Novgorod miter hats

Miter 1 is now an integral head adornment of our bishops during divine services, but, as a liturgical accessory of the highest rank in the hierarchy, it is a phenomenon of relatively late times. True, in archaeological science attempts are being made to place the time of the appearance of this liturgical accessory in deep Christian antiquity, and they want to see its prototype even in the faded head with which the first hierarch of the Zion Church, St. Apostle James, brother of the Lord, but the miters of our time and even earlier have nothing related to the withered or turban of St. apostle neither in form nor in decoration. Throughout the history of the Christian church, it is difficult to establish even even a weak connection between the Jewish withered and the medieval crown of the Byzantine Emperors, which served as the prototype of the episcopal miter. However, regarding the origin of our episcopal miter in the archaeological literature, opinions are not entirely stable, and they are based on facts of very dubious reliability. Among the monuments of our hoary antiquity, three mitres are carried out by tradition in the 11th-12th centuries: one 2 is located in the Novotorzhsky Borisoglebsk monastery of the Tver diocese and is considered to belong to the Monk Ephraim, archimandrite and founder of this monastery (§ 1053), and the other two belong to the sacristy of the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral (which were at the exhibition of the Novgorod XV Archaeological Congress, see Table X, 1 and 3), of which one was allegedly worn by St. Nikita of Novgorod in the coffin from 1108–1558, and the other is even considered a “grand-princely” hat 3. But all this factual data is unconvincing, and it is quite difficult to draw any conclusions on them. Firstly, about the miter of St. Ephraim, Archimandrite of the Borisoglebsk Novotorzhsky Monastery, it can be directly stated that it is of later origin (which is not contradicted by the most general descriptions of it), because archimandrites in the Orthodox East still do not wear mitres, and here in Russia some of the most revered monasteries began to award archimandrites with mitres only in the 16th century 4 . Secondly, the Novgorod miter, in the form of a blue grodetour cap, trimmed with ermine fur, now completely moth-eaten, with small crosses embroidered in gold on a blue field and two cherubim and seraphim with the inscriptions: “cherovim”, “seraphim”, and allegedly lay on the head of St. Nikitas from 1108 to 1558, i.e. until the time of the discovery of his relics, cannot be attributed to the 12th century. In the year of the discovery of the relics of St. Nikita, in his coffin, by the way, a staff of three honeysuckle sticks, with three carved apples and carved on a walrus ivory, with which its crossbar and upper part were decorated, were found, located at the same exhibition, images of many saints, including St. Peter of Moscow, Leontius of Rostov, etc. Sergius of Rodonezh 5 . It is clear, therefore, that we cannot attribute this belonging to the episcopal rank, which strangely ended up in the tomb, to the time of the burial of St. Nikita. It would be more correct to consider this staff a monument of the 15th-16th centuries. and the fruit of the zeal of either Archbishop Euthymius II of Novgorod (1429–1458), or even Archbishop (later Metropolitan of Moscow) Macarius (1526–1540) 6 . The miter that occupies us should also be attributed to approximately this time, which is not contradicted either by its shape in the form of a cap or by the inscriptions existing on it. As for the other hat, which is considered the “ancient grand ducal or bishop’s hat of Novgorod,” it has very little in common with the mitre caps mentioned above. This second Novgorod hat is wooden, round in shape, lined with scarlet satin, with Deesis embroidered on it in gold and silver silks, with two angels and cherubs, trimmed with ermine fur at the bottom and crowned with a gilded wooden cross in a wooden circle 7. By all indications, this is a monument of the 17th century and was included among the bishop’s mitres due to a misunderstanding. But, despite the lack of solid factual data, the extreme unreliability of those already published, science, however, firmly holds the opinion of the antiquity of the origin of the miter as the episcopal head adornment. The compilers of “Antiquities of the Russian State”, at one time well-known names in historical science and archeology (Solntsev, S. Stroganov, M. Zagoskin, Iv. Snegirev, A. Veltman and Olenin), directly state that “among the hierarchical distinctions, the miter from ancient times (?) in our fatherland served as an adornment not only for bishops, but even for some archimandrites” (sic!). Based on the above doubtful factual data, these scholars express an even more strange judgment on the issue of the shape of the bishop's miter. “While in the Christian East, under the domination of the Latins and Mohammedans, the external differences of the hierarchical rank underwent changes, say the learned compilers of the Antiquities of the Russian State, the Russian Church, under the Mongol yoke, kept them inviolably, in the form in which (sic) they were received from the Byzantine Church” 8. Professor-Academician E.E. Golubinsky did not go further in his judgments on this issue, expressing an idea, not without wit and some credibility, about the origin of the ancient Russian episcopal miter in shape. Bearing in mind the shape of our ancient episcopal miter and the name of it as a cap even in the modern bishop's Official, he in his “History of the Russian Church of the Pre-Mongol Period” about the “head covering” of our bishops during divine services “in ancient and old times” writes the following: “It was customary (has become a custom) for our bishops to serve not in every skufya, but to have deliberate ones for this purpose, it is for worship that they are appointed, skufy. Since the skufia were removed from the head during the service, in order not to place them flat and flattened, which is not very representative, but to put them on, they began to make them (the liturgical skufia) on a hard lining, so that they took the form of caps. They began to make caps from expensive materials, decorate them with simple ornaments and icons, and thus special liturgical caps appeared among our bishops, which were then enlarged to the size of caps, and these first caps, then caps, are our current miters. Skufi, converted by placing a hard lining into caps, remained as such, i.e. small caps, until the end of the 16th century (for example, the miter of Patriarch Job, 1595 in the Moscow Patriarchal Sacristy); after that, they were somewhat increased in size and, while maintaining the skuf-like shape, became caps, as they began to be called” 9. However, no matter how witty the above considerations of Academician Golubinsky are on the issue of the origin of the episcopal miter, we cannot agree with these arguments and considerations and stand on the position that the miter, as the head liturgical decoration of Orthodox bishops, is a phenomenon of later times and completely unknown to ancient Christian practice. This is confirmed with convincing certainty by the fact that ancient Christian painting, preserved to our time, is completely ignorant of images of saints in mitres. The only exceptions in this regard are the Patriarchs of Alexandria (Athanasius and Cyril) and the Bishop of Trimythos Spiridonius, who have on their heads the first two dark-colored headbands 10, and the second kind of low cap 11 or skufeika, furrowed on the outside with dark stripes. Even on our relief images of St. Nicholas of Mozhaisk made of wood, we can rarely see his head decorated with a miter, and if sometimes there is a miter on his head, then it constitutes a later addition that is not contemporary with the origin of the statue. We also do not know episcopal miters in the Orthodox East before the 16th century. The miter-crown of the skeuophilakia monastery of St. Athanasius of Athos, associated in the legend of the named monastery with the name of the monastery’s ktitor, the Byzantine Emperor Nikephoros Phocas (963–969), and Academician N.P. Kondakov 12 dates back to this time. This is quite natural. All the most ancient rites of ordination for bishops of the Greek, Byzantine, South Slavic and our Old Russian churches that have come down to us are completely silent about the placing of the miter on the head of the ordained bishop. Even the contemporary rites of ordination for bishops of the Greek and Russian churches do not talk about this, and in our country, where the laying of the miter is associated with the rite of elevation to the rank of archimandrite, the silence is considered quite natural, and in the Greek church it is explained by the existing view that the miter does not belong to the episcopal rank and is given only to express special honor to the one standing in the church cathedral. In the East, during the service of the patriarch, the other bishops and metropolitans who serve him do not wear a miter. And during divine services, the metropolitan differs from the other bishops standing before him by also wearing a miter-crown. The newly ordained bishop receives the miter from the head of the upcoming bishop at the end of the liturgy, before the singing: “Be the name of the Lord,” when he goes, according to accepted custom, to the throne to distribute the antidoron to the people, and when the rest of the bishops, with the upcoming one at their head, are stripped of their sacred vestments. Miters are mentioned only in our ranks of ordination for bishop, metropolitan and patriarch of the 16th-17th centuries, sometimes associated with the names of certain historically famous persons 13 , and the ranks of southern Russian liturgical monuments that have survived to us 14 . The great expert on the liturgical rites of the Greek Byzantine church, the writer of the 15th century, Simeon of Thessaloniki gives us the clearest indications that even in his time not all bishops adorned their heads with mitre-crowns. Answering the question: “why, except for the Patriarch of Alexandria, do bishops and priests serve with their heads uncovered, and that it is better to serve with their heads uncovered,” he writes the following: “with their heads uncovered, all eastern hierarchs and priests, with the exception of the Patriarch of Alexandria, perform sacred acts not out of any humiliation, but according to the most sublime and especially sacred word, which The God-speaking Paul offers as a teaching, calling Christ our head, and us His members, and that those who honor our head Christ should have their heads open during prayer. And not only for this reason, but also because the person being ordained accepts ordination on an open head, and must thus pray and perform sacred acts as he was ordained. The hierarch in particular, since the one being ordained has at his head the words given to God, i.e. The Holy Gospel, and no other covering should be placed on the head at the time when the Most Divine (Mystery) is performing the sacred rites. But perhaps someone will say: the Patriarch of Alexandria, who has a sacred veil on his head (ἱερόν ἐπικάλυμμα), and very many others, according to ancient tradition, are not acting ungodly? I do not say this, for those who act in this way (as an excuse) have an ancient tradition, but it is better - the most legal. In fact, the legitimate (Old Testament) bishop wore a mitre (κ ί δαριν) on his head, which he also called a miter (μ ί τραν), just as the bishops who put it on like to call it (οἱ περιτιθεμένοι ἱεράρχοι τοῦτο φιλοῦοι καλεῖν) (i.e. currently). Perhaps they have it in the likeness of the crown of thorns of the Lord or the sovereign who was on His head. But, however, since they also take off their miter at the most important times of sacred rites, this shows that the tradition of Blessed Paul is more important, for the image of the crown of thorns is depicted by cutting the hair on the head of the initiates, when making the sacred seal... It is more important, of course, to pray and perform sacred acts with an open head, and this should not be neglected, especially in the most important times” 15. In his answers to Gabriel, Bishop of Pentapolis, Simeon of Thessaloniki once again returns to the explanation of why the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Pope of Rome perform divine services in a miter, and other bishops with an open head, and indicates for the first - the basis for imitation of the attire of the Old Testament high priest and in the permission of the 3rd Ecumenical Council, which allowed him to wear it on his head due to illness. “gold faded” or miter, for the Pope - in the chrysobulus or deed of gift of Tsar Constantine to Pope Sylvester, and again proves the advantages and importance of the custom of performing divine services for bishops with an open head 16. The notorious Jacob Gohar, who lived for a long time in the 16th-17th centuries. in the East and who has comprehensively studied the practice of the Greek Church, directly says that Greek bishops “do not wear mitres” 17. Our traveler to the East at the beginning of the second half of the 17th century, Elder Arseny Sukhanov, describing the consecration of Metropolitan Neophytos of Bethlehem in Jerusalem, testifies: “but the patriarch did not give him a sakka and a hat, because all the metropolitans serve in sakkas, and with the patriarch in vestments, and no one has a hat in private, and no one dares to wear it except the patriarch.” 18. “The metropolitans were all in saccas,” says Arseny Sukhanov in his description of the patriarchal service on Good Friday, but they were all without hats; no one except the patriarch wears hats anywhere, and they don’t and never have. And the Metropolitan of Nazareth beat the Sovereign with his forehead, as if he had a hat that was worn out, and so that the Sovereign would grant it, he ordered a new one to be made, and when he arrived, he gave that Sovereign’s cap of Nazareth to the Patriarch, and the sakk was all alone. But in Nazareth there was no hat from the beginning and now there won’t be any. And the patriarch took her, they said, and pawned her. And with us he served in Nazareth with the patriarch and without the patriarch without a hat” 19. “And not many archbishops and metropolitans wear the saint’s caps, which were given to them by the ancient pious kings,” the same traveler writes in his essay: “About the Greek rites in brief,” but others (all metropolitans and bishops) are without hats. They don’t have a single archimandrite (in a hat)” 20. The episcopal miter, as part of the liturgical attire of the highest rank in the hierarchy, came here with the goodwill and mercy of the Christ-loving “ancient pious kings” of the Byzantine. This is how the fathers of our Russian Council of 1674 present the matter, considering the external hierarchical differences of all spiritual ranks. “The miter, having the image of the cross of the cross 21, is said in the acts of this council regarding the patriarchal miter, in the likeness of having the most holy Greek rites of the patriarch in sacred rites, according to the custom of the saints of the Eastern Church, like the great Saint Cyril of Alexandria, according to his head, he was covered with golden withered, always holy and universal 3 your representation to the council; and having exalted himself, according to the statute of the great Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine, who was to Saint Sylvester, and like Theophilus of Alexandria (more correctly, the Jerusalem) Patriarch, King Basil (976-1025) the God-born placed a diadem, and in the church he commanded to be adorned with the laws” 22 . And the Greek names for miter - κορωνα and στεφανος, indifferently applied to both the royal crown and the episcopal miter, also tell us that the episcopal miter and the royal crown are homogeneous in nature. It is not surprising, therefore, that in the question of the form of the episcopal Greek miter we stand on more solid ground, and its solution does not present great difficulties for us. Without dwelling on the apocryphal chrysobulus or the deed of gift to Pope Sylvester from the Emperor Constantine the Great regarding the right to wear a miter during divine services, 23 it is enough for our purpose to keep in mind the fact of later times - the grant by the Byzantine Emperor Basil Porphyrogenitus to the Jerusalem Patriarch Theophilos “decorated in church” with a diadem. This fact should be considered as an exceptional favor to the Patriarch of Jerusalem Theophilus, revered by the Emperor, expressed in the transfer to him of the distinction of his royal rank, similar to what was allowed by other Emperors when granting the patriarchs from their royal shoulders a sakkos, handrails, a large omophorion or lor and kundurs or shoes with Byzantine eagles embroidered on them in gold 24 . That is why the large omophorion, the sakkos, and the miter do not immediately become an accessory of the highest rank in the spiritual hierarchy, but remain for a long time the distinction of some spiritual dignitaries-patriarchs and metropolitans, outstanding for their moral and official merits, and, moreover, only on especially bright and great holidays of the church - Easter and the Nativity of Christ. And only, over time, little by little, these high distinctions of the royal rank already pass into the permanent liturgical attire of the patriarchs, and from them to the most honored metropolitans and, ultimately, to “many” bishops, but far from all, however. Wearing a miter, for example, according to Simeon of Thessaloniki, in his time was still not considered “the most legal,” although it was recognized as an “ancient tradition.” In the 15th century, and precisely after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the “crown” or “crown” became the inalienable property of the ecumenical patriarch, as the main and only guardian of the interests of Orthodoxy and the Greek nationality itself in the entire Muslim East, and from him it was already transferred to the metropolitans, archbishops and bishops subordinate to him. The bishop's miter in the East had the shape of a crown or crown in the 17th century, and has retained it to this day. “And the hat on him (i.e. on the Patriarch of Jerusalem Theophanes), notes, not without surprise, an eyewitness to the service of this patriarch with the Russian metropolitans and archbishops in Moscow in 1619, there was no edging on black velvet, cloaks were nailed on like a crown, gilded, and stones were set, but there were no saints, only a cross was hammered into the top, and there were four countries cherub and seraphim" 25. This form of miter, in the form of a crown, was ordered for himself in the East by the lover of Greek customs, Patriarch Nikon, whose miter-crown is still kept in the Moscow Synodal sacristy 26. Establishing the genesis of the miter-crown in the Greek church and in our modern one and taking into account in the latter some deviations in the spirit of Russian piety and the conditions of our harsh climate, we, however, leave unanswered the question of where our ancient Russian miter-cap of the Donikon type came from, the monuments of which are kept in the same Moscow Synodal sacristy 27. The original theory of the origin of our miter-cap by Academician E.E. Golubinsky, given above, no matter how simple and natural at first glance, however, it does not answer all questions. If skufia did not have a place in the divine service and were “removed during the service,” then the question arises, what is the insistence on the need for an ordinary skufya or cap to undergo all the indicated profs. Golubinsky metamorphoses to take the later form of the official miter-cap and obtain those expensive sacred images, showered with precious stones, which we find on them. This theory is acceptable on one assumption only, if we assume that miter hats were used by our bishops outside the church, during religious processions and solemn processions around the city and beyond. Under the harsh climatic conditions of our country, miter hats, made of brocade, altabas, isorbaf and other expensive materials, on a cotton satin lining, lined with ermine fur for warmth to the ears, and decorated with beads and sacred images, could with great convenience replace a hood or a service skuf. Such miter hats, from outside of liturgical use, due to the value and abundance of sacred decorations on them, could easily become church utensils and easily pass into liturgical use, especially in our cold churches, in the terrifying northern frosts. But this theory still does not fully explain the origin of the shape of the Old Russian miter hat. Its resemblance to the liturgical skufia is really very weak. Taking a closer look at our miter cap in the surviving monuments, one cannot help but notice its striking similarity with the shape of the ancient grand ducal caps, as we know them from ancient icon images of the holy princes Vladimir, Boris, Gleb and others 28. This similarity between the grand ducal caps and the mitre caps of our bishops should explain the fact that Russian archaeologists describe one of the hats of the Sofia Novgorod sacristy as follows: “an ancient grand ducal or bishop’s Novgorod cap” 29 . This leads to a logical assumption: did not, in fact, happen to our miter-hat the same thing that happened in the East with the miter-crown? If the latter borrowed its entire form from the imperial crown of a later time, then didn’t our miter cap also have a grand ducal cap as its prototype, or, to put it differently, wasn’t this grand ducal cap a generous gift from the head of our pious princes to the most worthy of our bishops? But no matter how we explain the origin of our ancient Russian miter-cap, we in no way can agree with that assumption of Prof. Golubinsky that “the Greeks borrowed hats from us in the 16th century, giving them the shape of the crowns or crowns of their Emperors, which these latter had in later times, prior to the capture of Constantinople by the Turks” 30. The testimony of a 15th century writer known to us. Simeon of Thessalonica, that in his time not only the patriarchs, but also “very many other bishops (ἄλλοι πλειστοι)” 31, wore miters; the miter, called the crown of the Emperor Nikephoros Phocas, of the sacristy of the Lavra of St. Athanasius on Athos, and the miter on the patriarch Theophanes in 1619, according to the description of a contemporary eyewitness - all this clearly tells us that the form of the miter had already been developed long ago in Byzantium, and this form had very little resemblance to our miter cap. We do not deny that the eastern hierarchs who came to us in Rus' for alms in the 16th-17th centuries willingly accepted miter hats from our kings, patriarchs and bishops and even asked for such gifts to be sent, 32 but they themselves did not use them during worship, due to their inconvenience for climatic and other reasons, and sold them for sale or as a pledge to the Jews, who chose valuable jewelry from them and they discarded the rest like rubbish 33 . The name of the head decoration of bishops with a miter (μίτρα) is borrowed from the book (Exod. 28, 37; 29, 6). In the Greek church this name is not accepted and the same head decoration is given the name here: στέφανος, κορωνα. Antiquities. Proceedings of Moscow. Archaeologist. General Vol. XII, century. I, p. 27, note; Sn. Church Ved. 1902 No. 43, pp. 1525–1526, Rights. Interview 1902 book. X, pp. 462–465. Ancient Russian States dept. I, p. 150, dep. II, p. 240; Arch. Macarius. Archaeologist. description of the church. ancient in Novgorod and its environs, part II, pp. 357–358, M. 1860. A. Dmitrievsky. Henchman. Kyiv. 1904, p. 128. Ancient Russian State dept. I, page 157. There, Dept. I, countries 122. History of the Russian Church, vol. I, sexes. II, countries 234–235. Albani. Menologium Graecorum jussu Basilii imperatoris, Urbini 1737, pars II, pag. 116; Gava1ieri. II Menologio di Basilio II (cod. Vatic, Greco 1613). Torino 1907 an., t.I, pag. 89, t. II, pag. 239: Proceedings of the XV Congress. T.I. Ibid., t. I, p. 65; t. II, pag. 239. In the life of St. Spiridonia directly states that he used to walk around with a staff in his hand and a tiara on his head (τιάρα v). Curs. Complet., t. CXVI, col. 437, 442. “It is quite similar to a sakkos (according to legend, of dubious quality, made from a military cloak or mantle of Emperor Nikephoros Phocas) and even, according to our guess, writes Prof. Kondakov, perhaps, is the same vestment with him, a miter, as if the former crown of the same Emperor in the same Lavra sacristy, shown to everyone on the holiday of July 5th. The miter is contemporary with the sakkos or made a little later than it. The reason why the Lavra monastics settled on it in their desires - of a purely Greek nature, to have a real sign of the historical friendship of the Emperor with the first abbot of the Lavra, lies in a small detail of this miter: along its bottom, also worn out, there is a rough metal aureole made of gilded silver. On the rim there is a plaque in the shape of an eagle, decorated with diamonds and diamonds. The corolla is made of leaves curved along the trump, and their design seemed to us to have nothing to do with antiquity. We cannot vouch for all the details of our description, but even the brocade of the miter seemed to us bad and late, like this whole legendary story, a straight fable invented in the last century for pilgrims” (N.P. Kondakov. Monuments of Art on Athos. St. Petersburg, 1902, page 242). Acts Historical. S.-Pb. 1842, vol. IV, countries. 1–19. RKP. 1650 bib. Kiev-Sofiysk. Cathedral, No. 77, l. 65 rev. 66; Sn. l. 34. Migft. Patrol. Curs., complet., t.155, col. 716–717; Sp. Scripture, fathers and teaches, churches, relating to the interpretation of other services, vol. III, countries. 23–25. Foar. Ευχολογιον, edit. II. Venet, 1730; pag. 258. Right Palest. Collection, in. 21 (vol. VII, century III), countries. 73; Sn. countries 263. S. A. Belokurov. Arseny Sukhanov, part: II, c. I, ed. 2, M. 1894, countries. 114. In 1686, the miter with a cross on top was “allowed” to be worn here, in Russia, by the Kiev Metropolitan (Description of the Kiev St. Sophia Cathedral and the Kiev Hierarchy, countries. 200 and approx. countries. 101) “for the sake of custom in that country.” Arch. Ambrose. History of the Russian hierarchy. M. 1810, part I, countries. 328. For convincing evidence regarding the forgery of this chrisovul, see the late canonist professor A.S. Pavlov in his “Collection of unpublished monuments of church law.” S.-Pb. 1898, countries. 54–92. Arseny Sukhanov speaks about the use of kondurs during divine services by the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch (Prav. Palest. Collection, v. 21 (vol. VII, v. III), page 254, note 1). Read General and Histor. ancient near Moscow. University. 1883, book. II, dept. II, countries 166. Christ. Read 1881, No. 11–12, countries. 795, approx. 1; Arch. Savva, Index of Moscow. Patriarchal sacristy. M. 1863, ed. 4, countries 15–16 and table. III, fig. 25–27; Ancient Ross. States. M. 1849, dept. I, countries 124–132. Arch. Savva, Index of Moscow. Patriarchal sacristy, countries. 13, table. V, n. 22. Antiquities. Vestn. archaeol., published by M. Archaeol. Society, 1867, January-February, countries. 3–4, figures 1, 2 and especially 3 and 4; Ancient Russian States, dept. II, countries 47. Ancient Ross. States, dept. II, countries 24; dept. I, countries 150; Arch. Macarius. Archaeologist, description church antiquities in Novgorod and its environs. M. I860, part II, countries. 358. History of the Russian Church, vol. I, half. II, countries 235. Mign. Patrol. Curs, complete., t. 155, col. 717. In 1557, Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople asked Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich to send him a new miter for patriarchal service (Relations between Russia and the East on Church Affairs. St. Petersburg 1858, part 1, pages 87–100, Book of Laws Pal. Collection, v. 21, pages 73, 263). Grech, files in the Minist Archive. foreign Del, St. 33, case No. 16; Right Palest. collection, in. 21 (vol. VII, c. I.I), countries. 82. You might be interested in: