A Slavonic Translation of the Eucharistic Diataxis of Philotheos Kokkinos from a Lost Manuscript (Athos Agiou Pavlou 149)
The library of the hagioritic monastery of St. Paul (Ἱερὰ μονὴ Ἁγίου Παύλου) was once famous for its Slavonic collection, one of the most interesting on the Holy Mountain. Tragically, this collection was destroyed by a fire in 1902. Some of the manuscripts from this collection happened to have been sold by the monks or given as a gift to this or that visitor1, or transferred to other hagioritic monasteries. But most of the Slavonic manuscript treasures formerly belonging to the monastery were completely lost. Scholars are left to depend on a few short descriptions by 19th-century travellers to Mount Athos: Bishop Porphyry Uspensky2, Archimandrites Antonin Kapustin3 and Leonid Kavelin4, Viktor Grigorovich5.
This is why a list from dossier No. 138 from the archive of Alexey Dmitrievsky († 1929), kept at the Russian National Library in Saint-Petersburg (archive fund No. 253), looks so promising. There is mentioned a number of Slavonic manuscripts from the monastery of St. Paul. The list was published by Miguel Arranz6, who has also briefly studied another dossier from Dmitrievsky’s archive, the huge No. 137, consisting of many copies from various Greek and Slavonic manuscripts (actually, an unedited continuation of Dmitrievsky’s famous «Описание литургических рукописей...»), and concluded: «Une premiere vision nous a laisse l’impression qu’il s’agit des memes documents indiques dans l’index... qui se trouve dans le dossier n. 138»7. In reality, though, it turned out that the cited conclusion is incorrect – actual contents of No. 137 differ considerably from the list given in No. 138. In particular, one finds here excerpts from just two Slavonic manuscripts from the collection of the monastery of St. Paul. The present article is an edition of the first of them, written out from a 15th-c. Sluzhebnik (Leitourgikon), Athos Agiou Pavlou 149.
This copy of Athos Agiou Pavlou 149 was acquired by Dmitrievsky in 1887, during his second trip to Mount Athos. He himself characterizes the manuscript as «very interesting and important in a scholarly sense»8. Yet, the copy Dmitrievsky acquired is by no means representing the complete manuscript. It comprises only the first part of a Slavonic translation of Δίάταξις της θείας λειτουργίας of St. Philotheos Kokkinos, Patriarch of Constantinople († 1377/78), and ends just before the initial ecphonesis of the Divine Liturgy (i. e., «Blessed is the Kingdom...»).
The first scholar to study the eucharistic Diataxis of Philotheos thoroughly was Nikolay Krasnoseltsev9, who began with editing in 1885 a Greek liturgical diataxis from Vatican Gr. 1213 (16 с.) and a Slavonic translation of the Diataxis of Philotheos from Vatican Slav. 14 (turn of the 14–15th c.), together with some remarks10. In 1889 Krasnoseltsev published a number of Byzantine eucharistic Diataxeis, including the first critical edition of the Philothean Diataxis, according to Greek manuscripts Athos Pantel. 421 (1545 AD), Athos Pantel. 435 (2nd half of the 16 c.), Athos Vatop. 133 (744) (14 c.) and a Slavonic manuscript, Moscow Synodal Library [now: ГИМ. Син.] 601 (end of 14 c.), and an extensive commentary11. In 1895 Krasnoseltsev reported that he managed to find the initial redaction of the Philothean Diataxis, which is antecedent to the one he published earlier. He then started editing the first pages of this initial redaction, according to Athos Pantel. 770 (49) (14 c.). Unfortunately, this work remained unfinished12. But the text prepared by Krasnoseltsev was finally published in 1912 by Dmitrievsky, Krasnoseltsev’s former student, together with some other important texts13. In 1935 the Diataxis from Athos Pantel. 770 (49) was published once again, this time by Panagiotês Trempelas, who seems to have been unaware of the works by Krasnoseltsev and Dmitrievsky14. I would note here that Athos Pantel. 770 (49) must not be a unique manuscript to contain the initial redaction of the Diataxis. For example, in a manuscript of 1545 AD from the hagioritic monastery Esphigmenou, edited by Polychrony Syrku15, we find a combined eucharistic ordo, where prayers of the Divine Liturgy are inserted into the text of the Philothean Diataxis itself, and the text of the Diataxis here clearly follows its initial redaction16. After the pioneering works of Krasnoseltsev and other Russian pre-revolutionary scholars, there have been no special studies on the Greek text of the eucharistic Diataxis of Philotheos, though it was discussed to various extents in a number of scholarly works17.
The first study of a Slavonic translation of the eucharistic Diataxis of Philotheos belongs to Ivan Mansvetov, who dedicated a part of his book on the liturgical works of St. Cyprian, Metropolitan of all Rus’ († 1406), to his translation of the Diataxis18. Mansvetov’s work was used by Church historian Eugene Golubinsky, who brought the study a little bit further19. The first scholarly publications of Slavonic translations of the Diataxis and more profound studies of them are contained in the aforementioned works of Krasnoseltsev, Syrku and Dmitrievsky, as well as those of Sergey Muretov20. More recent publications in the field are those of Radu Constantinescu21, Alexey Pentkovsky22, Tatyana Afanasyeva23, and Svetlana Panova24.
All these scholars pointed out that there were different early Slavonic translations of the Philothean Diataxis. Pentkovsky made it quite clear that the first of them was accomplished by some Athonite Serbian monks, the second one – by St. Euthymius, Patriarch of Tyrnovo († 1402), and there was also a Russian translation (or translations). Afanasyeva refined some of Pentkovsky’s hypotheses and concluded that there were only three different 14th– century Slavonic translations of the Diataxis: an anonymous one which she called the Athonite, and translations of Patriarch Euthymius and Metropolitan Cyprian. However, Afanasyeva’s argumentation was rather brief, and she evidently lacked a sufficient knowledge of the original Greek tradition. For example, she states that «three Greek manuscripts of the Diataxis of Philotheos are known»25, while their number is significantly greater26. Nonetheless, a profound philological study presented by Panova has proven Afanasyeva’s insights to be correct. Panova convincingly demonstrated that the three translations differ in vocabulary and translation techniques. Moreover, as Afanasyeva had already shown, the Athonite translation has a specific feature: while those of Euthymius and Cyprian initially formed a separate section in Sluzhebniki, the Athonite translation is combined with the text of the Divine Liturgy27 (the text of the latter in this case always accords to a translation, also designated as Athonite). The Athonite translation of the Diataxis is mostly witnessed by Serbian manuscripts, or Bulgarian and Russian copies of Serbian manuscripts.
The Athonite translation of the Diataxis also gives a number of variant readings when describing some rites and citing certain euchological formulas, which differ substantially from that Greek redaction of the Diataxis, which is witnessed by Athos Vatop. 133 (744) etc. Panova has noticed some of these (for example, a specific order of commemoration of Saints during the Prothesis) and concluded that while they are not found in the Greek text, they should therefore mirror the liturgical practice of the Slavs at the time when the translation was made. But this is incorrect. In fact, the liturgical peculiarities of the Athonite translation correspond perfectly well with the initial Greek redaction of the Philothean Diataxis, attested in Athos Pantel. 770 (49). In their turn, Euthymius’ and Cyprian’s renditions conform not to the initial, but to the revised Greek redaction of the Diataxis. The Athonite translation was, therefore, made from a text not identical to the source of two other Slavonic versions of the Diataxis.
Returning to the excerpt from Athos Agiou Pavlou 149, we must say that it contains specifically the Athonite translation of the Diataxis of Philotheos. The first part of it (up to the initial ecphonesis of the Divine Liturgy) was edited first by Muretov28, and then by Constantinescu29. The reasons for a separation of the first part of the Diataxis from its remaining text in the manuscripts and, subsequently, in the editions, is clear. As was already noted, in the Athonite translation the Diataxis is combined with the text of the Divine Liturgy. It thus gets lost in it, so only the first part of the Diataxis remains independent30. The same occured with the excerpt from Athos Agiou Pavlou 149: it ends, as was already mentioned above, just before the initial ecpho- nesis of the Divine Liturgy, while the Divine Liturgy itself (including the remaining text of the Diataxis) was not copied by Dmitrievsky’s copyist.
In this preparatory part of the Divine Liturgy, which comprises the entrance rites, the vesture of a deacon and a priest, and the rite of Prothesis, the initial redaction of the Diataxis of Philotheos – and, therefore, the Athonite Slavonic translation of it – differs from the later redactions in three points:
1) it cites the prayers of the deacon’s vesture, but omits those of the priest;
2) it opens the commemorations of the third prosphora with a mention of the Life-giving Cross and the angelic powers;
3) it welcomes the deacon to commemorate those he wants to right after the priest, instructing him to extract particles from prosphoras as had the priest.
The reasons for the omission of the priestly vesting prayers are unclear. Actually, many of the manuscripts of the Athonite translation of the Diataxis contain them, but the number of the manuscripts without them is considerable (including the one I am discussing here, Athos Agiou Pavlou 149). These prayers are also omitted in the Greek Athos Pantel. 770 (49), so it is more probable that they were not cited in the original text (if Athos Pantel. 770 (49) is not the original text), and in the manuscripts which have them they are a later addition, made for convenience. The presence of only the deaconal vesting prayers in the original text of the Diataxis could mean that Philotheos Kokkinos composed his Diataxis while being a deacon – or at a request of some deacon.
The commemorations of the third prosphora in current Slavonic practice open with the name of St. John the Baptist. In current Greek practice – with the names of Michael and Gabriel together with the angelic powers. This issue has been a subject of theological reflection in several publications31. One of the central questions concerning this is the following: What is the sense of commemorating the angels during the Prothesis if the sacrifice of Golgotha and, therefore, of the Eucharist was offered not for them but for the human race? I am not going to criticize nor praise any of the positions. The revised redaction of the Philothean Diataxis according to Athos Vatop. 133 (744) etc. supports the Slavonic practice and opens the commemorations with the name of St. John the Baptist. It is the initial redaction of the Diataxis where the angelic powers are commemorated, and not only they, but even the Holy and Life-giving Cross!32 It seems that at first Philotheos had simply followed the common practice, which is also described in the earlier anonymous Diataxis («Hermêneia»)33, but later decided to refine it. Yet the peculiarity from the initial redaction remained in some Greek manuscripts and had already passed to the Athonite Slavonic translation of the Diataxis.
The most interesting feature of the description of the Prothesis in the initial redaction of the Philothean Diataxis is a permission given to the deacon to extract his own particles from the prosphoras. It is a clear remnant of the archaic practice when the deacon performed the whole rite of the Prothesis himself, save the final Prothesis Prayer34. This practice began to change in the beginning of the 12th century35, and what we find in the initial redaction of the Philothean Diataxis is just an echo of it. Further on even this remnant was extinguished completely in both Greek and Slavonic practices. In the middle of the 17th century Arsenij Suxanov, a hieromonk and a famous Russian traveler to the Greek and Arabic Orthodox East, is very surprised to learn that «in all the Greek printed Euchologia as well as old Slavonic [Sluzhebniki]» a deacon is allowed to extract his own particles from a prosphora, and witnesses that this practice is not in use among the Greeks anymore36.
The excerpt from Athos Agiou Pavlou 149 I am editing here comprises folia 178r–179v of dossier No. 137 from Dmitrievsky’s archive. It is not written in Dmitrievsky’s handwriting37. The entire excerpt contains only one brief remark written by Dmitrievsky himself. He wrote it on a margin of the first page of the excerpt; it is marked with a small letter «x»; the same letter indicates the place in the text that is relevant to this remark. The excerpt contains the first part of the Athonite Slavonic translation of the Δίάταξις τῆς θείας λειτουργίας of Philotheos Kokkinos. The text of the manuscript is collated with that from another manuscript, Athos Agiou Pavlou 148. This latter codex also perished thereafter in a fire. The variant readings from Athos Agiou Pavlou 148 are presented in the form of footnotes at the end of each page of the excerpt and are written by the same hand that copied the main manuscript. The copyist used the civil Russian script, but was careful in preserving the manuscript text in every detail, including specific Old Slavonic letters and various diacritical marks. The system of using the diacritics in the manuscript differs significantly from the later Slavonic printed editions of liturgical books, and is consistent with the diacritical system of the Serbian manuscripts of the late 13th–16th centuries, thoroughly studied by Vyacheslav Zagrebin38.
I give the text as it is, making just a few small corrections39. I keep both systems of pagination: the numbering of folia from dossier No. 137 (these numbers are given in square brackets in bold script and are right-aligned), and the original numbering of the folia of Athos Agiou Pavlou 149 (it was kept by the copyist; I give it as he did – in the round brackets in the text). The text is divided into lines exactly as in dossier No. 137 and not according to the original division in the manuscript, nor according to the sense of the text. For the sake of convenience, I provide the English titles for the sections of the Diataxis; they are given in italics and are right-aligned. The footnotes made by the copyist are given in the end of each page of dossier No. 137.
The Edition
| Из сербского служебника XVго в. N° 149 библиотеки Св. Павла. | [F. 178r] |
| (л. 1) Таⷤ приходитъ къ іерею̀ дїакѡⷩ҇ дръ́же въ дѣснои҆́ рᲂуцѣ стиха́ръ, съ ѡ҆́ра́рѣмь. и̋ покло́нивъ е҆му главᲂу, гл҃ѥ блⷭ҇віи влⷣкѡ́ стихаⷬ съ ѡ҆́раремь діако. блⷭ҇внъ бъ҃ нашъ вьсегда̀ ннꙗ҃ и҆ прⷭ҇но. таⷤ. ѿхо́дить ѡ҆́со́бь дїакоⷩ въ е҆́ди́нᲂу стра́ну свѣтили́ща и҆́ ѡ҆́бла́читсе вь стыха́рь мл҃ъ́се сїце. въꙁра́довасе дш҃а моа̀ ѡⷭ҇ ги҃. цѣловав̾же ѡ҆́рарь пола́гае҆ть на лѣвемь ра́мѣ. нарᲂу́квици нала́гаеть на рᲂукы. на дѣснои҆́ глѥт҇ дѣсни́ца твоа ги҃ просла́висе въ кре (л. 1 об.) пости де́снаа рᲂу́ка твоа̀ ськрᲂу́ш. на лѣ́вои҆̀ же: рᲂу́цѣ твоѝ сьтвориста ме и сьⷣꙁдаста ме: пⷭ҇н. ꙁаⷣ. таⷤ шьⷣ сще҃никь, и҆́ вьливае́ть во́дᲂу и҆ ᲂу҆ми́ваеть рᲂуцѣ. такожⷣе и҆ дїа́конь. | Vesture of the Deacon |
| таже шьⷣ вь проскомидїю нарежⷣаеть ст҃аа. ст҃ое ᲂу́бѡ̀ блюд̾цѣ полагаеть на лѣ́вои стра́нѣ. чашу же на десноѝ и҆ дрᲂу́га съ ни́ми. таⷤ пришⷣьшꙋ і҆е́ре҆ю творита вькᲂупѣ поклони, г҃, прⷣѣ проско́мидиѡⷨ҇. кьжⷣѡ глѥ҃. бе҃ ѡ҆цѣ (л. 2) сти ме грѣ́шнааго̀. таⷤ. Искᲂупил̾ ны е҆́си ѿ клѣ́твы ꙁако́н̾нїе. чⷭ҇тною҆ си крь́вїю, на кртⷭѣ пригво̇ждь̀се. и ко́пі̇емь про́бодѣсе бѣсьмрт҃їе и҆́сто́чиль е҆́си члк҃ѡⷨ спс҃е на́шь сла́ва тебѣ̀. – глѥ҃ть їєреи́ блⷭ҇внь бъ҃ нашь в̾се́гда̀ нн҃ꙗ. | Beginning of the Prothesis rite |
| Про́скомиⷣа. приемлѥт҇ і̇ереѝпро́сфᲂуру вь дѣснᲂую же сто҃е копїе. и҅́ ꙁна́мѣнаѥтъ и҆́ма гⷲ҇. врь́хᲂу въобра́женїа про́сфᲂурн̇а́аⷢ҇ глѥ҃ ни́сцѣмь гл҃соⷨ҇. вьпо́мина́нїе га҃ ба҃ и спс҃а нашего іуⷭ҇ ха҃ гⷲ҇. и҆́ а́бїе въдрᲂужаѥ̀ть копїе ѡ҆́дѣ́снᲂую̀ (л. 2 об.) стра́нᲂу въѡ҆́бра́женїа. и҆́ рѣже глѥ҃ть. | The 1st Prosphora: |
| Ꙗко ѡ́вче на ꙁа́колѥнїе въⷣсе. на лѣ́вои҅̀. Ꙗко а҅́гьн҅́ць прѣ́мо стры́гᲂущому е҆́го бѣꙁглс҃нь, та́ко нѐ ѡврьꙁаѥть ᲂу҆́сть своиⷯ. на го́рн̋ѣи҅̀ стра́нѣ ꙁна́мѣнїа глѥт҇. Въ смѣ́рѣнн̋їи сᲂуⷣ е҆го̀ вьꙁѣ́тсе. на че́тврь́тои҅̀ странѣРѡ́д же ѥ҆го̀ кто̀ исповѣ́сть. дїакоⷩ҇ же на ко́м̋жⷣо рѣꙁанїи глѥ҃ть Гᲂу҃ помл҃им̋се. дрь́жеи҆̀ о҆ра́рь вь десныци своеи҆́, посѣм҇ глѥ҃ дїакѡⷩ҇ въꙁмїи влⷣко. і҆́е́реи҆ же вьло́живь копїе ѿ рѣ́брь дѣ́снїе стра́ни просфо҆́ры и҆́ вьꙁ҅́ма ст҃їи хлѣ́бъ глѥ҃ (л. 3) сїцѣ. | Cutting out of the Lamb |
| Ꙗко вьꙁѣмлѥтсе ѿ ꙁѣмлѥ̀ жи́воть ѥ҆го̀. и҆́ поло́жить е҆го̀ вьꙁна́кь вь ст҃ѣмь блю́дѣ. ре҆кш̋ᲂу дїаконᲂужрь́твᲂу сътво҅ры сті҃и влⷣко: и҆́ рѣжет҇ крⷭ҇тао҆́бра́ꙁно глѥ҃. Жрѣ́тсе а҆́гнїць бж҃їи, вꙁѣ́млѥѝ грѣхы мѷрᲂу. ꙁа мѵ́р̋скїи жи́воть и спⷭ҇енїе. и҆́ ѡ҆́бра́щае дрᲂу́гᲂу стра́нᲂу го́рѣ, ꙗже и҆́ма́ть крⷭ҇тъ ть́чїю а҆́ще ѥⷭ҇ то́п̋ль и҆́ па́ритсе. то҅гда̀ вьꙁна́ко да поло́жить. ꙁа е҆́жѐ не сьтво́рити ѿ и҆ꙁдола мокро́ти. боди же е҆́го̀ ѡ҆́дѣ́снᲂу́ю странᲂу ст҃ыиⷨ҇ ко́пїемь (л. 3 об.) гл҃ѥт҇. є҆́ди́нь ѿ во́и҅нь кѡпїем рѣбра е҆го̀ про́бодѣ̀. и҆ а҆бїе и҆ꙁы́дѣ крь́вь и҆́ во́да, и҆́ вы́дѣвіи свⷣѣтл҆́ствова. и҆́сти́н̋но ѥⷭ҇ свⷣѣтел̋ство е҆го̀. | [F. 178v] Sacrificing the Lamb |
| дїа́кон҅́ же вьли́ваѥть вь ст҃ᲂую ча́шᲂу ѿ вина, и҅́ во́дᲂу вькᲂу́пѣ. и҆́ рекъ прѣжⷣе кь і҆ерею̂. блⷭ҇вїи в҅л̇кⷣо и҆́ прїемь ѡ҆́ сїихь блⷭ҇вѣнїе. | Preparation of the Chalice |
| і҆ереѝ же прїемь вь рᲂу́цѣ в҅́торᲂу просфᲂуру глѥт҇. Въ ч́тⷭ҇ь и҆ вь па́мѣть прѣблвⷭ҇ѣнн̋ѣѝ влⷣце наше бц҃е, и прⷭ҇нѡдві҃и ма́рїа е҆е҆же млт҃ва́мі и прїими ги҃ жра́твᲂу сїю вь прѣнⷭ҇бні̇и твои҅̀ жрт̋ьвн̋ык: | The 2nd Prosphora: Commemoration of the Mother of God |
| (л. 4) въꙁ҅́мь че́сть с҇тїимь ко́пїемъ полага́ѥть ѡ҅̀ лѣ́вᲂую ст҃го хлѣ́ба, на трѣ́тїе гл҃ѥть. Силою чтⷭⷭ҇нааго̀, и жи́вотворѣщааго̀ крⷭ҇та. Чтⷭ҇нїиⷯ бѣсплътнїиⷯ си́ль нбⷭ҇нїих. Чтⷭ҇нааго̀ и сла́внааго̀ прѡ҇р́ка прⷣтче крⷭ҇тлꙗ҃ і҆ѡан̋на. Сті҃иⷯ сла́вныиⷯ҇ и всѣ̀хва́лн́ыиⷯ а҆́плⷭ҇ь. Иже́ вь стхь҃ ѿць҃ на́шїиⷯ і҆е҅ра҆рхъ ва́силїа вѣликааго̀. грі́горїа бго҃сло́ва. и҆о́ан҃н̀а ꙁлат҇устааго̀. аѳа́насїа и҅ кѵ́рїила. нико́ли. иже вь мѵ́рѣх҇. савы срь́бс҅́кааго (л. 4 об.) и҆ всѣх҇ стїиⷯ и҅ера́рхь. Стг҃о а҆пⷭ҇ла и҅ прь́вом҅чника, а҆р҅хі́дїа́кона сте́фаⷩ҇. Ст҃ыиⷯ вѣликомⷱ҇ниⷦ҇ ге́ѡⷬ҇гїа, димїтрїа, ѳеѡⷣрь и҆́ всеⷯ ст҃ыиⷯ. прⷣб̋нїиⷯ и҆́ бг҃онѡснїиⷯ ѿць҃ на́шиⷯ, а҅́нѳ҅́о́ нїа, е҆ѵѳі́мїа, са́вы, ѡ҆́нᲂу́фрїа. а҅́ѳана́ссїа а҆́ѳо́нскааго̀. сѷмѣо́на срьб҆скааго̀, в҅́сеⷯ҇ прбⷣніихь ѿць҃ на́шиⷯ҇. Сті҇иⷯ҇ бѣсрбрьниⷦ҇ и҅́ чюⷣтво́р҅́ць кѡ́ꙁмїи и҆̀ дамїана, па́н҅́телѣи҅́мо́на и҅́ в̾сеⷯ҇ бесрбрь́никъ. Стх҃ь и҅ пра́вѣдніиⷯ҇ бг҃оѿць҃ і҆ѡа́кѵ҅́ма и҆ аннꙵꙗ и҅́ стг҃о е҆́мᲂу́же еⷭ҇ дн҃ь и҅́ всеⷯ҇ (л. 5) стх҃ь, и҆х҅́же млб҃а́ми посѣ́ти наⷭ҇ бе҃: – И та́ко вьꙁ҅́мь че́сть полага́ѥ҆ть на тои҆́жⷣе стра́не лѣ́воѝ. долᲂу́ же и҆́ прочеѐ пола́гаѥть порѣ́дᲂу. | The 3rd Prosphora: Commemoration of the Saints |
| таⷤ вьꙁ̾мь и҆́ дрᲂу́гу про́сфуру глѥт҇. о҆́ в̾са́ко епкⷭ҇пствѣ пра́восла́в̋нѣм, о҆́ е҆пкⷭ҇пѣ нашемь і̇мⷬ҇е́. о҆́ чтⷭ҇нѣм҇ прѣꙁвы́тер҅ствѣ, е҆́же | The 4th Prosphora: Commemoration of the Living |
| ѡ҅́ хе҃ слᲂу́жбы. о҆́ в҅́сѣ́мь и҆е́рїскоⷨ҇ чи́ну. блгочⷭ҇тнвіиⷯ҇ и҆́ бг҃охра́нимїиⷯ҇ цр҃и нашїиⷯ҇. о҆́ ра́бѣ бж҃їемь имⷬ҇е́ и҆гᲂу́мѣне и҆ о҅ бра́тїаха на́ші̇их҇, сълᲂу́жьб̋ныцѣх҇. прѣсвы́терѣх҇ дїа́конѣх҇ и҆́ в҅́сеѝ (л. 5 об.) браті̇и на́шиⷯ, и҆́х҅́же приꙁо́вы вь твое приѡ҆́б҆́щенїе, ꙁа твоѐ блгⷭ҇осрьдїе в҅́сѐблг҃ыѝ влⷣкѡ́. таⷤ глѥт҇. и҆́хже и҆́ма́ть по [и]мѣ́нїи жи́вїиⷯ҇: | [F. 179r] |
| и҆́ та́ко вьꙁме́ть честь на дрᲂу́гои҆̀ про́сфꙋрї и глⷮѥ́ть. о҆́ блж҃е́нн̋еи҅́ памѣти, и҆ ѡ҆́ста́влѥ[н]їи грѣ́ховь блж҃е́н҅́нїиⷯ҇ к҅́ти́торь ст҃їиⷯ ѡ҆́бы́тели сꙵѣи҅́. таⷤ поми́наѥть поста́в҅́льшаго а҆рхїе́реа. и҅ инїиⷯ҇ и҆́х҅́же и҆ма́ть по [и]мѣ́ни ᲂу҆́сь́п҅́шіиⷯ҇, и҆ на ко́ньⷰ҇ глⷮѥ́ть, сицѣ о҆́ в҅́сеⷯ҇ и҆́же вь надѣжⷣи вьскр҃се́нїа, и҆ жи́ꙁны вѣ́ч҆нїе, и҆ твоѥ҆го̀ прїѡб҅́щенїа (л. 6) ᲂу҆́сь́п̾шїиⷯ҇ и҆ пра́восла́в҅́нїиⷯ҇ ѿць҃ и҆ бра́тїи нашиⷯ члк҃ѡ́лю́бче ги҃ и҆́ вьꙁмѣ́ть че́сть. | The 5th prosphora: Commemoration of the Dead |
| дїа́кон҅́ же прїе҆млѥт҇ про́сфꙋрᲂу, и҆́ ст҃оѐ копїе глѥт҇ сицѣ. Помѣ́нїи ги҃ и҆̀ моѐ недоⷭ҇и́н̋ство́ по мн̑ожьствᲂу ще́дроть твоиⷯ҇ и҆ про́сти ми в҅́са́ко прѣгрѣ́шенїе, вѡ́л҅́ное҆ же и невол҅́ноѐ. таⷤ҇ поминает҇ и҆ тьꙵ. и҆́х҅́же поминаѥ҆ть живїиⷯ҇. на дрᲂу́гой про́сфᲂуре ᲂу҆сь́пшїиⷯ҇. та́кожⷣе пол́агае́ть че́сти ѿ до́л҅́нїе стра́ни стг҃о хлѣ́ба, ꙗ҆́коже і҆ереи҅̀. | The Two Diaconal Phosphors: Commemoration of the Deacon himself, the Living and the Dead |
| вьꙁ҅́мъ мѣ́тлыцу сьбыраѥ҅ть и҆же въ ст҃ѣмь блюдѣ (л. 6 об.) ѿ иже до́лу поⷣ ст҃їи хлѣб҇ ꙗ҆́коже лежатив стврьжⷣенїи. и҆́ не прико́снᲂутисе и҅́мь что̀. таⷤ. вьꙁ҆мь ка́дил҆́ницꙋ с ѳі́мїанѡⷨ҇ и гл҃ѥть кь і҆е́рею. блⷭ҇ви влⷣкѡ́. таⷤ г҃ᲂу помл҃имсе и҆ереѝ мⷧ҇ кадилᲂу. | Arranging the extracted Particles on the Discos |
| БЖс҇ТВНАА СЛОУЖБА ИЖЕ вь ст҃хь о҆́ц̑а̀ нашего, і҆ѡⷩ҇ ꙁлᲂутстааⷢ҇. млт҃ва наⷣ ка́дилѡⷨ. Ка́дило ти прино́симь хе҃ бе҃ на́шь вь вѡ́ню блг҃оᲂу҆ха́нїа е҆́же прїем вь прѣнбⷭ҇ні̇и и҆ ми́сльні̇и свой̀ жртьвникь сьспо́слы наⷨ҇ блⷣгтⷮь (л. 7) прѣстг҃о тврѥ҆го дх҃а. дїа́кѡⷩ҇. г҃ᲂу́ помл҃имсе. | The Incense Prayer |
| і҅́е́реипока́див҇ ꙁвѣꙁды́цᲂу. полагаѐ наⷣ ст҃ымь хлѣбомь гл҃ѥ. и҆́ пришⷣьшїи ꙁвѣ́ꙁда, ста̋ врь́хᲂу и҆дѣ́же бѣꙵ ѡ҆́трѡ́че дїа́кѡⷩ҇. г҃ᲂу́ помл҃им̾се. и҆́е́реѝпока́дить прь́вїи покро́вьⷰ҇ и҆́ покры́ваѥть ст҃їи хлѣ́бь глѥт. Гь҃ вьцр҃исе, и҆́ вь блг҃ол҅ѣ́пі̇е ѡ҆́блѣ́чесе (... весь [Пс]) (л. 7 об.) дїа́кѡⷩ҇. г҃ᲂу́ поⷨ҇. покры̀ влⷣко. і҆́е́реѝпока́див҇ в҅́то́рїи покровць. покри́вае ст҃ᲂую ча́шᲂу гл҃ѥ. покры̀ нб҃са̀ добро́дѣтеⷧ҇ твоа̀ хе҃ и҆́ хва́ли твоее и҆́спль́нисе́ ꙁемлꙗ̀. дїа́кѡⷩ҇. г҃ᲂу́ помл҃иⷨ҇. покры̀ влⷣко́ и҆́е́реи҆̀ покадив҇ (л. 8) трѣ́тїи покро́вць. и҆́же ѥⷭ҇ а҆ѥ́рь. покры́ваѥть о҆́боа̀ глѥт. покры̀ нб҃са кро́воⷨ҇ кры́лᲂу твоею. ѿже́ны ѿ наⷭ҇ в҅́са́кого вра́га и сᲂу́поста́та. | The Rite of Covering the Gifts |
| ᲂу҆́ми́ри на́шᲂу жи́ꙁнь ги҃. помл҃ᲂуи҆̀ наⷭ҇ и мѵ́рь свои҆̀. спс҃и дш҃е на́ше. ꙗ҆́ко блг҃ъ и҆ члк҃олю́бц҆́. таⷤ. свѣ́ꙁавшїа о҆́ба рꙋ́цѣ свои҅̀ и҆ покло́н҅́шасе съ го́вѣніеⷨ҇. глѥта. Блⷭ҇нь бъ҃ и҆же си́цѣ и҆ꙁво́ливїи всегда нн҃ꙗ́ и҆ п҅рⷭно. | [F. 179v] A bow |
| мⷧ҇ ѡ̆҇ прелⷣ҇ожени ст҃ими да́р҅́ми: Ги҃ бе҃ на́шь и҆́же нбⷭ҇нїѝ хлѣ́бь пищу́ вьсѐмꙋ мурꙋ га҃ на́шего (л. 8 об.) і҆уⷭ҇ ха҃. посла́віи сп҃са (... вся [молитва]) | The Prayer of the Prothesis |
| посѣм҇. пока́дить саⷨ҇ и҅е҅реѝ прѣдло́женїе (л. 9) и тво́рить ѿпᲂуⷭ҇ та́мо. и҆́ тако вьꙁ̋мь дїаконь кадил̾ныцᲂу. и҆́ ка́дить ст҃ᲂую тра́пѣꙁᲂу́ крⷭ҇таѡбраꙁно. и҆ гл҃ѥть кь себѣ̀ троп҇. Въ гро́бе пль́тьскыѝ, вь а҆дѣ же сь дше҆ю. вь ра̀и сь ра́ꙁбои́никомь. и҆ на прѣ́столѣ бѣ́ше хе҃ сь ѡ҆ц҃ѣ́мь, и дх҃омь҅́ вьса̀ испль́нꙗе неѡ҆́пи́сан҆́ныӥ: посѣ́мь ѱа́лѡⷨ. Помилᲂуѝ мѣ бе҃. и҆́ пока́дить свѣ́илище вьсѐ и҆ хра́мь. и҆́ вьходить вь ст҃ыѝ о҆л҆́та́рь. и҆́ пока́дить ст҃ᲂую̀ тра́пеꙁᲂу, и і҆ереа̀. кадилныцᲂу поста́влꙗеть на своѐ мѣ́сто. са́м же вьхо́дить к і҅ерѣю̀. | Apolysis and Incensation |
| И ста́вша вькᲂу́пѣ прѣд ст҃ою трапеꙁою. покла́нꙗ́е҆тсе гⷳ. вь себѣ̀ мл҃ешесе. цр҃ᲂу нбⷭ҇ныи ᲂу҆теши: (л. 9 об.) до коⷩ҇. слава вь ви́шныиⷯ҇ б҃ᲂу, и҆ на ꙁемлѝ ми́рь. вщ̅и. ги҃ ᲂустнѣ̀ ми ѿврь́ аⷳ҇. таⷤ цѣ́лᲂуеть и҆ереѝ ст҃ое е҆́ѵⷢ҇лїе. діакон҆̀ же ст҃ᲂую тра́пеꙁᲂу. и҆́ посѣмь прѣкло́нивь гла́вᲂу сво́ю, і҆ере́о҆выи, дїа́конь. дрь́жео҆ра́рь сво́и. врем҇ еже сьтво́рити гв҃ы, вл҃кы блⷭ҇ви. і҆ереѝꙁна́мѣнае е҆го̀, глѥт. блⷭ҇внь бь҃ нашь вьсегда̀ нн҃ꙗ и прⷭ҇. таⷤ. дїа́конь. помл҃исе ѡ҆҇ мнѣ̀ влⷣко. і҆́ереѝда и҆спра̀выть гь҃ сто́пи твоѐ. и пакы̀ дїа́кон. помѣ́ны мѣ влⷣко стыѝ. і҆ереѝ, помѣ́нет те гь҃ бг҃ вь црⷭ҇твыи его. дїа́коⷩ, рек҇. а҆́ми́нь покло́нивьсе, и҆схо́ди. и҆́ ста́в на о҆би́чнѣмь мѣ́сте, прѣ́мо ст҃ыиⷨ҇ двѣреⷨ҇. и покла́нꙗе́тсе сь го́вѣнїеⷨ. гⷳ гл҃ѥ (л. 10) кь себѣ. ги҃ ᲂустнѣ ми ѿврьꙁеши. и҆́ посеⷨ҇ начи́наѐть дїа́конь. | Prayer before the initial Ekphonesis of the Divine Liturgy |
Head and Professor of the
Practical and Liturgical Theology Chair at the
Sts Cyril and Methodius’
Postgraduate and Doctoral School of the
Russian Orthodox Church
Professor of Moscow Spiritual Academy
* * *
As, for example, the amazing Bulgarian 14th-century Tetraevangelion of Ivan Alexander (see: L. Zhivkova, Tetraevangelion of Tzar Ivan Alexandăr [original title in Bulgarian: Живкова Л. Четвероевангелието на цар Иван Александър], Sofia 1980), currently British Library MS Add. 39627, given to Robert Curzon as an abbot’s present.
Bishop Porphyry Uspensky, First Trip to the Athonite Monasteries and Scetes, part 1: 2 [original title in Russian: Порфирий (Успенский), еп. Первое путешествие в афонские монастыри и скиты архимандрита, ныне епископа, Порфирия Успенского в 1845 году. Часть 1, отделение 2], Kiev 1877.
Archimandrite Antonin Kapustin, The Notes of a Pilgrim to the Holy Mountain [original title in Russian: Антонин (Капустин), архим. Заметки поклонника Святой Горы], Kiev 1864.
Archimandrite Leonid Kavelin, «Serbian-Slavonic Manuscript Collections on the Holy Mountain Athos» [original title in Russian: Леонид (Кавелин), архим. «Славяно-сербские книгохранилища на Св. Афонской горе"], in: Чтения в Императорском обществе Истории и Древностей Российских, 1 (Moscow 1875), 1–80 [fifth pagination].
V. Grigorovich, A Description of a Travel to European Turkey [original title in Russian: Григорович В.И. Очерк путешествия по европейской Турции], Moscow 1877.
M. Arranz, «Les archives de Dmitrievsky dans la bibliothèque d’Etat de Leningrad», OCP 40 (1974), 61–83, here 80–82.
Ibid., 79.
A. Dmitrievsky, A Trip to the East and Its Scholarly Results [original title in Russian: Дмитриевский A. Путешествие по Востоку и его научные результаты: отчёт о заграничной командировке в 1887–88 году, с приложениями], Kiev 1890, 48.
The text of the Philothean Diataxis together with some others had been already edited by Jacques Goar, but this was not a study in the proper sense.
N. Krasnoseltsev, Information on Some Liturgical Manuscripts of the Vatican Library... [original title in Russian: Красносельцев H.Ф. Сведения о некоторых литургических рукописях Ватиканской библиотеки с замечаниями о составе и особенностях богослужебных чинопоследований, в них содержащихся, и с приложениями], Kazan’ 1885, 127–39, 171–94.
N. Krasnoseltsev, Materials for a History of the Rite of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom [original title in Russian: Красносельцев H.Ф. Материалы для истории чинопоследования литургии св. Иоанна Златоустого], Kazan’ 1889.
N. Krasnoseltsev, «Materials for a History of the Rite of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Part 2» [original title in Russian: Красносельцев H.Ф. «Материалы для истории чинопоследования литургии св. Иоанна Златоустого». Вып. 2], in: Православный собеседник, 1 (Kazan’, 1895 [1896]), 1–8 [separate pagination].
A. Dmitrievsky, «Review of M. Orlov’s Book «The Liturgy of St. Basil«» [original title in Russian: Дмитриевский A.A. «Отзыв о сочинении М.И. Орлова «Литургия св. Василия Великого»"], in: Сборник отчётов и премий о наградах, присуждаемых Императорской Академией Наук: Отчёты за 1909 г., Saint-Petersburg 1912, 176347; here: 309–345.
P. Trempelas, Three Liturgies According to the Athens Codices [original title in Greek: Τρεμπέλας Π. Αἰ τρεῖς λειτονργίαι κατὰ τοὺς ἐν Ἀθήναις κώδικας], Athens 1935, here: 1–16.
P. Syrku, Liturgical Works of Patriarch Euthymios of Tyrnovo, 2 [original title in Russian: Сырку П.A. Литургические труды патриарха Евфимия Тырновского (= К истории исправления книг в Болгарии в XIV в. Т. 1): Выпуск 2], Saint-Petersburg 1890, here: lxiv-lxxix, 149–175.
Ibid., 149–172.
For example, A. Jacob, Histoire du formulaire grec de la liturgie de saint Jean Chrysostome (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louvain, 1968), 441–6; R. Constantinescu, «Euthyme de Tarnovo et la reforme liturgique au XIVe siècle», Etudes balkaniques 3 and 4 (1986), 62–78 and 53–80; R. Taft, «Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of the Byzantine Rite», DOP 42 (1988), 179–94, here: 192–4; A. Rentel, «The Origins of the 14th century Patriarchal Liturgical Diataxis of Dimitrios Gemistos», OCP 71 (2005), 363–85; here: 368–70; idem, «New Finds in the Liturgical Diataxis Tradition» (a paper presented at the SOL 2008 conference in Rome, to be published in: Basilius J. Groen and Steven Hawkes Teeples (eds.), Inquiries into Eastern Christian Worship: Acts of the Second International Congress of the Society of Oriental Liturgy, Rome, 17–21 September 2008 [Eastern Christian Studies, Vol. 10], Leuven 2009).
I. Mansvetov, Metropolitan Cyprian in His Liturgical Activity [original title in Russian: Мансветов И. Митрополит Киприан в его литургической деятельности: историко–литургическое исследование], Moscow 1882, 9–38, v-vii.
E. Golubinsky, The History of the Russian Church [original title in Russian: Голубинский E. История Русской Церкви], vol. II: 2 (2nd edition: Moscow 1911), 406–409.
S. Muretov, A Historical Survey of the Prothesis Rite up to the «Diataxis» of Constantinopolitan Patriatrch Philotheos [original title in Russian: Муретов C.Д. Исторический обзор чинопоследования проскомидии до «Устава литургии» Константинопольского Патриарха Филофея: Опыт историко-литургического исследования], Moscow 1895; idem., «Materials for a History of the Rite of the Liturgy in Ancient South-Slavonic Monuments of XIV–XVII cc.» [original title in Russian: Муретов C.Д., прот. «Материалы для истории литургии в древних юго-славянских памятниках XIV–XVII вв."], Чтения в Императорском обществе Истории и Древностей Российских 254: 3 (1915), 53–68.
Constantinescu, op. cit. It must be noted that this publication should be used with caution, because a number of manuscripts cited here is provided with substantially incorrect datings, etc.
A. Pentkovsky, «A Case from the History of Liturgical Reforms in the Russian Church in the 3rd Quarter of the XIVth century: Liturgical Works of Saint Alexy, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus’» [original title in Russian: Пентковский А.М. «Из истории литургических преобразований в Русской Церкви в третьей четверти XVI столетия: литургические труды святителя Алексия, митрополита Киевского и всея Руси"], Символ 29 (1993), 225–231.
T. Afanasyeva, «South-Slavonic Translations of the Liturgy of John Chrysostom in the XI–XV cc. Sluzhebniki from Russian Libraries» [original title in Russian: Афанасьева T. «Южнославянские переводы литургии Иоанна Златоуста в Служебниках XI–XV вв. из российских библиотек«], in: Многократните преводи в Южнославянското средневековые, Sofia 2006, 253–266; eadem, «Concerning the Question of Redactions of the Slavonic Translation of the Diataxis of Patriarch Philotheos Kokkinos» [original title in Russian: Афанасьева T.И. «K вопросу о редакциях славянского перевода диатаксиса патриарха Филофея Коккина»], Древняя Русь 29 (2007), 10–12.
She published in 2007–2008 a series of articles on Slavonic translations of the Diataxis of Philotheos, ending up in a Ph.D. thesis entitled: The Diataxis of Philotheos Kokkinos in the Slavonic Manuscript Tradition of the 14–15 cc.: A Linguistic-Textological Analysis [original title in Russian: Панова C.И. Диатаксис патриарха Филофея Коккина в славянской книжной традиции XIV–XV вв.: лингво–текстологическое исследование], defended at the Moscow State University in 2009, which will be published soon.
Afanasyeva, «South-Slavonic Translations...», 255, footnote 8.
Already in the publications of Krasnoseltzev and Syrku there are mentioned more than three Greek manuscripts of this Diataxis; in the Manuscript Listings for the Authored Works of the Palaeologan Period (R. Sinkewicz, W. M. Hayes, eds.: Toronto 1989) more than thirty manuscripts are listed, and anybody who has worked with the Greek manuscript Euchologia would expect that this number is not even a rough estimate.
In the course of time, though, the Cyprian’s rendition was also combined with the prayers of the Divine Liturgy itself.
Muretov, «Materials...», 64–68.
Constantinescu, op. cit., vol. 4, 66–80.
Moreover, our fragment of the Diataxis absorbs the initial parts of the text of the Divine Liturgy itself – the prayer of the Prothesis etc., – and even the old heading of the eucharistic formulary (see in the edited Slavonic text below: this heading is inserted into the section on incensation).
The most extensive of these publications is a whole monograph dedicated to this question alone: S. Muretov, Concerning the Question of Commemoration of Angelic Powers During the Prothesis Rite [original title in Russian: Муретов C.Д. О поминовении Бесплотных сил на проскомидии], Moscow 1897.
According to Mansvetov, this was due to an influence of the deaconal petition from the rite of λιτή in the all-night vigil on the rite of Prothesis (Muretov, Concerning the Question... 97–114).
Editions: Mansvetov, Metropolitan Cyprian... i-v; Krasnoseltsev, Materials for a History... 6–16; S. Muretov, A Supplement for the Materials of the History of the Rite of the Liturgy [original title in Russian: Муретов C.Д. К материалам для истории чинопоследования Литургии], Sergiev Posad 1895, 17–24.
See: Mansvetov, Metropolitan Cyprian... 137–141; Muretov, A Historical Survey... 233–236; M. Mandalà, La protesi della liturgia nel rito bizantino-greco, Grottaferrata 1935, 73–96.
See: M. Bernatsky, M. Zheltov, «Questions and Answers of Elias, Metropolitan of Crete: A Testimony of the Byzantine Liturgical Practice in the Beginning of the 12th Century» [original title in Russian: Бернацкий M.M., Желтов M., диак. «Вопросоответы митр. Илии Критского: свидетельство об особенностях совершения Божественной литургии в начале XII века"], in: Вестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского Гуманитарного Университета, I: Богословие, философия 14, Moscow 2005, 23–53.
"Proskinitarij» of Arsenij Suxanov (ed. N. Ivanovsky) [original title in Russian: «Проскинитарий» Арсения Суханова / Под редакцией Н.И. Ивановского]. (Saint-Petersburg, 1889: Православный Палестинский сборник, T. 21 = Vol. 7, Fasc. 3), 291. The most recent study of the «Proskinitarij» belongs to Sr. Vassa (Larin): V. Larin, The Hierarchal Divine Liturgy in Arsenij Suxanov’s Proskinitarij: Text, Translation, and Analysis of the Entrance Rites (OCA, in print). Taking the opportunity, I am giving many thanks to Sr. Vassa for her help with improving the English language of this article.
As well as many of the other excerpts from dossier No. 137. It seems that enormous volumes of Dmitrievsky’s Описание... are in fact collections of excerpts, ordered by Dmitrievsky himself, but actually prepared by anonymous copyists.
V. Zagrebin, «The Prosodic Diacritical Marks in the Medieval Serbian Manuscripts...» [original title in Russian: Загребин В.Μ. «Просодические надстрочные знаки в средневековых сербских рукописях: периодизация их употребления, форма и функции, генезис"], in: Idem, Исследования памятников южнославянской и древнерусской письменности, Moscow; Saint-Petersburg 2006, 27–100.
Fol. 178r : in line 7 of the Slavonic text I give нарᲂу́квици instead of нарᲂу́квнци in line 21 – врь́хᲂу въобра́женїа instead of врь́хᲂумь обра́женїа; in lines 24–25 – ꙁа́колѥнїе instead of ꙁа́клѥнїе; fol. 178v: in line 26 of the Slavonic text I give в҆́сеⷯ instead of и҆́сеⷯ; fol. 179r: in lines 10–11 of the Slavonic text I give вѣ́ч̀нїе instead of нѣ́ч̀нїе; in line 20 – таⷤ instead of таⷦ; fol. 179v: in line 9 of the Slavonic text I give та́мо instead of та́ме тХме; three times I also inserted a letter, these instances are marked by square brackets in the text. Square brackets are also used when I add something to the Russian notes of Dmitrievsky or of the copyist. I am very grateful to Roman Krivko who read the Slavonic text and gave a number of important advises.