| 463 Isidori De eccl. off. II.5.12: Huic autem, dum consecratur, datur baculus, ut ejus indicio subditam plebem vel regat, vel corrigat, vel infirmitates infirmorum sustineat. 465 См., например, C.Th. 1.16.1 – 1.16.14 (a. 315 – 328, Constantinus); C.Th. 2.1.2 [Brev.2.1.2] (a. 355, Constantius); C.Th. 2.1.11 [Brev. 2.1.11] (a. 398, Arcadius et Honorius); C.Th.7.18.4.4 (a. 380, Gratianus, Valentinianus, Valens); etc. 466 Isidori De eccl. off. II.5.13: Quomodo enim valebit saecularis homo sacerdotis magisterium adimplere, cujus пес officium tenuit, пес disciplinam agnovit? 467 См., например, C.Th.1.10.5 (a. 400, Arcadius et Honorius); C.Th. 1.11.1 (a. 397, Arcadius et Honorius); C.Th. 1.27.2 (a.?, Constantinus); etc. 468 См. C.Th. 1.2.1 (a. 314, Constantinus); C.Th. 1.5.11 (a. 398, Arcadius et Honorius); C.Th. 1.5.13 (a. 400, Arcadius et Honorius); C.Th. 1.6.5 (a. 368 Valentinianus et Valens); etc. 470 См. Orlandis J. “Traditio corporis et animae»: la “familiaritas» en las Iglesias y Monasterios españoles en la Alta Edad Media//AHDE 1954. P. 103–124. 471 Isidori Reg. топ. 2: Abbas interea eligendus est in institutione sanctae vitae duratus, atque inspectus patientiae et humilitatis experimentis, qui etiam per exercitium vitam laboriosam tolerans, ac transcendens aetatem adolescentiae, juventute sua senectutem tetigerit; cui etiam majores non dedignentur parere, obedientes ei tam pro aetate quam etiam pro morum probitate. 476 Isidori Reg. mon. 24.3: Haec igitur, o servi Dei, et milites Christi, contemptores mundi, ita vobis custodienda volumus, ut majora praecepta potius servetis. Cfr. Флори Ж. Идеология меча: предыстория рыцарства. СПб., 1999. С. 33–53; Bishko Ch. J. The Pactual Tradition in Hispanic Monasticism//Bishko Ch. J. Spanish and Portuguese Monastic History. London, 1984. P. 8. 477 Isidori Reg. mon. 12.2: Ternis autem tunicis, et binis palliis, et singulis cucullis contenti erunt servi Christi, quibus superadjicietur melotes pellicea, mappula, manicae quoque, pedules, et caligae. О солдатах подробнее см. Balsdon J.PV.D. Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome. New York, 1969. P. 222–223. |
| Conclusions . According to the results of my research, the history of the Russian eucharistic formularies began with an acceptance of the 10 th -century Bulgarian translation of CHR, BAS and PRES. In this translation CHR already was the primary formulary, in BAS some standard prayers were replaced by alternative ones, and in both CHR and BAS there were also additional prayers, which formed new units in the formulary. This happened at the end of the 10 th century. In the 11 th century, presumably, the Russians did their own re-working of the eucharistic formularies, which existed until the end of the 14 th century. In the 13–14 th centuries new additional prayers were added to the formularies, some of them coming from the South Slavonic milieu, others probably being added by the Russians themselves. Finally, by the end of the 14 th century the Russians accepted a completely new translation of CHR, BAS and PRES, where CHR and BAS followed the Diataxis of Philotheos. All the peculiar prayers were gone 23 . The peculiar features of the oldest pre-Philothean Slavonic redaction of the eucharistic formularies, which stand behind the Old-Russian and the most ancient Bulgarian manuscripts, are not attested in the classical Constantinopolitan sources. They bear some resemblance to the characteristic features of the South Italian and Palestinian Greek traditions, yet they are different. Therefore, it is clear that the oldest Slavonic sources are witnesses to some other tradition, the corresponding Greek sources of which are lost (or, let us hope, have not been discovered yet). This should not be a surprise. Everyone knows that the ancient lectionary of Jerusalem is preserved only in Armenian and Georgian translations; the ancient Jerusalem Tropologion only in the Georgian manuscripts of Udzvelesi Iadgari; the Typikon of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Alexios the Studite, only in the Old-Russian translation, etc. Concerning the tradition witnessed in the oldest Slavonic Leitourgika, it is not at all clear what ecclesiastical center it belonged to. I suggest that it was Thessalonica. First of all, it is natural to suppose that Bulgarian liturgical translations of the 10 th century were made using the Thessalonian originals, because the Greek-Slavonic contacts at the time were the most intense exactly in the Thessalonian region. Secondly, Pentkovsky came to the same conclusions of a Thessalonian origin of the earliest Slavonic liturgy after he studied not the euchological, but the hymnographic and lectionary material 24 . Thirdly, even the late Thessalonian authors of the 14–15 th centuries witness that the Thessalonian Church was observing its own distinct liturgical usages. St Nicholas Cabasilas even cites our prayer 2.3.b (this citation remained unnoticed by the editors of his commentary 25 ). |
| Any scholar of manuscripts is aware of countless fragments of wellknown literary compositions in the manuscript sources. When such a fragment is discovered, nobody claims straight off that this fragment is not just a fragment but the original nucleus of a corresponding composition – such idea deserves a very profound textological argumentation. Therefore, it was absolutely natural that Andrieu and Collomp took the Strasbourg papyrus as just a fragment of the well-known anaphora of Mark, and from the textological point of view there is no need to doubt their interpretation. But liturgical texts are not transmitted in the manuscripts in the same way as literary texts are. They are usually changing together with the changing practice 140 . In other words, if a 4–5 th -century manuscript contains a liturgical prayer, it is quite natural to expect that the form of this prayer corresponds with the actual liturgical practice of the 4–5 th centuries. Consequently, while we knew little regarding the form of Egyptian Eucharistic prayers in the 4 th century 141 , the Strasbourg papyrus could have been interpreted as a stand-alone text of a complete Eucharistic prayer. But the publication of the Barcelona papyrus – which is older than the Strasbourg papyrus (the papyrus itself is not younger than the 4 th century and its text, as was shown above, is not younger than the mid-4 th century and may go back to the 3 rd ) and is of Egyptian provenance as well – shows that at least in the mid-4 th century Egyptian liturgical practice already knew a much more elaborated form of Eucharistic prayer. Consequently, in the light of the evidence of the Barcelona papyrus, we have no longer any reason to interpret the Strasbourg papyrus, which is in fact a fragment of a well-known text, as a stand-alone nucleus of the latter: the doxology in the end of the Strasbourg papyrus, as was pointed out by Spinks, proves nothing, and, as a liturgical text, the prayer from the Strasbourg papyrus should have been mirroring the current Egyptian liturgical practice, which by the time of creation of this papyrus already knew the anaphoral Sanctus, epiclesis etc. The fact that the discovery of the Barcelona papyrus leaves the hypothesis of the Strasbourg papyrus’ integrity unfounded has been already noted by Heinzgerd Brakmann 142 . And, together with this hypothesis, it leaves the different variants of the «4 th -century interpolations» theory without any actual documentary proof. |
| 3. CHR contains additional prayers in exactly the same positions as in the pre-Philothean Russian Sluzhebniki: an additional prayer before the liturgy and an additional prayer at the end of it (alas, the communion section is lost, but we can suppose again that it also contained the additional prayers). 4. Moreover, the prayer at the end of the liturgy is precisely the prayer 2.3.a from the Old-Russian Leitourgika cited above; the prayer in the beginning, though, is not the same as any of the Russian prayers, although it has some resemblance to the prayer 2.1.b. Obviously, this is something very similar to the pre-Philothean Russian eucharistic formularies. Yet, the language and the wording of the extant parts of the anaphora of CHR in the Glagolitic Sinai Leitourgikon are somewhat different from the Old-Russian redaction. Still, despite the differences, the main features of the Glagolitic Sinai Leitourgikon and of the pre-Philothean Russian Leitourgika are the same. This means that the Russian pre-Philothean redaction is a descendant of the Bulgarian translations of the 10 th century, but at some point the Russians edited and corrected them, most probably in the 11 th century in Kiev. The Glagolitic Sinai manuscript is the only South Slavonic Leitourgikon of the 11 th century. There are five South Slavonic Leitourgika of the 13 th century, and forty of the 14 th 21 . Most of those from the 14 th century date from the second half or even the last years of that century, and they already contain the Diataxis of Philotheos. Most of the earlier manuscripts already show clear signs of standardization and «constantinopolization» of the liturgy. But some earlier Bulgarian Leitourgika 22 still witness to the same peculiarities of the eucharistic formularies, which I have traced in both Old-Russian sources and in the Glagolitic Sinai Leitourgikon. This proves the Bulgarian origins of the Russian pre-Philothean complex of non-standard prayers of CHR and BAS. The same could be also shown on the rubrical and formulaic level: the Old- Russian Leitourgika contain a few very distinct rubrics and formulae, which are also found in the 13 th -century South Slavonic sources. |
| Preliminary Remarks In this article I shall present the main results of my research of the prayers and other euchological elements peculiar to the oldest extant Russian Leitourgika (Sluzhebniki) manuscripts of the 13 th –14 th centuries. These antedate the Russian liturgical reform of the turn of the 14–15 th centuries, when new translations of liturgical texts, including the Diataxis of Philotheos Kokkinos and corresponding new redactions of the eucharistic formularies, were introduced into Russian worship. One can find the details of this research in a series of my Russian articles: «The Rite of the Divine Liturgy in the Oldest (11 th –14 th -centuries) Slavonic Euchologia» 1 (in this article one can also find a full bibliography on the topic), «The Prayers During Clergy Communion in the Old-Russian Leitourgika» 2 , «The Priestly Prayers before the Beginning of the Divine Liturgy in the Old-Russian Leitourgika» 3 , and «Additional Prayers at the End of the Divine Liturgy According to the Slavonic Leitourgika of the 11–14 th centuries " 4 . What follows is but a brief resume of the results I reached in those studies. There are thirty-two manuscripts of the oldest – I will call them pre- Philothean – Russian redactions of the eucharistic formularies of St. Basil (BAS) and St. John Chrysostom (CHR) 5 . These exclude four late-14 th -century witnesses which already contain the Diataxis of Philotheos and any later manuscripts (though many of these could still preserve this or that element of the pre-Philothean practice). What one finds in these sources is by no means a pure Constantinopolitan redaction of the liturgies of CHR, BAS and the Presanctified liturgy (PRES). Of course, this classical set of the three liturgies still consists here of the same prayers as everywhere – i. e., the Prothesis prayer, the prayer of the first antiphon, etc. But the oldest Russian Leitourgika also contain many other prayers, which are not to be found in the famous Constantinopolitan Euchologia. One could compare this phenomenon with other «peripheral» redactions of CHR, such as the South Italian ones studied by Andre Jacob, and, more recently, by Stefano Parenti 6 . Indeed, there are some points of similarity between the South Italian sources and the pre-Philothean Russian Leitourgika, but there are also many differences. Alternative Prayers of South Italian CHR in the Old-Russian BAS |
| 249 Или умер от удара, как полагают другие. Современный историк Лиутпранд говорит, что диавол поразил его в голову так, что Иоанн через несколько дней умер от раны. См. Христ. Стасюлевича т. 2 стр. 502. 251 Собор этот собрался в 991 г. по поводу Арнольда, архиепископа Реймского, изменившего своей присяге Гуго Капету. Bow. Hist. d. P. 6 TH. § 177–178. 253 У Вебера в его «Всеобщей Истории» новые епархии поименованы так: в Мерзебурге, Цейце, Мейсене, Брандендурге и Гавельберге, затем в Шлезвинге, Рипне и Ааргусе. Т. 2.§ 290. 254 Этот антипапа был избран по желанию императрицы Агнессы, матери Гейнлиха IV, собором ломбардских и частью немецких епископов в Базеле, в то время, как в Риме избрали Александра II, Bowers 6. Th. § 255. 255 Собственно вассалами папы норманны объявили себя позднее, при Николае II, но Лев IX первый благословил их на завоевание. Bow. 6 Th. §§ 231 и 251. 257 Григорий VII Свенону завоевать в Италии одну область, населенную еретиками. Что это была за область – неизвестно. У Боуера это место процитировано так: Gregorius L 2, ep. 51. 258 В Киев в это время была усобица между сыновьями Ярослава I, старший Изяслав действительно посылал сына своего в Рим к папе Григорию VII с просьбою о помощи против брата своего Святослава и Бореслава польского. Григорий VII писал по этому поводу к Болеславу. См. Соловьев, Ист. Р. Т. 2, ч. 2. У Боера говориться, согласно Баронию, также о Дмитрии. Bow. 6. Th. § 3, 19. 259 Цензио, устрашенный волнением народа, сам выпустил Григория VII, которого держал заключенным в своем доме. Bow. VI Th. § 282. 261 Будучи еще простым монахом, Сильвестр II занимался науками в Испании, где процветала арабская образованность. 262 Турики – сельджуки, одна из ветвей тюрского племени, кочевавшая сначала в степях при-Аральских. 263 Сын Гейнрих V свез тело отца в каменном гробе в Шпейер и там оно лежало без погребения, вне церкви 5 лет. Боуер VII. Тню § 57. 264 Сютрийский трактат лишал императора права инвеституры, но папа с своей стороны обязывался заставить епископов возвратить императору все полученные ими ленные земли. Ст. Bower. Hist. d. Pápste VII. Th. § 65–66. |
| Икона Божией Матери «Воплощение». Нач. XVI в. (ВГИАХМЗ) Икона Божией Матери «Воплощение». Нач. XVI в. (ВГИАХМЗ) VII. Человеческая природа, воспринятая Богом Словом в В. Схоласты учили, что Бог Слово воспринял человеческую природу во всей ее истинности (vera humana natura, verus homo) и полноте (tota humana natura/humanitas, perfectus homo - см.: Guill. Camp. De sacr. altaris//PL. 163. Col. 1040; Anselmus. Cur Deus. II 7; Hugo Vict. De sacr. II 1. 6; Petr. Lomb. Sent. III 2. 1; 3. 1; Thom. Aquin. Sum. Th. III 6. 1). В человеческой природе Христа они различали истинное человеческое тело (corpus verum), состоящее из плоти и костей (см.: Thom. Aquin. Sum. Th. III 5. 1-2), и разумную душу (дух), имеющую все необходимые по средневековым представлениям признаки души, а именно три душевные способности - растительную, чувствующую и разумную (spiritus rationalis secundum potentiam vegetandi, sentiendi et intelligendi - Guill. Camp. De sacr. altaris.//PL. 163. Col. 1040; Hugo Vict. De sacr. II 1. 6; Petr. Lomb. Sent. III 2. 1; 3. 1; Bonav. Breviloq. IV 2. 10-12; Thom. Aquin. Sum. Th. III 5. 3-4). Подчеркивалось, что плоть Спасителя была не небесной, не эфирной, не др. какой угодно природы, но той же, что и плоть всех людей ( Petr. Lomb. Sent. III 3. 1; Thom. Aquin. Sum. Th. III 5. 2). В этих построениях схоластические богословы следовали принципу, сформулированному еще свт. Григорием Богословом: «Что не воспринято, то не уврачевано» ( Petr. Lomb. Sent. III 2. 1; Thom. Aquin. Sum. Th. III 5. 4); ведь поскольку подверглась порче вся человеческая природа, т. е. и душа и тело, то Бог Слово воспринял и то и другое, чтобы все исцелить и освятить ( Hugo Vict. Sum. sent. I 15; Petr. Lomb. Sent. III 2. 1; Bonav. Breviloq. IV 2. 34-35). Схоласты утверждали наличие у Христа тварного, человеческого, знания, исходя из постулата о совершенстве Его человеческой природы, включающей разумную душу, к-рой свойственно человеческое знание ( Thom. Aquin. Sum. Th. III 9. 1). Большинство из них придерживались т. |
| Eckenrode Th. The Venerable Bede and the Pastoral Affirmation of the Christian Message in Anglo-Saxon England//Downside Review, 337. 1981. Pp. 258–78. Eckenrode Th. The Venerable Bede as an Educator//The History of Education, 6. 1977. Pp. 159–68. Eckenrode Th. The Venerable Bede: A Bibliographical Essay, 1970–81//American Benedictine Review, 36. 1985. Pp. 172–94. Eckenrode Th. The Venerable Bede: A Humanist Educator of the Early Middle Ages//Dialogue, 10. 1976. Pp. 21–31. Eckenrode Th. Venerable Bede as Scientist//American Benedictine Review, 22.1971. Pp.486–507. Eckenrode Th. Venerable Bede’s Theories of Ocean Tides//American Benedictine Review, 25. 1974. Pp. 56–74. Famulus Christi: Essays in Commemoration of the Thirteenth Centenary of the Birth of the Venerable Bede/Ed. G. Bonner. L., 1976. Fanning S. Bede, Imperium, and the Bretwaldas//Speculum, 66. 1991. Pp. 1–26. Farmer D.H. Introduction//Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English People/Trans. Leo Sherley-Price. L.: Penguin, 1990. Fell C.E. Hild, Abbess of Streanaeshlach//Hagiography and Medieval Literature: a Symposium/Ed. H. Bekker-Olsen et al. Odense, 1981. Pp. 76–99. Fletcher E. Benedict Biscop. Jarrow Lecture, 1981. Foley W.T. Suffering and Sanctity in Bede’s Prose Life of St Cuthbert//Journal of Theological Studies, 50. 1999. Pp. 102–116. Folz R. Saint Oswald roi de Northumbrie, etude d‘hagiographie royale//Analecta Bollandiana, 98. 1980. Pp. 49–74. Foot S. The Making of Angelcynn: English Identity before the Norman Conquest//Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 6, 1996. Pp. 25–49. Frich H.I. ‘Even the Sea Served Him...’: the Soldiers of Chirst and the Restauration of Nature in Some Works of the Venerable Bede//In Quest of the Kingdom/Ed. Alf Hardelin. Stockholm, 1991. Pp. 65–77. Fry D.K. Two Bede Bibliographies: a Progressive Report//Old English Newsletter, 25.1. 1991. Pp. 34–36. Gelling M. Place-Names and Anglo-Saxon Paganism//University of Birmingham Historical Journal, 8. 1961–62. Pp. 7–25. Gleason M. Bede and His Fathers//Classica et Mediaevalia, 45. 1994. Pp. 223–38. |
| Müller D. A. Über El und Eloah im Sabäischen. Actes du sixième Congrès des orientalistes, tenu en 1883, à Leyde, part II, p. 465–472. Müller W. Max. Aegyptologisch-Biblisches. Orientalistische Litteratur-Zeitung herausgegeben von F. E. Peiser, 1900, 15 September, S. 326–328. Nestle Eb. Die Israelitischen Eigennamen nach ihrer religionsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung, Haarlem, 1876. Nestle Eb. Zur Frage, ob Hiphil sein könne? Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, 1878, S. 126–128. Nestle Eb. El, Eloah, Elohim. Theologische Studien aus Würtemberg, 1882, IV, S. 243–258. Nöldeke Th. Über den Gottesnamen El. Monatsschrift der königlichpreussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1880, S. 760–776. Nöldeke Th. El, Eloah, Elohim. Sitzungsberichte der königlich-preussi-Akademie der Wiesenschaften zu Berlin, 1882, S. 1175–1195. Plilippi. Ist accadisch-sumerischen Ursprungs? Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie, 1883, S. 175–190. Pinches Th. Note upon the divine name Malik-Aa. Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, First Meeting, 1885, p. 27–28. Pinches Th. Ya and Yâwa (Jah and Jahveh) in Assirobabylonian inscriptions. Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, 1892, November, p. 14–15. Pinches Th. The religious ideas of the Babylonians. Journal of the transactions of the Victoria Institute, or Philosophical Society of Great Britain, 1896, p. 1–33, 37–38. Redpath Henry. A new theory as to the use of the divine names in the Pentateuch. The American Journal of Theology, April 1904, p. 286–301. Relandii Adriani. Decas exercitationum philologicarum de vera pronunciatione nominis Jehova, quarum quinque priores Joann. Drusii, Sixtini Amamae, Lud. Cappelli, Joan. Buxtorfii et Jac. Altingii lectionem nominis Jehovah impugnant; posteriores quinque Nicol. Fulled, Thorn. Gatakeri singulae et ternae J. Leusden tuentur. Traiecti ad Rhenum, 1707. Reinke Laur. Dr. Philologisch-historische Abhandlung über den Gottesnamen Jehova. Beiträge zur Erklärung des Alten Testamentes, Bd. III, S. I-146. |
| Thus, Lutheran ideas play the key role in many writings of Olaus Petri. Scholars of the 20th century demonstrated that Olaus was not a mere follower of Luther but was also influenced by other authors. But today, when the Protestant character of the change has been questioned by some historians, it is necessary to stress that the ideas of the Reformation were central in Olaus Petri’s works, which were significant for the changes which took place in Sweden in the 1520-s and 1530-s. Chapter VIII This chapter deals with Olaus Petris history writing and is based on my research in connection with my translation of Olaus Petri’s Chronicle. Olaus Petri’s interest in history was partly due to his studies in Wittenberg and partly – to the local learned tradition in the diocese of Strangnas where Olaus became a cleric. Olaus Petris work as a town secretary of Stockholm stimulated his studies of historical sources – in particular, of Swedish medieval laws. In the works by Olaus, his interest to history was revealed. The work ‘A useful teaching’ contains references to ancient historians. The Preface to the New Testament contains an account on how Christianity spread. Historical examples are quoted in Olaus Petri’s polemical writings. A sermon against oaths’ quotes historical examples of struggle against blasphemy. Olaus Petri’s historical work, A Swedish Chronicle’, was completed in the middle of the 16 th century. After Olaus Petri’s death, Gustav Vasa read the chronicle and was shocked. The king declared that Olaus lacked respect for his motherland and betrayed the evangelical teaching. The manuscripts of the Chronicle were confiscated, and it was not until the 19 th century that the work was printed. Yet handwritten copies of the Chronicle spread over the Swedish Realm. The scholarly studies of the Chronicle began at the shift of the 18 th and 19 th centuries, when Louis Felix Guineman de Keralio devoted a study to a manuscript of the chronicle preserved in Paris. Keralio stated that Olaus Petri’s chronicle is similar to the work ‘Chronica Regni Gothorum’ written by the 15 th century historian Ericus Olai. Keralio appreciated the objectiveness of the Chronicle, but also indicated drawbacks. In particular, he remarked that Olaus exaggerates the juridical power of ancient Swedish kings. |
|
|
