Morugina ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 691–707 Article copyright held by the author(s) and made available under the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Patriarch Philotheus Kokkinos: A Comparison of the Textual Versions of his Canon to St. Nicholas Kseniia S. Morugina HIS WORK is dedicated to the comparison of the ver- sions of the canon to St. Nicholas authored by the patriarch Philotheus Kokkinos. It is based on two man- uscripts, and historiographic analysis and a codicological and palaeographic inspection carried out on one of the two are central to the project. It should be emphasized how important it was to study the original manuscript, which was written by the patriarch him- self: it represents his autograph. Thus the object of this paper is the author's edition of the canon. The collation results in an edition of Philotheus’ own text, which is a unique window into the creative method of the patriarch-liturgist. Kokkinos’ canon to St. Nicholas was chosen as the object of study chiefly because of a relative lack of research on this text, as well as in the light of the absence of a critical edition. In Russian scholarship a lot of work has been devoted to St. Nicholas.1 That work, however, has not addressed patriarch 1 A. A. Dmitrievsky, Описание литургических рукописей, хранящихся в библиотеках православного Востока II (Kiev 1901); N. F. Krasnoseltsev, Материалы для истории чинопоследования литургии святаго Иоанна Зла- тоустаго (Kazan 1889) 34; I. D. Mansvetov, Церковный устав (Типик), его образование и судьба в греческой и русской Церкви (Мoscow 1885) 195; T. I. Afanasieva, “К вопросу о редакциях славянского перевода Диатаксиса Божественной литургии патриарха Филофея Коккина,” “Слова и золота вязь…”. Сборник статей памяти В. М. Загребина (Moscow 2012) 67–85; Filaret Gumilevsky, Исторический обзор песнопевцев и песнопений греческой церкви 3-е изд (St. Petersburg 1902) 370; G. M. Prokhorov, “К истории T 692 PATRIARCH PHILOTHEOS KOKKINOS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 691–707 Philotheus’ canon. A large portion of the patriarch’s hymns are in the form of a canon.2 This strongly suggests that in Philotheus’ oeuvre the canon of St. Nicholas would hold a prominent place, for in this particular case he had an opportunity to draw parallels be- tween the confrontation between St. Nicholas and Arius and his own conflict with Nikephoros Gregoras and the anti- Palamites.3 The major researchers of Philotheus’ liturgical works, such as J. Goar,4 G. M. Proxorov,5 H. G. Beck,6 and P. Trembela,7 make only passing mention of the canon to St. Nicholas, so a critical analysis of it is not offered in their discussions. Appar- ently, this is because authorial manuscripts uniquely from the patriarch’s pen are in depositories in Russia and so are un- known to most researchers. A word should be said about the important role and con- tributions of Ecumenical patriarch Philotheus Kokkinos. In his life (1300–1377/8),8 he authored more than a hundred works— ___ литургической поэзии. Гимны и молитвы Филофея Коккина,” Труды отдела древнерусской литературы (ТОДРЛ) 27 (1972) 120–149; G. M.Prokhorov, “Филофей Коккин о пленении и освобождении гераклиотов,” ТОДРЛ 33 (1979) 253–260; E. N. Dobrynyna, “Неизданные тропари патриарха Филофея Коккина: К вопросу о составе рукописи сборника ГИМ. Син. гр. 429 (Влад. 303),” Россия и христианский Восток I (Мoscow 1997) 38–48. 2 Prokhorov, ТОДРЛ 27 (1972) 126. 3 Gregoras Hist. 26.14 (III 80 Bonn). 4 J. Goar, Εὐχολόγιον, sive rituale Graecorum (Venice 1730). 5 G. M. Proxorov, “A Codicological Analysis of the Illuminated Akathistos to the Virgin (Moscow, State Historical Museum, Synodal Gr. 429),” DOP 26 (1972) 237–252. 6 H. G. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich (Munich 1977). 7 Π. Τρεµπέλας, Αἱ τρεῖς λειτουργίαι κατὰ τοὺς ἐν Αθήναις κώδικας (Athens 1982) 1–16. 8 A. Papadakis, “Hesychasm,” ODB (1991) 923–924. KSENIIA S. MORUGINA 693 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 691–707 liturgics, homiletics, dogmatics, and hagiography.9 In addition he codified the rules of Eucharistic and Vesper services that determined the spiritual trajectory of the Orthodox world for more than two hundred years. The patriarch’s writings survive in manuscripts of the third quarter of the fourteenth century and later.10 The greater part of his work reflects the strife between the Hesychasts and the supporters of the humanistic thinking that took place across the years 1330 to 1360. Not all of Philotheus’ manuscripts have a firm attribution. Some however are identified, preserved in col- lections mainly in Italy (the Vatican Library, for example), as well as in Austria, the UK, and other countries. In her dissertation of 1992 on the poetic works of Philotheus Kokkinos,11 Petrula Kourtesidou published the canon to St. Nicholas. Her text was based on the paper codex Vat.gr. 1531, held in the Vatican Library; Ciro Gianelli had produced a description of this manuscript in 1950.12 This description however gave only the first line and the canon’s location on folios 47v–60v. He proposed the sixteenth century as his esti- mate of the date. Kourtesidou (13) judged that the larger part of the manuscript was copied in the fifteenth century, and only a few sheets date later in the sixteenth. Gianelli did not take note of two other codices that contain the canon to St. Nicholas of Philotheus Kokkinos: one in the Patriarchal Library in Constantinople Hagia Trias 107 and one in the State Historical Museum in Moscow (GIM) Vlad. 431. With regard to Hagia Trias 107, thanks to the new catalogue 9 Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit no. 11917 10 B. L. Fonkich, “Автографы константинопольского патриарха Филофея Коккина,” Российский Православный университет св. Иоанна Богослова. Ученые записки. Вып. 5 Исследования по византинистике и нео- эллинистике (Мoscow 2000) 59–86. 11 Π. Κουρτεσίδου, Φιλοθέου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τοῦ Κοκκίνου ποιητικὰ ἔργα (diss. Thessaloniki 1992). 12 C. Giannelli, Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae. Codices Vaticani Graeci. Codices 1485–1683 (Vatican City 1950). 694 PATRIARCH PHILOTHEOS KOKKINOS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 691–707 of the manuscripts of the monastery of the Holy Trinity on the island of Halki, it is now known that it was written on paper in the third quarter of fourteenth century and that some folios were added in the fourteenth (ff. 210v–214v) and the fifteenth centuries (ff. 89v–92v).13 In 1956 a short description of this codex was published by Archimandrite Emilian Tsakopoulos.14 It was impossible to perform a close study of this manuscript, hence its exclusion from the present paper; a comparison of the three versions is planned for the future by the author of the present study. The other manuscript, Vlad. 431, also known as Sinodal gr. 349, is an excellent collection of liturgical and dogmatic essays by various authors. It should be emphasized that most of these essays are liturgical works composed by the patriarch Philo- theus Kokkinos. As to the history of this codex,15 it was pres- umably composed in the Vatopedi monastery on Mt Athos. The hypothesis of composition in Constantinople and its later transfer to Athos is also possible, but there are no facts to confirm it. The codex was in the Vatopedi library until 1654, when the monk and builder of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery Arseny Sukhanov transferred it. Since 1655, it has been in the Patriarchal (Synodal) Library in Moscow.16 In 1894, thanks to Archimandrite Vladimir, who was the first to systematically describe the Greek manuscripts in the Synodal Collection, the Sin. Graecus 349 received a new number and became Vlad. 431. 13 A. Binggeli, M. Cassin, M. Cronier, and M. Kouroupou, Catalogue des manuscrits conservés dans la bibliothèque du Patriarcat œcuménique. Les manuscrits du monastère de la Sainte-Trinité de Chalki I (Turnhout 2019) 358–360. 14 A. Tsakopoulos, Περιγραφικὸς κατάλογος τῶν χειρογράφων τῆς Βιβλιο- θήκης τοῦ Οἰκουμενικοῦ Πατριαρχείου II Τμῆμα χειρογράφων Ἱ. Μονῆς Ἁγ. Τριάδος Χάλκης (Istanbul 1956) 118–119. 15 B. L. Fonkich and F. B. Polyakov, Греческие рукописи Московской Синода- льной библиотеки: Палеографические, кодикологические и библиографические дополнения к каталогу архимандрита Владимира (Филантропова) (Мoscow 1993). 16 S. Belokurov, Арсений Суханов. Часть первая (Мoscow 1891) 326–335. KSENIIA S. MORUGINA 695 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 691–707 After the October Revolution of 1917, the codex was trans- ferred to the department of manuscripts and early printed books of the State Historical Museum founded in 1883 as part of the collection of the Moscow Synodal Library (Synodal Col- lection). To return to the codicological analysis of this manuscript: it is on fairly thick cream-colored paper, corroded in many places. A few watermarks of the following types can be found (as per the Briquet catalogue): “Bell” no. 3940 (year 1355), “Lily” no. 6751 (year 1344/62), and “Fruit” no. 7397 (year 1361). The codex has 269 folios and a format of 206 × 147 mm. It is dated to the years 1330 to 1360. All book sections are quarternions. The number of lines varies from 23 to 27. The signatures by the scribe’s hand were made in the lower right corner of the first folio. However, during the replacement of the old leather binding, signatures were cut out, and only one has survived: the signature η΄ on folios 43 and 50v. On some leaves of the manuscript, in the upper central part are signa- tures by its later owners, for example: ιβ΄ on 12/19v, ιγ΄ on 20 and 27v. The scribes of the fourteenth century used ink in a palette from dark and light brown to black. Headlines and initials are mostly made with brick-red ink, as on folios 3, 6, 12, 14v, 31, 40, etc. The illustrations are missing. Extensive marginal notes, which occupy the entire area of the margins, are found on folios 123v, 124, 147, and 158. The late-18th century binding is made of cardboard and is covered with imitation leather, with no embossing. As Boris Fonkich has shown,17 Vlad. 431 is in fact an auto- graph of Philotheus Kokkinos and can be included in the list of manuscripts containing the patriarch’s hand: Vind.Theol.gr. 168, Vind.Theol.gr. 201, GIM 257, Marc.gr. 582 (coll. 926), Iviron 4710 (590), and Monac.gr. 508. All these date to the third quarter of the fourteenth century. In these manuscripts, the patriarch 17 Fonkich, in Российский Православный 59–86. 696 PATRIARCH PHILOTHEOS KOKKINOS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 691–707 made notes on a range of topics, and did textual editing in his own hand. Vlad. 431 contains the largest number of his notes, as he was correcting grammatical and/or lexical mistakes made by other scribes. Some years ago a handwriting examination was conducted on this material that contains Philotheos’ autograph. This revealed features of his script such as strict verticality of letters, the characters θ and N closely adjoined to the vertical line of writing in in their upright elements, and unusual ligatures in λο and ρφ.18 The results of the present study indicate that the codex Vlad. 431 should have been the key foundation for an editio princeps of the author’s text of the canon to St. Nicholas. The manuscript is also interesting in that, in addition to the patriarch’s handwritten text, eight scribes took part in its creation. Of these the main scribe was apparently closest to the patriarch. This is indicated by that scribe’s use of the first person plural for one of the prayers when he refers to the patriarch: εἴποµεν, εἰσήλθοµεν (“we said,” “we entered”). This confirms the hypothesis that he copied this text from the original, presumably having access to the personal notes of the patriarch, to which other scribes did not. For example, the fifth scribe transcribes the text of the same prayer a few lines below in the third person singular: εἶπεν, εἰσῆλθεν (“he said,” “he entered”). The title of the canon is given as Τοῦ αὐτοῦ κανώνας εἰς τὸν ἐν ἁγίον πατέρα ἡµῶν Νικόλαον οὗ ἡ ἀκροστιχὶς ἥ τε τὸν θερµὸν ἡµῶν προστάτην καὶ πατέρα. Ἐν δὲ τοῖς θεοτοκίοις Φιλόθεος: “His canon to our Holy Father Nicholas with acrostic ‘our fervent defender and father’: in the hymns in praise of the Virgin Mary, Philotheus.”19 In composing the canon the patriarch relied on the tradition 18 Fonkich, Российский Православный 59–86. 19 In quoting from the manuscript for the purpose of this paper, I give its actual readings and accents, without emdendation. KSENIIA S. MORUGINA 697 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 691–707 and models of authorities for liturgical poetry such as St. Andrew of Crete, St. John of Damascus, St. Cosmas of Maiuma, St. Theodore the Studite, and others. In the troparia of the canon to St. Nicholas, Philotheus makes profuse references to Old Testament and New Testa- ment narratives. For example, Ἔγνω σε ἐκ µήτρας, θεοφόρε, ὁ πάντα γινώσκων θεὸς πρὸ τοῦ πλασθῆναι ἐν κοιλίᾳ ἁγιάζει, “He had knowledge of you from the womb, God-bearer, the all- knowing God before form was taken in the body made you holy” (Jeremiah 1:5). Furthermore, βέλος ὀξὺ εἰς καρδίας πεµ- πόµενον may be evocative of Ps 10:3, ὅτι ἰδοὺ οἱ ἁµαρτωλοὶ ἐνέτειναν τόξον, ἡτοίµασαν βέλη εἰς φαρέτραν τοῦ κατατοξεῦσαι ἐνσκοτοµήνῃ τοὺς εὐθεῖς τῇ καρδίᾳ, “For, lo, the wicked have bent their bow; they have prepared their arrows in the quiver, to shoot in the dark the upright of heart.” At the end of the seventh song, Philotheus inserts an Intro- duction (hairetismos) which is traditionally included in the Akathistos as part of the oikos: Χαῖρε τοῦ κόσµου χαρὰ παρθένε χαῖρε, “Hail, joy of the world, Virgin, hail.” As a rule, if the canon is read at Matins, burning of incense on the altar takes place after the eighth song, as well as the performance of the Theotokos Song Μεγαλύνει ἡ ψυχή µου τὸν Κύριον, “My soul doth magnify the Lord,” along with the re- frain Τὴν τιµιωτέραν τῶν Χερουβίµ, “More honored than the Cherubim.”20 In the canon to St. Nicholas, Philotheus replaces the Theotokos Song with the following: Ὅλον µε καταπεσόντα θεοτόκε καὶ συντρίψαντα τὸ κατ’ εἰκόνα ὁ θεὸς δι’ ἔλεον ὅλον σώζει ἀναλαβὼν ἐκ γαστρός σου ὅλον, δέσποινα, τὸν ἄνθρωπον διὸ τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς µεγίστης σε σωτηρίας ἡ κτίσης πόθω δοξάζουσα εὐλογεῖ τὸν τόκον τὸν σὸν εἰς τοὺς αἰώνας, “O Theotokos, God saves me who was in my entirety fallen and had shattered my likeness (to God), by taking up from your womb, o Lady, the entire man; 20 V. Rozanov, Богослужебный устав православной церкви. Опыт изъясните- льного изложения порядка богослужения Православной Церкви (Moscow 1902) 79–80. 698 PATRIARCH PHILOTHEOS KOKKINOS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 691–707 so the creation glorifies you with love as the cause of the greatest deliverance and blesses your child for eternity.” From this deviation we can conclude that the canon to St. Nicholas was not intended to be read at Matins. Regarding the use of tropes, we can notice a most extensive use of metaphors (σκότος τοῦ θανάτου, γλυκὺ περιλάληµα, λαµπρὰ γενέθλια), epithets (θεῖος, ὕψιστος, µέτριος, ταπεινός, ἀήττητος, πρᾶος) and, to a lesser extent, hyperboles (τὴν γῆν πᾶσαν διαβαίνοντα, ἡ γῆ πᾶσα συµφώνως καὶ ἡ θάλασσα τὰ θαύµατα ἀνακηρύττει σου), as well as figurative comparisons (ὡς µέγα στοιχεῖον, ὡς ποιµὴν φιλάνθρωπος, ὡς Μωσῆς). The grammatical component of the canon to St. Nicholas is not more complex than its lexicality, but at the same time it has several interesting features. The construction of temporal per- spective is fundamental: the author makes extensive use of modifiers of time, of various morphological types, such as verbs in personal form, verbal participles, participles, and preposi- tional-nominal constructions. For example, Τὴν δόξαν σου ὑµνεῖν ἀξίως τίς δύναται ὡς Μωσῆς ἐφάνης γὰρ ὅλος δεδοξασµένος has three subjects and one of them has two verbals: continuous time is succeeded by specific and vivid time. Through comparison of these two manuscripts of the canon, Vat.gr. 1531 and Vlad. 431, clear differences begin to reveal themselves. In the patriarch’s autograph, the second ode of the canon is absent. The completed acrostichis of the canon pre- sented in Vlad. 431 is sure evidence that the canon never had a second ode. By contrast, in Vat.gr. 1531 the canon begins as follows: Καταβασία. Ωἰδὴ δεύτερη. Ἀπόρῳ γλῶττῃ καὶ χείλεσιν ἐγκώµιον βραχὺ καὶ παράκλησιν προσοίσων τῇ σῇ, Νικόλαε, “Katabasis. Second song. Let us offer you a short panegyric and prayer with our poor tongue and lips, Nicholas.” Thus it is possible to deduce that we are dealing with two or more ver- sions of the same canon, or two completely different canons to St. Nicholas, with alternate odes, which is a regular occurrence in the liturgical manuscripts. A passage of Vat.gr. 1531 missing in Vlad. 431 ends as follows: Χῆρες τὸν τρόφεα, οἱ τυφλοὶ τὸν ὁδηγόν, πάντες τὸν πρόµαχον, “The KSENIIA S. MORUGINA 699 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 691–707 widows the nurturer, the blind the guide, and all men the champion.” After that, a passage shared by both man- uscripts immediately begins: Τὴν χάριν ὅλην τοῦ πνεύµατος, “All the grace of the spirit.” But in Vlad. 431 this part is called ὡδὴ α΄ ἦχος α΄ (first song, first tune), while the Vatican manuscript continues after πάντες τὸν πρόµαχον without any title. The third song in the Vatican codex is significant for its length. It begins with the hirmos τῷ πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων, “before all ages,” followed by a set of three troparia that begin with λελύται κατάρα, “the curse be destroyed,” and end with σῶσαι τοὺς ὑµνοῦντάς σε, “save those who pray to you.” After this, a theotokion was read. After the theotikion comes another set of three troparia, which is absent in author’s manuscript. The first verse of the first troparion is Δέλτον ἐν καρδίᾳ κεκτηµένος, “One who has acquired a writing-tablet in his heart.” The last troparion of the group ends µὴ ἀδικῆσαι τοὺς ἄνδρας εἰκῇ φθόνῳ διεβλήθησαν, “do not injure the men who were slandered by vain envy.” Immediately after this, a passage common to both manuscripts is composed of four troparia, begining Ἔγνω σε ἐκ µήτρας, θεοφόρε. “He had knowledge of you from the womb, o God-bearing.” Then in the Moscow manuscript begins the fourth song, while in the Vatican it is followed by other tro- paria, a sessional hymn, and a theotokion. In general, it should be emphasized that Vlad. 431 presents a shorter version of the canon, compared with that in the Vatican manuscript. Most of of the hirmoi, troparia, and sessional hymns are absent from the Moscow codex, and after the sixth song there are no kontakia with oikos and no life history with miracles. After the ninth song, only the word συνέλθωµεν is written instead of an exapostilarion (which is probably a reference to the eighth exapostilarion Τοῖς µαθηταῖς συνέλθωµεν). By contrast, in the Vatican manuscript published by Kourtesidou there is a full exapostilarion Ὁ οὐρανὸν τοῖς ἄστροις. Another point of interest is the note inscribed by the fourth (main) scribe of the Moscow codex at the very end of the canon: συνέλθωµεν ὕµνους ἐν θεοῖς οἱ γράφοντες ἐπιστήµην 700 PATRIARCH PHILOTHEOS KOKKINOS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 691–707 ἅπασαν ἅπαντας λογικὴν συγκροτοῦντες τὴν µόνην τῶν ὕµνων ἀρχὴν καὶ αἰτίαν ἀνυµνήσωµεν λαµπρῶς· τῇ παρθένῳ πᾶν ἐγκώµιον συνάγοντες, “Let us come together, those who compose hymns to the Divine, and conjointly adhering to all logic and knowl- edge let us hymn radiantly the only beginning and cause of hymns, those who compose every kind of laud for the Virgin.” In the Vatican codex this text is absent and at the end of the canon is a sticheron of the first mode (τῶν οὐρανίων) and gloria with prosoimion (σαλπίσωµεν ἐν). As to significant compositional differences, the vocabulary of the two texts is generally identical. An exception is the sub- stitution of the word πνεύµα in the gloria of the third song of the canon in Vlad. 431 for πάτηρ (accent as in the manuscript) in the Vatican codex. And the word order in the seventh song has been changed: Vlad. 431 reads Ἡ γῆ πᾶσα συµφώνως καὶ ἡ θάλασσα, “the whole land in unison and the sea,” while the Vatican version has Ἡ γῆ πᾶσα καὶ ἡ θάλασσα συµφώνως, “the whole land and the sea in unison.” In conclusion, the following observations can be made. On the basis of the comparison of the versions of the canon to St. Nicholas in the two manuscripts, two possible scenarios of regarding the amplification of the text can be hypothesized. The first would assume that the Vat.gr. additions to the author’s text might have been made by another, unknown writer. The second would hold that patriarch Philotheus himself authored these additions but the surviving autograph gives us only the original and shorter version. The first scenario seems more plausible, since the codex Vat.gr. 1531, with its enlarged version of the canon, dates to the 15th–16th centuries, made almost two centuries after the patriarch’s death. This scenario seems con- sistent with the manuscript studied by Kourtesidou, which does not show any trace of authorial corrections or text-editing by Philotheus’ collaborators. We present here the canon to St. Nicholas by Patriarch Philotheus Kokkinos as it stands in the manuscript Vlad. 431, scribe’s orthography and accents left unedited: KSENIIA S. MORUGINA 701 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 691–707 ὡδὴ α΄ ἦχος α΄ Χριστὸς γεννάται Τὴν χάριν ὅλην τοῦ πνεύµατος πυρίνην ὥσπερ γλῶσσαν δεξάµενος Xριστὸν ἱεράρχα κάθαρον γλῶσσάν τε καὶ καρδίαν σῶν ὑµνωδῶν ὅπως σου τὴν µνήµην ἀνυµνήσωµεν φαιδρῶς πάτερ Νικόλαε. Ὁ µέγας ἄρτι Νικόλαος, ποιµὴν τῆς ἐκκλησίας ὁ κράτιστος, ποιµένας ὁµοῦ καὶ ποίµνια πᾶσαν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν λαµπρῶς καλεῖ. Δεῦτε συνελθόντες, ὡς κοινῶ πατρί λαµπρῶς πανηγυρίσωµεν. Νικᾶ τὰ σὰ κατορθώµατα, καὶ λόγους, καὶ τὰ πράγµατα, µέγιστε, διὸ τῆς ψυχῆς τὴν πρόθεσιν δέχου µετ’ εὐµενείας µόνην ἡµῶν. Τὸ γὰρ πρὸς ἀξίαν ὕµνους πλέκειν σοι σοφὲ πᾶσιν ἀδύνατον. Θερµὸς προστάτης Νικόλαε, ὡράθης τῶν πιστῶς δεοµένων σου, θερµὸς δὲ πολλοῖς αὐτόκλητος ὤφθης σωτὴρ καὶ ῥύστης, ὥσπερ θεός φθάνων τὰς αἰτήσεις τῶν πιστῶν περιουσία ἀγαθότητος. Θεοτοκίον Φαιδρὸς προέρχεται ἥλιος, ἐκ πύλης κεκλεισµένης φαινόµενος, ἡ νὺξ ἐµφανῶς προέκοψεν, ἤγγεκεν ἡ ἡµέρα. Φύσις βροτῶν δέχου τὸν δεσπότην ἐκ παρθένου διὰ σὲ βροτὸν γενόµενον. ὡδὴ γ΄ τῶ πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων Ἔγνω σε ἐκ µήτρας, θεοφόρε, ὁ πάντα γινώσκων θεὸς· πρὸ τοῦ πλασθῆναι ἐν κοιλία ·ἁγιάζει σε πλάστην ψυχῶν καὶ ποιµένα µέγιστον. Ὥσπερ τῶ Πέτρω πιστεύων καὶ σοὶ τὸ οἰκεῖον ποίµνιον. 702 PATRIARCH PHILOTHEOS KOKKINOS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 691–707 Ῥάβδω ἐγκρατείας τῶν παθῶν µάκαρ σχίσας τὴν θάλασσαν, ὡς Μωυσῆς τῆς ἀπαθείας εἰς τὸ ὄρος ἀνῆλθες, λαβῶν νοητῶς τὰς πλάκας δὲ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν παιδεύεις Χριστοῦ νόµον τὸν ἐν πνεύµατι. Μέτριος ἐφάνης, ταπεινός τε καὶ πρᾶος Νικόλαε. Ὅθεν τοῦ πνεύµατος ἡ χάρις δαψιλῶς ἐκχυθεῖσα ἐν σοί · µέγιστον ἀνέδειξε ταῖς τῶν θαυµάτων ἀκτῖσι τὴν γῆν πᾶσαν διαβαίνοντα. Ὅλον τῶ δεσπότη σεαυτὸν ἐκ παιδὸς ἀφιέρωσας καὶ πνεύµα ὅλος ἐτελέσθης, ἀποστὰς ὅλος κόσµου, διὸ τῶν τοῦ κόσµου ῥῦσαι µε σκανδάλων ὅλον σοφὲ καὶ Θεώ ὅλον καθιέρωσον. Θεοτοκίον Ἰσχυρὸς δυνάστης σαρκωθεὶς ὁ Θεὸς νῦν ἐφίσταται. Οἱ ἐν τῶ σκότει τοῦ θανάτου φῶς θεάσασθε µέγα Χριστὸν ἐν σπηλαίω µέλλονται ἐκ τῆς παρθένου γεννάσθαι φρικτῶς ἥν πιστῶς ὑµνήσωµεν. ὡδὴ δ΄ ῥάβδος ἐκ τῆς ρί[ζας] Νόµοις ἐκ µαζῶν τῶν µητρικῶν ὑπέκυψας τοῦ πνεύµατος, νόµους σαρκὸς ὑπερβὰς, ὅσιε. Ὁ νόµος ὅθεν ἐν σοὶ καὶ πρὸ ὤρας τέθνηκεν, ὄντως ὁ δεινὸς τῆς ἁµαρτίας διὸ ἐδόθης πιστοῖς θεῖος νοµοθέτης Νικόλαε. Ὕπνον ὀφθαλµοῖς καὶ νυσταγµὸν βλεφάροις σοῖς οὐκ ἔδωκας, ἕως οὗ εὗρες τόπον ἄξιον. Τῶ πάντων δηµιουργῶ πάτερ τὴν καρδίαν σου ἥν καὶ καθαρθεῖσαν ἐπαξίως KSENIIA S. MORUGINA 703 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 691–707 ἀνέδειξεν ἑαυτοῦ σκήνωµα τῆς δόξης ὁ ὕψιστος. Μέγιστα βραβεῖα πρὸς Θεοῦ καὶ δόξαν κοµισάµενος ὑπὲρ τῶν πόνων τῶν µεγάλων σου. Μεγάλων πάντας παθῶν καὶ κινδύνων λύτρωσαι τοὺς προβαλλοµένους σὲ µεσίτην καὶ πρεσβευτὴν πρὸς Χριστὸν, µάκαρ συµπαθῆ καὶ ὀξύτατον. Νέκρωσον τὸ φρόνηµα, σοφέ, σαρκός µου τὸ δυσήνιον τὴν πρὸς τὸ θεῖον ἔχθραν δέοµαι, ὡς δυνατὸς ἀνελὼν καὶ τοῖς νόµοις ὅλον µε καθυποβαλὼν καλῶς ἐκείνου καὶ δοῦλον δείξας Χριστοῦ τὸν δεδουλωµένον τοῖς πάθεσιν. Θεοτοκίον Λύτρωσιν ἀπέσταλεν ἰδοὺ ὁ κύριος ὡς γέγραπται λαοῖς φυλαῖς καὶ γλώσσαις σήµερον· λαὸν καὶ γὰρ ἑαυτοῦ πάντας ἀπεργάζεται ἕνα τοὺς ἐν πίστει προσκυνοῦντας, τὴν σάρκωσιν τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ σὲ θεοτόκον κηρύττοντας. ὡδὴ ε΄ θεὸς ὤν εἰρήνης Ὡς µέγας ὁ πλοῦτος τῶν σῶν οἰκτιρµῶν ἀνεφάνη τῶ κόσµω καὶ ἄµετρος. Ἡ χύσις τοῦ ἐλέους σου θεράπον τοῦ Χριστοῦ σὺ γὰρ τοῖς δεοµένοις τὰ ὄντα διανέµων καὶ αὐτοὺς ἐσπούδαζες, µάκαρ λανθάνειν τοὺς λαµβάνοντας. Πραότης καὶ ζῆλος ὁµοῦ ἀκραιφνὴς τὴν καρδίαν τὴν σὴν ἀπειργάσαντο οἰκεῖον ἐνδιαίτηµα σοφὲ ὑπερφυῶς. 704 PATRIARCH PHILOTHEOS KOKKINOS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 691–707 Σὺ γὰρ τῶν ἐναντίων τὴν ἕνωσιν ἐδέξω µαχητὴς ἀήττητος ὑπὲρ τοῦ πνεύµατος γενόµενος. Ῥοµφαία ὡράθης καὶ βέλος ὀξὺ εἰς καρδίας πεµπόµενον · ἔνδοξε ἐχθρῶν τοῦ τῶν ἁπάντων βασιλέως καὶ Θεοῦ εἰδώλων καὶ δαιµόνων αἱρέσεων ἀτόπων τὰς ψυχὰς εὐφραίνων δὲ τῶν ἐκζητούντων σου τὸν κύριον. Ὁ µέγας ποιµὴν τῶν ἁπάντων Χριστός, τῶν προβάτων σε µάκαρ ἀνέδειξε ποιµένα καὶ διδάσκαλον αὐτοῦ τῶν λογικῶν, διὸ πλανώµενόν µε εἰς ὄρη ἀπωλείας ὡς ποιµὴν φιλάνθρωπος τὸ σὸν ἐκ ζήτησον νῦν πρόβατον. Θεοτοκίον Ὁ µέγας ἀνθρώπων ποιµὴν καὶ σωτὴρ ἐκ παρθένου ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἔρχεται, τεχθῆναι διὰ πέλαγος ἀφάτων οἰκτιρµῶν σπήλαιον ἑτοιµάζου, ποιµένες ἀγραυλοῦντες τὴν κοινὴν ἀνάκλησιν εὐαγγελίζεσθε τοῖς πέρασιν. ὡδὴ στ΄ σπλάγχνων ἰωνᾶν Σὺ τῶν ὀρφανῶν ὄντως ἐχρηµάτισας πατῆρ καὶ χηρῶν προστάτης ἔνδοξε τῶν νοσούντων τὲ καὶ ἐν λύπαις ἡδίστη ἀνάψυξις. Ἰατρὸς παθῶν ψυχῆς ὁµοῦ καὶ σώµατος. Ὅθεν καὶ κοινῆ προσφθέγγονται καὶ καλοῦσι σου πάντες τὸ ὄνοµα. Τύπος καὶ κανὼν σοφὲ κυβερνήσεως ψυχῶν ἀγαθοῖς ποιµέσι γέγονας. Πρεσβυτέρων δὲ εὐταξία καὶ κόσµος ἐξαίρετος µελωδῶν ἡ συνεχὴς ὄντως πανήγυρις πάσης ἐκκλησίας κάλλιστον KSENIIA S. MORUGINA 705 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 691–707 καὶ φαιδρὸν καὶ γλυκὺ περιλάληµα. Ἄνδρες µονασταὶ συγχαίρουσι σήµερον ἡµῖν τῶ πατρὶ συνεορτάζοντες συµφωνοῦσι γὰρ καὶ συνάδουσιν ἅµατα πρόσφορα ἀκριβείας ἀσκηταὶ καὶ τῆς ἁπλότητος πάντες τὸν κοινὸν ὑµνούσι σε καὶ προστάτην ὁµοῦ καὶ διδάσκαλον. Τέκνον µωµητὸν ἐγὼ µόνος γέγονα πάθεσιν αἰσχροῖς, ὄντως ἀνάξιος τῆς καλλίστης σου καὶ τερπνῆς πανηγύρεως ἔνδοξε. Ἀλλὰ σὺ περιελών µου τὴν αἰσχρότητα πάτερ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀνάδειξον δαιτυµόνα τοῦ δείπνου σου ἄξιον. Θεοτοκίον Θαῦµα τὸ παρὸν θαυµάτων ἐπέκεινα καὶ λόγου καὶ νοῦ παντὸς ἀνώτερον καὶ παρθένος γὰρ ἡ αὐτή νῦν καὶ µητῆρ γνωρίζεται καὶ τὸ γέννηµα Θεὸς ὁµοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπος· τούτου τὰ λαµπρὰ γενέθλια προτελοῦντες κροτοῦµεν χαρµόσυνα. ὡδὴ ζ΄ οἱ παῖδες εὐσεβεία Ἡ γῆ πᾶσα συµφώνως καὶ ἡ θάλασσα πάτερ τὰ θαύµατα ἀνακηρύττει σου. Καὶ γὰρ ὁ σὸς φθόγγος ἐξελήλυθεν εἰς τὰ πέρατα διδάσκων ψάλλειν ἅπαντας ὁ τῶν πατέρων Θεὸς εὐλογητός εἶ. Νυµφίος ὁ ὡραῖος ὑπὲρ πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὡς γέγραπται τῆς νύµφης µάκαρ τῆς αὐτοῦ ἐκκλησίας ὡραιότατον σέ ἀνέδειξε, νυµφίον τούτου φέροντα τοὺς χαρακτῆρας τρανῶς καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα. Κοσµήσας σου τὸν βίον συµπαθεία σοφὲ καὶ πραότητι καὶ τῆ ἀγάπη τῆ λαµπρᾶ µιµητὴς ἐφάνης ἄριστος τοῦ ποιµένος τοῦ καλοῦ ἀναµαξάµενος τὰς ἰδικὰς ἀρετὰς καλῶς ἐκείνον. Ἀδίκου καταδίκης καὶ θανάτου χαλεποῦ ὡς ἔσωσας τρεῖς ἄνδρας πάλαι καὶ ἡµᾶς τοῦ τριπλοῦ θανάτου λύτρωσαι 706 PATRIARCH PHILOTHEOS KOKKINOS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 691–707 πάθη πάτερ χαλεπὰ ψυχῆς καὶ σώµατος καὶ πειρασµοὺς ἀνελὼν τοὺς τῶν δαιµόνων. Θεοτοκίον Ἔρχεται ὁ δεσπότης ἐν σπηλαίω τεχθῆναι ὡς ἄνθρωπος· προυπαντήσωµεν πιστοὶ τῇ παρθένω προβαλλόµενοι · τὸν πατέρα τῆς χαρᾶς ἔξαρχον ψάλλοντες. Χαῖρε τοῦ κόσµου χαρὰ παρθένε χαῖρε. ὡδὴ η΄ θαύµατος ὑπερφυῶς Ἴθυνον τῆ κυβερνήσει σου τὸ σκάφος σοῦ δεόµεθα τῆς ἐκκλησίας τὸ ἱστίον κούφισον τοῖς ἀνέµοις τοῖς νοητοῖς καὶ τῶ κλύδωνι γενναίως ἐπιτίµησον καὶ ῥῦσαι παντοίως κινδυνεύουσαν ὥσπερ πάλαι πλωτῆρας πάτερ διέσωσας ἐπὶ τοῦ πελάγους σωτὴρ φανεὶς ἀθρόως. Πέπτωκε τὰ εἴδωλα πάτερ τῆς πλάνης σοῦ τῶ ῥήµατι µόνω τῆς γλώττης τοῦ Ἀρείου αἵρεσις, φροῦδος ὤφθη σαῖς διδαχαῖς, ἀδικίαν ἐκ τοῦ µέσου σὺ πεποίηκας διὸ καὶ τὴν ποίµνην σου διέσωσας εὐλογείτω ἡ κτίσις πᾶσα τὸν κύριον καὶ ὑπερυψόντω βοώσαν εἰς αἰῶνας. Ἄρρητος ἡ σὴ φιλοτεκνία πάτερ, ὑπερβαίνουσα πατρικὸν φίλτρων, µητρικὴν συµπάθειαν σχέσιν πᾶσαν τὴν φυσικὴν διὰ τοῦτο καὶ αὐτόκλητος ἐφίστασαι. Φρουρῶν γρηγορούντας καὶ καθεύδοντας σωτηρίαν ἡµῖν εὐαγγελιζόµενος διδοὺς ἱλαρῶς µετ’ εὐχῶν σοφὲ τὴν χεῖρα. Θεοτοκίον Ὅλον µε καταπεσόντα θεοτόκε καὶ συντρίψαντα τὸ κατ’ εἰκόνα ὁ Θεὸς δι’ ἔλεον ὅλον σώζει ἀναλαβὼν ἐκ γαστρός σου ὅλον, δέσποινα, τὸν ἄνθρωπον διὸ τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς µεγίστης σε σωτηρίας ἡ κτίσης πόθω δοξάζουσα εὐλογεῖ τὸν τόκον τὸν σὸν εἰς τοὺς αἰώνας. ὡδὴ θ΄ µυστήριον Τὴν δόξαν σου ὑµνεῖν ἀξίως τίς δύναται ὡς Μωσῆς ἐφάνης γὰρ KSENIIA S. MORUGINA 707 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 691–707 ὅλος δεδοξασµένος τὴν ὄψιν ἀρρήτως θεόπτα καὶ γὰρ ἡ ἐνοῦσα σοι τοῦ πνεύµατος λαµπὰς ἐκφανεῖσα καὶ τοὺς ἔξω περιέλαµπεν. Ἔνέθηκε τῆ ἐκκλησία θεµέλιον ὁ Χριστὸς καὶ στύλον σὲ θείαν ὥσπερ ψυχὴν θεοφόρε ὡς µέγα στοιχεῖον αὐτὴν · συγκρατοῦντα καὶ συνέχοντα στερρῶς εἰς αἰῶνας απερίτρεπτον ὡς ἔφησεν. Ῥευστὴν καὶ σὺ φύσιν λαχὼν ὥσπερ ἄνθρωπος τῆ µὲν γῆ κατέλιπες νόµοις τοῖς φυσικοῖς τὸ σὸν σῶµα ψυχὴ δὲ ἡ θεία Χριστῶ παρεστῶσα σὺν ἀγγέλοις τῆς λαµπρᾶς ἀπολαύει νῦν θεώσεως τρανότερον. Ἅπας λόγος πάτερ σαφῶς καὶ ἐγκώµιον τῆς µεγάλης δόξης σου πόρρω καὶ τῆς ἀξίας ἐκπίπτει ἐκ πόθου δὲ τοῦτον ἡµεῖς σοὶ προσφέροµεν τὸν ὕµνον εὐλαβῶς οἱ τοὺς σοὺς ἐπαίνους πνέοντες, Νικόλαε. Θεοτοκίον Συνδράµωµεν θαῦµα τὸ µέγα ὀψόµενοι ἡ παρθένος πάρεστιν ἔµβρυον φέρουσα τὸν ἐν µήτρα τὰ βρέφη ζωοῦντα Χριστὸν οἱ ποιµένες σὺν ἀγγέλοις τὴν κοινὴν σωτηρίαν ἐν σπηλαίω προαγγέλλουσι. Συνέλθωµεν · ὕµνους ἐν θεοῖς οἱ γράφοντες · ἐπιστήµην ἅπασαν ἅπαντας · λογικὴν συγκροτοῦντες τὴν µόνην · τῶν ὕµνων ἀρχὴν καὶ αἰτίαν · ἀνυµνήσωµεν λαµπρῶς · τῆ παρθένω πᾶν ἐγκώµιον συνάγοντες. June, 2020 Institute of World History Russian Academy of Sciences Moscow, Russian Federation ksenyamorug@mail.ru