Review of the book by I.I. Dmitrevsky “Historical, dogmatic and mysterious explanation of the Divine Liturgy”

See also: Historical, dogmatic and sacramental explanation of the Divine Liturgy. Based on Holy Scripture, the rules of the Ecumenical and Local Councils, and on the writings of St. Church Fathers I.I. Dmitrevsky The historical, dogmatic and sacramental explanation of the Divine Liturgy is based on Holy Scripture, the rules of ecumenical and local councils, and the writings of St. Church Fathers, compiled by Ivan Dmitrevsky. Newly revised and corrected with drawings by Academician F. G. Solntsev with the appendix “Book of the Church” by Simeon, Metropolitan of Thessalonica. St. Petersburg. Book by I.I. Dmitrevsky, which was first published at the very beginning of the current century, was received very sympathetically by contemporaries, as shown by the list of “names of persons who signed the prenumbering for the receipt of this book,” attached by the author himself to the 1804 edition. Subscribers included bishops, princes, merchants, priests and ordinary people. They ordered not just one copy of this book, but 500 (for example, Theophylact, Bishop of Kaluga and Borovsk) and even 900 copies (for example, Xenophon, Bishop of Vladimir and Suzdal). Such an unprecedented success of this book was facilitated, on the one hand, by its exemplary literary and scientific merits, the fruit of the author’s twenty-five-year labors, aimed at “gaining a thorough and clear understanding of those sacred actions that our Orthodox Church performs in the offering of a bloodless sacrifice,” and, on the other hand, his holy “sole intention and desire to bring soul-saving benefit to the sons of the fatherland and the Church” “to turn into soul-helping edification of the children of Christ's Church." Our fathers were all literally brought up on this book by Dmitrevsky, very many of our contemporary clergy know it, and therefore we will not talk about its internal exemplary merits, known to everyone, we will not touch upon the wonderful fate of this book, which will be the subject of our special article, but we will only say a few words about its latest edition, made by the famous St. Petersburg bookseller I. L. Tuzov. Whenever you have to pick up a book whose author has long been dead, such as the author of the book we are examining, who died on April 2, 1829, and encounter the words “newly revised and corrected” printed on the cover in bold type, you involuntarily ask yourself the question: whose daring hand dared to draw red lines through someone else’s work and dot it with additions and corrections, about which Maybe the author never thought, but, on the contrary, perhaps he really valued something, and then put the work of this or that author into circulation in the public in this form? Perhaps, we think, often in such cases, if the author looked at his work “corrected” by someone, he would gladly remove his name from it and forever abandon his disfigured brainchild. Of course, we do not in the least rebel against real and necessary corrections when, for example, a book, during the life of the author, for whatever reason, could not see the light of day in its original form, or at the end of the author’s life, under his own pen, suffered changes and additions that remained in the author’s portfolio, but all these additions and corrections should be made by masters of this matter, specialists, and certainly according to the manuscripts and draft plans of the author himself, so as not to impose on him such thoughts that would never did not occur to him. At the same time, we would like the posthumous publishers of a particular book to indicate in the preface exactly what they corrected and supplemented and on the basis of what data. In the text of the book itself, such additions can be noted either in a special font, or through notes under the line. In this case, some foreign posthumous publications can be taken as a model. With this type of publishing, the reader can calmly pick up a book, in full confidence that it belongs to the person whose name appears on its cover, and not to some other anonymous person, perhaps rented from the Apraksin market, and therefore having no idea what he has to deal with. In general, we are against all kinds of “arbitrary corrections and additions, not based on anything and, moreover, anonymous, without indicating who they belong to and where in the book they should be looked for. These additions and corrections, in our opinion, not only do not increase the scientific significance of the book, but, on the contrary, distort its meaning, spoil the harmonious logical flow of thought, put the reader in a difficult position with references to something that is not in the book, and, finally, through various omissions they snatch from the reader the main thread along which one can only trace the entire process of the scientific work of the actual author. Applying everything that has just been said in relation to the book by I. Dmitrevsky, published by I. Tuzov, we must say that it suffers from all these shortcomings. We are absolutely perplexed why, for example, the publisher Tuzov distorted the current “Notice about the Author”, which preceded I. Dmitrevsky for his translation of “The Book of the Church” by Simeon of