source as the life of Euphrosyno. But we are of the decisive opinion that a significant and large part of the blame should be removed from Metropolitan Macarius and placed on the Monk Maximus the Greek. We think with full confidence that Macarius made his definition of a special alleluia not so much on the basis of the life of Euphrosinov, but on the basis of the word of Maximov to those who dare to say alleluia through church traditions 775, and that if he, referring to the life, does not refer to the word, it is because Maxim the Greek and all the Greeks of that time did not have any authority in the eyes of the Russians of that time. The dependence of the definition of the Stoglavy Cathedral on Maximov’s word is completely clear. The Council in its definition claims that alleluia means in Russian: glory to Thee, God: but this is exactly what Maxim says in his word. The Council asserts that the three-pronged alleluia is a Latin heresy; but this is exactly what Maxim says in the same word. Before Metropolitan Macarius, we in Russia had or still had, as it was then among the Greeks, the simultaneous use of three-bite and extreme alleluia 776. Metropolitan Macarius, who generally cared about establishing uniformity in our worship and in relation to the song of alleluia, already stood on the Russian point of view of considering any one way of its proclamation correct and Orthodox, “in a word” Maximov was mistakenly convinced that at that time the Greeks had a general uniform use of the special alleluia and that it was with us together with the special alleluia the three-pronged alleluia is a Latin heresy: and he decided on his definition, intending to bring the Russian Church into agreement with the Greek Church and, thinking about the latter, that it was like that in ancient times, “in its good times” (for if, as Maxim assured, the three-pronged alleluia is a Latin custom, then one could only think about the Greek Church that the extreme alleluia was always used in it Hallelujah). What to think about the very word of Maxim to those who dare to say alleluia through church traditions? Maxim was an ardent champion of truth, like the ancient prophets, to whom, not without reason, he equated himself. But the sun is not without spots, and our word must be taken as nothing more than a small spot on Maxim’s, in general, very bright memory. An ardent champion of the truth, this time he was deliberately unfaithful to it. In his speech, he speaks of the special alleluia as if in his time it was in common uniform use among the Greeks; but this is not true: perhaps in his time the three-part alleluia had not yet become decisively dominant, as it did a century later, but there is no doubt that it was among them at least in the same use as the extreme alleluia 777. He states in the word that “whatever we have: glory to Thee, O God, that is, the Jews have: hallelujah”; but that he knew the real meaning of the word alleluia, for this we have positive proof 778. He asserts in the word that the threefold alleluia is a custom of the Roman Church; but that, having lived so much time in Italy, he did not know how the song of alleluia is proclaimed in the Roman Church, and that it cannot be said at all about the Roman Church that its custom is to triple the song, this is impossible to assume 779. He asserts in the word that the doubleness of the alleluia song in the psalms was learned from the angels of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, and there can be no doubt that he distorts the legends about the teaching of the angels of Ignatius the God-Bearer to antiphonal or two-choir singing of the psalm not out of ignorance, but intentionally (or deliberately gives preference to apocryphal legends over reliable legends). But how could it happen that Maxim wrote a word that so darkened his memory? Regarding this, it is necessary, or at least most likely, to think the following. In Moscow during Maximovo's time, the extreme alleluia, if not in general use, was at least in use in the higher, court sphere 780; some very dignitary champion of the special alleluia invited Maxim to serve him with his pen, and he, hoping to achieve through the dignitary what he was looking for in relation to himself (leave to his homeland or, at least, freedom from imprisonment and church excommunication), and had the weakness to agree 781 ... [Special speeches should be devoted to the question of “placing the finger 1) for the sign of the cross and 2) for blessing.”]. 1) The custom of depicting the sign of the cross on oneself dates back to ancient times among Christians. Already Tertullian in his time, that is, during the last quarter of the 2nd - the first quarter of the 3rd century, speaks of it as an accepted and general custom 782, and Basil the Great directly and positively classifies it among the apostolic traditions 783. The custom has its own history not only in relation to the folding of the fingers, but also to the part of the body on which to depict the cross, and to the method of depicting the cross. Currently, we depict a cross on the upper part of our body in such a way that its ends lie on the forehead (forehead), lower chest or upper abdomen and on the shoulders, in other words, it embraces the area of ​​​​the indicated parts of the body. The best way to depict a cross at the present time is that with a folded hand we touch the forehead, lower chest or upper belly 784 and the shoulders, i.e. on the body itself we actually designate only the end points of the cross, and draw its lines (longitudinal and transverse) with our hand in the air. For a very long time, both things were not the same as they are now. As for the part of the body, the cross was depicted only on the forehead. As for the method of depiction, it was literally drawn on the body, namely, it was depicted in such a way that a hand was drawn on the forehead or along the forehead, first a longitudinal line, then a transverse one 785 . Let us turn to the History of Finger Formation. ↓ During the first seven-plus centuries, Christians depicted or drew a cross on themselves mainly with one finger, but sometimes with several fingers. Of the testimonies brought to the knowledge so far that directly speak of fingers, all testimonies with the exception of one speak in the singular about the finger, and one in the plural about the fingers. About the drawing of the cross with a finger, that is, with one finger, they say: John Chrysostom, Epiphanius of Cyprus, Blessed Jerome, Theodoret of Cyrus, Sozomen, Gregory Dvoeslov, John Moschus and Andrew of Crete; Cyril of Jerusalem speaks about drawing a cross with fingers 786. By one finger, which was used to draw the cross, we should mean either the index finger or, what is more likely, primarily the index finger, and partly the so-called finger (the outermost finger opposite the little finger), i.e., to understand the matter in such a way that mainly the cross was drawn with the index finger, but partly (sometimes with other) fingers. When drawing a cross with one finger, it can be convenient to use as such only one finger, or the index finger, or the finger, therefore, we can mean either one of them, or both at the same time. Since drawing a cross with the index finger is much more convenient than with the finger, it is likely that it should be understood primarily. But that the Greeks could have drawn a cross with a finger, it does not seem incredible to think this on the basis of the existing evidence that they drew a cross not among the Greeks 787 . – What and how many fingers does Cyril of Jerusalem mean when he speaks of drawing the cross with fingers, and not with a finger, remains unknown. But for him to understand our current three fingers, as the Right Reverend Macarius wants to assume 788, this is very unlikely: a certain formation of fingers, with the symbolic meaning acquired by it, for the second and third quarters of the Ι 5th century, when Cyril of Jerusalem lived († in 385 or 386), is too early and if it had appeared already in his time, then there would have been no reason for him to disappear after him, whereas all the later known testimonies, such as all those mentioned above, speak of one-finger (and among them, the testimony of John Moschus speaks of one-finger specifically in the Jerusalem church). It is much more likely to mean that Cyril of Jerusalem has all five fingers or that five-fingered, otherwise all-fingered, which the Latins preserved from ancient times to the later 789. As the primate of the Jerusalem Church, St. Cyril, of course, speaks of the ring constitution that was dominant in this church under him; and therefore, from the only evidence that belongs to him about many fingers, the conclusion is that for some time this many fingers, by which most likely one should mean five fingers or all fingers, was dominant in the East in the entire private church. The latest currently known evidence of single fingers belongs to Andrew of Crete, who died in the first quarter of the 8th century 790. A century after him, we find an indication from the Monk Theodore the Studite that during this century, instead of one finger, a certain number of fingers appeared. In one of his epigrams or poetic inscriptions to the cross, he says from the cross itself: “Whoever depicts me (on himself) and somehow with only (one) finger, immediately puts to flight a hostile demon” 791. If under Theodore the Studite there was some kind of image of the cross with one finger, then it is clear that the image was not just any image, but a real and earnest, accepted one, the image was known to be made with several fingers. At the same time, however, Theodore the Studite makes it clear in his words that with the advent of multiple fingers, single fingers in his time did not yet go completely out of use. From the end of the 9th century, evidence begins from which we positively learn that there was several fingers, which appeared at one time or another before Theodore the Studite, namely, we learn that it was two fingers. Evidence of double fingers, belonging to Peter of Damascus and dating back to the half of the 12th century, has long been known. Eminence Philaret pointed out the testimony of the Nestorian Metropolitan Elijah Geveri, dating back to the end of the 9th century. Η. F. Kapterev recently pointed out the evidence of the famous Jacobite writer of the second half of the 13th century, Gregory Abulfaraj or Bar-Hebraeus, dating back to the first half of the 11th century, i.e., speaking about this first half of the 11th century 792, having found evidence in the papers of A.V. Gorsky, which his father-in-law S.K. Smirnov, who was the rector of the Academy, gave him to look at 793. All of the above evidence could be understood in such a way that they speak of the dominance of dualism in one East - in Syria, and that regarding the West - Constantinople with its patriarchy, they do not deprive us of the right to assume otherwise 794. But there is also evidence that no longer leaves any doubt that double-fingering was also used in Constantinople, or, in other words, that it was ubiquitous and common among the Greeks. In 1170 The Emperor of Constantinople, Manuel Komnenos, undertook ecclesiastical relations with the Armenians in the hope of reconciling them with Orthodoxy 795. The emperor sent one of the Constantinople scholars, named Theorian, to the Armenians for theological interviews. This Feorian described two of his interviews with the Armenians, and in the description of one of the interviews we find evidence from him that in his time two fingers were used in Constantinople. In the description of the 2nd interview, he says that at the end of the speeches, one Syrian priest 796 stood up and said to him: “Why do you depict the cross with two fingers? Aren’t the fingers separated (from each other), as special from one another, therefore, in your opinion, the two natures of Christ are separated from each other?” - Next, Theorian conveys his answer to the priest and in his answer confirms that the Greeks of Constantinople, of whom he was a representative, were indeed baptized with two fingers, only, as if jokingly wanting to get rid of the question, which he himself notes, he tells the priest that among the Greeks two fingers mean not two natures in Christ, but something completely different 797. The motivation for adopting two fingers instead of one finger should be considered to be the desire to visually express the confession of two natures in Jesus Christ, in contrast to the Monophysites, for whom one finger became a symbol of their teaching about the one nature of Jesus Christ 798. It is not impossible that the double-finger that was adopted, that is, consisting of the index and larger middle fingers, was borrowed from iconography or was a reproduction of the double-finger with which the Savior and the saints were depicted on icons. But this very iconographic double-fingering, which we find on icons from the very first time of their appearance and incomparably earlier than double-fingering began to be used to depict the sign of the cross, did not at all mean this last double-fingering, which we will deliberately say below. So, over the course of the century from the beginning of the 8th to the beginning of the 9th century, the original single-fingered sign of the cross was replaced by the Greeks with double-fingered 799. But double-fingering was not a form of making the sign of the cross, with which the Greeks would then remain forever. Over the course of the century, which embraced the last quarter of the 12th and the first three quarters of the 13th century, instead of two fingers, three fingers came into use, and only this latter became their final finger formation. The second interview of Theorian with the Armenians, in the description of which one reads evidence of the dominance or use of double-fingered fingers under him in Constantinople, took place in 1172; but in the well-known so-called Debate of Panagiota with Azimite, which was written after 1274 and before 1282, we find evidence that at this time it was not two-fingered, but three-fingered that was dominant in Constantinople or was no longer in use there 800 . What was the reason for the replacement of double-fingered with triple-fingered among the Greeks, regarding this we have neither instructions nor hints. But it is necessary to think that the reason was the expanded symbolism of the fingers. Replacing the original one-finger with two fingers, the Greeks wanted to express with two fingers the Orthodox teaching about two natures in Jesus Christ, contrary to the Monophysites, who began to combine their heretical teaching about one nature in Jesus Christ with one finger; but at the same time, no importance was attached to the other three fingers. Over time, the remaining three fingers were given symbolic meaning, namely, the meaning of the three faces of St. Trinity 801. When this last happened, they could find that three fingers in a double-fingered formation did not express St. in a satisfactory manner. Trinity, and therefore replaced two-fingered with three-fingered 802. ↓ Our Old Believers, in their two-fingered way, fold the last three fingers so that the finger rests its gun on the guns of the small middle finger and little finger; but this addition of three fingers is obviously artificial, 803 intended to achieve the goal so that the equality and unity of the persons of the saint can be expressed as satisfactorily as possible with the fingers. Trinity. While no symbolic meaning was attached to the three fingers, they, of course, had to be relied upon or positioned naturally (as it was convenient for them); their natural position or arrangement is that the small middle finger and little finger are bent to the palm (not tightly), and the finger is placed on them, and it is necessary to think that in this very form they were located in the ancient two-finger fold. When the three fingers learned the symbolic meaning of the faces of St. Trinity, then it could be found that now the indicated arrangement of them unsatisfactorily depicts the equality and unity of the persons of St. Trinity, and therefore, instead of two-fingered, three-fingered could be adopted, in which the indicated disadvantage is completely eliminated. The goal could be achieved in two ways: either by adopting three fingers instead of two fingers, or by an amendment to the two fingers itself, namely, by placing three fingers in it the way they are located in our later two fingers 804 and how they are located in the current double-finger of the Old Believers (i.e., so that the finger rests its gun on the guns of the small middle finger and little finger). This latter was not done, as one might think, because now the indicated arrangement of the fingers, as we said, is not natural (forced) and difficult - that with this arrangement it is very inconvenient (embarrassing) to place the sign of the cross on oneself. As for three-fingeredness, the idea of ​​adopting it, after two-fingeredness turned out to be unsatisfactory with a change in the view of fingers (with the attribution of symbolic meaning to three fingers), should have appeared, so to speak, by itself. Fold your fingers together according to the ancient 805 (i.e., so that the finger rests on the small middle finger) and place a cross on yourself: the outstretched fingers, the index and large middle fingers, will bend slightly, the finger will support them and three fingers will naturally form 806. So, over the course of a century from the last quarter of the 12th century to the third quarter of the 13th century, instead of two fingers, the Greeks came into use with three fingers, which remained with them forever 807. We, Russians, borrowed Christianity from the Greeks while they were using two-fingered fingers. It goes without saying that, together with Christianity, we learned from them this two-fingered design, and not some other finger arrangement. When the Greeks, instead of two-fingered, came into use with three-fingered, this latter began to spread among us to replace the first. But for us it did not happen that the replacement actually occurred or actually took place. On the contrary, in our country the two-fingered constitution entered into a struggle with the three-fingered one, and the struggle ended with the sign-formation left by the Greeks winning over the finger-formation which they adopted. Just as in Greece, three-fingered was not introduced instead of two-fingered by formal legislation or direct orders from the church authorities, but entered through custom; so with us it had to be installed in the place of double fingers not in the first, but in the second way. But against something that is not directly sanctioned by church authority, but comes into use through custom, until it acquires the authority of obligation through universal recognition and until it becomes an inviolable tradition due to longevity, objections and protests are possible. These objections and protests were raised against triplicity in Greece, when it was introduced there or replaced duality. Later, in the 12th century, the Greeks began to mistake the two-fingered sign used in the sign of the cross for the two-fingered one with which Jesus Christ was depicted on icons and which He Himself allegedly used 808 . But the imaginary example of Jesus Christ Himself was too obligatory for the people who now looked at the matter in this way among the Greeks to not want or try to raise their voices in its defense. And they actually raised their voice in such a way that they pronounced a curse on those who do not cross themselves with two fingers, as, in their opinion, Christ was baptized; our famous: “if anyone does not signify (var.: does not baptize) two fingers, like Christ, let him be cursed” represents precisely this protest against three-fingeredness, declared in Greece by defenders of two-fingeredness 809. The protest, expressed in such a formidable form, did not confuse anyone among the Greeks and remained with them without any action. But transferred from the Greeks to us, it acquired two ardent supporters from us. The curse points to the example of Christ; to check, they looked at the icons of the Savior, and on the icons they actually found that the Savior is depicted on them with a double-fingered finger (see below p. 502). In fact, it was that if the Savior was depicted on icons with a double-fingered sign, then this sign was not a sign for blessing, but had a different meaning (as discussed below), and if he was depicted with a sign for blessing, then the sign was not double-fingered, but only so similar to it as to be mistaken for it (which is also below p. 502). But among us, not having the proper knowledge of the matter, the two-finger fold on the icons of the Savior was mistaken for the sign of the finger for blessing, and the sign of the finger for blessing, only those similar in appearance to the double-finger, were mistaken for this latter. And thus, the imaginary testimony of the icons of the Savior in favor of double-fingers gave the curse the meaning of the voice of truth in order to gain ardent defenders for double-fingers. But the people who became defenders of double-fingered did not stop at what they actually accepted as truth. Human history is full of examples of how those who want to protect and defend what they accept as the truth have no difficulty resorting to lies. This was the case in our case. To curse those who are not baptized with two fingers, a new testimony was composed in favor of two fingers through a well-known alteration of the legend of Meletius of Antioch 810. People who had learned from the Greeks the three-fingered system, which was generally accepted among them, wrote on their own instructions about the addition of three fingers (the so-called Theodorite word), but the defenders of the two-fingered system, taking advantage of the imperfect certainty of the instructions, hastened to turn it in their favor 811. In addition to these three evidence in favor of double-fingered, there was a fourth - Peter of Damascus, regarding which our ancestors, of course, did not know that it was only archaeological evidence, which spoke of a past time. Thus, in favor of two-fingered, we have as many as four pieces of evidence, and at their head is a formidable curse on those who are baptized without two fingers, but in favor of three-fingered, based on the alteration of Theodorit’s word, there was not a single piece of evidence. Naturally, with the mouths of more than three witnesses in favor of two-fingered and with a complete absence of witnesses in favor of three-fingered, the dispute between the two fingers was resolved in favor of the first. According to our old views on church customs, the solution to the dispute about two fingers had for our ancestors the meaning that two fingers is the only true and only Orthodox one, and that three fingers is a heretical novelty. Seeing this pseudo-heretical novelty prevailing among the Greeks, our ancestors decided that the later Greeks borrowed it from the Latins 812. When we finally formed the above-mentioned opinion about double and triplicate and when it was adopted by the representatives of the church authorities themselves, we cannot say 813. But these representatives of the church authorities prescribed the double finger for us, as the only true and Orthodox sign, for general use, first in the person of Metropolitan Daniel, and then the Council of the Hundred Heads 814. So, the three-fingered arrangement that was finally adopted by the Greeks did not come into general use among us and, in the end, was formally rejected. But to present the matter in such a way that until the time of Patriarch Nikon it remained completely or almost completely unknown to us would be completely unfounded. On the contrary, there can be no doubt that, having spread among us to a more or less significant extent immediately after its establishment among the Greeks, it constantly remained among us in the same significant degree of prevalence right up to Patriarch Joseph. Moreover, the formal prohibitions against him by Metropolitan Daniel and the Stoglavy Council did not at all lead to his disappearance from us. The curse on those who do not cross themselves with two fingers, borrowed from the Greeks, is unusually often found in our manuscripts, being repeated in them both appropriately and inappropriately. Of course, real enemies are subjected to his thunder, and not imaginary ones (for otherwise it would mean beating the air with a curse in vain); and if it is repeated unusually often, then it is clear that the number of enemies was not so insignificant that it was not worth paying attention to them. The legend of Meletius of Antioch has been altered in our country so that it serves as evidence in favor of double-fingered, of course, with some real purpose; but this goal, obviously, is the fight against triplets 815. If we had instructions written about the use of three fingers in the sign of the cross, which is the so-called Theodorite word, then, of course, we also had people who contained this finger formation. His Eminence Macarius found in one Kirillo-Belozersky collection of the 15th century. article: “How one should baptize (i.e., be baptized) with one’s hand,” written in defense of double-fingered 816. This article directly and clearly speaks of the existence of people among us who adhered to three-fingeredness and defended it; and if the author of the article says that these were only “nets,” i.e. few, then it is known that among people fighting about opinions, it is a common practice to represent the number of defenders of an opposing opinion as only very small. The former Trinity Abbot Artemy spoke, among other things, about the resolution of the Stoglavy Cathedral regarding the sign of the cross: “and at the council there was a word about that sign of the cross, but nothing was accomplished.” This review, interpreted this way and that, quite clearly and undoubtedly means that at the council they made an order for everyone to be baptized uniformly with two fingers, but that with the order they did not achieve the goal at all, i.e., that those who used three fingers even after the order of the council remained with theirs. Artemy held the view that it was not at all necessary and should not have made regulations about the uniform use of the finger formation, but to let everyone form their fingers as they wanted, because “there is nothing in it,” i.e. that in the different placement of the fingers for the sign of the cross there is no importance 817 - “before these people put the sign on their foreheads, but now, by their own will, they put large crosses on themselves,” that is, since at different times they depicted the sign of the cross on themselves in different ways. Blaming the council for what he considered to be a vain order, Artemy pointed out that this vain order still did not achieve its goal. Thus, if the Council of the Hundred Heads with its prescription on double-fingered did not manage to achieve that everyone accepted it, then it is clear that there were people who did not adhere to double-fingered, otherwise - three-fingered; and if it was possible to notice by sight, looking at the folding of the fingers of those praying (as Artemy noted), that the order of the council was not valid, then it is clear that there were very few who held three fingers 818. Positive evidence that after the Council of the Hundred Heads we continued to have three fingers is contained in the life of the Venerable Alexander of Osheven († 1479), which was written by the monk of the Alexander Monastery Theodosius in 1567. The writer of the life tells at the conclusion of this last about the vision of the Monk Alexander that happened to him and says: “I woke up from the vision and saw no one, and especially began to cry and sob, because I had many contradictions with the saint; and I took away (the ancient form instead of: I took away) what was above me, as if my gums were weak, my hand was bent at the wrist, three but the upper fingers were barely able to move instead of moving, and (instead of: hedgehog, - so that) to imagine the sign of the cross on his face, while the two lower fingers crouched towards his hand” 819 ... That in the time of Patriarch Nikon, after the most intense efforts made during the patriarchate of Joseph, to introduce two-fingered into general use 820, there were still many people who adhered to three-fingered, about this he testified at the council of 1656. 821. And no matter what anyone thinks about Nikon, it does not seem at all possible to admit that he allowed himself to lie without hesitation in the face of the whole council and - since the act of the council was to be published - in the face of the entire Russian land 822. Now above we have presented the history or fate of triplicate in Northern, Moscow Rus'. Three-fingers spread more or less significantly here, but for special local reasons, it not only did not come into general use here, but was also formally rejected. In Southwestern or Kievan Rus, special Muscovite reasons did not take place at all: here they did not at all form an opinion about the later Greeks, as if they had retreated from the purity of Orthodoxy of the ancient Greeks, but on the contrary, they constantly looked at them as invariably preserving this purity of Orthodoxy. Apparently, we should expect that here we will find triplicate entering into the same general use as among the Greeks themselves. Meanwhile, in fact, we find that in all the local teaching books, starting from the end of the 16th century and up to the half of the 17th century, it is not the Greek three-fingered system that is prescribed for use, but the Moscow two-fingered system 823. What does this mean and how to understand it? If in Kievan Rus they did not at all doubt the purity of the Orthodoxy of the Greeks (and this is an undoubted and indisputable fact, as evidenced by the Kievan teaching books and the history of relations between the Russians there and the Greeks) and at the same time wanted to adhere to the sign form, not the Greek one, but the Moscow one: then it is obvious that here the question of the purity or impurity of Orthodoxy was not connected with the form of the sign form - that they looked at it as a matter of fact indifferent, and that only for some special reasons they preferred to stick to the Moscow style. These special motives should be seen in the fact that the Kievan Russians were led to the erroneous opinion that the triple-finger formation was very new among the Greeks, appearing no earlier than the half of the 16th century, and that they did not want to sacrifice antiquity to such novelty. Around 1585, in Kievan Rus, the word of Maxim the Greek about the sign of the cross 824 was published, which, as is known, speaks of the double-finger formation, and not the three-fingered one. It was this word that made the Kyiv scientists think that triplicity appeared among the Greeks no earlier than half of the 16th century, and it was this that prompted them to take the side of duality. Maximus was a Greek by birth, and if he talks about two-fingered, then the clear conclusion from this, apparently, was that three-fingered appeared among the Greeks after him. This erroneous conclusion was made by the Kiev scientists, who thus became supporters of double-fingering as a result of a simple misunderstanding. In Kyiv teaching books from the end of the 16th century, instructions on folding fingers for the sign of the cross appeared, and all instructions before Peter Mogila prescribed two fingers. But as for how it was in Kievan Rus before and after the advent of the instructions in reality, that is, how it was here with the formation of the finger among the people or among the people, we have evidence that assures that everyone was baptized here with three fingers, and which gives us at least the right to assume that three fingers were dominant or predominant here 825. How to look at this very word of Maxim, which had such an important meaning in relation to Kievan Rus, and at the same time became such authoritative evidence in favor of double-fingered in Muscovite Rus' 826? If Maxim had written his word with the deliberate purpose of saying that one should be baptized with two fingers (with which deliberate purpose he wrote the word about the doubleness of the alleluia song), or even if he had written the word not with this deliberate purpose, but expressed himself in exactly this way in relation to the form or image of the finger formation: then, of course, it would have been undoubtedly and not subject to any dispute that he personally, for something completely incomprehensible to us, preferred the Moscow signification of the then accepted and commonly used Greek. But in Maxim’s word this “should” is not at all present. The word was written by him in response to someone’s request to reveal the power of the image of the cross or the custom of signing with a cross, and, without saying prescriptively that the fingers for the sign of the cross should be folded in such and such a way, he says narratively that such and such a folding of the fingers for the sign of the cross, namely, two-fingered, means this and that 827. Maxim’s narrative, and not prescriptive, speech can be understood in two ways: either that he really preferred two-toed to three-toed, or that he just did not reject the first, as our Russian custom. Of the two possible explanations for Maximova’s speech, the second, and not the first, must undoubtedly be recognized as the true explanation. Regarding the custom subject to change, which is the method of folding the fingers for the sign of the cross, the matter was not in any archaeological evidence (assuming that such evidence could be indicated to Maxim in favor of double-fingering), but in the relative authority of the churches that differed among themselves regarding the custom: but, of course, no one will find it possible or probable to assume that the authority of the Russian Church was recognized by Maxim as superior to the authority of the Greek Church. As for the fact that not on his own impulse, but having been summoned to talk about the then dominant sign in Russia, Maxim speaks of the latter as a sign that he recognizes: then, in fact, there is nothing strange or incomprehensible in this. Two-fingeredness is absolutely as Orthodox as three-fingeredness, and in this case our difference with the Greeks concerned a custom that belongs to the number of indifferent customs 828 . But in relation to indifferent customs, the Russian Church was not at all obliged to be in complete agreement with the Greek Church; here it was solely a matter of the Russians’ own will: if they wanted to be in agreement with the Greeks (the consequence of which desire was Nikon’s correction), no one interfered with them, but if they did not want and wanted to maintain their customs, the Greeks had no right to encroach on their freedom in this case 829. Thus, Maxim had to recognize the Russians’ right to adhere to their special custom from the Greeks regarding the formation of fingers, and therefore, and speak about this custom, when he was called to it, as a custom that was recognized by them. It is true that it is expressed: by the intercourse of three fingers we profess this and that, and by the intercourse of two fingers we profess such and such, but it is not expressed: you, Russians, profess such and such. But in a very particular and insignificant case, in which Maxim speaks about the dominant sign of the Russians in his time (a question addressed to him by some private person), to separate himself from them, as a Greek, would be extremely strange and inappropriate. According to the Moscow views of that time, one of the two finger formations was non-Orthodox; but Maxim, of course, did not adhere to this Moscow view, but to the real view that both forms were equally Orthodox, and for him the only question could be which custom had more authority. It cannot be doubted and it should go without saying that he accepted greater authority for the custom of the Greek Church: but he also recognized the Russian Church’s right to adhere to its custom, and therefore, called to speak about this custom, he speaks of it as a custom that is recognized by him. 2) For blessing. – At first, it seems, the blessing was taught through the laying of the blessing by the person blessing his or her hands on the head of the person being blessed, and if there were many being blessed, by raising his hands over them (as Jesus Christ blessed the children and how, ascending into heaven, He blessed the apostles - Matthew 19:13, 15; Luke 24:50), without marking the sign of the cross on the head or above the heads 830. But no later than the first half of the 4th century. It has become a custom to teach a blessing by marking the blessing on the head of the person being blessed or over the heads of the person being blessed with the sign of the cross 831. From time to the beginning of the 7th century. We have evidence that not to bless the people, but to protect themselves from danger, bishops drew a cross over objects or on objects that threatened danger, with the same one finger with which everyone drew a cross on themselves 832. It is likely that when blessing the people, the bishops initially drew a cross with the same finger. But then, no later than the beginning of the 7th century, preventing the appearance of two fingers for the sign of the cross by approximately two centuries, a certain certain several fingers appeared among the bishops to bless the people. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, who died between 634 - 644 833, speaks about this several fingers. The testimony of Sophronius, expressed in a special way, is not entirely clear, namely, when speaking about the addition of fingers: a finger with a small middle 834, he does not speak very clearly about the method of their addition. The testimony of Sophronievo, which is not entirely clear in this last respect, is fully explained for us by the later testimony of John Skylitzes about the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Kerularius. Skylitzes says that when the patriarch died (in 1058), the fingers of his right hand, folded crosswise, as usual to bless when proclaiming peace to the people, remained in this position 835, without changing with the death of the body 836. A cross-shaped or cross-shaped finger, obviously, is a finger-form in which certain fingers were folded in such a way that a cross was made up (formed) from them. Consequently, Patriarch Sophrony speaks of a cross-shaped finger with a small middle finger. And, therefore, the cross-shaped finger formation for blessing, which appeared around or no later than the beginning of the 7th century, was such a finger formation in which three fingers: the index finger, the large middle finger and the little finger extended, and two fingers: the finger and the small middle finger rested crosswise on one another, as is now the case in a nominal blessing. The cross-shaped finger formation was transformed into a nominal one in such a way that of the two outstretched fingers - the index finger and the large middle one - the second one was slightly bent. One might think that initially this change was made not with the thought of turning the finger formation into a nomenclature, but with the thought of turning it into a double-cross or double-cross, and that only then was a nomenology seen in the two crosses with a bent little finger, the meaning of which was learned by him. When, after the half of the 11th century, after Patriarch Michael Cerularius, the cruciform finger formation was transformed or turned into a nominal one, regarding this we only know that the transformation took place sometime before the half of the 16th century 837. Regarding the placing of the finger for blessing, one, however, hesitant, reservation must be made. The so-called Word of Theodorite commands both to be baptized and to bless with the same three fingers, and we have an indication that it was as if the priests actually blessed with three fingers, and that, therefore, only bishops blessed with names. In one psalter from the end of the 15th century, located in the Synodal Library, there is placed: “The Charter of the Holy Mountains about panagia on the way.” In this charter it reads: “if there is no ponage on the way, then he takes the loaf of bread into his right hand and says: “Blessed is God, who has mercy and nourished us,” and orders himself to make his hand three times, like a priest making a cross,” and holding the loaf of bread in his hand makes the sign of the cross with it 838. That the cross-shaped folding of fingers for blessing, which appeared among the Greeks no later than the first half of the 7th century, passed from them to us - the Russians - this cannot be subject to any doubt and is self-evident. Almost all of our metropolitans of the pre-Mongol period were Greeks and, of course, used the same folding of fingers for blessing that was used in Greece. In turn, our bishops, who were Russian by birth, could only use the sign form that was used by the metropolitans, because their adoption of some special sign form would be something completely unthinkable. In general, it is absolutely clear that if at the moment we accepted Christianity from the Greeks, the latter used a cross-shaped fold of fingers for blessing, then it was only this finger shape that could have come to us from them, and not any other 839 . Whether the naming ring passed down to us from the Greeks, we cannot say positively, not knowing when it appeared among them. Since the time of St. Jonah, the example of modern Greeks, has lost its authority in the eyes of our ancestors; meanwhile, on the one hand, on the basis of the “word” of the unknown Theodoret, we formed the opinion that the same sign of the sign of the cross should be used for both blessing and the sign of the cross, and on the other hand, not three-fingered, but two-fingered was recognized as the correct and proper sign of the sign of the cross: and the matter regarding the folding of the finger for blessing had the end that two-fingered was recognized and accepted among us for such a sign of the cross, the same as the sign of the cross. We noted above (pp. 476–477) that the folded hands on icons, in their origin and original meaning, are not blessing or prayer hands, for which they began to be taken in later times, but something else. According to their origin and original meaning, folded hands on icons constitute a symbol or conventional sign, adopted by icon painters, that the persons depicted on icons with such hands (the Savior or some saint) speak (evangelize, preach), i.e., they should be represented by us as speaking (evangelizing, preaching). The custom of using folded hands as a symbol or conventional sign that the person depicted should be represented as speaking, or the custom of depicting speaking faces with folded hands was introduced by pre-Christian painters and was taken by them from living reality 840. Greek and Roman orators, ascending to the pulpit, invited the listeners to silence and attention and together greeted them by raising and shaking their folded hand, and likewise, during the very delivery of speeches, they gestured through various folded fingers 841. Lists of classical or pagan works, decorated with miniatures, have been preserved to this day, in which the faces of the speakers are depicted with raised and folded hands, exactly as they are on icons and in general on pictorial images of Christians 842): Martinius in his Dictionary points to the works of Homer, located in the Milan Ambrosian Library, and to the Aeneid of Virgil, located in the Vatican Library (under the word Bénir, r. 85, col. 1); for our part, we can point to the manuscript of the works of Dioscorides, located in the Vienna Imperial Library, the drawings of which were printed by Lambetius (two double fingers to r. 183) and by Nessel in the Description of Library Manuscripts 843. There are known examples of raised and folded hands in works and sculptures 844. That in Christian iconography folded hands were originally used with the same meaning as they were used in pre-Christian iconography, we have both verbal evidence and evidence from monuments 845. Paul the Silentiary in his description of Justinian's St. Sophia speaks about the image of the Savior on one of the altar curtains, that He is represented (depicted) holding out the fingers of his right hand, as if broadcasting (as a sign that he is broadcasting) an ever-present verb, (and) in his left hand having a book that knows (contains) divine verbs (i.e., the gospel) 846. In the Vienna Imperial Library there is a fragment of the Pentateuch of Moses, written in the 4th-5th centuries, decorated with miniatures, of which 24 have survived and which are all reproduced by Lambetius and Nessel 847. In these miniatures, representing the text of the Pentateuch in faces, there are quite a few outstretched hands with folded fingers. And some of our hands, eliminating the assumption that we are dealing here with the freedom of the painter, who adopted the Christian image of blessing and prayer for Old Testament persons, show with indisputable clarity that they are not blessing or prayer hands, but hands that serve as a sign that the persons to whom they belong are depicted as speaking or should be mistaken for speaking, for to see in most of these some hands blessing or prayer hands was would be incongruity 848, and in one case – simply blasphemy 849. On the miniatures of one Greek manuscript of the 12th century we find a finger formation that serves to designate the faces of speakers, namely, the finger and the large middle finger are connected to each other at the ends, the small middle finger is bent to the palm, and the index finger and little finger are extended 850. There are known examples of ancient sculptural and, in the proper sense, iconographic monuments, on which the original meaning of outstretched hands with folded fingers as a symbol or conventional sign that persons are depicted speaking seems clear with complete indisputability 851. Folded hands on icons and sacred images in general began to be looked at as blessing hands no earlier than the 11th century. From the 12th century we know evidence that assigns the latter meaning to folded hands—we mean the postscript to the article “On Friars and Other Latins,” which we cited above (p. 474). But in the well-known Menology of Emperor Vasily the Bulgarian Slayer, dating back to the end of the 10th - beginning of the 11th century, these hands are still clearly used with their original meaning as a symbol or conventional sign of persons speaking (preaching, evangelizing) 852. As for when they began to look at folded hands as prayer hands, and when they began to depict praying people with folded hands: then, in all likelihood, this happened no earlier than the half of the 15th century. At least until this half of the 15th century, they prayed by raising their hands, and the position of the cross on oneself was only an additional action that preceded or ended with the raising of hands 853: and it must be assumed that before that time those praying were depicted with raised hands 854. We saw above (p. 476) that the validity of the curse on those who were not baptized with two fingers was verified by the icons of the Savior, to which the curse refers, and that on the icons they found either a real two-finger, which was not a sign of blessing, or a sign of blessing, which, not being a double-finger, could be mistaken for this latter. The folded finger for blessing, which was not a double-fingered sign, but could be mistaken for it, was a cruciform folded finger. With some vagueness of the image, when bending along with the small middle finger and the little finger, how could the fingers be folded for a cross-shaped blessing and in reality, because the cross was preserved, it could easily be mistaken for a two-finger blessing. (And if now the indicated finger formation was written in such a way that the hand was facing inward, and the back was turned outward - which is quite rare and almost the largest part: then it should have seemed two-fingered, because from behind the first two fingers were visible, outstretched and the last two bent, but the finger was not visible). On the other hand, with the preconceived idea that the fold of the finger should be double-fingered, and the clearly written cross-shaped finger, due to its proximity to the double-finger, could be mistaken for the latter. The double-fingered sign, which our ancestors must have seen quite often on icons, was not a sign for blessing, which sign was never used for blessing in reality, but one of the symbolic signages that served to designate the faces of speakers and, being borrowed as such by Christian painters from pre-Christian painters, appears on icons and sculptural images from the very first times of those others. Since among the symbolic foldings of the finger it occupied the first place, being the most frequently used, it should have been very often found on icons painted before the meaning of blessing hands was learned by folded hands. But even after this has now happened, it could still be written on icons for a more or less long time, for many icon painters could look at it as an adopted tradition and mechanically reproduce it from the old ones 855. By its origin, this two-fingered is actually a special kind of three-fingered, identical in appearance with the three-fingered one that is used by the Latins for blessing (p. 479 note 1) and in which the finger, index and large middle fingers are separately extended, and the last two fingers are bent (close to this or the very same oratorical finger formation that Apuleius speaks of, p. 494 note). But this three-fingeredness was very often depicted in such a way that the finger, index and thumb of the middle finger were not extended separately, but compressed, and precisely compressed in a double way: either so that the index and big middle fingers were squeezed together (implying extended), and the finger was pressed against them, reaching with its top the second joint from the bottom of the index (in Quintilian No. 5, p. 495), or so that the index and large middle fingers were squeezed together, and the finger was extended separately from them, lying on the fold of the small middle finger 856. In both cases, double-fingeredness emerged (in fact, at the same time, both double-fingered and a special type of triple-fingered) 857. Private worship consists of sequences of church services that are performed for private people, either as necessary and obligatory for them or as voluntarily desired by them, and by private people one should mean not only individuals, but also one or another of their aggregates (families, villages, parishes). The circle of private worship is formed from the following: all the sacraments, with the exception of the sacrament of the Eucharist (which is a public service - liturgy), burial of the dead, consecration of churches, so-called prayer songs or molebens, tonsure into monasticism. Regarding the history of private worship, one must have the same general ideas as regarding public worship. We do not know positively that private worship, like public worship, began with local diversity (above p. 404 et seq.); but this must be assumed a priori. Then, we know in a positive way: firstly, that with the gradual introduction of uniformity in the rites of our worship in the most extensive, larger sense, there remained for just as long a time as in public worship, and namely, all the time we are talking about, diversity in the closest (private) sense, smaller; secondly, that the rites of our worship, as well as public worship, gradually developed to some extent as time passed. The oldest currently known rites of the sacrament of baptism date back to the 14th century. Of the triple series of prayers preceding the baptism itself, i.e. on the first day, before the wife gives birth to a child, on the eighth day, to mark the birth of the child, and on the fortieth day, to the mother and child (before the baptism of the latter) 859, the first prayers are not read in the service books of our time (?), and the second and third are read the same as at the present time, but the second without troparion: “Rejoice, full of grace,” and the third are among the two (the current first?). Prayers to the wife, when she vomits the baby, are also not read (?). The very rites of baptism differed from our current ones in the following: Catechetical prayers (called prohibitions in the current Trebnik) were each pronounced ten times 860; The words of the prayer: “Cast out from him every wicked and unclean spirit” (now: “Cast out from him every wicked and unclean spirit”), standing in connection with the following: “The spirit of delusion and wickedness”... (now: “The spirit of delusion, the spirit of wickedness”), were pronounced once; Questions about denial from Satan were spoken separately, so that there were five questions and denials. (They denied, I deny: Satan, - and all his works, - and all his works, - and all his service, - and all his pride) 861. and they shouted three times; It was prescribed to only blow on the demon, but not to spit; The question about the union with Christ was expressed in the words: “Do you make your promises to Christ?” After the words of the catechumen: “I adore the Father and the Son”..., there was no proclamation from the priest: “Blessed is God, through all mankind”:..: The Great Litany, which began baptism itself in the closest sense of the word, contained only two petitions for the consecration of water and two for the baptized; After the person being baptized was anointed by the priest with oil on certain parts of the body, without uttering the words currently being proclaimed 862, the deacon or one of the other servants anointed the entire body of the person being baptized with oil 863; The vesting of the baptized person was performed without uttering the words: “The servant of God is vested”..., and without singing the troparion: “Give me a robe”...; The vestments were followed by a litany - or a special one, in which three special petitions were proclaimed for the newly baptized ("And having been endowed with the power of the divine against the anointing world that is contrary to the world, - For him to be a sacred vessel to receive the grace of the world, - For him to be worthy of the title, in whom he was called"), or a small one; After the major or minor litany, the same prayer was read that is still being read today (“Blessed are you, Lord God Almighty”...), and after it was sung: “Be baptized into Christ” without walking around the font. This was followed by the anointing of the newly baptized with myrrh, which ended the rite. According to another version, starting with the act of baptism or immersion of the baby in water 864, the rite is presented in the following form: baptism or immersion, anointing, dressing in sarchitsa and outer clothing, prayer before tonsure and the tonsure itself, prayer of blessing, laying on the doll with the words: “the servant of God dresses (in) the doll of kindness” and, finally, circumambulation the person being baptized or carrying him around the font while singing the verse: “The people were baptized into Christ” 865. The churching of a baptized baby was carried out as follows: after the prayer: “Lord our God, who came to save the human race,” the saint or priest took the baby from the mother’s hands and carried it to the altar; before entering the altar, apply his mouth to both sides of the royal doors “in the image of a kiss,” and upon entering the altar, he bowed with him before the throne and, if the baby being baptized was male, walked with him three times around the throne, bowing on each side of the latter, and if female, he walked around only three sides of the throne - the sides and the back without the front; in both cases the saint or priest read. “Now of Release” 866 ... The sequence of washing a newly baptized baby on the eighth day, according to some lists, is limited to only one prayer, namely the one that is currently placed first; according to other lists, it seems similar to the current one, but only the wiping of the anointed parts of the body with the utterance of certain words is required immediately after the first prayer and there is no mention of sprinkling with a soaked belt and shrouds 867. The rites of baptism suggest that the sacrament was performed before the liturgy, and regarding the behavior of the newly baptized at this latter they prescribe: if he is an adult, then at the great exit he must walk in front of the holy gifts with his recipient, having candles in both hands, and if he is a baby, then he must be carried at the exit in front of the holy gifts by his recipient. Regarding the newly baptized adult, it is prescribed that he should go home with candles after baptism and with them come to church for services for seven days before ablution 868. According to the manuscripts of the 15th century, we find the following differences in the rites from the manuscripts of the previous century: The prayers laid down on the first day before a wife gives birth to a child are read, but not in a separate form of prayers for that particular day, but as part of the prayers of the eighth day (included among these last prayers); Catechetical prayers (prohibitions) are prescribed to be read three times, and ten times only when baptizing adult Jews: Regarding the priest’s questions to the baptized person about renouncing Satan, along with the previous practice, a new one, similar to the current one, is in use; Along with blowing on the devil, a new, more expressive statement enters into the custom by the action of negating him - spitting; Before the very sacrament of baptism began, the priest censed the water and blessed it with a candle three times; When pronouncing the words three times: “Great art thou, Lord,” the priest blessed the water three times, but when he said: “Let them be crushed under the banner of Thy cross”... he only blew on the water and blessed it, but did not immerse his fingers in it; The anointing of the baptized person with oil from the priest - according to some missals, was performed, as before, without uttering any words, according to others, with the utterance of the words: “The servant of God is anointed with the oil of joy in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”; According to some service books, after anointing the baptized person with oil, the priest pronounced the exclamation: “Blessed is God, enlighten and illuminate every person coming into the world.” Regarding the part of the sequence that follows the performance of baptism itself and consisted of the great or small litany, anointing, putting on clothes, walking around the font or around the pulpit, the churching of the baptized person by bringing him into the altar for kissing the altar, cutting the hair, laying on the dome, the service books differ greatly from each other: in some of them this is the order, in others another. Churching as an action included in the very sequence of baptism is prescribed only in some service books, while others suggest it as a special rite that was to be performed after baptism and separately from the latter. Our churching prescribes that a male child should be kissed on all four sides of the throne, and a female child on three - on the sides and the back, without the front 869. Walking around the pulpit instead of the font probably took place only in those cases when the rites prescribed it to be done after churching, for in these only cases it could be correct (since the pulpit was in the church, and not in the vestibule, and, therefore, required the preliminary churching of the baby). Following the washing of the newly baptized person on the eighth day, at the entrance to the church, it is necessary to read the psalm: “The Lord shepherds me”; then, after the usual beginning and the usual initial prayers, it is necessary to read: the troparia of the day and the saint who has arrived, Glory and Now: “Through the prayers, O Lord, of all the saints and of Thy Mother of God, give us peace”; The ablution itself without sprinkling is supposed to be performed, as in the previous time, immediately after the first prayer. In one service book, after the second prayer for veneration, there is a special litany, in which the godfather or godfather and the newly baptized or newly baptized person were remembered, and a special dismissal, in which enlightenment, observance and preservation from all evils of the newly baptized name and with those who received it are requested 870. In the missals of the 16th century we find the following, different from the two centuries preceding: Prayers on the first day, when a wife gives birth to a child, are mostly read as part of the prayers of the eighth day (included among them), but sometimes separately, as such, i.e., exactly as the prayers of the first day. In addition, the number of prayers of all three classes (1st day, 8th and 40th) and their order in each class appear to be very diverse according to the lists of service books and missals; Before reading the prayers of clarification (prohibitions), the priest is instructed to blow on the person being baptized and bless his forehead (in some lists: face), lips and fingers; Catechetical prayers are prescribed to be read: in most lists once, in some - three times, and in some - four; when pronouncing adult Gentiles, they are ordered to read them ten times; Spitting on Satan along with blowing in some lists is supposed to be spitting once, in others - three times; At the words: “Let them be crushed under the sign of Thy cross”... the priest, according to one list, blew on the water three times and blessed it three times with his fingers; according to others, he only blew, without blessing; according to the third, he blew three times and blessed three times with a burning candle without immersing his fingers in it (water); After reading the prayer over the oil: “Sovereign Lord God of our father,” the priest took a match that was in a vessel with oil, and while singing hallelujah three times, he made a cross on the water with it three times, and according to some lists, he poured oil onto the water three times directly from the vessel; Regarding the anointing of the entire body of those being baptized with oil, in the missals of our time one reads the remark that “if the female sex (is baptized), then it should be anointed with oil up to the waist (only)”; The words of baptism were pronounced as follows: at the first immersion of the baby: “the servant of God is baptized in the name of the Father, amen,” at the second immersion: “and the Son, amen,” at the third: “and the Holy Spirit, and now and ever and unto ages of ages, amen.” The part of the sequence of the sacrament that follows the performance of the act of baptism itself is presented in threefold form in the missal books of our time. According to some missals: the act of baptism, “let us remember” from the deacon and the singing of the psalm: “Blessed are those who have been forgiven sins,” the small litany, prayer over the world (current) and anointing while singing the verse: “Those who are baptized into Christ,” the robe of the baptized in new clothes with the words - when putting on a shirt: “The servant of Christ, named after him, dresses in the robe of joy and joy,” - the outer garment: “May my soul rejoice in the Lord,” the prayer for the tonsure of the hair: “Sovereign Lord our God, in whose image the honor of man” and the tonsure itself, the proclamation of the deacon: “Bow your heads to the Lord,” and the prayer of the priest: “Lord our God, like from the execution of the baptismal font”, the laying of the kukul with the words: “The servant of God dresses in the kukul of kindness in the name of the Father”..., a special litany at which the newly baptized with his recipient were remembered, and the dismissal. According to other missals: the action of baptism, the threefold singing of the verses: “Blesseds, who were forgiven of iniquity” and “The Holy One was baptized into Christ,” at which the newly baptized person dressed in robes, the great litany with those special petitions that we indicated above, prayer over the world and anointing itself, three times the circumambulation of the priest with the recipient who has a in the arms of the baby, around the font, the churching of the baby, either by bringing him into the altar to kiss the throne, if he is male, or by bringing him to the royal doors of the altar to kiss the latter, if he is female, a special litany and dismissal. According to the third missal books: the act of baptism, putting on clothes, anointing, circumambulation of the font, churching of the baby in the indicated manner, the apostle and the gospel, tonsure of hair, and further as in the first class missal books 871. The rite of churching a child, as a separate rite from baptism itself, we find in the missal books of our time is twofold: the same one that is prescribed in the missal books of the 14th century, and a new one. This last reading is identical in composition to the subsequent washing on the 8th day of the breviaries of the 15th century (?), except that its end was: “Now you release,” and in terms of the ritual action it represented what we have now indicated, i.e., that a male child was brought by the priest into the altar to kiss the throne, and a female child was not brought into the altar, but only applied by the priest to both sides of the royal doors of the altar 872. The sequence of ablution on the 8th day is in the missal books of our time a combination of the same sequence of missal books of the 15th century with prayers read today, and the ablution itself is supposed to take place after the first prayer (“Release of sins through holy baptism”...) 873. In the missal books of our time we find an abbreviated rite of baptism, prescribed for the case “if it happens to an infant that the creature is sick and hastens to baptize out of fear for the sake of a mortal.” This abbreviated rite of baptism, of which we do not have a detailed description, was more or less similar to the current same rite (which in the missal is inscribed: “The prayer of holy baptisms in brief, as to baptize a baby, fear for the sake of a mortal”) 874. The following instructions regarding the sacrament of baptism, read in the acts of councils and letters of metropolitans, are known. Vladimir Cathedral 1274 prescribes that priests should not mix St. ointment with wooden oil and did not anoint the person being baptized with this mixture all over the body, but so that the oil was anointed especially after the catechumen, and with the ointment especially after baptism - so that the latter was done not through pouring, but through immersion, and so that the newly baptized were honored with St. communion. We have given the instructions of the council above [first half of the volume pp. 73–74] 875. In the responses of the Council of Constantinople in 1276. to the questions of the Sarai Bishop Theognost, the following answers regarding baptism are read: "Question: How many times is it appropriate to say prayers when baptizing a person? Is it appropriate for many priests to baptize or just one? Answer: It is appropriate for one 876 prayer to be said and for one priest to baptize; if it happens to be many children, and there will be many priests, let each one baptize his children for himself: If there are many children and one priest, let him say one prayer over all the children and immerse each child three times, saying: (1st) “in the name of the Father”, 2nd “and the Son”, 3rd “and the Holy Spirit” 877. – Question: If there is a need at death, and there is no saint, neither priest nor deacon, but there is a deacon, should he be baptized? Answer: There will be neither a priest nor a deacon, but a deacon, and it is fitting for him to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit 878. – Question: For those coming from the Nestorians and Jacobites, how should they be baptized? Answer: It is fitting for him to curse his faith and his teachers (and), having anointed V17; peace, so will V17; more true to faith and pious 879. – Question: For those who come from the Tatars who want to be baptized, and there will be no great loan, what should they be loaded with? Answer: Let it be poured three times, saying: “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” 880. In the letter of Metropolitan Cyprian to Abbot Athanasius we read about baptism: “Children are not forbidden to eat at the time of baptism in the summer; but even if many (godfather) baptize one child, he eats according to the Latvian duty (custom), but the priest honors prayers, the father of the godfather makes a denial and from the holy baptism of a child accepts; for this reason, it is not worthy to be a godfather, lower than godfather and godfather, as is happening here in our land, but it is worthy to be baptized by one godfather, either husband or wife; John's baptism, he was never baptized at Erdania, as many people were baptized, coming from him, and in the same way under the apostles it was done, just as it is written in the Acts, as if they bought not two or three baptisms in one, but many in one: now we are not allowed to eat (it is not forbidden) even in one fonts we baptize two or three or more in one day, but prayers are strictly forbidden for him (to each, to each) to be read and negations; if it is for the female sex (and as for the female sex), let the chintz rule hold: if a young (child) is velmi little, and then (then) as it is masculine, it is also feminine, and not in That is the vow in a single font, but first baptize the men, then the women - for the sake of decorum, give the majority to the male sex; if they have grown up, it is not worthy to baptize the female sex, even as the male one, but in the appointed place, they stand there below the husbands, but do not perform holy baptism for women who serve their food for the sake of decorum; pour water over it, as the Latins do, but immerse it in a bowl or clean vessel placed on it, and say for each immersion the one name of the holy and life-giving Trinity: in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; In one of his letters to Pskov, Metropolitan Cyprian writes to the priests there: “And what is natural until now that children were baptized, holding them in their hands and pouring water on top, otherwise it was an incorrect baptism: behold, I sent (you) a right baptism, true (immersive, i.e., its rite), according to that, naturally, you yourself would have acted, and otherwise, naturally, you would have ordered everyone, so that according to that walked” 882 . In the letters of Metropolitan Photius to Novgorod and Pskov and in his district teachings to the clergy, we find the following instructions regarding baptism: “Without laziness, always and at every hour (priests) hasten and baptize newborn children with prayer, so that some child does not die without baptism, because if you do not hasten to baptize, you will be responsible for their death 883 ... And a woman who has given birth to a child should not baptize (the priest) the child born from her, nor should she give cleansing prayers until then: and this is by no means appropriate, but the priest comes and gives a prayer for the first cleansing of the mother and the wives who were born at that birth, and the church (house), and then to name the new born baby on the 8th day, accepting name, and then, whenever he pleases his parent, and baptize him; on the 8th day (after baptism), we wash the newly enlightened one with the holy myrrh, and again on the 40th day we bring the matter to the church, and it is done for him, as the statute commands about this 884... And the forbidden prayers are said one by one only 885. And perform baptisms according to the tradition of the saints, the apostle: do not pour water on them, but immerse them in water, in such a tub (purely prepared for this purpose), three times, saying for the first immersion: “(baptized name) in the name of the Father, Amen” for the second immersion: “in the name of the Son, Amen” for the third immersion: “in the name of the Holy Spirit, Amen” do not wash this to say differently or according to your first custom, which is not true to say to every immersion: “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, Amen”: this is unreasonable and an abomination to God, since polytheism exists, and not in the Trinity 886 ... And the godfather would be one, either male (for the male sex), or female (for the female sex), but according to If only two godfathers wouldn’t exist, as it was before” 887. The Council of the Hundred Heads in its acts now confirms the instructions we have given that baptism should be done in three immersions, and not doused with water, that during immersion the words should be properly pronounced: the servant of God is baptized in the name of the Father and the Son... so that the person being baptized has one godfather, and not two or many. Here is its true definition, which cites, unknown to us, where the rule on infant baptism was taken from: “And children would be baptized in churches according to the charter and tradition of the holy apostles and holy fathers, and not doused with water, but immersed in three immersions, and children would be baptized according to the sacred rules reliably, as it is written (in the rule) about the baptism of an infant: Baptized by a priest, saying (-ago) sice: “the servant of God is baptized in the name of the Father,” and immerses him with one thing, saying: “Amen,” also: “and the Son, Amen,” and immerses again, “and the Holy Spirit,” and immerses him again with three, and says: “and now and ever and ever and ever, Amen”; Be aware that according to the Apostolic Canon 49, the priest who baptizes is replaced, saying: “The servant of God is baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and forever and ever Amen,” and thus immersing the person being baptized, and again the same word of the rivers, and again immersing, and again the third rivers and again having immersed, baptize Bo, speech, into three Beginningless and into three Sons and into three Comforters, rex in 9 persons; it will also be changed according to the 50th rule (-lu) and the river is all the same word and immersing the baptized one, as if not glorifying the resurrection; but it is appropriate to baptize: the priest receives the hand of the person being baptized and says: “The servant of God is baptized in the name of the Father, Amen,” and brings him down and raises him up, “and the Son, Amen,” - brings him down and raises him up, “and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and ever, Amen,” and again immerses him, and so would baptize in three persons divine, on the three-day resurrection of Christ, by three immersions; and therefore the priest anoints him with great ointment and dresses him in all new clothes, first handing him into the arms of the receiver, and the priest sings with the people: “Blessed are you who forgave iniquity and covered yourself with sin,” and so on according to the charter; and there would be one godfather, either male or female, but there wouldn’t be two godfathers and many godfathers, as you had before” 888. – To the Tsar’s idea that children were baptized by priests in a single stole without vestments, the cathedral responded with an order that they be baptized “in full priestly dignity” 889. Reading in the instructions strict prohibitions on the use of immersion baptism, they usually accept that these prohibitions presuppose that immersion baptism, in its proper and precise sense, which is used among us at the present time. However, this poses a question. For the baptism of infants, the Greeks used, as is still used today, immersion baptism, which, while not being such in the proper sense, was a combination of immersion with dousing, namely, the body of a baby without a head was immersed in the water of the font, while the head was doused with the hand of a priest. Patriarch Gregory Mamma of Constantinople, in one of his apologies against Mark of Ephesus, defending the pouring baptism of the Latins, writes: “But we (Greeks) do not immerse children with their whole heads, because we cannot order them to hold the inhalation and exhalation of the nose, so that while holding these, the entrance of the sacred water through the ears is retained, and we also cannot immerse the mouth of a child; therefore, we immerse (ἐμβάλλομεν) them in the font, which is an absolutely necessary and committed (legalized) work, since the font depicts the motherhood as false and through this the birth of the baptism is signified; but so that the head, where the connection of the senses and the seat of the soul, does not remain uninvolved in holy baptism, then we make a handful from the palm of our hand (squeezing). palm in a handful) and filling it with water (grabbing water with it), we pour it onto the top of it (the head), proclaiming the divine name and property of each hypostasis” 890. While Metropolitans Cyprian and Photius prohibit pouring baptism, our contemporary and somewhat later missals and breviaries talk about the baptism of infants, and precisely of all, and not just the sick, as they incorrectly interpret: “if the infant is the one being baptized (and not an adult) and the priest places him) in the baptismal chamber, the water of the essence (in it), and the neck of the verse (i.e. e. immerses, var.: beings on the neck and verse), holding it with his left hand, with his gum (and) hand he pours warm water on his head, before the weak baby watches the pouring” 891. From what has just been said, it is clear that immersion baptism of infants could not be immersion in the proper sense of the word, but immersion-pouring. What was it really like? During the pre-Mongol period (and at least in the Novgorod region, for which we have evidence), infant baptism was immersion-pouring. Kirik of Novgorod in his Inquiry reads: “the priest, when baptizing a child, turns to himself, if the person (adult) is great, immerse him three times” 892 ...: if it is prescribed to immerse only an adult and is not prescribed to immerse a child, then this clearly suggests a different way of baptizing the latter, and, therefore, it is clearly given to assume our baptism is immersion-pouring. Regarding the time after the Mongol invasion until Metropolitan Photius, in all likelihood one must think that our form of baptism continued to remain. It is usually accepted that pouring baptism in the proper sense of the word (one pouring of the head without immersing the body in water) was borrowed by us from the Latins; but it is much more likely to think that it was an abuse of our customary usage. That is that instead of dousing the head when immersing the body in water, as was customary among us, they began to limit themselves to the first action (in which way, and not through borrowing from the Latins, abuse appeared among the Greeks, taking decisive precedence over use) 893. Regarding the introduction among us of immersion baptism of infants in the proper sense of the word - which form we introduced among ourselves not after the Greeks and not in imitation of them, but independently of them - one must probably think that we literally understood the instructions of Metropolitans Cyprian and Photius about this immersion baptism. Be that as it may, at the beginning of the 16th century we already had in more or less general use this immersion baptism of infants in the proper sense of the word, for Herberstein clearly speaks of our form as being recognized as the only valid one 894 . The custom of giving those baptized two Christian names remained throughout our time (as well as for quite a long time after) 895. The custom of giving a popular or secular name along with church names almost completely disappeared among the princes 896, but still remained among the people (who had their own calendar of popular names, special from the princes, Slavic) 897. From the instructions we have given, it is clear that the current custom of inviting not one recipient, but several, for baptism dates back to ancient times. The origin of the custom should most likely be explained by the desire of the parents to give their children not one cartridge in the everyday sense, as we look at recipients, but according to the whole, this or that, their number 898. The rite of the sacrament of confirmation consists of anointing with holy oil certain parts of the body of the newly baptized (or without baptism of the newly joined to the church), with the utterance of certain words during the anointing. Which parts of the body should be anointed with St. world, this is determined by the ecumenical councils - the second (canon 7) and sixth (canon 95), namely, the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears. However, in later times, they began to anoint partly not those members who were indicated by the councils, but in general a larger number of them. As for us specifically, we find the following: in two instructions known to us, dating back to the pre-Mongol period, it is commanded to anoint - in one: the forehead, nostrils, ears, heart and right hand, in the other: the forehead, nostrils, lips, ears, heart and right hand 899; The Vladimir Cathedral of 1274, based on the Catechetical words of Cyril of Jerusalem, prescribed to anoint precisely those members of the body that are designated by the councils (forehead, eyes, ears, nostrils, lips) 900, but subsequent service books and missals, deviating from the instructions of the cathedral in the sense of increasing the number of members, add more: some (few) - the face, others - the heart, belly and shoulders, third - heart, belly, shoulders and leg, fourth - heart, belly, shoulders and spine 901 (currently the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, ears, fingers, hands and feet are anointed). At the anointing of St. the world of certain parts of the body Vladimir Cathedral 1274 commands to pronounce: “the seal and gift of the Holy Spirit” 902. We have no information in this regard about missal books of the 14th-15th centuries; and most of the missals of the 16th century prescribe to pronounce it completely in accordance with the current one: “the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit” 903. In some of these latest missals, in addition to the words: “seal of the gift”..., it is also necessary to recite special “verses” when anointing each part of the body, which in their content related specifically to the parts being anointed 904. During the reign of Metropolitan Photius, and probably even earlier, the Pskov priests indulged in a very strange abuse of our sacrament; namely, they used the Latin myrrh to perform it instead of their own Orthodox world. The reason for the abuse with a very high probability should be considered that the acquisition of one’s Orthodox world from the Archbishop of Novgorod was too expensive due to the greed of the latter’s officials, and that the acquisition of the Latin world (albeit heretical, but still peace!) was much cheaper. (The Pskovites were neighbors of the Latins, and in Dorpat, which was [about 150] miles away, there was a see of a Latin bishop). Be that as it may, Metropolitan Photius addressed the Pskov priests regarding their abuse with the most severe denunciation; He wrote to them: “I have heard an incomparable deed in you, hated by God and denied by the holy and God-bearing Fathers and unforgiven: I hear that those who want to be baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit instead of the great holy myrrh you anoint with Latin myrrh; and this threatening hearing offends me, it troubles my heart: for that is disgusting to God and It was hated and abhorred by the saints of the Fathers, that he who is called a true priest of God should be repaired, and it is not commanded by the law of God to anoint the Orthodox peasants with the Latin world; And from now on,” the Metropolitan concludes his denunciation, “instill in yourself about this at length and turn away from that inappropriate act with repentance and tears for the evils committed before, turn to the true Orthodox path of true faith; “If the holy Father commanded you to do it, do it unremittingly, and perform baptisms according to the rule of the holy Fathers... and then anoint them with the great ointment that comes from Constantinople, from where from time immemorial you received the breed of the Orthodox faith and the true image” 905. Up to and including Metropolitan Photius, we received St. myrrh from Constantinople, from the patriarch. When, after Photius, we stopped receiving it from Constantinople 906 and began to prepare it ourselves, it is not known in a positive way; but in all likelihood one should think that it is the first since the time of St. Jonah, when our break with the patriarch began, and the second - from the time of his successor, Metropolitan Theodosius, when this break, which turned from accidental to permanent, was resolved forever and finally (see above). Regarding the preparation of myrrh, we currently have a custom of pouring some part of the old ointment into the newly prepared myrrh. One might think that this custom, which began for us with the beginning of our own creation of the world, arose from the idea that through the influx into the world, which the metropolitans themselves began to consecrate, parts of the world consecrated by the patriarch, to make the first as real a continuation of the latter as possible. [In the parchment breviary of the late XIV or early XV century. (manuscript of the Moscow Synodal Library No. 675, see Descriptions vol. III, v. 1, p. 128 et seq.) reads “the prayer for the creation of the world occurs on Great Thursdays” - the following short rite of world-making. “The archpriest of the Alavastro of the world brings the holy gift (during the great exit) and delivers it to the holy meal and is supposed to be near the paten on the left side and according to the hedgehog cry: “And let there be mercies.” And with the royal door not yet open, but also in the pulpit, the silent deacon, the archdeacon in the altars, exclaimed: “Let us attend,” the saint ascends to the level before the holy table, and having signified the third ointment, descends and bows down and reads the prayer: “Lord of mercy and Father of enlightenment, from Him.” Every gift is good, the perfect gift is given to all, give us, the unworthy, grace in the service of this great and life-giving sacrament. people: “Amen,” the saint: “peace to all,” and, saying to the archdeacon: “Bow your heads to the Lord,” the saint reads a prayer: “We bow our hearts to the God of all the kings, thanking you for them, who are unworthy of us to be a servant.”... and so on.. Exclamation: “For we worship you.” Thou art and glorified.” Then the deacon, standing in front of the royal doors, says: “All the saints have changed” and everything else in a row” (sheets 15, ver. 18). From the end of the 15th – beginning of the 16th centuries, a more detailed “rite and charter for consecrating the holy and great world” has been preserved (manuscript of the same library No. 693). According to it, consecration should proceed like this: First, set up the holy cave in a place that is impenetrable, and place a new, clean cauldron on top of it. After their consecration, potions were crushed together on Blue Saturday, and on Palm Saturday, all the potions would be crushed and sown separately, the stale ones, and the soft ones. In the evening let there be an all-night vigil over the cave and over the potions. On Monday, according to the vestments of the bishop, priest and deacon, “and the priest and deacon would be faithful, the sacrament would not be told anywhere,” they will bring wine and pour it into the cauldron. Bishop: “Blessed is our God,” also the heavenly King, Holy God, Most Holy Trinity, Our Father, Lord have mercy 12, Glory and Now, Come let us worship three times, Psalm 50 “Have mercy on me, God” and the canon of St. Theotokos, creation of Theophanes, tone 8, canto 1 irmos “Water passed through as if on dry land”, “Obsessed by many misfortunes”, “Passion troubles me like a fool”, etc... After 9 songs they begin to heat the oven and pour stale potions into the cauldron. The bishop reads the prayer of St. Basil the Great over the cauldron: “An ever-present and living source of enlightenment, the ever-present edifying power of the Father”... (third prayer on Pentecost), “Great and eternal God, holy, loving man, who has vouchsafed us at this hour,” etc. (ibid.). After this, the prokeimenon to the apostle, tone 8, “He went out into the whole earth,” the apostle from the Acts: “In those days, when the day of Pentecost had expired”... Hallelujah, Gospel of John: “On the last day of the great feast, Jesus cried and cried,” and the litany “for the descent of St. Spirit": Let us pray to the Lord in peace, For the sanctification of the souls and bodies of all of us..., For us to be granted the incorruptible kingdom..., For us to preserve our immovable faith..., For us to be the church and dwelling of the Holy Spirit. Spirit, About the appearance that we will be the heir of the kingdom of heaven..., About the descent from heaven of an angel of light..., About the resolution of all suzahs that are unacceptable..., About the giving of rich mercies..., About salvation for us who bow our heartfelt knees by faith..., About the apostle being granted to us with prayers..., About the healing of soul and body... bodily..., About keeping people's aspirations..., About hearing us sinners and realizing..., About the favor of the Lord our God on us..., About accepting our prayers..., About delivering us from all sorrows..., Intercede, Save..., the Most Holy One. Exclamation: As befits... and leave. – On Tuesday, after the vestments of the bishop and others and according to the usual beginning, Psalm 50 is read and the canon of the honorable Forerunner is sung, “to whom is the borderline: To the Baptist receive the prayer of the creation of Joseph, tone 2, song 1: To the Baptist Forerunner of Christ,” etc., after which the prayer is read: “Great art thou, Lord, and wonderful are thy works and there is only one word sufficient to praise Your miracles (prayer at the blessing of water, with the word “water” replaced by the word “mirror”). At the end of it, the priest says: Peace to all, deacon: Bow your heads to the Lord, and the priest secretly reads the prayer: Incline, O Lord, Thy ear... After the exclamation: For Thou art our sanctification... Prokeimenon to the Apostle, voice 3, “The Lord is my enlightenment,” the Apostle to the Corinthians: “Brethren, I do not want to misunderstand you, as our fathers.” “Everyone is under a cloud of thunder”..., alleluia voice 4: The voice of the Lord on the waters, the gospel of John: “At that time Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan... (the apostle and the gospel are the same as those read at the consecration of the Epiphany water). Next, the deacon speaks a great litany, in which he adds the following to the usual petitions: About sanctifying this ointment..., About sending grace to them..., About being cleansing for their souls and bodies..., About being sanctification and salvation for them..., About being for them to drive away..., About healing coming to them..., About being immersed in the power of the strangled adversary..., About being enlightened to us..., Oh to be anointed by it all..., About the coming of cleansing..., About those who draw and drink from it..., About it to be a source of incorruptibility..., About to be blessed by it, like the Jordanian streams, About to hear the voice of our prayer to the Lord God, about to be delivered to us, Intercede, save. Most Holy, pure, - and vacation... - On Great Wednesday, after the vestment, and at the same beginning, the canon, voice 4, is sung: The depths of the red sea, etc. “Yes, when the wine was boiling to the floor (halfway, halfway), pour in the oil and potions of the remainder,” while the bishop reads 4 prayers: 1) Lord, who in Your mercy and bounty healed the passions and soul of our bodies, the Master Himself sanctify this myrrh..., 2) Most graciously, Lord, the only merciful and philanthropic, speaking about our evils..., 3) Sovereign Lord God Almighty, holy to the king of glory, showing and not killing, strengthening those who fall..., and 4) Sovereign Lord our God, I heal souls and bodies, healing the passions of the summer and healing every ailment... - from those prayers that are read during the sacrament of consecration of oil. After the prayers - Let's hear, Peace to all, Wisdom, prokeimenon voice 1; May Thy mercy be upon us, Apostle from the conciliar epistle of James: Brethren, accept the image of suffering..., the gospel of John: At the time that Jesus ascended to Jerusalem, there is in Jerusalem on the sheep's font... After the gospel, a great litany with petitions: For the hedgehog to be blessed in this world..., For the servant of God the name of the rivers..., Forsaking sin and his sin, Oh, come to the grace of St. Spirit..., O that he may be worthy of the kingdom of heaven, O that he may be delivered from every evil thought. Exclamation: as it is fitting, let go. - On the same day (Wednesday) in the evening, after the bishop and others have vested themselves, they “poured myrrh into the tin”, having previously consecrated it: “before consecrating the tin, and when you sprinkle the tin, then pour myrrh into it.” “Over the tin” the bishop says the following 3 prayers: 1) Lord our God, who sanctified the waters of the Jordan..., 2) God the Father of our holy saints, God the apostle and martyr to the king, praise to Thy saints..., 3) Master Lord our God, who for the sake of the good-victored Thy martyr defeated our enemy the devil... After the first prayer in the rite, it was noticed: “The same goes for all the prayers where he comes: sanctify and dwell, or bless, or something else, turn all of them into myrrh.” – On Maundy Thursday, “the bishops and priests and deacons and all the priests of St. Sophia will be vested,” take the myrrh and transfer it to the altar while singing “Holy God.” In the altar of St. the myrrh “will be placed to the left near the holy meal and the old world will be poured into it, as much as there will be” and the divine liturgy will begin. During the great exit, the myrrh is carried after all the priests and placed in the altar "on the right at the top of the meal until the liturgy is celebrated. Then it will be placed in the repository of St. Sopheus and the bishop himself will seal it." Nothing is said about the reading of special prayers in this rite (XV-XVI centuries). (See sheets 1–92. Middle rite of the 17th century, - manuscript of the same library No. 692. The ancient rite of the consecration of the world in the Jerusalem Church by A. A. Dmitrievsky. Divine service of Holy and Easter weeks in Holy Jerusalem 9th-10th centuries, Kazan 1894, pp. 92–105 and 333–335]. [In our manuscripts we find “the rite of what is appropriate for the participle dati.” According to some lists, its order is stated as follows. After the exclamation of the priest and the usual initial prayers, the Creed, troparia, is read: “Thy secret suppers”, Glory, “To the King of heaven”, And now, “God made flesh from You”, “Lord have mercy” 40 times, “Thou hast called me unto thyself, child, father”, “I confess to God Almighty”, prayers: “O Lord Jesus Christ our Savior, who alone have the power to forgive sins”, “Lord we know that I am not worthy” and “May the most merciful Lord show mercy to you.” Oral confession was performed in the same way as in full rites, but, in extreme cases, due to the death of the patient, it was shortened. After confession, the priest commanded the penitent to fall before St. doors and recite the verses: “God cleanse me, a sinner,” “Those who have sinned without number,” etc. etc., and he himself read the prayers of permission: “O Almighty Thy servant, who confesses to Thee,” “Lord God Almighty, Omnipotent and merciful God, who from sin is a help to all,” “Master Lord Jesus Christ our God, who alone has the power to forgive sins,” “Lord, may you not come under my roof,” and “May the most merciful Lord reward you, may Jesus Christ grant you every blessing of forgiveness” (Miscellaneous manuscript of the Solovetsky Library No. 1085, sheets 271–273 verso; manuscript of the Moscow Synodal Library No. 377, sheet 184, (Descriptions, section III, century I, p. 222). According to other monuments, the beginning of the rite up to the 40-fold reading of “Lord have mercy” is the same as in the first monuments, and then followed an oral confession, after which three prayers were read that are in the current rite and the prayer “from all defilement”: “The Lord our God is the only good lover of mankind.” In case of recovery, these monuments made it obligatory to perform the full rite of confession (Manuscript of the Solovetsky Library No. 1086, sheet 114; No. 1105, sheets 305–306; service book manuscript of the same library No. 1020, sheets 108 ver. - 109 ver.). There are monuments in which the number of prayers before the patient’s confession is much greater than in the previous monuments. The third place between these prayers is occupied by the prayer of St. Chrysostom: “God, weaken, forsake, be merciful, forgive me my sins,” the fourth – from the same Chrysostom: “Lord, I believe and confess,” and finally, the fifth – “Lord Lord, loving of mankind, may the communion of the holy mysteries not be a condemnation for us” (manuscript of the Solovetsky Library No. 1089, sheets 190–194 turns). This is in one monument, but in another the order of rites is different and the prayers are different. The first prayer is the prayer: “Cleanse me, O Lord, from my sins and for the sake of sinners, you have shed Your blood,” the 2nd and 3rd prayers are the same as in the current rite, the 4th is “Much-merciful Lord Jesus Christ our God, prayers for the sake of the Most Pure Mother” (manuscript of the same library No. 1099, sheets 269–271). – Finally, there are monuments in which this rite is set out in the same way as in the current missals (of the same library, missal No. 1090, sheet 110; No. 1104, sheets 184–185; service book of the Moscow Synodal Library No. 856, sheet 101; No. 358, sheet 112; Descriptions section III, v. 1, pp. 63, 71. Compare the breviary of 1842, sheets 59–60), and only sometimes instead of the 3rd prayer they read: “Lord our God, the only good and lover of mankind” (Manuscript of the Moscow Synodal Library No. 898, sheets 503–505). This rite was performed in the church (Solovetsky Library manuscript No. 1085, sheet 272; No. 1104, sheet 185 ver.), but sometimes St. Gifts for communion of the sick were also brought to the home. Communion in this case was performed according to a special rite, which is inscribed as follows: “The rite when it happens to go to a sick brother with ministerial gifts.” After the liturgy, the priest took the remaining gifts and went to the sick person’s house. A deacon walked ahead of him with a cross in his hands. The priest was followed by the clergy singing the 8th voice of the Theotokos. At the patient’s bedside, the Creed and the troparion were read: “Thy secret suppers,” after which the patient, having asked forgiveness from the abbot and those present, while singing the verse: “The Body of Christ,” received Holy Communion. Tain. After communion, “Now you let us go” was read, the Trisagion, Our Father, the troparion and kontakion of the holiday, the church, if the church was built in honor of Christ the Savior or the Mother of God. Otherwise, instead of the church troparion and kontakion, the troparia were read: “Have mercy on us, Lord,” Glory, “Lord have mercy on us,” and now, “The Doors of Mercy,” after which the usual dismissal was performed. The procession returned to the church in the same order, while singing the 6th voice of the Theotokos (Charter, - manuscript of the Moscow Synodal Library, No. 814, sheets 382, ​​ver. 383). These ranks are not found in the hitherto known liturgical monuments of the Greek and Serbian churches, but all the features of the first find justification for themselves in the full rites of confession in the Greek and Serbian liturgical monuments. Some of the prayers of the rite “How to give communion in battle” are the same as the prayers read before communion. The following instructions regarding communion, read in the acts of councils and letters of metropolitans, are known: Among the answers of the Patriarchal Council of Constantinople to the questions of Bishop Theognostus of Sarai, we find the following: “Question: If there is no bishop or priest at the death of a person, is it wrong to give Holy Communion to the deacon, or to sing over him, or to bless him Kolyvo? Answer: Is it wrong to give the Holy Communion, and to sing over him, and to bless him Kolyo.” In the teachings of Metropolitan Cyprian to the Novgorod and Pskov clergy, we read: “And to those who are murderers at death, give the sacrament, but even if they repent purely, they will tell all their sins purely; and how can one give the communion to someone who does not repent? - And to whom the spiritual father will not bless for his disobedience, but he lives for years, and does not know, does not repent, but will come to death, and even so he does not repent, it is not worthy to give him holy communion; raised for her own cause.” “And to your spiritual children who are worthy of receiving communion, if you want to give communion about the Great Day, or about the Nativity of Christ, or about Christmastide, as you see worthy, give it at mass. As the deacon says: “Approach with the fear of God and with faith,” then they would come to the royal doors, and receive communion before the royal doors, with their hands placed crosswise to their feathers, and would not touch the sovereign; Likewise, give communion to the wives without finishing the mass, but take communion at other doors that are opposite the altar; just scatter a sick person: go to the sick person and give him communion. But men would not come to Holy Communion wearing volots, but would take off their volots; and on anyone who needs an opashen or a fur coat, they would gird it” (Cf. I.D. Mansvetov, Metropolitan Cyprian in his liturgical activity, M. 1882, pp. 142–143). In answers to the questions of Abbot Athanasius, Metropolitan Cyprian writes among other things: “The rule is that it is worthy to be a monk to receive communion: with great attention and the fear of God, no thought should be left in your heart, no anger should be held against anyone, no confusion should be held in your thoughts; but having completely cleansed yourself in soul and body and having governed the rule set for yourself, with all attention, and thus to approach the holy mysteries. The same rule is worthy for the lay Orthodox priest and the lay priest; from eating and drinking to holy communion, unless it leads to death. - As for those who have an evil spirit, it is not right to give communion to them, as the holy rules tell us; The essence of these is that we suffer from such a disease on a new month, or twice a month; and for this reason, it is weak to give the holy and life-giving body of the Lord to such people: for they are evil spirits, possessed by an unclean spirit, a sin for the sake of certain people. - The monk should not receive communion from a lay priest, except as dictated by need; If he is at death’s door and there is no priest, then the lay priest should repent and give him communion. It is suitable for the monks of a priest to receive communion from a layman, but in repentance he should not have one, but an old man with many children should have his confessor. - And in the pre-sacred service, partake of the monk and the laity. “About holy communion you ask: during fasts, or during other fasts, should we always give them the sacrament, or not?” And be aware that even if someone is young or old, his life is pure and he lives in true obedience, and he fulfills his rule to the best of his ability, and he confesses his thoughts purely, and does not forbid anything from receiving communion often: for he is worthy, even if he is; and those who are not like that, but are possessed by some kind of laziness, or disobedience, or disobedience, or some other passion, the abbot controls such a person, as if he himself is to judge, and whether to give communion, or not to give, is against their dispensation. · When will it be time for them (the monk) to take communion, having otherwise read the prayers prescribed for holy communion to themselves and Having ruled, he then approaches the saint with communion.”... In the letter of Metropolitan Photius to Pskov we find the following instructions regarding communion: “And why do we, sons, write that if a person is born dumb, should we give him holy communion? a person, and also according to his previous life, and according to his repentance, judging according to his property, and give holy communion.” In the saint's teaching of the 16th century. Among other things, we read: “If any of your spiritual children partake of the Great Govein; but whoever lives illegally, such as a murderer, or a fornicator, or a thief, or a robber, do not give such communion; they will repent, but forbid, no matter what they do in advance; and they will not just stop doing those things, otherwise give such a person communion before the hour of death - But do not give communion to bigamists and triplets without drinking: the young bigamist is 2 years old, and the old one is 4 years old, and the young man is 4 years old, and the old one is 6 years old - Let them naturally go with the sacrament to the pain. baptize: neglect will not lead to pain, or the child will die unbaptized, otherwise give an answer to God, and penance to the priest for 3 years - Repent and give communion to the murdered person.” In the canonical question-answers, belonging to the unknown and dating no later than the 15th century, we encounter the following question-answers: 1) “Where should gifts be given to wives? At the royal doors, since she is worthy to eat the body of Christ and the honorable blood and is powerful to eat at the royal doors. 2) To whom should the third wife be given gifts (communion)? With drink.” great until 7 years, and so give. 3) And having been with his wife, and having days of weakness, will he be given gifts (communion)? Only the need is great, otherwise it will be the hour of death. And that priest, touching the honorable body of Christ, will bear it with drink. 5) On meat day, should you eat meat, but prepare it for yourself in all good ways? from drunkenness, one summer, Monday, Wednesday and heels are dry and eat, and without drinking. Anything that gets dirty goes into the water, and anything that falls on it goes into the water, and the place is cleaned up. 7) And taking the holy gifts, committing fornication, [what] is drunkenness? His spiritual father will look at his deeds and his peace and give according to his wealth. 8) If someone climbs the field and hasn’t killed him to death, should he be given gifts? And he will not be given holy communion until he is 5 years old; until then he will fulfill the feat with tears and alms and fasting, otherwise give. 9) Go to the village with gifts for pain, should you wear vestments, and should you put something on the vestments? There is no way to put anything on the robe. And keep the spare holy gifts in a hole in your bosom; and then, having also arrived there, put a criminal record on yourself. 10) And then if the priest loses the holy gifts, or eats a mouse, or otherwise, then there is no priesthood, but only in judgment there is a saint. 11) Should you give gifts to your little child? For the sake of need, he will be at the point of death, otherwise give. 12) If a man marries into a meat-eater, and during the great fast he is not ready to live purely, should he give gifts? If you don’t give it a year, the day will be filled with almsgiving and fasting. 13) A person is sick, his tongue is swollen, should he give gifts, but has not repented? At death, give gifts; and even if he is alive, and then torture him. 14) If a person does something wrong, should you give gifts? Even to death, date. 15) When you wash your priest, should you give the holy gifts? Great for the sake of need, otherwise. 16) And when they go into the field, they dress up, and should they give gifts? Don’t give up, because you have taken up arms against murder without permission. 17) Are you timid and unable to fast before lunch? Ino bread Bogoroditsin dati. 18) Will you give gifts to the little ones, but there will be something in the company, and the few will not eat? Even if you are near death, it will be different. 19) What about the one that the priest performed the wedding, and another priest gives him gifts? If anyone comes to repentance, he will give him holy communion, depending on his life. 20) What if someone prepares for Holy Communion and sees blood in his mouth? You can’t give holy communion to someone else”] 907 . (Damascene says that one should approach communion with folded hands. Perpétuité de la foi de l’Eglise Catholique sur l’Eucharistie par Nicole, Arnauld et caet. T. I, Paris, 1841, pag. 737. They took communion as if from their own hands - Albert Campensee, Library of Foreign Writers Kallistratov and Semenov p. 34 (Divine service. Campenze accepted the distribution of antidor for communion?). According to the Catholic, 1514, for lack of wine, Russians serve with apple juice. Monimenta Turgenevii t. I, p. 125 col. 2 (here in general about the Russian Eucharist). They ate Communion and washed it down with dear, Most Pure bread, prosphora, dill and kutya. 2 Sophia Chronicle, p. 270. About spare communion for those going to war, - Monimenta Turgenev t. I, p. 126 col. 1). The rites of the sacrament of repentance were more varied than the rites of all other sacraments, and very diverse, speaking in an unrelated manner. This depended on the fact that the rite of our sacrament was, so to speak, given over to the will of the confessors, and that in one rite the confessors treated it arbitrarily due to its unimportance, while in the other it was left to them by the very essence of the matter. The rite of the sacrament of repentance consists of three parts: from the prayerful introduction or “beginning” of the confession of the penitent’s sins to the priest, performed through questions to the first and last, and from the permission taught by the priest to the penitent. In relation to the first two parts, the rites present a very large variety. With the first part, the confessors allowed themselves to act more or less arbitrarily because - this or that number of prayers and this or that they themselves - by implication, more or less going to the point - this was not significant and was not of particular importance. The second part consists of a list of questions about sins with which the confessor must address the penitent: but this list can be compiled in a very different volume, and hence the very large variety of our part. The custom that was established in later times for a person not only to confess his sinfulness, but directly and by name - his sins (cfr I vol. 2 half, p. 385 fin/.446) and the custom that was established regarding the method of confession, so that not every repentant himself told the confessor his sins, which he had, but that he answered: yes or no to the prepared questions of his confessor, led to the fact that the lists of questions read in the later rites of confession, when used by confessors who were not particularly wise, they could cause positive harm. Lists of questions began to be compiled with such care and thoroughness that any sinner interrogated on them could not hide a single sin of his 908; but with this care and thoroughness they compiled (the Greek confessors - it must be understood) such a list of questions about the sins of carnal impurity that addressing the latter to everyone without distinction meant bringing to the attention of very many about something that they had never heard of before and which they had not previously imagined at all 909 . The third part of the rite of the sacrament of repentance, the priest’s absolution of the penitent from his sins, apparently should have been uniform. But there was no example of this permission, which would have been authorized by church authorities or belonged to a private person authoritative in the church, and therefore there was no uniformity here 910. (Our current resolution is not the same as the current Greek resolution, just as the entire rite of repentance is not the same as the Greek rite) 911. (Currently in Russia, every priest, parish or non-parish, eo ipso is also a spiritual father who has the right to receive confession. It was not so with us, following Greece, in ancient times; it is not so in Greece to this day; namely, in Greece, and after it with us, it was so that not every priest eo ipso could and had the right to be a confessor, but only those few of the number of priests who are deliberately the power to do this was entrusted by the bishops and who, by choice among them, were deliberately appointed by the bishops to be confessors. This rule of granting the power of confessor not to all priests, but only to the most capable, over time received in Greece an extremely strange application: priests capable of being confessors began to be found first predominantly, and then exclusively among monks, so that confessorship finally became the exclusive privilege of these latter, with the complete elimination of white or lay priests. In Russia, in the pre-Mongol period and for a long time after, just like in Greece, all priests were not confessors, but only some by election and special appointment. But we did not go to the extreme of having them be exclusively monks. When we adopted Christianity, we had no monks at all (with the exception of those relatively few who were sent from Greece), and, therefore, clergy, willy-nilly, had to be entrusted to white priests. Over time, monks came to us. But for a very long time they did not appear in such numbers that they could be sufficient for the exclusive correction of the position of confessors. Be that as it may, the news makes it clear that in our country, contrary to Greece (and to our complete praise in this case), it was not only monks who were confessors, but equally both monks and white priests. In the acts of the Vladimir Cathedral of 1274. it reads: “if anyone appears (from the bishops), cutting off the worldly priest at the bribe for the abbess” (Pavlov’s Monuments col. 89). Abbess in the proper sense obviously cannot be understood here. Among the Greeks and after them and among us, hieromonks who lived near parish churches as confessors were called abbots. It is clear that this is abbess here and it goes without saying that it is used in the general sense of confessorship and that the above words mean: if one of the bishops appoints a lay priest as a confessor for a fee. In the chronicles we directly find examples of princely confessors from white priests. – In some districts, the confessors were monks, in others - white priests. To which particular districts the former were predominantly or usually appointed, to which the latter, we have no information regarding this yet. The hieromonks who occupied the places of parish priests with us were called abbots. This name, which meant that the hieromonk had the right to be a spiritual father from the bishop, shows that initially only such hieromonks who had the right to be a spiritual father from the bishops were allowed to occupy the places of parish priests. But in later times, the places of parish priests were occupied by hieromonks who did not have the right of spiritual direction, and it was also the case that widowed priests were tonsured as monks in order to retain the priesthood, and then remained in their places. In Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich’s questions to the Stoglavy Council, it is indicated as a disorder that “the monks of the worldly churches live in the dust,” and, in all likelihood, this should mean precisely the monks who did not have the right to clergy. But in the definitions of the council we do not find any instructions about our monks. [After confession, a penance, large or small, was imposed on the penitent, depending on his guilt. Regarding serious sinners, in the liturgical practice of our church, the rules of strict ancient Christian church discipline were applied: excommunication from the church and from communion of the Holy Mysteries, etc. For ordinary sinners, penance consisted of fasting, prayer and bows. Instead of penance, the priest sometimes ordered the penitent to perform the canon, inscribed in our monuments “for penance”]. (For articles on confession in the collection of the 15th century, see Scientific Notes of the Academy of Sciences, book V, description of the collection of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, p. 5 fin.. A prayer service to our Lord Jesus Christ, and so on and so forth... all repentance to God himself, and not to man, - Lavra manuscript No. 789, sheet 104. See in The Travels of Hierodeacon Zosima, Sakharov's edition, page 36, about the icon of the Confessor of the Savior; Volokolamsk manuscript No. 365, sheet 187; Synodal manuscript No. 850, sheet 576 (all days. Beginning: They confess, Lord Jesus, etc.). 1) A word about repentance and confession. Beginning: I will receive mercy from the Father of our Lord Isa. Hs., who always awaits our salvation. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 541, sheet 231 ver. (indulgence in confession, sheet 238 fin.); Lavra Izmaragd No. 204, sheet 243. 2) About penances. Or to have someone else’s wife... Volokolamsk manuscript No. 560, sheet 66 (the homeless going to the Magi are the sins of that time). 3) Instruction - punishment by the priest about everything that is appropriate for children to teach their spirituality and give to them according to the commandment and rule of the holy fathers. Beginning: Behold, the holy fathers established the statute for the Christian race (and about fasting). Volokolamsk manuscript No. 558, sheet 284 ver. 4) Repentance and confession by the king and prince and all Orthodox Christians. Beginning: I will come to you as a person. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 517, sheet 1. 5) The teaching of repentance is Orthodox. It is fitting for a priest to be sensible and cunning of books (those who cannot read books should not have spiritual children, page 80, ver.). Volokolamsk manuscript No. 566, sheet 74 ver. 6) The commandments of the saints (penances; Russian customs and sins. Lavra Izmaragd No. 204, sheet 272. Beginning: Those who commit robbery from their birth). [For the confessor’s instruction to those confessing, see Monuments of A. S. Pavlov col. 119–126. In the answers of Metropolitan Cyprian to Abbot Athanasius, there is an instruction on the confession of the monk, - ibid. col. 246–249; here in general about confession – col. 259. In the messages of Metropolitan Photius on confession, - ibid. col. 409–410, 429–430. Instruction to the confessor on the acceptance of repentants, – ibid. col. 835–846. In the canonical question-answers, belonging to an unknown person and dating back no later than the 15th century, the question-answer reads: “it is pleasant to eat the priest of a brother, or sister, or mother-in-law, or father-in-law for the sake of repose (needs for the sake of acceptance). - And what about the question that someone has a son who is a spiritual priest? Otherwise, according to his repentance and according to the life of his priesthood, let there be (give?) punishment.” Ibid. col. 865 § 39, 870 § 75]. The sacrament of the priesthood in the proper sense of the word, according to the division of the latter into three degrees, is embraced by three orders: ordination to deacons, priests and bishops. But in an improper and broad sense, the following rites belong to it: on the one hand, to the lower church degrees - priests or sextons, singers - readers or sextons and subdeacons; on the other hand, into the church positions that we had: metropolitan, archpriest, protodeacon, abbot and archimandrite. The rites belonging to the sacrament of the priesthood constitute the circle of services exclusively of bishops. Consequently, they had to be written almost exclusively for bishops, as part of their bishops' service books. And therefore they should have survived to us only in a very limited number of lists, which in relation to the time we are considering is a real fact. Based on the very few surviving lists, it is impossible to decide how diverse or uniform the rites were. But reasoning and concluding a priori, it is necessary to think that they were distinguished by the least variety of all the services, both public and private worship. Among the Greek bishops, our rites, like other services, may have been more or less varied, for it could to some extent continue and remain with them from those times when each private church in the sense of an episcopate had its own ranks and sequences for all services. But with our rites, of course, it was the case that the bishops borrowed them from the metropolitans and took care to have them the same as the latter. Our diversity should have been primarily not identical in time, but consistent, namely, as time passed, under the influence of the Greeks, our rites in the bishop's service books should have changed, so that the bishops would assimilate them in a changed form. However, since at the time we are considering there was no positive obligation for the bishops to have our rites the same as the metropolitans: then the simultaneous differences in them that existed in Greece (among the Greek bishops) could partly pass on to us: some of our bishops from natural Russia had direct relations with Greece in order to borrow the differences, and mainly our bishops from The Greeks, who were with us almost all of our time. The oldest currently known lists of our rites go back to the 14th century. We do not know the rank of appointment as a cleric from the manuscripts of the 14th century. In the 15th century, this rite consisted of the following: the person being delivered was brought to the bishop and bowed his head, the bishop marked the head with the sign of the cross and read the prayer: “He has enlightened all creation with light,” then followed the exclamation: “For you are sanctified and glorified,” vesting the person being delivered in the “ordained robe” and dismissal 912. In the 16th century our order, somewhat supplemented in relation to the actions and the prayer part, was as follows: the delivered one was brought to the bishop for a blessing, he was taken to the royal doors to make three bows before them, and again he was brought to the bishop; the latter, bowing his head to him, blessed him and read the above prayer; after this, the person being delivered was dressed in a felonets and a litany was pronounced about him; After the litany there was a vacation, the newly ordained one gave the subdeacon a candle and a phelonion and stood before the saint 913. Those appointed to the position of cleric were not tonsured by the bishop; this, as we said above (p. 89), means that through his appointment he was not considered a clergyman in the proper sense of the word, but, remaining the same layman as before, only received through him the blessing from the bishop to serve in the church. At present, we do not appoint church servants in the sense of an old priest (and our current sexton is not an old sexton, as priests or servants were called, but there is an old sexton and a current sexton, who received the name sexton to most accurately indicate that he is a sexton - a sexton standing on the left choir), and therefore now we do not have the rank of appointment as a priest 914 . The rite of ordaining a reader and singer in the 14th century began directly with tonsure, and at each speech of the tonsured person, those present exclaimed: “Lord have mercy”; After this, the newly tonsured person was dressed in a short veil and brought to the bishop, who, placing his hand on his head, read the prayer: “Lord God Almighty, choose this servant of yours”; at the end of the prayer, the Apostle was given to the reader and, having read a little, he received “peace” from the bishop, and the psalter was given to the singer and he proclaimed the prokeimenon 915. In the XV and XVI centuries. The rite of appointment as reader and singer was as follows: upon bringing the appointed one, the bishop made an exclamation: “Blessed is our God,” and the reader: Trisagion and troparia according to Our Father: (to the apostles) “Pray the holy apostles...”, (John Chrysostom) “From your lips, like a radiant ray...”, (Basily to the Great) “Thy message went forth into the whole earth...”, (and to Gregory the Theologian) the Shepherd’s snot of your theology...”, Glory and Now, theotokos: “Through the prayers, Lord, of all saints and the Mother of God...”; after this, the bishop baptized the head of the person being delivered three times and tonsured him crosswise (three times), saying: “In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” and those present at each “naming” exclaimed: Amen; Having been tonsured by the bishop, the person being delivered was taken somewhere to a special place so that one of the clerics would tonsure his baldness (“even when a clergyman tonsures his baldness”) and again he was brought to the bishop; the last one put a veil on him, crossed his head with his hand three times and, laying his hand on the head, read the prayer: “Lord God Almighty...”; after the prayer, the reader was given the Apostle and he read a little 916, and the singer was given a psalter, and he sang a little from it and was dismissed for this 917. The order of ordination to subdeacon in the 15th century was as follows: 918. Before the start of the liturgy, the bishop, dressed in all liturgical clothes, stood either in front of the holy meal, which is in the deaconium (altar), or at the great royal doors, by which we should mean the western entrance doors to the church 919, and a protege was brought to him, dressed in a small phelonion; the bishop ordered to remove the phelonion from him, dress him in a surplice and gird him with a “belt”, crossed his head three times, laid his hand on his head and read the prayer: “Lord our God, who is one and the same with the Holy Spirit,” ending with the exclamation: “For Thine is the kingdom”; after this, the bishop placed an ubrus (towel) on the shoulder of the person being supplied and ordered him to take the washbasin and let himself wash, at which the person being supplied kissed his right hand, and while pouring the water he said three times: “Very faithful”; having received a blessing from the bishop, the one supplied with a laver in his hands went to the subdeacons and, standing at the door of the altar, remained there until the great exit, where he walked after all the priests and deacons; when the bishop exclaimed: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,” he set up the laver, went out to the middle of the church “in a circle” and sang three times: “How faithful are you”; when the bishop exclaimed: “The song of victory,” he sang the same thing three times (Holy, Holy? “Whenever the saint says: “The song of victory,” then sing the same three times.”) This ended if the one being appointed was not then ordained as a deacon; but if he was ordained, he stood at the royal doors, waiting for the appropriate time 920. In the 16th century we find the following differences in our rite compared to the 15th century: the one who was appointed, having been girded from the bishop with his belt, read the symbol of faith; after reading the prayer: “Lord God,” the bishop washed his hands with the words: “I will wash my innocent hands”; Having given the bishop to wash his hands, the newly consecrated one retired to the sacrificial distance, took the towel from his shoulders, put the washstand in place and stood between the subdeacons to serve the bishop; while singing: “Like the Cherubim,” before the great exit, with the exclamation: “How faithful,” he washed the hands of the bishop in front of the royal doors and carried the washing water throughout the church so that those present would anoint themselves with it 921. The rite of ordination or ordination to the diaconate, which remained almost without any changes during the 14th-16th centuries, was in our time the following. After the bishop exclaimed: “Let there be the mercies of the great God and our Savior,” and before saying to the deacon: “Having remembered all the saints,” the dedicatee was brought by the archdeacon and one of the deacons to the holy meal, and the bishop proclaimed according to the written charter, which was given to him by the book guardian 922: “Divine grace, which always heals the weak” (as in Academic Manuscript No. 187)..., with everyone shouting three times: “Lord have mercy”; After this, the initiate stood on his right knee (in the 16th century. he knelt before the exclamation: “Divine grace”), the bishop marked his head with a cross three times and, placing his hand on his head, read in a quiet voice, so that only the priests and deacons present could hear the prayer: “Lord our God, who in His providence sent down the Holy Spirit,” ending with the exclamation: “As is Thine.” there is a kingdom”; at the end of the prayer, the archdeacon, also in a quiet voice, so as to be heard only by the deacons and subdeacons, spoke a litany, to the petitions of which the latter (subdeacons) cried out: “Lord have mercy”; During the litany, the bishop, having his hand on the head of the dedicatee, read (quietly) the prayer: “God our Savior, who is the incorruptible voice of Ti,” and then placed an orarion on the dedicatee’s left shoulder, exclaiming loudly: “Axios,” which the priests repeated after him three times and the singers sang three times (in service books of the 14th century and then the 16th century, if our sources are not mistaken, there is no proclamation: axios, but in the 15th century. according to Academic Manuscript No. 187: “the saint entrusts the urar to the one placed on the left frame, saying in a loud voice: axion (sic), the priests say three times: axios, and the same singers sing three times”); the bishop gave the newly consecrated a ripid and the latter, having kissed his right hand and right cheek and having kissed all the deacons 923, stood at the side of the holy meal and “waved” the holy gifts; during divine communion, the newly ordained, before other deacons, received divine bread from the bishop and partook of holy blood; he spoke in the litany: “Forgive me, accept” 924. The rite of ordination to the priesthood, which remained unchanged during the XIV-XVI centuries as the previous one, was the following during the space of these centuries. After the end of the Cherubic song at the great exit, the ordained one was brought to the holy meal by the archpriest or other priest and bishop according to a written scroll, which was handed to him by the bookkeeper 925, after an exclamation from this latter or the archdeacon: “Let us hear,” he read loudly: “Divine grace,” to which all those present said three times: “Lord have mercy”; the one being ordained bowed both knees to the degree (of the throne), the bishop marked his head with a cross three times and, with his hand lying on his head, read the prayer: “God, without beginning and without end, who is the oldest of all creation,” with the exclamation: “For Thine is the kingdom”; after this, the archpriest or another priest spoke the litanies in a quiet voice, so that only the upcoming priests could hear; During the litany, the bishop, continuing to have his hand on the head of the dedicatee, read the prayer: “God, Great in power and unsearchable by reason”..., at the end of which he brought the back end of the orarion of the dedicatee to the front (on the right shoulder, making an epitrachelion out of it) and exclaimed: “Worthy,” which was repeated three times by the priests and deacons and the singers (sang) three times (in the 14th century there was no exclamation: “worthy”); after this, the bishop put (sic) a phelonion on the dedicatee and again exclaimed: “worthy”; after kissing the bishop and all the priests, the newly initiated became one of the last; after removing the air from the holy gifts, while singing: “Worthy and righteous,” the bishop gave the newly ordained divine bread 926, and he, kissing the saint’s hand, bowed his head over the holy meal, and put his forehead to the holy bread in his hands; when the bishop proclaimed: “Holy to Holies,” the newly ordained one gave him the holy bread and received communion from him - the bishop’s venerable body and venerable blood of Christ before other priests and gave the holy communion to other priests and deacons; at the end of the liturgy, he, the newly ordained one, read the prayer behind the pulpit 927. The order of ordination of bishops, known to us in the 15th and 16th centuries 928, remained completely unchanged during these two centuries. The ordination itself, in the proper sense of the word, was preceded by three rites, namely: the rite of the gospel, the rite of kissing and the rite of the small sign. The evangelization, that is, the notification of the chosen bishop about his election (the current “naming”) took place in the following way. The Metropolitan appointed some church other than his cathedral to perform the rite; those elected as bishops came to church, dressed in all priestly clothes and stood in the altar at the royal doors, facing the east; sent by the metropolitan to preach to the chosen one about his election, alone or with priests and deacons, entered the church and stopped; the chosen one, with the readers and singers who were in the church, performed a small prayer service: Blessed is our God, the Trisagion, our Father, for Thine is the kingdom, the troparion to the saint of the church, the daily and theotokos, and the usual prayer: God have mercy on us (which the chosen one himself spoke in the altar), For merciful and dismissal according to custom; after the singers sang many years to the prince (tsar) and metropolitan, the chosen one stepped out of the royal doors a little and stood with his hands cross-shaped to his chest under the phelonion and bowing his head a little; the messenger from the metropolitan, coming and standing at the place where the apostle was being read, said to him: “Our Most Reverend Lord and Master, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' named, and for him the divine and sacred collection calls for your shrine to the episcopacy of the God-saved city named”; the chosen one answered: “Because our most reverend lord and ruler, the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' is named, and the divine and sacred council judged about him and I am worthy to be in such service, I thank and accept and say nothing in spite of him”; After this, the chosen one “a little lower” bowed his head (before the messengers), returned to the altar and, taking off his vestments, left the church. The kissing took place either on the very day of the gospel or on another day, or generally as the Metropolitan ordered. The bishops who had gathered for the election gathered at the direction of the metropolitan, dressed in robes with springs, in a certain place - either in the church vestibule or in his - metropolitan's chamber. The metropolitan came or went out, also in a mantle with sources and, having a staff in his hand, and sat on his table, and the bishops sat on both sides of it according to their degrees. We were led to be the chosen bookkeeper or archdeacon and, standing in the middle between the seats of the bishops from the antechamber end, bowed to the ground to the metropolitan, then, having done little, made him another similar bow, and finally, approaching him, made a third similar bow to him; after that he kissed the metropolitan’s right knee, his right hand placed on his knee and his right cheek, and kissed the bishops on the lips, starting with the eldest; after this, retreating a little, he again made three prostrations to the metropolitan. During the kissing, a katsea or hand censer was prepared, and the deacon, having received a blessing from the metropolitan, censed the icon that was in the place of the meeting, his - the metropolitan and the bishops; During the censing, the singers sang: “The blessed name of the Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus' is many years old.” This ended the kissing. Both the gospel and the kissing, as noted in the rite, were performed before the liturgy, at 2 o’clock in the afternoon or, in our opinion, at 8 o’clock. The Little Sign took place on the very day of dedication before the liturgy (as it still does now, without currently bearing a special name from the dedication). In the cathedral metropolitan church, opposite the western entrance doors to it, behind the pulpit (of the old shape and standing in the old place, as see above), there was a shoal 929 or a platform of three steps, which was covered with carpets and on which were placed - in the middle the metropolitan throne with a service headboard, and on the right side - the princely capital; benches for bishops were placed in front of the riser or platform on the sides; Somewhat in front of the benches, opposite the pulpit, on the church floor was depicted a single-headed eagle, with outstretched wings, standing “right” on its feet, with a city under its feet with visors and pillars 930 - so that someone would not step on the eagle, guardians were assigned to it 931. The Metropolitan solemnly came from his cell to the church 932 and sat down on his throne, after which they began to ring the bells for the liturgy; priests and deacons, having taken a blessing from the metropolitan for their attire, the first went to the altar for this, and the second got dressed at the very platform; the bishops, who had already gathered in the altar, put on white phelonions without omophorions over their robes; The Metropolitan dressed himself in all his holy clothes, standing on an eagle at his throne, while the singers sang “a certain verse.” According to his attire, the Metropolitan sat on his throne while the singers sang: “Ipolla eti, despota,” sent to the altar for the bishops, who came out, walking in pairs, and sat down in their places, and then sent the archdeacon with other deacons for the betrothed, who sat in the altar, dressed in all priestly robes. Having brought the betrothed out of the altar and placing him near the eagle, they handed him a confession of faith written on sheets of paper, and he, bowing a little to the metropolitan, read this confession, previously signed by him, in the hearing of everyone 933. At the end of the betrothed’s reading, the bookkeeper took off his hood “from the rear” and exclaimed in a great voice: “Let us take notice”: the Metropolitan, standing up and holding out his hand as if for a blessing (“like a sign”), said in a loud voice: “The grace of the Most Holy Spirit, through our humility, has you as the bishop of the God-saved city named after”; after this, exactly the same kissing as the above separate one took place. At the end of the kissing, the betrothed stood between the bishops, facing the metropolitan and bowed a little, and the metropolitan stood up and signified him with the sign of the cross, saying: “May the grace of the Most Holy Spirit be with you.” Having bowed to the ground to the metropolitan, the beneficiary, preceded by two deacons, went to the altar and was placed in one of the altar porches on the right side, where he stood until the time of dedication, reading to himself, after the liturgy began, the liturgical prayers, even before the entrance prayer. The initiation or ordination itself was performed as follows. At the end of the small entrance, when the metropolitan and the bishops entered the altar, the archdeacon or generally the senior deacon with the other two deacons followed the betrothed and brought him to the royal doors of the altar. At the end of the Trisagion Song, the Metropolitan stood on the lower step of the throne locker (pedestal, stand) on the front side of the throne; to him we bring was supplied by two bishops; The metropolitan took the scripture from the bookkeeper or the archdeacon and, with the exclamation of the one who gave it: “Let us take heed,” he read from the scripture in the hearing of everyone: “The judgment and temptation of the God-loving bishop; Divine grace, which is always weak and healing...”, which reading ended with everyone shouting three times: “Lord have mercy.” After this, the metropolitan unfolded the gospel, placed it on the head and neck of the swearing-in bishop, made three crosses on his head and, with his hand resting on the latter, read the prayer: “O Lord our God, who laid down the law for us by the all-praised Apostle Paul.”... At the “Amina” of the prayer, one of the bishops spoke quietly, so that only the bishops could hear the litany: “Let us pray to the Lord in peace,” to which petitions they “answered” with the appeals: “Lord have mercy,” they are bishops. At the end of the litany, the Metropolitan, with his hand on the head of the one being delivered, read the prayer: “Lord our God, for the weakness of human nature to bear the Divinity.”... At the exclamation: “For it is Yours to be merciful”..., the Metropolitan took the gospel and placed it on the throne, placed an omophorion on the person being delivered and proclaimed: “worthy,” and all those present (“all those coming”) sang this proclamation three times. This was followed by a kiss to the newly installed one from the metropolitan and from the other bishops. During the “ordinary commemoration,” when the metropolitan and bishops ascended to the seat, the newly installed one sat on the right side of the metropolitan above all other bishops; he said: “peace to all” on the Apostle, and he, before all other bishops, partook of the Body and Blood of Christ, giving them to others. After the ordination, two rites took place - the so-called table (ἐνθρονισμός) and a new kissing. The table service took place on the very day of ordination, immediately after the liturgy. The metropolitan and the serving bishops were undressed, but the newly ordained one remained in liturgical robes; the metropolitan sacristies placed the metropolitan’s chair in front of the doors of the altar (in the church itself) and covered it with a curtain from the metropolitan’s seat on which he, the metropolitan, stood (in the church: “and they cover the table with a curtain, right next to the place where the metropolitan stands”); the archpriest and other “clergy priests with him” brought the newly ordained one and sat him down on a chair, and immediately the archpriest and another priest from among the elders took him under their bosoms - the archpriest on the right side, the priest on the left - and lifted him up 934 with the exclamation: “Ispolla eti, what a despot the seating and raising were done three times; after this, the newly installed one moved away from the chair a little and while the singers sang: “The name of the holy bishop of the God-saved city is named for many years,” the priests undressed him, and the metropolitan cell attendant laid a small robe on him (“remantling”) with sources, an icon (neck) and (large) mantle with sources; Having then been brought to the metropolitan and bishops, the newly installed one went with them to the meal 935. The new kissing took place not on the very day of the installation, but on one of the next ones, which the Metropolitan would appoint, and took place after Matins, at the second (at that time) hour of the day. Its ritual was the same as the kissing that preceded the installation of 936. [In the past, newly installed bishops, when arriving in their dioceses, were greeted much more solemnly than now; The liturgical part of the meeting was much more complex and can be considered as some kind of special church rite. “Whenever,” we read in a 16th-century manuscript, “the saint wants to enter the city, the entire priestly rank with holy icons and honorable crosses will tear it down from within.” The bishop dresses “in all holy clothes” and, having begun a prayer service, goes to the city. In front of the city gates, he reads the Gospel, and after the litany, a special prayer, “when you first enter the city,” signs the cross, sprinkles St. water and then goes to the cathedral church, where at the end of the prayer service he performs the liturgy. After it, the bishop must “go to the city from the cross and go around the entire city along the wall, and over the gates he must speak in all sorts of octenations about preserving the city and sprinkling it with holy water” 937. From the half of the 15th century. in the Russian Church a special rite of consecration to the metropolitan appeared. Before being named to this rank, he lived in his own courtyard. On the day of the naming, a prayer service was served to the Mother of God and Peter the Wonderworker, after which the two archimandrites went to fetch the newly elected metropolitan. Upon the arrival of the latter, everyone went to the king, who met the chosen one with due honor, sat him down and gave him a speech about prayer. From the tsar, everyone went to the Assumption Cathedral, where the newly elected one venerated the icon of the Mother of God and the relics of the wonderworkers Peter and Jonah. From the church they moved to the White Chamber, in which the newly elected one was introduced to the metropolitan seat and his many years were pronounced. The Tsar came here to greet the new Metropolitan. After the tsar left, everyone from the White Chamber went to the cathedral church to listen to the liturgy, and the newly elected one stood in the metropolitan place. After the liturgy, everyone dined with the newly elected metropolitan. A day or two after this, the gospel was carried out. The very rite of installation as a metropolitan was no different from the rite of installation as a bishop. The liturgy was celebrated by the new metropolitan. At the cry: “First, remember, Lord,” the archbishop remembered the name of the new metropolitan. Throughout the liturgy, until the exclamation: “With the fear of God,” the archbishop’s staff and lamp were held before the royal doors, and after that they were replaced by the metropolitan’s staff and lamp. After the liturgy, the newly ordained was elevated to the metropolitan seat by the archbishops and bishops. Here the metropolitan took off his sacred clothes, and the archbishops and bishops placed on him a “golden gate icon,” robes with springs and a white hood on his head, and then, taking him by the arms, led him to the stone holy place. The king made a speech before the new metropolitan and gave him a staff. Princes, bishops and boyars nominated the new metropolitan for many years, who then gave a speech in response to the tsar. After this speech, many years were pronounced for the king. – After the dedication, dinner was prepared by the king. On this day, the Metropolitan rode with a visual cross in his hands around the city on a donkey, which was driven by the royal boyar and the metropolitan boyar. Ahead of the metropolitan walked 4 “firemen” with palm trees, behind them were the royal clerks, metropolitan singers singing stichera and, finally, “underlings” to drive away the people. (For the order of naming and installation of Metropolitan Dionysius, see the Collection of State Charters, vol. II, 69). The appointment as a confessor consisted of reading “a letter to be given to the monk when they appoint him as a spiritual father”: “Our humility for the sake of his letter blesses him, the most honest of the holy monks, imrek, as a spiritual father.” The rite of elevation to protodeacon was performed by the saint “in all the rank of hierarchs” and consisted of the prayer: “God is kind to the King of heaven,” and a litany for those elevated to this rank. The rite of ordination to the archpriest consisted of reading a “letter” on the archpriest, a litany for those elevated to this rank and “the words of the hierarchical science to the archpriest”: “To the son and servant of our humility, he was named. By the grace of the Holy Spirit given to us, they made you archpriest” 938 . The rite performed for the work of the abbot was performed by the saint. After the person elevated to this rank approached the saint, the deacon exclaimed: “Let us pray to the Lord,” and the saint, having blessed the head of the person appointed three times, read the prayer: “God, who has always created a providence for human salvation, who has gathered this verbal flock together together.” The deacon said: “Your heads,” and the bishop: “Peace to all,” and read another prayer: “Incline, O Lord, Thy ear, hear our prayer.” Then the monastic mania was removed from the supplied one and the hegumen's mantle was put on, all the priests present kissed him and the dismissal took place. The rite of ordination to archimandrite took place before the start of the liturgy. The one supplied was brought by his brethren. The deacon exclaimed: “Bless the Master,” the priest, “Blessed is our God,” and the troparia and psalm were read: “Lord, hear my prayer,” after which the deacon pronounced the great litany. At the cry of the bishop, they sang “God is the Lord” in the 8th tone and the troparion: “Blessed are you, Christ our God,” and then the 50th psalm was read and they began to sing the canon of Pentecost. At the end of the canon, the luminary of the Trinity was read: “All-Holy Soul, proceed from the Father and the Son for the sake of coming.” The deacon brought the appointed one to the saint, on whom he laid his hand and read the prayer: “I have always been concerned about human salvation and gathered this flock of words into one,” and, after bowing, the second prayer: “Incline, O Lord, Thy ear and hear our prayers.” Then the saint, having blessed the person being delivered, gave him a club, and the person being delivered kissed the hand of the saint. In conclusion, the brethren kissed the newly ordained one, while singing troparions: “The apostles are bound in a bond of love, having given over the creation to themselves to Christ” and “Today the grace of God of the Holy Spirit has gathered us together” and the dismissal was said: “Who in the vision of the fiery tongue.” The rite of appointing an iconomer, cellarer, sexton, treasurer, merchant and settler was performed by the abbot or priest. According to some monuments, installation in these positions, in accordance with the practice of the ancient Serbian church, consisted of receiving from the hands of the abbot the keys that were on the throne, reading the prayer: “Brother Father, name, behold from the hand of Christ and from the throne of His glory” and the litany for the one being supplied. According to other monuments, the one delivered during the reading of the hours is presented in a church icon, before which he makes three bows, and then a bow to the abbot and the brethren. The hegumen places the keys in a shroud to the icon and, having exclaimed: “Peace to all. Bow your heads to the Lord,” reads the prayer on the head of the person being delivered: “Lord our God, who gave the grace of the Holy Spirit by choosing You by the name of You,” handing the keys to the person being delivered: “Take these keys and keep them with fear,” and in conclusion: “Brother, Named, this is from the hand of the Lord and from the throne of His glory” 939. The rite of installation as an ecclesiarch consisted of reading only one prayer: “Lord our God, whoever gives to everyone needs and builds far and wide, accept your servant, named, to serve your holy church.” (Rights of ordination to church degrees, - Synodal manuscript No. 331, p. 770; Synodal Macarius Chet-Minea No. 183, Augusta, sheets 711–719 and 721). (Women serve the all-night vigil in Greece in the 9th century, - Homily on the transfer of the relics of St. Clement, MDA manuscript No. 91, sheet 682; Volokolamsk manuscript No. 593, sheet 444. Anthony of Novgorod has the myrrh-bearer in St. Sophia). [On the myrrh-bearers and deaconesses in the Eastern Church, see A. A. Dmitrievsky, Divine Services of Holy and Paschal Weeks in St. Jerusalem IX-X centuries, Kazan 1894, pp. 403–406 and 415]. The installation of a bishop among the Greeks (according to Simeon of Thessalonica De sacris ordinationibus in Patrology of Minya t. 155, p. 396 fin. sqq. 1. Election (ί εροὶ ψήφοι). The Patriarch gathers as many bishops under him as possible, but no less than three. The bishops, in the absence of the patriarch, but in the presence of his hartophylax, make elections (Ritual: they gather in some church designated by the patriarch; three candles are lit in front of the image of Christ; the eldest of the bishops puts on an stole, says: Blessed is our God, the Trisagion is sung by all, the Our Father and other other prayers are read, namely: Blessed art thou, Christ our God, Who is among the disciples, Intercession, Lord, of all the saints and the Mother of God, then the litany, in which the Tsar and the Patriarch, the priesthood and the brotherhood of bishops are commemorated, and the vacation. Then they sit not on chairs, but on some small chairs (benches); in the middle, higher, the Chartophylax, who, in order, starting with the eldest, asks the opinion of the bishops (whom He would consider worthy of the bishopric). worthy to be a bishop, is recorded by the chartophylax or his ipomnimatograph. Three candidates are elected. At the end of the elections, the bishops send them (the elections) to the patriarch through the chartophylax. The patriarch chooses from the three one whom he wants. 2. Announcement (μήνυμα). On the appointed day, all people of every rank gather (in church). The Chosen One stands at the altar. All the lamps are lit and “Blessed be our God”, the Trisagion, the Lord’s Prayer and other decent prayers and sanctifying prayer. After the vacation, the chosen one stood at the door of the altar; in the middle of the church, looking at it, stand the lamp-bearers sent by the patriarch, who say the sacred proclamation (τὰ τοῦ ί εροῦ μηνύματος): “the most holy archbishop and the divine council located with him call your shrine to the bishop of such and such a holy churches." The chosen one responds as appropriate and thanks God, the archbishop and the council and prays to administer what has been handed over. 3. Dedication (χειροτονία). On the appointed day, before the liturgy, a place is provided (ἀναβάθρα), on which the patriarch sits on a chair, with bishops sitting on chairs all around. The singers and other clerics come and become. The chosen one, preceded by the clergy and the chartophylax, comes and, having passed through three rivers (signifying the grace of teaching), stands on the depicted city, signifying his bishopric, on which (the city) at the top is depicted an eagle (signifying pure, right and strong theology), having radiance (φεγγεῖον, meaning theology and grace). Standing on the city, he says his inscription (i.e. announces his name), vouching for the reliability of what is to be said (στὰς ἐπὶ τῆς πόλεως, ἐπιγραφὴν λέγει ἑαυτοῦ, τὸ ἀσφαλὲς δηλῶν περὶ τῶν μελλόντων ρηθῆναι ). Then he reads the Symbol and other confessions of the Orthodox Fathers, and that he did not give anything to obtain the episcopacy and that he will purely and impeccably rule the flock. Then your signature confirming what was said. After this he steps on the eagle. Chartophylax exposes him and bows his head and, holding his chest, exclaims: “Command”; The patriarch and bishops stand up and the first, placing his hand on the chosen one, says: “The grace of the All-Holy Spirit, through our measure, will guarantee you to be such and such a bishop or metropolitan,” and so on, blesses (to create the cross). The singers sing: εἰς πολλά ἔτη; the chosen one ascends to the patriarch, who sits down in his place, and, kneeling, kisses his hand and cheek, then kisses all the bishops on the mouth and, standing again on the eagle, bows his head. Chartophylax exclaims: “Command,” the patriarch and bishops rise; the first, holding out his hand: “May the grace of the All-Holy Spirit be with you,” blesses the vacation. The person ordained in the diakonica puts on priestly vestments and epigonation. During the Trisagion, he is led out of the diaconium preceded by the deacons and, held by two priests, brought to the altar and brought before the doors. He is led into the altar by two bishops and circled around the throne three times, singing: “Glory to Thee, Christ God, praise to the apostles, joy to the martyrs.” He is brought before the patriarch, standing on the step of the throne (where the overshadowing of the trikirium is), kneels down and rests his face on the meal. All the bishops surround the dedicatee and touch him, consecrating him with the patriarch. The Patriarch places his hand on the head of the dedicatee (I, 413 fin.) and a feather is brought, which means a dove for the Holy Spirit, and proclaims what is written in it: “Divine grace”, etc., sung Lord have mercy. Immediately after this, the Gospel is revealed and placed on the head and on the neck (neck) of the dedicatee with letters to the head; the patriarch at this time reads the first prayer, that the Master and Lord is our God, who set forth the first apostle in the church, and so on. Having read, he proclaims: For sanctified is your name, glorified is your kingdom, and having exclaimed, he sings the Trinity (Trisagion?). Then the first of the bishops speaks petitions for peace from above and the salvation of all, etc.; everyone present in the church: “Lord have mercy.” The Patriarch, having his hand placed on the dedicatee, after the petitions reads the second prayer: Lord God, this is not powerful for human nature. At the end of the prayer, he proclaims and praises the power and mercy of the one who became incarnate for us and blesses the dedicatee. St. is taken the gospel and is placed on the throne. After this, he decorates the dedicatee with an omophorion, blesses him, gives him a kiss and places it on the neck, exclaiming: Ἄ ξιος. This is sung three times at the altar and in the church. After this, the patriarch kisses the initiate three times, and he kisses the saint. the meal and the patriarch's hand and cheek, kisses the bishops on the lips. At communion, the newly ordained first receives communion from the patriarch and distributes the antidoron to the people. 4. Table setting (ἐνθρονισμός). In former times, says Simeon of Thessaloniki, each bishop was appointed in his diocese, for which all the bishops of the region gathered, and the ceremony was performed magnificently. But now, due to barbarian raids, this has ceased and the bishops will sit in Constantinople. The patriarchal throne is prepared, episcopal officials with lamps and the people are present, the priest reads the prayer and the Trisagion and the consecrated table is read by the first and second priests and seated by them three times with the exclamation: Ἄ ξιος. Then, to him who sits, many years are given to the king, the patriarch, and the newly installed one himself. On this day he blesses everyone freely, as the bishop of the city. Receives a mantle with sources and encolpius. After the meal (p. 429 fin.), everyone mounts a horse, rides around the city, and blesses everyone, consecrating the city with a blessing. The newly initiated goes to the king to pray for him and bless him (p. 429 fin.). 1. Election. The Tsar convenes a council of bishops. The election takes place in the Church of St. Apostles; Chartophylax is present with the bishops. Three candidates are elected, whose names are presented to the king by Chartophylax. Of the three, the king chooses one whom he wants. 2. Announcement. After the election and announcement, which for the most part is done personally by the king, the announcement is made in the presence of the entire clergy and many people - as a bishop. Those representing the person of the king make a proclamation, saying: Our sovereign and holy autocrat and king and the divine and sacred and great council call on your shrine, etc. 3. Πρόβλησις, promotio (p. 441). The chosen one goes to the king; the king, before he sees him, sends robes with springs and encolpias; when he appears to the king, the king hands him the staff. From the tsar the patriarch rides on a decorated horse, which is led to the patriarchate by a committee instead of the tsar. Returning to the Patriarchate, he enters the church, puts on the stole and omophorion, censes, kisses the Gospel and St. meal, Blessed be our God, Trisagion, litany, prayer of diligent supplication, For He is merciful and vacation. 4. Dedication. If the chosen one is already a bishop, then there is no consecration, but after the announcement (μήνυμα, promotio) and direct seating (ἐνθρονισμός). If not the bishop, then in the following way. The initiate comes to the altar and bows to St. meal and kisses her, on the steps of St. the co-throne is bowed three times to the east and dressed in all sacred clothes (surplice with sources, epitrachelion, belt, epigonation, armlets and sakkos) with the exception of the omophorion. The bishops stand in the same robes. The initiate, after dressing, reads the confession of faith, etc., in the altar before the bishops (as a bishop). After confession, the bishops, having accepted the blessing from the dedicatee, go out to church, get dressed, and the liturgy begins. When the bishops ascend to the altar with a small entrance, candles are distributed to them, the first two bishops take the dedicatee and go around the throne three times, singing “Holy Martyrs” and worship the holy meal three times. Then the Heraclian or (if he is not there) the elder ascends to the level of St. throne and acts as in the consecration of a bishop. After placing the omophorion on the dedicatee, the dedicator descends from the throne step, the dedicate ascends to it, and the dedicator kisses the saint. the table and the hand and cheek or mouth of the initiate, as well as all the bishops; then everyone goes to St. co-altar and there is a table (ἐνθρονισμός), it is the one dedicated by the first two bishops who is taken and seated three times on the co-altar while singing inside the altar and outside Ἄ ξιος. After this, many years (φήμη) of the king and patriarch. Then the apostle, gospel, and so on (the liturgy is performed by the patriarch himself). The rite of the sacrament of marriage, consisting of two parts - the rite of betrothal and the rite of wedding, in the 14th century differed quite significantly from the present. The rite of betrothal had the following features: the groom was given a gold ring, and the bride an iron one, and they themselves exchanged them, without saying the words: “the servant of God is engaged...”, “the servant of God is engaged”; there was no prayer: “Lord our God, who descended to the youth of Patriarch Abraham” and no special litany; the prayer (prayerful appeal): “Lord our God, the Church has been given before His tongue” was read either at the beginning of the sequence or at the end; the prayer was read: “We call on You, Master, Lord Almighty” 940. There were the following differences in the wedding rite: when singing the psalm: “Blessed are all who fear the Lord,” there was no chorus: “Glory to Thee, our God, glory to Thee”; there were no questions to the bride and groom about voluntary marriage; of three prayers: “Most pure God..., Blessed art thou, Lord..., Holy God”..., sometimes only the last one was read; when laying crowns, the priest either said only: “Lord our God, crown him (her) with glory and honor,” or at the same time uttered the words: “Lord our God, crowned him with glory and honor and placed Your hand over the work,” and then “according to the psalm,” and immediately after this he read the prayer: “Lord our God, who is the glory and honor.” You have crowned your holy martyrs”; there were no readings from the apostle and the gospel, but immediately after the laying of the crowns, the priest had to read the prayer that is currently read after the gospel: “Lord our God, in your saving sight”; according to “Our Father,” the priest took the chalice and gave communion to the newlyweds with presanctified gifts (at the same time the deacon said: “let us take a breath,” the priest: “holy to holies,” and the singers sang: “I will receive the cup of salvation”); after communion, the priest taught the couple a common cup, saying over it the same prayer that is read today, and the flask that served as the cup was lamented; after the common cup, the wedding ended in two ways: either the troparia were sung: “Holy Martyrs” and “Glory to Thee, Christ God,” with a three-time circle around the leopard, and instead of a blessing: “Father, Son and Holy.” Spirit,” the priest pronounced greetings and instructions to the newlyweds, beginning with the words of the Apostle Paul: “Brothers, rejoice in the Lord always,” or there was no singing of troparions with three circling around the lectern, but immediately after sharing the common cup, the priest led the newlyweds “to the lavica” (bench, bench), three times with the singing of verses he proclaimed: “Lord, Lord, look down from heaven and visit the sons of men,” and, sitting on the bench, he read the prayer laid down for the permission of crowns). In the 15th century, the edition of the rite of the sacrament of marriage that we have now transmitted remained (with the only new feature that it is necessary to bless the betrothed three times with burning candles), but two other more extensive editions also appeared. One of these latest editions introduces the following features. In the rite of betrothal: the priest, blessing the groom, and then the bride, said: “Bless, Lord, this servant of your name (your servant) and sanctify him (her) with Your Holy Spirit, who has deigned to marry his wife (her husband) named in this honorable and holy marriage, according to the establishment of Your law, Holy Lord,” and blessing both he said: “a union of love and piety of peace”; after this, after the usual beginning and the usual initial prayers, they read: the troparion of the day, Lord have mercy 12 times, Come, let us worship three times and Psalm 50; behind it: the Great Litany with two petitions for the betrothed, the Apostle and the Gospel, read in the current sequence of the wedding, prayers: “Eternal God, who has gathered those who are scattered into unity” and “Lord, the Lord, most loving of mankind, who has strengthened the prophetic voice”; after this followed the betrothal itself without the currently spoken words, the present prayer for bowing down and dismissal. In the wedding rite: after singing Psalm 122 without chorus, the priest placed crowns on the lectern and read the troparion and kontakion to Saints Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine and Helen; after the great litany followed the prokeimenon: “The Lord will hear you in the day of sorrow” and a reading from the book of Genesis: “He called Adam the names of all the livestock of the earth...”, the second prokeimenon: “Thou hast crowned them with glory and honor,” the apostle from the Epistle to the Ephesians: “Brethren, men love their wives” (Eph. 5:25–33), the current gospel and the current prayers, only the latter in a different order than now; the prayers were followed by the laying of crowns on the newlyweds with a separate blessing of one and the other and then a general blessing of both, at which the priest pronounced the same words that he is instructed to pronounce in the short version of the rite; after this, the priest placed the wife’s right hand in the husband’s right hand and the choir sang: “Thou hast placed crowns on their heads”; the priest exclaimed: “Peace to all” and read the prayer: “Lord our God in Your saving vision”; after the prayer the exclamation: “And grant us, O Lord,” Our Father, the usual communion of those who are married with presanctified gifts, their communion from a common chalice with a preliminary reading of the usual prayer over the chalice and circumambulation around the lectern, during which the troparia were sung: “Holy Martyrs...”, “Glory to Thee, Christ God” and again “Holy martyrs”; after walking around the lectern: a special litany, at which, among other things, the godfather (friend) was remembered, the exhortation: “Brothers, rejoice always in the Lord” and dismissal; The wedding ceremony ended with the priest, turning the newlyweds with their “right country” to the west, reading two prayers for the removal of their crowns: “God, our God, who came to Cana of Galilee”... and “Lord our God, who crowned His saints with glory and honor, the apostles and martyrs,” and taught (read from the book) instructions to the newlyweds. The other or second extensive edition is an extension of the first extensive edition now set forth. The priest, having brought the bride and groom to the middle of the church and having shown them and all those present, blessed one and the other with the words: “Bless, Lord, your servant named by Your Holy Spirit” and read the troparion and kontakion to the saints Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine and Helen; The order of reading prayers after the special litany and reading from the book of Genesis are the same as in the previous edition, the apostle from the letter to the Ephesians (Eph. 5:20–33); after the Gospel - a special litany and immediately after it the laying of crowns: the priest entered inside the altar and, taking the crown (first one, then the other), brought it out and exclaimed: “Let us pray to the Lord,” then, marking the head with the crown three times in the shape of a cross (the first - the husband, the second - the wife), he sang the verse twice: “Lord, by Thy power the king will rejoice”..., and, placing the crown on the head (of the husband or wife), he read the prayer: “Lord our God, who has crowned your holy martyrs with glory and honor”...; after laying the crowns, the priest blessed both spouses with the words: “Lord our God, you have crowned them with glory and honor,” while the singers sang: “You have placed crowns on their heads”...; this was immediately followed by the prayer: “Lord our God, in Thy saving sight,” the exclamation: “And grant us, O Master,” the Our Father and the usual communion of the Body and Blood of Christ and from the common cup; this was followed by walking around the lectern with the singing of the same troparions as in the previous edition; after the circumambulation: litany of petition, prayer: “Lord our God, we pray to Thee, look upon Thy servants,” an intense litany and exhortation: “Brothers, rejoice always in the Lord”; at the permission of the crowns, the priest read to the newlyweds, facing the “gum country” to the west, the same prayers as in the previous edition; After prayers, the priest is supposed to give a few instructions and dismissal 941. In the missals of the 16th century, before the rite of the sacrament of marriage, there were several prayers that the priest had to read at the home of the bride and groom before they went to church, these are: a prayer for the groom to follow the bride, a prayer over the bride’s ports, a prayer to dress the head of the bride, a prayer to lead the bride to church. Upon arrival at the church, the bride and groom first stopped in the vestibule, where the priest read them a prayer (against any magic?) and burned incense on them. The very rites of marriage in our missal books are lengthy editions of the previous 15th century, and according to some of their lists, an everyday custom is introduced into the rites: after reading the prayer of permission, “the priest commands - it is read in the lists - the wedding (posazhonoy) mother to shower them (the newlyweds) with hops and rye” 942. In our breviaries of the 15th century there is a rite for the wedding of a second-marriage (and a third-marriage?), and in the breviary of the 15th century there are separate rites of a second-marriage - or a third-marriage to a first-marriage and vice versa, and a second-to-third-marriage to the same second-to-third marriage. The ranks represent sufficient diversity in the lists. The breviaries of the 15th century do not speak of placing crowns on the heads of the newlyweds or giving them presanctified gifts; and in the missals of the 16th century, it is prescribed to place crowns not on their heads, but on their right shoulders, and then also to drink from a common cup not only for them (those who are getting married), but “for all that exist” 943. The Council of the Hundred Heads, probably prompted by the uncertainty that existed regarding our ranks until then, made a decree in its acts regarding the first of them and outlined the succession of the second. We will present this decree and mark as establishing the succession of our ranks in an official manner. Concerning the wedding of a widower with a maiden or a young man with a widow, the cathedral prescribes: “Those who have come to the church after the litorgy will stand in place before the holy doors, and the priest will be given full rank: Blessed is our God, the same is true for the wedding, (and) first names the first-married and then the big-married, or is it male or female? (i.e., whether the first-married man or woman), and at the end of everything he says a prayer for the bigamist; The order outlined by the cathedral “as befits the blessing and union of the male and female sexes, both of whom are in widowhood,” is the following: “The bigamist and, according to need, the trigamist will be brought into the church, and the priest will put on himself a patrahel and a phelonion, the same verb: Blessed is our God, the same: Holy God three times, Glory and Now, Most Holy Trinity, Lord have mercy three times, Glory and Now, Our Father; priest: For Thine is the kingdom, the same: troparion and kontakion of the day, Glory and Now, theotokos, deacon: Let us pray to the Lord, the priest says the prayer: Lord our God, who called Abraham a friend”... (The prayer is given in full); The apostle conceived on Wednesday of the 17th week 231 to Ephesus: Brothers and men, love your wives..., and according to this litany: God, have mercy on us; also leave” 945. In the acts of the councils and the letters of the metropolitans we find the following instructions regarding the sacrament of marriage and the following denunciations of the abuses that took place in relation to it. In the acts of the Vladimir Cathedral of 1274. Metropolitan Kirill instructs: “without communion, let no one be crowned,” and then he denounces the remaining pagan custom: “behold, I hear, within the borders of Novgorod (about the Novgorod borders of the actions of the council of 1274. cfr above [the first half of the volume] pp. [76–77] the brides are led to the water: and now we do not command him to be like that; If this happens, then we command to curse” 946. Metropolitan Maxim, in his so-called Rule, addresses Russian Christians with an exhortation so that they do not enter into marriages without a church wedding: “I am writing to you, my children, and may all my children, born in the font of the new priest, tremble the wives of the holy congregation and apostolic church, for the sake of the wife of salvation for the sake of mankind; fornication, without the blessing of the church, what help do you have? But pray to them and nurt them (it should mean: you, priest), whether they are old or young, let them get married in the church” 947. In Metropolitan Photius, in his letters to Novgorod and Pskov and in his district teaching to priests, we find: firstly, an instruction regarding the time of day and place of marriages; secondly, denunciations against abuses, namely: against the priests blessing a third marriage without special need and against their blessing of a fourth marriage; against unauthorized divorce; against entering into marriage without a church wedding and against quintuplets and polygamy; third, answers to questions about some special marriages. Regarding the time of day and place of marriage, Photius prescribes: “and if you (priests) perform a wedding, you will marry in the church at mass, but in the afternoon (after noon), at noon (in some lists, as it should be understood: in the evening) and at midnight, do not marry, nor betroth in your own courtyards, but in the church” 948. Regarding the third marriage, Photius writes that according to the great Gregory the Theologian, this marriage is actually a crime against the law and that the only case when it can be permissible is if a person is very young and does not have children from the deceased first and second wives, and a great penance should be imposed on the person entering into marriage: “if someone is (good) young, and he will not have children from his first marriage or from his second, then reasoning is necessary, with a great understanding of the third, - do not enter the church for 5 years, nor receive holy communion, do not receive either the dora (antidor) or the bread of the Mother of God” (panagia; if the confessor of a person who has sinned with a third marriage sees his sincere contrition of heart and his zeal to atone for the sin with a good life and good deeds, then with the permission of the bishop the penance can be eased) 949 Priests who allow a third marriage to those who willfully send away their first and second wives, according to church rules, are without the priesthood, that is, they should be deprived of it 950. The fourth marriage, not permitted even in the Law of Moses, is a violation of the divine and sacred rules and, as destruction and wickedness, should not take place at all; “And whoever has a husband living with a fourth wife or a wife with a fourth husband, those are divinely ruled, according to the word of the great Basil, from holy communion and from all sanctification: they should not go to church, nor take communion, nor eat the bread of the Mother of God, until their lawless cohabitation is dissolved” 951 . Priests blessing the fourth marriage, according to church rules, without priesthood 952. Entry into married life without a church wedding, unauthorized dissolution of marriages and the understanding of up to five wives or more one after another indicate that Christian marriage, as a sacrament, had not yet entered our general consciousness even before the time of Metropolitan Photius, and that pagan marriage customs still continued to remain with us even before him, “I hear,” the Metropolitan writes about entering into marriage life without a church wedding. wedding, - most unlike the law of God, some scoffers, who do not want to buy themselves from the Church of God by the law of God and take their own wives, but who act contrary to the law of God, and who, out of need and in vain, and by the caresses of the evil one, take their wives.” Having said that such destroyers of God's law and scoffers at it are subject not only to mental (spiritual) execution, as murderers, but also to great worldly execution, the Metropolitan orders the priests to separate them and subject them to three years of penance, as fornicators, and after this to marry them legally and take a guarantee from them that they will live chastely in the future; if they do not listen and remain in illegal cohabitation, then remove them from the church and not give them a dora or the Mother of God’s bread or holy communion 953. About the unauthorized dissolution of marriages, Photius writes in his instructions to the priests: “My hearing, which (as if) are some in you, in words we call Christians, but deeds seem not to exist, about the purchase of marriages from God’s church with wives, which is counted and that law of God is destructive and casts down wives, without any reasoning of the hierarch’s correct, and to other unlawful wives clinging and the Word of Christ of the Gospel comes into oblivion, as Christ says: “A man will leave, as he said, his father and mother...” and for this reason, if the essence of such things in you is destructive of lawful intercourse, and not seeking reasoning according to the rule of the Church of God, which is dedicated to the saint according to what things are right to separate, and those who do not have this understanding in you, but legal intercourse is destructive and associated with illegal marriage, and the Church of God, according to the rule, speaks of such as adulterers; and those who do not gladden to the knowledge, but destroy the law of God, as if they are committing adultery, do not accept those offerings to the church and remove them from the church, do not give them even a dora of the Mother of God’s bread until they convert, for the divine rules forbid that such fornicators should not be given holy communion at the age of twenty, until they themselves at the end and hour of death, as soon as he repented and through tears, before his trustworthy spiritual witnesses, (and) even if he were alive (after mortal illness and communion in it), I would in no way approach that lawless copulation” 954. Photius writes about quintuplets and polygamy in his letter to the Pskovites: “Why do you write that you have many quintuplets and polygamists, but in Orthodox Christianity I have never heard anything like this anywhere, and God knows how much we weep about it...; (and about these) I write to you: in that iniquity of the future, like the slaughter of Magmet (in) future heresies, excommunicate those of God to the Church and be careful not to accept any offerings from them, not even the Mother of God giving them bread; give them the bread of the Mother of God, and give them holy communion at the hour of death” 955. The answers to questions about special marriages that Photius gives are as follows. Firstly, “the deacon understood Rastiga’s wife, Skimnikova”; The Metropolitan replies: “They must be separated, and if they are not separated, they must be bound with great penances.” Secondly: “the priest, the widower, understood the priest”; The metropolitan replies: “This is as if half (half) of existence is dead, half of their bodies are dead and the earth is betrayed, and that former priest, as if he were the offender of God’s service, became, and that priest, having not preserved the purity of her single body with her first husband, is worthy of separating them” 956. Metropolitan Jonah, in one of his letters to the Vyatchans, denounces the latter for the iniquities they are committing regarding marriage. “Behold, my son’s hearing,” writes the Metropolitan, “that the deeds there, in the estate of my son the Grand Duke, in Vyatka, are doing many things contrary and hateful to God, leading to the destruction of the peasants: many Christian deeds with their wives are illegally living unmarried, and some deeds are getting married, but illegally, fourth and fifth with the sixth and seventh, and even (even) up to the tenth; and their spiritual fathers, abbesses and priests, who do not know the divine and sacred rules, purchase them with those abominable illegal marriages, but for our humility, for our sake of blessing and punishment, and especially for their own sake of salvation, and for the neglect of their spiritual children and for laziness, they cannot approach us. only one of whom should send his brother priest, dividing his soul into the flock of Christ entrusted to them, being like stony-heartedness and bitterness: such, sons, are the future, called priestly and Christian rulers, and will not be, but destroyers of human souls, and not shepherds”... 957. [In the letter of the unknown Rostov archbishop (Theodosius, 1458?) it reads: “and I hear the malice of the old deception that has arisen in you, spread out on many, you are asking your spiritual children to take a third wife and up to a fourth, and for wives to marry third husbands and fourth ones: and so you have He does things outside of church tradition and outside of your priesthood, and so creates something alien to Christian life. And you, priests, do not impute that great malice, but you do not punish your spiritual children for this, nor do you deign to teach them from the divine scripture, lest they perish for this reason; Metropolitan Gerontius, in one of his letters to the same Vyatchans, denounces the latter for the fact that they “marry illegally, are caught in the family and in matchmaking and nepotism, and other deeds copulate fifth and sixth and until the seventh marriage” 959. Metropolitan Simon, in one of his messages to Great Perm, exhorts the newly baptized Christians there so that they do not commit illegal and ungodly marriages, so that they do not get caught in the tribe and so that whoever dies, his second brother, and after the second, his third, do not take his wife 960. [In the canonical questions and answers, belonging to an unknown person and dating back no later than the 15th century, the following questions and answers are read: “having betrothed a bride, have someone else, should we marry him? Don’t marry him, since he is an adulterer. - The husband calls his wife his sister, will they get divorced, or... opythemia what? Even when there is need, at death, or they went to the monastery, and to copulate again, otherwise according to spiritual insistence, that is a year, and so they will copulate. - Shall we crown the first crown in the evening, and say a prayer to the bigamist in the evening. · - A man who has given him gifts? Should I fuck a priest or a deaconess, should I give them gifts? After looking at their repose, give them”] 961. In the acts of the Stoglavy Council we find regarding marriage: some decrees regarding its implementation and regarding the persons getting married; legislation on penances to be imposed on persons entering into a second and third marriage; speeches about the impermissibility of a fourth marriage and the prohibition of buffoon games during marriages. The resolutions of the Stoglavy Council are as follows: “And the betrothal and wedding would be according to the divine charter in the entire priestly order (the tsar represented to the cathedral that priests would marry in one stole, without vestments - Chapter 5, question 23), and they would marry after mass, and would not marry at night; but they would marry a boy of fifteen years old, and a young woman of twelve years old, according to the sacred rule, and no child less than fifteen years old would not be married, and then the newlyweds would be taught from the Divine Scripture what befits the Orthodox according to the law of life, and so on” 962. Regarding the penances that should be imposed on those entering into a second and third marriage, the Stoglavy Council writes: “And for the second marriage there is no wedding, but only prayer according to the rule, and for the third there is prayer under the prohibition, according to the sacred rule: for the second (marriage) 2 years of penance, if he is young, then one summer, and for the third five years from intercourse and from all shrines” 963 . Regarding the impermissibility of a fourth marriage, the Hundred Head Council reproduces Metropolitan Photius 964. The cathedral prohibits buffoon games during marriages in response to the king’s proposal. This latter wrote in one of his questions: “At worldly weddings, the joke-makers and arganniks and the laugh-makers and the caterpillars play and sing demonic songs, and when they go to the church to get married, the priest rides with a cross, and in front of him they prowl around with all those demonic games, and the priests do not forbid them about this, and the priest deserves to forbid about this.” The cathedral responds to this idea of ​​the tsar with a definition: “Do not go to the wedding of the holy churches as a buffoon and a mocker before the wedding, and the priest forbids such a person with a great prohibition, so that such outrage will never be called” 965. [Byzantine laws on various types of kinship at different times were transferred to us in Russia. A general indication of them is already in the first two Russian church charters, which have come down to us with the names of the Grand Dukes Vladimir and Yaroslav. But in practice they have never had full effect in our country. Russian moral and legal views on kinship and property, as obstacles to marriage, were so at odds with the corresponding Byzantine church and civil laws that this discord could not be destroyed by the centuries-old efforts of the spiritual hierarchy, into whose jurisdiction all marriage matters were entrusted from the very beginning of Christianity. It is known, for example, that already Metropolitan John II (at the end of the 11th century) ordered the dissolution of marriages concluded in the 6th degree of kinship and affinity 966. But how weak the effect of this prescription was can be seen from the fact that our ancient princes (XII-XIII centuries) often married relatives of the 6th degree and in-laws of the 5th degree 967. Of course, the spiritual hierarchy even after John II could not approve of such marriages, but it is not clear from anywhere that it insisted on their dissolution if they had already been concluded. The Byzantine laws themselves recognized in this regard the force of an accomplished fact, namely, although they prohibited marriage in the 7th degree of consanguinity, they left the already concluded one without dissolution. If this was the case in Byzantium itself, then the life of the people, who had recently converted to Christianity, demanded all the more concessions to themselves. According to some data, it can be concluded that the strictness in the application of Byzantine marriage law norms in Russian life was particularly weakened in those times when our own, naturally Russian people became the head of our spiritual hierarchy. So about St. Metropolitan Peter knows that he was accused before the patriarch for “forgiving and allowing” marriages in 6, 5 and even 4 degrees of consanguinity 968. Here, in all likelihood, the truth was mixed with slander against the great saint: adhering to the fundamental church rules (namely the 54 rules of the Trullo Council), he really could “forgive and resolve” marriages in the 6th and 5th degrees of kinship and property, but not in the higher ones. Examples of the lenient attitude of our spiritual hierarchy towards such marriages, one must think, began to be repeated even more often since the era of the establishment of autocephaly of the Russian Church, that is, from the second half of the 15th century 969. In the Helmsman of the so-called Sophia or, what is the same, Russian edition and in the lists of Meril the Righteous, there is a Russian and very ancient schedule of degrees of kinship and properties that prevent marriage, under the title “Charter of Brothers.” It is published in volume VI of the Russian Historical Library col. 143–144 (marriages in 6 degrees of kinship are prohibited, and when calculating the degrees of relationship, in one case marriage between relatives of the 6th degree is permitted, in another it is prohibited). Among the responses of the Council of Constantinople in 1276. to the questions of the Sarai Bishop Theognost, the following answer is read: “Question: Is it fitting for someone who has baptized a brother or an aunt or an aunt to marry his wife?” – Answer: Not restrained, but to have sex V17;”]. [As has already been said in Volume I (second half pp. 389–390/451–452], (in ancient times we did not observe any rules regarding the age at which young men should marry and when girls should be given in marriage. The examples provided by the chronicles are insufficient to resolve the issue of average accepted ages, if only such ages existed. They married, as it seems and very likely, no later than 19 years, and The earliest known age for marriage among princes was 10 years old. They probably married girls no later than 17 years old, and the earliest known age for marriage of princesses was 8 years old. In the common people, where marriages are concluded according to economic calculations, they probably tried to marry off girls who were workers in their parents’ houses as late as possible, and to marry off their sons in order to get workers into their houses. probably tried, as was the case in later times before the age decrees, as early as possible). [Metropolitan Photius, in his letters to Novgorod and Pskov, prescribes that the bride should be at least 12 years old: “And naturally they wouldn’t marry girls under twelve years old, but marry them as they should do on their third summer,” - Pavlov’s Monuments col. 275 and 284. In Stoglav, the average norm is adopted, so to speak - it is prescribed to marry a boy at 15 years old, a girl at 12]. (Regarding the wedding of marriages, following Greece in ancient and ancient times, it was so that priests married them only by special permission of the bishops each time (for each individual marriage), issued in writing (these notes containing permission were called “crown banners” in our country in ancient times, and probably also in ancient times). The real reason for the origin of this custom should be considered so that parish priests, through abuse and ignorance, do not solemnize marriages in unauthorized degrees of kinship. In later times, crown banners were issued in our country not exclusively by the bishops themselves, or not exclusively in their homes by their officials, but also through the archpriests of the district councils. The reason for this, obviously, was that in our country, given the extreme vastness of the dioceses, it would be very difficult for everyone to turn directly to the bishops themselves. difficult). [For the issuance of crown memorials, a crown fee was charged, the amount of which was not the same, depending on whether the bride and groom were entering into their first marriage, or their second or third. The search, which the priest was ordered to perform in eternal memory, consisted of the priest announcing the proposed marriage to his parishioners and asking them if they knew of any obstacles to the wedding of the bride and groom]. [Regarding everyday customs observed during marriages, see: 1) Herberstein's Notes on Muscovite Affairs, translated by A. Malein pp. 51, 55, 69, 71–74; in Domostroy according to the publication of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities, M. 1881, pp. 166–202; Tereshchenko A. Life of the Russian people, 1848, part II; in Sakharov's Tales of the Russian People, Part III, Book 2, St. Petersburg, 1837, Additions p. 3 ff., etc.]. (The ceremony of wedding by a bishop, - Izvestia of the Academy of Sciences, vol. VI, p. 57. About wooden and popular print crowns by Guagnini, Starczewski edition p. 22; Oderborn's De religione p. 4Q. Children from the 2nd and 3rd marriage are illegitimate children, - Monimenta Turgenevii, t. I, p. 127 col. 2. About cheese at weddings in later times, see Kototikhin page 7 fin.. Divorces among Russians, according to the Catholic of 1514, are frequent and easy - Monimenta Turgenevii t. I, p. 127 col. 2. About the ancient folk image of divorce among the Russians Guagnini, Starchevsky's edition, p. 22. All Slavs call young (newly crowned) princes and princesses, see Miklosic's Dictionary under the word “Prince”. At a wedding, drink in South-Western Russia, - Metropolitan Macarius History vol. XI p. 264. Princess of Lithuania, daughter of Gediminas, Augusta, at her wedding to Simeon Ivanovich in 1337, was baptized and named Anastasia). [For the prayer to cover the head of the bridegroom, see Archpriest K. Nikolsky About the Services of the Russian Church pp. 356–370]. In the 14th century, we had two rites of the sacrament of the consecration of oil, one of which, as it appears in its inscription, was “according to the rule of Jerusalem,” and the other was according to the rule of unknown which one, very likely - the Constantinople or one of the Constantinople. The rite according to the Rule of Jerusalem, while very different from our current one, had as its common distinctive feature the fact that it consisted of all-day singing for the sick, of which the sacrament itself was included only as a part, namely, it consisted of a full circle of daily services, turned into deliberate prayer (following) for the sick, between which the sacrament was divided in parts. It began with Vespers, in which the stichera on the Lord cried out and the stichera had as their exclusive subject a prayer for the healing of the sick; according to “Today you let go” and “Our Father” at Vespers; the troparion was sung to the Unmercenaries, Glory: “Lord have mercy on us,” And now: “The Source of Mercy”; At the special litany, the sick person was remembered, and “Lord have mercy” was shouted 50 times. The next day, in the morning, “Agripnia” was sung for the sick: after the Trisagion Psalm 50 and immediately followed by the Great Litany with petitions for the sick and the prayer over the oil, which is still read today. This short prayer was followed by the first preliminary part of the rite of blessing of oil. After the usual beginning, Psalm 50 was read and it was immediately followed by the singing of two canons: the first, beginning with the words: “In the darkness of sin, I was wounded by stinking passions...”, with the irmos: “As Israel walked on dry land”; the second of the saints without silver with irmos: “Three hundred strong.” After the third song of the canon, the small litany was read and the prayer was read: “Good and loving Lord”; according to the sixth song, a small litany was also recited and a prayer was read: “Master Almighty..., physician of our souls and bodies”; according to the ninth hymn, the small litany was also read and the prayer read: “To the King and Healer of the afflicted, Lord Jesus”... After the canons came the Trisagion and after the “Our Father” the troparia were read: “Lord have mercy on us”... and the dismissal followed with the preliminary exclamation: “Lord have mercy” 50 times. After these preliminary prayers, Matins followed, at which the service for the sick was also added to the daytime service, and after Matins, the liturgy began, at which the proskomedia was performed on three prosphoras: the first for the lamb, the second in honor of the Mother of God, and the third for the sick. At the liturgy, after the great litany, the priests proceeded from the altar to the middle of the church, where there was a vessel prepared for oil, with which the sick person was to be anointed. The eldest of the priests incense the vessel and all the brethren and did the usual beginning, after which the Trisagion and Psalm 50 according to Our Father and troparia were read: “Have mercy on us, Lord”; then the Great Litany was recited with petitions for the sick and the usual prayer was read over the oil. After this prayer, the senior priest poured oil into the vessel and after him, while reading the same prayer, all the other six priests did the same. After this, while singing the stichera in honor of the Mother of God, the priests, one after another, starting with the eldest, each lit one “Uzhets”. After lighting the lamps, the first of the priests read Psalm 16, followed by the first apostle from the epistle of St. James, the same one that is read today, and the Gospel of John about the sheep font; after the gospel, a prayer was read directly over the head of the sick person: “God, have the power to forgive sins”... The second priest, just like everyone else, read the same psalm that the first priest read. After it followed the prokeimenon, currently proclaimed before the fourth apostle, the apostle and the gospel are the same, which are read in second place now, and the prayer read in the current rite after the fourth gospel. The third apostle and the gospel were read the same as at the present time; after them there is a prayer that is not in the current rite of blessing of oil: “Much merciful Lord our God, we pray that You may send Your mercy to this oil.” The fourth apostle from the Epistle to the Romans: “Brothers, lead the Spirit of God...” Gospel of Mark: “At the time Jesus called to encourage his disciples...”, and prayer: “Mighty and merciful God, build everything for the salvation of our race.” Fifth Apostle, after the prokeme: “Lord, why hast thou multiplied these things with cold,” from the Epistle to the Galatians: “Brethren, ye know, that man shall not be justified by the works of the law”; Gospel of John: “The Lord spoke to His disciples, do not let your hearts be troubled...”, and the prayer: “Mighty God, have mercy on Thy servant with your mercies and bounties...”. The sixth apostle from the letter to the Colossians: “Brethren, be clothed with the holiness of God’s election...”; Gospel of Luke: “At the time, one of the Pharisees prayed for Jesus to be with him”..., and the prayer: “Lord, abundantly merciful, merciful, invisible, undefiled, cleanse your servant.”... The seventh apostle from the Epistle to the Ephesians: “Brothers, pray for the Lord in the power of His might...”; Gospel of Matthew: “The Lord said, if you forgive men their sins”..., and the prayer: “Lord our God, by your fleshly coming you have healed human nature.”... When laying the gospel on the head of the sick person, which immediately followed the seventh prayer, the priests also laid on their right hands. After the prayer: “Holy King, most gracious Lord,” which was also read in the current rite of consecration of oil, there followed: the small litany and the first antiphon: “Lord, do not rebuke me with your wrath,” the small litany and the second antiphon: “Blessed is he who considers the poor and wretched,” Glory and Now, Only Begotten Son, small litany and third antiphon: “Have mercy on me, O God, according to Your great mercy” to the verse: “The sacrifice to God is a broken spirit”; behind him the stichera were read, the small entrance was performed, and the rest of the liturgy was performed. At the end of the liturgy, the priests came out of the altar with candles and stood in front of a vessel with blessed oil. After the usual beginning, proclaimed by the senior priest, the following were read: the Trisagion, Psalm 50, again the Trisagion, the troparion to the Unmercenaries and the prayer over the head of the sick: “Holy Father,” after which the priest himself proclaimed: “And grant us, O Master,” and the clergy sang: “Our Father.” After this, the first priest anointed the sick person with oil and “all those who demand this blessing,” saying the words: “The blessing of the Lord God, our Savior, for the healing of the soul and body of the servant of God, always, now and ever.” Other priests also anointed the sick person and others who wished with oil, while reading the prayer: “Holy Father” and saying the above words. During the anointing by the clergy, verses appropriate for the occasion were sung. At the end of the anointing, the priests dispersed, “smearing outside on the doors (of their homes or the sick person’s home?) 970 and inwardly, saying: “The blessing of the Lord God, our Savior, Jesus Christ is upon this house always, now and ever.”... Another rite of blessing of oil was closer in its order to the current one. It was divided into two parts: evening and morning, or even the next day. In the evening, after the usual beginning and Psalm 50, the canon was sung, after which the Trisagion and the “Our Father” were read three times: “Lord, have mercy on us...”, and dismissal. The next day, according to the usual beginning, Psalms 50 and 91, the Theotokos and daytime troparia and kontakia, after which, after those wishing to sanctify the oil for forgiveness from the priests, the prayer over oil was read directly, which is currently read after the litany proclaimed according to the first Gospel. After the prayer, a great litany was proclaimed with petitions for the sick, which in the further succession of the rite we are considering precedes all readings from the apostle and the gospel, and it was immediately followed by the first apostle and the gospel - the same ones that are read in the previous rite. After the gospel there followed a special litany, which was also read after all the other gospels, and the prayer was read: “O gracious Lord, the only merciful and lover of mankind, who repents of our evils,” after which the first priest said: “Hear us, Lord, hear us,” he lit the first lamp and while reading the prayer: “Father Saint” anointed the sick person. All the other six anointings took place in exactly the same way. The Second Apostle and the Gospel were read the same as they are read at this time in this place. After them, a prayer was read, which in the current rite takes place after the third gospel, and the stichera: “Lord, you have given us a weapon against the devil, your cross.” The third apostle is the one who is now the fourth, and the gospel is the same as now; prayer: “He who is good, loving of mankind, gracious, and abundant in mercy, heals every disease and every illness.” The fourth apostle is the one who was read third in the previous rite; the gospel of Luke about sending seventy disciples to preach; prayer is the one in the current rite after the fifth gospel. The fifth apostle is the same as in the previous rank; the gospel - the current sixth, and the prayer - read now after the sixth gospel. The sixth apostle and the gospel are the same as in the previous order; the prayer is the one that is now read after the seventh gospel. The seventh apostle - from the letter to Timothy: “Child Timothy, pray for the grace that is in Christ Jesus”; the gospel is the same as in the previous rite; the prayer is the one that is now read after the fourth gospel. At the conclusion of our rite, after the prayer: “Merciful and abundantly merciful Lord our God,” which was read at that time, as it is now, with the gospel opened on the head of the sick person, and the stichera to the Unmercenary, a special litany was read, and the sequence ended with the prayer of adoration: “Most merciful Lord, Lord Jesus Christ, God ours” 971 . During the 15th and 16th centuries, we had in use, as in the 14th century, two rites of the sacrament of consecration of oil, namely: the second of those now set out above, as dominant (with particular differences in the lists) and then representing a combination of the second with the first set out 972. In the missals of the 16th century, an abbreviated sequence of consecration of oil is read, prescribed for the case of “mortal fear,” that is, when a person is in danger of imminent death. This sequence, in which only the apostle and one gospel are supposed to be read, was a reduction of the sequence that was dominant in the 16th century or the second set out 973. Currently, in some of our places, namely the Moscow Dormition Cathedral and the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius (in its main Trinity Cathedral), once a year, on Maundy Thursday before the liturgy, the sacrament of anointing is performed for the healthy, for everyone who is in the churches and wants to be anointed with oil. The custom of performing this consecration of oil for the healthy, following the example of the Greeks, dates back in our country to at least the 16th century, if not to an earlier time. At the same time, the breviaries of the 16th century prescribe that the sacrament should be celebrated either on Maundy Thursday or on Holy Saturday, and make it known that it was performed not in just a few places, but in all monasteries 974. In later times, the Greeks became accustomed to perform the sacrament of anointing of the dead. From the Greeks this custom passed on to the Serbs, as their missals testify 975. Whether he passed from the Greeks or Serbs to us – the Russians, we have no indication. In the acts of the councils and the letters of the metropolitans, we know one prescription regarding the sacrament of consecration of oil, which belongs to Metropolitan Photius. In his district instruction to the priests, the Metropolitan writes: “Also about this, priests, I write to you: at God’s visits, when you are sick, when you anoint the sick person with oil, the seventh priest who was elected and the deacon and the oil consecrated with the Gospels and the apostles, anoint the sick person, for the sick person is given a second baptism called" 976 ... In the canonical question-answers, belonging to an unknown person and dating back no later than the 15th century, the question-answer reads: “Should you smear your friend’s butt with oil?” - Not smear it, dispelling seven priests, but for the sake of need, let it be five” 977 . We can only say about the rites of burial of the dead for the 15th century. In the 15th century we had special burial rites: for laity, monks and infants, but, as it seems, there was no special burial rite for priests. In the rite of burial of the laity, after the usual beginning, they rely on: Psalm 90, the Great Litany, the troparion: “In the depth of wisdom” and others, the versification of Psalm 118. According to one of the missals, the canon is supposed to be sung, not the one that is being sung at the present time, but another, in which, after the first song: “As Israel walked on dry land,” the troparia are borrowed from the canon Andrei Kritsky: “Helper and Patron”; and according to other missals, instead of the canon, stichera are based, according to the voices, with power antiphons: the stichera of the first tone is eight, with the initial: “What is the food of life...” of the second tone is eight, the beginning: “All human vanity...”; fourth voice – seven, beginning: “Lord, there is a bowing of this world...”; fifth voice – four, beginning: “I will dawn Your face, O Christ...”; sixth – fourteen, beginning: “My beginning and composition...”; the seventh - four, beginning: “I cry and sob...” According to the first of the missals, which contains a canon, the singing of these stichera is placed after the canon. After the stichera, verses for the Blessed were sung, but not for six, but for ten or twelve. After the Blessed Ones they immediately followed - according to some service books the great litany and stichera for kissing, and according to others - the small litany, the Apostle to the Hebrews: “Brotherhood, now Christ has risen from the dead,” and the gospel - the same as is read at the present time. The stichera of the last kiss were sung in number of twelve. After the stichera, according to some service books, the priest poured earth onto the coffin of the deceased with the words: “Everyone is welcome from the earth... Rest with the saints”... and proclaimed the dismissal, after which the prayer of permission was read (by the spiritual father, or, if he was not present, by the funeral priest himself, see below) a prayer of permission: “In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit! Through the prayers of the holy Mother of God and the saints heavenly powers... According to other service books, the priest poured oil on the deceased with the reading of Psalm 50 until the words: “Give joy and gladness to my hearing”..., then marked the tomb, saying: “The tomb of this servant of God named until the coming of Christ is saddened, but God will rest you in the bosom of the patriarch Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, at the coming Wait, poor soul, until the coming of Christ, until the righteous Judge comes, who will judge the whole world in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”; after this, the priest poured earth onto the coffin while pronouncing the same words as above; at the end of the burial, the irmos were sung: “Helper and Patron”, after which they read: the Creed, the Trisagion and according to “Our Father” - “Rest, our Savior, with the righteous of his servant”, Glory and now, “The strange Mystery of the Virgin has appeared”, the litany of aggravation and dismissal. In the rite of burial of monks, it is noted at the beginning that an icon of the Savior or the Mother of God is placed on top of the body of the deceased. After the usual beginning, Psalm 50 was read and immediately after it, Immaculate. Psalm 90 and the verses set for singing before it were not in the order. When singing the 17th kathisma, choruses were sung. After the power antiphons of each voice, two more stichera were placed besides those that are now assigned and which are inscribed with the name of Theophanes; but also Theophan’s stichera in some voices are greater than in the current succession of the rite. The verses for the Blessed are the same as now, but they were sung in a different order. At the end, after the stichera: “Go, go, last kiss”... other stichera were sung, beginning with the stichera: “Immortal, generous, Lord of the living and the dead,”.. On vacation, a prayer of permission was read - not the one that is being read at the present time, but beginning: “In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit! Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior, who shed His blood on His cross, let us be pure... In the well-known breviaries of the 15th century, the full rite of priestly burial is not read, but only one prayer of permission is quoted from it, which begins: “In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit! God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Great for His mercy and much mercifulness”... One can understand the matter in such a way that there was not yet a special rite of priestly burial, that priests were buried according to the secular rite and only a special prayer was read over them, or otherwise, that the priestly burial rite differed from the secular rite only by one more prayer of ours. The rite of burial of an infant was shorter than the current one: it did not contain 91 psalms, canons and stichera, laid down after the Gospel 978. In the acts of councils and letters of metropolitans regarding the burial of the dead we find the following. Bishop Feognost of Sarai appealed in 1276. to the Patriarchal Council of Constantinople with two questions regarding the burial of bishops - the first question: “Should the dying saint be worthy of giving the Body (of Christ) in his hand or not?” The second question: “If the saint dies, (and) takes monastic vows, what is the way to bury him - is it a saintly one or a holy one?” The cathedral answered the bishop’s questions, the first: “You are not worthy, without having tired of the divinity of the canon”; on the second: “If he died in the priesthood, let them put V17; in vestments; if he died in the skime, let him put V17; in the Chernechsky skime” 979. Metropolitan Cyprian, in response to questions from Abbot Athanasius, makes the following instructions regarding the burial of the dead: “Chant over the reposed baby (and, by implication, do not bury him without singing). - If a person dies without a spiritual father (and without having confessed before death), chant over him, also read a prayer over him, and leave the rest to love of God. - If a layman dies, a spiritual father or a priest will read a prayer over him and then place him on his forehead - bury the layman in a sieve: wash him in a new vesture and in his retinue, as well as in a surplice and a petrahel and a phelonion, covering his face and head with a veil, and so on. singing over him and placing it in the coffin, mixing a little wine with wood oil, the priest pours it crosswise from the head first, also at the foot, then from the gum, also on the left side, and throws the cup in it with oil and wine at the foot, placing the same board, pouring it to sleep, like any dead man - And rule the priest’s mob, like everyone else. Chernets” 980 . For the instruction not to give the sacrament to a dead person, see above, and for the instruction not to place the schema on a deceased monk, see below 981. (The buried bishop “is placed in his left hand with a scroll written in the same way that the priests and deacons sanctified their names in his belly,” Academic Fundamental Manuscript No. 175, sheet 196/179. The same is said in the legend about Isaiah or Leonty of Rostov and in the case of the discovery of the relics of Demetrius of Rostov. In ancient times, they were sometimes buried wrapped in birch bark - Klyuchevsky, Lives of the Saints, p. 46. - A coffin lined with silver, - Historical and statistical description of the Smolensk diocese, St. Petersburg, 1864, p. 218 beginning. – Coffins carved from solid limestone, – ibid. p. 211 (one coffin contains a golden wreath at the head and an axe). Cemeteries - skudelnitsa and buoys, - Pskov Chronicle I, 308, 7061. fin.. About poor villages (cemeteries) for the burial of strange people, see Karamzin to volume VI, note 629, 1473; 2 Sophia Chronicle, p. 198. At the poor places, they took payment from the poor for the pits, - Collected Chronicles IV, 306 fin.. After burial, Russians eat pancakes at the graves of the dead, - Monimenta Turgene vi i t. I, p. 127, col. 2. In the 16th century in South-Western Russia, commemoration of the dead at graves with music and food, - Metropolitan Macarius History vol. XI, p. 264. Sorokoust actually means a service in forty churches on the day of remembrance (3rd, 9th, 40th after death). To distribute services to 40 churches, intermediaries were needed - cathedrals. Therefore, in Moscow there are forty (deaneries). Sorokoust - in 40 churches of the liturgy for 40 days, - The Legend of the Shield in the Monuments of Kushelev-Bezborodko, I, 22. In Novgorod there were 44 churches in which there was daily service - Vostokov, Rumyantsev Museum p. 42 col. 1. In 1548 it was established to sing an annual memorial service for all who died the right death - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, no. 219, p. 208. It is impossible to sing a requiem for many priests without a deacon - Volokolamsk manuscript No. 566, sheet 7. Canons (eve), - Life of St. Sergius, sheet 120. Eating kutya for the dead was established in memory of the fact that Clement of Rome, being exiled to Ancyra, ate kutya - Lavra manuscript No. 670, sheet 732 (life of Clement). The word about how it is not appropriate to remember oneself for the repose of what exists in the stomach is Volokolamsk manuscript No. 566, sheet 455. Why do we create thirds, nines, and sorochinas? - Volokolamsk manuscript No. 521, folio 102 ver. (there is also folio 103 verso about the angels of God and Satan writing the deeds of man); Lavra Izmaragd No. 204, sheet 214 fin., other). [In the answers of Metropolitan Cyprian to Abbot Athanasius we read: “Ponakhida can’t be sung by many priests without a deacon, but only by one priest; if there is a deacon, then many priests will sing it, and the deacon will start according to every rule of the church. On a week, do not perform a papacy for the repose; In order to commemorate the dead, it is also not forbidden to eat in secret prayers. As for the coming of Lent, if someone from us passes away in the middle of the week, singing over him, he should be commemorated, but there is no requiem service, but on Friday evening, and on Saturday, commemoration also on all Fridays of Lent, except the fifth; Saturdays and sixths. On Easter, from St. Thomas's week, there is no honor for the repose; In the canonical question-answers, belonging to an unknown person and dating back no later than the 15th century, the following question-answers are read: “Do you want to hang Taty red-handed, or flog him, should he be beaten, and should he be buried at the church and mass sung for him? Do not sing for him, nor bury him, nor repent for him. - Will a person drown, or hang himself, will such be carried out? Otherwise, put God’s churches in the ground, and not sing according to them, because it is not a sacrifice to God. - A child is not to die unbaptized, and where should he be put in the church? Or should he be put in the ground, like God’s church? – Monuments of Pavlov col. 861 §§ 22 and 23, 864 § 35 and 866 § 45. For the commemoration on St. Demetrius Saturday, see E.E. Golubinsky in his work: “Reverend Sergius of Radonezh and the Trinity Lavra created by him,” 2nd edition, pp. 64–66 note. About kutya - koliva and canon - kanun, see ibid., p. 41, note 2]. (“Eves” at prayer services, – Life of Mikhail Klopsky by Nekrasov The Origin of National Literature, appendices p. 5 fin.. In the Chernigov province, and at the present time, kolivo is brought to church on holidays, - Archbishop Filaret, Historical and statistical description of the Chernigov diocese, book 7, p. 244 (and another place, more important, was seen, not marked, and later not found). On holiday eves the bears are full, - Acts of the Expedition IV, 57 sub fin.. About the senanik in brief. These books are salutary and spiritually beneficial. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 517, sheet 30–32 sqq). (The diptych, the Greek name of which in Russian can be translated by the word: folding or folding, was a special type of book, which in its general pre-Christian use corresponded to our notebooks and which in Christian worship began to be used as a memorial book, in which the names of saints and the names of the living and the dead were written down for the commemoration of the first and second with the third at the liturgy after the sacrament of the Eucharist, when and now saints are remembered (not by name, but by class) and when it is necessary to commemorate the diptychs of the dead and the living. In ancient times, while the number of saints of each private church was not large, the saints were commemorated not namelessly, by class only, as now, but all by name. The word δίπτυχος or δίπτυχον is made up of two words: δίς - twice and πτυχὴ (from πτύσσω) - tablet, tablet for writing, and means literally: two-plank, twin ( πτύσσω - I fold, I make folds, in the most precise way it means: a double fold, i.e. a fold consisting of two planks). Diptychs consisted of two wooden, metal or ivory tablets, which on one of their long sides were connected to each other by rings or hinges, the outer sides of which were decorated with carvings and the inner sides, made smooth, were rubbed with wax in order to write on them. If two tablets were not enough for writing, then parchment sheets were inserted between them, and then the diptychs, depending on the number of inserted sheets, with the most precise designation were called triptychs, tetraptychs, pentaptychs, etc., with an inaccurate designation, retaining the same name of diptychs or being called the general name of polyptychs. The consular diptychs, about which one encounters misnomers, were not diptychs in general, but a type of diptychs. Consuls and other dignitaries of the Romans, upon taking office, were in the habit of sending to their acquaintances as gifts and distributing to the people diptychs decorated with their images, under which their names were carved: these were consular diptychs. The contents of the diptychs were: the names of saints (all of each diocese), the names of the dead and the names of the living. The names of the dead and the living were divided into two classes: those inscribed in diptychs forever, for the eternal commemoration of the dead and for the lifelong commemoration of the living, and those that changed each service or generally according to services. The first class of names consisted of: the names of bishops and of the laity the names of people who for some reason received the right to eternal or lifelong commemoration; the second class of names consisted of the names of people who made an “offering” for a certain service or who generally ordered to remember themselves and their relatives at certain services. (In the altars of the Old Ladoga St. George Church and the Novgorod Spaso-Nereditsa Church, the names of several dead were scratched on the walls, see History of the Hierarchy IV, 137 fin., and Russian Antiquities of Tolstov and Kondakov, issue VI, p. 131 beginning. It is very likely that these are records of the names of the dead who were to be commemorated, representing a kind of diptychs)... – The recording in the diptychs of the names of the deceased bishops, depending on the difference in the departments, was different: in the diptychs of the bishops the names of all the bishops of the department were recorded (see Acts of the 5th Ecumenical Council, Russian translation vol. V, pp. 197–217, Switzer’s Thesaur. Eccles. under the word Δίπτυχα and Ducange’s Glossarium Latinitatis under in the word Diptycha Episcoporum, col. 1513) and all the metropolitans of the metropolis, which was under the jurisdiction of the bishopric (see Russian episcopal service books in the Description of manuscripts of the Synodal Library of Gorsky and Nevostruev - No. 370, sheet 10, p. 114, and No. 377, sheet 226 ver., p. 224); in the diptychs of the metropolises - the names of all the metropolitans and all the patriarchs of the patriarchate to which the metropolis was subordinate; in the diptychs of the patriarchate - the names of the patriarchs of all patriarchies (and in addition all ecumenical councils). The names of living bishops were recorded: in the diptychs of bishops: bishop, metropolitan and patriarch; in the diptychs of metropolises: metropolitan and patriarch; in the diptychs of the patriarchy: its patriarch and the patriarchs of all departments (see the Double Council, rules 14 and 15, in Switzer in Thesaur. Eccles. under the word Δ ί πτυχα and in the edition of A. A. Dmitrievsky: Divine services of Passion and Easter weeks in Holy. Jerusalem IX-X centuries. pp. 277–279). Since, as time passed, the number of names recorded in diptychs became very large, in later times they were not two tablets, like classical diptychs, but entire notebooks, see the Acts of the 5th Ecumenical Council in the 5th volume of the Russian translation of the Acts of the Councils, page 197. – Among the Greeks, memorials submitted for proskomedia are still called diptychs. Our Russian name for commemorations by synodiks was taken from litiyny synodiks (the name “synodik” was turned into senanik; from “senanik” the common people made, in some places at least, “tsenavnik”, “tsenivnik”). The synodic is called a diptych, - A. E. Viktorova Inventories of manuscript collections, p. 98. The synodic of the week of Orthodoxy is a large synodik, - Kazan collection of Lyubarsky, p. 72 fin.; senanik of the clique, - Inventory of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral in the Russian Historical Library, vol. III, col. 844 and 477. The commemoration synodics were called “cathedral books” (from the fact that commemoration was carried out in cathedrals) - Sreznevsky Ancient monuments of writing and language, p. 112 col. 2. - Theodosius of Pechersk is “commemorated at all cathedrals,” that is, in all churches where there was a daily service and where there were commemoration synodics. In parish churches, where there was no daily service, each parishioner had his own synodik (price tag), which he gave when there was a service and when he wanted. In 1108, a general celebration of St. Theodosius was established throughout the Russian Church, but the celebration was not complete, but only, so to speak, partial. In the chronicle under the indicated year 1108, it reads regarding this: “In this summer, God put in the heart of Theoktistus, abbot of Pechersk, and began to inform the prince (great) Svyatopolk (Izyaslavich), so that Theodosius was included in the senanik, and, having been glad, having promised and done, he commanded the metropolitan to enter in synodik and commanded to write in all bishops, and all the bishops joyfully wrote and commemorated (option and commemorate) V17; By synodikon we should mean a list of saints who were commemorated at the festive lithiums in the prayer: “Save, O God, thy people,” and the assimilation of the name of the synodik or memorial service to the list should be explained by the fact that in ancient times at the festive lithiums after the saints the living and the dead were commemorated (as they can be commemorated today) the synodikon was read like a memorial service 982. And thus, the inscription of St. Theodosius in the synodics of all bishops should mean the inclusion of his name in all bishops in the lists of saints commemorated at holiday litias, for the purpose, as indicated, so that in all bishoprics he would be commemorated at these litias along with other saints commemorated. These speeches of ours should be considered an amendment to what we say in the History of the Russian Church, vol. I, half 2, p. 336; Wed in the 2nd edition, p. 388. There we meant the synodikon of the week of Orthodoxy because we did not mean the lithium synodikon at all. That it is really necessary to understand the latter, and not the former, this is evident - firstly, from the fact that the synodikon of the week of Orthodoxy is read only once a year, whereas it is said that “commemorate at all councils”; secondly, from the fact that in the synod of the week of Orthodoxy, it is not the saints themselves who are commemorated, but the defenders and champions of the Orthodox faith (and they are not prayerfully invoked, but eternal memory is proclaimed to them). As for the expression about the festive litias “at all cathedrals,” it means that these litias were celebrated only in cathedral churches (and large monasteries), cfr of our History of the Russian Church, vol. I, 2 half, p. 321 note / 370 note (in villages they are still celebrated only very rarely). In the later History of canonization we come across one record of canonization, which states that the saint was inscribed in the church synodik and in which by synodik, undoubtedly, we should mean the lithium list of saints of the diocese, of which he was an ascetic and for the local celebration in which the saint was canonized (see about St. Paisius of Uglich). In 1108, when the abbot of Pechersk asked the Grand Duke Svyatopolk Izyaslavich that the Monk Theodosius be included in the synodik, we, in all likelihood, did not yet have a synodik of the week of Orthodoxy: one must think that we borrowed this synodik from the Greeks not by ourselves or directly, but through the mediation of the Bulgarians, and the Bulgarians borrowed it from the Greeks only in 1210, see our Brief Essay on the History of the Orthodox Churches of the Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian, p. 674 fin.. The veneration of the deceased ascetics of piety consisted, among other things, in the fact that prayers were offered for them at their graves. The offering of prayers consisted of the fact that Christians who were zealous for the memory of the ascetics came and sang dirges about them at their graves and that on the days of their repose funeral liturgies were performed for them and that their names were included in synodics or memorials for constant commemoration at litias and masses. As for the singing of funeral liturgies on the days of death and the constant commemoration at litias and masses: sometimes this was a voluntary matter, depending on private zeal, sometimes directly prescribed and ordered. It is known about the order of Archbishop Theodosius of Novgorod to sing the funeral annual liturgy for Jacob Borovitsky and about the order of the Trinity Abbot Arseny to sing the same funeral liturgy for Stefan Makhrishchsky. Here is the third order about this, which also talks about the constant commemoration of the departed at litias and masses. In 1592, Kazan Metropolitan Hermogenes (the subsequent patriarch) represented to Patriarch Job that the Kazan martyrs John, Stephen and Peter “in the great synodik, which is read on the week of Orthodoxy, have not been written to this day and their eternal memory is not sung and in the foundry and everyday (proskomedia) synodics have not been written” and asked for a decree from the patriarch. On the basis of the decree received from the patriarch, which we do not have in our hands and in which, as one should think, nothing was said about the great synod, “the martyr John, Stephen and Peter was commemorated (by the metropolitan) Genvar on the 24th day, in memory of Saint Xenia, without translation, with the cathedral, the metropolitan requiem and mass should be served himself, as well as in all churches write them to the saints both in monasteries and in the world (in synodics) and commemorate them and commemorate them (sic) at litias and masses” 983. 1) Everyday or altar (Lavra Manuscript No. 43) - read all day every day at liturgies (daily mass - Joseph of Volokolamsk in Khrushchev p. 256 sub fin., and Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 403, p. 396). Joseph of Volokolamsk calls it an annual commemoration, - ibid., page 256 sqq, because it must be that it was mainly inscribed for daily annual commemoration. But they also included it for eternal daily remembrance - ibid., p. 258 sqq. Those recorded for eternal commemoration in the daily commemoration book were also included in the eternal synodikon (but not vice versa) - ibid., p. 259. The daily synodik is the one according to which they were commemorated daily at the liturgy for forty days, a year, or forever, depending on the time for which they were registered for daily commemoration at the liturgy. The Daily Synodik as read at masses, at which (at proskomedia - see the answers of Metropolitan Cyprian to Abbot Athanasius, - Historical Acts vol. I, No. 253, p. 478 col. 1 beginning) is always read, - Volokolamsk manuscript No. 517, sheet 33 verso. Everyday remembrance, - A. E. Viktorova Inventories of handwritten collections p. 175 sub fin.. “Everyday list”, Solovetsky manuscript No. 301 (326), part I, p. 465. 2) The lithium synodik was read (gradually?) by church ministers at litias on all days, - A. E. Viktorova Inventory of handwritten collections p. 330 (On the daily litia, - Stoglav Kazan edition p. 173, Charter chapter 9). Everyday Synodikon when not read in lithium - Volokolamsk manuscript No. 517, sheet 33 ver. This means that the daily synod was read at litias. But in the Historical Acts, vol. I, no. 292, pp. 532–533, the lithium synodik is special. That the lithium synodikon is not an everyday one, see my book on canonization, page 233 fin.. In some places, the eternal synodikon was called the everyday one. Lithium synodics by A. E. Viktorov in the Inventory of Manuscript Collections, pp. 141 beginning, 154 fin., 176 fin., 330. 3) The Eternal, otherwise under the wall (Lavra manuscript No. 43; Lavra inventory of 1641), because it was read on a plaque under the wall, was read in addition (which was read under the wall) gradually at daily masses and at funeral services on Monday, Wednesday and Fridays, - Historical Acts vol. I, no. 292, p. 532 ("greatly the abbot produces, a lot to read”). Those included forever in the daily synodik were also included in the eternal synodik, - Joseph of Volokolamsk in Khrushchev p. 259; but those included in the eternal synodik were not included in the everyday one. Joseph Volokolamsky ibid. page 259 fin. The daily synodik calls it an annual commemoration, and the eternal synodik is simply a synodik. This synodikon is not read at masses: from Lazarus Saturday to St. Thomas Week, and throughout the whole year on Sundays, and on all holidays on which the All-Night Vigil is sung, and on St. Pentecost, which is read only on Saturdays - Volokolamsk manuscript, No. 517, sheet 32 fin.. Under-wall haybox in the Boldin Monastery in 1603–1604, – Legal Acts of Kalachov vol. II, No. 142, col. 275. Synodics: everyday, lithium and eternal, – Historical Acts vol. I, no. 292, pp. 532–533. Prosphoromysal daily and foundry, – Legal Acts of Kalachov vol. I, No. 63, col. 456 fin. (the first is the everyday Joseph of Volokolamsk, the second is the eternal Joseph?). The daily list and the eternal senanik, – ibid. col. 450 fin.. Varsonofy Yakimov in his spiritual testament fin. says: “and write (me) in all the haymakers.” Consequently, there were at least three synodics. Investors in the monastery should be written in the eternal and everyday synodics. In the first, remember as long as the monastery stands; in the second, as long as the abbot wishes, - Historical Acts vol. I, No. 292, p. 533 fin.. Archimandrite Macarius in Novgorod Antiquities II, 312: “to remember in the senanik (eternal) and in the lithium forever.” Ibid. p. 316: “commemorate in the senonics and in the foundry everyday commemoration” (for the lithium is daily). In the Fodder Book of the Tula Anastasov Mother of God - Nativity Monastery of 1558, an extract from which is given in the first part of the book: “History of public education of the Tula province”, M. 1832, it reads: “And whoever gives 50 rubles or more, write him in both synodics: in the eternal and everyday, without calculation, as long as the monastery stands. whoever gave (gives) less than 50 rubles, and keep him in the daily synodik as many rubles, for so many years, and (in) eternal without calculation” (Telescope 1832, part 12, p. 550. In the Kirillov Belozersky Monastery: “in both haymonks without calculation” - News of the Archaeological Society vol. I, col. 113). In the Kirillov Monastery: daily senanik and litia, - Legal Acts of 1838, No. 126, p. 152. - Synodics of the daily and eternal, - Legal charter on patrimonial affairs, issued by Sandunov, p. 16. - In 1559 the same, - Legal Acts of 1838, No. 114, p. 147. – Foundry, under-wall and sheets, – article by Uspensky About the great builders of the Kirillov Monastery, p. 19 beginning. At the end of the 16th century, there were two synodics in the Cyril Monastery: daily and eternal. For donations to the monastery, the priest Sylvester and his son Anfim “wrote them in both senodiks, daily and eternal,” in the article about Sylvester by Golokhvastov and Leonid in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities in 1874. No. 1, page 49 beginning. In the Tikhvin Monastery: lithium and senanik, - Legal Acts of 1838, No. 127, p. 153; No. 130, p. 155. – Everyday lithium and under-wall senanik, – ibid., No. 129, p. 154. In the Cross Monastery, senodics: foundry and wall (sic), - ibid., No. 131, p. 156. In the Simonov Monastery: daily list and eternal senanik, - Legal Acts of Kalachov, No. 63, XVII, col. 450 fin.. In the years 1639–1642, all the synodics were: a large lithium, a wall and a daily prosm, - Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1896, book. III, Mixture, p. 18 fin.. In the Trinity Sergius Monastery in 1633. synodics of foundry and under-wall, - Legal Acts of 1838, No. 119, p. 150 beginning. In the Moscow Assumption Cathedral under Patriarch Filaret there were senadiks: prosviromysalnoy, daily and foundry - Legal Acts of Kalachov No. 63, XXI, I, col. 456 fin.. In the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral in 1541. were according to three records made in one place: 1) senanik and foundry memory everyday, 2) senanik and foundry memory and everyday, 3) senanik and lithium - see Temporaries of the Society of History and Antiquities book 24, Mixture, p. 40. (NB In the second case, “and” is probably an error). In 1625, in one monastery, the synodics of the foundry and under the wall, Description of the Tsar’s manuscript, No. 73, p. 33. For the estates they gave to the monastery, “write in the daily senannik and in eternal remembrance, and commemorate them in litekhs all day long, and in their memory and at their reposes and requiems, sing and mass for them at the cathedral, serve and feed the brothers,” see Savvaitova’s Description of the Semigorsk Assumption Hermitage, appendices p. 8 beginning. This means there are two synodics, and at litias one of them will be commemorated. In 1629, one prince, who made a donation to the Nilova Stolbenskaya hermitage, obliges the hermitage: “And how will God send for my soul or my wife, and for the abbot and brethren, to write my and my wife’s name in the senanik in the foundry and in the daily, and to remember our souls all the days, and for my parents, my father and my mother and all my parents, to remember in the senanik every day, and for with prosyrosis and at octenia masses, light candles for them at the throne of God every day, and on all Fridays sing prayers and set up kutya, and light candles, and during prosyromisaion and at masses at octenias, order the whole senanik to be counted,” - Historical description of the Nilova Stolbensky Hermitage, p. 141. There are two synodics in the Nizhny Novgorod Pechersk Monastery: the wall synod and the foundry one, - Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1898. Book I, Loose Books, pp. 3, 6 fin., 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 fin., 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 41, 42 fin., 43. Feed Synod- ibid. page 37. In the 17th century in the Ferapontov Monastery, for recording one name in the wall synodik, three altyns and two money were taken, in the foundry - half a ruble, see the Wanderer 1898. November, in the article “Ferapontov Monastery” p. 476. In the Uglich Acts, published in Book 1 of the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities for 1899, the following are mentioned: the eternal senanik from the village and notebooks, p. 76 fin.; daily foundry lists (and commemorations at liteyas and at ponakhidas and during the commemoration of the divine prayers and at divine litorgies and in octenias for the dead), p. 78; Eternal Senaniki and Foundry Books from Selniki, pp. 81 (82, 84); lithium and under-wall senanik, p. 87; senanik foundry and wall, p. 89. In the Fodder Book of the Trinity Monastery, published by Archimandrite Leonid in additions to A.V. Gorsky: “to the hay and to the villages of the eternal for the sake of remembrance” - pp. 46 and 48, “to the eternal hay with the village” - p. 47. “In the senanik and in the daily selenik..., in the daily list and in the eternal senanik,” - Description of the Moscow Epiphany Monastery, compiled by Bishop Nikodim (Belokurov) in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities in 1876. book 4, pp. 25 and 26. Selnik - from the village, i.e. a memorial notebook in which the giving villages are recorded? Synodics in the monasteries of Western Rus' were otherwise called subotniks. “Subotnik or memorial service” of the Suprasl Monastery in the Vilna Public Library, according to Dobryansky’s Description No. 89, p. 179. Commemorate: for health and peace daily with “prayer and prosfura”, on Saturdays with “prayer and kutia and prosfura”, in “ponafida” three times a year to a year, - p. 180 fin.. Wed. in Dahl’s Dictionary under the word Saturday: subbotnik, synodik, memorial book read in monasteries on Saturdays.” In the Volokolamsk Monastery: daily list and senanik, - Legal Acts of 1838, No. 125, p. 151; daily list and eternal senanik, - Description of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 403, sheet 38, pp. 396–397 (p. 397, sheet 41, the reading of the synodikon on the lithium is not entirely clear), Legal Acts 1838, No. 115, p. 147 fin.. In the article: “On the Senanik in Brief”, Volokolamsk Manuscript No. 517, sheet 30–34, the Eternal Synodik is simply called the Synodik, - sheet 31 ver. fin. sqq, and the daily synodik is called daily commemoration - sheet 32 ​​ver. (about the senanik and daily commemoration - sheet 33 ver. fin.). According to the article, in the Volokolamsk Monastery of Joseph there seem to be only two synodics - the synodikon (eternal) and daily commemoration, and at the litias the daily commemoration is read (in the article it is clear that at the litias the daily commemoration is read - sheet 33 fin. and verso). In the Joseph Volokolamsk Monastery: 1) The Eternal Synodikon (under-wall). I worked out gradually how much I could do in a day. 2) Everyday list (memorial-foundry). Everyone on the list was remembered at a memorial service or litia every day. 3) Sorokoustny list. List for daily commemoration at the liturgy for 40 days. See Description of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 403, sheet 38, p. 396. There are three synodics in the Joseph Monastery: 1) the fortieth synod, 2) the daily synod for fixed years (lithium), 3) the eternal (under-wall). There was no Sorokoust Synodik. Where there were many magpies, a constantly changing record was kept (or perhaps there was no record, but commemoration was carried out according to the private memorials of the customers); where there were few sorokoustov, there were no records, from memory (or from the same private commemorations of customers). So there are two synodics: 1) everyday (everything recorded in the synodik was commemorated every day) for designated years or lithium, 2) eternal or sub-wall. Life of the Volokolamsk Monastery (Manuscript of the Moscow Theological Academy from Volokolamsk, No. 681). (l.1) Cell books, monastic life about deceased brothers and all Orthodox peasants, monks and laymen, what kind of burial happens in the monastery and how they write in the senanik and commemorate them in the daily list. About the dead. It is fitting that for the burial of every deceased brother, the abbot with the entire cathedral will dress and perform the burial according to the rules, and all the brethren will come and give the last kiss and forgiveness to the deceased. About the hedgehog, remember the list. And the ustavnik writes every brother in the daily in two lists, large horate notebooks (l. - reverse) for three years for lessons, and in the eternal senaniki, in two books, and in the brother's list, in a notebook, the abbot's word, eternal. And at every prayer, those books and lists are venerated at litias all day long and at vespers and (at?) Matins, and every brother is written in the magpie list in another church under the bells and litorges, the priests serve for weeks without ceasing all days and all years, in winter they serve in a large church all the days of mass (and) for the whole year. In the brother's books, and also in the notebooks, the charterers write, in the brother's number of years whose brother is commemorated and according to which there is a dacha, add years to him, looking at the dacha, according to the ruble by year in the daily list, commemorate and according to the advice and reasoning of the abbot and the cathedral elders. (fol. 2) And with other long-term elders they add years of commemoration in the list to three scheduled summers against their labors, both long-term (commemorated?) and without a dacha. And in other books the scribes write, whoever gives something for himself, a monk or a layman, with his belly money or bread or clothing or whatever he eats, and write how to send (God?) for his soul, and the abbot and the elder, looking at his dacha, order it to be written in the daily list and in the senanik according to monastic custom. Everyday life 985. And custom, that is, tradition and law from the chief, is greater than the regulations in monasteries. And the charterers write in the books really separately, who will give what, a monk or a layman, a small dacha, even if it’s two rubles, and according to that he (l. - ver.) and will write him for a year or two, for fixed years and up to 20 years and up to 30 years, names and nicknames in the black books, and as a minute his prescribed years and the charter, having found it in the prescribed books, let him be blackened, and from his daily list iron, from large notebooks from harathein ones. About the eternal synad. And those who will be written into the books of the monks and merians, all the Orthodox peasants, whoever gives anything, much or little, great or small, both poor and rich, and others for God’s sake they write, and without giving and for free, and all of them are remembered for God’s sake, as long as the monastery of the Most Pure Ones stands, from the eternal hay-house their names will not be seen until forever. About the books of the lesser ones. And those books, all three black brothers, that lie here, and the lesson books from all countries, monks and laymen, and the living, who in advance (l. 3) with their belly will delight in memory. About big books. Yes, two large eternal books, dachas and feeding states and grand dukes and grand duchesses and sovereign nobles and princes and great people, metropolitans and mistresses and archimarichs and abbots and priestly and sovereign clerks and all sorts of authorities and officials who gave villages for themselves and for their parents for eternal memory, as an inheritance of eternal blessings, desiring the salvation of their souls, their homeland, villages and villages with great lands, and other horses and valuable vessels, gold and silver, and vestments and all wealth, the gold and silver that perishes in this world, so that they may receive incorruptible things. The decree about those is as follows. Whoever wants to create eternal memory for himself as a parent (l. - turnover) for his entire family, and to be food for his brothers every summer, as long as the Most Pure Monastery stands, will give 100 rubles or 200 or 300 or 400 or 500, or a village or hamlet (?) against that price. About big feeds. And for 100 rubles, write him in the daily list and in the eternal books of the hay, and his family will be written in the book, and for every year they will use him as food for his brothers, and they will write in the fodder books and in the list. And whoever gives 200 rubles, and for that they will make two feeds, and someone 300, others three feeds and three souls of their names in the daily list. And whoever gives 50 rubles will be written in the daily list and in the hay bank for a century, and there will be no food for him, and his parents will write everything in the hay net, (l. 4) his entire family, for the same contribution. About tributes. And each week they sing three large cathedral ponakhidas - on Monday evening, Wednesday evening, Friday evening, and the vestments of the abbot himself serve as a cathedral for everyone, and on the evening of the week and on Tuesday and Thursday the liteya is sung at vespers and at matins, and the lists are read by everyone - half out loud, and the other in secret. And at the funeral service, all the priests will secretly read both the large and stern lists. And the deacons according to the articles are honored out loud from (?) the stern after. And at the cry of that name, for whom food and reproach. And the brotherhood list will be read by the abbot or the great priest, whatever the abbot’s word is; All the brethren are written, just as the monastery began to lie here, they are written (l. - ver.) in notebooks in honor, at every prayer they will read it. Yes, the eternal senanik is honored in the book at every prayer 986, the lesser priest in vestments from the beginning of the prayer to the end. And all the days in the small limit at the metropolitan’s sepulchre, the Elder Senenik honors the tomb incessantly throughout the year, starting with the Midnight Office, when they begin to say “The Beatitudes of the Immaculate,” and until the end of Matins and until the first hour, and at the Hours, first, and at Litorgies and before the holiday, and at Vespers, first too. And in a warm church, the senanik is honored (on) a nale on the left choir in the church with a candle. About Senanicekh. But the senanik is not read throughout the year throughout the week of the resurrection, and on the feasts of the Lady and the Mother of God and great saints, in which (fol. 5) the singer sings the all-night vigil. Yes, throughout Great Lent, except on Saturdays and Azure Sunday. Let all Orthodox monks and laity be written into the senanik, two separately, first the monks, and after the laity. And on behalf of every name, monks and laity alike receive even a ruble from the laity. And in the monastery the brothers have two hryvnias each. And for scheduled summers, they give a ruble per year on behalf of the daily lists. About daily lists. And at liturgies, read the daily lists for communion(s) half and more, and the other half for the gospel(s) aloud, and after matins at litia and at vespers. (l. - turnover) For health. And those who love Christ give with their belly, and for them pray to God for health and salvation according to their giving; and by order. Whoever gives a hundred rubles, pray to God for him at prayer services, in which there is not only one day, but also orders food to be fed a week or on a holiday in which, in his name and for many years, sing. And whoever gives 200 rubles or 300, otherwise pray to God for him and feed him food according to advice and reasoning. And whoever gives 50 rubles, pray to God for him one day every week, and do not feed him food, but write in books, for eternal memory. About healthy feeders. (fol. 6) How from those lovers of Christ whose repose, to whom he gave a contribution to the Most Pure during his life, and after his death, for the same contribution, they will write it in the daily list and in the senanik: for 50 years and the monastery of the Most Pure Ones it will not be erased from the daily list, for a hundred rubles and feed for every year. For food per one sovereign, the lovers of Christ give 12 rubles for the larger one, 5 rubles for the smaller one, 2 rubles for honey kvass, and 20 altyn for the sowed kvass. About feed and about food and drink and for the whole year... l. (11) September at 9. Commemoration of the repose of our venerable father, abbot and leader of the holy monastery of this monastery, Joseph the Wonderworker. - At Vespers there is a great service of prayer, with the whole cathedral, and the brothers’ candles and Joseph’s great vestments, leave in the tomb. And after the prayer in the meal, sychen kvass is included in dinner and without dinner. And after the funeral service in the evening on the holiday, the beggars are allowed into the monastery and fed - bread according to honor, and porridge or peas, and undigested kvass, and 9 (rubles?) money - worldly - half a dengue, and a monk - 2 denge, and those needed (s?) 2 money. At Matins there will be a prayer service or prayer service to the wonderworker Joseph. If God deigns to celebrate the creator of this holy monastery, and celebrate according to the charter and according to the code, as indicated back in the first chapter about the ringing of truly everything there. There is great consolation in the meal for the brothers - white embroidered spreads and white rolls, and three fish - fresh in frying pans, and good salting in the frying pans, and Pereslavl herrings (l. 12), and buttered wallpaper and pies and pancakes with honey, medven kvass with molasses. And the beggars in the monastery are fed in the same way, and the elders share bread outside the monastery, and the treasurer, just like at the funeral supper, does not insult or beat or irritate us with money, even if they reproach and revile us, by insulting and insulting the beggar, he irritates the Creator God. Likewise, send alms throughout the monastery from food (to) poor monasteries, small, male and female, and to all villages throughout the entire estate of the Most Pure Monastery, and (sic) in memory of our leader and luminary, the reverend father, first father, mentor and teacher, Abbot Joseph. And the abbot of Spirovsky and the priest of the Intercession in the monastery and all the priest and deacon (l. - reverse) and clerk and sexton and marshmallows, and beggar monks and lay husbands and wives, and small and great, priest and deacon, monk and white man, in the monastery and outside the monastery for an altyn, a deacon for four dengi, a clerk and sexton for money, and marshmallows and blueberries and monk beggars (and) worldly people for half a day. And in the villages, in all of which there are churches of God, there would be a prayer service in the evening, and in the morning, according to the time, the litorgy would be in memory of the miracle worker, and it is appropriate for the elder to watch over them and force them, so that they have all kinds of divine singing, and for the parents of memory and service and liteya (fol. 13) at vespers and at matins and liturgy and prayer service in all the churches they were and would live piously and chastely and would not get drunk to the point of great drunkenness, for this is why all evil rages..... (fol. 16 ver.) On Dmitrovskaya Saturday. According to our venerable father, the head of this holy monastery was Abbot Joseph, and throughout all the brethren, His Holiness Metropolitan Danil of All Russia, the first abbot who was in this holy monastery. According to our venerable father Joseph, the abbot serves as the entire cathedral and the list of brothers is read by all of our brothers who lie here, and in the evening at the funeral service they go to the tomb of the wonderworkers and after mass they eat large amounts of food, medven kvass.” Family of Malyuta Skuratov in the Volokolamsk Monastery: Monk Leonid Skuratov Belsky; Malyutin’s dacha based on it, sheet 16 ver. (Oct. 15). Monk Barsanuphia, Malyuta Skuratov’s mother, – page 19. Malyuta Grigory Lukyanovich Skuratov; the dacha of the sovereign and his wife, sheet 15 and ver. 31. Maxim Zaryanskoy (?) Grigoriev son of Malyutin Skuratov, – sheet 23 ver. L. 18 turns. (Memory) for Grigory, for the Cossack Gridenin, for the monastery servant, dacha 100 rubles. L. 27 revolution. “On the 30th day (December) according to His Holiness Metropolitan Macarius of All Rus', his dacha was 200 rubles, and the apostle was great in ten, the whole was registered in gold, the great monastery letter 987, price 50 rubles, and the great one was lowered, and the book was ten Grigory Selunsky, and 150 brothers of copper, serve abbot, big food, medven kvass.” This document was compiled by Evfimy Turkov no earlier than 1579, sheet 71 (“For the blessed Grand Duchess Elena, for the sovereign’s mother, the sovereign’s dacha in the summer of 7087”) and before he was appointed abbot, sheet 92 (for it was compiled “with the blessing and advice of the abbot of the holy monasteries of this and the most important elders.” Appointed abbot on July 26, 1575, Stroeva, Lists of Hierarchs. On the last page, Euthymius calls himself the compiler of everyday life). [In breviaries of the XIV-XV centuries. only two prayers are read “for the founding of the church and veneration of the cross” (manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library No. 372 (900), sheets 30–31, late 14th century and No. 375 (326), sheet 68, 1481). In the Trebnik of the 16th century. there is already a special “rite of founding the church and poking the cross” (manuscript of the same library No. 377 (310), sheets 109–110). – We find a special “rite for the consecration of the church and for the celebration of the holy meal in it” in the same manuscripts (No. 372, sheets 31–57; No. 375, sheets 69–92 and No. 377, sheets 120, ver. – 130). “The rite and the rules, sometimes the holy meal will be forgotten” – in manuscript No. 372, sheets 57, ver. – 63; No. 375, sheets 93–98. In the Trebnik of the 16th century. (manuscript No. 377, sheets 110–118) we read “the rite of consecration of the church is of small consecration, until the antimis is sacred by great consecration from the saint.” (Service in an unfinished church, - Resurrection Chronicle under 1287, Collection of Chronicles VII, 179). [Metropolitan Cyprian, in his teaching to the Novgorod clergy (1395), among other things, writes: “But the church has no second priesthood, except if the holy throne is damaged: then the priesthood is needed, then all sorts of new things are needed,” - Pavlov’s Monuments col. 236. Among his answers to Abbot Athanasius we read: “The Church is worthy to be clothed: if there is a priest, put on the eptrachelion, and receive the censer in the hand, and thus give prayer, and tax the church; if there is a lay priest, put on all the priestly clothing. There is no priesthood of any kind, lower in the charter It is written about this, it is legislated below..... If a dog, if it is a sin, jumps into the church, sanctifies it with water, with the August sacredness, and sprinkles the church, and then serves; Ibidem, col. 255–257. Wed. in the saint’s teaching of the 16th century: “And the dog should jump into the church, otherwise do not serve mass in it for 8 days, but sanctify the water with August baptism, and sprinkle the church, and serve.” Ibid. col. 922. In the canonical question-answers, belonging to the unknown and dating no later than the 15th century, we encounter the following question-answers: “The church is old, and they will put a new one on top of it, should it be consecrated? If the Holy See is not moved by anything, then consecrate (with the sacredness) the month of August, and a prayer for the renovation of the church. - If a dog jumps into the church, or to consecrate with the sacredness of the month of August, to place the old antimys on the holy table. - The question is about the place to lay the church. Ibid., col. 869–870. The order for the cleansing of the church, when a dog jumps into the church or someone from the infidels enters, see Archpriest K. Nikolsky About the services of the Russian Church, etc., pp. 297–306]. [Regarding tonsure as a monk, among the responses of the Patriarchal Council of Constantinople in 1276. to the questions of the Sarai Bishop Theognost we find the following question-and-answers: "Question. If it happens to a person in great illness, and rises to blackhood, and is not an abbot, should the bishop tonsure him? Answer. Not only the bishop, but also a new and deacon; if there is no priest and deacon, and at death, and the clergyman should tonsure him. - Question: Is it proper for a bishop to tonsure a bishop, or not? Answer: If there is no abbot, a bishop can tonsure him.” In the answers of Metropolitan Cyprian to Abbot Athanasius, we read among other things: “It is not suitable for a skimnik to be tonsured, except if the need comes to illness and the skimnik priest is not there: then, dividing the need, tonsure. There is only one tonsure for the monk and the monk, but only when he reads the prayers, the tonsured person will come, where are the names the essence of the saints and saints is written, then it is not suitable to change the names of the saints to the holy women. and take the holy communion, if not to take away something, to withhold his spiritual father; do not ungird his belt until the same day, and also do not take off the hood to the angel, even if a person is faithful, he said, do not take off either to the angel or to the angel, until the bard grows... It is not suitable for a lay priest to be tonsured into the ranks of the rabble: if he doesn’t have it himself, how can he give it to someone else?... Whenever it is useful to shave a monk and give him a name, there is no law in this: you should either name the saint’s days, or again with a worldly name, but as the abbot wishes and commands. Metropolitan Photius, in his letter to Pskov, writes: “And what do you write, that for the sake of what business a wife hides her husband, and goes to the monastery, and abbesses tonsure such: “other abbesses are in prohibition and in abstinence from the priesthood. And the husband or wife, in illness or not in illness, who wants from them to the rank to the monk, and the husband must give the wife the freedom to cut the scissors, and the wife also must give the husband the same. and she called herself a nun, and she was tonsured by the abbot.” See Pavlov's Monuments col. 133, 256–257, 262, 430–431. The rite that is given to someone who is a lover of Christ, who by good will, comes to a monastery somewhere, and asks to be a spiritual brother there to the existing brethren in that holy place. monastery, - from Archpriest K. Nikolsky About the services of the Russian Church pp. 389–394. – The rite of those who want to shut themselves up, – ibid. pp. 395–411. The rite of tonsure of monks, see N. F. Krasnoseltseva To the History of Orthodox Worship, Kazan 1889, pp. 134–169]. [Regarding prayers, we read in the answers of Metropolitan Cyprian to Abbot Athanasius: “Whenever you sing a prayer service, ‘God is the Lord’ is worthy of singing” (Pavlov’s Monuments col. 259). The rite of singing a prayer service for the sick, see N. F. Krasnoseltseva On the History of Orthodox Worship, Kazan, 1889, pp. 170–193. Metropolitan Cyprian, among other things, answers Abbot Athanasius to his question: “Before the priests of the laity give prayers to the lay people on the Resurrection and on the Nativity of Christ, and on Peter’s Day, for this reason you ask: is it good for the monks to say the same prayer?” See Pavlov's Monuments col. 261]. Own Russian holidays. In the pre-Mongol period, we had only four of our own saints canonized: Boris and Gleb, Theodosius of Pechersk and Leonty of Rostov 988. At the time we are considering, we had a whole, relatively numerous, host of our own saints canonized. We have already reported the external history of canonization above (p. 169 sqq): from the invasion of the Mongols to Metropolitan Macarius, individual saints were gradually canonized: under Metropolitan Macarius, at the councils of 1547 and 1549 at once, that is, in two simultaneous sessions, many saints were canonized. From the invasion of the Mongols to Metropolitan Macarius, the following saints were gradually canonized: 1) Princess Olga, 2) Grand Duke Vladimir, 3) Anthony of Pechersk, 4) Isaiah, Bishop of Rostov, 5) Varlaam of Khutyn, 6 and 7) Prince Mikhail of Chernigov with the boyar Theodore, 8) Nikita Pereyaslavsky, 9) Ignatius, Bishop of Rostov, 10–12) Prince Theodore of Yaroslavl with his sons David and Constantine, 13) Metropolitan Peter, 14) Metropolitan Alexey, 15) Avramy of Rostov, 16) Dmitry of Prilutsky, 17) Sergius of Radonezh, 18) Cyril Belozersky, 19) Metropolitan Jonah, 20) Macarius of Kalyazinsky, 21) Paphnutius of Borovsky. Of the twenty-one saints now listed, we have positive information about the canonization of only five, namely, Metropolitans Peter, Alexei and Jonah. Macarius of Kalyazinsky and Paphnutius of Borovsky. Metropolitans Peter and Alexei were canonized for church-wide celebration or as all-Russian saints - the first by his successor Metropolitan Theognostus in 1339, the second by Metropolitan Jonah in 1448–49 989; Metropolitan Jonah, Makariy Kalyazinsky and Paphnuty Borovsky were canonized for local celebrations: the first by agreement of Metropolitan Philip with Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich in 1472, the second by Metropolitan Daniel in 1521. 990, the third by the same Metropolitan Daniel in 1531: we spoke above about the canonization of each of them [see. first half of this volume pp. 150–152, 494–495, pp. 515, pp. 734]. Regarding all the other saints, we do not know - neither on the one hand, when any of them was canonized, nor on the other hand, by what kind of canonization who was originally canonized - general or local. Without positive information, we can only make rough indications and make our own assumptions. But in addition to questions about the time of canonization and its original scope, in relation to some of our saints there is also a question: on what basis (on what basis) was their canonization accomplished. We said above that in the pre-Mongol period, a necessary condition for canonization was that miracles should be performed at the tomb of a deceased saint (I volume 2 half, pp. 341/394); Below we will see that this same thing was recognized as a necessary condition by Metropolitan Macarius: and, therefore, it is necessary to think that in our time the same thing was recognized as a necessary condition as before and after 991. But the coffins of some of our saints did not exist so that miracles could be performed with them: the coffins of Olga, Vladimir and Anthony of Pechersk disappeared during the Mongol invasion or generally ceased to be known from his time. On what basis could they be canonized? Since miracles were recognized as a condition sine qua non of canonization, it is obvious that here, too, it remains to assume as a basis nothing other than the same miracles, only performed not at tombs, which did not exist or which remained unknown. Saints can give their miraculous help to people not only at their tombs, but also in every place where they are called: these miracles, independent of the tombs, should be understood as the basis for canonization. It is not incredible, however, to think that our miracles served as the basis for canonizations, and not as something that was known as an actual fact, but as something only accepted as necessarily probable and necessarily assumed: it could be that the unknown church authorities, to whom our saints owe canonization, positively knew about the actual existence of our miracles; but it could not be that the authorities, based on general ideas about the saints who constitute the subject of speech, considered it absolutely and necessarily probable that they would acquire the gift of miracles. That is in the latter case, the matter must be understood in such a way that the unknown authorities who canonized our saints had such high ideas about them, from which it was necessary to assimilate them the gift of miracles, in other words, they had such high ideas about them, on the basis of which their canonization was a matter of necessity. Why the latter could be so or why assumptions could be accepted as equivalent to reality is self-evident. Olga and Vladimir, who baptized the Russian land, were equal to the apostles; therefore, it was natural to equate them with the Greek equal to the apostles Constantine and Helen; and these latter were canonized saints. The Monk Anthony of Pechersk was the same founder of Russian monasticism as the Monk Theodosius, and, moreover, even had the advantage of eldership and beginning in the strict sense of the word over the latter; and, therefore, if one was canonized, then the other should have been considered equally worthy of canonization 992 . Metropolitan Jonah, Macarius of Kalyazinsky and Paphnutius of Borovsky were canonized under Macarius as all-Russian saints; therefore, before him they remained and were recognized as local saints. The news speaks about the remaining 18 saints we have listed as saints who were recognized before Macarius by the entire Russian Church or were all-Russian saints 993. But the question arises: did each of our saints become a general saint as a result of his deliberate canonization, as such, or were some of them deliberately canonized only as local saints 994 and then they became common without any deliberate canonization as such? It seems most likely to think that not only some of our saints, but decidedly the majority of them, became common saints without deliberate canonization as such, but simply as a result of voluntary zeal on the part of church society. If out of 18 saints we do not have information about the general church canonization of 16: then the absence of only a small number of the latter can probably be explained by the fact that they were not recorded, while the absence of the largest part of them must be explained by the absence of the very facts that could be recorded. When a saint was canonized for local celebration in some well-known place, this did not prohibit everyone else from celebrating him outside of the given place, but did not impose on others the obligation to do so: and thus voluntary zeal could, without official canonization on the part of the church authorities, gradually make local saints common, and more common in the proper sense, the greater the zeal for which saint. The expression: “local” in our case has a double meaning, meaning, firstly, the very place in which the saint’s tomb was located, and secondly, the whole diocese in which the place itself was located: it is likely to think that some of the saints were originally canonized for local celebration in one sense, others in another, and that some of those saints who were originally canonized for the celebration of the local in the closest and most particular sense became local saints in the broadest sense, in order to later become general, not as a result of direct official canonization, but as a result of that voluntary zeal for them, which we just talked about above. Regarding the time when which saint was canonized or became a more or less generally recognized and church-wide saint, we can report, that is, strictly speaking, not so much report as presumptively state the following: Oh St. The chronicles of Vladimir make it known in 1240 that he had not yet been canonized that year, but in 1311. Archbishop David of Novgorod built a church dedicated to his name in Novgorod (see I volume 2 half, p. 338 sqq/391 sqq; therefore, his canonization took place between the now indicated years. It seems very likely to think that it was accomplished on the initiative of Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, who on the day of memory of Vladimir, July 15 1240 won his famous victory over the Swedes and who could attribute the victory to his prayerful intercession (together with the intercession of Saints Boris and Gleb, which, according to the legend of Alexander, was a direct revelation 995. About the canonization of St. Olga, about which absolutely nothing positive is known, it seems likely to think - on the one hand, that she did not forestall the canonization of Vladimir, and on the other hand, that it took place more or less a short time after this second. The fact that in the middle of the 15th century Pachomius Serbinus took care of writing the life of St. Olga and her canon, the Archbishop of Novgorod (above p. 178), and not the Metropolitan and the Grand Duke, gives some reason to assume that she is St. Olga (as well as St. Vladimir?) was primarily celebrated in Novgorod, which in turn gives some reason to assume that the celebration was originally established in this latter. Regarding the Venerable Anthony of Pechersk, it is likely to think that he was initially canonized as a local saint of the Pechersk Monastery - that from the monastery the celebration of his memory first spread throughout southern Rus', and then moved to northern Rus'. We cannot say anything about the time when the first happened; Some definition of the time of the latter can be served by the information that Tver Bishop Arseny, who came from the Pechersk monks, built in 1394. in the Zheltikov Monastery he founded, there is a church in the name of Saints Anthony and Theodosius of Pechersk 996. From what has just been said, it follows that the memory of St. Anthony began to be celebrated in the North no later than the end of the 14th century. And based on the information that the Patericon of Pechersk began to spread in Moscow no earlier than the half of the 15th century 997, there is some probability to assume that it was Bishop Arseny who was the first to establish the celebration of the memory of St. Anthony in northern Rus'. The relics of Isaiah, Bishop of Rostov, were discovered simultaneously with the relics of St. Leontius in 1164; but he was canonized or celebration began only at a later time. According to the legend about him, his relics, located in the vestibule of the cathedral, remained in great neglect until 1474, when Archbishop Vassian Rylo arranged a new coffin for them in the church itself and transferred them from the old coffin to the new one 998. From what has just been said it follows that until 1474. Isaiah was not canonized 999. After 1474 we find his name in the calendar almost immediately 1000; and on this basis it is very likely to think that it was in 1474. he was canonized for a local celebration in the Rostov diocese, in order to then become a saint and all-Russian. When the Monk Varlaam of Khutyn was canonized locally in Novgorod remains unknown; They claim, we don’t know on what basis, that traces of his honor both in Novgorod and in the Novgorod diocese in general were noticed at the end of the 13th and the beginning of the 14th century 1001. In Moscow they began to celebrate him in 1461, and precisely because of the fact that during the time of the Grand Duke in Novgorod in the previous 1460. he performed a great miracle on one of the youths of the latter 1002. Prince Mikhail Vsevolodovich of Chernigov and his boyar Theodore, locally in Chernigov, in all likelihood, were canonized within a very short time after their martyrdom. At the end of the 14th and beginning of the 15th centuries they were already all-Russian saints 1003. Regarding Nikita of Pereyaslavl, who, in our opinion, lived not before the Mongol invasion, but after it (and about whom see Vol. I, half, pp. 639/760), there are some not particularly reliable indications, on the basis of which one can think that Metropolitan Photius (1410–1431) blessed him to celebrate in a local way 1004. In the second half of the 15th century he was an all-Russian saint 1005. With the relics of Ignatius, Bishop of Rostov, who died in 1288, miracles began to occur from the very funeral service, so for this reason they were not buried, but openly placed in the cathedral 1006. On this basis, one must think that he was canonized locally more or less within a short time after his death. He began to become an all-Russian saint no later than the 14th century 1007. Yaroslavl (Smolensk by origin) Prince Theodore Rostislavich, nicknamed Black, died in 1300. 1008; of his two sons, the eldest David died in 1321. 1009, and the younger Konstantin is unknown when, and all three, despite their deaths at different times, were laid in one common coffin, in the Yaroslavl Spassky Monastery. Since there is a short story about the death of Theodore, which there is reason to believe was written a little time after his death 1010, it does not seem incredible to think that locally he began to be revered (in the sense of worshiping the tomb, singing dirges over it) more or less soon after his death. All three princes were truly canonized or canonized after 1463, in which miracles began to be performed at their graves 1011. We expressed our assumptions about the time of life and the person of the Monk Abramius of Rostov above (I volume 2 half, p. 641 sqq/763 sqq). He was canonized at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century (ibid. pp. 650/772). The Monk Demetrius of Prilutsky, who died in 1392, was canonized, as one must think, at the beginning of the second half of the 15th century 1012. The celebration of the memory of St. Sergius of Radonezh, who died in the same year 1392, began in 1422, when, as a result of a miraculous revelation, his relics were extracted from the ground and found incorruptible. It seems that at first the celebration was not general, but local - monastic; but, in any case, it became common in the sense of all-Russian very soon 1013. St. Kirill of Belozersky, who died in 1427, was canonized even sooner than St. Sergius of Radonezh: in one letter of Metropolitan Jonah from the end of 1448 - beginning of 1449, he is already prayerfully commemorated along with Metropolitan Peter, Leonty of Rostov and Sergius of Radonezh, as belonging to the number predominant (great) Russian saints 1014. Summarizing the partly positive news, partly probable assumptions regarding the time when which saint from among the saints occupying our time was directly canonized as an all-Russian saint or from local saints became a more or less all-Russian saint, we get the following regarding the gradual increase in the number of all-Russian saints during the time we are considering (from the Mongol invasion to Metropolitan Macarius): in the 13th century to four saints inherited from the period pre-Mongolian (Boris and Gleb, St. Theodosius of Pechersk and Leonty of Rostov) two saints were added: Vladimir and Olga; in the 14th century, four saints were added: Metropolitan Peter, Ignatius of Rostov and Mikhail of Chernigov with the boyar Theodore; in the first half of the 15th century, three saints were added: Sergius of Radonezh, Kirill of Belozersky and Metropolitan Alexei; in the second half there are four saints: Varlaam of Khutyn, Demetrius of Prilutsky, Nikita of Pereyaslavl and Anthony of Pechersk; in the 16th century there were five saints: Isaiah of Rostov, Theodore of Yaroslavl with his sons David and Konstantin, and Avramy of Rostov. Those of our saints who, having originally been local saints, later became more or less all-Russian saints, not as a result of official canonization, but as a result of voluntary zeal for them, as it goes without saying, were not absolutely obligatory for anyone regarding the celebration of their memories. But we have evidence that even those saints who were officially canonized as all-Russian saints were not recognized by everyone as obligatory in our regard. Metropolitan Alexei was officially canonized as an all-Russian saint and, however, we know the calendar written after his canonization, in which his memory is not recorded 1015. Our saints we are talking about were either all-Russian saints in the proper sense of the word (as officially canonized in this very sense) or were voluntarily recognized as such to a greater or lesser extent. But along with these all-Russian saints, who were completely or not quite real during the time we are considering, there were also local saints in the exact and proper sense of this last word, or saints who, having been canonized as local, remained so until Macarius. How great was the number of these local saints, and who exactly they were after the three we indicated: Metropolitan Jonah, Macarius of Kalyazinsky and Paphnutius of Borovsky, we are not able to say. In the life of Metropolitan Jonah, which reports a list of saints recognized as all-Russian before Metropolitan Macarius, and which conveys the canonizations performed by the latter, it speaks of the saints canonized under him (Makarii) in such a way that it is as if before him all of them were celebrating locally: “and it is not legal to celebrate everywhere with this great lamp (canonized under Macarius) it happened, but where every time their honest shrines with holy relics were, that and the glory were” 1016. It may be that all the saints canonized under Macarius were actually celebrated before him in a local way; but it may very well be that the author of the life allows for inaccuracy and that by all he should mean only some 1017. Be that as it may, in any case, we positively know that before Macarius it was celebrated in a local way and by such saints who were not canonized under him either for an all-Russian celebration or confirmed for a local celebration. Thus, Archbishop of Novgorod Evfimy Vyazhitsky established in 1439 local celebration in the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral for the builder of the latter, Prince Vladimir Yaroslavich and his mother 1018; but in the lists of saints canonized by Macarius for the general or local celebration of our local Sofia saints. There are complete lists of saints, not only canonized for church-wide celebration, but also those who were not canonized; but these lists, firstly, belong to a later time, and secondly, they serve absolutely no purpose for any time: the non-canonized saints placed in them do not represent those saints who were actually celebrated locally, but represent saints whom the compilers of the lists themselves wanted to collect and create solely according to their own (and in some cases extremely unfortunate) 1019 Under Metropolitan Macarius, at the councils of 1547 and 1549, many saints were canonized simultaneously. But besides these so-to-speak summary canonizations, after 1549 several more private or individual canonizations were carried out under him. At the cathedral of 1547 21 saints were canonized. But since three of those canonized had already been canonized before and under Macarius were only, so to speak, elevated in degree, then in fact 18 saints were canonized. The Council divides them into two classes: general or all-Russian, which had to be sung and celebrated everywhere, and local, which had to be sung and celebrated only in those cities in which their relics were located. The cathedral canonized the following as general or all-Russian saints, listing them in chronological order: 1) John (actually Elijah), Archbishop of Novgorod, 2) Grand Duke Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, 3) Nikon of Radonezh, 4) Pavel Obnorsky, 5) Savvaty Solovetsky, 6) Dionysius Glushitsky, 7) Mikhail Klopsky, 8) Metropolitan Jonah, 9) Paphnutius Borovsky, 10) Zosima Solovetsky, 11) Macarius Kalyazinsky, 12) Alexander Svirsky. The following were canonized by the cathedral as local saints: 1–3) Konstantin of Murom with his sons Mikhail and Theodore, 4 and 5) Peter and Fevronia of Murom (all five to sing and celebrate in Murom), 6) Arseny Bishop of Tver (to sing and celebrate in Tver), 7) Maxim, the Fool of Moscow (to sing and celebrate in Moscow), 8 and 9) Procopius and John, holy fools of Ustyug (sing and celebrate in Ustyug). Of these 21 saints, those previously canonized for local celebration, and canonized by the council for general celebration, were: Metropolitan Jonah, Macarius of Kalyazinsky and Paphnutius of Borovsky 1020. At the council of 1549, 19 or 20 saints were canonized. Perhaps they were also divided into two classes, general and local, but this remains unknown to us. The canonized saints (in the same chronological order) were: 1) Prince Vsevolod Mstislavich of Pskov, 2) Niphon, Archbishop of Novgorod 1021, 3) Avramius of Smolensk, 4) Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich of Tver, 5–7) Anthony, John and Eustathius, martyrs of Lithuania, 8) Jacob, Bishop of Rostov, 9) Stefan, Bishop of Perm, 10) Evfimy of Suzdal, 11) Savva of Storozhevsky, 12) Grigory of Pelshem, 13) Evfimy, Archbishop of Novgorod, 14) Savva of Vishera, 15) Jonah, Archbishop of Novgorod, 16) Evphrosynus of Pskov, 17) Ephraim of Perekom, 18 and 19) non-Russian saints: Arseny, Archbishop of Serbia, and John the Martyr of Belograd, in what was then Moldavia, 20) not reliably known as canonized at our council, but with some probability could be mistaken for such - Nikita, Bishop of Novgorod. After the council of 1549, under Metropolitan Macarius, they were canonized: it is unknown exactly when, shortly after the council, Ferapont and Martinian of Belozersky 1022, in 1553. Tsarevich Ordynsky Peter and still unknown or unknown someone 1023; in 1560 or soon after Gregory and Cassian of Avnezh 1024. Canonization, which consists in the solemn recognition by the church of famous persons as saints, does not mean that the church creates saints: it is not the church that creates saints, but God. By canonizing someone as a saint, the church only recognizes and proclaims the fact that a famous person has been honored by God to be accepted into the host of His saints, and at the same time assumes the obligation to behave towards the person as it is customary to behave towards saints, that is, to please and glorify him with hymns and services. From what has been said, it is clear that there must be signs on the basis of which the church could be assured that a well-known person has been honored by God to be accepted into the host of His saints. We, together with the entire Christian Church, considered this sign to be the fact that miracles happened at the coffin with the remains or relics of a famous person. On the basis of this attribute, saints were canonized in our country in the pre-Mongol period (I volume 2 half, pp. 341/394); on the basis of the same sign they were canonized under Metropolitan Macarius. In the notification letter of the cathedral in 1547. about the canonizations he performed it reads: “I have now been ordered to celebrate as a new miracle worker in the Russian land, that the Lord God glorified them - his saints with many and various miracles and banners” 1025. In the writing of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich to the Stoglavy Cathedral about new miracle workers it is said that at the cathedral in 1547. canonizations were carried out after, according to his - the king's prayer, it was known that they were tortured and searched "about the great new miracle workers by sacred cathedrals and abbots and holy monks and monks and hermits and princes and bolyars and God-fearing people, where those miracle workers became famous for their great miracles and signs from such great times and in what years" 1026. In the same writing of the tsar to the Council of the Hundred Heads it is said that for the councils of 1547 and 1549, canons for new wonderworkers and the lives of the latter were collected and laid down at them (the councils). But this should not at all be understood in the same way as others understand that the councils considered the mere fact that there was a canon for a person and his life to be a sufficient basis for canonization. If any person was to be canonized, then it was desired that there should be a canon for him and his life; and therefore, along with testimonies of miracles performed at the tombs of famous persons, the canons and their lives, if they existed, were presented to the councils, and the first (canons) were presented and therefore, in particular, because they had to be testified by church authorities regarding their dignity (their suitability). But that the existence of canons and lives was not considered a sufficient basis for canonization is evident from the fact that some persons to whom the canons were written and whose lives were written before the council of 1547 were not canonized at either one or the other council 1028. Thus, there can be no doubt that the indispensable basis for the canonizations carried out at the councils of 1547 and 1549 was the existence of miracles or that only those persons were canonized at them for whom evidence was presented that miracles were performed at their tombs. But if this is so, then another question is how thoroughly the councils verified the evidence or records of miracles provided to them. Since a very large number of saints were canonized at the councils, and between those we have no reason to believe that they lasted too long, it is necessary to think that on their own or directly they did not verify the certificates and found it possible to rely on the certificates or on the testimony of the local bishops involved. That the councils found it possible to rely simply on written evidence, without their confirmation by living people, this, in any case, is clear from the fact that at the council of 1549 such saints were canonized, written testimonies about which could not be verified by living people; These are: Anthony, John and Eustathius, martyrs of Lithuania, Arseny, Archbishop of Serbia and John, martyr of Belograd. Another sign of holiness - the incorruption of relics during the time of Metropolitan Macarius, as before (Ι vol. 2 half, p. 341 fin/.395), was not considered a necessary sign. This is evident from the fact that several saints were canonized at the councils, whose relics had not previously been discovered 1029. (And by the incorruption of relics during the time of Metropolitan Macarius, as before, they meant the preservation of not only whole bodies, but also some bones, see ibid. pp. 342/395) 1030. Since the canonization of all the saints, the councils were guided by the same sign - the existence of miracles, what was done by the council of 1547 is not entirely clear to us. division of saints into general and local. One must think that the council had in mind the degree of acquired fame as miracle workers. It is very possible, as we said above, that the council of 1549 carried out its canonizations with the same division of saints into general and local, but this remains unknown to us. (The local saints of the cathedral of 1547 subsequently turned into general saints through the same, so to speak, self-propagation that we spoke about above). Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich addressed the Stoglavy Cathedral with a proposal that he lay down the method of celebrating Euphrosynus of Pskov and Avramius of Smolensk (canonized at the council in 1549): “yes, about the Pskov wonderworker Euphrosynus, and about the Smolensk wonderworker Avramie at the cathedral they laid down how they should celebrate,” in response to what proposal the cathedral decreed: “they celebrated with him, like other holy reverend fathers, by singing at vespers “Blessed is the man” and other services according to the divine charter, all in full.” 1031 What the king’s proposal separately about two saints from among many means, remains not entirely clear to us. It is not entirely clear to us that among the Russian saints Arseny of Serbia and John of Belograd 1032 were canonized by the council of 1549. Probably, the matter should be understood in such a way that the services of these saints were known here in Russia 1033 and that the council, canonizing them, wanted to give its permission to celebrate them with us. (As for Anthony, John and Eustathius of Lithuania, although they were not Russians, but Lithuanians, the Orthodox faith, for which they suffered from Olgerd, was the Russian faith in Lithuania, and through this they became, as it were, our own saints). Revealed and miraculous icons. A shrine brought from the East. During the time we are considering, the revealed icons of the Mother of God and St. Nicholas the Wonderworker are known. There are four known revealed icons of the Mother of God: Feodorovskaya Kostroma, Tikhvinskaya, Kolochskaya and Okovetskaya. Tradition tells about the icon of the Feodorovskaya Mother of God that before the invasion of the Mongols it was located in the Nizhny Novgorod suburb of Gorodets (now a village in the Nizhny Novgorod province, Balakhninsky district, lying on the Volga 18 miles up from Balakhna) 1034 - that when Batu destroyed Gorodets in 1237. she disappeared to no one knows where, and that more than 30 years after that, she miraculously appeared near Kostroma to the local appanage prince (former Grand Duke from 1272 to 1276) Vasily Yaroslavich 1035. The name of the Feodorovskaya icon is explained by the fact that on the eve of its appearance to the prince, some residents of Kostroma saw a vision of how it was carried around the city by a certain warrior, similar in appearance to the Great Martyr Theodore Stratelates (the Feodorovskaya icon could have been called because it was placed in the city cathedral, which was Feodorovsky, or because in Gorodets it was located in the Feodorovsky monastery. - The icon is currently located in the Kostroma Cathedral of the Assumption of the Mother of God) 1036. The appearance of the Tikhvin Icon of the Mother of God is recorded in the Resurrection Chronicle under 1383. (Collected Chronicles VIII, 48): “That same summer, an icon, the image of the Most Pure Mother of God Hodegetria, appeared in the region of Veliky Novgorod, in the Obonezh Pyatina, on Olti in Vychenitsy, a hundred miles from the city, and no one knows where it came from; and from that icon, the Most Pure Image, miracles many, and she erected a church in the name of the Nativity of the Holy Mother of God; and not long after, she descended invisibly and appeared on Kozhel, twenty miles away, on Mount Kukovo, and in that place she erected a church in the name of the Intercession of the Holy Mother of God; in the air, and a multitude of people gathered at that great miracle, and in that place on the mountain they founded a church, laying three crowns, in the name of its venerable Dormition, and by night the people went out of their way to the house; From then on, the Most Pure Mother of God on Tikhvin began to show great miracles to those who came by faith” 1037. (Tikhvin or Tikhvin Monastery, built for the icon by order of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible in 1560, is located in the city of Tikhvin, Novgorod province). Found the icon of the Koloch Mother of God in 1413. “on a certain tree in a certain place” one poor peasant of the village of Kolochi, located 15 versts from the city of Mozhaisk (the Kolotsky monastery, founded for the icon shortly after its appearance, is currently located in the Gzhatsky district of the Smolensk province, 40 versts east of the district town). In the Nikon Chronicle it is read under 1413. (V, 48 beginning) the story of the discovery of the icon, which, although not very extensive, is very curious; therefore, we will present it here in full. “That same summer, 15 versts from Mozhaisk, in the patrimony of Prince Andrei Dmitrievich, grandson of Ivanov, great-grandson of Ivanov, great-great-grandson of Danil of Moscow, a sign appeared in Kolocha: a certain man named Luka of the simple people of Ratoev, the last of the poor in poverty, was found on a certain tree in a certain place an icon of the Most Pure Mother of God, holding on her hand the baby, our Lord Jesus Christ, from the one country icon of that one, St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, and on the other, Elijah the Prophet; and with great faith he kissed it and set it in his field in a simple place, on a tree; and a certain man came and took it from him, Luke begged him, giving him bread of oatmeal, and he took the icon back to him, and went with it to his house. And the man was paralyzed in his house, lying for many years, Luke showed him the icon, and when he found it, he told him everything: the paralytic man was surprised and prayed to Luke to bring the icon to him. Bring Luke to him, the paralytic put his forehead, eyes and mouth to the holy icon of the Mother of God, and at that hour he stood up all healthy, as if he had never been ill. And this was heard quickly from all those living there, and many people flocked, and the sick and sick were brought, and everyone was in good health. And a multitude of people began to come from everywhere, bringing the sick and paralytic, and I was healed, and many countless miracles happened. And all people began to honor Luke, as they had his prophet or apostle, in great honor and glory. Luke went with the icon from Kolocha to the city of Mozhaisk, and as he approached the city, Prince Ondrei Dmitrievich went out to meet his boyars, and the whole city, from the great to the small, even to those who drank milk, and there were many signs and wonders from the icon of the Mother of God. - From there Luke went with the icon to Moscow, and set it down from the cross with the Metropolitan and the bishops and with the entire sacred cathedral; so are the princes and princesses with their children, and the boyars and governors and all the nobles, and the entire Orthodox Christian multitude; and there were countless miracles: I saw blindness, I walked with lameness, I stood up in paralysis, I spoke dumbly, I heard in deafness, and in every sickness I was in health. And that there is a lot to say, because the human mind cannot cease to express the countless indescribable miracles that happened then and there. And Luke walked from city to city with the icon of the Mother of God, and everywhere countless indescribable miracles happened from the icon of the Mother of God, and all the princes and boyars gave Luke, the princes and boyars, and all the Orthodox Christians a lot of property, in alms and in honor and in gifts, and they honored Luke as an apostle. Luka was by no means a simple man, like one from the last villagers, but he also had legal virtue in himself. And return again to your first place in Kolocha with the miraculous icon, and have collected much and countless wealth, and set up a court for yourself like a certain prince, churches bright and majestic, and many servants, a gathering of youths standing and preceding him, many named in the decorations of the utensils, and his meal was a lot of food, having the fat and expensive, and a lot of fragrant drinks, and eating and getting drunk with those who served him, and going fishing with hawks and falcons and gyrfalcons, and having a lot of dogs, and bearing the name of bears, and was consoled by these. From the icon of the Mother of God many miracles were performed, and Luke placed it in the church, which he himself created, where the Kolochinsky monastery now stands, and those who came from everywhere, suffering from all sorts of ailments, were healed. - Luke was created in vain and without cold, when the hunters of Prince Andrei Dmitreevich go hunting from hawks or falcons by order of Prince Andrei Dmitreevich, he also beats and robs falconers, and takes hawks and falcons for himself, and not only one, but also many and always formerly. Prince Ondrei Dmitreevich endured all this, sometimes sending him to him, but he answered him cruelly and sternly. Prince Ondrei Dmitrievich, with humility and patience, kept silent, and Prince Ondreev began to beat and rob the hunters, and took the bears and larmis to himself, and with these they were having fun and comforted. “Therefore, a certain cruel and deceitful hunter of Prince Andrei Dmitreevich, prepared the time and caught the bear with the knowledge of evil and fierceness, and commanded him to be led near Lukin’s court; Luka saw him from the choir and went out to the bear with his servants, and ordered the hunter, Prince Ondreev, to let him into his yard. The hunter Prince Ondreev created wickedness over Luka and at that hour released the bear, Luka did not leave; and the bear came to Luka, and as soon as he had taken Luka away from the bear, he breathed into his nostrils. And at that hour, Prince Andrei Dmitrievich drove to Luke and saw Luke taking his last breath, and said to him: why did you love demonic disgrace and splashing and copulate with drunkenness, how God glorified you with a miraculous image of His Mother the Mother of God, you didn’t count this in anything, but you descended into a useless worldly life, so that’s what happened to you? He cried and shed tears and prayed for him to arrange useful things for him. Prince Ondrei Dmitreevich, with his many and countless estates, built a monastery in that place in the name of the Most Pure Mother of God, the blessed Kolochsky, and placed the miraculous icon of the Mother of God in it, having worked miracles to this day for those who come with faith. Luke took monastic vows there and lived there for several years in tenderness and tears, until he reposed in the Lord.” The icon of the Okovets Mother of God appeared in 1539 in the Okovets volost of the Tver province, Rzhev district 1038 (currently located [in the village of Okovtsy, which is now in the Ostashkov district, on the left bank of the Pyrshni river, which flows into the Pesochnya river, and with it - a mile from Selizharov's settlement, in the Volga river, on the border between Rzhevsky and Ostashkovsky districts, 70 versts from both Ostashkov and Rzhev]. There are two known icons of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker: Ugreshskaya and Velikoretskaya or Khlynovskaya. The Ugresh icon, which forms the shrine of the Ugreshsky (Nikolo-Ugreshsky) monastery, located 14 versts from Moscow, on the Moscow River, appeared, according to legend, to Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy, when in 1380. he moved from Moscow to Mamaia. The Velikoretsk icon appeared during the reign of the same Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy in 1383, in the Vyatka region, on the Velikaya River, which flows into the Vyatka River, 65 versts from the city of Vyatka and one verst from the village of Velikoretsky (currently located in the Oryol district of the Vyatka province. In 1551, the icon was transferred from the village of Velikoretskoye to the city of Vyatka, which was called Khlynov until 1780, and that is why it is called differently Khlynovskaya). The Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God marked itself by working miracles not only for the benefit of individual people, but also for the entire Russian state (for the pre-Mongol history of which see in the first half of the volume, pp. 356 fin/.411 and 359/414). When in 1395 there was a formidable invasion of Russia by Tamerlane (Temir-Aksak of our chronicles), Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich, seeking protection for his capital from the Mother of God, decided, on the advice of Metropolitan Cyprian, to bring our miraculous icon from Vladimir to Moscow: and on the very day the icon was brought to Moscow, in which it later remained forever, Tamerlane turned back from the borders of Russia in 1039 (in memory of the presentation of the icon in Moscow, a holiday was established for it on the last day, August 26, and the Sretensky Monastery was built on the site of the presentation). In 1451 under Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich the Dark, Moscow was in danger of being taken from the Nogai prince Mazovsha. The Tsarevich burned the settlements around the city and began an attack on the Kremlin itself; but when the inhabitants of the capital, who did not have the Grand Duke with them, were already despairing of their salvation, he suddenly retreated and left. The unexpected deliverance of Moscow from the threatening danger was attributed to the miraculous intercession of the Mother of God through our miraculous icon 1040. The unexpected complete deliverance of Russia from the Mongol yoke in 1480. was also assimilated to the miraculous intercession of the Mother of God through our icon (which is why, in memory of this, the feast of the icon was established on June 23) 1041. Finally, the intercession of the Mother of God through our icon was responsible for the salvation of Moscow and all of Russia from the terrible invasion in 1521. Crimean Khan Magmet-Girey 1042 (a holiday was established on May 21). In the 1st Novgorod Chronicle it is recorded under 1330 that in this year from one of the icons of the Mother of God, located in one of the churches of Novgorod, there was a sign that tears flowed from both eyes ("that same summer there was a sign of Augustus 13: at St. Lazarus, - in the Lazarevsky women's monastery, now defunct, - from the icon of St. The Mother of God, at Vespers, flowed from both of them like tears, and set up, to collect the tears, two wax maids, and in the morning, having seen the whole city, the abbess and the priest with the clerics in their robes went to see the crosses.” There is a story about the Vydropusk Icon of the Mother of God, which tells that the icon marked itself with a great miracle in the 15th century. When Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich III went to Veliky Novgorod to conquer it and when, after the conquest, he returned home with great captivity, one of his warriors, a patrimonial landowner from the Murom region, took as military booty from the church of the village of Vydropusk, devastated by the Grand Duke's army of Novgorod (located on the Tvertsa River, 35 versts up the river from Torzhok, currently time belonging to the Novotorzhsky district of the Tver province) the icon of the Mother of God Hodegetria and, upon returning home, placed it in his patrimonial church. Once he ordered the priest of the church to sing an akathist to the Mother of God, and after the akathist he ordered the canon to be sung specifically to Her icon of Hodegetria, which he brought from the Novgorod campaign, and he said to the priest: “sing me the canon of the Polonyanka, the same as the Polonikh in the Novgorod region.” The priest began to sing the canon, but “suddenly the coward was in that church, and a whirlwind came and great thunder, and the place and the whole church shook, and the cover of the church was parted, and by an invisible force the image rose from the place and went out riding on horseback”: the icon, insulted by its captor, again returned to Vydropusk 1043 (currently it is located in the county town of the Nizhny Novgorod province of Balakhna, having been transferred to it from Vydropusk sometime after 1569, perhaps by the descendants of those Novgorod exiles whom Ivan III settled in Balakhna) 1044. Greece was rich in the relics of saints, and particles of relics could be purchased from the Greeks for free or for money. We know little positive evidence, but we most likely think that rich and simply wealthy Russian people who traveled to Greece and the East in general to venerate the shrine there or for some other reasons tried to take out from there a larger or smaller number of particles of relics 1045. As for another shrine, in addition to the relics, Suzdal Archbishop Dionysius brought it out in 1382. to his Suzdal from Constantinople, having bought in the latter “at a great price,” that is, for an extremely large sum of money, “The Passion of the Savior,” namely, particles of the shrine relating to the Savior and mainly to His suffering. (After Dionysius’s “Passion”, for some reason these were hidden and hidden or embedded in the church wall; discovered in 1401, they were transferred from Suzdal to Moscow, where they remain to this day) 1046. And soon after Dionysius, not directly from Greece, but through Lithuania, a part of the Spasov Passion was still received in Moscow, namely, this new part was brought to Moscow in 1399 by Grand Duchess Sofia Vitovtovna from her father (to whom the Passion was brought from Greece or who took possession of it from someone who brought or received it from Greece) 1047. In the pre-Mongol period, we purchased from Greece photographs or copies of famous (especially those famous for miracles) local icons. We know examples of this in the time we are considering. So, now the aforementioned Archbishop of Suzdal Dionysius took from Constantinople two exact copies (“in the same image, - in the same measure, - in length and width”) from the famous icon of the Mother of God Hodegetria there (about which see I volume 2 half, p. 358/413) and placed them - one in his Suzdal Cathedral, the other - in the Nizhny Novgorod Cathedral 1048. Metropolitan Pimin took from Constantinople, it is unknown whether it had any special name, an icon of the Mother of God, which was probably also a copy of one of the famous Greek icons 1049. Yearly and weekly fasts and rules regarding them. We said above that regarding the three annual fasts - Nativity, Peter the Great and Dormition, which were not canonically legitimized by the church, but were established in it through custom, there was disagreement among the Greeks for a very long time (I volume 2 half, pp. 399/462). This disagreement, which consisted on the one hand in the fact that all three of our posts were not recognized by everyone, and on the other hand in the fact that different times were appointed for their continuation, took place in Greece not only during our entire pre-Mongol period, but also for a significant time after it 1050. As for these fasts in Russia in the pre-Mongol period, we have no information about how we actually dealt with them, but we know that we were given instructions regarding them that disagreed, namely, while some of our shepherds prescribe to observe all three of them, others prescribe to observe only two - the Nativity and Peter the Great, without saying anything about the Dormition 1051. Regarding the time we are considering, we also do not have information, as we actually had with the fasts, and we only know the instructions regarding them from the highest church authorities. Two of these instructions are known, namely, those belonging to Metropolitans Maxim and Photius and read in the Rule on the fasts of the first and in the district teaching for the priestly and monastic rank of the second. Both one and the other metropolitan order to observe all three fasts, and the first of them, making it known to some extent about the uncertainty that existed until then regarding the time of continuation of the fasts, precisely indicates this time - the same as it is now, for all three fasts (when he says that the Peter's fast begins a week after the descent of the Holy Spirit, and the Assumption lasts 15 days, and when he calls the Nativity fast Pentecostal) 1052 . In addition to annual multi-day fasts, there are also annual one-day fasts. From this second category of fasts, the fast on the day of the Exaltation of St. The cross existed among us, following the Greeks, already in the pre-Mongol period 1053, although Metropolitan Maxim in his Rule on Fasting strangely fails to say about it. Then, this Maxim in his named Rule commands fasting on the eves of the Nativity of Christ and Epiphany or on the so-called Christmas Eves of Christmas and Epiphany; he writes: “And if the canon of Christmas is due on which day it is due, it is not worthy to eat meat or fish for those who are fasting; if the canon is due on Saturday or in a week, the statute does not permit(), bread and wine, and eat at Vespers; packs to receive the canon of enlightenment on Saturday or in the week, as before (i.e., as in the canon of Nativity), according to service John Chrysostom, bread and wine and eat until (not earlier than) Vespers” 1054. Christmas Eve is the (last) day of the Advent fast, and, of course, there is a fast day; and from here, apparently, there was no need to deliberately legitimize fasting on this day. But the days of fasting weeks regarding abstinence from food during them were divided into three classes: the strictest abstinence was prescribed on Wednesday and Fridays, less strict on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, and even less strict on Saturday and Sunday. Maxim’s legalization regarding fasting on our fast day is to prescribe what type of fast it should be, namely Wednesday-Friday, whatever day of the week it may be. The prescription regarding fasting on the eve of Epiphany is, so to speak, twofold: firstly, it is generally prescribed to observe fasting on this day; secondly, to observe the fast exactly as it was supposed to be observed on Wednesdays and Fridays. When Maxim says that you should not eat meat on Christmas Eve, no matter what day it happens; then there is either a simple lack of detail in the speech (forgetting that this eve is, in any case, a fast day), or an indication that in his - Maxim’s time, all or some still ate meat on Saturdays and Sundays of the Nativity Fast. We don’t know whether the Greeks’ rule about eves changed after Maximus or whether for a long time after him it remained firmly undefined among them, only Metropolitan Photius, contrary to him, wrote in one of his letters to Pskov: “if the eve of the Nativity of Christ or the Epiphany happens on Saturday or in the week, there is no fasting and we do not sing the troparion” 1055. Be that as it may, in Russia we have adopted his charter since the time of Maxim and firmly observe it: when the Archbishop of Rostov (subsequent metropolitan) Theodosius violated in 1455. fasting on the eve of the Epiphany, which happened on Sunday, it was considered a serious crime, and in the farewell letter it is stated to him that “in the holy rules, Jerusalem and the Holy Mountains and in Studite and in other other rules, it is written and spoken that if the eve of the Nativity of Christ or the Epiphany of the Lord happens on Saturday or in a week, then not It was commanded that you allow the monk to have cheese and fish and the worldly to have meat, but it was commanded that after absolution, the liturgy, to partake of a little communion, a meager amount of food, and after the evening absolution to eat completely, but fast food, and not cheese, nor fish, nor the worldly people - meat” 1056. Hegumen Athanasius, who addressed Metropolitan Cyprian with his questions, letting it be known that fasting on the day of the beheading of John the Baptist (August 29) was just being introduced in our time in his time and was not yet recognized by everyone 1057, asked the Metropolitan: should or should not fast be observed on this day. Cyprian answered: “On the beheading of John the Baptist and the Baptist, you shall not eat meat, milk or fish, unless it be received on that day” 1058. Metropolitan Photius, in his district teaching on the priestly and monastic rites, confirms the injunction of Metropolitan Cyprian about observing fasting on the day of the Beheading (“not eating meat, but dry eating”) 1059. During the time of Metropolitan Photius in the Pskov region they fasted not only on the very day of the Exaltation of the Cross, but also on the eve. When asked about this by the Pskov priests, the Metropolitan answered that “according to the charter, on those canon days one should eat meat, but on the Exaltation itself one should not eat” 1060. During the time of Metropolitan Cyprian, some of us considered it proper to fast on St. Paraskevi (October 28, 1061, on the basis, of course, that Paraskeviya is Friday in Russian). When asked about this day by Abbot Athanasius, the Metropolitan answered that there is no fasting on this day, unless the saint’s memory occurs on Wednesday or Friday 1062. About the week-long fasts of Wednesday and Friday, namely, about which holidays these fasts should be abolished, we had disputes in the second half of the 12th century, caused by the fact that our then customs (practice) in this regard, which reproduced the most ancient Greek customs, did not correspond to the then Greek statutes (actually, the Patriarchate of Constantinople), which became more strict than before. The disputes ended in nothing, that is, in fact, with the fact that we still remained with our special customs, without accepting the modern Greek statutes (see Vol. 2 half, p. 401 sqq/465). After the invasion of the Mongols, no later than the reign of Metropolitan Photius, we adopted Greek statutes. Under the first metropolitan after the invasion, Cyril III, our ancestors themselves drew attention to their discord with the Greeks in relation to these customs, and Bishop Theognostus of Sarai proposed in 1276. question regarding this to the Council of Constantinople. After the answer given by the council to Theognostus and prescribing compliance with the Greek statutes 1063, Kirill’s successor, Metropolitan Maxim, issued a deliberate Rule on fasts, in which, regarding our fasts, he again confirms the Greek statutes 1064. By the second half of the 12th century, we differed with the Greeks regarding the fasts of Wednesday and Friday in that they were canceled for a larger number of holidays than was then the case among the Greeks. What regulations the Greeks had in this regard by the second half of the 12th century, we indicated above (I volume 2 half, pp. 403/466). Metropolitan Maxim, prescribing our observance of contemporary Greek statutes, says that the Wednesday and Friday fasts are, firstly, abolished: for the holidays of the Nativity of Christ and the Epiphany, in the weeks of Easter, after the Descent of St. Spirit, from the Nativity of Christ to Vasiliev days or until January 1 and before the meat feast, leaving it to people’s own will to observe or not observe fasting on the Wednesday of Midsummer (at the same time, regarding the days and weeks when fasting is canceled, Maxim expresses himself in such a way that on the holidays of the Nativity of Christ and Epiphany and on the week of Easter one must eat meat and that the rest of the time it is not forbidden to eat it - “nothing is withheld”); secondly, they are weakened: for the holidays of the Transfiguration of the Lord, the Dormition of the Virgin Mary, the Apostles Peter and Paul and the Apostle Philip, on which it is allowed to eat fish 1065. That by the time of Metropolitan Photius we had mastered the Greek regulations regarding the fasts of Wednesday and Friday, this is evident from the fact that the Metropolitan, teaching in his district instruction on the priestly and monastic rites general rules about all fasts, speaks only about one particular case of violation of the instructions of Metropolitan Maxim in relation to the fasts of Wednesday and Friday, namely, that these fasts were canceled in our country for the holiday The introduction of the Mother of God, which violation he (the Metropolitan) forbids for the future 1066. However, Photius, in turn, was the finalist in introducing Greek regulations regarding our posts. From Metropolitan Maximus and before him, the latest statutes took one step in their movement towards greater severity: whereas in the time of Maximus it was left to the will of everyone - to cancel or not to cancel the fast of Mid-Century for oneself, in his - Photius [time] - this cancellation was already positively prohibited. In accordance with the change that has occurred, he, Photius, speaks of non-observance of fasting on the day of the Midsummer, which took place in our country, as a violation of church rules 1067. The weekly fasts of Wednesdays and Fridays, canonically legalized by the church, were later joined by the voluntary fast of Mondays. At first, this fast was introduced in the monasteries, and specifically in Jerusalem 1068, then, as for the laity, it began to be imposed on penitents in the form of penance, and finally, it began to be revered and maintained in general by everyone who was especially zealous for piety 1069. Metropolitan Photius, without obliging anyone to this post, recommends, however, its storage 1070. At the time we are considering, many or some of us considered it a given to fast on the day on which someone had to drink water from the cross, that is, water blessed by the Augustan or Lesser Blessing of Water. Metropolitan Cyprian, when asked about this by Abbot Athanasius, answered: “Drinking water from the cross is suitable for a layman to eat, but for a monk to eat milk; whenever and wherever we receive Holy Communion, on that day everything is not forbidden, unless we drink water from the cross” 1071. As for the rules regarding exactly how to keep and maintain fasts, Metropolitan Photius, in his district teaching on the priestly and monastic rites, speaks in this regard about Great Lent, or Lent, and about the fasts of Wednesday and Friday. Allowing during Great Lent to eat fish on Saturdays and weeks (Sundays), with the inclusion in the latter case of Tsvetnaya week, and on the Feast of the Annunciation, he admonishes all other days of Lent to be spent with dry eating; Lenten Wednesdays and heels of the whole year he exhorts to keep also with dry eating 1072. (About fasting, Artemy says that it consists in not taking certain food until a certain certain period, - Historical Library p. 1210. It means a period of days or hours in days. About the feasts of the Lord and great saints, on which fasting and kneeling are permitted. It is appropriate to know about this, as in the pre-decree of these holidays. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 491, sheet 476 ver. On the establishment of holidays by the holy fathers, Volokolamsk manuscript No. 435, sheet 324; Synodal manuscript No. 231, sheet 311 ver., p. 103 (The Nativity of Christ was established by John Chrysostom, the Epiphany by Basil the Great, Easter by Gregory the Theologian). The word of the holy fathers on spiritual celebration and drunkenness. Beginning: the holy fathers established fast days according to the teaching of the Lord and according to the commandment of the holy fathers. Lavra Izmaragd No. 204, sheet 50 (how to spend holidays). In addition to ordinary fasts, you can fast, taking a prayer from the priest, at any time; and those who fast without prayer are cursed - Lavra Izmaragd No. 204, sheet 230 and verso. Those who do not eat cheese and milk on Wednesday will be met upon death in the 3rd heaven by the angel of Wednesday, - ibid.. The rule about fasting for the whole summer (Wednesdays and Fridays, and Mondays as well) - Volokolamsk manuscript No. 515, sheet 36. Articles: 1) the word of the holy fathers about fasting, the church charter. Beginning: It is fitting, brothers, for a peasant man to better please his God. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 541, sheet 251–264 verso (about fasting and holidays); Lavra Izmaragd No. 204, sheet 252. 2) Charter on Peter’s Retreat. Beginning: Monday, Wednesday, Friday peas with yagly, and cherries. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 560, sheet 54 ver. About Lent: throughout Fedorov’s week, folio 55, ver.; about Philip's gospel: and from Philip's gospel, page 57; about Great Lent: and in the 1st week of Great Lent; statute about Wednesday and the heel: holy for the blessed fathers did not set sheet 60, sheet 64. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 523, sheet 156 verso (about Great Lent, Philip, Peter, Wednesday and Friday). A word about the fast of the great fast, and Petrov and Filippov. Beginning: Our Lord Himself Isa. Xs. set 40 days, 40 nights. Tsarskaya No. 366, sheet 115, p. 364; Synodal manuscripts No. 231, sheet 408, p. 109. Fedorov's week, i.e. 1st week of Lent, - Volokolamsk manuscript No. 632, sheet 424. Laudable week - 5th week of Lent, - Nikon Chronicle VI, p. 52, 1473). (Briefly, - Vivliofika VI, 183 (in Moscow); in length, - ibid., p. 363 (in Novgorod). Among the Greeks, for the cave action, see Simeon of Thessalonica Dialogus contra haereses cap. 23 at Minya. t. 155, p. 113. Regarding when it is performed, see Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 399, p. 371. The Latins have mysteries, the Greeks have cave actions. N.B. It probably started with Sophia Fominichna. Macarius in Novgorod Antiquities II, 137 contains a description [allegedly] of the Novgorod Chaldean oven (3 ¼ arshins in height, 2¾ arshins in diameter, round, on 12 columns, between which are prophets); [in fact, this is a church pulpit. See Tolstoy and Kondakov Russian antiquities in monuments of art, issue 6, pp. 156–158. Drawings in Antiquities of the Russian State, Section VI, No. 27–29, in Tolstoy and Kondakov ibid. and E.E. Golubinsky in the Church Archaeological Atlas, table LIII, bottom 3]. The first known mention of the Chaldeans in the cave was in 1548. in Novgorod, - News of the Archaeological Society for 1861, vol. III, p. 36; Pekarsky Science and Literature under Peter the Great, vol. I, p. 390. On the flammability of dust found in the pistils of the moss, see the Journal of Nature and Hunting, 1878, last account, p. 292 fin.. On the moss, see Florinsky's Home Medicine, p. 84 and Buchheim's Pharmacology, p. 397, Lycopodium clavatum). [Wed. Archpriest K. Nikolsky About the services of the Russian Church, which were in previous printed liturgical books, St. Petersburg, 1885, pp. 169–213; A. A. Dmitrievsky The order of the cave action. Byzantine Timebook, vol. I, issues 2–3, St. Petersburg, 1895]. (Occurred on the Meat-Eating Week, - Vivliofika VI, 221. Description ibid. XI, 3 beginning sqq). [Wed. from Archpriest K. Nikolsky About services, etc., pp. 214–236; at Η. F. Krasnoseltseva On the History of Orthodox worship. (Regarding some church services and rituals that are no longer used). Kazan 1889, pp. 57–64]. (Description, – Vivliofika X, 2 sqq and VI, 163. Chin, September 1 everywhere in cities, – ibid. XIV, 157). [Cm. from Archpriest K. Nikolsky About services, etc., pp. 98–168; at Η. F. Krasnoseltseva To the History of Orthodox Worship pp. 27–56]. Donkey riding in the week of Vai. (About the walking of the patriarch in Greece on a donkey, - R eiskii ad Constant. Porphyrogenit. p. 13. Description, – Vivliofika XI, 54 and VI, 314. Prohibition for other bishops of the cathedral to perform actions other than the patriarch in 1678. Martha, – Vivliofika. VI, 357. About the donkey, which is a horse covered with long ears tied and about the patriarch sitting on one side - Margeret in the Tale of the Pretender 260 sub fin.). [Wed. from Archpriest K. Nikolsky About services pp. 45–97]. (The ritual of church blessing for the reign, - Ipata Chronicle, p. 216. Order for brotherhood and others that do not exist now. See News of the Academy of Sciences, vol. VII, p. 266 fin. [Wed. from Archpriest K. Nikolsky About services, etc. pp. 371–388]. The washing of feet on Maundy Thursday was performed by abbots in monasteries, if they wanted - Synodal Manuscript No. 233, p. 126 beginning [For washing of feet in the ancient church, see A. A. Dmitrievsky, Divine Services of Holy and Easter Weeks in St. Jerusalem of the 9th-10th centuries, Kazan 1894, pp. 108–125 and 343–351]. Collections from the crosses per week at Metropolitan Photius, - Monuments of Pavlov col. 378 fin.. How many times a year and on what days were processions of the cross held around the cities, - Supplement to the Historical Acts, vol. I, No. 33, p. 33. - When to walk with crosses (procession of the cross) near the city, - message of Archbishop Theodosius of Novgorod to Korela, Vivliofika, XIV, 157. And when to walk on the water ibid.. Rites (royal hours, consecration of water on Epiphany, action in the cave, riding a donkey, washing feet, consecration of the antimension, the Last Judgment in the 16th century) - Volokolamsk manuscript No. 410). [For the order for the Tsar’s health, see Archpriest K. Nikolsky About services, etc., pp. 237–256. The rite of washing the relics of saints or moistening the cross, in Nikolsky ibid., pp. 257–286. Sermon on the communion of St. waters of great consecration on Epiphany, - from Nikolsky ibid. pp. 287–296. Ablution of St. meals on Maundy Thursday, - in Η. F. Krasnoseltseva On the History of Orthodox Liturgy pp. 65–79. In the answers of Metropolitan Cyprian to Abbot Athanasius we read: “The holy meal should be washed on Maundy Thursday, in the cathedral churches to the saint, and the lesser children are weak for this figure,” - Monuments of Pavlov col. 259. Prayers for the catechumens during Matins and Vespers and the rite of catechumens on Good Friday - in Η. F. Krasnoseltseva On the History of Orthodox Worship, pp. 104–133. The rank of salary, – ibid. pp. 243–246]. (According to the priests’ prayer books (breviaries), there are bad manakanuns and false prayers, - Metropolitan Zosima in Pavlov’s Monuments col. 792. The priests printed the royal doors on Holy Saturday - aka ibid. col. 794. Description of Synodal manuscripts No. 319, p. 601. Two letters of Metropolitan Macarius to Archbishop Pimen of Novgorod from 1555 and 1558, on matters of administration [: a) about Hierodeacon Abraham serving the Divine Liturgy without an epitrachelion and without the will of his archbishop, from the archimandrite forgiven, and b) about a certain secular priest, who in the litany after a fair verse: “Commemorating all the saints” in St. altar suddenly fell ill, and St. the liturgy remained uncommitted after him], - see in the Description of 432 manuscripts of the library of St. Petersburg, the Theological Academy of A. S. Rhodes, p. 248. About Gregory Tsamblak, as a writer of liturgical works, see notes on the Enlightenment. Water was holy every month in Novgorod in the 14th century. Novgorod Chronicle I, 103 fin., year 6917. Blessing of water instead of a cross with relics. Word on the transfer of the relics of Clement. Academic manuscript No. 91, sheet 682 ver. The rite of oath before Peter, - Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1846, No. 1, Mixture, p. 53. Oath rite among the Tatars, - Gustino Chronicle p. 362 fin.. Since Metropolitan Jonah, Russia considers it its mission to strictly preserve the statutes (rites): the work of Archbishop Theodosius. After the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, the Russians began to look at themselves as deliberate guardians of Orthodoxy. But Orthodoxy is according to their ritual. And so they turned all their care to the latter. (Concern for uniformity). Daniel of Vladimir in the manuscript of Jonah “I Believe” - the true one - Metropolitan Macarius of History vol. VI, p. 370. Images Day - Spasov Day, - 1 Novgorod Chronicle, p. 102. The masters of singing, hiding their knowledge from their students, in whom they noticed talents, more and more abandoned the science of singing (this does not apply to reading). See Manual for Country Shepherds 1873, vol. III, pp. 20-21. To Archangel Michael the ikosas of Patriarch Isidore, the ikosas of his Forerunner, Service to the Lord Jesus by Patriarch Philotheus in the manuscript of Kirill Belozersky, - Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1860. book II, pp. 18–19. The greatness of Patriarch Philotheus, which is not in current books - Proceedings of the Kiev Academy 1863, January, p. 40. Nikephoros Blemmis polyeleos, – Lavra manuscript No. 3, sheet 211. About the translation of many liturgical books from Greek into Bulgarian by Elder John of Athos in the article by Archimandrite Leonidas about Metropolitan Cyprian, page 22 note (A correction of the translation, of course?). After 1389, for Isaac the Syrian, about whose translation is right there. In 1342 (6900) the Greek Thomas (in monastic life Theodulus) Ficara wrote the Menaion, Trisong, Octoechos and selected canons to the saints in Moscow. Philaret, Review of the Song Singers, p. 340, § 77. (From the retinue of Theognostus?). What did St. contribute? Metropolitan Cyprian... from his vernacular and from the translations of his time into our liturgical books. Abstract by Archimandrite Amphilochius, Proceedings of the III Archaeological Congress, vol. II, pp. 231–251. In the Moscow Assumption Cathedral on holidays, the shrouds of Saints Peter and Jonah were worn at great exits, - Barsukova Hagiography pp. 442, 444 fin. (and two Jerusalems). In the 15th century on the eve of Epiphany they sang vespers not together with mass, but after a certain period of time (the case of Gennady and Gerontius). How the rite of many years was performed at the royal clock. See News of the Academy, vol. VI, p. 188. Instead of paremias, Reading from the Prologue under the name: “From Genesis Reading” (to Boris and Gleb), - Izvestia of the Academy, vol. VI, p. 191. In the Lavra Parameinik (Historical description of the Lavra, 1857, p. 151) the same. Preface about rank and reason, for which the Book of Hours was compiled for the sake of guilt. Beginning: Write briefly the judges, so that there will be an answer to the heretics. Synodal manuscript No. 850, sheet 664 (about the Midnight Office, Matins and other services). Standing of the canon of Andrew of Crete in the 5th week of Lent on Wednesday at quarter, Nikonovskaya VI, 71, 1477. Mephimon - the vespers, - Life of St. Sergius, page 89 beginning. About censing for 9 songs, - Bychkov Description of collections of the Imperial Public Library, p. 273. Vladimir Vasilkovich liturgical books: gospel aprakos, apostle aprakos, paramya, Prologue of 12 months, Menaion of 12 months, Triodion, Okhtai, Irmoloi, Prayer Book, Service Book - Hypatian Chronicle, pp. 608 fin., 609). Daniel built four churches in Kholm, but three are clearly mentioned as stone churches, - Ipatos Chronicle, 2nd edition, pp. 558–60 (it is not clearly stated about the Church of the Holy Trinity, - p. 558). The capitals are called: Kholm, Vladimir Volynsky and Lvov (Lemberg), see Sharanevich History of Galician-Vladimir Rus, pp. 138 and 167. Nikon Chronicle VI, 61 fin.. Collection of Chronicles VI, 233 fin.. Ibid. page 254 subfin. and the Nikon Chronicle VI, 231 and 233. (For them, see also in the manuscript of the fundamental library of the MDA No. 201, sheet 283). [About the number of churches in Moscow, wooden and stone, we have the following news]: (in 1336 there were more than 18 churches, - Nikon Chronicle III, pp. 164, 179 fin.; in the description of the trip to Moscow of the Tsar's ambassador Varkoch in 1593, it is said that in Moscow there were churches with house buildings up to 1500, - Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1874, book IV, p. 36. According to Behr, there were about 3000 churches in Moscow, - Tales of the Pretender, I, p. 59). (How small stone churches were - one fathom and with an altar, - Collection of chronicles, vol. VI, p. 296. An ancient stone church (small), representing from the very foundation one hipped vault (three fathoms high) in the Nizhny Novgorod province in the village of Palets, Notes of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. X, p. 308). (Works on architecture: Something about church architecture by Ivanchin-Pisarev in his Simonov and Andronikov monasteries; Snegirev in Monuments of Moscow Antiquity; Archimandrite Macarius, Archaeological Description of Church Antiquities in Novgorod, Ι part beginning; “Russian Antiquities in Monuments of Art, Published by Count Tolstoy and N. Kondakov.” (Issue 6, 1899); A. P. Novitsky History of Russian Art, issues IV and V, M. 1899). A third lower than the churches themselves are the altar apses: the church of the village of Mikulino Gorodishche, located in the Staritsky district of the Tver province, a former capital city separate in the Tver inheritance of the Mikulinsky inheritance, built in 1398. (drawing of a church in Russian Antiquity by Snegirev and Martynov, notebook XI); Moscow Assumption Cathedral (for an indication of its drawings, see below, in special speeches about it, p. 390); Suzdal Cathedral, which in its current form should be attributed to the first half of the 16th century (drawing in L’art russe par E. Viollet le Du c (gr. Stroganov), sheet VIII). Half lower than the churches themselves: the Moscow Church on Stary Simonovo, built in 1509 (drawing in Russian Antiquity, notebook V); Yaroslavl Cathedral, which in its current form should be attributed to the first half of the 16th century (drawing in L’art russe, sheet VII). See the vestibules of the domes of the Suzdal Cathedral, as well as the Yaroslavl and Rostov Cathedrals. (The drawing of the latter, which in its current form belongs to the same time as the first two, is in Count Tolstoy’s essay: Ancient Shrines of Rostov the Great, according to the 2nd edition on page 44; and in L’art russe, page VII). (The roofs on the Vladimir cathedrals in 1537 were wooden, - Royal Book, p. 73), The cornice on the Zvenigorod Assumption Cathedral is made up of three lines of patterned weaving, which was built by an unknown person and when, but, in all likelihood, by the Zvenigorod Prince Yuri Dmitrievich, son of Donskoy, in the first quarter of the 15th century († 1434). Image of the cathedral: in Russian Antiquity by Snegirev and Martynov, notebook III, in the Bulletin of the Society of Old Russian Art at the Moscow Public Museum, 1874. book 3, section IV, in L’art russe par E. Viollet le D uc (Gr. Stroganov), sheet V. For the cornice, see Antiquities, and mainly in the Bulletin. The cornice on the above-mentioned Church of Old Simonov consists of two lines of stoves in connection with a line of carvings, of which the latter occupies the middle place. The cornice on the Church of the Archangel Michael in the Miracle Monastery, built during 1501–1504, consists of two lines of paths in connection with a line of carvings, which also occupies the middle place (drawing of the church in Russian Antiquity, notebook VIII). – If there is no intermediate cornice between the lyzens, then in some churches it is replaced by the fact that the lower bevel of the upper stove-shaped lyzen is covered several times (as in the church of the village of Mikulino Gorodishche and in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral). Nuts are put on the trunks of the speakers: the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, the Church of the Chudov Monastery, the Rostov and Yaroslavl Cathedrals. This is the division of the walls into the churches of the village of Mikulino Gorodishche and this, it seems, was the case at the Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, built in 1422. (the walls of which are now almost completely covered with attached porches). The walls of the Miracle Church of the Archangel Michael and the cathedrals of Suzdal and Yaroslavl are divided into three fields. The lines of the Moscow Archangel Cathedral, which was built in 1505–8, and the Rostov Cathedral are divided into four fields (for instructions on where to look at the drawing of the first, see below in the special speeches about it, p. 391). The first stripe is a line of the same closed arches that make up the friezes of the lower field of the lisene; the second stripe is a line of triangular pechurs, the same one that makes up the cornice separating the upper field of the lysene from the lower one; The third stripe is a line of jagged triangles. See the domes of the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral, the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl and the Demetrius Cathedral. The same shape as the Suzdal-Vladimir churches on the main dome of the Moscow Annunciation Cathedral. There are friezes, but no columns on the domes of the church in the village of Mikulino Gorodishche. There are no friezes or columns: on the dome of the Zvenigorod Cathedral, on the domes of the Moscow Assumption and Suzdal Cathedrals. On the dome of the Zvenigorod Cathedral. On the domes of the churches of the village of Mikulina and the Chudov Monastery (appears identical on the dome of the church of the latter). On the domes of the Moscow Assumption and Rostov Cathedrals and on the side domes of the Moscow Annunciation Cathedral (where the drawing of the latter is visible, see below p. 391). On the domes of the Suzdal Cathedral On the domes of the Moscow Archangel Cathedral. It’s like this on the domes of the Yaroslavl Cathedral. On the domes of the Rostov Cathedral. On the domes of the church in the village of Mikulino Gorodishche. So on the domes of the Moscow Archangel Cathedral, the Church of the Chudov Monastery and the Rostov Cathedral. See the domes of the Rostov and Yaroslavl cathedrals. These are the door columns of the Zvenigorod Cathedral, the Trinity Cathedral in the Sergius Lavra and the Moscow Assumption Cathedral (and probably some other churches from among those whose drawings do not show what kind of door columns they have). These are the door superstructures in the Zvenigorod Cathedral, in the Trinity Cathedral of the Sergius Lavra (?) and in the Church of the Chudov Monastery (the reservation regarding other churches is the same as now above). The following do not have them: the church of the village of Mikulino Gorodishche, the Zvenigorod Cathedral and the Trinity Cathedral of the Sergius Lavra. Zvenigorod Cathedral and Trinity Cathedral of St. Sergius Lavra. The cathedrals built after the Moscow Assumption Cathedral do not have porches: Moscow Archangel, Rostov, Yaroslavl and Suzdal. See Geschichte der Architektur Lünftes Buch, Zweites Kapitel (der Romantische Styl), after 4th edition pp. 323, 362, 365, 368, 374, 391, 409, 411, 423, 434. Door and window vaults and architraves over doors and windows in the form of arches with sharp tops (Spitzbogen) constitute a characteristic feature of Western Gothic architecture. But these pointed arches are not like our door superstructures with tucks; and therefore we do not consider it probable to produce the latter from the former. (On the ancient Novgorod churches, see Archimandrite Macarius in the Archaeological Description of Church Antiquities in Novgorod). That the cathedral was large and, therefore, such that it is likely that porches should be expected, is evident from the fact that it was built over the course of three years, and that for its construction the craftsmen were paid 400 rubles, - 1 and 2 Pskov Chronicles under 1365. [For a list of churches, see Appendixes below, pp. 395–403]. About the collection of facades of the Novgorod churches of Stasov and Gornostaev, see News of the Archaeological Society vol. 2, p. 380. (The Church of Andrei Stratilates of the early 14th century in the Novgorod Kremlin, in the form of a square, without an eastern semicircle (length 5 fathoms, width 3 fathoms), the altar is a small protrusion (there are crosses in the western wall), one small dome; above the western wall of the church a stone arched span for bells was laid out - Makaria Description of Novgorod Antiquities, vol. I, pp. 115 and 116. Church of the Intercession in Zverin of the Novgorod Monastery of the 14th century, but later restored, square, with a semicircle protruding to the east, - Makaria, I, 136 (three-part altar). Another church in the same monastery of the 15th century. the same (three-part altar), - Macarius, I, p. 142. The ancient church attached to it is the same, - Macarius I, 148). Nikon Chronicle VI, 58 beginning. See Nevolin On the Pyatina and Churchyards of Novgorod, appendices, p. 293 beginning. When in the spring of 1474. The Moscow Assumption Cathedral, built by Russian craftsmen, collapsed, Ivan Vasilyevich instructed his ambassador, sent in the same 1474. to Italy, bring an architect, and this one in the spring of the following 1475 brought Aristotle Fioravanti from Venice, see above [first half of the volume p. 552]. In 1487 we find in Moscow another Western architect, Mark Fryazin, who arrived unknown when after Aristotle, Nikon Chronicle VI, 122. In 1490. new architects were brought in, including Peter Antony Solarius from Mediolan with his student Zamontonius - ibid. p. 125 and in Karamzin to volume VI, note 104, col. 25 sub fin.. In 1494 cited, also from Mediolan, by the architect Aleviz, - Nikon Chronicle VI, 140 (cfr 157). The Trinity Epiphany (from the church) courtyard, given to the Reverend Sergius himself by Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy, was located at the Trinity Gate of the Kremlin, which received its name precisely from the courtyard, going from the outside into the Kremlin on the left hand, where the corner of the Arsenal (Artillery Workshop) now faces the gate. The compound was taken from the monastery for the Arsenal and destroyed in 1807. – About the construction of our church instead of the former stone one, – Collection of Chronicles VI, 233. Antique notebook 3, according to the large format edition p. 8, col 1 fin.. About the construction of the church in the village of Kolomenskoye, - Nikon Chronicle VI, 248. Cfr in Geschichte der Architektur Lübcke according to the fourth edition pp. 478, 502, 504, 534, 568, 593, 594, 615. Western Gothic triangles [Spitzbogens], when they represent platbands over doors and windows and decoration of walls, are made so that they protrude over doors, windows and walls in the form of independent shields decorated with more or less rich carvings; our triangles are laid out using convex stripes in the wall itself and do not have any decoration. View of the church in the same “Old Time” by Snegirev, - the same 3rd notebook. Nikon Chronicle VI, 119 beginning and 122 beginning. Another extension was made to the porch on the south side. The facade of the cathedral with a plan and section in “Monuments of Moscow Antiquity” by Snegirev, to page 83. In the old Moscow-Alekseevsky monastery, located on the site of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, there was a stone church made of wood, which may have been a church built by Aleviz Fryazin in 1514; but it is more likely to think that in 1625, under Mikhail Fedorovich, the church built by Aleviz was not restored, but a new one was built in its place. The church had two hipped roofs, placed on low quadrangular stands: its view in “Russian Antiquity” by Snegirev and Martynov’s notebook XI. Nikon Chronicle VI, 248. Because it contains the relics of St. Basil, the Moscow holy fool, who in 1552. He was buried at the Church of St., located on the site of the cathedral. Trinity. - Since this place of the cathedral was a cape above the moat, it was called the Church of the Intercession, which is on the Moat. In the Nikon Chronicle under 1555, VI, 238 fin., it reads: “In the same month (June 30, for above June 29) the faithful and Christ-loving king and great sovereign ordered the foundation of the church (“The Protection of the Most Pure Mother of God,” - we supplement the printed one from one handwritten one we have) stone about nine tops, which was formerly Drevyan (the wooden Church of the Intercession near the place of the stone one was erected in September 1554, - ibid. p. 232 fin. sqq; on line 4 from the bottom: “October” is an error instead of “September”), about the Kazan capture, at the Frolovsky Gate (the Kremlin, which is now - Spassky) above the moat..; and before this, in two years, a single Trinity was founded, and the sovereign ordered the addition of the Intercession from the chapel to the same church” (after the words: “beyond the ditch” incomprehensible words are read: “and the chapel to the same church of the life-giving Trinity above the ditch of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker of Vyatka”; they need to be understood: and he ordered to make a chapel of St. Nicholas in that church of the Intercession and the life-giving Trinity Vyatsky, whose miraculous icon was brought to Moscow immediately before - ibid. p. 237). From the above words of the chronicle it is clear that at first, in 1553, the sovereign decided to build in memory of the capture of Kazan (cfr Acts of the Expedition vol. I, no. 241, p. 258 beginning) a stone Trinity Cathedral (in place of the former one above the wooden ditch), and then in 1555 he changed his mind and ordered it to be built in the name of the Trinity and the Intercession with many chapels. When the council ended is not recorded in the chronicles; but the entry given by Snegirev in “Monuments of Moscow Antiquity” is page 343 col. 1, and we don’t know where it was taken from, assures that it, not quite finished inside, was consecrated seven years from the secondary foundation, 1555 (hence, nine years from the first foundation, 1553). See Snegirev in “Monuments of Moscow Antiquity”, p. 348 col. 2 fin.. Drawing (facade) of the church in “Monuments of Moscow Antiquity” by Snegirev, to page 342. There are currently nine domes and one small (comparatively) dome; but the latter, being little noticeable and as if hiding, is above the later extension. Two images of the Church of St. Basil from the first half of the 17th century have been preserved - one in the painting of the procession to Lobnoye Mesto, the other by Olearius, see them in Stroganov’s L’art russe, sheet XIII, and the first, presented in more detail, but not entirely satisfactorily done, is still in “Historical notes and information about the Intercession and St. Basil Cathedral”, A. Belyankin (Moscow, 1847). In the images, our domes have a different shape than now, namely, the necks are not round, but in the first one they are octagonal, in the second they are quadrangular. We cannot decide whether the necks were actually altered several times or whether they are presented incorrectly in the drawings. In any case, this is a detail that is not particularly important. Currently there is a cornice on the tent of the main dome, above the platbands, which are now discussed below. In the mentioned drawings of the church of the 17th century. this cornice is missing. We talked about what foreheads are above, but on the domes of our church they are mostly without tucks, representing regular semicircles (semicircles), and only very few with tucks (in the drawings of the 17th century there are more of them with tucks than now in reality). Trumps are the same semicircles, but not surrounded by slightly convex stripes (bundles), but covered with some canopies, so that inside they appear to be much deeper pechurami. That they represent only a modification of the barrel foreheads, and not something independent, we do not insist on this as undoubted. See the above images of the 17th century church. Regarding the first and ancient times, see the mentioned drawings. Foreign writers have a legend that Grozny, not wanting the architect, who boasted of building an even better church, to build such a better church for someone else, ordered his eyes to be gouged out, see Polevoy in History of the Russian People VI, 330 and Snegirev in Monuments of Moscow Antiquity p. 343 col. 2. What is asserted by Snegirev and others that “the various ornaments and details of our church present us with a bizarre mixture of Moorish, Gothic, Lombard, Indian and Byzantine styles” is what is called scheherazade. (For information about the cathedral, see the manuscript of the fundamental library of the MDA No. 201, sheet 280 verso). The facade of the church by Snegirev and Martynov in “Russian Antiquity”, notebook XIV, and in L’art russe, sheet XI. The former also have a plan, but it is either incorrect or, at least, incomprehensible to us. Collection of Chronicles VI, 296 (Sofia Temporary Stroev II, p. 386; placed in place of the previous round one, very small, which also had bells at the top). Eminence Macarius “Archaeological description of church antiquities in Novgorod”, 450. For more on the so-called monumental stone churches of our time, see the list of stone churches appended to this chapter below, pp. 388–403. (The main churches were called real, as opposed to the chapels. See in the Historical Notes on the Krivoyezerskaya Hermitage, Hierodeacon Filumen, M. 1862, in the description of this monastery 1676, p. 15). Collection of Chronicles VI, 303. Ibid. IV, 306. – Sometimes, and perhaps often, meals were heated using so-called black stoves that did not have pipes, see the row entry for the construction of the church in 1666. in “News of the Archaeological Society” vol. II, col. 318. Collection of Chronicles VI, 233 (middle, about the Church of the Trinity Moscow Compound) and 234 (end, about the Church of the Savior in Chigasy). 1 Pskov Chronicle under 1524, - in the Collection of Chronicles IV, 296, col. 1. When in 1474 The Assumption Cathedral, begun by Metropolitan Philip, fell in Moscow and the Grand Duke called on the Pskov craftsmen, the latter, examining the surviving remains of the fallen cathedral and blaspheming the Moscow craftsmen for their inability to prepare lime, praised them for the fact that they “made the walls smoothly” - Collection of Chronicles VI, 198: which means they themselves did the same. The Nikon Chronicle says that Pskov craftsmen learned stone-cutting cunning from the Germans - VI, 58 beginning. 1 Pskov Chronicle, ibid.. Collection of Chronicles VI, 195 beginning, 198 fin., 200 beginning. Ibid. p. 205. (For a detailed record of the construction of a stone church in 1688, see the Notes of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. X, p. 449. - For the instructions of the 17th century on the construction of stone churches, see: Patriarch Joachim ibid. pp. 441 and 442. His same from 1682: “ditches under the border and to dig an altar in entire places, so that there would be no dead cemeteries in those places; and to build the tops of those churches in contrast to the other stone churches, and make the altars round, and there would be special entrances to the church and to the sanctuary, and there would be no entrance from the church to the sanctuary, and in the church and in the sanctuary walls there would be royal doors in the middle, and on their right side the southern ones, and on the left the northern ones; on the right side of the royal doors is the image of the Savior, behind him the saint, on the left of the old throne the antimension is sealed in the new throne in the gum column. Legal Acts of Kalachov vol. I, No. 27, III, p. 67. His, about the stone two-story church: “the altar of the upper churches should be above the lower church, so that the altar of the lower churches would be released, and not under the upper altar”; about the top of the church, the icons and the doors in the altar that are higher; the same about the old antimension; the old (wooden) church, if they don’t ask for it somewhere, will be dismantled, taken to the field and burned. Vladimir Collection of Tikhonravov p. 176. Patriarch Adrian, - Vladimir Collection of Tikhonravov p. 184; Notes of the Imperial Archaeological Society vol. X, p. 444. Cf. orders of Stefan Yavorsky, - Vladimir Collection of Tikhonravov p. 185, and Jerome, Bishop of Vladimir and Murom, 1777, - Notes of the Imperial Archaeological Society vol. X, p. 445 fin.). In print it is incorrect or erroneous: “in front of them.” Hypatan Chronicle p. 558 sub fin.. Hypatan Chronicle p. 590 beginning. Hypatan Chronicle p. 524. In “Niva” 1881, No. 19, there is a drawing of a 20-domed wooden church located in the city of Vytegra, Olonets province; (for 1884, No. 31 - view of a wooden church in the Vologda province of the half of the 17th century). We read somewhere that the wooden cathedral located in the city of Shenkursk, Arkhangelsk province (built in 1681, K. Molchanova Description of the Arkhangelsk province, p. 174) is a wooden church of colossal size and remarkable architecture; from Semyonov’s Dictionary we learn that the Petrozavodsk wooden cathedral, built under Peter the Great and also remarkable in its architecture (a drawing of it by Ozeretskovsky in Traveling through Lakes Ladoga and Onega, at the end of Table IX), still remains intact (under the word Petrozavodsk). – (In Guslitsy there is a small wooden church, supposedly built, in an ordinary way, by Metropolitan Photius, - see the legend about the beginning and present position of the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Guslitsky Monastery, Moscow, 1863. In Pskov in 1544, a wooden church was erected with the refectory of Theodosius of Pechersk, but until then there had not been one, - Collection chronicles IV, 306. (What didn’t happen: Theodosius or with the meal?). Wooden church of the 16th century. near the Pskov-Pechersky Monastery, see Shrines and antiquities of Pskov gr. Tolstoy p. 103 and p. 39 note 5. Description of a tiny wooden church of the early 17th century. see in the Vyatka Diocesan Gazette of 1863, No. 22, p. 627 (here, p. 629, a very remarkable icon of the Archangel Michael. Description of the sizes of the Solvychegodsk wooden churches of the 17th century (large porches), - Notes of the Archaeological Society, vol. VIII, p. Mixtures 52 sqq, Solvychegodsk in the 17th century). That there are still quite a few wooden churches left in the Olonets province, we heard this from eyewitnesses; that there are quite a few of them left in the Arkhangelsk province, see in the book by A. Mikhailov Essays on the nature and life of the White Sea region of Russia, St. Petersburg, 1868, pp. 107 beginning and 148; We believe that there are still quite a few of them left in the Vologda province. We consider it necessary to make an amendment here regarding the explanation we gave in volume 1 of the technical expression “up” (2 half p. 116/137). From one act, which we have not thoroughly examined before, it turns out that the expression does not mean the method of construction indicated by us, but some kind or some form of church (build a church up to thirty crowns, - News of the Archaeological Society vol. II, col. 317). – (On the architecture of wooden churches in the book: “Ancient wooden church in the monastery of Gethsemane near the Trinity-Sergius Lavra”, Moscow, 1853 (something, at first); in the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education 1845, February, in the article by Plaksin, “History of fine arts in Russia.” On tented churches, see Acts Legal 1838 No. 231, p. 253 col. 1, 254 col. 1 fin., col. 2, 255 col. I. The tented church is 9 fathoms long, across 4 fathoms, - Notes of the Archaeological Society, vol. VIII Mixes, pp. 55,13 (Tented only the top?) only the tops, which served as the basis (lanterns) for the domes, and the churches themselves are quadrangular or other non-tent shape, - Historical notes about the Krivoyezersk desert of Hierodeacon Philumen p. 13 fin. and 14; Vladimir collection of Tikhonravov p. 155 col. 1, 157 col. 1 fin.; Notes of the Archaeological Society vol. VIII Mixtures p. 54 beginning, Solvychegodsk. Altars in 4 walls, – Vladimir collection of Tikhonravov p. 168 col. 1, 169 col. 1 fin. and 170 col. 1. – Contract records for the construction of a church of the 16th century, – Legal Acts of Kalachov, vol. II, No. 254, p. 776; end of the 17th century with many technical details, - Notes of the Archaeological Society, vol. VIII, Mixtures, p. 90 (Ust-Kuluy Pogost), and another, also with details, ibid. page 92 note. What’s remarkable about these two letters: cut in height, as measure and beauty say. There was, therefore, an artistic sense of architectural beauty. – Contract records; 1666 for the construction of a warm wooden church (with technical details and architectural wonders), - News of the Imperial Archaeological Society, volume II, p. 316; – with technical details ibid., vol. III, p. 280 sqq. - Instructions of the authorities of the 17th century. regarding the structure of churches: 1) Pitirim Sarsky and Podonsky 1662, - Notes of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. X, p. 439 about a wooden church (a chapel should be attached to the church with a special clause and a passage to the chapel from the porch, and not from the church; the domes on the church would not be tented, the altars would be round triple, there would be three doors in the altar, the old antimension would be sealed in the gum column of the throne. 2) Kazan Metropolitan Joasaph 1676. about a wooden church: so that the church should have five tops, and not tents, three round altars, three windows in the large altar, one in the smaller ones, a throne with five pillars - in the middle fifth are the relics of saints; there are three doors to the altar - royal ones, to the altar, to the kunite; there are three doors to the church - northern, southern, western, in front of the western doors there is a porch; so that there are no limits in the church, but to build a chapel on the diversion porches behind the church wall with cut-off and round altars. Description of the Simbirsk Spassky nunnery, Moscow, 1852, Acts, No. 2, p. 39. See his other charter in the Legal Acts of 1838. No. 380. 3) Regarding the church of 1681: “and the top of that (to be built) church would not be hipped and the altar should be made round triple, and in the church in the altar walls in the middle there would be royal doors, on the right side the southern ones, and on the left the northern ones, and near the royal doors between the southern ones at the beginning put the image of the All-Merciful Savior, and next to that image put the image of that real holy church, and on the left side of the royal doors place the image of the Most Holy Theotokos and other images according to the order”... Church-building letter in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1880, book 2, Materials for the History of the Arkhangelsk Diocese, p. 10. 4) Athanasius Archbishop of Kholmogory at the end of the 17th century, - Izvestia of the Imperial Archaeological Society vol. III, pp. 474 sqq; Notes of the Archaeological Society, vol. VIII Mixtures, p. 89 (Ust-Kuluisky churchyard). – In 1702 an order that the tops of a wooden church should not be hipped, but “with barrels, like other wooden churches have tops,” - Ancient acts of the Voronezh Intercession Monastery, sent to me by St. Zverev, p. 32 col. 1). About the bell tower of the Intercession Cathedral or St. Basil's Church, which apparently represents an objection to what has been said, see now below. - (In 1476, a bell tower was made in Rostov by Archbishop Vassian, - Karamzin to volume VI note 629 col. 93. For wall-shaped (Pskov) bell towers, see the collection of drawings of Moscow and the city of Pskov (Appendix to volume II of the Notes of the Slavic-Russian Department of the Archaeological Society, St. Petersburg, 1861). The bell tower of the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral at the beginning of the 17th century about the five hipped tops (14 bells), - News of the Imperial Archaeological Society vol. III, p. 377 fin.. In one of the Pskov churches there is an ancient bell tower on the western wall of the church, - Shrines and antiquities of Pskov c. p. 68. In the Pskov-Pechersky Monastery. the bell tower consists of several pillars placed in one line and connected by arches - ibid. p. 116). The current bell tower of the Intercession Cathedral or St. Basil's Church is an octagonal low tower with a hipped top. But it is not the original and contemporary with the construction of the cathedral, but a later one of unknown date, put in place of the original one, which was wall-shaped (see this latter in the image of the procession to the Place of Execution, but not in L’art russe, where it is not, and not in Belyankin, who has it, but is unsatisfactorily presented, but in the image itself or the painting itself). – (Tented bell tower with 10 walls, – Tikhonravov’s Vladimir collection p. 170 col. 1 fin.. There is no cross on the bell tower, – Life of St. Sergius, leaves 15 and ver., ver. 108. On the plan of Moscow of 1610, printed in the News of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. IV, issue 5, several bell towers pillars: a pillar covered with a small hipped roof, a cross on the roof (like bells hanging in factories). See the church down to the Moscow River from St. Basil's; behind the Moscow River at the end of the street, which is opposite the bridge to the right of Ivan the Great on Red Square, etc. Archimandrite Macarius Monuments of church antiquities of the Nizhny Novgorod province. (Notes of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. X) the bell tower in the village of Paltse, Nizhny Novgorod district, is old on four pillars, upholstered with planks, p. 308. In the Knyagininsky district, according to the inventory book of 1672. (Notes of the Russian and Slavic department of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. I department 3 p. 140 sqq) there were wooden bell towers: 1) “a bell tower on four pillars” (p. 143), and on it there are eight bells (small: the first 12 p., the second 8 p., 3 4 p., etc.); 2) “bell tower on four pillars” p. 145 fin. (and there are 6 bells on it, - 1st 19 p., 2nd 5 p.); 3) “a bell tower on four pillars, covered with a planked tent with a cross” p. 148 (and there are 5 bells on it, - 1 3 p., 2 2 p., etc.); 4) “pillar bell tower” p. 149 (and there are three bells on it, and they weigh a pound); 5) “bell tower on a pillar” p. 150 (and there are 4 bells on it, - 1st 7 p., 2nd 1¼ p., etc.); 6) “bell tower on a pillar” p. 151 (and there are 4 bells on it, - 1st 1 p; 11 hryvnia, etc.); 7) “bell tower on a pillar” p. 152 (and there are 3 bells on it, weighing 3 p.); 8) “bell tower on two pillars” p. 155 (and there are four small bells on it); 9) “a bell tower, a pillar has been erected, covered with planks” p. 156, and on it there are two bells, weighing 3½ p.). (Bells in the wall of the church, in a special place (half of the 16th century), - Legal Acts of Kalachov, vol. II, No. 254, p. 776. Instead of a bell tower, a pine stump (one bell and an iron beater) at the beginning of the 18th century, - News of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. III, p. 478 fin.. Sometimes bells were hung on the porch, - Legal Acts 1838 No. 231, p. 254 col. Aristotle only made a ceiling over one of the side altar apses of the cathedral, - Collection of Chronicles VI, 221. However, it should not be presented in such a way that after the construction of the Assumption Cathedral their construction in stone churches was immediately stopped: in the Moscow Annunciation Cathedral, built after the Assumption Cathedral (in 1484–1489), they are again there (and in the Moscow Archangel Cathedral, built after the Annunciation Cathedral, in 1505–1508, they are not there again). See Nevolin About Pyatina, appendix p. 103 sub fin, and 336. (Women in the narthex, - Life of St. Sergius, folio 14 fin.. In the churches of the Moscow diocese, women still stand at the walls on a raised platform (porch, babinets). Proust - vestibule (porch), - Life of St. Sergius, folio 259). Question 36 from the first questions, – Kazan edition p. 74 fin. (Do not bring food into the church, but only kutya - Metropolitan Zosima in Pavlov’s Monuments col. 794). Chapter 12, Kazan edition p. 99. Chapter 13, Kazan edition p. 101. Chapter 9, Kazan edition p. 90. Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1858 book 2, cases pp. 8 and 32. Ibid. p. 23 (cfr p. 32). Regarding the use of the name tyabla, let us add to what was said in volume 1 (2 half, pp. 185–186, note/216–217, note) that it was used not only in the sense of the rows of Deesis icons (in the proper and most particular sense - the one in which the twelve feasts, in the improper and general sense - of everyone), but also in the sense of the very shelves on which the Deesis icons stood. - ("Upper panel", - 1 Pskov in the Collection of Chronicles IV, 194 sub fin., - row in the panel or deesis. "Big panel" - main, first from the bottom, shelf, - Notes of the Russian and Slavic department of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. II, p. 180 fin.. Panel - part the iconostasis, which is above the local icons, that is, the entire iconostasis, with the exception of local icons, - History, notes on the Krivoyezersk Desert by Hierodeacon Philumen, p. 15 fin.; Vladimir collection of Tikhonravov, p. 141 sqq and 168 sqq; 3 Novgorod Chronicle, sheet 7214, p. 276; Notes of the Russian and Slavic Department of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. I, department 3, p. 140 sqq, ibid, vol. II, p. 139 and 142 (the first row of icons above the local ones is the tyablo, the second is the Deesis), and then the rows of icons above the Deesis and above the holidays and above the prophets ibid. p. 168; ibid. p. 180 Deesis in the tabla and then over the holidays and prophets tabla p. 181 fin.. – The tablo is actually the police or the board on which the icons are, - Tikhonravov’s Vladimir collection, pp. 180–181 fin.. The tablo is a shield: “above the Deesis, and above the holidays, and above the prophets there are three tablas, the grasses are cut through them, the grasses are gilded with red gold from the paint,” - Notes of the Russian and Slavic Department of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. II, p. 168. The Serbian tyablo is templo, - see Miklosic’s 6-language Dictionary under the word “iconostasis”. – Chronicler on the tibla (record about the construction of the church on the iconostasis), – A. F. Bychkova Description of the collections of the Imperial Public Library, p. 122; Description of the Moscow Epiphany Monastery of Bishop Nikodim (Belokurov), Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1876. book 4, page 39; Proceedings of the Vladimir Archival Commission vol. IV, Branch of the archive of old affairs of the Vladimir Spiritual Consistory p. 97; Description of the Solovetsky Monastery in collection No. 10, p. 41; my History of the Russian Church I, 2, pp. 647 fin/.769; Izvestia St. Petersburg., Archaeological Society vol. II, col. 317). In volume 1 (2 half p. 183/213) we interpret the word local in the sense of “festive” and assign the name to the twelve-festive series of Deesis icons. But local icons were not our holiday ones, with which we must abandon our interpretation of the word (although “local” really means festive, and, for example, given by Vostokov, we can point to another, later example. - Resurrection Chronicle for 1380 in the Collection of Chronicles No. VIII, 38: “clothed in local clothes”): Prince Vladimir-Volynsky Vladimir Vasilkovich copied two local icons - St. George and the Holy Mother of God, - Ipatos Chronicle under 1288, p. 610 beginning, and these are not our holiday icons. That the local icons were small in size and, therefore, should be assumed that they lay on lecterns, this is shown by the testimony of the Patericon of Pechersk, which we cite in volume 1 (2nd half of p. 181, note 4/page 211, note 3): “there are five great icons of the Deesis and two of the local icons.” Why the small worship icons lying on the lecterns received the name local, and later - local, this, as they said, we are not yet able to explain satisfactorily. In the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 21, art. 12, the word local translates the Greek ἐντόπιος, which means local resident; in Oleg’s treaty with the Greeks, read in the original chronicle under 912, the word “local” is used in the same sense (Laurentian Chronicle p. 36, Ipatian Chronicle - 22). Perhaps, when applied to plaque icons, the word local should be understood in such a way that they were actually church icons, while wall and tabletop icons could be private icons of parishioners, individuals or entire villages. (On the images of parishioners in churches, - Supplement to the Historical Acts, vol. V, p. 461 beginning; A. S. Lebedeva Belgorod bishops p. 57). In ancient times, the adjective “vicar” was used instead of the noun “vicar” - vicarius, see. in Vostokov in the Dictionary under the word “namestn”: taking the word in this second meaning, one can interpret it in application to our icons in such a way that they replaced, replaced the icons that stood high in the deesis for kissing). [Wed. what E.E. Golubinsky says in the second edition of the 2nd half of volume I, p. 213 and especially in the additions, pp. 900–903]. - (In the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral in the 17th century: “next to the lecterns in the icon case, a new icon was placed, between the local icons - the Savior sitting on the throne, and the supreme apostles Peter and Paul, in the measure and likeness of the miraculous image (i.e., a list from the image) of the most pure Mother of God Hodegetria of Tifin, brought from Tikhfina, as the sovereign's ambassadors... came to Novgorod in 125, overlaid with silver” (in the icon case, which is described), see “Excerpts from the inventory of the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral of the first half of the 17th century” in the news of the St. Petersburg Archaeological Society, vol. III (third) col. 371. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 410, sheet 55: c. Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral of the Most Pure (icon) and Sophia, the wisdom of God, “that stand by the ambon”). To the ancient testimony given in volume 1 (2nd half p. 185 note 1/p. 216 note 1) here is the later testimony. Nikon Chronicle under 1473. speaks of how much work was done on the Moscow Assumption Cathedral: “then it (the church) was still raised to a greater extent, where the arks of the saints (quadrangular recesses in the walls where arks or icon cases were to be inserted) work began on all three walls” (VI, 53. Of course, not icons, but crayfish saints - see 2 Sophia Chronicle p. 205). Evidence of local icons standing before the altar: Nikon Chronicle VI, 70, 1476. fin., Kalachova Legal Acts vol. 2, no. 217, col. 632 sub fin.: “postavna icon.” (In Sreznevsky’s Dictionary: the icon is placed, col. 1260 fin.. Posted candles. The chapters of the ancient statutes about incense and lighting candles seem to be because the church icon was lying on a lectern. They speak separately about the tyable and separately about the church icon, but if the church icon is not on the tyable, then there is nowhere for it to be except the lectern (which the statutes do not directly say). [Cf. 2 half of volume 1 pp. 901–902]. We have other evidence about local icons located in front of the altar, but it is unclear which icons are lying on analogues or standing in icon cases: Collection of Chronicles VI, 287 under 1529; News of the Archaeological Society, vol. II, col. 58 fin.). In the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God still stands against the wall in the same icon case in which it stood separately from it. (There is an image behind it, like on the backs of other old local icons: a clear sign that they were not placed close to the walls). Metropolitan Macarius, when he was Archbishop of Novgorod, ordered that local icons be placed in St. Sophia, - Collection of Chronicles VI, 285 sub fin.. But that he only ordered the icons to be placed in order in the same place where they stood before - at some distance from the altar wall, and not placed against the wall itself under the Deesis, this is clearly seen from the Novgorod rite of the so-called cave action, which dates back to the time of Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich: the rite says that before performing the action, for freeing up the space in front of the altar, local icons were temporarily taken out to the side chapels - Vivliofika VI, 363 and 382 fin.; if the icons were placed close to the wall, then there would be no need to take them out. If the icon of St. Macarius raised Sophia higher, raised it somewhat upward, - Collection of Chronicles VI, 285, then it should not be understood so that - on the altar wall, where it now stands in a row of local icons, but so that - above the royal doors, where it should have been located as a church icon, see I volume 2 half of p. 183/213. We said that local icons began to be moved close to the altar wall, under the Deesis, so as to form one whole with it - one iconostasis, after the cathedral of 1667. and as a result of his instructions that these icons should stand in churches in order, - ibid. pp. 186/217, note beginning. This should be understood about the gradual general introduction of a new custom, and as for particular cases, we know examples that in some places local icons were placed close to the altar wall and somewhat earlier, see Notes of the Archaeological Society, vol. the lower tier of the latter). That in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral local icons were not yet closely moved to the altar wall during the reign of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, undoubted proof of this is provided by the discovery made in the cathedral during its resumption for the coronation of [Emperor Alexander III] and consisting in the fact that the lower part of its altar wall turned out to be covered (painted) with images of saints: in the case of dense attachment of local icons to altar wall, there is no point in painting images of saints on the part of the wall they covered, and yet our images cannot be attributed to an earlier time than 1642, for in this year, by decree of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, the cathedral was painted completely anew, see Historical description of the cathedral by A. Levshin, Moscow, 1783, p. 11 sqq. (The sages, who were looking for information about the time when the image was painted, did not think to look into this very description or even into Snegirev, who speaks from his words about the resumption of painting!). The painting depicting the wedding of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich shows the inside of the church in which the wedding took place, and local icons are presented as standing in icon cases separate from the altar wall (about the painting by Mansvetov in the Addendum to the Works of the Holy Fathers. 1883, II, 527). – (Iconostasis in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral under Patriarch Philaret: forefathers, prophets, holidays, deesis, - Barsukova Sources of hagiography, pp. 443, 438. The royal place was against St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, ibid., p. 439 fin.. In 1663–1664, the icon of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker was against the Tsarina’s place in a special icon case (hence, not in the iconostasis) - see the magazine Faith and Reason for 1901, No. 7, leaflet for the Kharkov diocese, p. 143). – That in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral local icons were moved close to the altar wall, placed under the Deesis, only after 1684, see Snegireva Monuments of Moscow Antiquity, p. 5 col. 1 and 135 col. 2; For exact instructions on where to find the decree, see in his own publication: “Assumption Cathedral in Moscow”, note 71, - (According to the inventory of the Vladimir Assumption Monastery of 1665, printed by Tikhonravov, local images are in icon cases, - Princess Assumption Monastery in Vladimir Klyazemsky, p. 45 fin.. Under Tsar Michael Fedorovich there is not yet a tier of local icons in the iconostasis of the Trinity Cathedral of the Sergius Lavra, see the works of D. I. Skvortsov about Archimandrite Dionysius, p. 403 fin. Sergius Lavra of 1641 (kept in the Lavra sacristy), it seems to follow that in the Trinity Cathedral Lavra local icons were already placed close to the altar, and that in other churches they had not yet been placed, for when describing the iconostasis of the cathedral, speech begins with local icons, as its main component, and when describing the iconostases of other churches, it is separately mentioned Deesis and separately about local icons. If our assumption about the local icons of the Trinity Cathedral of the Lavra is correct, then the beginning of placing them close to the altar should be dated back to an earlier time than the cathedral of 1667. – In 1636 local icons are not yet in the iconostasis, - Historical notes about Kostroma by Archpriest Ostrovsky p. 83 fin.. In Kostroma in 1677. The icon of the Feodorovskaya Mother of God was placed outside the iconostasis: Ostrovsky Historical description of the Kostroma Assumption Cathedral, p. 20. And in 1702 image in the iconostasis – ibidd. Doesn't it say on page 22 what is outside the iconostasis? In 1724 local icons are not yet in the iconostasis, because during a fight in the church they were knocked down - article by A. S. Lebedev: “On the question of serfdom in parish churches”, p. 8. In the half of the 18th century, local icons were on their own, and the Deesis on their own, - Description of the manuscripts of I. A. Vakhrameev, compiled by A. A. Titov, third issue, appendices, p. 75 (local images in icon cases), 109 (local images in gilded carpentry iconostasis), 115 (same), 119, 120 (local images in gilded carpentry iconostasis), 121 (same). And the Deesis icons above the local icons on the shelves? “Local images” - the main tier of the iconostasis, - Historical notes about the Krivoyezersk desert of Hierodeacon Philumen, pp. 15 and 16; Vladimir collection of Tikhonravov pp. 141 sqq, 168 sqq. Local icons - large icons - see Princess Assumption Convent in Vladimir Klyazemsky Tikhonravova, page 42 sqq. Local icon in the 16th century - a large icon (quite clearly): Fr. Arseny About the governors, cellarers, etc. of the Trinity, p. 33, § 10. Local icons are especially revered and important icons. At princely weddings, “places” and “local heads”, see in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities of 1902. book 1, Rank, page 1 sqq (“The bride is without a place, the groom is crazy”). A local icon is an icon that has a specific place in the church, where it always stands (and is not moved from)? Local and non-local priests. – Local candles, – Legal Acts of Kalachov II, p. 633 fin.. (A large local candle was placed in front of the image of the Bishop of Novgorod in 1572, – Collection of Chronicles III, 173 beginning; in Karamzin IX, note 398, col. 89, with the omission of the word: large). The local image is the image of the saint to whom the church is dedicated - Ozeretskovsky’s Travels across Lakes Ladoga and Onega, p. 109). Words 2 of the Sophia Chronicle for 1482, - Collection of Chronicles VI, 233, that Vladyka Vassian of Rostov ordered icon painters to paint the Holy Mother of God (Moscow Assumption Cathedral) in the new church (that is, a series of icons, which was called by this name and which consisted of apostolic icons with a tripartite icon of the Savior, the Mother of God and the Forerunners in the middle) and with holidays and with prophets, the words of the priest Sylvester in testimony against Viskovaty, - Acts of the Expedition vol. I No. 238, p. 247 col. 2, that in the Annunciation Cathedral the icon painters wrote a deesis and holidays and prophets, and words 4 of the Novgorod Chronicle under 1509, - Collection of Chronicles VI, 136, that the Archbishop of Novgorod Serapion ordered to add a deesis and holidays to the Novgorod Sophia Cathedral, not entirely defined, because the deesis (a number of icons of this name) could be placed in the first place in the lists, and not because it stood in this place, but because it was more important than the holidays. But the current reality known to us provides evidence and absolutely definite evidence. In the Moscow Cathedrals of the Assumption, Annunciation and Archangel, in the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral and in the cathedrals of the Trinity and Assumption Lavra of St. Sergius, there are currently not holidays above the local icons, but the former Deesis - the apostolic series, and in all likelihood one should think that this is so in our cathedrals not recently, but from a very long, old time (NB. Double check directions). We know one thing and the written evidence is absolutely definite; in the Vologda St. Sophia Cathedral in 1663. the rows of Deesis icons (iconostasis) stood in this order: above the royal doors in the first tybla (on the first shelf) the Deesis (as a row of icons), above the Deesis in the other tybla are the holidays, above the holidays in the third tybla are the prophets and forefathers, see News of the Archaeological Society, vol. II col. 58 (Definite written evidence in our sense about the deesis of the Moscow Annunciation Cathedral, dating back to 1680, see below). But that the custom of putting the Deesis in first place from the bottom, and not the holidays, was not completely universal among us and that sometimes, according to the Greeks, it happened the other way around, see. Notes of the Archaeological Society vol. VIII, p. 160, Notes of the Russian and Slavic branch of the same Society vol. I, page 140 sqq and vol. II, pp. 139, 142 and 144, Notes on the Krivoyezersk Desert of Hierodeacon Philumen p. 15 (NB. Verify the evidence). – To what has been said about the use of the name “deesis” it should be added that it is used not only in the sense of the iconostasis above the altar, but also in the sense of the iconostasis, a collection of icons, a shelf or shelves of them, anywhere: the deesis in the church porch, the deesis on the gates of the city wall, etc. “Big Deesis”, like a row in the altar deesis - the iconostasis, there is that row of the latter, which was actually called by this name (Deesis), i.e., apostolic, and which received its name from the fact that it was the main (most important) row. - (Deesis, deesis - the iconostasis in general, with the exception of local icons ("in the deisusekh" - in the rest of the iconostasis, with the exception of local icons), and also all the upper rows of icons in church meals with the exception of local icons, - Notes of the Russian and Slavic department of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. I department 3, Descriptive book of the Knyagininsky district 1672. page 140 sqq; Historical notes about the Krivoyezerskaya desert Filumena p. 16 fin.; Vladimir collection of Tikhonravov 170 col. 1. That the Deesis is the second, and not the first, row of icons above the local ones, this is clear in the Description of the Kirill-Belozersky Monastery, - Notes of the Russian and Slavic department of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. II, Inventory of the Kirillov Belozersky Monastery, 1668. pp. 139, 142 and 144 (local, tyablo, deesis), above the royal doors - 180, 181, 200 and 201; sometimes the Deesis and directly above the local icons ibid. pp. 193, 206. “Under the Deesis in the tyabla there are twenty-four icons of stylist”, – Historical notes on the Krivoyezersk Desert of Filumena p. 15 fin.). – The second, after the holidays, the upper tier with the Savior and the apostles, – Metropolitan Macarius in Novgorod, Karamzin to vol. VIII, note 71, col. 15. – Deesis and large icons differ, – Collection of chronicles, vol. VI, p. 290. – Deesis – sometimes the first row, in the first tyable or on the first shelf, – News of the Archaeological Society, vol. II, p. 58. – Deesis – that tier of the iconostasis, in the middle of which there is a deesis icon, – see. in Historical Notes on the Krivoyezersk Desert by Hierodeacon Philumen, pp. 15, 16 and 17, in the Vladimir Collection of Tikhonravov, pp. 141 sqq and 168 sqq. – In general, the chapel or shelf of icons is smaller than the local ones. Deesis on the monastery gates, – Historical notes about the Krivoyezersk desert by Hierodeacon Philumen p. 17; Deesis in the church meal on the wall, - Vladimir collection of Tikhonravov p. 168 col. 2 fin., Generally a series of icons placed on a chapel. – Mentioned: complete Deesis, – Description of the Khotkov Monastery, pp. 37, 39; Deesis above the royal doors, - Description of the Khotkov Monastery, p. 39, Legal Acts of Kalachov, vol. II, p. 634; large deesis (the image of the Savior, on the sides there are five images, the Savior and four saints), – Notes of the Russian and Slavic branch of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. II, pp. 193 and 201 fin.. “The image of the Saviors in the deesis on eleven tablets” in the chapel (What is this?), – Notes of the Archaeological Society, vol. VIII, pp. Mixtures (Ust-Kuluisky churchyard) 97. In 1659, deesis from wall to wall, - Legal Acts of Kalachov II, 401. Deesis standing and deesis sitting, ibid., No. 218, p. 634. About the Deesis of Archimandrite Macarius Archaeological description of church antiquities in Novgorod, Moscow, 1860, part II, p. 39. A chandelier was hung in front of the Deesis, - Vladimir collection of Tikhonravov p. 142 col. I, 155 col. I, 156 col. I, 158 col. I). And he didn’t go and partly went, so to speak. In some famous monasteries, which wanted their churches to be exceptional in terms of the completeness of their iconostasis, they doubled one of the rows of its icons, namely the tyablo or festive row: the iconostasis of the Trinity Cathedral of the Sergius Lavra in the middle of the 17th century consisted of [cf. E. E. Golubinsky Venerable Sergius of Radonezh and the Trinity Lavra created by him, M. 1909, pp. 184–185], from six rows of icons, which were (counting from the bottom): tiblo, Deesis, another tiblo, holidays, prophets, - Inventory of the Trinity Lavra of 1642, in the Lavra sacristy No. 1, sheet 35 fin. (the same in the Kirill Belozersky Monastery, see the description in the Notes of the Russian and Slavic Department of the Archaeological Society, vol. II). In addition, cherubs were also placed above the forefathers, as they still are on old iconostases, so that there were actually six rows in the complete iconostasis (and in the iconostasis of the Trinity Lavra Cathedral in the half of the 17th century, since the forefathers were in it “with cherubs,” there were seven of them. Is it the same in the Cyril Monastery?). We know examples that sometimes the forefathers and prophets were placed in the same table (third from the bottom) or on the same shelf - News of the Archaeological Society vol. II, col. 58: this was probably in those cases when the churches were wide, but not high, so it was impossible to arrange high iconostases. – (In all churches of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, according to the 1642 inventory, the arrangement of tiers in the iconostasis is: 1) Deesis above local icons, 2) holidays, 3) prophets, 4) forefathers. In the Trinity Cathedral of the laurels on tiblas 1 and 2, small different icons are icons that belonged as the private property of the monks and were given to persons buried in the monastery. According to the inventory of the Vladimir Assumption Monastery of 1665, printed by Tikhonravov, (in the appendix to the article: “Princess of the Assumption Convent in Vladimir Klyazemsky”, the iconostasis of the main Assumption Church: 1) tyablo - a row of small icons under the Deesis, 2) Deesis, 3) holidays, 4) prophets, 5) forefathers, – pp. 41–42, 47 fin.. In another church: 1) teblo under the deesis and 2) deesis, – pp. 91, 95. Inventory in the collection gr. Tolstova No. 23, printed catalog No. 21.076. In the church of the Lutsk Brotherhood between 1627–1654 the iconostasis was: 1) above the royal doors, an image not made by hands. (On the very royal gates, under their rounded top?). Under the rounding (at the top of the royal doors) a mesh carving was installed with the Image Miracle Made in the middle." (Cf. in the Readings of the Society of Nestor the Chronicler, book 15, issue IV, section 1, p. 62.) 2) A large image of the Savior between the pillars, 3) a local image of the Most Pure One, 4) a silver tablet with the image of the Most Pure One, 5) another similar tablet, 6) the festive image of the Exaltation of the Honorable Cross (church; that the Church of the Brotherhood - Exaltation of the Cross ibid. No. IV, p. 18), 7) the image of the Holy Trinity. See Monuments issued by the temporary Commission for the analysis of ancient acts, the highest established under the Kiev Military, Podolsk and Volyn Governor-General, volume I, section 1, No. XXXIII, p. 262–263. The iconostasis is different from the Moscow ones, so (maybe) the history of the iconostasis is different in Kievan Rus and in Muscovite Rus' (Alas and ah! How are iconostases in Little Russia now?). Peter Mogila in his Trebnik calls the iconostasis a deesis: “The rite of blessing or consecration of the catapetasma, or deesis, is to eat all the icons placed in the church in their place,” - part 2 p. 128. And the iconostasis is the name of the icon case placed in an unconsecrated church: “The rite of blessing new churches or iconostasis, there are special prayer books, through the priest from the bishop, for this blessing and the power given to the one who has it, in the hedgehog, before the perfect consecration, the divine liturgy is performed,” - the same 2nd part, page 73. The pre-notification for this rite says that only a bishop can completely consecrate a church, but if it happens that the bishop for some reason cannot go for consecration newly created church: so that it does not remain for a long time without singing, the bishop issues an antimension for temporary service in an unconsecrated church - page 74 fin.). “Vladyka Vasyan of Rostov gave one hundred rubles to the master icon painter Denisiy and the priest Timothy and Yarts and Kone, to write the Deesis in the new church of the Holy Mother of God, who also wrote wonderfully Velmi and on holidays and with the prophets,” - 2 Sofia Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 233. (Answer to the question why the archbishop Rostovsky wanted to paint an iconostasis for the Moscow Cathedral at his own expense, a very simple one: due to his zeal for it as an all-Russian shrine, and in particular due to his closeness to the Grand Duke, by whom it was built, as the latter’s confessor). “By the command of the Most Reverend Archbishop Serapion, the Deesis was completed in St. Sophia and the feasts,” - 4 Novgorod Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles IV, 136. (Archbishop Niphon created an ark in St. Sophia of Novgorod, - Novgorod Chronicle I, p. 12, sheet 6664 (1156). When Archbishop Gennady had a taiblo in Novgorod, but there was no iconostasis yet - Vivliofika vol. XIV, p. 252). Priest Sylvester in his testimony against Viskovaty: “and how the icon painters wrote the icons (in the cathedral): Deesis and feasts and prophets and local great icons,” - Acts of the Expedition vol. I No. 238, p. 247 col. 2. “Russian Chronicler” Lvova, III, 177, says that in 1482, by order of the Rostov ruler Vassian, the same icon painters who painted icons for the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, and for the same price, painted the Deesis, prophets and feasts of the wonderful Velmi in the Rostov Cathedral. But it is obvious that the chronicler erroneously transfers to the Rostov Cathedral the news of the previous 1481, relating to the Moscow Cathedral, for Vassian died on March 23, 1481. See Snegirev in Monuments of Moscow Antiquity, explanatory notes attached to the book at the end, page 60 fin. (For the iconostasis of the Chudov Monastery, see ibid. p. 135 col. 2). Metropolitan Macarius, when he was Archbishop of Novgorod, overlaid 13 icons of the Great Deesis (“greater Deesis 13 icons”) of St. with gilded silver. Sofia, - Addition to the 2nd Sofia Chronicle under 1537, in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 301. The Great Deesis here means the main belt (apostolic-hierarchic) ​​of the Deesis-iconostasis. But a large one can be with several small ones, or with one, and therefore, from the name large deesis, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether under Macarius, as was the case in 1509, one small deesis (holidays) remained, or whether one of the other two small deesis was added after that, or both together. (A complete inventory of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral of 1627 was published in the ΙΙΙ volume of the Russian Historical Library). See previous note. The Patericon of Pechersk tells that a certain Christ-loving man from the city of Kyiv built a church for himself (a house one) and wanted to create five great Deesis icons and two local icons to decorate the church (the story of Spyridon the prosphora-maker and Alypius the icon painter). It is difficult to imagine a house church so large that five Deesis icons could fit into its altar arch. And from this it follows that our increase in the width of the iconostasis should most likely be attributed to the pre-Mongol period. (Local icons on the walls of churches, - Collection of Chronicles, vol. VI, p. 287). See Nevolin About Pyatina, appendices p. 124 sub fin. and 251 starts. From the end of the 15th century we know an example of a church, located even in a metropolitan village, in which there was only one icon - Legal Acts of Kalachov, vol. II No. 217, col. 632. – By the way, let’s make a note here about illustrated manuscripts of the 16th century, in which there are images of the insides of churches. In these images, if the iconostasis was to be shown on them, we always find standing on the arch of the royal doors only one icon of the Deesis (trimorphium, the Savior with the Mother of God and the Forerunner). But this Deesis icon should not at all be looked at in such a way that it represents the entire actual iconostasis of the churches depicted: it is simply a conventional designation of the iconostasis. There was no place to depict entire iconostases, and it would be very troublesome, and so they are conventionally and abbreviatedly designated by the icon, which was the main (and original) one in them. – (On ancient iconostases, see the News of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. III, p. 205 sqq article by Gornostaev and Filimonov Archaeological Research on Monuments, Issue 1, Moscow, 1859, on iconostases. An ancient iconostasis in the Nizhny Novgorod Cathedral, - Notes of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. X, p. 21, six-tiered without carved decorations; four lower tiers in cages, two upper ones without cages. Two contract entries for the construction of the iconostasis in the Moscow Donskoy Monastery, - Notes of the Archaeological Society, vol. VIII, Mixtures, p. 159 sqq. Ordinal entry on the iconostasis of 1640, - Notes of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. X, p. 454, master monk, local icons under the Deesis). (Byzantine icons in Russia - in the Nizhny Novgorod province, see Monuments of church antiquities of the Nizhny Novgorod province by Archimandrite Macarius, Notes of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. X, in Index’ë Byzantine icons). We remember isolated testimonies about monks who learned icon painting and even became real icon painters (Daniil Cherny and Andrei Rublev); but they say absolutely nothing in common. – (Icon painted by Metropolitan Peter, in the Novodvorsky monastery, - St. Dmitry Metropolitan of Rostov p. 9 fin.. Metropolitan Macarius was more or less a specialist in icon painting, for he himself was to one degree or another an icon painter, - see 1 half of this volume p. 845 note fin.). For our external history of Russian icon painting for the time we are considering, as far as it is known or as far as there is news related to it, see the study by D. A. Ravinsky: “History of Russian schools of icon painting until the end of the 17th century,” printed in volume VIII of the Notes of the Archaeological (St. Petersburg) Society. – (In Antiquities of the Russian State, in the 1st volume of the text, in the preface, there is about icon painting. See also the study on Russian icon painting by Sakharov, book 1, St. Petersburg, 1849 (about the original); On the significance of Russian icon painting, Snegirev in Notes of St. Petersburg, Archaeological - Numismatic Society, vol. I, SPB., 1849, p. 181 sqq; something about iconography in Snegirev’s Monuments of Moscow Antiquity, p. XXI, col. 2. (Here he refers to the List of Russian monuments by P. Keppen, Moscow, 1822) and p. XXXV col. 2 (about injuries) and in all chapters of the Preface; for the history of Russian icon painting - Zabelin; Kyiv mosaics, article by Kryzhanovsky in volume VIII of the Notes of the Imperial Archaeological Society, St. Petersburg, 1856, p. 355 sqq; Mosaics of the Kiev St. Sophia Cathedral and St. Michael's Monastery. There are many ancient icons, of all Russian schools, in the Guslitsky Monastery - see The Legend of the Beginning and Present Position of the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Guslitsky Monastery, Moscow, 1863, p. 57 sqq (Register of Icons). About the Siberian icon-painting school, see Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1864, book 3, Mixture, page 29, article by Archpriest Sulotsky. About the Novgorod ancient icons and the school of icon painters from Macarius in the Archaeological Description of Church Antiquities in Novgorod). Both in one and in the other cathedral there are more than four icons of Russian writing dating back to the half of the 16th century, but we mean only those of these icons for which it is not known that they were renewed in later times. (In the Assumption Cathedral: 1) Demetrius of Thessaloniki, actually Greek, but Russian according to the renewal, which was carried out in our time - in 1517, - Snegirev Monuments of Moscow Antiquity, p. 12 col. 2; 2) Smolensk Mother of God, copy from the original, made [soon after 1456], Snegirev ibid. page 14 col. 2 fin.; 3) The Dormition of the Mother of God, called the Bent Mother - ibid. page 15 col. 2; 4) The Vladimir Mother of God, called the Spare Mother, letters from Metropolitan Simon, - ibid. page 17 col. In the Annunciation Cathedral: 1) The All-Merciful Savior of the 14th century, - ibid. page 88 col. 1; 2) Annunciation of the 16th century, ibid. page 88 col. 2; 3) St. Nicholas the Wonderworker of the early 16th century, – ibid. page 89 col. 2 start; 4) Four-part: And God rest, - the Only Begotten, - Come people, - In the carnal tomb, 1554, - Ravinsky History of Russian Icon Painting in the VIII volume. Notes of the Archaeological Society p. 15 beginning). [Andrei Rublev, together with another icon painter of that time, Daniil Cherny, entered the Andronikov Monastery when he was the abbot of St. Andronik († around 1404). At the very beginning of the 15th century. they were already in glory. In 1405 he painted the Moscow Annunciation Cathedral, in 1408. Vladimir Cathedral, then the Trinity Cathedral in the Sergius Monastery and the Spassky Cathedral in the Andronikov Monastery. The Stoglavy Cathedral sets Rublev as a model for icon painters. See Historical Description of the Moscow Spaso-Andronikov Monastery (compiled by Archimandrite, later Archbishop, Sergius Spassky), M. 1865, pp. 18–20 and Appendices pp. 8–12]. – Rublev’s teacher was Russian, but he worked together with the Greek (in 1405 he painted the Annunciation Cathedral), therefore, he could have borrowed from him. What Snegirev says about Rublev, see Ravinsky in the History of Icon Painting, p. 177. See the two letters of Pope Gregory II to the Emperor Leo the Isaurian, the letter of John of Damascus to Constantine Copronymus and his Word on the honor of saints and worship, and the Polysyllabic Epistle (Polysyllabic Scroll) of the Council of Jerusalem in 836. to Emperor Theophilus - all collected in Slavic in one place in a collection published in Moscow in 1642. under the title: “The Book – Words Selected by the Holy Fathers on the Worship and Honor of Holy Icons,” and which is known in the bibliography under the name of the Small Conciliar. Pope Gregory; “Christ-loving people, who saw the Lord, as V17; saw, and wrote, and as they saw the Mother of the Lord, so also wrote, and as they saw James, the brother of the Lord, so and wrote, and who saw the first martyr Stephen, as they saw, also wrote, also Having seen the faces of the martyrs and those who shed their blood for Christ’s sake, just as I saw it, I also wrote it.”., folio 43 verso – (“The statute that the holy fathers laid down at the 7th Council on the iconoclasts,” – Makariev’s Chet-Mineaion on August 31. Greek icon painting deliberately moved away from naturalness, so that the saints, being depicted naturally, would not seem like ordinary, passionate people; in order to present them, through unnaturalness, as dispassionate, superior to ordinary people). (That God the Father should not be depicted on icons - Pidalion, note to the 7th Ecumenical Council, p. 320). - Pope Gregory: “Why do we not imagine (depict) the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? Even if we have not seen Him, because He is invisible, it is powerless to imagine and write the nature of God; if we had seen Him incarnated, just as His Son and our God had become incarnate, we would have imagined and written Him in the same way,” page 54 ver. (Holy Spirit He was not depicted separately under his images of a dove and tongues of fire, but was depicted on the icons of the baptism of Christ and His descent of the Holy Spirit). See the Manual for Iconographers (Ἑ ρμηνεία τῶν ζωγράφων) by Hieromonk Dionysius of the 15th century, which we will talk about below: page 107 sqq. (Root of Jesse, images of the Creed and the Lord's Prayer), p. 158 (depiction of the divine liturgy), p. 182 fin. (icon “Rejoices in You”), p. 184 (images of the 24 icons of the Mother of God), p. 211 fin. (icon “It is worthy to eat”), p. 259 (instructions that God the Father should be depicted, according to the vision of the prophet Daniel, in the form of an old man, and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove). – (Icon “Root of Jesse” in Constantinople under Gonzales Clavijo, – p. 59 fin.). (See Buslaev’s article “For the history of Russian painting of the 16th century” (about the case of clerk Ivan Viskovat) in Historical Sketches of Russian Literature and Art, vol. II, p. 281, with drawings attached). See Description of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev, No. 322, sheet 243 verso, p. 639; (Tolstova and Kondakova VI edition of Russian Antiquities p. 133). [Kondakov N. P. Facial iconographic original, vol. I, St. Petersburg, 1905, historical sketch p. 70]. In “Acts” on icons there is an image on the sides (in the margins) of the icon of the saint himself, in small writing, of the historical events of his life. See the Right Reverend Macarius Archaeological Description of Church Antiquities in Novgorod II, 82 (in the Klopsky Monastery there is an icon of the Trinity with the act of 1367), cfr 109, 116. [Wed. 1 half of this volume p. 845 note]. For a drawing of the icon, see the Collection of the Society of Ancient Russian Art at the Moscow Public Museum for 1866. Section I to p. 11. [Works of F.I. Buslaev, vol. I, St. Petersburg, 1908, p. 17. Kondakov N. P. Facial iconographic original, vol. I, St. Petersburg, 1905, historical essay pp. 64–65]. [Kondakov N. P. said essay, essay p. 70]. [Cm. the image of her and about her is in N.V. Pokrovsky in “Essays on the Monuments of Christian Iconography and Art,” 2nd edition of St. Petersburg, 1900, pp. 341–343]. Drawing of the icon in the now mentioned Collection of the Society of Ancient Russian Art for 1866. to page 10. [Works of F.I. Buslaev, vol. I, St. Petersburg, 1908, page 15 and Kondakov’s indicated work, text page 69 and figure 111]. (The Greeks had it, see Ἑ ρμηνεία p. 263). (For this icon, see Archbishop Macarius in the Description of Novgorod Antiquities, vol. II, p. 120 [Works of F. I. Buslaev, volume II, St. Petersburg, 1910, pp. 288–291 and in Kondakov the indicated composition of the text, p. 77; album of lithographic copybooks 1 and 2; phototypic table 37]. (For the Greeks, the symbol of faith was depicted Ἑ ρμηνεία p. 107 fin.. Four icons Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 9: the Creation of the World, the Only Begotten Son, the Trinitarian Deity and the Carnally In the Tomb, written on one board, divided into 4 parts, are still in the Annunciation Cathedral). See Legal Acts of Kalachov, II, no. 218 col. 634. On the non-symbolic icon of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the apostles, the world was symbolically depicted, in the form of a gray-haired old man, standing or sitting under the apostles in a small special church, - Description of the Synodal Manuscripts No. 323, sheet 402, p. 664, cfr Greek original of Hieromonk Dionysius, p. 144 beginning. – (Cf. description of Synodal manuscripts No. 185, p. 506 and No. 196, p. 605. See also icons of the 16th century: Ivan Damascus’s prison, - Legal Acts of Kalachov, vol. II, p. 634. – 17th century: He rejoices in you, Ibid. p. 210; Last Judgment, Ibid. p. 210 (1671) and Nikon Chronicle IV, 289; the Incarnation of the Son of God (not the Annunciation), - Notes of the Russian and Slavic Department of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. 2, p. 134 (Inventory of the Kirill Monastery, 1668); p. 161. - Archbishop Gennady saw on one of his visits to Pskov an icon - Jesus Christ in a royal crown, in a holy robe, with a young youth on top, - Addition to the Works of the Holy Fathers, part XVIII, p. 189). – [For the image of the “Waking Eye” icon, see N.V. Pokrovsky in Essays on Monuments of Christian Iconography, 2nd edition, fig. 144 on page 233 and fig. 203; “The Lord is able” – fig. 210. The first image is from the same author in his work “Wall Paintings in Ancient Greek and Russian Churches” M. 1890, plate. XXVI and Η. P. Kondakova, the indicated essay, text pp. 65–68 and fig. No. 109 and No. 110; album phototype tables 26 and 27, lithographed 23]. It does not hurt, however, not to forget the remark we made above [1 half of this volume p. 845], that perhaps the cathedral’s favor towards symbolic-allegorical icons was not entirely voluntary. Testimony of truth, Kazan edition p. 976 beginning. “And on which icons the Holy Spirit is written in the form of a bird is unknown, except for the Father’s procession and the Forerunner’s testimony (that is, not together with God the Father and not on the icon of the baptism of Christ), and we (says the council) will look for evidence of this in the divine scriptures, and we will advise the council, and we will issue a decree about that.” – (By this image, perhaps, we should mean the image of the Holy Spirit with his head not up, but down, and a certain type of dove turned into an indefinite type of some kind of bird in general, - 1 half of the volume p. 891[? 845]). D. A. Ravinsky in the History of Russian Icon Painting, p. 15, In 1553, on the occasion of the trial of Viskovaty, the monks of the Athos Panteleimon Monastery were questioned by Metropolitan Macarius about the icons and, among other things, informed the Metropolitan that they had St. Panteleimon “Sophea, the holy wisdom of God, (is) painted above the northern gate” (altar), - Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1858, book II, Search, page 14. We call the testimony not entirely reliable because, contrary to the assurance of the monks, the church could have been painted not by ancient Greek painters, but by later Russians. Metropolitan Macarius, when he was Archbishop of Novgorod, ordered that icons be placed in St. Sophia, began with the fact that “he raised the most wonderful icon, Saint Sophia, higher,” - Collection of Chronicles VI, 285. As a sign that he is represented as a speaker, see [“On our polemic with the Old Believers,” 2nd ed. M. 1905, pp. 179–185]. For a description of the icon, see the Bulletin of the Society of Ancient Russian Art at the Moscow Public Museum, 1874. book 1–3 in the article by Yu. D. Filimonov: “Essays on Russian Christian iconography”, p. 5 col. 2. Image of the icon in the drawing attached to the description. In addition to the Novgorod icon of St. Sophia has her Kiev icon, completely different from the Novgorod one, representing not the Savior, but the Mother of God: this last icon is a later composition (its description is in the Description of the Kiev-Sophia Cathedral by Metropolitan Eugene, p. 19, and the drawing is right there, from the beginning of the book). There are later versions (re-compositions) of the Novgorod Sofia, see Filimonov ibid.. Ibid. page 408 note 1. The first recorded news about the trips of the great princes to Mozhaisk for the purpose of worshiping our icon dates back to 1538, - Karamzin to volume VIII note 69. (Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich went to Mozhaisk and for fun, - Collection of Chronicles VIII, p. 271 fin. (1527)., Nikon Chronicle VI, p. 232. In the description of the trip to Moscow of the Tsar's ambassador Varkoch in 1593, it is said that Grand Duke Theodore Ivanovich went to Nikola Mozhaisky every year - Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities, 1874, book IV, p. 14). [Wed. 1 half of this volume pp. 746–747]. See the article about it in the Soulful Reading of 1872, part 3, page 408 sqq [In the scribe books of 1595–1598 one reads in the cathedral church of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker on the right side of the royal doors “the image of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker on the cut, in the icon case in wood, and on the icon case it is knocked out with German iron Nikolino’s deed, and the image has a blessed right hand, and in the left hand there is a gospel, the crown of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker of the Basmians, German iron, gilded with gold leaf”... In the Church of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross on the large stone gate in the chapel: “the image of the miraculous St. Nicholas the Wonderworker standing, on rezi, in an icon case with an act, an icon case overlaid with silver, the crowns and fields are gilded; Nikola the Wonderworker has a crown of chased gold, and in the crown there are 5 burrs of gold, in the upper burr there is a green emerald stone, on the sides in the burrs there are 2 worms, and in the lower burr there is a green emerald stone, and on the other side the green stone is bad, and in the burrs there are 4 pearls, and in Nikola’s the miracle worker has a sword in his right hand, and in his left hand the city of Mozhaesk is overlaid with Basmian silver and gilded.” Scribe books of the 16th century, published by N.V. Kalachov, part I, St. Petersburg, 1872, pp. 613 and 616]. Collection of Chronicles IV, 303 fin. (Image of the carved icon of Friday, now located in Novgorod (or carved in the likeness of Pskov) in Russian antiquities of Tolstov and Kondakov, vol. VI, Fig. 196, p. 156; the cross in Friday’s hand is our 8-pointed Russian). In addition to making copies of the Mozhaisk icon, our icons of St. Nicholas in other places of the Moscow region, neighboring Lithuania, and directly from this latter. Such directly received icons of ours probably include the icon of St. Nicholas of Mtsensk, located in the St. Nicholas Cathedral of the city of Mtsensk, Oryol province (which was truly Lithuanian from 1320 to 1509. The Mtsensk icon or statue, which differs from the Mozhaisk one in that the church in the left hand of St. Nicholas is not surrounded by a wall and that he himself is placed on an eagle, is accepted by local tradition as having appeared in 1415, see about it in the book: The Legend of the Appearance of the Miracle-Working Image of St. Nicholas of Christ, in Connection with the Successes of Christianity in the City of Mtsensk, edition I. Sherapov, Moscow, 1881. Photo of the icon in the book). See in Πηδάλιον ’e according to the Zakynthos edition, p. 316 (note 6 to the preface to the rules of the 7th ecumenical council). [For photographs of these images, as well as a detailed examination of the second, see the article by Ya. I. Smirnov, Ustyug statue of St. George of the Moscow Greater Assumption Cathedral, M. 1915 (from the XXV volume of Antiquities of the Imperial Moscow Archaeological Society). For the first bas-relief - Ermolinsky, see article N. N. Sobolev “Russian architect of the 15th century V. D. Ermolin”, published in the 2nd issue of “Old Moscow” (M. 1914) pp. 16–23]. (In the “History of the Canonization of Saints in the Russian Church” (2nd edition, pp. 435–437) compiled by me, the decree of the Holy Synod dated March 15, 1722 is printed among the “Appendices” that carved and hollowed logs should not be placed in the tombs and shrines placed over the unrecovered bodies of saints, and it is said: “The late I. M. Snegirev in his writings: Travel notes about the Trinity Lavra, M. 1840, p. 2, and Guide from Moscow to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, M. 1856, p. 45 fin., says that in the meal tent (on the chambers or in the choirs of the meal?) at the church of the village of Alekseevskoye, located 3 versts from Moscow along the Trinity Highway, “kept in ancient calm are carved wood and painted images of the Moscow saints Peter, Alexy, Jonah and Philip in full height, which once stood at the shrines of their saints relics, but, by order of Metropolitan Plato, they were transferred here.” Since the images are not mentioned in the inventories of the Assumption Cathedral (for four inventories of the cathedral from the beginning of the 17th century to 1701, see Volume III of the Russian Historical Library, published by the Archaeographic Commission): were they not lying in crayfish under shrouds or covers, due to which concealment they were not subject to inventory?” In the same place, in the “Additions” (pp. 581–582 of the “History of Canonization”) it is added: “The carved images that Snegirev speaks of were not more or less ordinary and did they not stand at the shrines with the relics of many saints, having begun to be hidden from the time of the decree prohibiting the use of icons carved or hewn, hollowed out and sculptured, which followed May 21, 1722. (Descriptions of documents and affairs of the Holy Synod, vol. II, part 1, col. 642, 643 and 645 fin.), i.e., following our decree on carved and hollowed out logs? – In Novgorod, several carved images of saints are preserved in churches and chapels to this day, and at the head of the St. Sophia Cathedral there is a whole collection of carved icons collected under Peter The great after the now mentioned decree on icons from different places of the diocese, see the Most Reverend Macarius Archaeological Description of Church Antiquities in Novgorod, Part II, pp. 124 and 133”). Emperor Vasily the Bulgarian Slayer († 1025) ordered the Prologue to be written and illustrated or decorated with a continuous series of images of saints for each day. (This prologue, for details of which see Archimandrite Sergius in the Complete Monthly Book of the East, I, 217 sqq, published in 1727 by Cardinal Albani under the title: Menologium Graecorum, jussu imperatoris Basilii olim editum). The images of saints found in the Prologue constitute the first known frontal Original: perhaps they were first compiled for the Prologue, or perhaps they were borrowed from painters and already existed among these latter more or less long before. In the text of the Prologue one reads descriptions of the external appearance of the saints, although not every saint, but only some. – In Greek manuscripts there are excerpts or extracts from “Antiquities relating to church history, on the bodily properties of the fathers” by Ulpius Romeo, - which is more likely to be understood in the sense of a Greek rather than a Roman, despite the Roman name or nickname (Ἐκ τῶν Ούλπίου τοῦ ῥ ωμαίου ἀρχαιολογουμένων τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ί στορίας περὶ χαρακτήρων σωματικῶν θεοφόρων πατέρων), which are nothing more than excerpts or extracts from the descriptive Original. Who Ulpius the Roman or the Greek was and when exactly he lived remains unknown; but the time of his life is approximately determined by the fact that on the one hand he reads a description of the appearance of St. Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople, who died in 829, and on the other hand, by the fact that excerpts from it are known from manuscripts of the 12th century (one excerpt is printed in the appendix to the Index for review of the Moscow Patriarchal, now synodal, library of the Right Reverend Savva; for another excerpt, see here, in the preliminary preface). About the Venerable Abraham of Smolensk it is said in his life that he had “the image and likeness of the Great Basil: I have such (the same) black hair, perhaps having a bald head (but not like Vasily) - Orthodox Interlocutor 1858, book 3, p. 370. The author of the life knew about the external appearance of Basil the Great, perhaps from Prologue, and perhaps from the already existing deliberate Original. On the basis that our known Originals are arranged according to the Jerusalem Rule (i.e., the descriptions in them of the external appearance of the saints by the days of the month), Bishop Sergius in his Monthly Book of the East, I, 299, believes that the Originals appeared to us late, since this Rule appeared to us no earlier than the second half of the 14th century. But if the remark about. arrangement, then the Originals, which appeared to us early, could be adapted to the Jerusalem Rule later. The older currently known editions of Russian descriptive originals date back to the end of the 16th century. Such an older Original was published by Yu. D. Filimonov in the Collection of the Society of Ancient Russian Art at the Moscow Public Museum for 1873. (and the younger one from the beginning of the 18th century, distinguished by its completeness, was published by him in the Bulletin of the same Society, books 1–12). The oldest known manuscript of the obverse Russian Original, owned by gr. Stroganov, belongs to the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th century (in the Original under January 17, Anthony the Roman, and about the establishment of the celebration of this latter, see our History, vol. 1, half, p. 487 beginning/590; it was printed by means of lithography in Moscow in 1869, under the title: “Stroganov’s icon-painting obverse Original.” Greek descriptive Original, compiled in the middle of the 15th century by the Athonite hieromonk and icon painter Dionysius, printed in Athens in 1853 under the title: Ἑ ρμηνεία τῶν ζωγράφων, ὡ ς πρὸς τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν ζωγραφ ί αν. French translation: Manuel d'iconographie chretienne greque et latin, traduit par Durand, avec et notes par Didron, Paris, 1845; Das Handbuch der Malerei vom Berge Athos, aus dem handschr. neugriechischen Text übersetzt von Schäfer, 1855. – (hieromonk Epiphanius letter to Cyril, Orthodox Interlocutor 1863, III, 324, About the original icon paintings). Question 3 from the first 37 questions, Kazan edition p. 51 fin.. “And those who until this time painted icons without studying, by self-will and self-will and not according to the image, and those icons were exchanged (sold) cheaply to ordinary people, to ignorant villagers”... - Kazan edition p. 207 fin.. Chapter 43 Kazan edition p. 203 fin. sqq. – From the case of Viskovaty we learn that in Moscow itself, at least, after the cathedral, overseers of icon painters were actually appointed: “here in Moscow in the reigning city,” we read in the file, “according to the cathedral code, four elder icon painters were installed over all icon painters, and they were ordered to supervise all icon painters,” - Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1858 book 2, Search or case page 2 beginning. Chapter 27, Kazan edition p. 124. Chapter 41, question and answer 7, Kazan edition p. 189. Chapter 41, question-answer 1, Kazan edition p. 185. - (See Christian Reading 1885, part I, article Definition of Stoglav on icons; Orthodox Review 1885, article on icon painting. Compare the resolution of the Stoglavy Council on icon painting with what Macarius said at the council against Viskovaty. The inscription of names on icons was certainly required in the 9th century, - Volokolamsk manuscript No. 591, sheet 811 (Life of Methodius of Moravia); in the 17th century, the same - Collection of State Charters and Treaties, vol. III, p. 882 col, 1, Contract for writing icons, Legal Acts of Kalachov vol. II, no. 254 (half of the 17th century). The sizes of the icons: Pyadnitsa were large, medium and small, see for example, the Description Book of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery in the Notes of the Russian and Slavic Department of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. 2, p. 126 sqq. archeology of the Archaeological Society, volume 1, St. Petersburg, 1851, appendices p. 76 note. According to the Trade Book of the 16th century, a cubit is equal to 10¾ vershok, see ibid. – Icons “in the arrow” - Legal Acts of Kalachov II, 634. Icons are exchanged, not bought, 1540, – Pskov I, 304 beginning; Karamzin vol. XI, note 232. Crowns and vestments on icons: metal crowns are mentioned in the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk, - Readings of the Historical Society 1858. book 3, sheet 18, col. 16. – The custom of hanging various things on icons after healing was in the 12th century. (under Bogolyubsky, one woman healed by the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God (from illnesses of birth) “hung up her golden braids and seryaz.” Ancient miracles of the icon of the Vladimir Mother of God - Makarievskaya Synodal Menaion, August, No. 183, sheet 4. At the beginning of the 18th century, we had a custom of making pendants to ask for help in illness from miraculous icons, depicting illness. (The Case of Tveritinov, Synodal Manuscript No. 58, testimony of Vice-Governor Ershov, folio 180 verso: Tveritinov, to one eye patient who asked him for help, answered with a laugh: “you have a medicine: please buy a peephole or both silver ones, and take it to Pyatnitsa-Prosche, which is on Pyatnitskaya Street (in Moscow); and if your honor is hurt teeth,” Tveritinov added, “then please buy a silver tooth for Antipy the Wonderworker.” See also folio 153, ver. and 154, they applied silver to the icons of the miraculous foot). After the Greek painters who painted the Moscow Assumption Cathedral under Metropolitan Theognostus (Nikon Chronicle III, 180), after the Greek painter Theophanes, who worked in Novgorod in 1378. (3 Novgorod Chronicle under this year, - in the Collection of Chronicles III, 231), the Greek painter Theophanes (Fofan) is mentioned - it is unknown, previous or different, who worked in Moscow during the years 1395-1405 (Nikon Chronicle IV, 257, 279 [under 6903 and 6907]; Karamzin to vol. V note 254, col. 103: in 1399 Theophanes painted the Archangel Kremlin Cathedral, and in 1405, together with Andrei Rublev, the Annunciation Cathedral). - (Orthodox Interlocutor 1863, III, p. 324 sqq, here Epiphanius the painter. Painter Isaiah Grechin in Novgorod, - 1 Novgorod under 1338.. In 1344 The court Spassky Monastery (Savior on Bor) was painted in Moscow, “and the masters were elders and wardens of former Rustic origins, and Greek students,” that is, and students of Greek masters (those who painted Metropolitan Theognostus in the previous 1343 Assumption Cathedral), - Nikon Chronicle III, 180–182. (Resurrection Chronicle VII, 209 sub fin.). He painted churches: in 1405 the Moscow Annunciation Cathedral, Karamzin to volume V note 254, in 1409 the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral, - Nikon Chronicle V, 14, and the Russian Temporary, printed in 1790, I, 221 fin., after 1422. Trinity Cathedral in the Sergius Monastery (Lavra), - for the life of St. Nikon, see Sofia Vremennik Stroev I, 443 and finally, until 1430, to which his death is attributed, the cathedral in the Moscow Andronikov Monastery. This parable in the Viskovaty case is described as follows. “Written in the large plate, in the sky (on the vault) in the middle, the Savior on the cherubim, and the signature: “Wisdom of Is Xs”; on the right side the Savior has a door, and writes (written) on it: 1) courage, 2) reason, 3) purity, 4) truth, and on the left side the Savior has another (door), and writes on it: 1) fornication, 2) madness, 3) uncleanness, 4) untruth, and between the doors in the depths is the seven-headed devil, and it costs life on it, but to hold a lamp in the right hand, and in the left a spear, and above that stands an angel - the spirit of the fear of God, and behind the door on the right side is written the earth's foundation and the sea and the transformation of that into its innermost, and an angel - the spirit of piety, and about that there are four winds, and around that there is water, and above the water is the firmament, and on it the sun, falling into the earth and brought (?), and an angel - the spirit of prudence, to hold the sun, and under he is chased from noon after day to night, and underneath is virtue and an angel, and signed are zeal, and jealousy, and hell, and a hare; and on the left side behind the door the firmament is also written, and on it is written the Lord, like an angel, and he holds a mirror and a sword, the angel places a crown on him, and the signature is: “Bless the crown of the summer of Thy goodness,” and under Him is the annual wheel, and the year has a wheel, on the right side is love, and the archer, and the wolf, and on the left side is envy, and from it a word to the hare: “Envy is a cruel harm, for this is why the fratricide begins and springs up,” and envy pierces itself with a sword, and death, and around that there is the firmament, and angels serve the stars, and other all the utensils of God, and 4 angels in the corners: 1) the spirit of wisdom, 2) the spirit of light (of advice?), 3) the spirit of strength, 4) the spirit of reason,” - Readings Society of History and Antiquities 1858 book 2, “The Search,” page 27. Metropolitan Macarius, in his response to Viskovaty, indicates some basis for the parable in the life of Basil the Great, - ibid. p. 28; but, as we said, it is not without probability that one can assimilate its Western origin, and as for life, then perhaps it provides a service to the Metropolitan only by chance. Greek Ἑ ρμηνεία τῶν ζωγράφων half of the 15th century. presents as two separate images - the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and the World Judgment, - p. 174 fin. and 176. Our Russian images of the Last Judgment from facial Originals by Buslaev in Essays, Vol. II and by Ravinsky in Russian Folk Pictures, Vol. IV. Cfr article by Mansvetov: “Concerning the recently discovered murals in the Moscow and Vladimir Assumption Cathedrals”, placed in the Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers of 1883, book 2 p. 542 sqq (Icon of the Last Judgment, - Nikon Chronicle, IV, 289). A. Popov, in the Historical and Literary Review of Old Russian polemical works against the Latins, p. 382, ​​says that Metropolitan Jonah, among other things, decorated the churches with “arranging honest ambos,” which, in all likelihood, should be understood to mean that the metropolitan built a new, more magnificent than the old, pulpit in his Assumption Cathedral. The compiler of one so-called Alphabet or Alphabet Book writes under the word “pulp”: “The pulpit (is) a high place, on sharp degrees (steps) the throne of the saints is, in the cathedral church it stands in front of the royal doors, on it they honor the Holy Gospel, just as we see in the reigning city of Moscow and throughout the city, where there are motley authorities (or only bishops or with the archpriests of district cathedrals, called motley authorities from their colored clothes in contrast to the black authorities - archimandrites and abbots of monasteries), or the circle is set up for verbosity,” see Vostokov Description of the Rumyantsev Museum, No. 2, p. 4 col. 2 start. Buslaev’s drawing of the pulpit in Essays vol. II, figure 10 to p. 311. - (What was read on the pulpit at the end of the 15th century, - Vivliofiki vol. XIV, 251. Under the pulpit of the Assumption Cathedral there were wooden blocks, - 4 Novgorodskaya, p. 163. In the Vologda St. Sophia Cathedral in 1663. pulpit - a three-walled fence with icons on the walls, - News of the Archaeological Society, vol. II, p. 58. (On the sakkos of Metropolitan Photius, see, in addition to what is indicated above in the 1st half of this volume on p. 413, also Snegirev in Monuments of Moscow Antiquity, p. 173 and Sreznevsky in No. XXX Information and Notes, issue 3, p. 86 fin.). In the Moscow Synodal sacristy there is kept a sakkos, digested by St. Peter Metropolitan; but it is more likely that he is Feognostov. (In the Chudov Monastery, at the tomb of St. Alexis, his sakkos and his other holy clothes are still preserved). [In the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, two vestments of St. Sergius are now kept: one at his shrine, in the inventory of 1641. it is said about it: “the chasuble of the wonderworker Sergius is painted in cherry, the mantle and lace and the trach and the bridle are in blue,” another in the sacristy, made of dark-colored non-fine paper fabric, the cross under the shoulder and the star on the hem are dyed. See St. Sergius of Radonezh and the Trinity Lavra created by him by E. E. Golubinsky, 2nd edition, M, 1909, pp. 192–193 and 254], Drawing by Belyankin, when describing the Intercession Cathedral. (On the ancient antimensions, see News of the Academy of Sciences, vol. VI p. 86 and Nikolsky K. T. Archpriest On the antimensions of the Orthodox Russian Church, St. Petersburg, 1872. The old antimensions were placed on the throne under the new ones, - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, No. 346, p. 419 col. 1 fin.. Decree on the antimensions, - Makaryevsky Chetya Menaion, on August 31. Antimins were given before the construction of churches, - Life of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk, Savvino, edition by Nevostruev, p. 21. Canvas antimins in 1690, - Notes of the Archaeological Society, vol. VIII, pp. 293, 44 (Ryazan inscriptions several from antimins XVI); and the 17th century, - Notes of the Archaeological Society, vol. VIII, Ryazan inscriptions, pp. 309, 69 all antimensions on thick canvas, with the image of one cross, and with a signature about the consecration of the church are stored in the bishop's Ryazan sacristy); Monuments of church antiquities in the Nizhny Novgorod province of Archimandrite Macarius (Notes of the Imperial Archaeological Society vol. X): antimins 1702. on satin with Chinese lining p. 99 fin.; antimins of 1655 made of canvas, 5 vershoks in length and width, with an image of an eight-pointed cross, with a cane and a spear and signed p. 291; antimins 1716 linen p. 308; antimens of the half of the 17th century. canvas, five-inch square, with an image of an eight-pointed cross and signature p. 372; four antimins of the 17th century. canvas p. 381; linen at the end of the 17th century, - News of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. IV, p. 413). In Pavlov's Monuments col. 240. In 1293 The Tatars tore out the “wonderful copper bottom” in the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral, which, as one must think, belonged to Andrei Bogolyubsky and, in any case, belonged in structure to the pre-Mongol period - Nikon Chronicle III, 90. “The inner platform is clear of copper and tin, as clean as a mirror,” - Ipata Chronicle p. 559 beginning. Nikon Chronicle III, 69 (Whoever doubts that “bottom” means floor, in our place this is completely clear). “It has two doors, decorated with white Galich and green Kholm stones, hewn, dug by a certain crafty Avdyem, stuck with all the balls and gold,” - Ipata Chronicle p. 559 beginning. Some are still located in the St. Sophia Cathedral, in its main, western doors and are known as the Korsun Gate. [They date back to the end of the 12th century, since Magdeburg Bishop Wachmann, by whose order they were executed in Magdeburg, died in 1192. The name “Korsun” was given in ancient Rus' to everything unusual in the field of religious art: doors, reliefs, crosses, icons, chandeliers, etc. - see VI issue of Russian Antiquities, published Count I.M. Tolstoy, and N. P. Kondakov, St. Petersburg, 1899, pp. 111–112 ff]. A special study about them by F. Adelung in Russian translation: “The Korsun Gates located in the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral”, Moscow, 1834. Others are currently located in the Assumption Convent of the city of Alexandrov, Vladimir province (former Alexandrova Sloboda of Grozny. The inscription on the gates is from 133..; needed: in 1335–36?). 1 The Novgorod Chronicle speaks of some doors built by Bishop Vasily: “He built gilded copper doors at St. Sophia,” - Collection of Chronicles III, 77 fin.. But with probability one must think that in the text of the chronicle the word is missing: “two.” Nikon Chronicle III, 181 and 211. “The word was chosen from the holy scriptures into Latin” by A. Popov in the Historical and Literary Review of Old Russian polemical works against the Latins, p. 382: “the gate to the entrance of Korsun (the creation), was made by cunning on the gold of the butt (-lady?) to them”; cfr Nikon Chronicle V, 111: “at the Most Pure Ones at the golden doors.” [Wed. 1 half of this volume p. 885]. The name: “Korsun” was given to the gates either from their quality, as beautiful, or, what is much more likely, from the method of their construction, i.e. that, like the Novgorod Korsun gates, they were made of wood, lined with gilded copper sheets or plates with bas-reliefs on the latter. (Angels on the sides of the entrance doors since the time of Macarius? Collected Chronicles vol. VI, p. 285 fin.). Nikon Chronicle 203 sub fin.. Karamzin to volume VIII note 587. The Grand Duke of Galich Daniil Romanovich rang bells for his churches at home (Ipat Chronicle p. 559). But this does not need to be understood to mean that in southern Rus' their own bell casting began already in the pre-Mongol period. Daniil Romanovich, who, by the way, named Nemtsov and Lyakhov to his Hill for its settlement (ibid. p. 558), was the first to begin casting bells. (Bells in Galicia are mentioned at the end of the 3rd century - Ipata Chronicle p. 610). In 1342 The Moscow master Boris, whom the Nikon Chronicle calls a Roman (III, 182 sub fin.), which probably should be understood in the general sense of a Latin, cast a bell in Novgorod for St. Sofia, - 1 Novgorod Chronicle, in the Collection of Chronicles III, 81. And since in 1338. Ivan Danilovich took a bell from Tver (Nikon Chronicle III, 170), which he would hardly have done if he had his own bell maker, then the arrival in Moscow of Boris the Latin, probably a German by nationality, who introduced bell-foundry skills to us, should be placed between 1338 and 1342. (In 1346, bells were rung in Moscow, - Resurrection Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VII, 210). See Nevolin’s essay On Pyatina for extracts from the Scribe books of the second half of the 16th century. “And the ringing of the church - a bell and a rivet,” - Nevolin ibid. appendices p. 83. (Riveted instead of bells at Nevolin About Pyatina Appendices p. 72 (XVI century), 79 beginning (XVI century), 83 (bell and rivet XVI century), 284 (XVI century), 285 (XVI century), 286 (XVI century, 307 (XVI century), 308 (XVI century), 314; all of the second half of the 16th century. At the beginning of the 17th century, there was only one wooden bell, but there were no bells, - News of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. IV, p. 589. Under St. Theodosius of Pechersk there was a bell in the Pechersk Monastery, - Life, Readings of the History Society, book 3, sheet 17, col. 13) Vladimir Vasilkovich Vladimir-Volynsky “polya (melted) bells, marvelous to hear, there were no such ones in the whole earth” (Ipata Chronicle p. 610), which clearly speaks of the selection of entire ringings. Then, about the large bells in these ringing selections, see the so-called Academic Chronicle under 1305, 1 Novgorod under 1342, Nikon's under 1346. (III, 182). – (Under Ivan III, for the Ivanovo Kremlin bell tower, Pyotr Fryazin cast a bell of 350 pounds, – Snegireva Monuments of Moscow Antiquity p. 110 sub fin.. The bells were mostly small, – see Legal Acts of 1838 No. 231, p. 253 sqq; Vladimir collection Tikhonravova p. 141 sqq. How small the bells were on the bell towers and how few of them there were, can be seen from the fact that in 1701, due to the decree of Peter I to send a fourth of the bell copper to Moscow, 219 poods 21 pounds were presented from 142 churches of the Vologda diocese, i.e., a little over one and a half poods from each church. (hence, there were only 6 poods in each church), - News of the Imperial Archaeological Society vol. IV p. 234 sqq: two churches presented less than 4 pounds, 2 less than 16 pounds, 16 from 10 to 18 pounds. At the beginning of the 17th century, the bell towers of Novgorod rural churches had one and two bells (small). On some bell towers there was a bell and “iron riveting,” - News of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. III, p. 359 sqq. The same with Nevolin. At the top of the stone church of the Khutyn Monastery, erected in 1535 on the site of the previous one, there were bells; the former one also had bells at the top - Sofia Vremnik Stroeva, vol. II, p. 386). In Karamzin to volume VII, note 383, col. 63 subfin. and 64 (Nikon Chronicle vol. VI, p. 258 fin.). For the weight of the bell, which remains intact to this day, see the Right Reverend Macarius in the Archaeological Description of Church Antiquities in Novgorod, I, 68. Addition to 2 Novgorod Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles III, 185, also 2 Sofia Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles. VI, 287 fin.. Such beats are still preserved in the Solovetsky Monastery, see A. Mikhailov’s book Essays on the nature and life of the White Sea region of Russia, p. 137. Legal Acts of Kalachova, II, No. 217, col. 632. – In 1616 in the church of one village, which belonged to one monastery, there were neither chasubles nor books, so the priest, when it was necessary to serve, got a chasuble from a neighboring village, and a missal from other priests, - Description of the manuscripts of the Trinity Lavra, No. 227 fin., part II, p. 16. - (In the 17th century, in other rural churches there were no royal doors, see Izvestia Archaeological (Petersburg) Society vol. III (3) col. 361 beginning; “instead of the royal doors there is a taffeta dilapidated curtain”; instead of the royal doors there is a tambourine dilapidated curtain”, ibid. vol. IV, col. 371. The curtain at the northern doors of the altar at the beginning of the 17th century, - A. E. Viktorova Description of notebooks and papers of ancient palace orders p. 102. Saint Sergius of Radonezh, without candles, served in the church with a birch or pine splinter (Epiphanius, Volokolamsk manuscript No. 644, page 338, beginning). In one row entry 1666. for the construction of a wooden church with a warm meal we read: “in the meal (to make) five windows on decks, and a smoke-wall window and a smoke-wall on top of the roof of 3 (arshins?) with an outlet palace,” - in the News of the Archaeological Society, vol. II, col. 318. We consider it our duty to note that the matter has not yet been well communicated and that we will say what we can. In volume I, half 2, pp. 307/354, we talk about two service books as representing two special editions. But we must correct ourselves so that they do not represent two special editions, but only two varieties of the same edition. See the study by I. Mansvetov: Metropolitan Cyprian in his liturgical activity, Moscow, 1882, p. 20 fin. sqq and applications page V beginning. Together with the rite of the liturgy belonging to Patriarch Philotheus, we have a Slavic translation of the nameless rite of the same liturgy of Chrysostom, introduced by Patriarch Euthymius of Ternov in the Bulgarian Church (printed in the Serbian Glasnik, book XXV, p. 289 sqq). The ranks of Filofeev and Evfimiev represent two, very close to each other, editions of the same rank, and the matter must be understood in such a way that the rank of Evfimiev represents the Athos edition in its original form, and the rank of Filofeev is the same edition, slightly changed or corrected). – That the rank of Philotheus, in later processing still in use among the Greeks and among us, is precisely the rank of Athos, this is confirmed by its inscription, which reads: Διατάξις τῆς θεῖας καὶ ἱερὰς λειτουργίας , γινομένης ο ὕ τως ἐν τ ῇ μεγάλ ῃ ἐκκλησίςι ᾳ καὶ ἐν τῷ ἁ γί ῳ Ὄ ρει τοῦ Ἄ θωνος - The rite of the sacred and divine liturgy, celebrated in the great church and in the Holy Mountain. The lists of Cyprian's service book that belonged to him are currently unknown; but one list is known, made from one of his handwritten service books and reproducing his record of translation - in the Synodal Library, Description of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 344 (in the record, instead of “prescribed” it should be read, as in the meaning, “prescription” (translated), cfr from Gorsky, and Nevostruev ibid. No. 375, p. 203). In the inscription of the “rules of the divine service,” manuscript sheet 1, the name of Patriarch Philotheus is not in our list; but here you should see the scribe’s pass, cfr from Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 346, sheet 2. According to the current Greek original, the name of Patriarch Philotheus, as the editor or creator of the rite, does not stand above our rite itself, but above the rank of the so-called hierodeaconia (Διατάξις τῆς ί εροδιακονίας ἥ τοι πῶς ὑπηρετεῖ ὁ διάκονος μετὰ τοῦ ί ερέως ἐν τε τῷ μεγάλ ῳ Ἑ σπερινῷ, τῷ ὄρθρ ῳ καὶ τῇ λειτουργία, ?? Κυρίου Κυρίου Φιλοθέου ). – Our manuscripts also read the Athonite rite of the liturgy of Chrysostom, introduced by Patriarch Euthymius in the Bulgarian Church, – Synodal manuscript according to the Description of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 376, sheet 7; cfr Mansvetova ibid. page 22 fin. (Izvestia of the 2nd branch of the Academy of Sciences, vol. II, p. 313). But it does not seem at all probable to us to think that the rite was transferred to us, having been borrowed from Bulgaria or directly from Athos by the same Metropolitan Cyprian, for at the same time, Cyprian could not have any motives to introduce two ranks among us, either different from each other or very similar to each other, as in our case. As for the fact that the translation of our Athos rite is assimilated in our Russian manuscripts - the indicated Synodal manuscript - to Metropolitan Cyprian, this error should be explained by the confusion of our rite with the Philotheev rite, which was actually translated by Cyprian and with which it is very similar. (Cyprian had no need to translate the latter translated by Euthymius or earlier). (This same confusion should also explain the fact that our very rite is assimilated in our manuscripts - ibid., to Patriarch Philotheus. Under the charter of the service of Chrysostom and Basil the Great, separate from the service of Chrysostom itself, which Cyprian speaks of in his letter to the Pskovites, one should understand not our Athos rite of the liturgy, but the Philotheus rite proskomedia). Our Mount Athos rite could have been transferred to us in Russia by one of the Russian Athonite monks later than Metropolitan Cyprian. (Cyprian translated Patriarch Philotheus into Slavic because he was his teacher in monasticism on Athos? Cyprian highly praises Philotheus at the end of the life of St. Peter, but does not call him his teacher). (If book printing had already been invented in the 14th century and if it already existed among us, then the obligatory replacement of old service books with new ones could very easily have been accomplished through printing the required number of the first and through the selection of the latter. But when handwriting books, it was completely impossible to think about any kind of obligatory replacement, and distribution had to be left to itself). Synodal manuscript on the Description of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 344, sheet 72 (p. 11). Cfr in Mansvetov’s dissertation: “Metropolitan Cyprian” p. 34, also the preface to part 1 of part 3 of the Description of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev p. VI. [Wed. 1 half of this volume pp. 329–330]. See Synodal manuscripts on the Description of Gorsky and Nevostruev Nos. 360 and 375. Odintsov p. 193 fin.. For which we earnestly apologize to the venerable author. To the description of the service books of Anthony the Roman and Varlaam of Khutyn (I volume 2 half, pp. 311–312/358–360), which are the oldest lists of the original edition of the rites of the liturgies, we must make one important amendment. Among the peculiarities of the Liturgy of Chrysostom, we have indicated that in both missals, before the consecration of the holy gifts, there is no prayer: “Lord, like Thy Most Holy Spirit,” and during the consecration there are no words: “transferred by Thy Holy Spirit.” But this is a mistake (which occurred partly through our fault, and partly through no fault of ours) both regarding our two missals and regarding the later ones. In the liturgy of Chrysostom there is only no prayer (“Lord, like”), but there are words, but there are no prayers and words in the liturgy of Basil the Great (cfr on the absence of our prayers and words in the ancient liturgy of Basil the Great in the Greek Pidalion 3 note to the interpretation of the 19th canon of the Council of Laodicea). [Wed. 2nd edition of the second half of volume I p. 359]. The features of the last liturgy that we did not indicate in the first volume, read together with the liturgy of the presanctified gifts in one service book of Varlaam Khutynsky, according to the Description of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev (No. 343 sheet 1, p. 6 beginning) are: firstly, in the absence of the prayers and words now given, secondly, that the prayer behind the pulpit is different from now, and thirdly, that the liturgy ends with the prayer “always consume the holy” (the same as at the present time. Cf. Odintsov p. 63 fin.). The author refers to the service book of St. Anthony the Roman, in which there are actually five prayers before the liturgy: three “for the priest for everyone,” one “for those entering the church,” and one “for the dead.” Prayers for us: “Sovereign Lord God Almighty, who do not want to die as a sinner”..., “Sovereign Lord our God, who now wants to approach”..., “I pray to Thee, Lord, take away my iniquities from me.”... Prayer for those entering: “Benefactor of all and Creator of every creature, accept into Thy church.”... Prayer for dead: “Lord God true, who has heard all that trusts in Thee” (See Description of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 342 first. In another Service Book, adopted by the Monk Varlaam, the first three prayers are attributed after - ibid. No. 343, sheet 10 and after sheet 13). New prayer of the 13th century missals: “Lord, I am not worthy, may you bring me under my roof”... The author does not express himself accurately; readings are needed (Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod says that before “I Believe” was sung at the liturgy, but now they say: in Pavlov’s Monuments col. 816. Is this his erroneous assumption?). The same [i.e. e. need: reading]. That is, pre-Mongolian or original. (How a priest behaves when entering a church for worship in the 14th century, - Izvestia Akademi, vol. VII, p. 269, no. 8). Before the consecration of the gifts, the priest and deacon are instructed to bow three times before the holy meal and pray “to themselves,” but the prayer itself: “Lord, like Thy Most Holy Spirit” is not given. This should be understood not in the sense that the missal does not accept our prayer, but in the fact that only the scribe of the manuscript, for the sake of brevity, omits it as known. Descriptions of the Synodal manuscripts Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 344, sheets 10 turns - 62 turns, page 14 sqq. For the service book that belonged to the Novgorod Sofia Library, see Odintsov’s book The Order of Public and Private Worship in Ancient Russia until the 16th Century, p. 95. In Rumyantsevsky, according to Vostokov’s Description No. 399. Original words: “And behold, proskurumisaya: In honor and glory of the names and all the saints, with their prayers... And behold, for the deceased: remember, Lord, the soul of your departed servant.”... In the Synodal, according to the Description of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 345. Original words: “And behold, taking prosper in honor of the saint, there will be a holiday for him, (verb): Accept, Lord God... And behold, for the peasants (verb): Accept, Lord God, Jesus Christ, this sacrifice for the servant of God named, for health and salvation. (Here we must understand or only ordering the liturgy, or so that a particle is given separately for each, or that a formula is proposed for the commemoration of each living person separately). Former Sofia, about which see Odintsov, p. 95 (the author says that four prosphora are indicated, but we are sure that there is an inaccuracy on his part and that it is not prosphora, but particles that are indicated; similarly, we believe that the service book dates not to the 13th century, but to the 14th) and Rumyantsevsky, according to Vostokov’s Description No. 398. The original words of the latter: “And this take out the prosper (verb): Accept, Lord Jesus... this offering in honor and glory of our holy Lady Theotokos.... Likewise for the saint. (verb): Accept, Lord Jesus Christ, this offering in honor and glory for your servant named, for health and for salvation, and for repose. (the verb Accept, O Lord, this offering in honor and glory for your deceased servant named, for the remission of voluntary and involuntary sins."... Priest John Nathanael, economist and bishop of the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah II, in his work (more precisely: publication) διαφόρων διδασκάλων, which was printed in Venice in 1574. (and which was translated under Nikon into the Slavic language under the name Tablets), speaks of four proskomedia prosphoras, namely: (1) lamb, 2) in honor of the Mother of God, 3) in honor of the Forerunner and the saints, 4) for the living and for the dead). To understand Cyprian’s one “pack” this way (about the previous prosphora), and the other “pack” differently (about the new prosphora), obviously means to act in an arbitrary manner; and if he, having indicated the special prosphora four times, then does not make such an indication and uses the expression “packs,” then his most natural understanding is that by both “packs” he means the same fourth prosphora. Five Prosphoria - in the Synodal service book according to the Description of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 347, sheet 8 verso, which is assimilated by its inscription to St. Sergius of Radonezh. In the rite of proskomedia of Patriarch Euthymius of Ternovsky, which is precisely the rite of Athonite, there are five prosphoras: a lamb, and after it the prosphora: 2) the Mother of God, 3) the Baptist and all saints, 4) for the living and 5) for the dead, Glasnik book XXV p. 291 (in our manuscripts this rite with its five prosphora is the Synodal manuscript according to the Description Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 376 sheet 7). That at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century there was a five-prosphoria on Athos, while in the Patriarchate of Constantinople there was still a four-prosphoria, see the Athonite Nomocanon or the so-called Ruler of Laws, rule 213 in the book of A. Pavlov: “Nomocanon at the Great Trebnik”, p. 203. The six-prosphoria is in the Synodal missal according to the Description of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 350 (sheet 99 ver.), which is assimilated by its inscription to the Novgorod Archbishop Euthymius Vyazhitsky († 1458. More ibid. No. 354, sheet 20). The Semiprosphoria of some Greek monasteries, which we point out in the first volume (2 halves p. 309/357 note 3), (remained without influence on us). G. Odintsov in his book “The Order of Public and Private Worship” indicates two Sofia missals of the 15th century, in which the semi-prosphora are pages 205 and 206. prosphoras, ibid. No. 231, p. 104 (In Peter Mogila’s service book there are 7 prosphoras, - Golubeva Peter Mogila, p. 376 note). pp. 308–309/356–357]. (Vasily Vasilyevich is called king by Pachomius in the miracles of St. Sergius, - Life, page 342 ver. Metropolitan Jonah in one of his letters calls Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich king, - in Pavlov’s Monuments No. 90, col. 673. The same in “The Word in Latin).” Kazan edition p. 94 beginning. The Lord without the true is read: in the manuscript MDA No. 54, late 15th - early 16th centuries, belonging to Metropolitan Joasaph and containing the nomocanon of John Scholasticus, sheet 1; in the manuscript of the same Academy No. 104, the first half of the 16th century, which also belonged to Metropolitan Joasaph and contains the Peace-Making Circle of the priest Agathon, sheet 58; in the collection of the same Academy, the former Volokolamsk, No. 519, 16th century, sheet 77. True without the Lord: in the Followed Psalter of Metropolitan Cyprian, manuscript MDA, No. 142, page 170 and verso; in the manuscript of Bishop Daniel of Vladimir, which he gave to Metropolitan Jonah in 1451. (we don’t know from what century manuscript) – from the Most Reverend Macarius in History VI, 370; in the MDA manuscript No. 187, 15th century, sheet 321, in the Synodal manuscript on Description No. 406, sheet 158; in The Illuminator of Joseph of Volokolamsk, - Kazan edition p. 336; in the manuscript of the MDA, former Volokolamsk, No. 365, XV-XVI centuries, page 25, verso, in the manuscript of the same Academy No. 82, first half of the 16th century, page 30. Monuments to Pavlov col. 96 (Having decided at the Council of Vladimir that proskomedia should be performed by priests, Cyril later asked about this through Patriarch Theognostus of Sarai and received an answer that disagreed with the decision of the council). [Wed. Mansvetova I. D. Church Charter (Typic). M 1885, p. 386 fin.]. See I volume 2 half, pp. 310/358. To what was said there, it should be added that according to the Studite Charter of Patriarch Alexei, proskomisa is also performed by a deacon, - Description of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 380, sheet 65, page 248 beginning. (Some of the exclamations at mass were made in ancient times by deacons - Synodal Manuscript No. 161, pp. 398 fin. and 399). [Wed. 1 half of this volume pp. 72–73 and 2 halves of volume I pp. 310/358]. [Monuments of Canon Law, published by A. S. Pavlov, St. Petersburg, 1880, col. 132–136, 138]. [Monuments of Pavlov col. 257–259 and 922]. [Cm. Complete Collection of Chronicles, vol. III, p. 235, under 6918]. [Ibid. col. 403–407. Mansvetov I. D. Metropolitan Cyprian in his liturgical activity, M. 1882, p. 44]. [Ibid. col. 857–858, 863, 866, 867, 871]. See vol. 2 half, pp. 320/369 at the beginning of our period. For the differences between the Studio Charter in the order of services and our current one, see Odintsov’s book. Order of public and private worship, page 40 sqq. The appointment by St. Theodore the Studite of the continuous singing of the presanctified liturgy on the fasting days of Great Lent should probably be explained by the same circumstance why, instead of all-night vigils for Sundays and holidays, he appoints vespers and matins at ordinary times, i.e., that his monks lived in a real monastery, and not in the scattered cells of the Lavra, like the monks of St. Sava the Sanctified (cfr I vol. 2 part, pp. 325/374–375). For three lists, see the Description of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky, and Nevostruev under Nos. 380–382, for three more by Archimandrite Sergius in the Complete Monthly Book of the East, I, 120 (the charter of an unknown monastery, which is actually a list of the Studite Charter) and 123. Cfr I vol. 2 part, pp. 326/376. In the middle of the 15th century, in addition to the Studite and Jerusalem charters, we also knew “other charters”, see Historical Acts vol. I No. 57, p. 105 col. See I volume 2 half, page 417 sqq/481. The history of the adoption, which is not entirely clear from Simeon of Thessaloniki, in all likelihood, should be represented in such a way that at first the monasteries of the Patriarchate of Constantinople replaced the Studite Charter with the Jerusalem Charter, wanting to introduce all-night vigils as solemn services, and that from the monasteries, for the reason indicated by Simeon, they borrowed the charter of the bishopric and parish churches. In Serbia, the Jerusalem Charter was introduced by Metropolitan Nikodim in 1319, see our book: A Brief Essay on the History of the Orthodox Churches of the Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian, p. 459. See in the Description of the Synodal Manuscripts Gorsky and Nevostruev Nos. 383–387: one translation is Nos. 383 and 384, the other is Nos. 385 and 386, the third is No. 387. See the article by Archimandrite Leonid: On Slavic translations of church liturgical regulations, placed in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities, 1867. book II; about Athanasius of Vysotsky, see below [and in the book: St. Sergius of Radonezh and the Trinity Lavra created by him, 2nd edition, pp. 77–78 note]. We cannot indicate which of the two translations found in Synodal Manuscripts Nos. 383, 384 and 387 belongs to Athanasius (Archimandrite Leonid indicates the one in No. 387). - (The charter is mentioned (between the books sent to Rus' from the Studite monastery) by Stefan Novgorodets, half of the 14th century, - Sakharov. Serbian church charter of the 14th century, - Izvestia of the Academy of Sciences, vol. VII, p. 272, No. 9. In the 15th century, the statutes of Jerusalem, Studite and others, - Historical Acts, vol. I, no. 57, p. 105. Church charter of 1401 and 1409, see Rumyantsev Museum No. 455, p. 710 col. 2 and note 2 on page 711. – For the charter written by Afanasy Vysotsky in 1401, see Philaret of Chernigov Review § 78; Descriptions of the manuscript of the Rumyantsev Museum No. 445, p. 711; No. 360, p. 516 col. 2; Karamzin to vol. V note 122. Church Charter around 1429, Acts of Western Russia vol. I, no. 34, p. 47. The church charter (Ecclesiastical Eye) of the library of Kazan University, written in 1429 in the Trinity Monastery of Sergius by the monk Jonah, Piskarev considers to be a letter from Metropolitan Jonah, - Notes of the Imperial Archaeological Society, vol. VIII, St. Petersburg, 1856, Collection of monuments from Ryazan antiquity, p. 271, I. In the spiritual letter St. Dionysius of Glushitsky between the books of the monastery: Book of Hours according to Savin’s charter, Octoechos according to the new, – History of the Hierarchy V, 566. Charter – Church Eye, – Historical Acts vol. I, no. 292, p. 532 col. 2. Church charter in 1494. – Acts of Western Russia vol. I, no. 115, p. 137 col. 1. In one Helmsman of the 16th century it reads: “Cursed be he who says that the liturgy and the crumpling of holy fasts all day long is a sin,” see Dmitrievsky in Εὐχολόγια, p. 424; in the Sreznevsky Dictionary under the word Cumbling. Are these the defenders of the Studite Rite against the defenders of the Jerusalem Rite?). [About the so-called Mark’s chapters, see I. D. Mansvetov Church Charter (Typik), its formation and fate in the Greek and Russian Church, M. 1885, pp. 216–222]. Descriptions, section III, part I, p. 297 (No. 385 sheet 32 ​​verso). [Wed. 1 half of this volume p. 330]. (After the previous one was written, the question of the mutual relationship of the statutes and their difference from one another was interpreted: by G. N. Odintsov in the essay: The order of public and private worship in ancient Russia before the 16th century, St. Petersburg, 1881, p. 36 sqq; A. A. Dmitrievsky in the article: Divine service in the Russian Church in the first five centuries, published in “Orthodox Interlocutor” 1882, 1 part of the Interlocutor p. 232 sqq; I. D. Mansvetov in the essay: Church Charter (Typik), - its formation and fate in the Greek and Russian Church, M. 1885, p. 78 sqq - I will sing the Matins, before the morning Christ the Lord rose early, - Volokolamsk. manuscript No. 419, sheet 65; title: “This charter on the conciliar agreement”). See also I volume 2 half, page 302 note/348 note 2 (psalter) [cf. page 299 note 3/346 note 1 ]. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Gregory Mamma (a well-known supporter of the Union of Florence, who was elevated to the patriarchal see in 1445 or 1446 and left Constantinople in 1451), in one of his apologies against Mark of Ephesus, having the need for his own purposes to point out the disagreement that existed among the Greeks in the rites of worship, among other things, says: “(Apart from other disagreements) there is (among the Greeks) a difference in church ranks, and namely, the catholic (patriarchal) church has its own rank in hymns, great monasteries have their own rank, small monasteries have their own rank, and secular parish churches have their own rank,” - in Minya in Patrology, t. 160 col. 140. At the time Gregory Mamma wrote, the monastery charter (Jerusalem) had already been adopted for general use in Constantinople; and if he talks about the difference in the ranks of hymns between the patriarchal (episcopal) churches, between monasteries and between parish churches: then by this he makes it clear that in the churches, on the one hand, the patriarchal and episcopal, and on the other, in the parish churches, he was not kept in the exact form in which he was kept in the monasteries, but with his differences from the latter in some churches, and from his own in others. Chapter 8, Kazan edition p. 86. Chapter 41, question and answer 12, Kazan edition p. 175; Wed p. 97 (The article “On the Tsar’s Coming to the Cyril Monastery, When the Tsar Wills,” published in Volume I of the News of the Archaeological Society, col. 75, says that “before mass (for the sovereign), the clock speaks according to the monastic rite,” col. 78. So, the clock did not speak according to the secular rite?). Chapter 41, question and answer 9, Kazan edition p. 173. In Pavlov's Monuments, col. 412 (In secular churches, not all the decrees of the Charter were kept, as in monasteries, - Synodal Manuscript No. 233, sheet 273 ver., p. 125; here p. 126 see the features of some charters that were in Russia). [Monuments of Pavlov, col. 235–236]. [Ibid. col. 378. Wed. 1 half of this volume p. 408]. [Ibid. col. 236, 378–379]. [Ibid. col. 237, 378. Cf. I. D. Mansvetova Church Charter, M. 1885, pp. 127–128 note]. [Ibid. col. 408–409, 412–413, 416–418. About singing “Holy God”, see the teaching of Metropolitan Cyprian to the Novgorod clergy in 1395, - ibid. col. 237]. [On the drunkenness of priests, see the definitions of the Vladimir Cathedral of 1274, – Pavlov’s Monuments col. 97–98; in the epistles of Metropolitan Photius, - ibid. col. 272, 279, 434, 496; Metropolitan Jonah, – ibid. col. 609, and in the holy teaching of the 15th century, - ibid. col. 923. – About their bigamy, – ibid. col. 231–232, 430, 433]. Synodal manuscript No. 574, sheet 261 ver. In another place: “here (in Greece) in no place have we heard the Esmas singing “Lord have mercy” in octenia, but everywhere the faces and all those present speak in conversation,” – ibid. sheet 315 ver. In the 4th Novgorod Chronicle under 1476. (Collected Chronicles IV, 130) reads: “That same winter, some philosophers began to sing: “Oh, Lord, have mercy,” and friends: “Lord, have mercy.” From this it follows that in 1476. “Lord have mercy” was already sung in Novgorod, but it does not at all follow that it should be sung throughout all of Muscovite Rus'. It is quite likely that it was the Novgorodian philosophers of the 15th century who should have assimilated the innovation. But it is completely incomprehensible to us that Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod, long before Zinovy ​​of Otensky, says in the preface to his Paschal that the confession of faith or “I believe” is always sung at the divine liturgy” - Pavlov in Monuments col. 816, also in the Description of the manuscript of the Trinity Lavra Library No. 736, page 51. Perhaps by singing Gennady means recitative, earnest reading. (The custom of singing, and not reading “I Believe” is a custom of the Western Church - going, according to some, from the beginning of the 11th century, see Nicephorus Blemmydes in the Patrology of Minh t. 142, col. 793-794 - and the Greeks strongly rebel against it, see, for example, Ilia Typalda Παπιστικῶν Ἑ λέγχων vol. II, p. 188). [For the history of this controversy, see the first half of the volume, pp. 553–555]. (About walking with crosses in the sun, see Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 382, p. 275. They wrote to Metropolitan Gerontius from the Volosh land about walking in the sun. Why on earth in this dispute were Vassian of Rostov and Gennady Chudovsky on the side of the Grand Duke when everyone was for the metropolitan? Compare “To ours polemics with the Old Believers”, 2nd edition, M. 1905, pp. 23, 70). In ancient and ancient times, the word was written differently in our country: alleluia, allilugia, alle(e)luia, alle(e)lugia, and abbreviated (but without a title): allugia (very often) and alley. In the Greek polemical works against the Latins one reads, by the way, the accusation against the Latins that during Great Lent they do not bow to the cross and do not look at it, but hide it in some dark place, entwined with a shroud, and with it (they hide it, at the same time they stop singing) and the alleluia - that on Great Saturday, opening the cross as if rising from the tomb, they show it from the altar to the people and suddenly great with a voice they proclaim: alleluia, they have been crying out for a long time, as we did in the great week of Easter: Christ is risen, see in the Historical and Literary Review of Old Russian polemical works against the Latins by A. N. Popov, p. 67 and others, see the Index under the word alleluia. This accusation refers to the customs that actually exist among the Latins, only the matter, intentionally or unintentionally, is somewhat misrepresented: the Latins hang the cross (together with icons) in the fifth week of Lent, but uncover it and, erecting it, worship it (denudatio et adoratio S. Crucis) on Good Friday; stop singing alleluia on the Saturday of the Prodigal (sabbato septuagesimae), resume singing on Holy Saturday (however, in ancient times, perhaps it was exactly as it appears in polemical writings; about the funeral of the alleluia, sepultura alleluiae, performed on the Saturday of the Prodigal in some places in the West with a special church rite or rite, see Ducange in Glossarium'e Latinitatis under the word Alleluia). In ancient times, according to the testimony of Sozomen, the alleluia was sung in Rome once a year, on the first day of Easter - Church Historical Books VII, chapter 19. Probably due to the fact that in the East, expanding the meaning of the word alleluia, they gave it the meaning: God is coming (the Lord is coming); Praise Him (Simeon of Thessalonica). We understand the evidence: Andrew, Archbishop of Caesarea, who lived, as they say, at the end of the 5th - beginning of the 6th century, in chapter 56 of his interpretation of the apocalypse, dedicated to the initial six verses of chapter 19 of the latter; Herman, Patriarch of Constantinople, who lived in the first half of the 8th century, in his interpretation of the divine service (however, not undoubtedly belonging to him), and Theophan inscribed, who lived in the first half of the 9th century, in the stichera of his service to St. George the Victorious (for this last evidence, see the letter of an unknown Pskovite to the defender of the double hallelujah song, monk Athanasius, - in the Orthodox Interlocutor 1866, book II, pp. 145 and 165, cfr Description of the Synodal manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 432, sheet 23). To the three clear ancient testimonies about the triplicity of the alleluia song, a fourth, not entirely clear, testimony of Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, who lived in the first half of the 7th century, should be added. In his explanation of church services, he says that at the liturgy after the apostle the omophorion is removed from the bishop during the singing of the last alleluia (εἰς τὸ ἔσχατον ἀλληλούϊα), and with this expression of the “last” he makes it known that the alleluia was sung three times, and not twice (for otherwise he would have said: when singing the second hallelujah). For the charter of Patriarch Alexei, see our History of the Russian Church, Vol. 2, half of pp. 322/371 and 503/608. For an indication and extracts of the places of the charter in which it is prescribed to proclaim the “bilabial” alleluia, see the works of the late I. D. Mansvetov: “On the song sequence”, placed in the Addendums to the works of the holy fathers of 1880. (part 26), p. 1017, “Metropolitan Cyprian in his liturgical activity”, p. 93 and appendices p. XIX fin., “Church Charter - his formation and fate in the Greek and Russian Church”, p. 165 (our charter according to the oldest surviving manuscript of his late XII - early XIII century was known to Andrei Denisov, who refers to him in the Pomeranian replies - answer 16). According to the Pochaev edition sheets. 2 and 3. “At the Midnight Office it is fitting to chant first blameless and for every glory according to Halleluia, but according to the three glories Have mercy on me, O God, alleluia threes”... At Matins at the end of the canon “the sedals are resurrected, also blameless with Alleluia, tone 5, at the end Blessed are you, O Lord, teach me by your justification, and the troparia without blemish are resurrected with a voice, the same alleluia twice, Glory to Thee, God, thrice.”... That the expression: “Alleluia twice, Glory to Thee, O God, thrice” should be understood in such a way that the double or double alleluia should be pronounced three times or triplicate with “Glory to Thee God”, this is quite clear in itself, and, in any case, this is indisputably explained by Metropolitan Cyprian, who writes: “Alleluia, alleluia (twice), Glory to Thee, O God, three times.” From the conversation between Nikon the Montenegrin and Cyprian, it follows that his expression in this place: “Alleluia trishchi” can be understood as a double alleluia, tripled with “Glory to Thee, God.” And that in general the prescription of liturgical books: “Alleluia three times” is not always and must necessarily be understood about our triple alleluia, but that the same way of expression is used about the double alleluia, tripled with “Glory to Thee, O God,” this is clearly seen from the same Metropolitan Cyprian, as well as from the Sryatin missal of Gideon Boloban, which is now discussed below. Currently, the MDA manuscript is the foundation. No. 142. Here are all the passages of the Psalter about Alleluia: sheet 146 verso: “Glory and now, Alleluia, Alleluia, glory to Thee, O God, three times”..., “Glory and now, Alleluia three times”; sheet 155: “Alleluia, alleluia, glory to Thee, O God, three times”; on the reverse is sheet 155 and on sheet 156 the same as on sheet 155; sheet 165: “Alleluia three times”; on sheets 167, 173 turns, 175 turns and 179 the same as on sheet 165; sheet 393 verso: “Alleluia three times, glory to Thee, O God.” It is clear that when Cyprian simply says: “Alleluia three times,” then what is meant is a double or double alleluia, pronounced three times with Glory to Thee, O God. Λέγουσιν ἀλληλούϊα διπλοῦν , – in Patrology of Minh t. 155, col. 652, cfr Mansvetova: “On song succession” p. 1017 (Simeon of Thessalonica, who speaks many times about the alleluia song, unfortunately, only once speaks directly about how many times it should be proclaimed). See the Right Reverend Macarius in History, VIII, 130, note 161, Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy, January 1863 book. pp. 40 and 42, and A. N. Popova Description of Khludov’s manuscripts, No. 138, p. 294. Indication of the proclamations of alleluia in the breviary of Gideon Boloban: sheets 35 ver., 70, 91 ver., 104, 106 ver., 111 and others: “alleluia, alleluia”; sheet 246: “Alleluia, alleluia, Glory to Thee, O God, three times”; leaves 30 ver. and 106: alleluia three times (- cabbage soup)". The preface to the missal, in which Gideon speaks about its preparation for printing, was published in Moskvityanin 1844, No. 8, see also Filaret “Review” No. 152. Complete and serviceable copies of the missal are extremely rare; such a copy, with a certain number of inscribed sheets, however, is in the library of the Bethany Theological Seminary. – Without reviewing the southern Russian liturgical books, older than Gedeonov’s breviary, we cannot say for sure that he was not the first to introduce double alleluia into these books. Since Gideon corrected his missal according to the Greek missal, verified with the Athonite copies of the latter (good corrected “according to the ancient Holy Mountain missals” - preface), then from this, in any case, it follows that on Athos until the end of the 16th century. doubling prevailed. ↓ “Alleluia (the Greeks say) 3 times three times, others say 2 times 3 times,” - Synodal manuscript of the Proskinitary No. 574, sheets 256 and 280 (on the first sheet, Arseny’s words were crossed out by someone later, but in such a way that they can be made out). If the Venetian euchologies do not differ in their attitude to the song of alleluia from other Greek euchologies: then in them to this day (we have at hand the euchologies of 1869) in the rite of priestly burial there is not a single alleluia, as it is with us and as it is in them in the rites of lay and monastic burial, but twice or especially ( Κύριος ποιμαίνει με... The Lord shepherds me... Ἀλληλούϊα, Ἀλληλούϊα, etc.). This is the story of the many (several) times proclamation of the song Alleluia. But besides the many (several) times the proclamation of the song in ancient times there was, as it is now, a single proclamation. Regarding this latter, we can note that in ancient times it was used in a greater number of cases than now, cfr indicated on pp. 198–199 of the works of Mansvetov in the places indicated there and also “On the Song Sequence” p. 784, also by the Right Reverend Macarius, History II, 2nd edition p. 254. We consider it necessary to add that the Greeks retained the original the custom of proclaiming the song of alleluia indefinitely or arbitrarily many times as such an exception and, as it were, an abuse that they allowed themselves to do this sometimes - for ancient times, see the Right Reverend Macarius History II, 254, for later times - an essay against the schism adopted by the Iveron Archimandrite Dionysius, published by Mr. Kapterev in the Orthodox Review of 1888. No. 12, appendices p. 48 and 49, and Proscinitary of Arseny Sukhanov, - Synodal manuscript No. 574, sheet 326 ver. In one of the manuscripts of the Florentine Laurentian Library there is a fragment of the work of an unknown Περὶ τοῦ ἀλληλούϊα, but in Bandini’s Description of the Library Manuscripts (Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Mediceae Laurentianae), t. I, p. 89, it is not clear what exactly the passage says. – We do not provide here evidence in favor of the fact that, together with the two-lipped alleluia, the Greeks and us before the Council of the Hundred Heads (Alleluia twice in the 12th century, - Klyuchevsky. Lives p. 256 etc.; under the Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich, - Royal Book p. 17), and partly after this cathedral, the three-lipped alleluia was also used. But, without deliberately citing this evidence, we will point out some of them that may remain unknown. To the ancient Greek testimonies mentioned above, the testimony of the monk Philip should be added, who in his work Dioptra, called the Mirror in our country, written in 1095, says that our song is proclaimed by the angels: “Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia” (the testimony of the Mirror is referred to by an unknown Pskovite in a letter to the monk Athanasius - Orthodox Interlocutor p. 165; about the Mirror itself, see Description of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 170). Behind this, there is a later testimony, namely, one liturgical Greek book dating back to the time of our Metropolitan Photius, whose letter to Pskov also constitutes a Greek testimony, see below. (In the Greek handwritten Book of Hours of the 16th century, located in the Synodal Library, the alleluia is read twice once: ἀλληλούϊα, ἀλληλούϊα, δόξα σοι, ὁ θεός, another time - three times alleluia: ἀλληλούϊα, ἀλληλούϊα, ἀλληλούϊα, δόξα σοι, ὁ θεός, so in the same liturgical book twice and thrice Hallelujah - see in Description of Greek manuscripts of the Synodal Library of Archimandrite Vladimir, No. 280, sheets 38 and 141, p. 397). Our Russian evidence: in the kondakar of the Moscow Synodal Printing House of the 12th-13th centuries: “alleluia, alleluia, alleluia, Glory to Thee, O God,” see Mansvetova On the song sequence, p. 784. In the Following Psalter, the former Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, written in 1481: “Allilugia, allilugia, allilugia, Glory to Thee, O God,” - from the Most Reverend Macarius in History, VIII, 137 note. In the collection of the Volokolamsk Monastery, now MDA, No. 577, sheet 212 sqq, which, as it appears in the notes on it, belonged to the monk Anufriy Isakov, a disciple of Dionysius of Zvenigorod, a disciple of the Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk, a number of extracts are read that alleluia should be trembled (from the Mirror of the Monk Philip, the decree of the Pskovites or the charter on the singing of Mephimon, cfr below, under the name: “Theodoret on the treasury alleluia”, and from Andrew of Caesarea under the name: “Interpretation of the Laodicean Assembly”). In three manuscripts of the 16th century. “Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia, Glory to Thee, O God,” see Description of the synodal manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 330, sheets 18 and 213, and in the History of the Most Reverend Macarius, VIII, 140 note. (Decree on three-pronged alleluia, - Makarievsky Chet-Minea on August 31). In the manuscript of the former Khludov of the first half of the 17th century: allil., allil., allil., Slava T., B., - Popova Description p. 290, No. 130. Together with the evidence of manuscripts - evidence of the message of Dmitry Gerasimov to Archbishop Gennady, the life of Euphrosinov and the Stoglavy Cathedral (and as in printed books, inclusive before Joseph’s, there is a clear order to triple the alleluia by means of the directly written: alleluia, alleluia, alleluia, see the Right Reverend Macarius, History of the Schism, page 100 sqq). That Russian views regarding the proclamations of the alleluia song were first and foremost expressed precisely in Pskov, this, one must think, was not without significance. Declaring Russian views and initiating corresponding disputes, which represented a kind of protest against the existing order, in other places was probably prevented and not allowed by the episcopal authority, which was more natural to stand behind the statu quo. Pskov was only in very weak dependence on the Archbishop of Novgorod, whose veto was powerless here. About Cyprian’s sending of the missal to Pskov, see his message to the Pskov clergy in Historical Acts, I No. 8, and in Pavlov’s Monuments No. 30. Epistle from the Right Reverend Macarius in History, IV, 379, and from Pavlov in Monuments of Old Russian Canon Law, I, No. 48, col. 408 (“And about alleluia in glory,” Photius wrote to the Pskovites, “say: Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and ever, amen: allugia (this form of the word was used among us), allugia, allugia, glory to Thee, O God; allugia, allugia, allugia, glory to you, God; allugia, allugia, allugia, glory to you, God.” Photius orders tripling, and not doubling, as one might think, because tripling in his time was predominant among the Greeks in Constantinople itself, or at least predominant in the diocese of Monemvasia, from which he himself was, and in the southern Peloponnese, in which the diocese of Monemvasia is located. In some of the very few copies of Photius’s message to Pskov that have reached us with a response to the proclamation of the alleluia song, the metropolitan’s order to triple the song was later altered to an order to double it (which is why Andrei Denisov, who had the altered lists at hand, refers in the Pomeranian replies to Photius as allegedly commanding to say alleluia twice). But that Photius commands to triple, and not double, the song, this is revealed with absolutely undoubted clarity from the letters of the unknown Pskovite to the defender of the double song, monk Athanasius, - Orthodox Interlocutor 1866, II, 162. From records on manuscripts, the Tver hieromonk Afanasy is known, who was on Mount Athos in 1430–32 and who returned to Russia no later than 1436, see Stroev in the Biblical Dictionary p. 5 (note), 19, 27–28. We consider it very likely to admit that it was Athanasius who was responsible for the disputes with the Pskovites about the hallelujah song, namely, that he built a monastery, as this is the last known about Athanasius, who argued with the Pskovites, in the Pskov region (examples of people building monasteries not in their own, but in other people’s regions, for various reasons, are very numerous), that he introduced a double song in his monastery, and that then either he himself began to denounce the Pskovites for their triplicity, or, on the contrary, he was reproached by them for his innovation. Athanasius’s dispute with the Pskovites took place after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453, for those bickering talk about this event, between 1455–60, since Metropolitan Jonah convinced the Pskovites to stop some disputes they had, in all likelihood, our disputes about the song of hallelujah, in a letter of 1461. (Pavlov in Monuments of Canon Law, No. 90, col. 677), and the Metropolitan could soon, or could not very soon learn about the disputes of Hieromonk Athanasius, we believe, following others, Tver on the basis that in 1436. he donated one manuscript, purchased on Mount Athos, to one of the Tver monasteries - Stroeva Biblical Dictionary, p. 27 (the monastery, called Peremera, was located near Tver, see about it and its area in V. Borzakovsky in the History of the Tver Principality, p. 40 sub fin., 210 and note 173). But it is quite possible that he was not from Tver, but from Pskov, and had a relationship with the Tver monastery not as with the monastery of his homeland, but in some other way. In the inscription of one letter from an unknown Pskovite to Athanasius, the monastery is called the Great Lavra of St. Nicholas; this seems to indicate that the monastery was quite prominent. But, despite all the searches, we could not find any indications about him. See the letters of an unknown Pskovite to the monk Afanasy about the songs of alleluia, published in the Orthodox Interlocutor of 1866, part II, pp. 140–166. (These messages, placed in the Chet-Minea of ​​Metropolitan Macarius, were assimilated, as the publishers were, by Metropolitan Macarius himself, due to some very strange misunderstanding. They came to us in very faulty copies). – If the Pskovites had paid attention to the fact that before 1419 they themselves had tripled and doubled the Alleluia song, as a result of which they addressed their question to Metropolitan Photius, then, one must think, they would have found it difficult to produce doubles from the Latins and from the Council of Florence. But they did not pay attention to this... (however, perhaps they looked at the double vision that they had as a borrowing from the Latins). See now the indicated messages. Athanasius could have become a supporter of the double alleluia song not only because he saw it dominant on Athos, but also because he could have met Greek monks there who, holding the same view of church customs as our ancestors, directly explained to him that the double alleluia is the only correct and Orthodox way of proclaiming the song. Athanasius’s reference to the Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople and to all the ecumenical patriarchs, in view of the undoubted fact that triplicity was then in equal use among the Greeks with doubleness, of course, must be recognized as an undoubted lie, which he allowed himself, wanting to defend himself with double song from the attack of the Pskovians (the most private and direct evidence: Metropolitan Photius was precisely a contemporary of Patriarch Joseph, and he ordered the Pskovites triple the alleluia hymn; in the Moscow Synodal Library there is a Greek triodion, which, as can be seen from the signature on it, belonged to Metropolitan Photius, and in it there is a triple alleluia, see. Archimandrite Savva Index for viewing the Synodal Library, Greek manuscripts, the word Triodion, also Description of the Greek manuscripts of the Synodal Library of Archimandrite Vladimir, No. 284, p. 400. Now below we prove that the life of St. Euphrosynus of Pskov is a falsification, in which data from the life of Athanasius is transferred to Euphrosynus. We consider it absolutely probable that the appeal to the archbishop of this latter, assimilated by the author of the life of Euphrosinov, constitutes a real fact in relation to Athanasius. Only the epistles read in the life: Euphrosyne, in reality - Athanasios, to Euthymius and Euthymius to Euphrosynus, in reality - to Athanasius, should be looked at as lives rewritten by the author. What should be accepted as the real answer of Euthymius to Athanasius is that, according to Dmitry Gerasimov in his letter on alleluia to Archbishop Gennady, great people judged when there was previously a dispute about the song (“both judged together”). By the previous dispute we must mean precisely the dispute between the Pskovites and Afanasy, because no other dispute before Dimitri Gerasimov and Archbishop Gennady is known. (And Gerasimov’s expression: “I remember” should be understood not in the sense that he was an eyewitness to the dispute, but in the fact that he knows, heard, about it). In one Tsarsky manuscript, No. 366, sheet 323, Descriptions p. 369, one reads a letter to Jonah of some Athanasius about calling a Christian an infidel or a heretic. We accept that this is the message to Jonah of our Athanasius. See Jonah's letter to the Pskovites in Historical Acts I, No. 60, p. 108 col. 1, and in Pavlov's Monuments, no. 90, col. 677. The decree is read in manuscripts following the messages of the unknown Pskovite to Afanasy; printed in the Orthodox Interlocutor ibidem, page 165. In some manuscripts it is inscribed: “The Word of the Council of Laodicea,” which is the inscription, based on the apocalypse, chapter 3, art. 14–19, perhaps they wanted to give it a special menace, cfr of the Laodicean Council a word to the half-believers in the Description of the collections of the Bychkov Public Library, I, 194 (the well-known alphabet-grammatical Laodicean Epistle, translated by clerk Fyodor Kuritsyn, seems to contain the same idea in its title). The charter read in the manuscripts in a separate form is called “the charter of singing Mephimon,” - Klyuchevsky Lives of the Saints, p. 256 note, His Grace Macarius History VIII, 131, Description of the Synodal manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 330 sheet 213, p. 741, and in one manuscript of the Volokolamsk Monastery, No. 577 sheet 212 ver. fin., it is given under the name of the extract from Theodoret on the three-lipped alleluia (while the interpretation of the Council of Laodicea is called the extract on the alleluia from Andrew of Caesarea - sheet 213 fin.). If the message of Dmitry Gerasimov to Archbishop Gennady about the three-lipped alleluia really forms part of his message to the archbishop about the seventh thousand or about the seven thousand (Reverend Macarius History VII, 247), then the latter was written in 1491. (both messages were published in the Orthodox Interlocutor of 1861, book I). Gennady asked Gerasimov about the triple alleluia, of course, regarding the disputes about it that were taking place in his flock. The disputes took place, as we learn from the first life of St. Euphrosynus of Pskov (quote now below), in Pskov and, therefore, they began here no later than 1490. (we note here, by the way, that the opinion accepted by some that Gerasimov sent Gennady a message from Rome is not based on anything, and at the same time, to assume that Gennady himself sent him to Rome is completely strange: as we know from Paul Jovius, Gerasimov did not visit Rome until 1525. From one note in the message itself, about Yuri, who translated something for Gennady: the Eminence Macarius History VII, 248 - it is clear that it was written from Moscow. By “and here” Gerasimov means Moscow, and by “I remember that we had an argument about this,” he must mean Novgorod or Pskov, for which he most likely should be considered a native of one or the other of them. By the dispute, as we said, we should mean the dispute between Athanasius and the Pskovites, and by what the great people judged, we should mean the answer to Athanasius from Archbishop Euthymius). That an unknown author wrote, that is, composed, the Life of Euphrosynus regarding the disputes that took place in his time between the Pskovites about the songs of alleluia and in order to put an end to the disputes, he speaks about this in the introduction to the life (which Vasily does not have) - Undolsky's manuscript, now in the Rumyantsev Museum, No. 306, page 10 beginning. Since the Life is known only in this one manuscript, then in all the following quotations it should be understood that the Life was written no later than 1510, for Pskov, which was finally deprived of freedom by Vasily Ivanovich in January of this year, is called in it “a land of free”, page 73, verso (and as for the fact that the Life was written at the behest of the Archbishop Gennady, from which it would follow that it was written no later than 1504, then this is not in it - it should have been on sheet 89, and this is an addition by Vasily himself. In the life there is a reference to the wise Judith, sheet 31 beginning - Vasily has this printed in the Monuments of Kushelev-Bezborodko, IV, 88 beginning, and the book of Judith was translated by Gennady from Latin for his complete Bible; but the author could have read it earlier than 1499, from which the older list of Bibles has come down to us, for the translation of all books of the Bible taken from Latin was made no later than 1493, see Description of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev, No. 1–3, p. 128). The author of the life seemed to be not a monk, see Vasily on the printed page 103, col. 2: “a skilled monk wants to be in it,” and if a monk (but not yet a skilled monk), then not Euphrosyne’s monastery, for nowhere does he call this our monastery a monastery, but always this or that – Euphrosyne’s monastery, and did not know the image of Euphrosyne that was in the monastery, so when he saw Euphrosyne in a vision, he went (to the monastery) to look at his image. To have something to do with the fabrication of life, i.e. took part in it, the abbot of the Euphrosynus monastery Pamphilus, a disciple of the Monk Euphrosynus (known for his accusatory letter against the Pskovites to the Pskov authorities in 1505 - Supplement to Historical Acts I, No. 22), this seems doubtful. According to the life, Euphrosynus went to Constantinople while still a youth: see sheet 34 sqq of Euphrosynus’s speech sent by Job, where he learned to double the song of alleluia, which does not say this directly, but makes it clear, and folio 88 verso, where the author of the life directly says that Euphrosynus went to Constantinople, in response to a question to the patriarch about alleluia, “in his youth yours.” And Vasily in this case, allowing for an obvious chronological inconsistency, remakes the author of the life (the journey to Constantinople of a young man, a Pskov villager, “to answer a question” to the patriarch, regardless of everything, is not particularly likely: but the author of the life precisely then sends Euferosynus to Constantinople as a young man, that otherwise this trip would not have happened - it would have been in the most beautiful flower of piety in Constantinople and long before its capture by the Turks, as the author had to present the case). The author of the life does not say in what year Euphrosynus died, but regarding his age he says that in “the depths of old age,” - sheet 71. Vasily, on the basis of information that he himself received in the Euphrosynus monastery, which he does not present as reliable (“as if the monasteries would tell him about him”) and which in fact are not distinguished by reliability (Euphrosynus, according to him, handed over before his death Abbess Ignatius, while in fact the abbot was Charlampius), says that Euphrosynus died in 1481, being 95 years old. It is reliably known that Euphrosynus was alive in 1472 and that he died no earlier than the reign of Novgorod Archbishop Theophilos, who occupied the see from 1471. to 1480, see the entry on the manuscript written in the Euphrosyne Monastery and located among the manuscripts acquired by the Rumyantsev Museum from Piskarev - according to Viktorov’s catalog No. 59, and the spiritual testament of Euphrosynus in the Acts of Expedition I, No. 108. Accepting that Euphrosynus died in 1480, at the age of 90, we get, that the time of his 20-year youth began for him in 1410, and Photius occupied the metropolitan see from 1409 to 1431. Orthodox Interlocutor pp. 141–142, 164. Orthodox Interlocutor page 141 beginning. This Job, that is, the actual Job of the letters of the unknown Pskovite, is without a doubt the priest Job who in 1422 or 1425 came to Metropolitan Photius as an ambassador from the Pskov clergy - Monuments of Pavlov col. 427. Regarding his nickname as a pillar, compare Archbishop Gennady’s review of Metropolitan Spiridon Satan: “this man in this generation has been a pillar of the church, since from his youth he has been the holy scripture.” When the author of the life says that Job died after Euphrosynus, that is, gives him too much longevity, then it is very possible that he is telling a lie. In the chapter: “On alms from the monastery”: “We heard from the witness that in the Holy Mountain and in other great monasteries the fathers received the rule from the ancient saints”... (Athanasius was a contemporary of Euphrosynus, and it is quite possible that it was he who was the witness from whom the latter had information about Athos). And if in the same charter Euphrosynus says that “12 koshnitsa (remaining from the feeding of five thousand people by Christ) and until now by the grace of Christ are preserved in Constantinople as a testimony to the last generation of this” (in the chapter: “On needs”), then this does not at all constitute evidence that Euphrosynus was in Constantinople: everyone is talking about our koshnitsa pilgrims of Constantinople (pilgrims who could be read by Euphrosynus: Archbishop Anthony, Stephen of Novgorod, Hierodeacon Zosimas) and this is read in the Prologue and Menaion under May 11, in the legend about the “renewal” of Constantinople, i.e. about its founding by Constantine the Great. Orthodox Interlocutor, pp. 140–141. For example, Athanasius, according to an unknown Pskovite, “and also said (by the way, he wrote), that from Zion came the law and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem,” - Orthodox Interlocutor p. 141 fin.. In the message, assimilated by Euphrosynus, “again the mother of the churches is Zion.., according to the prophetic word of Micah: from Zion the law and the word of the Lord will go out from Jerusalem,” page 114 ver. From the message it is clear that it was not Athanasius who began to denounce the Pskovites for their use of triplicities in the Alleluia song, but the Pskovites rebelled against him for introducing doubles in their monastery. He begins the message: “I hear from many that it weighs heavily on me, more than all of you the bloodworm pillar (sic) Ievko, especially against the holy and apostolic church about the allugia that they should speak twice, and not three times, as they themselves say and others.”... sheet 112. From the life, the name of Euthymius was unsuccessfully transferred by a later hand to the inscription of the Charter of Euphrosinov, which states that it was written with the blessing of Metropolitan Theodosius (1461–1464) and Archbishop Euthymius († 1458). The charter was written with the blessing of Metropolitan Theodosius and Archbishop Jonah (1458–1470), apparently simultaneously with the installation of the first abbot of the monastery. We do not know whether the author of the life found in the documents he had on hand about the dispute between Athanasius and the Pskovians an exact indication of the time when Athanasius was in Greece; in any case, he could know this from the notes on the books that Athanasius took with him from Greece; So, in the entry on one book it reads: “in the summer of 6938 (1430) the book was purchased by the holy monk Athanasius of Ruthen in the holy Mount Athos..., into the kingdom of the Greek king of Cyrus Kalouan Palaeologus and under the holy Patriarch of Constantinople Cyrus Joseph(e),” - Stroeva Biblical Dictionary p. 27. In the preface to the story about the appearance of the Mother of God, the writer says (not entirely clearly) that what he first wrote was the actual life of Euphrosynus, and that only then he gave his legend the form that it has at the present time (actually the legend about the debate between Euphrosynus and the Pskovites about the special alleluia). But this, in all likelihood, is only a literary device aimed at answering the question: why on earth did the Mother of God appear to him – the writer? And when in another place, in the story about the monk Konon, in Vasily’s press, pp. 75–76, the author says: “I wrote this miracle in the life of the saint and put it in a row of miracles, (but) because I didn’t correct it, .... and for this reason I fulfilled it here even more.”.., page 65 ver., whereas in the current legend there is no higher speeches about Konon: then we think that this is again just the same literary device, aimed at strengthening the reader’s belief that the author really remade the life. In this case, the fake link was unsuccessful because there was nowhere to write it. See in the letters of an unknown Pskovite to Afanasy, - Orthodox Interlocutor p. 145 fin., 146 and 147 beginning. “All the pagans of Latin, as well as heretics, say this thing (alleluia) twice, three times, but do not know the secret it is sought for”... in Basil in print, page 104 fin.. It was the Latins who doubled the alleluia (see now below). Glorified as a writer of the life and thanks to him excluded from the calendar, the Monk Euphrosynus is usually presented as an ignorant person. But we do not have the slightest real reason to imagine him as an ignorant person. Meanwhile, the strictly cenobitic rules he wrote for his monastery make it possible to see in him one of our not particularly numerous adherents of true monasticism and a person in the history of our monasticism that is far from ordinary. In the preface to the charter, Euphrosynus says that he left the Snetogorsk monastery, where he took monastic vows, to found his own monastery, seeing his unworthiness. The real reason should be considered the displeasure of Euphrosynus at the weakening of the strict community life in the Snetogorsk monastery, as it was established there according to the charter of the Suzdal Archbishop Dionysius. Euphrosynus makes significant use of this charter in his charter. As the Stoglavy Council testifies in its definition of alleluia, which reports that in his time many, and the word “many” should be understood in the sense of the majority, in Pskov and the Pskov land said a threefold alleluia. We understand: its processing, carried out by priest Vasily, at the request of the monks of the Euphrosyne Monastery, in 1547. (How the monks of the Euphrosynov Monastery in 1547 treated the special alleluia remains unknown. It may be more likely that after they wrote the life of Euphrosynov by an anonymous copyist, they accepted it instead of the triple alleluia; but it is not impossible that with the majority of the Pskovites they continued to adhere to the triple alleluia, and in relation to the life they were awaiting judgment from the highest church authority). There is no doubt about the true attribution of the word to Maximus, just as the Right Reverend Macarius does not doubt it - History VIII, 139. In addition to several almost contemporary manuscripts indicated by him, the word can be read in a completely modern manuscript that belonged to Metropolitan Joasaph and is a collection of Maximus’s works, compiled by him himself - MDA Fundamental Library No. 42. As Macarius himself clearly testifies to this in his conciliar definition. During the time of Maximus, pure alleluia, as we have reason to think (see above, pp. 446–447), dominated on Athos. What reigned on Mount Athos, Maxim passes off as dominant throughout the entire Greek Church. In the article: “Interpretation of Names” Maxim speaks about the word alleluia: “Alleluia - praise to God,” - Trinity Lavra Manuscript No. 201, sheet 482. In the Roman Church, as in the Greek Church, there is no known accepted frequency of the alleluia song, which would always be used in the same way; there it is proclaimed once, twice, three times and many times - at each appointed time of the service its own number of times, which is precisely indicated in the liturgical books (such as: Missale or service book, Breviarium, which combines our charter, the following psalter, menaion, octoiche and triodion, and Antiphonarium or antiphonon). The most frequent exclamations of the alleluia song are one-time and two-time (the latter as a sign that a person brings praise to God with soul and body). Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich said on his deathbed: “Alleluia, alleluia, glory to Thee, O God,” - Collection of Chronicles VI, 274. (And what if not in Moscow, then in its environs was used in the first half of the 16th century, see Metropolitan Gregory in “The Truly Ancient Church”, II, 2 editions pp. 149–150: manuscript of the former Pesnoshsky monastery, located 25 versts from Dmitrov). The word “to those who dare to say three words alleluia” is read in the collected works of Maxim, which he himself compiled; and this collection was made by him in 1532. (“In the years that I have washed the thousand and fourtieth year, I have come”). De corona militis, cap. III fin., – in Patrology of Minya, t. 2, col. 80. Canonical rule 91, which is a passage from the book on the Holy Spirit to Bishop Amphilochius. The newest Greek scientists are in favor of touching the stomach with the hand, and not the chest, see in Pidalion the note to the 91st rule of Basil the Great (Reverend Maximus the Greek and Subdeacon Damascus in the 16th century and Christopher Angelos in the 17th century also talk about touching the stomach with the hand). All the ancient fathers up to and including John of Damascus († between 750–780), who, speaking about the sign of the cross, directly indicate the place of the body on which it rests, call this place the forehead, see the collection of speeches of the fathers on the sign of the cross in the work of Jacob Gretzer. (Gretserus) De sancta cruce (three volumes, Ratisbonae, 1734), Tom. I, lib. IV, capp. X, XVIII, XXXI, XXXII, XXXIX, XLIII, and a less complete one in Switzer in the Dictionary (Thesaurus ecclesiast.) under the word σταυρός. Some fathers read deliberate speeches about why the sign of the cross is placed specifically on the forehead, for example, in Cyprian of Carthage in the work De unitate ecclesiae (according to another inscription: De simplicitate praelatorum), in Augustine in the passage of word 27 on the words of the apostle in the letter to the Galatians, chapter 6, in John Chrysostom in the word or treatise against the Jews and pagans that Christ is God, in John of Damascus in the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, chapter 84 (Chrysostom makes it known that the cross, which was supposed to be inscribed on the forehead, was sometimes inscribed on the entire face, i.e. that its longitudinal line was drawn from the forehead to the nose and further, and the transverse line was drawn not in the middle of the forehead, but along the bottom of it, along the eyes or below the eyes, for it uses the expression “to draw a cross on the face,” σφραγίζειν τὸ πρόσωπον, ἐντυποῦν σταυρόν τ ῇ ὄψει, - against the Jews word 8 and against the Gospel of Matthew word 54 or according to another account 55, on chapter 16, verse 13). That the cross was depicted on the forehead by actually drawing it on the latter or by drawing a longitudinal and transverse line along the forehead with the hand, and not by marking its ends with dots or not by touching the forehead with the hand in four places, this, firstly, must be assumed by itself: on the one hand, depicting a small cross on the forehead with dots or by touching the forehead four times with the hand, as we now depict a large cross on the upper part of the body, would be a matter unnatural and incongruous; on the other hand, in this case, as always happens, people, of course, started with a less artificial one and then moved on to a more artificial one, and the less artificial way of depicting the cross is precisely the first. Secondly, fathers and writers use expressions about the image of the cross that make it clear that it was precisely drawn by drawing longitudinal and transverse lines along the forehead; these expressions are: ἐγχαράττω - I draw, draw, ἐπιγράφω - I inscribe, I will write, σφραγίζω (the most common) - I imprint, imprint, i.e. I depict the cross so that this image of it is, as it were, valid and real imprint; tero - work, i.e. I depict a cross by means of friction, drawing with my hand on the forehead (Tertullian: frontem crucis signaculo terimus), inscribo, conscribo - inscribe, write, pingo - painting, presso, imprimo - squeeze out, pull out. – When, instead of drawing a small cross on the forehead, it became a custom to place a large cross on the forehead, chest, shoulders, we cannot say. But if writers even of the second half of the 12th century. They use the expression about the image of the cross: “putting the seal of Christ on the forehead” (see below p. 471 words of Theophanes), then in these words one should see a simple, so to speak, archaeological inaccuracy, for from the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th century we have clear evidence of the use of a large cross, we mean the denunciation of the Latin way of putting a cross on oneself in the article Περὶ τῶν Φράγγων καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν Λατίνων , - About the Friars and other Latins (our Metropolitan George, mentioned under 1072 and 1073, is not yet using the article and our Metropolitan Nikephoros I, who occupied the see from 1103 to 1123, is already using it, cfr my History of the Russian Church, vol. I, half 2, p. 712/821; article in the Greek original with an ancient Slavic translation by A. N. Popov in the Historical and Literary Review of Polemical Writings against the Latins, p. 58). The Venerable Theodore Studite, in the words below, seems to indicate that already in his time, that is, in the last quarter of the 8th - first quarter of the 9th century, the large cross began to come into use; the same thing seems to be known in the acts of the Council of Constantinople in 879–80, which took place in the church of St. Sofia. (The Greeks reproached the Latins at the council that they were ἄρχοται ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀριστεροῦ μέρους, in the image of the cross they begin from the left side, see Switzer in Thesauruse under the word σταυρός, col. 1011); however, Patriarch Alexei of Constantinople, in his charter, written in 1034, seems to speak of two more separate crosses on the forehead and on the chest, see our History of the Russian Church, vol. I, 2 half, p. 513 note / 619 note 3 (While the mark of the cross on the forehead existed, it was very common for a cross to be drawn along with this cross on the chest, as representing the seat of human desires, - in Gretzer, t. cross). All evidence, with the exception of that belonging to Andrew of Crete, is indicated and given by the Right Reverend Macarius in History, vol. VIII, page 101. Andrew of Crete speaks of drawing a cross with a finger in a laudatory word to the Monk Patapius, namely, in the story of the miracle of the reverend’s healing of one demon-possessed young man: Patapius healed the demon-possessed by drawing a cross over him in the air with his finger; when the healed man fell at his feet, he drew with his finger the sign of the cross on his forehead, - Patrology of Min, t. 97, col. 1228. (For photographs from ancient monuments of sculpture in which the Savior is represented tracing a cross with one forefinger, see Martine in the Dictionnaire des antiqués chrétiennes, pp. 64, 97 and 497. Ducange in the Glossarium Latinitatis, under the word Signum, quotes the words of Julius Africanus, a Greek Egyptian-Palestinian writer who lived at the end 2 – in the first half of the 3rd century and died around the year 240: Signum Dei in frontibus nostris digitis suis facimus. In the acts of the 7th ecumenical council, which took place in 787, we find an indication that the cross was then depicted on the forehead and with another finger. Διὰ τε τῆς γινομένης παρ ’ ἡμῶν εἰς αὐτὸν ( σταυρὸν ) προσκυνήσεως, - say the fathers of the council, τῆς τε ἐν τῷ μετώπ ῳ σειμειώσεως, καὶ τῆς ἐν τῷ ἀέρι διὰ δάκτυλου γινόμενης σφραγῖδος , ὰποδιώκειν δαίμονας ὲλπίζομεν, that is, as for the worship we do to him (the cross), to the sign of it on the forehead and the imprint (of it) made with a finger in the air: then we hope that we drive away (through this) demons - act six, volume or section fourth, in Mansi's Conciliorum collectio t. XIII, p. 270 sub fin., see also Greek Pidalion, in the preface to the acts of the 7th council, 9th note, Zakynthos edition p. 319, col. 1 fin. (in the Russian Kazan translation of the Acts of the Councils, VII, 488 fin., for some reason there is neither a forehead nor a finger). ↓ 1 2 That the Latins drew a cross with their finger is clear from the fact that they, having retained to this day the ancient small cross with the later large one, still draw it with their finger (the Latins are baptized not with one cross, the later large one, like we Orthodox, but with two crosses, the later large one and together with the ancient small one; this is done in such a way that, having placed a large cross on themselves, they then draw on themselves and a small cross; the first cross is placed with all five fingers, gathered in a loose handful, the second cross is drawn with a finger. This double cross is of course in the article “On the Friars and Other Latins”, when it says that the Latins “are somehow marked by five fingers (from the outside, πλαγίως πῶς κατασφραγίζονται) and then cross the face with a finger." Latin bishops and priests, if they do not bless, draw a cross on someone or something (on infants being baptized or on everyone present in the church during divine services on certain days of the year (see. in Seredinsky II, 79), on the walls of churches during their consecration, on thrones during each divine service): then they still draw it with their fingers. For evidence that the mark of the cross with the finger was (if not still) in use among the Nestorians and Copts, see Morini in De sacris ordinationibus, Pars II, ed. Antverp., 1685, p. 386, 399, 444 and 446. The Most Reverend Macarius wants to understand from Cyril of Jerusalem our current tripartiteness on the basis that, according to the contemporary testimony of St. Ephraim the Syrian, the sign of the cross was then performed in the name of the Holy Trinity. But we have evidence that when drawing the cross, the confession of the Trinity was then expressed through tripling the sign of the cross itself (as this still happens with every consecration of water by a priest): in the words of the Most Reverend Macarius himself, John Moschus, then see in Gretzer, tom. I, lib. IV, p. 341 col. 1, 376 col. 1 and 391 col. 1 (vitale signum in sacro numero Trinitatis pressit in frontibus, - words in the life of Anthony the Great, belonging to Athanasius the Great) and in Ducange in the Glossarium'e Graecitatis under the word σφραγίζειν (John Moschus has another testimony about the triple mark of the cross, in addition to the one given His Eminence Macarius, - Luga ch. 3). In Serbia, according to the testimony of the famous writer Konstantin Kostencsky, drawing the sign of the cross on oneself with one finger was very and almost most common even in his time of Constantine, that is, at the end of the 14th - beginning of the 15th century. See his Book on Writing in Volume I of Studies in the Russian Language, published by the Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, page 457 beginning. Τοπῶν μέ τις καὶ μόνον ἔμπου (read: εϊ που) δακτύλ ῳ, εὐθύς τὸν ὲχθραίνοντα δαίμονα στρέφει, – in Patrology of Min, t. 99, col. 1796, paragraph 57. In the article: Divine services of the Russian Church of pre-Mongol times, published in Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1846–1847, No. 7, p. 31. In the article: Patriarch Nikon as a church reformer and his opponents, published in the January, February and April books of the Orthodox Review for 1887. (February book, p. 352. In a separate edition, the title of the article is slightly changed and reads: Patriarch Nikon and his opponents in the matter of correcting church rites). The testimony of Abulfaraj that in 1029 the Patriarch of Constantinople demanded that the Jacobites be baptized not with one finger, but with two fingers, could be understood in such a way that the patriarch demanded that the Jacobites be baptized, as the Orthodox are baptized in the region of their residence in Syria (and there would remain the possibility of the assumption that in Constantinople they were baptized differently). About these relations, see the article in part 5 of the Addendum to the works of the Holy Fathers: “Relations of the Armenian Church with the Eastern Orthodox Church in the 12th century.” Participated in the debate as one of the representatives of the Syrian Jacobites, related to the Armenians in faith. Here is Feofan’s passage in full: ἶ πε πρὸς τὸν Θεωριανόν ’ διὰ τί σφραγίζετε ( ο σφραγίζω see above p. 466) δακτύλοις δυσίν; ; λοιπὸν καὶ αἱ δύω φύσεις τοῦ Χριστοῦ κεχωρισμέναί ὑμᾶς; Ὁ δὲ Θεωριανός , ο ἷ ον ἀστεϊζόμενος , ε ἶ πεν ’ οὐ τὰς δύο φύσεις τοῦ Χριστοῦ σημαίνοντες ο ῧ τω δρῶμεν, ἀλλὰ τῆς τοραννίδος τοῦ διαβόλου ἀπαλλαγέντες ἐδιάχθημεν παράταξιν ?? δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἐλεημοσύνην καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς ἀρετὰς, ὅ περ ἐστὶν ἡ παράταξις , διὰ δὲ τῶν δακτύλων , τοῖς μετῶποις ἐπιτεθέντες τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ σφραγίδα , συνιστῶμεν τὸν πόλεμον καὶ ο ῧ το τοῦτον καταγωνιζόμεθα , καὶ μετὰ τοῦ Δαβὶδ εὐλογοῦμεν τὸν Κὐριον, εὐλογιτὸς Κὐριος ὁ Θεός μου, λέγοντες ἕ καστος, ὁ διδάσκων τὰς χεῖράς μου εἰς παράταξιν καὶ τούς δακτύλους μου εἰς πόλεμον, ού τὸν δάκτυλον, ἀλλὰ τούς δακτύλους, i.e. when this (previous) was said in this way, one Syrian priest stood up and said to Theorian: why do you depict the sign of the cross with two fingers? Are not the fingers separated (from each other) as if they were special from one another? Consequently, in your opinion, the two natures of Christ are also separated (the idea is that if one recognizes two separate natures that have not become one nature, as the Armenians taught, then one must supposedly recognize two persons, and this would be Nestorianism). But Theorian, as if resorting to a joke (getting off with a joke), said: without signifying the two natures of Christ, we do this, but, having been delivered from the torment of the devil, we are taught to create militia (preparation) and warfare against him, for with our hands we do righteousness, alms and other virtues and this is militia (preparation), and with our fingers, relying on the seal of Christ on the forehead, we formulate a battle, and thus we defeat him and with David we bless the Lord, saying each one: Blessed is the Lord my God, teach my hand to fight and my fingers to fight (Ps. 143:1) - not the finger (i.e. not one finger, as you have - Yakovitov), ​​but fingers - in Min in Patrology, t. 133, col. 296 sub fin.. Two-fingered against the Monophysites, - Description of the Synodal Manuscripts No. 268, p. 300. Peter of Damascus says: “Two fingers and one hand reveal the crucified Lord Jesus Christ, in two by nature, and in one cognizable composition.” Demetrius, Metropolitan of Cyzicus, speaks about the unity of the Jacobites, that they came up with the idea of marking a person with one finger, ώς τὴν μίαν ἐν Χριστῷ φὐσιν πρεσβεύοντες, i.e. e. to preach the one nature in Christ, see Switzer in Thesaurus ecclesiast. under the word σταυρός, II, 1010; The Jacobites put a cross on themselves with one finger, first on the left shoulder, then on the right - in Ralli and Potli, IV, 407 fin.. One unknown writer says about the single-fingered nature of the Armenians that they draw a cross on their faces with one finger, ὡ ς ἄν κ ᾀ ν τούτω μίαν φὐσιν τοῦ σταορωθέντος σημάνωσι, i.e., in order to at least thereby signify (proclaim) the one nature of the Crucified One, see in the work of I. Troitsky “Exposition of the Faith of the Armenian Church”, St. Petersburg, 1875, p. 193 note. (They moved from single-fingered to double-fingered at the same time as they moved from a small cross on the forehead to a large cross on the forehead-chest, because it is inconvenient to create a large cross with one finger. Metropolitan Philaret has a “possible explanation of the origin of double-fingered”, see in the Alphabetical Index to the Collection of Opinions and Reviews, the word fingering, p. 525). Detailed speeches about the Debate and it itself in A. N. Popov in the Historical and Literary Review of Old Russian polemical works against the Latins, p. 238 sqq (the Greek original of the Debate was recently published by A. Vasiliev: Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina, - pars prior, Mosquae, 1893, - p. 179; the place about the fingers - p. 186; see also in the article by N. F. Krasnoseltsev: “The Debate of Panagiot with Azimit on the New Greek Lists”, published in the chronicles of the Historical and Philological Society at the Novorossiysk University, VI, Byzantine Department, p. 295, and in the article by M. Speransky: “On the history of the Debate of Panagiot with Azimit”, published in Volume II of the Byzantine Temporary, Section I, p. 521). The debate is not some serious and authoritative work, but an anonymous satire on the Latins and partly on the Emperor Michael Palaiologos, who entered into an ecclesiastical union with the latter, belonging to a kind of sage from the people (a satire of a popular print, so to speak, of a nature). But this in no way prevents the testimony of the Debate about the making of the sign of the cross from being accepted as completely reliable evidence (for in our case, a frivolous author, just like a serious one, could only talk about what the Greeks actually had, i.e., we want to say, in our case, the seriousness or frivolity of the author does not matter). The Latins are unfairly reproached in the Debate, as if they were making a cross with two fingers. This unfair reproach can be understood in such a way that the author wants to impose on the Latins the sign of the sign, which partly remained with the Greeks themselves and which was already considered incorrect. Three fingers also exist in the Western Church, in which it appeared much earlier than the Eastern Church, for Pope Leo IV, who occupied the throne from 847 to 855, already speaks about it; at present it is used there for blessings, and in ancient times it was used, or at least prescribed for use, for the sign of the cross, see the Right Reverend Macarius in History, VIII, 108 note. But the eastern three-fingeredness, which is different from the Western one in its form (about the form of the Western three-fingeredness, see below, p. 479), is not its reproduction, but appeared independently of it and is an independent ritual custom of the East (the Latin three-fingeredness in its form is such that it can also be mistaken for two-fingered; and therefore the reproach of the Latins in the Debate that they cross themselves with two fingers can also be understood in such a way that Latin three-fingered was taken by the Greeks for two-fingered). As can be seen from the postscript in the article made in the 12th century; “About the Friars and other Latins”, to the point denouncing the five-fingered Latins, which is read; ↓ “The fingers should be placed in signs in such a way that they signify the two natures in Christ and the three persons (of the Holy Trinity), as Christ showed when, ascending to heaven, he blessed the disciples with raised hands,” - from the Right Reverend Macarius in History, VIII, 110 (Patrology of Minh t. 140, col. 542 fin.); my History of the Russian Church, vol. I, half 2, pp. 712/821 (in Popov’s Historical and Literary Review of Old Russian polemical works against the Latins). Regarding the impulse that forced the Greeks to adopt three fingers instead of two fingers, if not directly one can suspect, then at least one can ask the question: was this impulse the desire to have a finger build different from that of the Latins? After capturing Constantinople in 1204, the Latins lived among the Greeks for 57 years (1204–1261) as their most hated enslavers. It is not impossible to think that the Greeks looked at the sign of the most hated people as a seal of the Antichrist. But the Latin triple finger (the index and large middle fingers are extended together, the finger is attached to them, the small middle finger and little finger are bent to the palm) is so similar to the double finger that the Old Believers, as we say below (p. 479 note 1), take the latter for this. But it is also found on ancient icons and frescoes - see in my Church Archaeological Atlas for the second half of Volume I of the History of the R.C., sheet LVII, No. 4 and here below pp. 503–504. According to Stoglav, chapter 31, finger formation: “the larger (in other lists simply: finger) finger and the two lower fingers joined together, and the upper finger joined with the middle one, extended and bent slightly”... Kazan edition p. 132. As a sign of the faces of speakers, this sign is not found, therefore, it is a new sign. (In colloquial finger formations, some fingers are extended, but in our triplets, all fingers are bent). It may be that the model for triplicate was also the deacon’s holding of the orarion with three fingers, cfr in Conversations to the spoken Old Believer, continuation of the 9th conversation about folding the fingers for the sign of the cross and for blessing, § 13. When the Orthodox adopted two fingers instead of one finger, the Nestorians followed their example. It may be that the desire to have a special finger build from the Nestorians partly contributed to the adoption of three fingers instead of two fingers. In the above, page 474, note 1, postscript of the 12th century. to the article “About the Friars” the words: “as Christ showed when, ascending into heaven, he blessed the disciples,” obviously mean: how (with what fingers) Christ is depicted blessing on the icons. We consider it most likely to accept that our: “if anyone is not marked...” is indeed a translation of the Greek: εἴ τις οὐκ σφραγίζεται μετὰ δύο δάκτυλα ὡ ς καὶ Χριστὸς, νὰ ε ἶ ναι ἀφωρισμένος, as Andrey Denisov pointed out in Pomeranian answers. Νὰ ε ἶ ναι will not at all be a new language for a Greek of the 12th-13th centuries, moreover, for a Greek with little education, such as a person who pronounces a curse on those who are not baptized with two fingers allows himself to be seen. (It is necessary to think that the curse initially appeared in a separate form and that the rite: “If anyone has been in heresy” was introduced later. The rite was compiled by representatives of the church authorities: but the representatives of the church authorities could not be so ignorant as to pronounce a curse on those who were not baptized with two fingers. In A. A. Dmitrievsky in Ευχολογια in Euchologia 1475 g., -p. 424: Χριστὸς, – ἀνάθεμα). In the original it read: “Showing three fingers..., then two fingers, and one stretching out” (as it is read in some Prologues, in which the place was preserved without alteration - the Most Reverend Macarius History, VIII, 118), i.e. showed three fingers, and then bent two, which is the meaning of the word “copulation” (Greek συναγαγών - brought together, in the same sense in which we use the expression: “closed fingers”), and one stretched out. The defenders of double-fingering converted “stretching out” into “bending down” and the word “copulation” received the meaning that two fingers were left outstretched. That the so-called Theodorite word (perhaps actually belonging to some Russian Theodorit, and, in all likelihood, baptized with the name of blessed Theodorit by one of his first copyists, on the basis that he took it either from a manuscript containing the works of blessed Theodorit (interpretation of the psalter), or from a manuscript in which it was read after extracts from the blessed Theodoret, originally written in defense of three fingers, this cannot be doubted. “Three fingers are equal to having together..., having two fingers is inclined, and not extended..., the bending of the finger is interpreted”... When three fingers are spoken of without a direct or deliberate indication of which ones, then the first three fingers are taken for granted (“finger” is dual); number) occurs in the three-fingered formation, and does not exist in the two-fingered formation. (In the schismatic formation, only one finger is bent, the big one). The Trinity and their equality, and by bending two fingers the mystery of the descent of Jesus Christ to earth is well expressed (the editor of the Acts of the Hundred-Glav Cathedral, finding it incongruous in the application to the double-fingered: “bending”, indeed, uses “bending” instead, which means either a slight inclination of the two outstretched fingers or some bending of one of them, namely the large middle one, - Chapter 31 fin.). If Theodorite’s word commands not only to be baptized with two fingers, but also to bless, then this means that its author, like some in Greece, incorrectly thought that the same sign of the cross should be used both for the sign of the cross and for blessing (see above, p. 474, note 1, postscript to the article “On the Friars and other Latins”). When the word commands “to have two fingers inclined, and not outstretched,” it means the use of a three-fingered arrangement in which the last two fingers were not bent down, but extended (as in the first two fingers of two-fingers): an image of such three-fingered fingers, taken from a Greek monument, see by Metropolitan Gregory in “The Truly Ancient and Truly Orthodox Church of Christ,” part II, 2nd edition p. 131, last image (Regarding the assimilation of the article to Blessed Theodoret, it would not seem incredible to think the following: initially the article appeared nameless, but then, when it was transferred to the two-fingered, it was assimilated to Blessed Theodoret because the latter had in his interpretation psalms (Ps. 23:4) among other things, it is said about the cross that it is “composed of two clubs,” while what the interpreter understood about the material cross, that it is composed of two trees (clubs, club), we understood about the cross, which a person places on himself, that it is depicted with two fingers (the club was turned into an anti-grammatical club. But this probable explanation of the matter is eliminated by the fact that the article is assimilated to Blessed Theodorite in its true form). What prescribes to be baptized with three fingers is clearly evident from what speaks about the symbolic meaning of three fingers. Obviously, this speaks of the symbolic meaning of those fingers that should be folded for the sign of the cross, and not those that, when folded, remain empty, so to speak. What prescribes the folding of those three fingers that we Orthodox fold, that when two fingers are bent, as it prescribes, another three-fingered arrangement is impossible. Fold three fingers according to the Old Believers, that is, a finger with the last two fingers (the small middle finger and the little finger), and bend the first two fingers: the index finger and the big middle finger - you get an impossible and ridiculous finger formation, which in reality could never be used). 1 2 How the Latins were and are baptized, we indicated above, page 468 note 1. ↓ As for the blessing, it was performed and is performed with them through the three-finger, but not our Orthodox three-finger, but their own special one: the last two fingers are bent to the palm, and the first three are extended, and that is - either all three separately, or the thumb and index finger are squeezed together, and one finger is separately (protruding). At Martigny r. 85. Since in the case of pressing a finger against two fingers, this three-fingeredness turns into two-fingeredness: sometimes it is mistaken for two-fingered fingers and is called by this last name. On the so-called Korsun Gates of the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral, the blessing hands of Latin bishops are very clearly depicted with our three-fingered (taken by the Old Believers for their two-fingered!). In the album I brought from Rome, the pope is depicted with fingers folded - once: the last two fingers are bent to the palm, the first two are extended together, the finger is pressed to them; another time: two fingers are bent to the palm; the first two are stretched out separately, the finger seems to be pressed against them. It began to be compiled in our country, as we indicated above, no later than the first half of the 15th century. (And according to some, already in the 14th century, an article about double-fingering began to appear in the Russian Helmsmen, along with a curse on those who did not observe this ritual, see Il. Belyaeva Mandate lists of the cathedral code of 1551 or Stoglav, M. 1863, p. 41). If not in all of Russia, then in Pskov, the issue of folding the fingers for the sign of the cross was resolved in favor of double fingers, already by the time there were disputes with the monk Athanasius about the song of alleluia, and the Pskovites told the latter that just as in relation to the song the Greeks for these years turned away from the truth, so as not to confess the Trinity (through the use, as the latter claimed about them, of double fingers), and regarding the sign of the cross they accepted the seal the Antichrist on the forehead and on the right hand: in one of the letters of an unknown Pskovite to the monk Athanasius it is said: “The seal of the Antichrist (Greeks) is on the forehead and on the right hand; this is not something else than the seal of the Antichrist, unless one puts the right hand on the forehead and marks the honest and life-giving cross of Christ,” p. 143 beginning. Since the accusation against the Greeks that they did not place their right hands on their foreheads and were not marked with an honorable cross would be a complete inconsistency: it is necessary to understand the speech, intentionally or unintentionally, strengthened (or perhaps known to us in a damaged reading, with an omission at the verbs: “not to place” and “not to sign” the adverb: “right”) about the cross a wrong sign. And by this incorrect sign of the cross we must mean three-fingered, for it was then in common use among the Greeks. To assume that Metropolitan Daniel and the Council of the Hundred Heads did not know what finger formation was in common use among the Greeks of his day would be completely unfounded. Likewise, to assume that the metropolitan and the council prescribed double fingers for general use with some kind of intent, like the intention of preparing a schism, would be extremely strange (the metropolitan and the council prescribe double fingers for general use because, considering this form of finger formation to be true and correct, they want to establish complete uniformity among us regarding finger formation). Another thing is the completely unfair opinion of the metropolitan and the council about the corruption of the purity of Orthodoxy among the Greeks of their time. If in the two months of the Makaryev Menyas, December and June, the Debate of the Panagiota is written without altering the reading about fingers: then you need to understand this not as if before the Council of the Hundred Heads Macarius himself adhered to triplicate, but in such a way that he ordered the monuments to be written without alterations (we note here, by the way, that in the book of Cyril, chapter 26, the Debate is printed with the preservation of the original reading about fingers). And if the abbreviation of the Debate, published in the month of August, is read with alteration about fingers, then one must think that the alteration did not belong to Macarius himself, who was a man incapable of alterations, but had already been made earlier. All the months of the Makariev Mineas of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral were written after the Stoglavy Cathedral, for all the months bear the signature of 1553. (For the sign of the cross in Stoglav, see p. 68 beginning, 131 fin., question 26, chapters 31 and 32). The legend is read as forged or altered in the Prologues of the 14th century - by the Most Reverend Macarius, History VIII, 118. Ibid. page 119, note 144. For this view of the difference in the sign of the cross, Artemy was condemned as “blasphemy about the sign of the cross.” His Eminence Macarius wants to prove the significant prevalence of three-fingers in our country before the Stoglavy Council with the words of the Tsar to the Council: “Christians are baptized not essentially,” - History VIII, 125. But by “not essentially” we should mean not the incorrect placement of the fingers, but the improper placement of the sign of the cross on oneself (meaningless waving of the hand over the chest or position fingers on the chest and shoulders not in the order in which it should be, against which the Greek subdeacon of Damascus wrote in his famous word and about which Vassian Kosoy expresses himself in one work, that “not everyone fully baptized the sign of the cross on their face,” and the famous Conversation of Sergius and Herman of Valaam, that “they did not fully imagine the sign of the cross on their face.” The same should be understood by Elder Philotheus (unknown in the Antiquities of Tikhonravov) and by others who wrote about the sign of the cross before the Council of the Hundred Heads. There are several known lists of the life of St. Alexander, written before Patriarch Nikon, when the amendment could have been made (see in the Description of the Manuscripts of Undolsky, an extract of our place from the life according to a manuscript of the 16th century, - No. 276, sheet 153, in the Description of Manuscripts of the Library of the Trinity Sergius Lavra, an extract from the manuscript of 1633, - No. 694, sheet 196, and in the Description of Khludov’s manuscripts, an extract from the manuscript of the first half of the 17th century, No. 198, sheet 232); In general, the integrity of the reading of the passage cited cannot be doubted. As we said before, these efforts, of course, did not have the meaning of any bad intention at all: considering the double finger to be a true and correct sign, people, with completely understandable praiseworthy motives, made efforts to finally introduce this sign into general use. – These very strenuous efforts constitute decisive evidence in favor of the fact that until the time of Patriarch Joseph, triplicate remained with us and was more or less widespread. Cathedral 1667 – Supplement to Historical Acts vol. V, p. 463 col. 1. It is very remarkable that Petreus and Olearius, speaking about the finger formation used by the Russians of their time (Petreus - the first quarter, Olearius - the second quarter of the 17th century) speak specifically about triplicate and only about it alone, as if it were their only finger formation - Russian translation of the first in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities, 1867. Book II, p. 402 beginning, Russian translation of the second ibid., 1868. book IV, page 330. See essay by N. F. Kaptereva: “Patriarch Nikon and his opponents in the matter of correcting church rituals,” first issue, page 64 sqq. With considerable probability, one should accept as an exception the Large Catechism (Chapter 2, in which there are 2 questions and answers), in which the initial instruction about adding three fingers should be learned by the author, and the further explanation, reducing three fingers to two fingers, should be learned by Moscow editors. The word was printed in a separate form, a tiny one, consisting of two quarter sheets, a brochure at the expense or on behalf ("invoice") of the Bishop of Lutsk and Ostrog Kirill Terletsky, who was transferred from the bishops of Pinsk to the bishops of Lutsk on May 29, 1585. The place of printing, which, like the year, is not indicated, is considered to be Ostrog (Karataev Chronological painting, No. 89). In all likelihood, the word was indicated to Kirill Terletsky and printed for him by the Moscow printer Deacon Ivan Fedorov, who worked for Prince Ostrogsky in Ostrog († December 5, 1585 in Lvov). Firstly, the testimony of Deacon Paul of Aleppo, which see the Most Reverend Macarius in History, XII, 172; secondly, the testimony of those Greeks who had a well-known debate with Arseny Sukhanov and who said to Sukhanov: “You alone in Moscow are baptized like this (with two fingers), but in the Polish land Rus' is baptized in our Greek language.” In the Conversations to the verb Old Believer it is stated that in the books of the Kyiv edition: Conversations of Chrysostom on Ap. Paul 1623, Conversations of Chrysostom on the Acts of 1624. and the interpretation of Andrew of Caesarea on the Apocalypse of 1625, three fingers are depicted in the pictures. (Addition to conversation 9 about folding fingers for the sign of the cross and for blessing). If this is true, then it will be necessary to understand the matter in such a way that the teaching people, according to the misunderstanding mentioned above, preached two-fingeredness, and the people, for whose representatives in our case engravers or picture carvers should be taken, the majority adhered to three-fingeredness, which had long since spread among them. If we accept that the Large Catechism originally prescribed the use of three-fingered, then it will be necessary to understand this in such a way that the author of the catechism prescribed the three-fingered formation, which was actually used in Kievan Rus. Kyiv teaching people preached double-fingeredness based on a Moscow source; but in Moscow, under Patriarch Joseph, the testimony of the Kyiv teaching books in favor of double-fingering was accepted as independent testimony of the Little Russian Church. Let us note here, by the way, that the Ugortsy or Uhertse, in which in 1618. one book was published, speaking about double-fingeredness (“A collection in brief of words from God’s writings and with an explanation of the presentation of the Holy Apostle of the twelve articles of the Orthodox faith”), are not in Serbia (on the basis of which the erroneous opinion is concluded about the spread of double-fingered in the latter), but in the same Kievan Rus, in fact - in Galicia (in Sanok district, not far east of the town of Lizko). And when the famous Serbian-Athos hieromonk Damaskin, convicted in 1648–49. Athonite monks for double-fingering, referred in defense of the latter, in addition to Moscow books, to a Serbian manuscript written 130 years ago: then, as one can think with a very high probability, he referred to a manuscript containing the works of Peter of Damascus, the translation of which we owe specifically to the Serbs, see Description of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 140, sheet 279, p. 187 beginning. There can be no dispute about the true origin of the word Maxim. It is in the collected works of Maxim, which belongs to him. This is the meeting before which the following is read: “Preface, briefly stating the power of the book,” the beginning: “This newly-written book is a gift of the all-holy and worshiped Spirit.” That the author of the preface is Maxim himself is clearly evident from the fact that he calls the large book a book, as well as from the entire preface in general. The present collection of Maxim's works contains lists that are contemporary or almost contemporary with him - our academic library fundamental No. 42, which belonged to Metropolitan Joasaph, and Khludovsky No. 73, written in 1563. The academic, former Joasaph, list, which has this word of St. Maximus, undoubtedly proves that the reading of the place in the word about fingers was not forwarded after Maximus, but actually belongs to him. In the Khludov list of works of Maxim the Greek No. 73, Maxim’s words about the formation of the sign and about alleluia are not read, but they only appear in the table of contents, for the collection of works was divided into two bindings or into two special books, and the second book in which the words were located is missing in the library (in the collection, according to the table of contents, there were 73 chapters or 73 works of Maxim, and between them - a tale, which marked with the sign of the cross, was chapter 40, and the word to those who dare to say alleluia three times was chapter 27, but in the first, surviving half of the collection there are only 25 chapters). In the original about the fingers: “by the copulation of three fingers: that is to say: the finger and hedgehog from the middle and small we confess..., by the extension of the long and middle we confess”... In essence, there is nothing awkward here: Maxim uses the expression “middle” not about the relative position of the fingers, but about their relative length, and by middle in the first case he means small middle, in the second - index, and by long - large medium. For the Orthodox who are inclined to think schismatically, let us note here, by the way, that let them look in Conversations to the Old Believer 9 to the conversation about folding the fingers for the sign of the cross and for blessing. Let the reader remember what the Patriarch of Constantinople Paisios writes regarding this in his answers to Patriarch Nikon. In particular, about folding fingers for the sign of the cross, one of the learned companions of the Jerusalem Patriarch Paisius said to Arseny Sukhanov: “nobody wrote (about that) how to fold fingers - neither the Gospel, nor the Apostle: that is, it is unauthorized, as anyone wants, but only it is appropriate to repair the cross in the shape of a cross; otherwise all that is good and there is no heresy and blasphemy against God; we we put the upper finger (finger) with the two upper ones in the image of the Holy Trinity and with those we are baptized, and you put the great finger with the two lower ones in the image of the Holy Trinity, and with the upper two you are baptized in the same way”... Cfr in Martigny in the Dictionnaire des antiques chrétiennes under the word Bénir, p. 85 col. 2 sub fin. (Tertullian’s evidence is given: manus imponitur per benedictionem), an indication of the evidence of sculptural monuments. For the testimony of the historian Philostorgius about the time of Emperor Constantius, who occupied the throne from 337 to 361, see Svida in the Dictionary under the word Λεόντιος; the testimony of St. Augustine, who † 430, in 118 of his treatise on John and the many subsequent testimonies, see Gretzer, t. 1, lib. IV, p. 372 sqq. Testimony of Sozomen and John Moschus, - from the Most Reverend Macarius in History, VIII, 102, note 123. Patriarch Sophrony, in his interpretation of church services, writes: “The bishop’s blessing of the people after reading the Gospel indicates the future coming (of the Lord) in 6505, since according to the numerical (counting) use of fingers (as they are folded for blessing) they mean six times five thousand” (Min in Patrology t. 87, col. 400). These words, obviously read in a damaged form, should be corrected according to Patriarch Germanus of Constantinople, who reproduces Sophronius, in whom we find: “The blessing by the bishop of the people indicates the future coming of Christ through the numerical use of fingers, meaning (i.e. in which the fingers, as they are folded for blessing, mean) the number six thousand five hundred.” (ibid. t. 98, col. 417). About the fact that in order to obtain the number six thousand five hundred in manual counting, you need to fold your finger with the small middle finger, see the article: “Evidence of the 8th century on the folding of fingers in a priestly blessing,” placed in 2 parts of the Orthodox Interlocutor for 1858. At Martigny r. 84 image. The original words of Skylitzes: Ἡ γὰρ χεὶρ τοῦ πατριάρχου σταυροειδῶς σχηματισθεῖσα, ἤ ἕ θος εὐλωγεῖν ἐπιφωνοῦντι τῷ λαῷ τὴν εἰρήνην , μεμένηκεν ἄτρεπτος , μὴ συναλλιωθεῖσα τ ῇ νεκρώσει τοῦ σώματος , – Minya Patrology t. 122, col. 372 fin.. – In the Slavic Glagolitic breviary of the end of the 10th-11th centuries, which was discovered at Sinai and published in Cyrillic transcription by the Czech scholar Heitler, in the rite of the Epiphany consecration of water, in the prayer: “The Tsar himself is more philanthropic” after the words: “I am filled with angelic strength,” the injunction is read: “and then he will baptize pop water in., i.e. and then cross the pop water three times with a finger (in the Glagolitic count, which for some reason was left by Mr. Heitler without translation into Kirillov, v7 means not 2, but 3), - Euchologium glagolski spomenik manastira Sinai brda, izdao D r. L. Geitler, p. 9 start. This is “crossing the finger,” i.e. with one finger, can be understood in three ways: or that in our breviary with a finger instead of fingers it stands, so to speak, archaeologically, as a reproduction of a reading in his time that was already abandoned and does not correspond to contemporary reality; or that the cruciform finger formation in the first time after its appearance was used only by bishops, and priests remained with the old method of depicting a cross with one finger; or, finally, that at first both bishops and priests used the cross-shaped finger only to bless people in the proper sense of the first word, and that the marking of the cross on objects by both was still done with one finger, as this was and still is the case among Catholics, see above p. 468 (the marking of a cross on water with one finger is also found in the later Greek euchologies, see Gohar in the rite of baptism, according to the Paris edition pp. 357, 360 and 363). – About the marking of the cross with one finger on the water during baptism and about the anointing of the baptized person with one finger according to Greek euchologies of the 9th-15th centuries, see in volume II Descriptions of liturgical manuscripts stored in the libraries of the Orthodox East, A. A. Dmitrievsky, Kyiv, 1901, pp. 2, 69, 208, 252, 374, 399. From the middle of the 16th century, an article by the archpriest of Nauplia (in the Peloponnese) Nicholas Malax is known: ???? , i.e. About the meaning of the joined fingers of the priest’s hand when blessing the people of Christ, which says that the joined fingers represent an abbreviation or abbreviated image, outline, of the name of Jesus Christ: Isa. Xs., i.e., it speaks of the name-making of the finger for blessing. In the Slavic translation, the article was published in the Nikon Tablet. It is unknown when exactly the article was written by Malax; but he lived during the first three quarters of the 16th century and his writing activity dates back to the end of the second and the last of these quarters. (In 1540, in which the Venetians ceded Nauplius to the Turks and in which he left the latter to retire to Venice, he was already an archpriest and then died after 1573 - Archimandrite Arseny Chronicle of Church Events, 2nd edition p. 598). And as for the Greek original Ἑ ρμηνεία τῶν ζωγράφων, on the basis of which we dated the appearance of the nomenclature to the time before 1458, then this original should really be attributed to a later time, to the beginning of the 18th century, see the letters of the Right Reverend Porfiry Uspensky to Archimandrite Antonin about the painter Panselin, published in the Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy for 1867, volume IV, pp. 128 and 140 sqq. Description of the Synodal manuscripts Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 407, sheet 195 ver. The charter is read in the Church Charter of 1610. and in the Charter of Joasaph, see His Grace Macarius, History of the Russian Schism, page 97 note 193 (the text is given in full). In any case, this “three fingers, like a priest makes a cross,” read in the Charter of the Holy Mountain on panagia according to a manuscript of the 15th century, constitutes important evidence against the schismatics in favor of three fingers. Cfr in Conversations to the verb Old Believer, continuation of conversation 9, about folding the fingers for the sign of the cross and blessing, § 14. Patriarch Paisiy, in his answer to Nikon’s question about folding fingers for blessing, says that the fingers should be folded so that they form the four letters I and C, X and C, and adds: “and with the fingers whoever draws these four letters, there is no difference” (answer 25). Assuming that this was the case or that it had force in ancient times in relation to the cruciform finger formation, i.e. that in it, too, a finger with a small middle finger was not considered obligatory for depicting a cross, we will have on our old icons numerous examples of the cruciform finger formation. Examples of such a finger formation are not uncommon in old icons, in which the index and large middle fingers are folded crosswise (as is now the case with the nominal finger formation), and the finger and the last two fingers are connected together, tightly or loosely. Orthodox Christians take this finger formation as close to the nominal one, schismatics - as two-finger; in fact, in all likelihood one should see in him an ancient cross-shaped finger. The custom of depicting speaking faces with folded hands, or by means of this folding, to make it known that the depicted faces should be represented as speaking, was also among the Indians, Assyrians and Egyptians before the Greeks and Romans - we do not provide evidence for their uselessness for us. – Pagan gods were depicted with folded hands, – see Illustriertes Taschenwörterbuch der Mythologie aller Völker von J. Minckwitz. Zweite Auflage, Leipzig, 1856: S. 28. Aijukal (Mongolisch), einer der vier obersten Gotzen; with many folded hands (several folded fingers). S. 120 Brahma Indian, S. 210 and 211 Durga Poudiah (indisch), eine gottliche Jungfrau, S. 244 Ganymedes, S. 398 Minerva, S. 537 Pluto, S. 541 Polyhymia, S. 546 Priapus, S. 580 Saturnus, S. 584 Schina Indian (two-fingered and Latin triple-fingered). – In Müller-Motes, under the word: Sukkenie, S. 896, two women with folded hands facing each other: one has a finger closed with the large middle finger, the rest are extended; in the other, the finger is closed with the small middle one, the little finger is bent, the other two are extended. – On Egyptian monuments there are folded hands, signifying the faces of the speakers, see Andr ä in Grundrisz der Weltgeschichte, the first sheet of drawings of obor (two double fingers). – In the book “Bibliotheca Buddhica” V. Collection of images of 300 Burkhans. Based on the album of the Asian Museum with notes, published by S. F. Oldenburg, part one, drawings and index, St. Petersburg, 1903." - Burkhans (Mongolian idol) have many folded hands. Of our folded hands: 1) a finger joined with the index finger, the rest extended; 2) a finger folded with two middle fingers, the index and little finger extended; 3) a finger folded with the small middle one, the rest are extended; 4) the middle fingers are bent to the palm, the index and little fingers are extended, the finger is placed on the middle one - Bibliotheca Buddhica. VI. Review of the collection of objects of the Lamai cult, book by E. E. Ukhtomsky, part two, drawings, St. Petersburg, 1905.” - many folded hands. The figures are the same as those indicated above in issue V. No. 1 predominates (folio 13, entire sheet, 986–985, 8 figures); No. 2 (sheet 11, 489), No. 3 (sheet 6, 130), No. 4 (sheet 15 - leftmost figure, sheet 16 - rightmost figure, sheet 18 - middle figure). There is no doubt what custom arose among orators, because even in ordinary life, during some amplified, especially animated, speeches, people shake their folded hand, and likewise give a sign to silence in the midst of noise, if not with a folded finger, then simply with a raised hand. As for greeting by raising a folded hand, compare the current use of this gesture by our military. Quintilian deliberately and in some detail speaks about the custom of Greek and Roman orators to preface their speeches by raising and shaking their folded hands, as well as about gesticulation through various folded hands during the delivery of speeches in his work De institutione oratoria, - lib. XI, cap. III, – De pronuntiatione, then they say in passing and not on purpose: Persius in his satires, sat. IV, de Alcibiade, ν. 7, Apuleius in his Metamorphoses or De aureo asino, – lib. II, cap. XXI, and others (Cicero, in his special work De oratore, without speaking in detail, makes a general instruction on the alignment of the fingers of the hand, and he means various finger formations, with the content of the speech - lib. III, cap. 59). - “By the finger of God I will cast out demons, Luke 11, 20, that is, by the command of God; of course, the sign of the finger, in which three fingers are bent, the finger is placed on them, and the index finger extends an order (Herod is depicted with this finger, commanding the beating of infants). The stretching out of the hand and the shaking of the hand, which are spoken of in the book of the Acts of the Apostles (XII, 17; XIII, 16; XIX, 33; XXI, 40; XXVI, 1), are exactly the same as signs of an invitation to silence. oratorical raising of the hand and shaking of the hand, which we are talking about (which is translated in Russian: “having given a sign with the hand, gave a sign with the hand”, in Greek: κατασε ί σας, κατέσεισεν τ ῇ χειρί, τὴν χεῖρα ). And in later times, it was the custom of Christian orators to extend their hand before starting their speeches, see, for example, the testimony of the grammarian Corippus about the Emperor Justin - in Gretzer t.1, p. 368 beginning (according to the current rite of baptism, the catechumen denies Satan, “woe is he who has a hand,” but Cyril of Jerusalem speaks about this: “you hear the command, with your hand outstretched, as if present, to say to him: I deny you, Satan,” - secrecy word 1, § 4). – For considerations regarding the various finger formations that we find on ancient monuments of Christian iconography, we consider it not inappropriate to list those types of finger formations that are known to us as ordinary oratorical gestures. In Quintilian, the following types of finger formation are indicated as such gestures: 1) The small middle finger was connected to the finger (bent under the finger), the other three fingers were extended (medius digitus, - of the two middle fingers, of course, it is the small middle one, in pollicem contrahitur, explicitis tribus); Quintilian says about this formation that it is the most commonly used, it is appropriate at the beginning of a speech, and during the further pronunciation of the latter - in narratives, censures and accusations; 2) the two middle fingers were bent under the finger, and the index and little fingers were extended; Quintilian says about this gesture that it is a more urgent gesture than the previous one, which is not used at the beginning of speeches and in narrations; 3) the last three fingers were bent to the palm, the finger was pressed against them, and the index finger was extended; according to Quintilian, this is a gesture for censure and for direction; 4) the first four fingers were slightly connected at their ends (did the little finger extend?); 5) ↓ the small middle finger and little finger were bent to the palm, the large middle and index fingers were extended, the finger was pressed against the last two; 6) four fingers tilted slightly, the finger bent inward; 7) the small middle finger bent (the rest were extended?); 8) the index finger rested on the side of the fingernail, the remaining fingers were extended separately or compressed; 9) all fingers were bent, and the finger was bent to the side. ↓ Apuleius speaks of the finger formation used by orators, in which the last two fingers were bent, and the first two and the finger were extended, with the finger protruding (moved back or to the side). Fings on icons and sacred images in general: No. 1 (Quintilian, see previous note) - the small middle finger is connected to the finger, the other three fingers are extended: on the frescoes of the Kyiv Cyril Monastery, in Tolstoy and Kondakov No. 149 p. 164, it is clear that they are not blessing each other, but talking. In the Menology of Emperor Vasily, September 19 p. 53 (hands from the sky), September 23 b. 63, October 9 p. 104 (Popliya), October 12 r. 112 (far left), October 17 r. 123 (prophet Hosea). January 25 t. II r. 136 (Gregory the Theologian). Buslaev in Historical Sketches, vol. II to p. 291 (God rest), XVIII; V. Pokrovsky in Wall Paintings, table. XII to p. 264, end of the 15th ΙΙ century. (Lord of Hosts) and table XXII to page 282 (Savior). The Savior in the Church of the Savior-Nereditsky near Pokrovsky in Sketches, fig. 142, p. 266. In Kondakov’s Monuments of Christian Art on Athos at the end of folio XXVI (on the frame of the gospel in the Lavra of St. Athanasius), XIX. Mosaic Savior above the entrance to St. Sophia of Constantinople: the finger is woven with the small middle finger, the index and big middle fingers are extended separately, the little finger is bent to the palm, - in Pokrovsky in Essays, 1st edition, figures 27 and 65, pp. 60 and 144. On the Novgorod Icon of the Sign, see gr. Tolstov, in a Paris manuscript of the 9th century. – in the Collection of the Rumyantsev Museum for 1866. to page 63, IX, ibid. to page 86, XV, No. 4. The Savior on the mosaic deesis in the Kiev St. Sophia Cathedral, my Church Archaeological Atlas, sheets LI and LIII. For the folded hands of the mosaic saints on the wall of the altar of the Kiev-Sophia Cathedral, see Tolstov and Kondakov in Russian Antiquities, vol. IV, Nos. 100 and 101, pp. 129 and 130. See also Pokrovsky in Monuments of Iconography, pp. 60 and 144. No. 2, the two middle fingers are bent under the finger, the index and little fingers are extended: on the Spaso-Nereditsky frescoes the prophets are in Tolstov and Kondakov, vol. VI, nos. 164, 168, 171. At the Vladimir Demetrius Cathedral - Solomon, ibid. No. 57. In my atlas on sheet LVI Chrysostom in polystaurium. Kondakov in Russian Treasures, p. 98 bottom, fig. 55 (John the Baptist; finger closed with two middle ones). In Menology January 10, p. 92 (Gregory of Nyssa). No. 3, the last three fingers are bent to the palm, the finger is pressed against them, and the index finger is extended: Menologii December 16, t. II, p. 35. Buslaev has several historical essays. There are several in the Stroganov original. No. 5 the small middle finger and little finger are bent to the palm, the big middle and index fingers are extended, the finger is pressed to the last two: in my atlas sheet LII (archangel). No. 8, the index finger rests on the finger from the side, the remaining fingers are extended separately or compressed: in Lambetius III, in front of the river. 