| 77. Review of J. von Gardner, Russian Church Singing, vol. 1: Orthodox Worship and Hymnography (Crestwood, NY 1980), OCP 48 (1982) 241-242. 78. Review of B.D. Spinks (ed.), The Sacrifice of Praise: Studies on the Themes of Thanksgiving and Redemption in the Central Prayers of the Eucharistic and Baptismal Liturgies, in honor of Arthur Hubert Couratin (BELS 19, Rome 1981), Worship 56 (1982) 176-179. 1983 г. 79. “Lent: A Meditation,” Worship 57 (1983) 123-134. 80. “Receiving Communion—A Forgotten Symbol?” Worship 57 (1983) 412-418. 81. “Textual Problems in the Diaconal Admonition before the Anaphora in the Byzantine Tradition,” OCP 49 (1983) 340-365. 82. Review of A. Adam, The Liturgical Year (New York 1981), OCP 49 (1983) 221. 83. Review of A. Bouley, From Freedom to Formula. The Evolution of the Eucharistic Prayer from Oral Improvisation to Written Texts (The Catholic University of America Studies in Christian Antiquities 21, Washington, DC 1981), OCP 49 (1983) 221-224. 84. Review of St. Theodore the Studite, On the Holy Icons (Crestwood, NY 1981), OCP 49 (1983) 255-256. 85. Review of P.F. Bradshaw, Daily Prayer in the Early Church (Alcuin Club Collections No. 63, London 1981), OCP 49 (1983) 468-472. 86. Review of Dictionnaire de spiritualité ascétique et mystique, doctrine et histoire, tome 11, fasc. 74-75 (Ochino-Ozanam) (Paris 1982), OCP 49 (1983) 478-480. 1984 г. 87. The Liturgy of the Hours in the Christian East: Origins, Meaning, Place in the Life of the Church (Ernakulam, Cochin KCM Press 1984) xi + 303 pp. 88. Beyond East and West. Problems in Liturgical Understanding (NPM Studies in Church Music and Liturgy, Washington, DC: The Pastoral Press 1984) x + 203 pp. 89. “Quaestiones disputatae in the History of the Liturgy of the Hours: The Origins of Nocturns, Matins, Prime,” Worship 58 (1984) 130-158. 90. Review of Archimandrite Chrysostomos, Orthodox Liturgical Dress. An Historical Treatment (Brookline, MA 1981), OCP 50 (1984) 251. 91. Review of N.G. Garsoïan, T.F. Mathews, R.W. Thomson (eds.), East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period (Dumbarton Oaks Symposium 1980, Washington, DC 1982), OCP 50 (1984) 209-211. |
| подгот. Я.Н. Любарский. 2-е изд., испр. и доп. СПб., 2009. С. 70–72. 14 Cunningham M.B. The Life of Michael the Synkellos: Text, Translation and Commentary. Belfast, 1991. P. XV–XVI. 16 Дмитриевский А. Описание литургических рукописей, хранящихся в библиотеках Православного Востока. Т. 1. Ч. 1. Киев, 1895. С. 417–418. 17 НИОР РГБ. Ф. 113. 99. Л. 135об.–140об.; Ф. 304. I. 523. Л. 127об.–133; 524. Л. 138об.–144об.; 525. Л. 83–86; 526. Л. 131–135об. 18 Минея служебная, февраль. М., 1622. Л. 180–185 3-го сч.; Минея служебная, февраль. М., 1646. Л. 233–237об.; Минея служебная, февраль. М., 1690. Л. 208– 213об. 21 Сводный каталог славяно-русских рукописных книг, хранящихся в СССР: XI–XIII вв. М., 1984. С. 304. 360. 23 Библиотека монастыря Великая Лавра св. Афанасия (Афон). Z53. Л. 64–67. Рукопись изучалась по микрофильму, хранящемуся в Патриаршем Институте патристических исследований при монастыре Влатадон (Фессалоники). 25 Записи опубликованы: Христова Б., Караджова Д., Узунова Е. Бележки на български книжовници X–XVIII вв. Т. 2. София, 2004. С. 231, примеч. 256. 31 Ostrogorsky G. Studien zur Geschichte des Byzantinischen Bilderstreites. Breslau, 1929. S. 26–28, 40. 32 Meyendorff J. Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes. 2nd ed. N.Y., 1983. P. 42, 44. 33 Brock S. Iconoclasm and the monophysites//Iconoclasm: Papers given at the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Univ. of Birmingham, March 1975. Birmingham, 1977. P. 53–57. 35 Marin E., l’abbé. Saint Théodore (759–826). P., 1906; Доброклонский А.П. Прп. Феодор, исповедник и игумен Студийский. Ч. 1–2. Одесса, 1913–1914; Pratsch T. Theodoros Studites (759–826) – zwischen Dogma und Pragma. Frankfurt a/M., 1998. 36 Efthymiadis S. Notes on the Correspondence of Theodore the Studite//Revue des études byzantines. 1995. Т. 53. P. 141–163. 37 Van de Vorst C. Les relations de S. Théodore Studite avec Rome//Analecta Bollandiana. 1913. Vol. 32. P. 439–47; Salaville S. La primauté de saint Pierre et du Pape d’après saint Théodore Studite (759–826)//Échos d’Orient. 1914. T. 17. 104. P. 23–42; Meyendorff J. Op. cit. P. 57–58. Ср.: Dvornik F. Op. cit. P. 101–102. 39 Bithos G.P. Methodios I patriarch of Constantinople: churchman, politician and confessor for the faith: Ph.D. thesis. Durham, 2001. P. 265–266. Читать далее Источник: Полонский Д.Г. Первенство Рима в византийской и славянской гимнографии: канон папе Льву Великому//Вестник РГГУ. Серия «История. Филология. Культурология. Востоковедение». 2017. 3 (24). С. 26-32. Поделиться ссылкой на выделенное |
| Феодор Студит . Его время, жизнь и творения. –К., 1907; Доброклонский А. П. Преп. Феодор, исповедник и игумен Студийский. Ч. 1. Его эпоха, жизнь и деятельность//Записки имп. Новороссийского ун-та. –Одесса, 1913 (1914). –Т. 113; Karlin-Hayter P. A Byzantine Political Monk, St. Theodore Studite//JOB. –1994. –Bd.44. –P. 217–32; Kazdan A. A. Theodore of Stoudios//The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. –New York; Oxford, 1991. – Vol. 3. – Р. 2044–2045; Пащенко Б. Феодор Студит //Христианство. Энциклопедический словарь. – М., 1995. – Т. 3. – С. 89–90; Каждан А. П. История византийской литературы (650–850 гг.). – СПб., 2002. – С. 305–313, 322, 329). 648 См.; Гроссу Н . Преподобный Феодор Студит . – C. XVI–XVII; Доброклонский А. П. Преп. Феодор, исповедник и игумен Студийский Ч. 2//Записки Новороссийского унта. – Одесса, 1914. – Т. 114. – С. 399–411; Латышев В. Житие преп. Феодора Студита в Мюнхенской рукописи 467//ВВ. – (1914) 1915. – Т. 21. – Вып. 3–4. – С. 222–223 (там же см. проделанное В. В. Латышевым сравнение текстов списков редакции А и полный текст Мюнхенской рукописи – с. 255–304). 649 Студийский монах Николай (ум. 868 г.) назван в Житии «блаженным» (makarimes), как обычно именовали недавно умерших лиц. Подр. о датировке см.: Лопарев Хр. М. Византийские жития святых VIII–IX вв.//ВВ. – 1910. – Т. 17. – С. 166; Доброклонский А. П. Преп. Феодор, исповедник и игумен Студийский. Ч. 1. – С. 199–203; Sevcenco I. Hagiography of the Iconoclast Period//Iconoclazm. – Birmingham, 1977. – P. 116; Каждан А. П. История византийской литературы... – C. 306; ср.: Буланин Д. М. Житие Феодора Студита //Словарь книжников и книжности Древней Руси/Отв. ред. Д. С. Лихачев. – Л., 1987. – Вып. 1. – С. 177–179 650 Феодор стал известен как идеолог ригористского, воинствующего монашества православного толка, не желавшего подчинятся патриаршему управлению, требовавшего независимости Церкви от государства и церковного священноначалия, твердой политики по отношению к императорской власти, решительного отказа от иконоборческих заблуждений (см.: Мейендорф И. Византийское богословие. Исторические направления и вероучения. – M., 2000. – С. 104–108). Он навлек ненависть василевса Константина VI, Никифора I Геника, Льва V Армянина, подвергался бичеванию, терпел тяжелые испытания, холодные зимы, переживал отчаяние, печаль, душевное смятение, оплакивал измены некоторых из своих «чад», трижды отправлялся в ссылку, с радостью принимал выпадавшие на его долю «страдания во имя Христа» и умер в 826 г., так и не будучи возвращен в Константинополь. 651 Константин VI, родившийся 14 января 771 г. от брака Льва IV Хазара и знатной афинянки Ирины, правил сам, без вдовствующей матери-августы с февраля 790 г. до июня 797 г. |
| Петра и Владимирской иконы Божией Матери, содержащие стихиры «творения» царя Иоанна Грозного (см.: Парфентьев. 2014. С. 51-59; и др.). Троицкая рукопись содержит и др. уникальные произведения: напр., в помещенной здесь «Псалтыри певчей» 2-я и 3-я кафизмы (воскресные) распеты на все 8 гласов. В древнерус. традиции существовала подобная практика исполнения кафизм (впосл. утраченная) в соответствии с указаниями Студийского устава (см.: Schkolnik I. Alleluiaria by Theodore the Studite and the tradition of distributed Psalter in Byzantine Rite//Musica Antiqua Europe Orientalis: Acta Musicologica. Bydgoszcz, 1997. P. 77-87). В данной рукописи каждая кафизма делится на 3 «Славы», или «статьи», поэтому потребовалось 48 напевов. Установлено, что большинство из них не имеет аналогов в других певческих сборниках, а прочие возникли в результате творческой переработки. Вполне возможно, что автором этой уникальной певч. «осмогласной Псалтыри» является Л. ( Коротких Д. Певчая Псалтирь в памятниках XVI-XVII вв.//Муз. академия. М., 2001. 4. С. 136-142). Л. не только хорошо знал творчество др. мастеропевцов и при случае мог исполнить то или иное песнопение на разные распевы. Подобно выдающимся мастерам, являвшимся одновременно доместиками и дидаскалами (учителями, теоретиками певч. искусства), он создавал разводы к отдельным сложным формулам нотации - фитам , а также собственные варианты распевов к песнопениям. В отличие от упомянутых Стихирарей Л., где можно лишь предполагать наличие его произведений, в разных по происхождению сборниках эти варианты бытовали с обозначением имени мастера. Некоторые распевы Л. выявлены в сборниках 1-й пол. XVII в. В основном они созданы к песнопениям Стихираря месячного и посвящены праздникам Благовещения («Благовествует Гавриил»), Успения («Егда преставление») и Сретения Владимирской иконы Божией Матери («Егда пришествие») ( Гусейнова З. М. К вопросу об атрибуции памятников древнерус. певч. искусства: (На примере ркп. Соловецкого собр. 690/751)//Источниковедение лит-ры Др. |
| L’Image du Christ d’après Théodore Studite Опубл. в: Synthronon: Art et Arc†héologie de la fin de l’Antiquité et du Moyen âgë Recueil d’études par André Grabar et un groupe de ses disciples. R: Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1968 (Bibliothèque des cahiers archéologiques, 2). R 115–117. На рус. яз. публикуется впервые. Пер. с фр. У. С. Рахновской. 321 Porphyrius. Contra Christianos. Fr. 77/ed. A. von Harnack. B., 1916. S. 93 [Ранович А. Б. Первоисточники по истории раннего христианства; Античные критики христианства. М., 1990. С. 389]. 322 Alexander P. J. The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinoplë Ecclesiastical Policy and Image Worship in the Byzantine Empire. Oxford, 1958. P. 33. 323 Germanus Constantinopolitanus. De haeresibus et synodis, 41//PG 98, col. 80a. В одной из первых своих статей, посвященных иконоборчеству, Г. Острогорский привлек внимание к ключевой роли христологического аргумента (Острогорский Г. Соединение вопроса о святых иконах с христологической догматикой в сочинениях православных апологетов раннего периода иконоборчества//СК. Сб. 1.1927. Р. 35–48). 325 См.: Mansi 13, col. 252ab; 256ab; современный анализ доводов, выдвигавшихся в ходе иконоборческого собора 754 г., см. в: Anastos M. V. The Argument for Iconoclasm as presented by the Iconoclastic Council of 754//Late Classical and Medieval Studies: In Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr./ed. K. Weitzmann. Princeton, NJ, 1955. P. 177–188. 327 " Χριστς ο Χριστς ει μ γγρφοιτο». – Cp.: Theodorus Studita. Antirrheticus adversus iconomachos III, 1,1–18//PG 99, col. 389–397. 329 Theodorus Studita. Antirrheticus III, 1, 34//PG 99, col. 405a [cp.: Феодор Студит. Творения. T. 1. С. 168]. 334 О таком понимании ипостаси см., в части.: Lossky V. Essai sur la théologie mystique de l’Église d’Orient. R, 1944. P. 52–53 [Лосский В. Мистическое богословие. С. 148–151]. 335 " … διαφορτης οκ πι τς ποστσεως, λλα κατ τον τς οσ ας λγον […ибо образ и первообраз – два предмета, и различие между ними не по лицу, а по сущности]». – Theodoms Studita. Epistolae, II, 212: Joanni Grammatico//PG 99, col. 1640d/[ Феодор Студит . Творения. T. 2. С. 619]; также см.: Antirrheticus III, 1, 34//PG 99, col. 405 [Указ. изд. T. 1. С. 168–169]. |
| When the truth of icon-veneration had triumphed definitively, the honor fell to St. Lazarus Zographos to install an icon of Christ in the very place where the mad heresy had begun. St. Lazarus painted an icon of the Savior on the Chalke Gate, opening to the palace courtyard, from which the iconoclasts had earlier toppled the icon. St. Lazarus Zographos St. Lazarus magnanimously prayed for his torturers his entire life, and the Lord heard his prayer. The holy iconographer’s tormentor, Emperor Theophilus, repented before his death and was forgiven by the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople in 843. The Council of Constantinople once again – and definitively – affirmed the right of the faithful to venerate the holy icons. It was then that the radiant feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy was established. The Holy Patriarch Methodius, a multitude of clergy, the Empress Theodora, her young son the Emperor, and jubilant crowds of people walked through the Royal City with holy icons, placing them in all the churches of the city. Having returned to the true faith, the capital of the Empire once again began to be adorned with holy things. The incorrupt relics of the Holy Patriarch Germanus and of St. Theodore the Studite were brought to Constantinople, the first sacred bodies of passion-bearers who had suffered under the heresy of iconoclasm to appear there. Then one of the greatest of sacred objects, the head of the Lord’s Forerunner, was also returned to the Royal City. St. John the Baptist appeared in a vision to Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople, showing him where his precious head was hidden. It was found in Comana and, to the great joy of the Orthodox, once again returned to the reigning city, where it was made available for veneration. Once again a stream of miracles gushed forth onto the faithful from the Baptist’s divinely-wise head. The victory over the heresy of iconoclasm laid the foundation for the universal feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, which from then to the present day has been celebrated by all the Local Churches. This triumph placed a full stop, as it were, to Orthodoxy’s centuries-old struggle with distortions of the holy faith, instilled by the devil through vain heretics. |
| From this it follows that the validity of the sacraments is not hindered by the unworthiness of the celebrant, nor does it depend upon the personal faith of the recipient. On the contrary, as the actions of Christ Himself, the sacraments possess an objective character. 4. The number of the sacraments Here, as in other areas, proper allowance must be made for the flexible use of the term mysterion in the Fathers. We should not read back into earlier sources the more precise understanding of the seven sacraments to be found in Peter Lombard and the Scholastics from the twelfth century onwards, and subsequently taken over by many Orthodox writers. Moreover, the Greek Fathers do not make a sharp distinction between the sacraments, on the one side, and the other rites of the Church that Roman Catholics describe as ‘sacramentals’. Many early authors — for example, St Cyril of Jerusalem, St Ambrose, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and St Cyril of Alexandria — think in terms of three primary ‘mysteries’, Baptism, Chrism and Eucharist; but this list of three is not necessarily to be regarded as exhaustive. St Nicolas Cabasilas, in his Life in Christ , emphasises the same three mysteries , but he then goes on to speak of the consecration of the altar as a further ‘mystery’; perhaps, however, this is to be seen as an extension of the sacrament of Chrism. St John of Damascus, on the other hand, thinks in terms of two chief sacraments, Baptism and Eucharist. St Dionysius the Areopagite speaks of six: Baptism, Eucharist, Chrism, Ordination, monastic profession, and the funeral rites; the same list of six is found in St Theodore the Studite. In the second half of the XIII th century, the monk Job enumerates seven sacraments, but they do not correspond exactly to the Western list; he combines Penance with the Anointing of the Sick, and he then includes monastic profession. He goes on to speak of three other rites: he sees the consecration of a church as the extension of Chrismation, the Great Blessing of the Waters as the extension of Baptism, and the elevation of bread in honour of the Mother of God as the extension of the Eucharist. All of this indicates that Greek Patristic authors, when using the term mystery , are not employing it with the precision found in Latin scholasticism. |
| Dorotheos was undoubtedly also the heir of their spiritual gifts. For Divine Providence did not leave him under a bushel of obscurity, but placed him on the lampstand of leadership—and all the while he desired solitude and silence, as is apparent from his questions to the Elders. After the death of Abba Seridos and St. John the Prophet, when their common preceptor Barsanuphius the Great shut himself up completely in his cell, St. Dorotheos left the coenobium of Abba Seridos and was an abbot. Most likely it is to this time that are to be dated the Instructions which he spoke to his disciples; these Instructions (twenty-one in number) and several epistles constitute all that remains to us an inheritance from the writings of the Saint, although the light of his teaching spread not only to monasteries but in the world, too; for many, drawn by the glory of his ascetic labors and his virtues, hastened to him for advice and instruction, as is witnessed by the anonymous writer of the letter in which is contained the life of Dositheus. He says that the Saint, in accord with the gifts given him by God, fulfilled his holy and peace-bearing service equally toward rich and poor, wise and ignorant, women and men, old and young, sorrowing and rejoicing, strangers and friends, laymen and monks, rulers and subjects, slaves and free: he was constantly everything to everyone and gained very many. Very unfortunately, a complete biography of this great ascetic has not come down to us; without doubt it would have been most edifying. Having selected from his own writings that little that we have now presented to the reader, we do not consider it superfluous to add to this the testimony also of St. Theodore the Studite concerning the authenticity and purity of the writings of St. Dorotheos. In his testament St. Theodore speaks thus: " I accept every God-inspired book of the Old and New Testaments, and likewise the lives and divine writings of all the God-bearing fathers, teachers, and ascetics. |
| St. Theodore was thrown into prison, tormented by hunger and thirst, and subjected to torture and all manner of abuse. But even from confinement, the holy confessor did not cease to call upon the faithful to defend the veneration of the icons, to encourage the faint-hearted, and to inspire people to heroism in the name of Christ the Savior. St. Theodore the Studite’s voice was heard throughout the entire Christian world. The evil heretic died an evil death: Leo the Armenian was killed as the result of a palace conspiracy. He was killed in church, in the very altar, to which he had run in an attempt to hide from his pursuers. The Emperor seized a cross from the Holy Table, with which he began to strike at his murderers; but they cut off the hand that was holding the cross, and then his head. Seeing in this God’s righteous retribution, St. Theodore the Studite wrote: “It was fitting that he who had desolated the divine churches should see swords bared against himself in the Lord’s church. It was fitting that he, who had destroyed the divine altar itself, should find no shelter from the altar.” The terrible death of Leo V did not mean an end to persecution, which gained particular ferocity during the reign of Emperor Theophilus. The heretics engaged in the extermination of icon-painting masters. Iconographers could save their lives only by agreeing to spit on icons and trample them underfoot. Those who did not agree to this sacrilege were executed after brutal torture. Among those captured by the persecutors was the remarkable iconographer, St. Lazarus Zographos. For his refusal to trample on the holy things, he was lashed with oxhide whips and then had red-hot iron plates placed in his hands so that he could never again be able to paint icons. The pain was so severe that the confessor lost consciousness and nearly died. St. Lazarus was released from prison following the tearful entreaties of the Emperor’s wife, the pious Theodora. The first thing the holy iconographer did upon release was to paint an icon of John the Forerunner and Baptist of the Lord with his scorched hands. This icon immediately showed forth the grace-filled power of healing and became renowned for working miracles. Thus did the Lord’s Forerunner, through his holy image, strengthen Christians in upholding the holy icons. |
| As for the Christological arguments, the Iconoclasts claimed that if the icons depicted only the humanity of Christ and not the divine nature, then their opponents were in violation of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod (451 AD), which taught that Christ is perfect God and perfect Man and were thus either monophysites (they believed that the divine was subsumed in the human) or Nestorians (Christ’s divine nature was denied). Furthermore, if the icons depicted somehow Christ’s divinity, then Christ was not divine since it was impossible to depict divinity by imperfect human means. St. John of Damascus writes this classic apology in defense of depicting the incarnate Word of God: But now when God is seen in the flesh conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter: I worship the Creator of matter who became matter for my sake, who willed to take His abode in matter, who worked out my salvation through matter. Never will I cease honoring the matter which wrought my salvation! I honor it, but not as God (St. John of Damascus, First Apology 16). He further adds that “what can be assumed can be saved.” The only way for Christ to save the world and restore it was to be born in it and to sanctify matter, by becoming matter Himself. Indeed, the Incarnation of the Son of God then not only made the veneration of icons possible within Orthodox Christianity but a downright necessity. St. Theodore the Studite wryly states that if only mental worship was sufficient, then God would not have become human and endured the Cross. He could just as easily have communicated with humans mentally (see First Refutation 7). What’s more, only the person of Christ (His hypostasis), and not His two natures could be depicted on an icon. The human and divine natures of Christ, perfectly united but never confused, co-existed in the mystery of the incarnate Son and Word of God. A final word on the distinction between worship and veneration. While worship is reserved only for God, veneration, or honor, is extended beyond the image to the prototype in the icon. The respect and honor do not stop at the icon, nor is the icon the recipient of our worship and praise. The icon serves as a reminder of the spiritual life that co-exists alongside our world, a window even, through which we envision the deified world of the Kingdom. Indeed then, as one writer put it very succinctly, “The appropriate encounter with the icon, despite its powerful presence as a visual image, is an encounter that goes beyond the icon itself to the greater transcendent reality of God” (A. Vrame, The Educating Icon , p. 44). |
|
|