Thessalonica. “Here,” says L. Tuzov, in this “pre-notification” two translations of his (i.e. Simeon of Thessaloniki) explanation of the liturgy are offered (by whom?): one in Slavic, the other in Russian. The Slavic translation literally corresponds to the Greek original (which one?), in Russian it retained only its meaning” (p. 303). We refuse to understand completely. Why did Mr. Tuzov need a Slavic translation of this work by Simeon of Thessaloniki and where did he get it from? We understand even less his Russian translation of this book, “where, according to the frank consciousness of the publisher, only its meaning is preserved,” when the Russian reading public already has a translation of all the works of Simeon of Thessaloniki, made by the St. Petersburg Theological Academy back in 1857. The situation is completely different in the book of I. Dmitrevsky himself and, moreover, at the beginning of the current century, where, moreover, very reasonable grounds are given for this application, omitted in Tuzov’s book. “He (i.e. Simeon of Thessalonica) left many useful works,” says I. Dmitrevsky in the preface to the 1815 edition, including the following book about the church, and an interpretation of the liturgy, which he wrote at the request of the pious inhabitants of the island of Cyprus, having collected it from the writings of the ancient holy fathers, as he himself explains in it (see below in the interpretation of his number 6, 9 and 60). The translation of his interpretations is supposed to be twofold: one Slavic, word for word out of respect for this ancient teacher, and in order to see the property, the strong and thoughtful contraction of his syllable, the other paraphrastic, purely Russian; for the clearest understanding of his thoughts (since the original syllable, as said, is short, constrained and meaningful, not many words contain many sacraments, and therefore it is difficult to understand), which was derived from the Hellenic-Greek text printed in the Euchologia (Prayer Book or Breviary), published from Goar, where some places relevant to the disputes between Eastern and Western The churches (as, for example, about the consecration of gifts in the words of the establishment of the Eucharist, etc.) were abandoned, and therefore they, as polemical, are not present here. For this entire book, in all its parts, contains only the dogmas professed by the Orthodox Eastern Church, without mentioning other opinions that do not agree with it, as incorrect and contrary to Orthodoxy, which, by the evidence given here of the ancient centuries of the Church of Christ, being exposed in their novelty and distance from the sound (intact) teaching of the faith, fall by themselves and are being destroyed." From this quote you can see what a huge difference there is between the “advance notification” of I. Dmitrevsky himself and the “advance notification” of I. Tuzov. As much as the first is frank, rich in facts and thorough in its arguments, the second is superficial, false and unsubstantiated. The first frankly says that polemical treatises and tendencies are omitted, and the second claims that “the Slavic translation literally corresponds to the Greek original.” In the first, the original is called by name, and the second leaves it to the reader to find out which “Greek original” it was that served as the original for the Slavic translation of Simeon of Thessalonica’s book “On the Church,” appended by I. Dmitrevsky to his real book. And we can assure the reader that with that system of “silencing and deliberate distortion of the author’s thoughts, one can be sure that the “Greek original” for the book published by I. Tuzov would never have been found. In I. Tuzov’s edition, the connection between the book and the appendices is almost non-existent, or, rather, it exists, but it is so weak that it can easily be broken, destroyed in the book itself, in references to the book of Simeon of Thessalonica “On the Church” the word “below”. In Dmitrevsky’s own publications, the connection between the book and the appendix is ​​the closest; the presence of the latter in the book makes up for everything that, in the author’s opinion, is “omitted” in the book, and without which it would suffer from incompleteness. “Until now,” says I. Dmitrevsky in the 1816 edition, the historical explanation of the divine liturgy has been continued. In this explanation, some rites that are especially appropriate before the hierarchical service, although omitted, are included, as the only mysterious ones, in the following interpretation of the liturgy of Simeon, Metropolitan of Thessalonites, where they are explained in detail, and which begins immediately here” (p. 209). As a result of the destruction of this paragraph (147) in Mr. Tuzov’s edition, the connection between the appendix and I. Dmitrevsky’s book became incomprehensible and elusive for the reader. Having completely arbitrarily cut the “pre-notification” to the detriment of scientific interest and breaking the connection between the appendix and the book, I. Tuzov even more unceremoniously, with his inexperienced pen, destroys the very interesting and fundamental in archaeological scientific terms notes to the book “On the Church” made by I. Dmitrevsky. Thus, on page 331 to chapter 37 for the word trikirium we do not find a note about the time of its establishment. “This wise interpreter (i.e., Simeon of Thessaloniki), notes I. Dmitrevsky, in the book on the sacraments in chapter 224 about the work of the patriarch, shows that the trikirium, or triluminary lamp, is an image of ancient Christian bishops. When electing candidates for the rank of hierarch, they had the custom of lighting three candles before the image of Christ in honor of the Holy Trinity and to ask themselves for Divine enlightenment in the matter of election. This ancient holy custom came into use in subsequent centuries, so that bishops, having been elected to the rank of hierarchs, began to give a trikirium in the performance of every sacred rite, with a three-light lamp, especially when giving a blessing (see in the church dictionary under the word trikirium). So, trikirium means the tri-radiance of the Holy Trinity in the Divinity, and dikirium in the incarnate Son of God, two united natures and shining together in our enlightenment (see above numbers 36, 37). Nevertheless, three and two candles signify our five feelings, requiring enlightenment for good deeds. See Slinger on question. 42 in the answer (ed. 1816, p. 32 under the letter a). In the 1804 edition of Dmitrevsky’s book, the following remark is made to the word miter in chapter 31 (now p. 326): “Theodore Balsamon, Patriarch of Antioch, in reflection on the book guardian (λαρηθόλαξ) and the first defender (προτέκδικοξ) The Church of Constantinople writes that Saint Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, was the first to place a golden cap on his head when, at the third ecumenical council, he took precedence in the place of Celestine, Pope of Rome. Why was the pope himself exalted with what decorations (according to the legitimation of Equal-to-the-Apostles Great Constantine, given from him to Saint Sylvester at the time when he brought the scepter of the kingdom from ancient Rome to the reigning city, by which legitimation the great Sylvester, and the bishops of Rome who would follow him wore a golden diadem on their heads, with the same decorations and Saint Cyril, in his image, himself decorated, from that time on, the clergy who followed in Alexandria, in eternal memory of this incident, even to this day are decorated with the title of the pope, and all perform sacred acts with uncovered heads, one Alexandrian patriarch serves, having his head covered with his crown, although above under §§ 43 and 98 (now pp. 35 and 71) it is said that the apostles of the Lord. James, the brother of God, and John the Theologian wore a withered crown (πέταλου) on their heads, like priests of Jesus Christ, but this does not contradict the above testimony of Theodore Balsamon about the beginning of the establishment of the bishop's miter in the church. For after these apostles, that any of their successors or the bishops who followed until the time of Saint Sylvester and Cyril of Alexandria would wear a miter on their head is not mentioned in any church writer. From this it follows that after these apostles this custom ceased, and it began again in the west under Saint Sylvester, but in the east under Cyril of Alexandria, from there and to other countries of the world it came” (ed. 1804, p. 40). But if the omission of these two notes deprives the reader of the pleasure of knowing how the author explains the antiquity of the origin of the sacred liturgical accessories: miter, dikyri and trikyri, then the destruction of other notes speaks of extreme negligence and sloppiness of the publisher and makes the reader distrustful of the present edition. The fact is that among the omitted notes there are those that are directly referenced in I. Dmitrevsky’s book itself. On page, for example, 206, note 56 reads as follows: “See below in Simeon’s interpretation of the number 50 and the note on it,” across the sheet, on p. 209 in note 64 it says: “See below § 107 (?) and in the Commentary of Simeon under note number 50,” etc. The reader, however, would search in vain for these notes. The inexperienced publishing hand destroyed them, not suspecting that by doing so it had betrayed itself to the readers. In the 1816 edition, both of these notes are found, “before the beginning of the confession or Creed, when proclaiming the words: doors, doors! the first of them says that the curtain hanging at the royal doors is taken away, which makes it clear that the faithful 1) can freely enter the Holy of Holies and hear the sacraments of the faith; 2) that from their minds there is darkness of ignorance (which the infidels have), as if the veil must be taken away; 3) so that they make a declaration of their faith directly before the very throne of the living God (since in the ancient churches the royal doors were not hung (Foreknowledge. § 64), and those present after the opening of the veil could openly look into the altar). This understanding is based on the words of St. Apostle Paul to Heb. Chapter 10, Art. 19–25. The same is confirmed by St. Patriarch Herman in the secret vision of church things: the veil is called, according to the apostle who says: for we have boldness to enter into the holy place, etc.” (Article 44 note a). “According to other interpreters (except Simeon of Thessalonica), this elevation of the air, says another note, means the height of the teachings of the Orthodox faith (Vulgarius in interpretative liturg.). The Holy Patriarch Herman, in the secret view of church things, says that the vibration of the air over honest gifts symbolizes this coward, when the white-bearing angel, descending from heaven, rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. Therefore, this cover means the stone that Joseph placed over the door of the tomb of Christ (see above in the introduction. § 85 and in the explanation. § 80). Others think that this trend means the carrying of the Holy Spirit over the abyss, when the Creator of creatures intended to create various things of production from the mixing of waters with dry land. This opinion most closely corresponds to the reading of the Symbol, in which the first dogma of God represents the Creator and Almighty. And like all sacraments, they were and are being performed by the influx and action of the Holy Spirit (see. above § 107), then it is fitting for the intention of the church itself, according to (above § 91), from this exaltation and fluctuation of the veil to ascend with its understanding to the overshadowing of the Spirit of God and its action. During the reading of the Symbol, the bishop bows his head on the throne, thereby testifying to the subjugation of thought and his zeal for the confession of faith and, as it were, burying Christ in His tomb, which mysteriously marks the throne (see above §§ 20 and 80 and in this interpretation, numbers 13 and 14) and the antimins lying on top of it (above in the introduction § 86. Publ. 1816, Moscow, p. 44, 45 note 6). In order to completely finish with the book of Simeon of Thessalonica “On the Church”, added to Dmitrevsky’s book as an appendix, we must note that the Slavic text of the book “On the Church” in the edition of I. Tuzov is guilty of many typos, omissions of words, deviations from the original in the publications of I. Dmitrevsky himself, in the disclosure of titles, in spelling, in the arbitrary use of Slavic nasal sounds, which alien to the publications of I. Dmitrevsky himself, etc. From the appendices we now move on to the book itself by I. Dmitrevsky, published by I. L. Tuzov. And here, as in the appendix, publishing shortcomings come to the fore even more clearly. And here we come across omissions of notes, anonymous paragraphs and quotes, omissions in the text of the book, etc. Treating on page 83 § 85 “about the cover called air” and saying that it “overshadows and covers both vessels (i.e., paten and chalice) and thereby protects them,” I. Dmitrevsky makes 396 a statement in the following form: “See. below in the explanation § 91 in the note". We find § 91 on pp. 208, 299 and, instead of the note that interests us, we read the following fictitious note: “See below § 107 and in the interpretation of Simeon under the number 50, note.” Further verification of the quotation turns out to be impossible, since I. Tuzov omitted the note under the number 50, as we noted above, due to an oversight; in § 107 he says nothing about the meaning of the breath of air over gifts, which in the 1816 edition of I. Dmitrevsky himself is contained in the note to § 91 under the letter b (p. 110), but that in Tuzov’s edition too omitted, but treats “the beginning and reasons for the calling of the Holy Spirit to the sanctification of gifts” (p. 233). In § 135, according to Tuzov’s edition, the author talks about the reason why, when putting a particle into the chalice, the verses are read: “Having seen the Resurrection of Christ,” “Shine, shine,” etc. and refers to it like this: “See. above § 132" (p. 274), and the said paragraph responds with a note under the letter d: "See. below § 135" (p. 267). Such examples as we have just given, where the publisher makes his readers spin like a squirrel in a wheel, not foreseeing where the end of this game will be with the words “lower”, “higher”, etc. etc., we can indicate dozens in Tuzov’s publication. But in this same book there are also such curious anonymous quotes that, based on the information in them, the reader completely refuses to understand whether they are the publisher’s idle invention or proofreading falsehood, or, finally, really necessary quotes? For example, let’s open the book by I. Dmitrevsky in Tuzov’s edition on page 263, where the author talks about the antiquity of the ritual of elevating the body of Christ while proclaiming the words “Holy to Holies.” Saying that “in the early church, when there were no altars and altars, like today’s, and the celebrants performed ceremonies on a “wooden table” placed in the church, the author makes the following reference under the letter g: “See. above in the advance notice § 15.” The quoted paragraph in the same publication is on page 17, we open it and, to our surprise and displeasure, we see clearly that in § 15 “about a wooden table” or throne there is not a single word said. What does this dream mean? you ask in bewilderment and, having saddled yourself with the proofreader, who, in all likelihood, often suffers “innocently,” you are about to close page 17 when you suddenly have the idea to consult one of the old editions of this book. You take the book of the Dmitrevsky edition of 1804, look for § 130 and see a link to § 15. Read again the paragraph familiar to you from the edition of Mr. Tuzov, which in the 1804 edition reads like this: “At the end of the prayers, on the established table (for altars and thrones (callout - Origen against Kels) for the sacred rite the current one had not yet been invented), offering bread and a cup of wine, following the example of Jesus Christ, etc. (p. 31), and it becomes clear to you as daylight that from the author himself the quotation that interests you makes sense and is correct, but in I. Tuzov’s edition, due to the destruction of the words we underlined in § 15, it is a curiosity and editorial negligence. It is also completely incomprehensible to us on what basis and for what reasons Tuzov changes the text of I. Dmitrevsky’s book and thereby positively snatches the most interesting data from the reader’s hands, by which one can judge what the author of this remarkable and in many respects exemplary book used, even in a scientific sense, as well as what influence he was under in one or another period of his literary activity. In I. Tuzov’s edition, the treatise or, rather, the note “on spiritual communion, the importance and benefits of it” (p. 277) is very significantly shortened and changed from the original, and yet it even presents curious and interesting biographical material for the author’s personality, we are no longer talking about its interest for the reader. “When the holy gifts are shown and those present are called to communion with the deacon’s voice (i.e., with the fear of God), then, says I. Dmitrevsky, how much pious Christians should feel regret in their hearts and mourn within themselves the betrayal and cooling of the fervor and zeal of the ancient Christians, who at each holy liturgy, according to this voice: “Come with the fear of God and faith,” approached and partook of this immortal meal. We stand unresponsive to this voice calling us to this life-giving meal and the calling of the church remains unsuccessful. “Ole custom! ole enterprise! St. complains Chrysostom speaks of the great cooling of Christians, the tuna is an everyday sacrifice, the tuna stands before the altar, no one else is the one who receives communion” (Conversation 3 on the message to Ephesus.) However, if anyone present at the liturgy has not received communion, has a good desire and pious intention to receive holy things, he will not be deprived of the fruits of this sacrament for that sole intention. For a pious person can enter into spiritual communion with Christ every day and hour in a salutary way. No matter how many times he sacramentally receives communion and is invisibly satisfied, so many times he piously remembers the mystery of the incarnation of Christ, His passion and resurrection and is inflamed with His love (Thomas a Kempis, book 3, chapter 10). For this reason, at this time, when the holy mysteries are shown to people and those present are called to communion, every faithful, falling to the ground in the face of the Lord his Savior, should be inflamed with sacred zeal with the ardent desire to strive in spirit towards Him, as to the source of life and immortality, in order to receive Him into oneself mysteriously, unite with Him into one spirit and never be separated from Him. This spiritual communion is of great power and importance and often brings no less fruit and grace to others and the very communion of the sacraments. For the sake of everything possible, the faithful should not at all abandon in the liturgy the zealous desire for this spiritual communion; in order to ask for this gift, it is fitting at this time for everyone to read this verse: “Give quick and known consolation to the servants of Jesus”... (Ed. 1804, p. 241, note by A. Slic. - ed. 1884 p. 277, note n). Publisher I. Tuzov in vain omitted the name of Thomas a à Kempis, which clearly shows who speaks through the mouth of our author, not only in this case, but in many others. Quite a few other paragraphs and notes were changed by the publisher, for example: §§ 91, 77, 96, etc. And here, as in the appendix, some very interesting archaeological details are excluded. In the 1804 edition, for example, the following note was made about the antiquity of the origin of the handrails: “Church writers tell about the beginning of the handrails that they were originally nothing more than an oblong and narrow cloth placed on the hands, or worn in the left hand to wipe away tears from the eyes, from the face, sweat, and phlegm. “The priest places on his left elbow the recommended strap or sir, with which the ancients wiped off sweat and phlegm” (Robert. Mensh. on the official church. book 1, chapter 51; Oporius, book 1 chapter 208; Ivo Korput in a word on the meaning of clothes; Steph. Eduensky on the sacrament of the altar). After this, these canvases, as well as other priestly vestments (§ 67 now 75), began to be clothed at the edges with gold fringe and other decorations, from which they became incapable of wiping the eyes and face. The Church, abandoning their previous use and giving them a different form, capable of strengthening the hands of the clergy in their labors, determined, when laying them on, to read the above words,” i.e., “Thy hands have made me,” etc. (p. 71, note 6). This is where we end our consideration of the factual side of this book in I. Tuzov’s edition, frankly admitting that we are far from exhausting all its publishing mistakes and errors; but we think that what we have said is quite enough to send some advice and wishes both to the publisher himself and to his regular consumers and readers - “our Orthodox clergy.” We completely agree that if any, then it is this book by I. Dmitrevsky that needs a new, carefully reviewed edition. Having suffered. As we are documented, there were very significant changes in plan and reductions in the text and notes “on the part of the spiritual censorship established in Moscow by a member of Abbot Gennady,” during the first edition, I. Dmitrevsky’s book then, during the author’s lifetime, was constantly published with new additions and changes. Thus, when publishing this book in 1816, the author writes: “a new edition of all previously former embossings, in good working order, supplemented with many additions to the subjects of the liturgy, and enriched with philological, historical, theological, sacramental and moralizing notes,” in the 1823 edition: “edition of a new embossing 3, all previously in good working order, with many additions to the subjects proper liturgy, especially in the hierarchal service with the difference from the priestly rites performed, supplemented by philological, historical, ... enriched, etc. All this clearly indicates that the author, even after the publication of his book, constantly worked on it, very significantly supplementing and changing in many very important parts of it. That is why the edition of this book in 1804 differs significantly from its publication in 1816, and this last from the edition of 1823, etc. Therefore, it is the lot of the current editor of this book, a man undoubtedly educated theologically and well acquainted with the literature on the history of Christian worship, to have a thorough acquaintance with all, without exception, studies of this book that came out during the lifetime of its author, in order to publish the book on the basis of this acquaintance Dmitrevsky certainly in its entirety and complete form. In this case, it does not hurt to take into account the manuscripts of Dmitrevsky himself; they can give, as we know from personal acquaintance with them, valuable and interesting notes. It would be good if the original plan of this book, which was not approved at one time by the captious censorship, was restored. It goes without saying that at the beginning of the book there must be a mandatory preface and in the book notes from which edition these or other treatises are taken. At the end of the book, articles should be added: “showing the memorable things found in this book” and “writers cited as evidence in this book, with an indication of their years in which they were.” These articles were intended by the author in the first edition of this book and are in his manuscript known to us, but why they were not included in his book remains a mystery to us. However, the second article is in the 1804 edition of his book, but it is no longer in subsequent editions. Thus, if I. L. Tuzov really wants to “be in constant readiness, without delay and searches on all sides, to satisfy the most diverse demands of the clergy and secular people for theological books,” if he really intends to “develop and bring to possible impeccability the trade in spiritual publications” and thereby maintain confidence in his store, “which has prior experience in the book business” (Catalogue book. magician I. L. Tuzova. St. Petersburg 1883, p. 1), then he, without any doubt, will react to our desire “with precautionary readiness and strict conscientiousness,” the motto that I. L. Tuzov outlines at his bookselling company, and with the next edition of Dmitrevsky’s book, and it should be in the very near future, to entrust its editing to a person who is quite experienced and competent and will not spare material costs for this. “The success of each enterprise,” says I. L. Tuzov at the beginning of his catalogue, depends on the degree of attention that is invested in the enterprise” - this is an immutable truth, but in the publishing business it is also necessary to be able to find experienced people who can take on editorial responsibilities, which is what this edition lacks and why it turned out bad. We consider it our moral duty to recommend to our clergy that they should not be carried away by the drawings of this book, which, at the same time, it should be noted, with the exception of two or three, absolutely do not have any scientific or archaeological interest, and in some cases are even incorrect (see page 77 image of the polystaurium. Compare the same image in the edition of 1804, p. 71, 1816, p. 70) 1 and would not waste 2 rubles in vain. 50 k., price for this edition of the book. For those who wish to have a book by I. Dmitrevsky, which for its exemplary merits should be a reference book for every priest, we advise purchasing, and much cheaper, editions of this book, either 1816 or 1823, as the best, in our opinion, editions of it, published under the direct supervision of the author himself. Some of the drawings in this book are taken entirely from the book of Archbishop Veniamin of Nizhny Novgorod “The New Tablet”, published by I.L. Tuzov also this year. You might be interested in: