Save

Hymnographic Complex by Meletios Syrigos Dedicated to the Kyivan Cave Saints and All Russian Saints in the Russian Tradition

In: Scrinium
View More View Less
  • 1 Associate Professor, National and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
Open Access

Abstract

In this paper, topics regarding the glorification of the Kyivan Cave Saints and other Kyivan Saints of the 17th century are discussed, based on the hymnographic complex (complete feast service and paraklesis) to the Kyivan Cave Saints and All Russian Saints composed by Meletios Syrigos, prominent Cretan scholar and official legate of the Ecumenical Patriarch, during his stay in Kyiv in June 1643. The two manuscripts containing the Greek hymnographic text studied – including the autograph manuscript – reference the names of 55 Kyivan Cave Saints as well as 19 other Kyivan Saints, some of whom remain unknown. The Church Slavonic translation carried out directly after the composition of the Greek text was realized in two stages and is analyzed according to two manuscript sources. Only some parts of Meletios’ complex, namely the Paraklesis with the stichera and troparia, were translated into Slavonic. Several decades later (before 1677), the text of this translation was revised without consulting the original Greek text, resulting in the version kept in Church practice today. During the process of this revision, significant changes were made to the text, both regarding the commemorated persons and their presentation. Therefore, the comparative analysis of the Greek text alongside the Church Slavonic texts reveals unknown aspects and stages of the recognition and acceptance of the Kyivan Cave Saints both in Peter Mohyla’s time and later on, as well as the role of Meletios Syrigos in this process.

Abstract

In this paper, topics regarding the glorification of the Kyivan Cave Saints and other Kyivan Saints of the 17th century are discussed, based on the hymnographic complex (complete feast service and paraklesis) to the Kyivan Cave Saints and All Russian Saints composed by Meletios Syrigos, prominent Cretan scholar and official legate of the Ecumenical Patriarch, during his stay in Kyiv in June 1643. The two manuscripts containing the Greek hymnographic text studied – including the autograph manuscript – reference the names of 55 Kyivan Cave Saints as well as 19 other Kyivan Saints, some of whom remain unknown. The Church Slavonic translation carried out directly after the composition of the Greek text was realized in two stages and is analyzed according to two manuscript sources. Only some parts of Meletios’ complex, namely the Paraklesis with the stichera and troparia, were translated into Slavonic. Several decades later (before 1677), the text of this translation was revised without consulting the original Greek text, resulting in the version kept in Church practice today. During the process of this revision, significant changes were made to the text, both regarding the commemorated persons and their presentation. Therefore, the comparative analysis of the Greek text alongside the Church Slavonic texts reveals unknown aspects and stages of the recognition and acceptance of the Kyivan Cave Saints both in Peter Mohyla’s time and later on, as well as the role of Meletios Syrigos in this process.

The subject of the life and literary works of Meletios Syrigos, prominent representative of Greek Orthodox theology in the 17th century, his relationship with the Kyivan Church authorities, and his role in the glorification (canonization) of the Kyivan Cave Saints, though studied by many researchers,1 still lacks a clear overview in modern literature. It is generally believed that within the framework of Peter Mohyla’s program for the recognition and acceptance of these individuals as saints, Meletios, during his stay in Kyiv in 1643, composed a Canon (or a Service) dedicated to the Kyivan Cave Saints,2 which was translated to Church Slavonic and published in Peter Mohyla’s edition of the Psalter in 1643.3 However, recent studies have shown that said edition did not contain the aforementioned hymnographic text, but rather only included commemorations of the Kyivan Cave Saints in the Menologion. Moreover, although there is plentiful evidence for the existence of the 1643 edition, the earliest printed edition of the Canon we currently have at our disposal is the Akathistos collection of 1677.4 The same text was reprinted with small changes in many editions that were either ascribed to Meletios Syrigos or have no reference to an author. It is also included in the so-called “Green Menaion” for the month of February5 to be chanted on the second Sunday of the Great Lent. Though the authorship of this hymnographic text has repeatedly been called into question, researchers usually reference it in their speculations regarding the recognition and acceptance process of the Kyivan Cave Saints and Meletios’ role in it.6 To the best of our knowledge, no studies on the relationship between this published text and the one initially written by Meletios have been conducted. Meletios’ initial Greek text was discovered in 1908 by J. Pargoire.7 In his extensive study – his first, where the personality of Meletios was approached according to evidence provided in the manuscript – J. Pargoire identified and attributed the autograph manuscript no. 778 from the Metochi collection of the Holy Sepulcher to Meletios. In said manuscript, he found and cited texts of the service as well as iambic verses-epigrams dedicated to the Kyivan Cave Saints.8 This Greek version of the service has neither been extensively studied nor published, despite it recently eliciting the interest of researchers.9 The goals of this paper are to (a) fill this gap in the literature; (b) describe the textological relationship between the original Greek text of the Service by Meletios Syrigos dedicated to the Kyivan Cave Saints, its Church Slavonic translation, and a later published version of said translation; and (c) announce the comparative edition of the Greek and Slavonic texts of the service, which we are currently preparing.

Two manuscripts with the original Greek text have been found to date:

  1. The original no. 778 autograph manuscript from the Metochi collection of the Holy Sepulcher (hereinafter referred to as MPT 778), which bears some corrections made by the author. This manuscript contains a substantial part of Meletios’ liturgical texts, which number more than 20 services.10 The Service dedicated to the Kyivan Cave Saints is found on pages 683–742 of the manuscript, followed by short iambic verses-epigrams dedicated to the Caves and the Holy Relics of the Kyivan Cave Saints, published by T. Detorakis.11 One folio containing pages 711–712 is missing.

  2. The 18th century manuscript (probably 1746) which belonged to Callinicus IV, Patriarch of Constantinople (1713–1792), is saved in the manuscript collection of the Municipal Library of Zagora, Thessaly under number 28 (hereinafter referred to as Zag 28).12 Two services by Meletios can be found in the manuscript: the Service to the Kyivan Cave Saints on ff. 215v–234r followed by iambic epigrams on ff. 235v–238r, as well as the Service to the Seamless Robe of Jesus on ff. 239v–249v.

The texts of these two manuscripts only have small differences, most of which are orthographic and grammatical. The following analysis was conducted mostly based on MPT 778, since this is the autograph text. Zag. 28 was used as a complementary source, mainly for fragments that were either unclear or missing from the MPT 778 folio. A complete comparative analysis of the manuscripts will be presented in the forthcoming edition.

The service is titled “Μνήµην ἐπιτελοῦµεν τῶν ὁσίων καὶ θεοφόρων πατέρων ἡµῶν τῶν ἐν Πιετζαρίῳ ἀσκησάντων καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν Ῥωσίᾳ λαµψάντων, συντεθεῖσα ὑπὸ Μελετίου ἱεροµονάχου τοῦ Κρητός, λεγάτου τοῦ Παναγιωτάτου καὶ Οἰκουµενικοῦ Πατριάρχου κυρίου Παρθενίου καὶ πάσης τῆς περὶ αὐτὸν ἱερᾶς συνόδου, ἀποσταλέντος πρὸς Ῥόσους κατὰ τὸ αχµγ΄ ἰνδικτιῶνος δεκάτης, ἐν µηνὶ ἰουνίῳ” (p. 683), which unambiguously declares the name of the author – Meletios Cretan hieromonach – his official status – legate of Parthenius II, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and the Holy Synod – and the place and time the Service was composed – Russia (probably, Kyiv), June, 1643. Meletios’ visit to Kyiv in the context of his communication with Peter Mohyla, Metropolitan of Kyiv, Halych, and All Rus, has been reported by biographers.13 This liturgical text is generally thought to have been composed in the context of Peter Mohyla’s effort for the revival of the cult of the Kyivan Cave Saints and their official glorification among the saints.14 It is probably due to Peter Mohyla’s commissioning that it was written. The text contains an extensive hymnographic composition; the full feast service includes Small Vespers, Great Vespers, Matins with Polyeleos and two Canons with the Greek verse acrostics: Πατέρας µέλπω τοὺς τροφίµους Ῥωσίας (p. 701) and Σπηλαιωτῶν ἄθροισµα αἰνῶ προφρόνως (p. 702) corresponding to a rather uncertain commemoration after the 6th ode: Τῷ αὐτῷ µηνί· µνήµιν ἐπιτελοῦµεν πάντων τῶν ἐν Ῥωσίᾳ λαµψάντων ἁγίων, βασιλέων, ἀρχιερέων, ἱερέων, µαρτύρων, µοναχῶν, τῶν ἐν σπηλαίῳ ἀσκησάντων· ὧν καὶ τὰ λείψανα µῦρα βρύοντα καθορῶντας ἐν Πιετζαρίῳ κείµενα, καὶ θαύµατα ἐξαίσια ἐκτελούντων (p. 715–716). The service is followed by the Paraklesis Canon written by the same author entitled: Κανὼν παρακλητικὸς εἰς τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἁγίους, ποίηµα τοῦ αὐτοῦ, Μελετίου (p. 729–742).

The very fact that the complete feast liturgical service was composed in Greek by the Patriarch’s official legate attests to Meletios and Mohyla intentions for the official Constantinopolitan recognition of the Kyivan Cave Saints, which would certainly give them greater prestige. However, the absence of a commemoration date evidences that this procedure had remained incomplete.

The literary style of Meletios’ Service and Paraklesis deserve to be studied in more detail. Though it belongs to the earlier hymnographic works of the author, it certainly has significant aesthetic merit and originality. Researchers believe it was composed following the pattern of the Canon for the Synaxis of All Holy Fathers (Saturday of Cheesefare) hypothetically attributed to Theodore the Studite.15 However, there are significant differences between these hymnographic compositions, both in their melodic patterns as well as the general principles regarding the presentation of the saints. While the author of the Canon for the Synaxis of All Holy Fathers arranges the saints in alphabetical order, Meletios arranges them by theme, organizing the saints not only according to their title, but also according to specific details in their lives and endeavors. The most expressive part of the complex in regard to the presentation of the saints is the Paraklesis, where most saints are not only named, but also characterized. Sometimes a brief description of some stories from their life, generally taken from the Kyivan Caves Patericon,16 is also added. An example of this is troparion 5 from the 9th ode of the Paraklesis, dedicated to St. Dionysius, Recluse of the Kiev Caves, which describes the miracle that happened to him in the Caves in the Easter of 1463, referenced in the Kyivan Caves Patericon:17 Ὡς ζῶντες θεοφόροις τῷ εὐλαβεστάτῳ, Διονυσίῳ ἐκ µέσων τῶν τάφων φωνήν, άνταπεκρίθητε, ὄντως ἀνέστη Χριστὸς ὁ Κύριος (p. 740). It is obvious that the text’s composition presupposed the scrupulous study of the written and oral tradition surrounding the Kyivan Caves. Although, to the best of our knowledge, neither Greek nor Latin translations of the Kyivan Caves Patericon had been reported before the end of the 17th century,18 Meletios probably collaborated with some Greek or Latin speaking scholar from Peter Mohyla’s circle, who helped him accumulate the necessary information from literary sources.19

In total, Meletios’ hymnographic complex includes 55 Kyivan Cave Saints (including the Holy Hierarchs who had taken monastic vows in the Kyivan Caves Monastery, as well as the saints whose Holy Relics were kept in the Caves despite not being monks of the Kyivan Caves Monastery), who are presented below in alphabetical order.

As far as the official glorification is concerned, St. Anthony and Theodosius of the Kiev Caves, St. Nicetas Bishop of Novgorod, and the Martyr John of Kiev were the only ones from the list above proven to have been glorified among the saints by the Church before the time the Service was written.20 The comparison of this list of saints with the list of saints included a few months later in the Menologion of the 1643 Psalter shows that Meletios generally followed Peter Mohyla’s plan for the recognition of the Kyivan Cave Saints. All the Kyivan Cave Saints included by Peter Mohyla in the Menologion of the 1643 Psalter are also mentioned by Meletios; however, the list of saints he referenced is much more extensive. In particular, 26 saints (see the last column of Table 1) are not commemorated in the 1643 Psalter.21

Table 1
Table 1
Table 1
Table 1
Table 1
Table 1

Kyivan Cave Saints referenced by Meletios Syrigos

Citation: Scrinium 17, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/18177565-BJA10041

Two of the saints mentioned by Meletios cannot be identified based on the lists of the Kyivan Cave Saints acknowledged today by the Orthodox Church. These are:

  1. Gerasim (number 15 in Table 1), who is referenced in ode 8 of the second canon and described in the second troparion of ode 3 of the Paraklesis using the following words: Ὦ Γεράσιµε µάρτυς τῶν ἱερέων κανών, καὶ τῶν ἀσκουµένων ὁσίων τὸ ἐγκαλώπισµα, ὁ ἐν κηρύγµατι εὐαγγελίου τὸ τέλος, λαχὼν ὡς ἀπόστολος, λιταῖς σου ῥῦσαι µε (p. 731) (see the Church Slavonic translation described below: Ѡ герасиме мч҃нче сщ҃енникѡм правило и постникѡм и прпд҃бным ѹкрашенїе. Иже въ проповѣди еѵг҃лїѧ конец прїемыи ѧкѡ ап҃слъ млт҃вами исхити мѧ). The events from the martyr’s life described in the troparion point to him being Martyr Kuksha of the Kyivan Caves.22 It should be mentioned that that same troparion in the later version of the hymn was used with small changes for the Martyr Kuksha. If this hypothesis is true, Gerasim should be the unknown Christian name of the Martyr Kuksha, that was never referenced in the sources. Note that Meletios preferred to use Christian names for Kyivan saints (Elena for Olga, Romanus and David for Boris and Gleb), making an exception only for St. Vladimir (see below). It is also clear that the nickname Kuksha would obviously seem cacophonous and “improper” to the Greek scholar in the Church hymn. However, nowhere in the hymn do we find the names of his disciple Nicon and the St. Pimen, referenced in the same Patericon story, which contradicts Meletios’ general pattern. This saint’s other possible identity is the Martyr and Missionary Gerasim from the story about Nicon the Dry in the Patericon,23 whom researchers tend to identify as Martyr Eustratius.24

  2. Isaac the Long-Suffering (number 18 from Table 1), who is referenced in ode 7 of the second canon and described in the first troparion of ode 7 of the Paraklesis with the following words: Ἰσαὰκ ὁ πολύτλας, καὶ σὺν τούτῳ ποιµένες ἀµφότεροι, οἱ ἐν γῇ, στεῤῥῶς ἐνησκηκότες, ἐν πάθεσι ποικίλοις, καὶ νηστείαις, πρεσβεύσατε, τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεόν τοῦ οἰκτιρήσαι ἡµᾶς (p. 736) (see the Church Slavonic translation described below: Исаакъ мнѡгострадалныи и с нимъ пастыри два, иже на земли крѣпко ѡполчившисѧ въ страданїихъ различныхъ и постѣхъ, мл҃ите сущаго над всѣми Ба҃ еже ѹщедрите нас). This unknown saint should not be confused with St. Isaac, Recluse of the Kiev Caves25 (number 20 from Table 1), whom Meletios called Ἰσαάκιος and described in the fourth troparion of ode 8 of the Paraklesis with the following words: Ὁ Ἰσαάκιος ὁ πολλοῖς ἐν ἀγῶσι, καταβαλὼν τὴν δαιµόνων ἀπάτην, σε καθικετεύει σῶσον ἡµὰς Χριστὲ µου (p. 738) (see the Church Slavonic translation Їсаакїи премногими страданїи низложивыи дїѧволскую прелесть, тѧ молит сп҃си насъ щедре). It must be stressed that, in the Menologion of the 1643 Psalter, two different saints are mentioned. On February 14th, it reads: и Прпд҃бнагѡ ѿца Їсаакїа Печерскаго многострадалнаго. Троп: Аѵѯентїю. Пустынныи житель (referring to the Apolytikion for St. Auxentius, monk of Bithynia, commemorated on the same day). On April 27th, it reads: и Прпд҃б Їсакїа мниха Печерского. Егоже прельсти Дїаволъ, он же паки ѹкрѣпивсѧ побѣди дїавола. Житъ же в лѣто, аѯ҃д. въ црст въсточное Рѡмана Дїѡгена. Рѡскаго же Изѧслава. One can easily see that in Peter Mohyla’s time, there were two Kyivan Cave Saints with the same name Їсаакъ – Їсаакїи, referenced separately by Meletios, which were later “united” into one. The story was taken from the latter and the commemoration day (February 14th) from the former.

Most of the saints referenced by Meletios are mentioned both in the Service and the Paraklesis; however, this pattern seems to not be absolute, with the most striking examples being Antony and Theodosius, whose names were repeatedly referenced in the Service but absent from the Paraklesis. Among all the saints, only St. Laurence and St. Ephraim are mentioned twice in the Paraklesis due to their double status: Hermit of the Kiev Caves and Bishop. One could also suggest that in the fifth troparion of ode 4 of the Paraklesis, it was not the St. Ephraim, Bishop of Pereyaslavl that was referenced, but Ephraim, Bishop of Suzdal and Rostov (11th–12th century), who was also mentioned in the Patericon,26 or even Saint Ephraim, Archbishop of Rostov († 1454).

In his hymnographic complex, along with the Kyivan Cave Saints, Meletios also referenced 19 names of Kyivan saints with no direct relationship to the Kyivan Cave Monastery. The alphabetical list of these saints is presented in Table 2. It should be noted that in the third Sticheron on “Lord, I Have Cried” of the Small Vespers, the name of the Great-martyr Barbara of Heliapolis in Syria is also mentioned due to her Holy Relics being kept in the city of Kyiv, as well as due to the special veneration of this Saint as the Patron Saint of Kyiv by Peter Mohyla.

Table 2
Table 2
Table 2

Kyivan Saints (except for the Kyivan Cave Saints) referenced by Meletios Syrigos

Citation: Scrinium 17, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/18177565-BJA10041

In this list, along with the officially recognized and widely renowned Kyivan saints (Equal-to-the-Apostles Vladimir and Olga; first Russian Martyrs Boris and Gleb; Martyrs Michael and Theodore of Chernigov; Martyrs of Vilnius Antony, John, and Eustathius, glorified among the saints in 1371 by Philotheus Kokkinos, Patriarch of Constantinople; Moscow Saints and Metropolitans of Kyiv Peter, Alexis, and Jonah; Metropolitan of Kyiv Hieromartyr Macarius), one can find some locally worshipped and renowned people such as the Metropolitans of Kyiv Cyprian and Photius, who were probably not officially recognized as saints at the time,27 but included in the Menologion of the 1643 Psalter. One can also find two more people who would never be recognized as saints and whose worship seems to be Meletios’ own personal initiative rather than the general Kyivan Church policy. These people are:

  1. Leon (Leontius), Metropolitan of Kyiv, referenced together with Saint Michael, first Metropolitan of Kiev (see table 1) and Prince Vladimir, and characterized four times in the hymnographic complex in a way that leaves no doubt about his identity. More specifically, he is described as prime counselor (Χαίρετε Λεόντιε, καὶ Μιχαὴλ πρωτοσύµβουλοι (p. 688)), first Archiereus (see second troparion of the 5th ode of the second canon: Ὁ πιστὸν βασιλέα, πρῶτον ἀνεγείρας Ῥωσῶν Βλαδιµήριον, ὡς τὸν Κωνσταντῖνον, Ἰησοῦς ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ Λεόντιον, ἀποστέλλει πρῶτον, ἀρχιερέα, καὶ σὺν τούτῳ, τὰς πολλὰς µυριάδας ἠγάγετο (p. 710)) and all-blessed missionary and evangelist of Russians (see next troparion: Ἰησοῦς Ἀνανίαν, ἄλλον σε ἀπέστειλε τῷ τυφλωθέντι Σαούλ, τῷ Βλαδιµήρῳ: ὃν βαπτίσας τοῦ σκότους ἀπήλλαξας, τὴν ψυχὴν φωτίσας, καὶ ὀφθαλµῶν ἀποτινάξας, τὰς λεπίδας παµµάκαρ Λεόντιε (p. 710)). Leon, who is not thought to have existed by modern historians,28 is described as the first or second (after Michael) Metropolitan of Kyiv in Church tradition. Apart from his Greek origin, no other significant information about him is reported. Although Meletios seems to accept the speculation about Michael being the first Metropolitan of Kyiv (in the first troparion of the 8th ode of the second canon he wrote: καὶ τούτοις Μιχαὴλ συντετάχθω, ὁ πρῶτος Κιοβίας τὸν θρόνον ἐγκοσµήσας (p. 720)), he certainly tries to emphasize Leon’s role in the Christianization of Rus, probably in order to stress the role of the Greek clergy in this process. One can suppose that along with the Kyivan Cave Saints, Meletios supported the glorification among saints of Michael and Leon, the first Metropolitans of Kyiv, due to their role in the Christianization of Rus.

  2. Ephraim, Metropolitan of Kyiv (1054/55–1065), also of Greek origin, is referenced along with the other Kiev Metropolitans in the first troparion of the 4th ode of the Paraklesis: Μιχαὴλ καὶ Λεόντιε, θεῖοι ἱεράρχαι, Ἐφραὶµ Νικόλαε, καὶ Νικήτα Ἡσαΐα τε, τὸν Θεὸν ἡµῖν ἐξιλεώσατε (p. 732).

Although no Slavonic translation of Meletios’ hymnographic complex described above was found in the 1643 edition of the Psalter, the Slavonic translations of certain parts of this complex seem to appear immediately after its composition. So far, we have found only two manuscript sources with this particular translation, namely:

  1. The hymnograpic text entitled “Канон молебныи къ всѣмъ Ст҃ым Печерским Киевским Рѡсїиским чудотворцем.Творенїе Мелетїа Сиригуша. Еѯархи Константинополского Грека. Бывшаго в Рѡсїискои земли, рокъ, ах҃мг”, which appears on ff. 181r–184v of a manuscript from the Synodal collection 456 (Collection of Sermons by Isaac of Nineveh and Petr Damaskin, probably composed during the third quarter of the 17th century), now kept in the State Historic Museum of Moscow (hereinafter referred to as Slav. 1) followed by the original praises to Christ, the Holy Virgin, Stt. Antony and Theodosius of the Kyivan Caves, as well as original troparia to Kyivan saints (184v–187r).29 The text consists of the translation of Meletios’ Paraklesis with the following four stichera prosomia (Praises) in the First tone (Εἰς τοὺς αἴνους προσόµοια. Ἦχος α’ – Стхры, гласъ а҃, incipit Μὴ εἴξας τοῖς δαίµοσι σαυτόνНе терпѧ бѣсомъ себе самого принести), including the final theotokion (p. 740–742), which was originally added by Meletios in the Matins service, and the apolytikon (incipit Ὅτε κατέλθετε εἰς µνήµαταЕгда снидосте въ гробы) with the following theotokion taken from the Meletios’ Great Vespers (p. 697). The only original part of the text, apart from the praises mentioned above, appears to be the catabasis (placed in the text after the first ode of the Paraklesis), which didn’t exist in Meletios’ hymn and reads as follows: Избавите ѿ бѣдъ раба своего прпд҃бнїи ѹгодници х҃вы приносѧщаго к вамъ сїю малую молбу ѿ потопа стр҃стеи, и вскагѡ навѣта сопротивна ѧкѡ азъ по б҃ѕѣ к вамъ прибѣгаю, къ скорым млт҃венникѡмъ, и хранителемъ дш҃а моеѧ. The structure of the Paraklesis follows the Greek style, with no marking on the fifth troparion of each ode, the marking “Бг҃ородиченъ (Theotokion)” before the sixth troparion of each ode and the full text of the hirmos. As far as the text of the Paraklesis is concerned, the translator follows Meletios’ text rather accurately. However, he made the following major conscious changes:

    It should also be noted that the scribe that produced this copy of Slav. 1 was certainly not familiar with the Kyivan saints, which resulted in numerous mistakes in their names. For instance, in 1:5 the name of Martyr Eustathius of Vilnius (Εὐστάθιος) appears as еvстратiи, and in 8:3 instead of one saint Ἐφραὶµ Εὐνοῦχος (Ephraim, Bishop of Pereyaslavl), two people appear: тѧ молѧт ефрем, и еѵнух.

  2. The hymnograpic complex entitled “вертоградъ цвѣтоносныхъ похвал или стихиры и параклис всѣмъ прп҃дбнымъ ѿцем нашим в пещерахъ постничествовавшимъ Рѡссїиским чудотворцемъ. Издасѧ Первое въ обители ст҃ои ц҃рьскои Печеро Кїевскои: Блс҃венїем Преѡсщ҃еннаго Петра Мѡгилы м: к: Архимандрита Печер: Трудолюбїемъ чст҃наго въ иноцехъ мужа Господина ѿца Мелетїа Сѵрига Грека и еѯархи ст҃ѣишаго Вселеньскаго Патрїархи Парѳенїѧ, и всего сще҃ннаго егѡ собѡра. Року ах҃мг септеб: в҃·” (hereinafter referred to as Slav. 2). While Meletios claims that the Greek text was written in June 1643, it was in September of 1643 that the Slavonic translation presented in this text was carried out and probably published. The copy analyzed is from a manuscript titled Book of Canons (Kanonnik) dated 1655, which was written in the Kyivan Cave Monastery by the scribe hieromonach Callistus (ff. 177r–219 v), and is now kept in the basic manuscript collection of the Russian National Library (O. I. 31).30 The certain complex as the one described above except of the original Slavonic catabasis and the prays consists of the translation of the parts of Meletios’ Service, and presents more extended comparing with the previous one hymnographic structure, revealing the creative work of the Slavic scholar over the Greek text. Specifically, it consists of:

    • two cycles of stichera from the Small Vespers: six (including theotokion) stichera prosomia on “Lord, I Have Cried” (Стхры в вечеръ Глас а҃ Под: Прехвалнїи, incipit Ἀσκηταὶ θεόφρονεςПостници б҃гомудрїи) and four aposticha (На стих: глас в҃ под: доме, incipit Σπήλαιον τῶν ληστῶνПещеру разбоиникѡв),

    • two apolytikon – from the Small Vespers (Таж На Бг҃ъ Гь҃ Троп: Глас г҃, incipit Τὴν πολυΰµνητον πόλιν τιµήσωµενМногопѣтыи град почтем) and from the Great Vespers (Слав: Глас в҃ їнъ Тропарь, incipit Ὅτε κατέλθετε εἰς µνήµαταЕгда снидосте въ гробы) with the following theotokion (see also above),

    • the full text of the Paraklesis (Канонъ Молебныи къ преподобнымъ ѿцемъ Печерскимъ),

    • kontakion after the third ode (Кѡд Глас в҃), moved from its position after the 6th ode in the original text (incipit Πατέρες σεπτοί, χορεία θεοκόσµητοςѾцеве чс҃тнїи, Личе Бг҃окрасныи),

    • two sessational hymns (sedalen) in the same position (after the third ode), placed by Meletios after the first and second Kathisma of the Matins, correspondingly (Сѣд: Глас а҃, Слава глас д҃) with the theotokion (incipits Ἀντώνιον πιστοί, Θεοδόσιον ἅµαАнтѡнїѧ вѣрнїи Ѳеѡдѡсїѧ вкупѣ, Καταβὰς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆςСъшед на землю, Κατεπλάγη Ἰωσήφѹдивисѧ Їѡсиѳ),

    • kondakion and oikos (Їкѡс) after the 6th ode (Кондак Глас в҃) taken from the canons of the Matins service (incipits Τὰ ἄνω οἰκεῖν ποθήσαντες βασίλειαВышнѧѧ ѡбитати возлюбивше цр҃ства and Ἄβυσσον κριµάτων Θεοῦ σοφίαςБездну судеб Бж҃їа премудрости correspondingly),

    • after the Paraklesis, three Stichera prosomia (Praises) of the Paraklesis (Стхры, гласъ а҃, incipit Μὴ εἴξας τοῖς δαίµοσι σαυτόνНе терпѧ бѣсомъ себе самого принести) (see above), followed by the fourth, Litiy Sticheron from Meletios’ Great Vespers (incipit Τοὺς γενναίους τοῦ Χριστοῦ στρατιώταςДоблѧѧ – хв҃ы воины), and two Theotokia divided by the word или (or) with the incipit Δέσποινα πρόσδεξαιВлд҃чце прїими and Παρθένε µαρτύρων καλλονήДв҃о мч҃нкѡм ѹкрашенїе correspondingly. The first was taken from the cycle of Litiy Stichera of Meletios’ Great Vespers, and the second remains at its original position as Theotokion for the Praises of the Paraklesis.

The structure of the Paraklesis is adopted to the Russian practice of that time with the fifth troparion of each ode marked with the word Слава and the sixth theotokion with the words Ї нынѣ.

One can assume that Slav. 2 was composed by extending and revising Slav. 1 according to the original Greek text. It can be easily proven textologically that the two Slavonic versions were not translated independently. This is due, but not limited to, the fact that all conscious changes made by the translator of Slav. 1 are included in Slav. 2. However, lexical variants could be found even in the fragments found in both sources, e.g. in the Paraklesis, which prove that the entire text of Slav. 1 was revised based on the Greek text. An example of this is troparion 9:3 of the Paraklesis with the differences between the two Slavonic manuscripts italicized:

Original Greek text:

Προσάγω πανοικτίρµον, Ἰουλιανὴν σοι ἀειφεγγῆ τὴν λαµπάδα ἐλαίῳ πολλῷ, διακρατοῦσαν, ταῖς λιταῖς αὐτῆς µε φρούρησοις (p. 739)

Therefore, if we accept the date referenced in Slav. 2 (September 12, 1643) as the publication date of the second version, it can be assumed that in the time period from June to September, there were several (at least two) attempts to transfer Meletios’ hymnographic complex to the Russian culture, and that the initial translation was revised and extended at least once in this period of time. However, the fact that the full text of the Service composed by Meletios was translated neither in Slav. 1 nor in Slav. 2, with only the Paraklesis with some additional stichera being translated, in combination with the fact that no commemoration date is referenced in either source, argue in favor of a case of local worship rather than official recognition as saints. The creative approach that the translator applied to the Greek text, the changes and the additions he ventured to make in his translation (e.g. the addition of the name of Martyr John’s father, Theodor), along with the fact that the following text was revised at least once based on the original Greek version, prove that the translator, who was a member of Kyivan Cave monastery community and/or a scholar of Peter Mohyla’s circle, approved of the list of saints proposed by Meletios, which definitely corresponded to the local worship practice of that time.

However, these Slavonic texts presented noticeable problems as far as the following worship practice is concerned. Firstly, they did not even mention the names of the founders of the Monastery, Antony and Theodosius, and not because they were persons that Meletios considered unworthy to be revered. Meletios repeated their names several times in the text of his Service and dedicated the four first odes of the second Canon of the Matins to them. One can only speculate as to why the names of these two saints were not included by Meletios in the Paraklesis. However, this fact shouldn’t be given special significance despite the Greek author surely regarding his hymnographic complex as a whole. It was when only one part of this complex was translated to Church Slavonic that the problems started. This problem was only partially solved when, in the Slav. 2 version, the sessational hymn (sedalen) from the first Kathisma of the Matins of Meletios’ complex dedicated to Antony and Theodosius was added (incipit Ἀντώνιον πιστοί, Θεοδόσιον ἅµαАнтѡнїѧ вѣрнїи Ѳеѡдѡсїѧ вкупѣ). Obviously, such a reference did not correspond to the status of these people among the Kyivan Cave Saints. The second problem was a reference of two neither officially recognized as saints nor worshipped people, namely the Metropolitans of Kyiv Leon (Leontius) and Ephraim (see above). Meletios’ initiative for their glorification among the saints, probably supported by Peter Mohyla, seemed to have no further support and was therefore deadlocked. The commemoration of these people in the liturgical text was inappropriate and did not express the official position of the Church. Moreover, in the years that followed Meletios’ visit to Kyiv, the list of the Kyiv Cave Saints changed significantly, reflecting the expansion of their reverence and the change in the approach of the church community to different aspects of their worship.

All these reasons together led to the composition of the third version of the Paraklesis complex (hereinafter referred to as Slav. 3), the first edition of which, to the best of our knowledge, was in the Collection of Akathistos, Stichera and Canons (Prechistye Akafisty Vse Sedmichmye so Stichiry i Kanony …), published in Kyiv in 1677. This version was later re-published many times with small and insignificant changes in the 18th–20th century (it was studied from the old printed edition “Collection of Services and Akathistos” (Sbornik Sluzhb i Akafistov), Kyiv, 1731), and continues to form part of the Church’s liturgical practice. It is also included in the so-called “Green Menaion” for the month of February (to be chanted on the second Sunday of the Great Lent), where it is attributed to Meletios.31 This text is usually used by scholars as evidence for Meletios and Peter Mohyla’s approach to the glorification of the Kyivan Cave Saints. However, it is significantly different from Meletios’ original text as well as its first Slavonic translations (Slav. 1 and Slav. 2), which will be analyzed below.

The complex is entitled Правило молебное прпд҃бнымъ оц҃емъ печерскимъ, и всѣмъ ст҃ымъ в малои рѡссїи просїѧвшым. пѣваемое когда, и гдѣ кто изволитъ, which indicates that at the time it was composed, neither an official recognition as saints had occurred nor had a commemoration day been established. The textological analysis reveals that this version is only based on the Slav. 2 version, while neither the Slav. 1 nor the original Greek Service by Meletios were used for its composition.

As far as the Slav. 3 complex structure is concerned, it starts with the same two cycles of stichera from the Small Vespers as in Slav. 2, with only minor changes (the detailed description of the changes made by the Slavic scholar in Slav. 3 will be presented in the forthcoming edition). The original theotokion of the aposticha with the incipit Xαῖρε ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ, πύλη ἐσφραγισµένηРадуисѧ Бж҃їа двери запечатлѣннаѧ was changed into the more common Бг҃а из тебе воплотившагосѧ разумѣхомъ. From the two apolytikon present in Slav. 2, only one is used – that from the Great Vespers (incipit Ὅτε κατέλθετε εἰς µνήµαταЕгда снидосте въ гробы) with its following theotokion (Πάντα ὑπὲρ ἔννοιανвсѧ паче смысла). Along with the Paraklesis itself, the complex also includes: the new original katabasis with the incipit Молите Бг҃а ѡ насъ прп҃дбнїи о҃цы наши Антѡнїе и Ѳеодосїе, placed after the first ode to be chanted after each ode; the new original sessational hymn (sedalen) with the incipit Повелна ѿ Бг҃а теплѣ исполнюще after the third ode with its following theotokion (incipit Безплотныхъ твоихъ Хрс҃те, и предтечи твоегѡ); the kontakion with the incipit Оц҃ы всечс҃тнїи, личе бг҃окрасныи placed after the sixth ode instead of the end of the third ode in Slav. 2 (see above) followed by the new original oikos with the incipit Агг҃лски пожившы на земли; as well as three stichera prosomia (Praises) from Slav. 2 placed after the Paraklesis, with a new fourth original (incipit Прпд҃бнїи оц҃ы, поучившесѧ день и нощь в законѣ гс҃дни), followed by the second of the two theotokia from Slav. 2 (incipit Бд҃це мч҃нкѡмъ ѹкрашенїе).

As far as the Paraklesis itself is concerned, it consists of both troparia by Meletios that were used in the Slav. 2 translation in the changed order, as well as new troparia composed by the Slavic scholar. The new structure is shown in Table 3, which shows the troparia from Slav. 2 used in each ode of Slav. 3, along with the new original troparia (marked Or.1, 2 etc.).

One can easily see that the Slavic scholar made major changes in the text’s structure, changing the entire context of the presentation of this material, with only the theotokia (except for the original ones in Odes 7 and 9) and a few other troparia remaining in their original position. As far as the new troparia are concerned (those marked Or.), they were mainly inserted in order to commemorate the saints that weren’t included in the Slav. 1/Slav. 2 complexes, either because they were not mentioned by Meletios in his Service and Paraklesis complex, or due to the fact that they were in parts of the text that had not been translated into Slavonic. According to the scholar who carried out the revision, there were also saints who, despite having been mentioned alongside other saints in Slav. 1/Slav. 2, deserved a special troparion, or another method of presentation. The list of these saints in the new troparia is presented in Table 4.

Table 3
Table 3

Troparia order in the Paraklesis of Slav. 3 in comparison to Slav. 2

Citation: Scrinium 17, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/18177565-BJA10041

Table 4
Table 4
Table 4

Saints referenced in the original troparia of Slav. 3

Citation: Scrinium 17, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/18177565-BJA10041

One can easily see that in troparia Or.10 and Or. 11, most of the church hierarchs referenced had already been mentioned by Meletios; however, the order of their names was re-structured and more names were included in each troparion. The five troparia of Meletios’ text (P 4:1–4:5) were also reduced to two (Or.10–Or.11), in order to gain space for the new people that had to be commemorated. Sometimes the name remained but the person changed, as occurred with the name Леѡнтїи (Λεόντιος). This name was referenced in both Meletios’ text and Slav. 1/Slav. 2 to describe Leon (Leontius), Metropolitan of Kyiv. It was then re-used by the author of the Slav. 3 version to refer to St. Leontius, Bishop and Wonderworker of Rostov. This change is indicated by the different part of the text he is referenced in: not among the Metropolitans, but among the Bishops. Three other new saints that are absent from Meletios’ hymnographic complex are Titus, Pimen, and Kuksha, the last of which being described in almost the same troparion as the one written by Meletios for the unknown Martyr Gerasim (see above). The author of the Slav. 3 version also re-structured the hymn in order to give more attention to the Abbots of the Monastery. He achieved this by “collecting” them in the first ode starting with Antony and Theodosius and dedicating special troparia to those who were only named in the lists written by Meletios.

Another major change reflecting the evolution of the cult of the Kyivan Saints in the period from 1643 to 1677 is the introduction of the special troparion dedicated to Nestor the Chronicler (Or.8). While in Meletios’ complex, this saint was only mentioned in the list, while the composition of the hagiographic complex of the Kyivan Cave Saints is attributed exclusively to archimandrite Polycarp (see P 9:4: Πολύκαρπε ὁ βίους, τῶν ὁσίων γράψας, καὶ σεαυτὸν ἐκµαγεῖον ἐκεῖνων ποιῶν, ὑπὲρ εἰρήνης τοῦ κόσµου, Θεὸν ἱκέτευε (p. 740); Slav. 2: Поликарпе, иже житїѧ преподобныхъ исписавыи, и себе самого ѡбразъ ѡным творѧ, ѡ мирѣ мїра Бг҃а моли), the author of Slav. 3 commemorates both Nestor and Polycarp in two original troparia of the 8th ode, changing the descriptions and showing the succession in their contributions:

Or. 8: Несторе бг҃омудре, житїи ст҃ыхъ списателю первѣишїи, и ревнителю онымъ добрыи, славы онѣхъ, молитвами ти ѧви мѧ общника

Or. 9: Полѵкарпе славне, тѣхже житїѧ ст҃ыхъ конечнѣе исписавыи, и в едино собравыи, въ книги живѡтны твоими молитвами, и мнѣ написатисѧ сподоби

Since the 17th and 18th century editions of the Slav. 3 version contained neither Meletios’ name nor the name of the scholar who carried out the revision, its authorship cannot be stated with confidence. However, the indirect historical and textological evidence leads us to believe that it was composed by Dimitry (Tuptalo) of Rostov, who composed his original Second Paraklesis dedicated to the Saints Antony and Theodosius of the Kyivan Caves, using the same hiermos as Meletios’ Paraklesis32 at approximately the same time.

To summarize the main results of our research, it should be stressed that the source that researchers use to refer for the glorification of the Kyivan Cave Saints as the Canon to Kyivan Cave Saints by Meletios Syrigos, in reality turns out to be three different sources: the original Greek version of the Service with the Paraklesis to the Kyivan Cave Saints and all the Russian Saints composed by Meletios Syrigos in June 1643; its partial translation into Church Slavonic carried out in two stages during that same year (both versions were created using the original Greek version); and lastly its revision realized before 1677, which was based on the second Slavonic version without taking into account the original Greek text, and had significant changes and new saints and text fragments added. This last version has been preserved in Church tradition to this day as Meletios’ Canon. The study of the changes made to this hymnographic complex reveals various aspects and stages in the evolution of the cult of the Kyivan Cave Saints during the time period of our research, as well as Meletios’ role in the cult’s development. The extended analysis of these sources will be presented later in the forthcoming edition, which is currently being prepared.

List of Abbreviations

SV

Small Vespers

GV

Great Vespers

M

Matins

P

Pakaklesis Canon

C2

Second Canon of Matins

SLC

Sticheron on “Lord, I Have Cried”

SL

Sticheron on Litiy

SP

Sticheron on Praises

Kath

Sessational hymn (sedalen)

Ex

Exapostilarion

Or

Original Slavonic troparion

Slav. 1

first Church Slavonic translation of Meletios’ Canon in the manuscript from the Synodal collection 456 (Collection of Sermons by Isaac of Nineveh and Petr Damaskin, dated probably around the third quarter of the 17th century), ff. 181r–184v

Slav. 2

revised version of Slav. 1, studied from the Book of canons (Kanonnik), dated 1655, written in the Kyivan Cave Monastery by the scribe hieromonach Callistus (ff. 177r–219 v), and kept in the basic manuscript collection of the Russian National Library (O. I. 31)

Slav. 3

revised version of Slav. 2, studied from the old printed edition “Collection of Services and Akathistos” (Sbornik Sluzhb i Akafistov), Kyiv, 1731.

1

For a review of the current scientific literature on Meletios Syrigos see G. Podskalsky, Η Ελληνική θεολογία επί Τουρκοκρατίας. 1453–1821. Η Ορθοδοξία στη σφαίρα επιρροής των Δυτικών δογµάτων µετά τη Μεταρρύθµιση. Μετάφραση Γ. Μεταλληνός, Athens, 2005, pp. 271–278; В. Г. Ченцова, “Мелетий Сириг,” in: Православная энциклопедия, Т. 44 [V. G. Tchentsova, “Meletios Syrigos,” in: Orthodox Encyclopedia, vol. 44]. Moscow, 2016, pp. 591–594.

2

G. Podskalsky, Η Ελληνική θεολογία επί Τουρκοκρατίας, p. 275.

3

С. Т. Голубев, Киевский митрополит Петр Могила и его сподвижники, Т. 2 [S. T. Golubev, Kyivan Metropolitan Peter Mohyla and his Collaborators, vol. 2]. Kyiv, 1883–1898, pp. 337–338; А. В. Горский, К. И. Невоструев, Описание славянских рукописей Московской синодальной библиотеки [A. V. Gorskiy, K. I. Novostruev, Description of Slavonic Manuscripts from the Holy Synod Library of Moscow, vol. 2, part 2]. Moscow, 1959, p. 190; Е. Е. Голубинский, История канонизации святых в русской Церкви [E. E. Golubinskiy, History of Saints’ Canonization in the Russian Church]. Moscow, 1903, pp. 209–210; M. Petrowycz, “The Addition of Slavic Saints to Seventeen-century Liturgical Calendars of the Kyivan Metropolitanate,” in: Inquiries into Eastern Christian Worship. Selected Papers of the Second International Congress of the Society of Oriental Liturgy. Rome, 17–21 September 2008, Leaven-Paris-Walpole, 2012, pp. 335–343, here pp. 338–340; В. Г. Ченцова, Мелетий Сириг, p. 592.

4

Дива печер лаврських, под ред. В. М. Колпакова [Miracles of the Caves of Lavra, ed. by V. M. Kolpakov]. Kyiv, 2011, pp. 155–158.

5

Минея февраль [Menaion for February]. Moscow, 2002, pp. 755–766.

6

See, for example, Е. А. Лопухина, “Арефа Затворник,” in: Православная энциклопедия, Т.3 [E. A. Lopukhina, “Aretha the Hermit,” in: Orthodox Encyclopedia, vol. 3]. Moscow, 2001, pp. 217–218; М. В. Антонова, М. А. Комова, “«Киево-Печерский Патерик» как источник иконографии преподобного священномученика Кукши”, Вестник Брянского государственного университета [M. V. Antonova, M. A. Komarova, “‘Kyivan Caves Patericon’ as a Source for Iconography of the St. Martyr Kuksha,” The Bryansk State University Herald], 1 (2015), pp. 206–209.

7

J. Pargoire, “Meletios Syrigos, sa vie et ses œuvres,” Echos d’Orient, Paris, 11 (1908), pp. 264–280, 331–340; 12 (1909), pp. 17–27, 167–175, 281–286, 336–342.

8

J. Pargoire, Meletios Syrigos, 1908, p. 280. J. Pargoire used an old system of manuscript codification, according to which the manuscript no. 778 is referred to as M746. See also J. Pargoire, Meletios Syrigos, 1909, pp. 26–27.

9

Θ. Δετοράκης, “Μελέτιου Συρίγου του Κρήτος Ανέκδοτα Επιγράµµατα στους Αγίους της Λαύρας Πιετζαρίου του Κιέβου,” in: Επιστηµονική Επετηρίδα. Νεάπολις Κρήτης, 5 (2014), pp. 36–44; Σ. Πασχαλίδης, “Η Αντιστροφή µιας Σχέσης: Ρωσικές αγιολογικές Παραδόσεις στην Ελληνόφωνη Ορθοδοξία (16ος–19ος αι),” in: Κύριλλος και Μεθόδιος. Το Βυζάντιο και ο Κόσµος των Σλάβων, Thessaloniki, 2015, pp. 519–539, here pp. 523–530.

10

See Θ. Δετοράκης, Μελέτιου Συρίγου του Κρήτος, pp. 37–38; Σ. Πασχαλίδης, Η Αντιστροφή µιας Σχέσης, pp. 525–526. See also Α. Παπαδοπούλου-Κεραµέως, Ἱεροσολυµιτική βιβλιοθήκη, ἤτοι κατάλογος τῶν ἐν ταίς βιβλιοθήκαις τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου ἀποστολικοῦ τε καί καθολικοῦ ὀρθοδόξου πατριαρχικοῦ θρόνου τῶν Ἱεροσολύµων καί πάσης Παλαιστίνης ἀποκειµένων ἑλληνικῶν κωδίκῶν, vol. 5, Bruxelles, 1963, p. 272. The author would like to thank Prof. Th. Detorakis for the photocopies of the manuscript.

11

Θ. Δετοράκης. Μελέτιου Συρίγου του Κρήτος, pp. 40–44.

12

See Κ. Δυοβουνιώτης, “Κατάλογος των Κωδίκων της Βιβλιοθήκης της Ζαγοράς,” Νέος Ελληνοµνήµων, 13 (1916), pp. 109–119, here pp. 117–119; Σ. Πασχαλίδης, Η Αντιστροφή µιας Σχέσης, pp. 526–527. The author would like to thank the Historical and Paleographical archive (NBG Cultural Foundation) for the copy of this manuscript.

13

See, for example, В. Г. Ченцова, Мелетий Сириг, p. 592.

14

С. Т. Голубев, Киевский митрополит Петр Могила, pp. 337–338; Е. Е. Голубинский, История канонизации, pp. 209–210.

15

See О. В. Панченко, “Из археографических разысканий в области соловецкой книжности. II. «Канон всем святым, иже в Велицеи Росии в посте просиявшим»сочинение Сергея Шелонина,” Труды Отдела древнерусской литературы [O. V. Panchenko, “From the Archeographic Research in the Field of Solovetsky Written Tradition. II. ‘Canon to All Russian Saints Who Shone in the Fasting’ by Sergey Shelonin,” Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature]. 56 (2004), pp. 453–480, here pp. 455–466.

16

Древнерусские патерики. Киево-Печерский патерик. Волоколамский патерик, под ред. Л. А. Ольшевской, С. Н. Травникова [Old Russian Patericons. Kyivan Caves Patericon. Volokolamsk Patericon, ed. by L. A. Ol’shevskaya and S. N. Travnikov]. Moscow, 1999, pp. 7–80.

17

Е. В. Лопухина, И. Б. Черномаз, “Дионисий Щепа,” in: Православная энциклопедия, Т. 15 [E. V. Lopukhina, I. B. Chernomaz, “Dionysius Schepa,” in: Orthodox Encyclopedia, vol. 15]. Moscow, 2007, pp. 265–257.

18

See O. Alexandropoulou, “The History of Russia in Works of Greek Scholars of the Seventeenth Century,” Cyrillomethodianum, Thessaloniki, 13–14 (1989–1990), pp. 61–92, here pp. 69–70.

19

One of these Latin-speaking scholars is mentioned in a note in Latin on p. 757 of the same manuscript (MPT 778), cited by J. Pargoire: Nomen mei scriba qui datus est mihi manenti in monasterio Piezariensi fuit tale: D. Hilarius Dobnodzieazek. See J. Pargoire, Meletios Syrigos, 1908, p. 280.

20

Е. Е. Голубинский, История канонизации.

21

Псалтирь Следованная [Psalter]. Киев, 1643. The incomplete list of the Kyivan Cave Saints that are commemorated in the Menologion of the 1643 Psalter is provided in Дива печер лаврьских, p. 156.

22

Древнерусские патерики, p. 27.

23

Древнерусские патерики, pp. 25–26.

24

Древнерусские патерики, p. 405.

25

Древнерусские патерики, pp. 77–80.

26

Древнерусские патерики, p. 22.

27

See О. В. Панченко, Из археографических разысканий, p. 464.

28

А. В. Назаренко, “Леон,” in: Православная энциклопедия, Т.40 [A. V. Nazarenko, “Leon,” in: Orthodox Encyclopedia, vol. 40]. Moscow, 2015, p. 441.

29

А. В. Горский, К.И. Невоструев, Описание славянских рукописей, p. 190.

30

See К. Ф. Калайдович, П. М. Строев, Обстоятельное описание славяно-российских рукописей, хранящихся в Москве, в библиотеке графа Ф. А. Толстого [K. F. Kalaidovich, P. M. Stroev, Analytic Description of Slavonic and Russian Manuscripts, kept in Moscow in the Library of the Count F. A. Tolstoy]. Moscow, 1825, p. 614.

31

Минея февраль, pp. 755–766.

32

See М. А. Федотова, “Сочинение Димитрия Ростовского «Канон преподобным и богоносным отцем нашим Антонию и Феодосию Киево-Печерским»: к истории текста,” Русская литература [M. A. Fedotova, “‘Canon to the Saint and God-bearing Fathers Antony and Theodosius of the Kyivan Caves’ by Dimitry of Rostov: on the Text’s History,” Russian Literature]. 2 (2020), pp. 40–47.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 82 82 38
PDF Views & Downloads 23 23 16