7. No. 10 (Apuleia, see previous note) – the last two fingers are bent, the first two and the finger are extended, and the finger is moved to the side: in Pokrovsky in Monuments of Iconography No. 82, p. 178; at Martigny r. 577 col. 2; in Laocoon's group one of Laocoon's sons; in Kondakov’s Archaeological Journey through Syria and Palestine, p. 298, fig. 77. 1) the finger is closed with the little finger, the rest are extended, - in Kondakov’s Russian Treasures, p. 98 bottom. See also Metropolitan Gregory in the True Ancient and True Orthodox Church, part II, pp. 129–131. 2) The finger is closed with the index finger, the rest are extended - Nessel has p. I, page 56, hand from heaven; in Lambetius between pp. 4 and 5. 3) The finger is closed with the large middle finger, the rest are extended - Nessel p. I, p. 62 (hand from heaven). 4) The finger is placed on the small middle one, the rest are extended, - Menologii, December 2, t. II, p. 5; October 17, t. I, p. 123. 5) The last three fingers are bent, the finger and index finger are extended, - Menologii, January 18, t. II r. 116 (Cyril of Alexandria), September 1, t. I, p. 3 (Savior). 6) The last three fingers are bent, the finger is placed on them, the index finger is extended, - N.V. Pokrovsky Gospel in iconographic monuments p. 4, No. 20 (catacombs); in the Stroganov original under 11 (?) January, sheet 36–37); In Buslaev in Essays, vol. II, to p. 371 No. 6 (from the 17th century manuscript of Alexander the Great and Gorgon) and ibid. to page 86 (in the worship of the Magi by the Savior). 7) On the Western coin (not the bishop’s) there is a folded hand (the index and middle fingers are extended, the small middle and little fingers are bent, the finger is placed on them, - from Müller-Motes Fig. 254. St. Dunstan reads instructions to the demon, - ibid. Fig. 398 (the same finger shape). - From Metropolitan Gregory in True Ancient and the original Orthodox Church of Christ, images of finger formations, part II, edition 2, pp. 72, 78, 81, 90, 120, 129–131. U N. P. Kondakova Facial iconographic original, vol. I, St. Petersburg, 1905, finger formations: 1) double-fingered with partial variety prevails, 2) the finger is closed with the small middle finger, the rest are extended, 3) the Latin finger formation - the last two fingers are bent, the first two are extended, the finger is extended separately. No. 59 on page 38: “Byzantine imperial icon case of a particle of the Life-Giving Tree, now in the cathedral sacristy of the city of Limburg on Lahn, 10th century.” On the quadrangular board, representing one of the sides of the icon case, there are three rows of images running across: in the middle row is the Deesis - the Savior with the Mother of God and the Forerunner and two angels; There are 6 apostles in the top and bottom rows. The Savior and the 5 apostles have folded hands, and all have two fingers. At the first t. II, edition, alterae p. 135 and 183, the second - t. I, pars III first. Kortyum, in the notes to his German translation of Paul the Silentiary, indicates several such examples (example 55; the translation is attached to the famous edition of Salzenberg Alt-christliche Baudenkmale von Konstantinopel), see also Tables to the History of Ancient Art of Rangavi (Πίνακες διὰ τὴν Ἱ στορίαν τῆς ὰρχαῖας καλλιτεχνίας ), - table 8 No. 3, table 9 No. 4, table 11 No. 5, and table 12 No. 2. In the famous group of Laocoön, one of Laocoön’s sons is depicted with his hand raised and folded as a sign that he is speaking, complaining of pain, to his father. The following are depicted with folded hands: the Savior, prophets, apostles and saints, that is, persons who bring good news and preach. On the icons the Savior and the saints are depicted with a double-fingered finger, as if speaking, see Acts of the Apostles, chapter 21, art. 40 (κατέσεισε τῇ χειρὶ τῷ λαῷ); Martigny Dictionary p. 568 col. 2 and p. 577 col. 2 (figure), p. 597 (figures) and p. 334, 336. And what they say is clear from the fact that they have a scroll (of speeches) in their hands. Acts 24:1. In the collection that belonged to Buslaev, from the 16th century, in his Essays on Russian Folk Literature, there is a drawing with images of the Trinity, and God the Father and the Son are depicted with folded hands as a sign that They are talking - to page 384 of Volume II No. 1. True words: The Savior is depicted in such a way that Patrology of Minya , t. 86, pars posterior, col. 2149, vers. 776. The first one has t. III, p. 3–29, the second has t. I, pars I, p. 55–102. Esau and Jacob are depicted, the first of whom sells his primacy to the second; Esau with his folded hand outstretched - at Nessel r. 69: It is clear that Esau does not bless Jacob or pray for him, but speaks to him. Joseph is depicted telling his brothers a dream he had seen; Joseph with his outstretched hand folded - Nessel r. 82: it is clear that he does not bless the brothers and does not pray for them, but speaks to them. Joseph is depicted in prison with a baker and cupbearer, and in front of the prison is the guard with his wife; the guard and his wife are facing each other with folded hands outstretched - p. 87: It's clear that they are talking. Joseph's brothers are depicted standing in front of him after money was found in their bags; Joseph with a folded hand outstretched - R. 88: it is clear what he is saying to the brothers. See also p. 60, 65, 71, 73, 76, 83 (especially the figure farthest to the viewer's right), 89 and 90. See the miniature depicting the fall of Lot and his daughters - p. 64. – None of the outstretched hands with folded fingers in the miniatures could be taken as prayer hands, and some could only be taken as blessing hands; but the blessing is depicted in miniatures by the person laying his hand on the head of the person being blessed - p. 77, 78 and 99. Our miniatures clearly show that the folded hand from the cloud, in its original meaning, is not a blessing hand, but a hand serving as a sign that God is speaking. (The fall of Adam and Eve is depicted and a hand from the cloud is over them - p. 55; it is clear that God does not bless Adam and Eve for the fall, but convicts them of it. The expulsion of Adam and Eve from paradise is depicted and a hand from the cloud is over them - p. 56: it is clear that God does not bless Adam and Eve, but commands them to leave paradise). – The prophets, who are still depicted on icons with outstretched hands, do not actually bless or pray, but prophesy (evangelize), i.e. folded hands are a sign that they are depicted as prophesying: in the Menology of Emperor Basil, on October 19, the prophet Joel (in the Uspenskys, p. 49), on October 17, the prophet Hosea (ibid. p. 44). From the Turin manuscript of the 6th-9th centuries in the Collection for 1866, published by the Society of Ancient Russian Art at the Moscow Public Museum, Section 1, sheet between pp. 86 and 87; ibid. sheet before page 63 King David from a manuscript of the 9th-10th centuries. See Martigny for the word Prophètes, p. 568. See in the works of N.V. Pokrovsky: The Gospel in monuments of iconography, mainly Byzantine and Russian, St. Petersburg, 1892, p. 401, and Essays on monuments of Orthodox iconography and art, St. Petersburg, 1894, p. 179, a miniature depicting the resurrection of Christ (in the group of persons to the right of the viewer, the folded hands of the two front ones, speaking between themselves persons). In Buslaev’s Historical Sketches of Russian Folk Literature and Art: 1) Enoch and Elijah denounce the Antichrist with folded hands outstretched towards him - on page 325 of volume II, figure 4 (16th century manuscript). The first two fingers are extended, the two are bent, the finger is placed on the last ones. 2) Two (two and two) are talking (the Lord speaks to my Lord: sit at my right hand, Ps. 109:1) with folded hands extended to each other, - to page 384 of Volume II, fig. 1 (17th century manuscript), two Trinity: Father and Son with folded fingers. Three have the same finger build as above: one has three fingers bent, the index finger is extended, the finger is not visible. Here are some examples. The bas-relief on one sarcophagus depicts the Savior's healing of two blind men; the Savior, the blind and two apostles are represented; the hand of the Savior on the head of one of the blind; one of the apostles with a folded hand outstretched, facing the Savior: it is clear that the apostle is speaking to the Savior, and not blessing Him. The bas-relief on another sarcophagus depicts the Savior's healing of a bleeding woman; the Savior, the bleeding woman and one of the apostles are represented; The Savior and the Apostle, facing each other, have folded hands outstretched: it is clear that they are talking. One fresco depicts the Savior’s denunciation of the Apostle Peter who denied Him; The Savior with a folded hand extended to Peter: it is clear that He does not bless Peter, but speaks to him, that is, he makes an accusatory speech towards him, see Martigny in the Dictionary p. 64 (second image), 288 and 577. (Emperor Justinian placed the St. Sophia, her statue with her right hand extended to the east; according to Svida's explanation, this stretch of hand meant that the emperor was depicted speaking to the eastern peoples - Dictionary under the word Ἰ ουστινιανός ). ↓ Under October 9, in memory of Deaconess Poplia, it is depicted: Emperor Julian sits on the throne, in front of him Poplia with a folded hand extended to him; it is clear that Poplia does not bless Julian, but makes an accusatory speech towards him (as it is said in the text of the legend about her). On October 8, to the memory of St. Pelagia, the image of Bishop Nonnus sitting on the pulpit with his hand outstretched: the text of the legend makes it clear that the bishop is presented as teaching the people. Under October 12 there is an image of the 7th Ecumenical Council; one of the bishops (far left) with a folded hand outstretched: it is clear that the bishop does not bless other bishops, but speaks. On December 29 - the massacre of the Bethlehem infants; Herod sits on the throne with his hand outstretched; in front of him, soldiers beat infants: of course, it is clear that Herod tells the soldiers, that is, orders them to beat infants (cfr the same image in Martigny in the Dictionary, p. 299, and in Labarthe in Histoire des arts industriels au moyen age, planche V). See also under September 9 and 23, November 25 and December 3 (in memory of the martyr Ananias). That the folded hands in the Menology are not blessing hands, but serve as a conventional sign of the faces of the speakers, this is absolutely clear from the following two circumstances: 1) the drawings of the Menology, like its text, represent one whole, produced at one time and by several few persons under one person’s supervision; Meanwhile, the finger formation in it is not the same on all hands, but different (this, of course, would not be the blessing finger formation: the painters who made drawings depicting the blessed finger formation, which was used in their time, would have depicted it in one or the same way); 2) there are drawings in which several faces are presented with folded hands and all faces have different folded hands or each face has its own special one. Differently folded hands in the same picture, in the same image: 1) in the Menology of Emperor Vasily, December 17, t. II r. 17, Cathedral of the Apostles; three fingers: a finger with a small middle finger, a finger with two middle fingers, a finger with two lower ones (a small middle finger and a little finger). Ibid. December 16, t. I, p. 35. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; 9 February t. II, p. 177. three bishops. 2) In Greek folding, from Pokrovsky in Essays, edition 1 after page 230 fig. 130, edition 2 after page 220, fig. 132, the same three folds as above. 3) The saints on the altar wall of the Kiev St. Sophia Cathedral, Tolstov and Kondakov, vol. IV, nos. 100 and 101, pp. 129 and 130, have the same three rings on their surviving hands as above. 4) On the wall painting of the Kyiv Cyril Monastery, - in Tolstov and Kondakov, vol. IV, no. 149, p. 164, there are two finger formations - a finger with a small middle one and a finger with the last two. 5) On the wall painting of the Novgorod Spaso-Nereditsky Church, - by Tolstov and Kondakov, vol. VI, 158 and 159, p. 135, two fingers, which is now higher; also Nos. 164 and 165. 6) In St. Sophia of Constantinople on the southern pier between the dome pillars there are six saints, - Salzenberg has B11. XXVIII and XXIX, hands folded differently (three folds): two folds in my atlas, sheet LV (Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Armen); third finger arrangement - the finger is closed with the small middle finger, the rest are extended. 7) In my atlas on sheet LVI there are two saints (in polystaurs) with differently folded hands (see also sheet LV). 8) There are many saints on the sakkos of Metropolitan Photius. Watch the hands very carefully, because the hands are embroidered and, therefore, the assumption cannot be made that they were then re-sewed. See in the Collection for 1866, published by the Society of Ancient Russian Art at the Moscow Public Museum, department of criticism and bibliography, Filimonov’s article on the patriarchal sacristy, pp. 86 and 87 (the saints who are on the large sakkos are listed; up to 40 saints, according to the drawings of Savva). Another drawing in the Bulletin of the Society of Old Russian Art at the Public Museum for 1874. – As for this variety of finger formations, as a conventional sign of the faces of speakers: it was partly borrowed by Christian painters from pre-Christian painters, who, in turn, were taken from living reality, representing a reproduction of the various finger formations used by speakers; partly it could have been borrowed by them (Christian painters) from their singing regents (domestic), who, when managing the choirs, let the singers know about the variety of singing through the different formation of the outstretched hand, see Ducange in Glossar. Graecit. under the word χειρονομεῖν. In the Menology of Emperor Basil, two finger formations predominate: two-finger and cruciform (however, it is clearly cruciform only in some cases, in other cases it can be mistaken for a cruciform or for that oratorical finger formation, which is number 1 in Quintilian). We will talk about the first below now; As for the second, its use in the Menology should be understood in such a way that the painters who painted images for the latter take as a symbol to designate the faces of speakers the folding of the fingers, which in their time was used by bishops for blessing (which is precisely as a symbol, and not with the true meaning of the folding of the fingers for blessing, this is quite clearly seen from several images in which cross-shaped hands cannot be mistaken for the hands of the blessing: part I, pp. 63, 104, 123; part II, pp. 5, 56, 58, 91). – On the icon of the Annunciation, the Archangel Gabriel is usually depicted with a folded hand extended to the Mother of God: it is clear that the archangel does not bless the Mother of God, but preaches the gospel to Her (Luke 1:28: and the angel came to her and said: Rejoice, full of grace, the Lord is with you: blessed are you among women). And for those who are not completely clear about this, we will say that there are such ancient images of the Annunciation, in which the Archangel with a folded hand extended to the Mother of God, and the Mother of God with a folded hand extended to the Archangel, see, for example, this image from a 6th century manuscript in the edition of K. Trenev: Iconostasis of the Smolensk Cathedral of the Moscow Novodevichy Convent, M. 1902, p. 90, no. 66. Here it is already indisputable that the archangel and the Mother of God do not bless each other, but talk with each other. – More completely clear examples of the use of folded outstretched hands as a sign of the faces of speakers: a miniature of the 10th century depicts the visit of the prophet Nathan to King David: Nathan has a folded hand extended to David; the latter has a folded hand extended to the former, see Prokhorov in Book I of Christian Antiquities of 1862. In the Menology of Emperor Basil on September 23, an angel preaching the gospel to Zechariah with a folded hand (in the Uspenskys, p. 61). The fresco of the Kyiv St. Sophia Cathedral depicts the Great Martyr George and Queen Alexandra kneeling in front of him: the Great Martyr with his folded hand extended to the Queen, see gr. Tolstov and Kondakov in Russian Antiquities in Monuments of Art, vol. IV, no. 113, p. 138. – On the coin of the Nicaean Emperor Theodore Laskar, who occupied the throne from 1255 to 1258, the Savior is depicted with a finger formation of his right hand, consisting in the fact that one index finger is extended, and all the others are bent, – in Ducange in Familiae Byzantinae, p. 218. It is clear that the Savior, depicted with this sign, appears to be speaking (broadcasting the gospel), and not blessing (for the sign for blessing was cruciform). And therefore, even in the middle of the 13th century, the Savior was depicted not as blessing, but as evangelizing (speaking). Above we mentioned the personal life of St. Sergius of Radonezh, written in the second half of the 16th century and published in lithography in 1853. In the pictures of this life, the persons speaking are indicated by outstretched folded hands; The largest part of the finger formation is one-finger, which consists in the fact that the index finger is extended, and all other fingers are bent (as well as five-finger or all-finger, which consists in the fact that the hand is raised with all five fingers outstretched, see, for example, sheet 136 turnover sqq); but there are enough examples that speaking persons are indicated by double fingers or by means of a finger formation close to a cross, namely, a finger formation in which the finger is closed with the small middle finger, and the remaining fingers are extended (by means of double fingers: leaves 3, 5, 27, 67 revolution, 68, 145 and revolution, 154 revolution, 159, 162 revolution, 188, 190, 191 revolutions, 197, 216, 289 revolutions, 291, 334 revolutions, sqq; by means of a cross-shaped fold: sheets 25, 26, 103, 155, 226, 275 revolutions, 292, 327 revolutions). Consequently, even in the second half of the 16th century, speaking persons were designated in our country by means of a sign of the finger, identical with the double finger for the sign of the cross, and by means of a sign of the sign close to the cruciform sign for blessing. Between the frescoes of the altar wall of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, which date back to the second quarter of the 17th century and which were discovered during the restoration of the cathedral in 1882, there are images of the Venerable Varlaam the Hermit and Joasaph the Indian Prince. The Monk Barlaam, as a sign that he is teaching Joasaph, as can be seen from what is read on the charter in his left hand, is depicted with his right hand folded into two fingers and extended to Joasaph. In the Stroganov icon-painting facial original of the 17th century, published in 1869, we also find several examples of speaking persons being indicated by an outstretched and double-fingered hand, see September 23, November 8, December 10, January 1, March 25, August 2. We find the same thing in the drawings of the 18th century, see in the Collection for 1866, published by the Society of Ancient Russian Art at the Moscow Public Museum, section I, article by F. I. Buslaev: “General concepts of Russian icon painting,” figure 1, to page 10, “God rests on the seventh day.” (And on the icon of the Annunciation, the Archangel Gabriel, preaching the gospel to the Mother of God, as a sign of this last, and until the present, if we are not mistaken, time, is depicted with a folded hand). Our old Russian examples of the fact that in the same sacred paintings there are different folded hands, see the article by N.V. Pokrovsky: “The Last Judgment in the Monuments of Byzantine and Russian Art,” published in Volume III of the Proceedings of the VI Archaeological Congress in Odessa (1884), Odessa, 1887, after pp. 306 and 314. – A very large number folded hands, serving as a sign that the persons depicted with them are speaking, that is, they are represented and should be understood as speaking - in the essay by N.V. Pokrovsky “Essays on monuments of Orthodox iconography and art,” St. Petersburg, 1894. See Mansvetov’s essay: “Metropolitan Cyprian in his liturgical activity” for extracts from the Slavic charter of 1409, p. 83 fin., and Mark of Ephesus Explanation of church succession, in the Writings of St. fathers and teachers of the church relating to the interpretation of Orthodox worship, vol. III, p. 123. - Cfr Studio Charter of Patriarch Alexei in the Synodal Manuscript on the Description of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 380, sheet 253 ver. fin., that the monks made the sign of the cross on themselves at the end of their bows. How they are depicted in the Menology of Emperor Vasily. At Lambetius III, after r. 124 (Apostle Peter). In Analecta Vindobonensia Collara t. I, after p. 984. In addition to the two-finger, which we have just talked about, there is a two-finger that is completely identical with our later or with the current Old Believer two-finger, that is, in which the finger rests its cannon or its end on the cannons or ends of the small middle finger and little finger. – See the frescoes of the Savior-Nereditsky Church by Tolstov and Kondakov, vol. VI, nos. 159 and 160. In my atlas, on sheet LVI, Nicholas the Wonderworker in polystaur. In the Menology of Emperor Basil, the finger is folded - the finger is closed with the last two, the first two are extended: October 15, t. I p. 120 (Bishop Sabinus), October 19, Prophet Joel, December 9, t. II r. 17 (with one of the apostles), December 28, t. II r. 61 (Theodore inscribed), December 30, t. II r. 69 (Apostle Timon), January 2, t. II r. 78 (Pope Sylvester), January 19, t. II r. 119 (Theodore of Cyrene, not entirely clear), February 6 b. 167 (Vukol of Smyrna), February 9, t. II r. 177 (Bishop Pankraty of Tauromenia), February 13, t. II r. 186 (Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria), February 17, t. II r. 198 (Auxentius Bishop of Cyprus), February 20, t. II r. 204 (Sophronius Bishop), February 26, t. II r. 213 (Porphyry Bishop of Gaza). October 12, t. I, p. 112, recollection of the 7th Council, in the Assumption edition it is not clear, you can’t make it out). In Kondakov’s Monuments of Christian Art on Athos, p. 283, No. 97 (10th century). Also, for example, photographs from the miniatures of one Greek manuscript dating back to the 6th-9th centuries in the Collection of the Society of Ancient Russian Art at the Moscow Public Museum for 1866, section I, to page 86, No. 6. This double finger should not be taken as an ancient prayer double finger, used as a symbol of the faces of speakers, for the latter, as we indicated above (p. 474–475), should be represented differently, but as an independent symbol or as one of the independent types of finger formation, serving as a symbol of the faces of the speakers. That it is not a sign for blessing or prayer, but is one of the sign of the faces of the speakers, is evident from the fact that it is used in Western drawings and sculptures, where there were no Greek signs for prayer and blessing. See, for example, Pokrovsky in Monuments of Orthodox Iconography and Art, figures 19–20, 31–33, 35, 36, 42, 53–55, 57, 60; at Martigny p. 64, 288, 297, 334, 336 (Martigny’s remark about the folding of the finger as an oratorical gesture), 346 (the same), 537, 542, 568, 597. Since we do not find this double-fingered sign on pre-Christian iconographic monuments: we can think that it was taken by painters at a relatively later time from those singing the domestics we mentioned above. As for its identity with our later and with the current Old Believer two-fingered fingers, then perhaps the latter is a simple accident, or maybe the ancient prayer two-fingered hand was transferred from us to the later precisely according to its model (the symbolic icon double-finger). There were several finger folds to designate the faces of speakers, representing oratorical gestures: all of them were used arbitrarily by painters, so that on one icon there are several different folded hands, see above p. 499. This variety of finger-folded hands remained with painters even after they began to look at hands as blessings, until later times (later painters reproduced the most ancient painters, so that in later drawings, paintings, icons, a variety of finger-folded hands. This variety of finger-folded hands, coming from ancient times and remaining until later times, clearly indicates that folded hands serve as a sign of the faces of speakers, and do not represent hands blessing. If they were blessing hands, then the folding of the fingers on them was uniform, as it was uniform in reality. As for the variety of finger folding as a sign of the faces of the speakers, they reproduce a variety of oratorical gestures. We mostly use the books of Odintsov and Dmitrievsky [Divine services in the Russian Church in the 16th century, Kazan, 1884]. We raise questions when we don’t find direct answers in our sources. We also reproduce some of the uncertainty of the sources. The prayer book, which is inscribed in our breviaries (as well as in modern Greek): “Prayers for a woman in labor for fourty days,” consists of three parts: prayers for a woman in labor, and prayers for an unbaptized baby (in one of the prayers: “and grant her,” as a child, “in the time of need, and with water and the spirit of birth”: καὶ καταζίωσον αὐτὸ ἐν καιρῷ εὐθέτω ...) and from the rite of churching of a baptized baby. Prayers to a postpartum wife are supposed to be read on the 40th day after birth in fulfillment of the Old Testament commandment about the time of purification of women in labor (Ex. 12:2–4); since in later times it was customary to baptize infants on the same 40th day (see vol. 2, half, pp. 365/423), then the prayers to an unbaptized baby before baptism and the churching of a baptized baby are merged into one with prayers to the postpartum wife. But in case of illness, an infant can be baptized at any time before the 40th day, and, therefore, pre-baptismal prayers can be read to him at any time earlier. If the baby is not baptized in a church before the 40th day, he must be brought by the mother to the church for churching (and at the same time for communion) on this 40th day, but if he is baptized in a church (actually in the vestibule of the latter), then he is churched immediately after baptism. (In general, the reading of prayers to a postpartum wife does not depend on the time of the baby’s baptism, and the time of reading prayers to the latter and his churching is determined by the time and partly the place of his baptism). – (In the Izbornik of Svyatoslav, Description of the Synodal Manuscripts p. 373, Gregory the Theologian about not postponing baptism beyond 40 days. Baptism not before 40 days, - Lavra Izmaragd, No. 204, sheet 240 ver. fin. and sheet 241; Volokolamsk manuscript No. 541, sheet 226. Venerable Sergius of Radonezh was baptized on the 40th day - Epiphanius' Life, Volokolamsk manuscript No. 644, sheet 270 ver. fin.. The baptism of adults was postponed after their announcement, - 1 Sophia Chronicle, p. 223, 6850; 4 Novgorod Chronicle, p. 56; 1 Pskov Chronicle, p. 187. fin.). For the priest’s entry into the house of a woman in labor with prayer, see Scientific Notes of the Academy of Sciences book V, Description of the collection of the Belozersky Monastery, p. 5 fin.). From Kirik of Novgorod in the Questioning: “Make 4 prayers to him (the one being announced), and say something like that 10 times,” - in Pavlov’s Monuments col. 26, that is, it is prescribed to read ten times not only the three prohibitions themselves, but also the prayer that follows them (“He is the Master, Lord”). – Since Kirik prescribes reading the prohibitions ten times when pronouncing an adult Gentile, so in the breviaries and service books of our time, isn’t it supposed to be read ten times, and no less, only in this particular case, as we see later and what is discussed below? Cfr at Dmitrievsky page 279 sqq. But Metropolitan Kirill in the acts of the Vladimir Cathedral of 1274. says: “According to the announcement, anoint V17; (the one being baptized) with wood oil, saying: the servant of God anoint himself with the oil of joy in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and forever, Amen, on all joints,” - in Pavlov’s Monuments col. 93. Our ancient and old custom: after anointing with oil certain parts of the body of the baptized person, to anoint the entire last, rejected by Metropolitan Kirill in the acts of the Vladimir Council of 1274, perhaps arose from the misunderstanding that in the missals at the end of speeches about the anointing of certain parts of the body it was said, as they say now: “and when he anoints the whole body (i.e. all its known parts), baptizes him”... (Baptismal font - night, - Life of St. Sergius, sheet 30 ver.). Dmitrievsky, p. 241 sqq. [Monuments to A. S. Pavlov col. 93–95]. In manuscripts and from them in print it is erroneous: to one. Apart from the clarity of the error itself, cfr is the Greek original. – By prayers we should mean prayers of clarification or prohibitions. In Pavlov's Monuments col. 131 and appendices col. 7 start. In Pavlov's Monuments col. 254 (Volokolamsk manuscript in the MDA library No. 556, sheet 5 and back). In Pavlov's Monuments col. 240 fin. [Wed. col. 238]. Ibid. col. 274 fin., 283 fin., 416, 496 and 517. Regarding the pronunciation of words when immersing a baby in water, Photius is not completely uniform in all cases. In three cases he instructs to pronounce: on the first immersion “in the name of the Father”, on the second “and the Son (in the name of the Son)”, on the third “and the Holy Spirit”; in one case: “in the name of the Father..., in the name of the Son..., in the name of the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages, amen”; in one more case: “in the name of the Father, amen”..., and the Son, amen..., and the Holy Spirit, amen.” Ibid. col. 275, 284, 517. [Cf. col. 286–288 – Metropolitan Photius; col. 920 and 925 – in the holy teachings of the 16th century; col. 867 § 54 and 868 § 60 – in questions and answers of the 15th century]. Chapter 17, Kazan edition p. 108. Kazan edition p. 66 fin. and 101 fin.. In Minya Patrology t. 160, col. 137. We indicated two missals in vol. 2, half, p. 366 beginning/423. For an indication of many other service books and missals, see Odintsov, p. 259 and Dmitrievsky, p. 292, also Mansvetov in the study: “Metropolitan Cyprian in his liturgical activity,” p. 144 fin.. In Pavlov's Monuments, col. 55 § 16. Pointing out some evidence in favor of the opinion about the Latin influence on our baptism, Mr. Odintsov says that the denials of Satan were pronounced separately “like the custom of the Latin Church,” p. 147; but this was absolutely the case among the Greeks, see Dmitrievsky p. 279 sqq. [“Usually on the 40th day, if a child accidentally fell ill, they would bring him to church and baptize him, and he would be completely immersed in water three times; otherwise they would not consider him baptized.” Baron Sigismund von Herberstein Notes on Muscovite affairs, translation by A. I. Malein, St. Petersburg, 1908, p. 56]. One name was given before baptism, as it should be (and was called prayerful, - 4 Novgorod Chronicle under 1342), another name, probably, at baptism itself (at baptism, - Life of St. Sergius, page 19); the second name was given, as it seems, not by the priest, but by the parents themselves, for about the Grand Dukes Ivan Vasilyevich III and Vasily Ivanovich, the chronicle records express: the son Timofey was born to the Grand Duke Vasily (Vasilyevich), and named him Ivan... the Grand Duke (Ivan Vasilyevich) was born a son Gabriel, and named him the name Vasily of Pariysky (News of the Archaeological Society vol. IV, p. 529. Nikon Chronicle V, 153 fin.; VI, 108; Karamzin to vol. V, note 286 fin.). One name seemed to remain about the person who bore it, by another he was known in society (i.e. as if one name is about oneself, the other is ordinary); the latter was not in the proper sense ecclesiastical, given according to rank, but given by the parents (for it is said about the Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich that he was named Gabriel Timofeevich after his daily circumcision, - On the combination of a second marriage, the creation of Paiseino, - in Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1847 No. 8, beginning). The actual church name was given to the saint who was born after him (Ivan Vasilyevich III was born after the Apostle Timothy, Vasily Ivanovich after the Council of the Archangel Gabriel). - (Dmitry Konstantinovich of Suzdal, baptized Thomas, - Nikon Chronicle IV, 142; son of Prince Vladimir Andreevich Afanasy, nicknamed Yaroslav, - ibid., 157). We say almost because in Ryazan in the second half of the 14th century there was Prince Oleg (Grand Duke Oleg Ivanovich, who occupied the throne from 1350 to 1402), (baptized Jacob, - Nikon Chronicle, IV, 306). Cfr I vol. 2 half pp. 370/428; see Karamzin IX, 273 fin. (Names: Druzhina, Silence, Istoma, Failure, Master). (Hegumens as successors (Sergius, Nikon, - Nikon Chronicle IV, 299) contrary to the canons. The bishop's rite of infant baptism, - see News of the Academy of Sciences, vol. VI, p. 315. According to the Catholic, 1514, Russians, for lack of water, baptize in apple juice, - Monimenta Turgenevii t. I, p. 125, col. 2. At Epiphany, Russians baptize children on the river (who will die from the cold, is taken to heaven by the angels) - ibid. Both instructions are given by Kirik in Questioning, - Pavlov’s Monuments col. 33 and 55. In Pavlov's Monuments col. 93 fin.. In Odintsov, p. 260, in Dmitrievsky, p. 294. When anointing the forehead: “Let the cold persecute, which, having first transgressed, a person wears everywhere”; when anointing the face: “Let him see with unveiled face the glory of the Lord”; when anointing the eyes: “Let the eyes see the light of the Holy Trinity, the first image of goodness,” etc. - ibidd.. In Pavlov's Monuments, col. 495. (Under Metropolitan Varlaam they also received (as a gift, perhaps) - Historical Acts vol. I, no. 121, p. 175). Monuments to Pavlov col. 137, 236–238, 241–242, 250–252, 257, 259–262, 379–380, 919–921, 857, 859–860, 862–867, 869–871. Wed. Mansvetov Metropolitan Cyprian in his liturgical activity, M. 1882, pp. 142–144. The rites of confession with such lists received the name “renovations” in our country, - Dmitrievsky p. 340. (The later detailed rites of confession were called “renewed” because a person who confessed in great detail seemed to become a new (sinless) person, renewing...). From the 14th century, the rite of confession has been preserved, in which the confession itself is double: first the general one - sinfulness, then the private one - named sins, see Odintsov, p. 155. With full probability one should think that the first is an ancient way of confession, and the second is a later addition. In the rite of confession, adopted by John the Faster (but in reality, as one must think, does not belong to him at all), three examples of permission are given - in the Patrology of Min t. 88 col. 1896, cfr also Dmitrievsky p. 346 sub fin.. About the rites of the sacrament of repentance by Odintsov, p. 154 fin. sqq and 267 fin. sqq, in Dmitrievsky, p. 322 sqq. MDA manuscript from the end of the 15th century. (written by Ivan Volk Kuritsyn) No. 187, sheet 325 ver. fin. (containing the righteous standard, to which the ranks of ordination are attached at the end). – (Rites for the installation of a priest, presbyter, from the manuscript of 1225, - Tsarskaya No. 663, p. 709). Dmitrievsky page 353 fin.. The prayer that was recited in the old days when being ordained as a cleric is included in the current rite of ordination as readers and singers. According to a place that was accidentally revealed in a book, that is, read (examined) à livre ouvert, so to speak. Academic manuscript No. 187, sheet 326 fin., in Dmitrievsky, p. 355. – (The statute of how to elect and appoint a chanter or subdeacon to the saint, and their service. Beginning: It is fitting for a saint to elect and test with great consideration. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 500, sheet 346 verso; sheet 351 verso is mentioned Patriarch; singers sing in demism, sheet 359, turn 360). About the order of delivery in the 14th century. we read from Odintsov the following brief: “it differed from the present one in that the installation took place before the great exit, the one being appointed was brought to the bishop on a small felony and, while washing, the bishop said (one must think that it was not the bishop, but the one being appointed): “The Elites of the Faith,” - p. 157 fin.. In the rank, as translated from Greek, Greek names are used. Manuscript MDA No. 187, sheet 327 ver. This is the name of the chartophylax of the Greek original in the Slavic translation. Academic manuscript No. 187: “The deacon’s kissing happens: every time the deacon, holding his right hand, kisses him, and also each other in a row.” Odintsov, p. 158, MDA manuscript No. 187, sheet 329; Dmitrievsky p. 359. [Samples of letters issued to the deacon and protodeacon, see Pavlov’s Monuments col. 916–918]. Academic manuscript No. 187: “to Chartophylak, that is, to the guardian of books, who gave in to the saint.”... [Among the answers of the Patriarchal Council of Constantinople to the questions of Bishop Theognostus of Sarai we read: “Question. When did the priest cherotanisatis, from whom should the lamb be given to him; is it from the great lamb? Answer. It is not from the first priesthood of the newly-priested, but from those who are on the discos, and from those the lamb should be given to him.” Monuments to A. S. Pavlov col. 132]. Odintsov, p. 159, MDA manuscript No. 187, sheet 331 verso; Dmitrievsky p. 364. – [On the election of priests, see above, p. 77]. – (Scroll of legal ordination. “When the newly ordained priest has stood his lesson at the prefabricated church for 40 days, the bishop gives the scroll. Beginning: Behold, child, the Lord entrusts the holy service with terrible secrets.” Volokolamsk manuscript No. 500, sheet 364. Printed in Pavlov’s Monuments col. 101–110.) [Sample of the letter. assigned to the priest - see ibidd. col. Our rites have been preserved from the 14th century, but our information about it is very insufficient - Odintsov, p. 160 beginning. “They are preparing a servant who is already ordered to do this.” “On the church platform, whoever knows how to write, a single-headed eagle, with a wing outstretched, standing on its feet, and under its feet write a city from the fence and pillars, and the eagle will firmly step on those pillars with its feet.” “And so be careful not to set foot on anyone.” “He leaves his cell and goes to the church, the chanter who precedes him in his surplices and the cleric with the burning lamp of the saint, and all his clerics who follow him.” (St. Metropolitan Jonah was made metropolitan in Moscow and by his bishops because the Uniates occupied the patriarchal see in Constantinople; but it was not yet decided that this would always be done in the future. When, during his time as metropolitan, Constantinople was taken by the Turks (1453), the Russians immediately made this last decision. They had motives for this two families, which consisted, on the one hand, in eliminating the undesirable, and on the other hand, in order to satisfy his own claims. Just as the Greek emperor was the secular head of the Patriarch of Constantinople, confirmed him in his rank and assigned to him the distinctions (insignia) of the latter, so the sultan became the same secular head in relation to him and began to do the same, as a result of which the patriarch now turned into a slave of the Christ-hating busurman. But the Russians could not have a desire for their metropolitan to receive initiation from this Busurman slave - for the Busurman filth, which the Sultan communicated with his own hands to the Patriarch, to pass on to the Metropolitan, and that through the slavery of the Patriarch to the Sultan, they themselves, to some extent, became slaves of this hater of the cross of Christ. And the matter here was not just about abstract concepts and opinions, but also about tangible reality, for the Russian Metropolitan, who had to go - assuming that he would be elected at home - for initiation to Constantinople, owned by the Turks, would have to have direct relations with Turkish officials, in whose jurisdiction the patriarch and the church were, could be required for direct representations himself the Sultan, who could apparently arrange things in such a way that he, the Metropolitan, would seem to be as much his slave as the Patriarch himself, through which the Sultan could express some claims to supremacy over the Grand Duke himself. Thus, the Russians should have abhorred the idea of ​​their metropolitan going to Constantinople for consecration, after the latter had fallen into the unfaithful and nasty hands of the Muslim Turks, and should have found this impossible for very important and tangible practical reasons. Another and opposite impulse to desire that after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, our metropolitans would become virtually independent of the patriarchs of Constantinople, was for our ancestors in the view that appeared to them after the fall of Constantinople of their Moscow as the third Orthodox Rome, destined to protect the Church of Christ on earth. If after the fall of Constantinople Moscow occupied this high position in the Christian world, then how could its metropolitans remain dependent on the outside and receive dedication for themselves precisely where the enemy of the cross of Christ was installed? Our ancestors, in their opinion about the new high position of their state, should have desired the complete independence of their church, with the establishment of an independent patriarchate in it. But this last desire had not yet occurred to them. They did not go further on this path than the desire for the actual independence of their metropolitan from the patriarch. For the reasons we have indicated, the Russians decided to grant such actual independence from the patriarch to their metropolitan after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks. Initially, we did not want to independently assign actual independence to the metropolitans or the right to be supplied to them in Russia itself, and they turned to the patriarch with a request for this, and only, having not received satisfaction from the patriarch of their request, did they see themselves forced to act without permission. (Metropolitan Jonah made a request to Patriarch Gennady; that Gennady’s request was not satisfied is evident from the subsequent statement of Patriarch Dionysius. But it is necessary to think that the government was embarrassed by its self-will, that it saw or assumed disapproval of its behavior on the part of the Russians themselves (that St. Jonah, who was appointed metropolitan in Russia itself and without the permission of the patriarch, was not recognized by some Russians as a legitimate metropolitan, we know this positively from the story of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk about Jonah’s quarrel with Paphnutius of Borovsky), and it considered it necessary to justify yourself before Russian public opinion, and together give it the tone or direct it in the way you desire. It did this in such a way that, regarding the appointment of Ionin’s successor, Metropolitan Theodosius, it issued a copy, under the title: “The Word Selected from the Holy Scriptures, in Latin,” etc. (the title is very long), which is a kind of political brochure of official or official origin, which has as its goal and task to show that the Russians legally and for good reasons acted as they did (see. above pp. 212–213)... Metropolitan Gregory, installed by order of the pope, arrived in Lithuania in 1458 or 1459, and remained a uniate there for 11 or 12 years; it is unknown to what extent he was recognized by the Lithuanian-Russian Orthodox bishops; but in 1470 he decided to return to Orthodoxy and sent his ambassador to Constantinople to the Patriarch with an expression of his desire and with a request that the Patriarch recognize and confirm him in the rank of Metropolitan of Russia... When Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich learned that the Patriarchal Ambassador was going to Rus', he immediately convened a council in Moscow of bishops, archimandrites, abbots and the entire priesthood, and at the council it was sentenced not to allow the ambassadors of the patriarch and Grigoriev into the Moscow land and to have the patriarch himself, without caring about his blessing or unblessing, “a stranger from himself and renounced.” In 1474 or 1475, Patriarch Raphael of Constantinople, either having been bribed or executing the orders of the bribed Sultan, installed a candidate, a certain Tver monk named Spyridon Satan (a very smart and dexterous adventurer and probably rich), as metropolitan of Lithuania, in the place of the deceased Gregory, a self-proclaimed candidate not asked by the Lithuanian Russians. When the Moscow Russians learned about this appointment, they feared that the patriarch and the sultan would not decide to impose their metropolitans on them, and against the possibility of this, Moscow took the measure that in the so-called voluntary (actually: promising in the sense of: to give an obligation) letters that were given by the newly installed bishops to the metropolitan, a formal obligation was included not to accept metropolitans, initiated in Constantinople, as having lost - it was implied - Orthodoxy. Spiridon arrived in Lithuania, endowed with the rank of metropolitan by the patriarch, in 1476, and in the licentiate letter to Metropolitan Gerontius of Tver, Bishop Vassian, installed on December 6, 1477, it reads: “and to Spiridon, called Satan, who sought in Constantinople appointment, in the region of the godless Turks, from the filthy king, or whoever another metropolitan will be appointed from Latin or from the Turk region, I will not approach him, nor will I have any association or connection with him.” See Pavlov in Monuments col. 683, note 2). “They lift it under the sinuses and insert it.” At the dinner, the newly installed bishop stood taller than all the bishops; after dinner, first the Metropolitan took the bread of the Mother of God, according to which the newly ordained bishop and the other bishops, then returned the panagia (platter of bread) to the newly ordained one and he gave everyone the Most Holy bread. The rite of dedication according to manuscripts of the 15th century (and according to the text relating to this century) is printed in Pavlov's Monuments, col. 438 sqq, according to a 16th century manuscript. expounded by Dmitrievsky, p. 368 sqq (the Synodal manuscript of the latter is in the Description of Gorsky and Nevostruev, No. 377). See N. Krasnoseltsev "On the history of Orthodox worship. Regarding some church services and rituals that are no longer used, Kazan 1889, pp. 11–26. Compare Archpriest Nikolsky On the services of the Russian Church, which were in previous printed liturgical books, St. Petersburg, 1885, pp. 1–44. About walking around the city, see Collected Chronicles III, 275. “A letter to be given to the priest when he is appointed archpriest,” - Monuments of A. S. Pavlov, col. 914–915; here is “the word of the saintly science to the archpriest”, col. 915]. (The rite performed for the work of an iconomer or a cellarer. At the stroke of the service tree, the abbot and the brethren enter the church. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 500, sheet 323). (The ancient rite of betrothal, see News of the 2nd branch of the Academy of Sciences, vol. No. 4, p. 57). Dmitrievsky p. 382 sqq. Odintsov p. 283 fin., Dmitrievsky p. 402. Chapter 19, Kazan edition p. 111. Chapter 20, Kazan edition p. 112. In Pavlov's Monuments col. 95 beginning and 99 fin.. Ibid. col. 142, cfr. above [first half of volume pp. 93–94]. In Pavlov's Monuments col. 274 subfin. and 283 sub fin.. In Pavlov's Monuments col. 273, 279 fin. sqq [Wed. col. 252–253, 282]. Ibid. col. 273, 279 fin. sqq., 513 fin.. In Pavlov's Monuments col. 272, 279, 512 fin. [Wed. col. 161]. Ibid. col. 511 (also 432 beginning). Ibid. col. 605–606 [Cf. col. 595 and the first half of the volume pp. 495–497]. [Monuments of Pavlov col. 876]. Historical Acts vol. I, no. 97, p. 141 col. 2. Ibid. No. 112, p. 168 col. 2 [Wed. in the holy teachings of the 15th century, Monuments of Pavlov col. 917–919, 923–924]. [Monuments of Pavlov col. 858 § 8, 861 § 25, 867 § 59, 868 § 63 and § 64]. Chapter 10, Kazan edition p. 110. Chapter 23, Kazan edition p. 116. Chapter 41, question and answer 16, Kazan edition p. 178. [Russian Historical Library vol. VI, pp. 12–13]. [Examples of princely marriages in degrees of kinship and property prohibited by church laws are given by Nevolin (according to Karamzin) in the History of Russian Civil Laws, Part I, p. 192, note 658 (1857 edition)]. – (Mikhail Vsevolodovich Chernigovsky’s son Roman married his daughter to Vladimir Vasilkovich Volynsky, - Ipatskaya Chronicle p. 569; and Mikhail’s brother Andrey married Vasilka’s daughter, - ibid. p. 562). [Cm. letter of Patriarch Niphon of Constantinople to Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich Tver in the Russian Historical Library, vol. VI, pp. 148–149]. [How our spiritual hierarchy in general during this period treated the Byzantine church laws that established certain obstacles to marriage can be seen from the well-known conciliar act, which recognized the validity of the fourth marriage of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich. From a canonical point of view, this concession is, of course, more significant than the decision to not dissolve a marriage concluded in the 6th or 5th degree of relationship and property]. In monasteries - monastic cells, see Dmitrievsky p. 412. Odintsov, p. 165 sqq (“Service to Holy Oil”, see News of the Academy of Sciences, vol. VI, p. 320). Odintsov, p. 285, Dmitrievsky, p. 407. Dmitrievsky p. 413. (According to the Catholic of 1514, Russians look at the blessing of oil as a cure for illness, and not for sins - Monimenta Turgenevii t. I, p. 125 col. 2). Dmitrievsky p. 412 beginning. [Krasnoseltsev On the history of Orthodox worship, Kazan 1889, pp. 80–103]. See Description of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 374, sheet 112 ver. In Pavlov's Monuments col. 518. Ibid. col. 859, § 15. [Cf. col. 858, § 11]. Odintsov, p. 292 fin. sqq. In Pavlov's Monuments col. 134. In Pavlov's Monuments col. 245, 250 and 251 [Cf. col. 257–259. In the canonical question-answers, belonging to an unknown person and dating back no later than the 15th century, the question-answer reads: "Should I put the deacon in a verse, and the priest in vestments? Is there a need for a caliga? - According to the old days, as there is a custom." Monuments to Pavlov col. 866 § 46]. Pavlov has 108 and 245 [Cf. Metropolitan Photius on the burial of those who died in vain, through sin, and at their own hands - ibid. col. 379]. And now a remark is being read here - in Greek euchology: μετὰ ταῦτα μνημονεύει, ὤ ν βούλεται, ζώντων καὶ τεθνεώτων; in the Slavic service book: “he also remembers what he wants, the living and the dead secretly.” See Collection of antiquities of the Kazan diocese by Plato Lyubarsky, published by the Orthodox Interlocutor in 1868, page 67. That is, the manuscript is a braided part of the original (original) manuscript. That is, the tradition of the head (founder) of the monastery is more binding for the latter than the charter. That is, the lesser priest reads the senanik, while the elders read the list. Theodosius of Pechersk and Leonty of Rostov were probably first canonized as local saints: the first - of the Pechersk Monastery and the Kyiv region, the second - of the Rostov region. They became common saints: Theodosius, probably even before the Mongol invasion, and Leontius, probably after the invasion. (Service to Metropolitan Peter on December 21st, written by Metropolitan Cyprian, - Volokolamsk manuscript No. 634 (according to the new catalog No. 218), sheet 200 verso; Lavra Trinity manuscript No. 264, sheet 148. Service for the bringing of the relics of Metro Peter, August 20, - Volokolamsk manuscripts No. 375, sheet 391 ver.; No. 382, sheet 279. Word of praise to Metropolitan Peter. Beginning: This, brethren, is a luminous festival, in the Novgorod Sophia manuscript No. 1500, sheet 58, see Chronicle of the activities of the Archaeographic Commission, issue 3, section III, p. 93). – On the life of Metropolitan Alexei, compiled by Pachomius, see Degree Book, Part I, pp. 472, 478. Services to Metropolitan Alexei: Volokolamsk manuscript No. 634 (according to the new catalog No. 218), sheet 133, for repose, February 12; sheet 152, on the discovery of relics, May 20; sheet 157 ver. Eve of Metropolitan Alexei for the discovery of relics, Volokolamsk manuscript No. 372, sheet 64 ver.; death service, February 12; service for the discovery of relics, May 20, sheet 119. – The eve (for repose) of Metropolitan Alexei was outlined by Pitirim, Bishop of Perm, see the Life of Pachomius. Metropolitan Eugene, Dictionary of Pisatt. spirit. h., canon Pitirim wrote in 1433, refers to the Degree Book p. 445). (Cf. Zhmakin, Metropolitan Daniel, p. 214). From the letter of the Patriarch of Constantinople John Kaleki to Metropolitan Theognostus, with permission to canonize Metropolitan Peter, it is clear that Theognostus asked the patriarch for permission to canonize his predecessor on the basis that he was glorified after death by God and revealed as His true servant, since great miracles were performed from him and all sorts of illnesses were healed - in Pavlov’s Monuments, appendices col. 11. For these reasons, our saints could have been canonized in the pre-Mongol period. But people do not always have ideas very quickly, and they do not always apply them to action immediately. Life of Metropolitan Jonah, see above [page 182, page 183 and page 186]. ↓ Until the 15th century, the right of local canonization belonged to our diocesan bishops (in 1439, Archbishop of Novgorod Evfimy Vyazhitsky established a local celebration in the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral for the builder of the latter, Prince Vladimir Yaroslavich and his mother, - 1 Novgorod Chronicle under our year), but in the 16th century we see this right belonging only to himself metropolitan (Makariy Kalyazinsky and Paphnuty Borovsky were established by Metropolitan Daniel to celebrate locally, and if Borovsk belonged, perhaps, to his own diocese, then Kalyazin did not belong). – (Local celebration before canonization, – History of the Hierarchy IV, p. 771). In the Laurentian Chronicle under 1263. p. 455, cfr article by I. I. Malyshevsky (“When and where the celebration of the memory of St. Vladimir was first established,” published in the Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy, 1882, book 1). In Karamzin to volume V, note 254, col. 99. In Moscow, the lists of the Patericon of Pechersk came from two Kassianovsky lists, about which see I volume 1 half of pp. 634/764. - (The service to Anthony of Pechersk was written by Pachomius Serbin at the behest of Archbishop Jonah of Novgorod, - Description of the Lavra Manuscripts, No. 617, p. 914). Klyuchevsky, p. 23 note. Under 1448 Isaiah is indeed not yet mentioned as a saint, see Historical Acts vol. I, p. 87, col. 1 and Pavlov's Monuments col. 538. Macarius VIII, 34, note 2. (Archbishop Vassian, in his letter to the Grand Duke on the Ugra, written in 1480, prayerfully remembers Isaiah, together with Leonty, as the great Rostov miracle worker - Collection of Chronicles VIII, 213). 2 Sofia Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 184 fin. (story about the miracle itself ibid. p. 320 fin.). Macarius IV, 259 fin.. – (Memory of Prince Mikhail of Chernigov as a holiday, - in the 15th century Lavra Obikhodnik by Archimandrite Leonid, p. 17). In the story of the miracles of St. Nikita, there is a later story that Metropolitan Photius had special faith in him and tried to discover his relics - Klyuchevsky p. 46. Laurentian Chronicle under this year, page 461. Academic Chronicle under this year, p. 502. Macarius VIII, 38 fin., Klyuchevsky ibid... In 1448 Metropolitan Jonah in one of his letters prayerfully commemorates the Monk Sergius together with the holy wonderworkers Peter (Metropolitan) and Leonty (Rostov), ​​- Historical Acts vol. I, No. 43, p. 87 col. 1; in 1463 A church was built in Novgorod by Archbishop Jonah in the name of St. Sergius, - 2 Novgorod Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles III, 141. Acts Historical vol. I No. 43 (Makarius VIII, 40). These are the saints of the Followed Psalter of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, written in 1481, see about them in the Right Reverend Macarius, in History VIII, 40 note. In these Saints, complete in volume, there are only eight Russian saints: Vladimir, Boris and Gleb, Theodosius of Pechersk, Leonty of Rostov, Metropolitan Peter, Sergius of Radonezh and Cyril of Belozersky. Metropolitan Gerontius in his charter of 1480. to the Grand Duke on the Ugra makes it known to some extent that Alexander Nevsky was canonized as a local saint before that, for, together with the prayers of other Russian miracle workers, he calls on the sovereign to pray for him (“and the relative of your holy elder, Prince Alexander Nevsky,” - Historical Acts vol. I, no. 90, p. 138 col. 1. For the quotation see above on page 587. Even Metropolitan Pimin is included in the lists! (At the council of 1547, Macarius canonized those saints whose lives and services were known to him, see his Novgorod Menaions. And at the council of 1549, he canonized the saints whose lives and services were later found on behalf of the council of 1547. Cfr Klyuchevsky’s Life p. 222. In the life of Michael Klopsky says that the purpose of the Makarievs’ many canonizations was to show that the Russian Church abounds in saints, Readings of the Society of Spiritual Enlightenment 1878, I, 420–421). That the celebration of Niphon was established by Macarius, see at the end of his life, in Monuments of Ancient Literature by Kushelev-Bezborodko, IV, p. 8 col. 2 fin.. In some lists of the life of the Monk Martinian, one reads a story about the establishment of a celebration for him and his teacher Ferapont, which says that the celebration was established by the council of 1549 (Klyuchevsky Lives, p. 273 beginning); but since Ferapont and Martinian are not in the lists of saints canonized by the councils of 1547 and 1549, it seems most likely to think that they were canonized some time after the second council. In the calendar, located in the manuscript of the MDA, former Volokolamsk, No. 362, the entries are read: under July 20, unfinished, without indicating the name of the saint or saints: “in the summer of 7061 they began to celebrate” (sheet 220), and then generally under the dates of the month of August, on the bottom margin of the page: “in the summer of 7061 they began to celebrate Peter 29” (sheet 222 revolution). July 20 is celebrated to the Russian saint - Abramius of Chukhloma; but he was canonized only in 1621. (Reverend Macarius XI, 63). By unknown Peter we must mean the Tsarevich of Ordynsky because there is no one else to understand, since the other two Russian saints bearing the name of Peter - the Metropolitan and the Prince of Murom - were already canonized (there is also a third Peter - the wonderworker Kamensky, see the Historical Dictionary of Saints, but he is local). Tsarevich Peter is celebrated on the 29th day not of the month of August, but of June (on the day of his angel), and the matter should be understood to mean that the scribe made an entry under the first month instead of the second due to an oversight or mistake. – (Two editions of the life of Tsarevich Peter Ordynsky were published by A. A. Titov in issue 1 of the Yaroslavl hierarchy. Yaroslavl, 1901, pp. 28 and 36). Acts of the Expedition vol. I No. 213, p. 203 col. 1. Stoglav chapter 4, Kazan edition p. 43 sqq. (That “the establishment of a celebration of a famous saint at the councils of 1547 and 1549 was not conditioned by the existence of a life and a canon that could be sung and read in church on the day of his memory,” as V. O. Klyuchevsky claims, - Lives of the Saints p. 223 fin., and in which we disagree with him, despite all our recognition of the merits of his wonderful book, this is clear: firstly, from the fact that at the council In 1547, some saints who still had no lives and canons were canonized, and, on the contrary, saints who already had lives and canons were not canonized; secondly, from the fact that some saints who had lives and canons were canonized not for a general celebration, as would be expected according to Klyuchevsky, p. 226, but for a local one. There is no information about the time of writing the services, at least half or more. even more than half of the saints canonized at the council of 1547 for the general celebration (of which there are at least 11, and at most 14), and there is no doubt that most of the services unknown in time of their origin were written after the council of 1547. Before the council of 1547, there were lives and services of: Euthymius Archbishop of Novgorod, Stephen Bishop of Perm, the venerables: Euthymius of Suzdal, Savva of Vishera and Euphrosynus of Pskov, and however, they were not canonized at the council of 1547, but were canonized already at the council of 1549: this must be understood in such a way that, despite the existence their lives and services to them, the Metropolitan verified their right to canonization as miracle workers only through a search carried out after the council of 1547. Bishop Arseny of Tver was canonized at the council of 1547, confirming for a local, and not a general, celebration, despite the existence of his life and service. It is impossible to assume that the life of Arseny and his service remained unknown to the metropolitan and the cathedral, for the Bishop of Tver was present at the cathedral, and it is necessary to understand the matter in such a way that Arseny was recognized as not a great enough or famous miracle worker in order to be canonized for the general celebration. On the other hand, we know examples of the fact that representatives of the church authorities themselves wrote or commissioned the writing of canons and troparia with kontakia for uncanonized saints. So, Patriarch Job instructed Prince Daniil Alexandrovich to write a service; Bishop Alexander of Vyatka (1657–1674, † retired in 1678) wrote a service to Loggin of Koryazhemsky, - in Veryuzhsky, p. 486 fin.; Metropolitan Korniliy of Novgorod (1674–1695, † retired 1698) wrote a canon to Martyriy Zelenetsky, the founder of the Trinity Zelenetsky Monastery, which is located in the Novoladozhsky district of the St. Petersburg province, who died on March 1, 1603 - History of Hierarchy IV. 166 fin.; St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov, wrote a troparion and kontakion to Cornelius of Pereyaslavl, who labored in the abolished Borisoglebsky Pereyaslavl Monastery, on Peski, and died on July 22, 1693, see Klyuchevsky, p. 349, note 2. There are known examples of services and troparions written by recently deceased people who had not yet had time to become venerated dead or for whom there could be no hope for this at all - in general, people who, according to modern concepts, should be honored with laudable church or secular words, but not with services and troparions. The Novgorod Archbishop Jonah commissioned Pachomius Serbin to write a service to Metropolitan Jonah either the next year after his death, which followed on March 31, 1461, or even in the very year of his death, as the life of the archbishop says: “after the Dormition of the Venerable Metropolitan Jonah, Archbishop forced Pachomius, also of the Holy Mountains, priest, write off the succession of his memory and the service of the canon to the holy Metropolitan Jonah, knowing his virtues, for this reason his memory canons are mailed, equally with the saints,” see in Monuments of Ancient Russian Literature by Kushelev-Bezborodko, issue IV, p. 33, col. 2. In later times, the work of saints and the writing of canons, - Chistovich Feofan Prokopovich pp. 522, 541. On the unauthorized composition of services and canons under Peter, see ibid. p. 101). (The following were canonized before the discovery of the relics: St. Theodosius of Pechersk, Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich of Tver, Metropolitan Peter, Moses, Archbishop of Novgorod, Savva of Zvenigorod, Maxim, the holy fool of Moscow, Alexander Svirsky, Nil Stolbensky. The following were canonized some time or another after the discovery of the relics: Isaiah, Bishop of Rostov, Prince Vsevolod-Gabriel of Pskov, Prince Roman of Uglich, Evfimy of Suzdal, Stefan Makhrishchsky, Arseny, Bishop of Tver, Savvaty of Solovetsky, Varlaam of Shenkursky or Vazhesky, Martinian of Belozersky, Herman of Solovetsky. The relics were not discovered: Anthony of Pechersk, Demetrius of Prilutsky, Cyril of Belozersky, Nikon of Radonezh, Dionysius of Glushitsky, Joseph of Volokolamsk, Cornelius of Komel and most of those many saints about whom the expression is used that their relics are hidden, which expression in most cases means that the relics were not discovered (and in a minority of cases it means that the relics were discovered, but are now again hidden or hidden again). – That the incorruptibility of bodies without miracles was not and is not recognized as proof of the holiness of the dead, let us point out an example that represents evidence of this, dating back to the end of the 15th century. In the month of August 1479, on the occasion of the transfer to the newly built Assumption Cathedral, the body of Metropolitan Philip, who died 6 years and 5 months ago, was found incorrupt: for 12 days the body was not buried, apparently in anticipation of whether miracles would follow from it; but miracles did not follow, and despite the incorruption, it was buried after 12 days - Resurrection Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VIII, 203). But that the common people imagined the relics as nothing other than whole, completely preserved bodies (and that sometimes, to the detriment of the truth, they were taken into account with their ideas), see 2 Sophia Chronicle, - in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 196. - (Relics - bones: Bychkova Description of the collections p. 396. In the tomb of the relics, the head and arms and legs and all human likeness according to custom, - only de bones, but there is no flesh on them - they have decayed, and the top of the bones has turned black, like mold,” Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities, 1890, book 1, Mangazeya Wonderworker, page 5 beginning. Among the Greeks, the removal of the remains of the dead from coffins. Answers of Patriarch Nicholas (Grammar, who from 1084 to 1111) to the questions of the Athonite monks, in which about the Athonite custom of removing remains and from which it follows that this custom did not exist in other places, were printed by Manuel Gideon in Κανονικαὶ Διατάζεις, vol. I, pp. 9–16 about the custom - pp. 14–15). Chapter 41, question and answer 5, Kazan edition p. 168. Belograd is Akkerman, lying on the Dniester at its confluence with the Black Sea (The Greek colony located at the mouth of the Dniester, which was called on behalf of the river Tiras, the Romans, after conquering Dacia, renamed this Alba to Alba Juliä through the translation of the word and called the Slavs Belograd, and Akkerman is the Turkish translation of the Slavic name. The Life of John of Belograd, written by Gregory Tsamblak, was very often in our manuscripts - Stroeva Biblical Dictionary, p. 70. In the legend about the icon, Gorodets is called Kitezh. In the legend he is given the nickname Kvashnya. See Archpriest P. Ostrovsky [Historical description of the Kostroma Assumption Cathedral, M. 1855, p. 1 sqq.] and his Historical notes about Kostroma and its shrine piously revered in the Imperial House of the Romanovs, Kostroma, 1864. page 10 sqq. (The legend about the appearance of the icon is known from manuscripts of the 17th century, - Stroeva Bibliological Dictionary, p. 354). [Regarding the legend about the Tikhvin Icon of the Mother of God, see F. I. Buslaev in Historical Sketches of Russian Folk Literature, Works of F. I. Buslaev, St. Petersburg, 1910, pp. 278–281]. The legend about the appearance of the icon was published by Archimandrite Leonid in the Russian Archive in 1881. book 2 (cfr Stroeva Bibliological Dictionary, p. 352 fin., Bychkova Description of Public Library collections p. 12 fin. and 173 sub fin.) [and in the book “The Glory of Our Most Holy Lady Theotokos”, M. 1853, part II, pp. 76–84. Wed. Months of Saints by Archbishop Dmitry, July, Tver 1901. pp. 143–144; Assumption V. priest. Historical note about Okovtsy and revealed icons, Rzhev, 1876. The Okovtsy Icon of the Mother of God is also called Rzhevskaya]. See above [first half of the volume pp. 331–333]. (The celebration of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God on the 23rd day of June, established in 1480, makes us assume that the icon was brought from Vladimir: this 23rd day of June, on which the celebration was established, was obviously a significant day in relation to the icon; but since Akhmat fled from the Ugra not on June 23, but on November 7, there is no other significance than the fact that on June 23 the icon was brought from Vladimir to Moscow cannot be assumed). – For legends, see Stroev in the Dictionary, p. 350 and Bychkov in the Description of Collections, p. 77 fin. (Cf. Lavra manuscript No. 321, sheet 992, Descriptions p. 99). Karamzin VII, 66. For legends, see Stroev ibid. page 350 sub fin. and Bychkov ibid. page 35 fin.. The story, written under Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible after 1569 (after being at the see of the Metropolitan of St. Philip) by Prince Yuri Ivanovich Tokmakov, was published in Monuments of Ancient Russian Literature by Kushelev-Bezborodko, IV, 180. See Semenov's Geographical-Statistical Dictionary under the words: Vydropusk and Balakhna. According to the story, the icon is still in Vydropusk. The only evidence that we can point out at the present time is that Suzdal Archbishop Dionysius in 1382. brought from Constantinople along with the “Passion of the Savior”, about which now, the relics of many saints - Nikon Chronicle IV, 131; Resurrection Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VIII, 48. – To our sovereigns, including, however, those later in our time, the Greeks themselves brought so many particles of relics that currently there are 32 arks with them in the sacristy of the Moscow Annunciation Cathedral, – Snegireva Monuments of Moscow Antiquity, p. 93, col. 1 fin.. Nikon Chronicle IV, 131 and 299 fin.; Resurrection Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VIII, 48 and 74 fin. (In the Degree Book about the Ark). In Moscow, “The Passion” is kept in the sacristy of the Annunciation Cathedral. About them in Snegirev's Monuments of Moscow Antiquity: in the sacristy of the Annunciation Cathedral, by the way, there is kept "a cruciform ark containing the Passion of the Lord, silver with niello images. Its four cloaks under glass contain: 1) the aromas with which the body of Jesus Christ was anointed, 2) part of a non-sewing robe of the Lord, 3) the lip with which the lips of Jesus Christ were watered, 4) His blood, 5) part of the tombstone, 6) part of the robe of the Virgin Mary, 7) hair from the braid of Christ, 8) the stone from the pillar to which the Savior was tied, 9) the crown of thorns (part?), 10) part of the false purple, 11) blood from ribs of Christ, 12) a stone from the board on which the body of Jesus was laid, taken down from the cross, 13) part of the reed with which they beat Jesus, 14) His tunic, 15) a stone from the manger, 16) the spices brought by Martha and Mary,” - page 92 col. 1, § 3. From the inscription on the ark (which is called not an ark, but a reliquary) it is clear that it was built (for the “divine passions of the great God our Savior Christ”) by the Suzdal prince Dmitry Konstantinovich in 1383, ibid.. - In Constantinople, according to the assurance of our pilgrim clerk Alexander, the Passion of the Savior was all in the Mangan monastery, about which see Ducange in Constantinop. Christ., lib. IV, p. 124. Nikon Chronicle IV, 278. Nikon Chronicle IV, 129 (One of the Hodegetrias brought by Dionysius of Suzdal burned in the Moscow Ascension Monastery in 1482 - Collection of Chronicles VI, 234). In the sacristy of the Nizhny Novgorod Cathedral there is kept a small icon of the Mother of God Hodegetria, having 4½ inches in length and 3½ inches in width, which is taken for our copy brought by Archbishop Dionysius, see Monuments of Church Antiquities in the Nizhny Novgorod Province of Archimandrite Macarius, p. 43. But either this last is doubtful or ours says a complete lie pilgrim Stefan of Novgorod, who calls the original icon the Great Velmi. Currently it is in the altar of the Moscow Annunciation Cathedral and from one miracle she performed it is called “myrrh-streaming,” - Archimandrite Joseph’s Guide to the Shrine of Moscow. Gregory Mamma speaks about this disagreement even in the middle of the 15th century (and at that very significant one and testifying to the dominance of almost complete arbitrariness) in one of his apologies against Mark of Ephesus, in Min in Patrology t. 160, p. 140. All three fasts are prescribed by Metropolitan George, see I volume 2 half of pp. 400/463; only two fasts prescribe the observance of three unknown to us by the names of the compiler of teaching words, see Description of the Synodal Manuscripts Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 230, sheet 253 and No. 232, sheet 226 verso and in Pavlov’s Monuments col. 123 (Instruction on three fasts, - Filaret Archbishop of Chernigov Review p. 71 fin.). In Pavlov's Monuments, col. 139 sqq and 514. This post is already mentioned in Kirik’s questioning - in Pavlov’s Monuments col. 52 fin., § 4. At the time we are considering, it is confirmed by Metropolitans Cyprian and Photius, - ibid. col. 253, 378, 517 beginning. (On the time of the appearance of fasting among the Greeks, see Mansvetov’s study: Metropolitan Cyprian in his liturgical activity, p. 200). In Pavlov's Monuments col. 141. In Pavlov's Monuments col. 414. In Pavlov's Monuments col. 597 [Wed. 1 half volume pp. 499–500]. For the late appearance of this post among the Greeks, see the indicated book by Mansvetov, p. 198. In Pavlov's Monuments col. 253. Ibid. col. 378 (The manner of expression of Metropolitan Cyprian in the instructions about our fast to Abbot Athanasius makes it clear that in his time - Cyprian’s time and in other places in Russia, except for the Pskov region, they fasted on the eve of the Exaltation; he says that we should observe fasting “on that very (Exaltation) day” - ibid. 253. Paraskev or Paraskevius in our calendar there are four: the Roman martyr, sister Photina the Samaritan - March 20; Venerable Martyr - July 26, Venerable Serbian (Epivatskaya) - October 14, and Great Martyr Iconium - October 28. Our own Paraskevia, called Friday, which is especially revered by the people and about which there are folk legends, is the latter. In Pavlov's Monuments col. 135, Q&A 19. Ibid. col. 139 [and the first half of this volume pp. 92–93]. The answer given by the Council of Constantinople to Bishop Theognostus does not completely agree with the Rule of Metropolitan Maximus, which must be explained either by the fact that it was not given in full detail, or by the fact that it was not written down in full detail, or, finally, by the fact that we have faulty lists. It does not contain: about the permission of fasting from the Nativity of Christ to St. Basil's Day, about leaving the Midsummer Wednesday to the will of the people and about weakening fasting on these holidays. In Pavlov's Monuments col. 516 fin.. See Nikon Montenegrin at Rally and P. IV, 591. For what argument in favor of Monday fasting is given by pious people in Greece, see Pidalion, in the note to the 69th Apostolic Canon, Zakynthos edition p. 93, col. 1 fin.. In Pavlov's Monuments col. 516. Ibid. col. 253 (In the pre-Mongol period, some or many of us considered it a given to fast on the day on which they kissed the cross, and precisely, as it probably should be implied, on the small consecration of water. Kirik of Novgorod was given two contradictory answers to his question about this: one, that not to eat cheese and meat; the other, that to eat everything, including meat, - ibid. col. 52, § 4 fin.). You might be interested in: