§ 41. The Nomocanons

According to the significance they had in church practice, both the canons (κανόνες) and the civil laws (νόμοι) that existed on church matters, the need made itself felt to gather into a single collection all the existing canons and civil laws, and thereby to facilitate the exact exercise of church administration. Such collections were called nomocanons.[1] The first such collection that has come down to us is

1. The Nomocanon in 50 Titles, also known under the name of the “Nomocanon of John Scholasticus.”[2] It was composed from the systematic collection of John Scholasticus[3] and his other collection of civil laws in 87 chapters,[4] namely, the respective title was set down, and under the title were cited the canons touching on that title, and immediately thereafter the corresponding civil laws. There is further an appendix at the end of the Nomocanon, being a particular extract from the aforementioned collection in 87 chapters.[5] It is not known who composed this Nomocanon,[6] and the time of its composition is placed in the years immediately following the death of Justinian, namely under the reign of the Emperor Justin II (565–578).[7] This Nomocanon was afterward supplemented, especially in its canonical part, with canons that were issued later.[8] In this supplemented form it was also translated into Slavonic, and this, as is conjectured, by Methodius, the Apostle to the Slavs—thus already in the ninth century.[9] Among the Slavs it was in general use until the Kormchaia was prepared, that is, until the beginning of the thirteenth century, and in Bulgaria even later.[10]

2. The Nomocanon in 14 Titles.[11] Until a few years ago the general opinion was that this Nomocanon had been composed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, Photius, and it was for this reason called the “Nomocanon of Photius.” Meanwhile, an examination of the Nomocanon itself, and especially of its preface, has shown to the point of evidence that this Nomocanon belongs to a much earlier period, and that in Photius’s own time it was only supplemented with those canons that had been issued from the seventh century onward—and that even in this supplementation Photius had no part whatsoever. This Nomocanon had two redactions: the first belongs to the first half of the eighth century [sic],[12] and it is very probable that it was prepared either by the Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius (610–638),[13] or by some cleric of the church of Constantinople at his instruction.[14] It is divided into 14 titles, in complete harmonious connection among themselves, and each title into several chapters, and in each chapter are cited first the numbers of the canons that speak on the given subject, and then the laws of Greco-Roman legislation that concern the church.[15] In the canonical part of this first redaction of the Nomocanon, the following canons are mentioned: the apostolic canons, those of the first four ecumenical councils, of the first eight local councils, and of twelve holy fathers, with the exception of Tarasius. The civil laws in the Nomocanon are taken in general from the Collectio tripartita,[16] and so at many points the laws cited in the Nomocanon correspond in the very wording to the laws in the Tripartita, and the internal connection between these two collections is so close that it is held that one and the same person composed them both. The Tripartita, as we know, contains all the laws of the state authority that concern the church, set out in Justinian’s collections, and this same content is found in the Nomocanon—that is, it contains all the provisions of civil legislation on church matters that had been issued up to that time.[17] A second redaction of this Nomocanon was prepared in the year 883.[18] The external form of the collection is kept the same as it had in the first redaction, and only the canons of the Council in Trullo, of the Second Council of Nicaea, of the two councils of Constantinople of 861 and 879, and the epistle on simony of Tarasius of Constantinople, are additionally mentioned.[19] In this way, in the Nomocanon in 14 Titles, when it was published in its second redaction in the year 883, all the canons that had universal validity for the Orthodox church, and that hold force to this day, are mentioned. The second part of the Nomocanon, where the civil laws are cited, remained, apart from insignificant changes, untouched.[20] Directly following the Nomocanon, in which, in the respective chapters of the titles, the numbers of the respective canons were cited, and which as such was a systematic repertory of the whole canonical material, there followed a collection with the full text of the canons themselves, in which collection one had to seek out the canon that was indicated by number in the Nomocanon. Having received this supplement, and given the systematic order in which the canonical subjects are arranged in this Nomocanon—an order most suited to church practice—it, together with the collection of canons appended to it, in the course of time excluded from use all the other canonical collections, and at the great council of Constantinople of the year 920, at which representatives of the whole church were present, it was solemnly confirmed and proclaimed generally binding for the whole Christian church.[21] Today the canons mentioned in this Nomocanon, and cited in full text in the canonical collection appended to it, make up the basic canonical collection of the Orthodox church.

III. The period after the publication of the basic canonical collection of the Orthodox church.

Footnotes

[1] § 41. This name is fully appropriate for collections of this kind, for it corresponds to their inner sense. Besides, in the eastern church the name nomocanon was also borne by such collections as contained no civil laws but only the canons themselves (Beveregii, Synodicon Prolegom p. XVIII—XIX), and also by such as contained only the canons concerning penances (e.g. Νομοκάνονον τοῦ Νηστευτοῦ, or the “Nomocanon” appended to the great Trebnik). As regards the nomocanons in the proper sense (the combination of canons and civil laws), Leo Allatius says that they arose out of the flattery of the eastern bishops toward the emperors (De perpet. consens. eccles. or. et. occid. L. I. c. 15. p. 221). Something akin to this is said also by Pitra (II, 433). Hergenröther, dwelling on Allatius’s words, observes with full justice: “in ihrer (Nomocan.) Natur und Beschaffenheit liegt eine solche (Schmeichelei gegen die Kaiser) sicher noch nicht” (Photius. III, 99 n 49). Cf. Spittler, Gesch. des kan. Rechts S. 113 and Biener, Gesch. der Nov S. 197.

[11] On this important nomocanon see, in my Collection (II ed.), the introduction, pp. LXI—LXXIV, and likewise in my publication: On the Canonical Collections of the Orthodox Church, pp. 19—31, and my academic dissertation: The Nomocanon of Patr. Photius, Kiev, 1871. The note on p. LXI of my Collection is erroneous and incomplete, and therefore I correct it here as follows with regard to the literature: Biener, De collect. canonum p 21—26. Id., Das kan. Recht der griech Kirche (Kritische Zeitschrift für Rechtswissenschaft. XXVIII, 188—198). Id., Geschichte der Novellen Justinian’s S 202—210. Id., Zur Revision des Justian Codex (Zeitschrift für Rechtswissenschaft. VII, 148—153). Spittler, Geschichte d kan. Rechts. S 183—187. Mortreuil, Hist du droit byz. I, 222—230. III, 416—421. Pitra, Des canons p 32—56. Id., Juris eccl hist. et monum. II, 433—444. Zachariae von Lingenthal, Die griechisch. Nomokanones S. 5—14. Id., Ueber den Verfasser und die Quellen des (Pseudo-Photianischen) Nomokanon in XIV Titeln (see a kind of refutation of this work in “Writings of the Holy Fathers”, 1886, vol. I, appendix, pp. 418—427, an article by N. Zaozersky). G. E. Heimbach, Anecdocta. I. Proleg. p. XLVII—LIII. C. W. E. Heimbach, Griech.-röm. Recht (Ersch u Gruber’s Allgemeine Encyklop Bd. 86. S. 291—295. 377—378. 457—458). Hergenröther, Photius III, 99—128. Id., Das griechische Kirchenrecht bis zum Ende des neunten Jahrhunderts (Archiv für kath. Kirchenrecht Bd. 23. S 211—227). Pavlov, The Original Slavo-Russian Nomocanon, p. 25 ff. Archim. Ioann, Course of Church Law, I, 91—98. Zaozersky, The Syntagma in Fourteen Titles (Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment, 1883, I, 327—361). — Editions (besides many separate ones): Voelli et Justelli, Biblioth. juris. can II, 785—1140; Migne, Patrologia graeca Tom. CIV p 441—976, the text after Card. A. Mai (Spicil. rom.), and 979—1218 the text after Justelli’s edition (according to Hergenröther’s remark [Photius. III, 109 Archiv für Kirchenr. 23, 212], this Migne edition is very faulty); Pitra, Juris eccl. hist et monum. II, 445—640 (a very valuable edition); Ῥάλλη καὶ Πότλη, Σύνταγμα κανόνων. I, 5—335. The Slavonic translation of the nomocanon (without the civil laws) is found in the Old Serbian Kormchaia, from which it was carried over into the printed Russo-Slavonic Kormchaia (ed. 1887. I, 34—58). The Serbian translation of the canonical part of this nomocanon I prepared myself according to the Ath. Syntagma, and it is found in my Collection, pp. 3—22. The Russian translation by V. Naberkov, The Nomocanon of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch Photius with the Commentary of Balsamon. Kazan, 1899.

[15] According to the Ath. Synt. (I, 13—29) the titles are as follows: I. Περὶ θεολογίας, καὶ ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως, καὶ κανόνων, καὶ χειροτονιῶν. II Περὶ τῆς ποιήσεως ἐκκλησιῶν, καὶ περὶ ἱερῶν σκευῶν, καὶ ἀναθημάτων, καὶ κληρικῶν παρὰ γνώμην ἐπισκόπων ἱστώντων θυσιαστήρια, καὶ περὶ καθιερώσεως ἐκκλησιῶν, καὶ μαρτυρίων μὴ ἐχόντων λείψανα ἁγίων. III. Περὶ εὐχῶν, καὶ ψαλμῳδίας, καὶ ἀναγνώσεως, καὶ ἀναφορᾶς, καὶ κοινωνίας, καὶ φορεσίας, καὶ ὑπουργίας ἀναγνωστῶν, ψαλτῶν καὶ ὑπηρετῶν IV. Περὶ κατηχουμένων, καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου βαπτίσματος. V. Περὶ τῶν καταφρονούντων τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν, καὶ συνάξεων, καὶ μνημῶν, καὶ τῶν ἐσθιόντων ἐν ἐκκλησίαις, καὶ περὶ ἀγαπῶν. VI Περὶ καρποφοριῶν. VII. Περὶ νεστείας καὶ τεσσαρακοστῆς, καὶ τοῦ πάσχα, καὶ τῆς πεντηκοστῆς, καὶ κυριακῆς, καὶ σαββάτου, καὶ γονυκλισίας VIII Περὶ παροικιῶν, καὶ πῶς διαγουσιν ἐπίσκοποι, καὶ κληρικοί, καὶ περὶ ἀποδημίας αὐτῶν, καὶ περὶ τῶν κατ᾿ ἔτος συνόδων, καὶ ξενοδόχων, καὶ διδασκάλων, καὶ συστατικῶν, καὶ εἰρηνικῶν ἐπιστολῶν, καὶ ποῖα πράττουσιν ἰδιωτικά, ἢ δημόσια πράγματα, καὶ πῶς οἱ κληρικοὶ ἀλλήλους τιμῶσι. IX. Περὶ ἁμαρτημάτων, καὶ δικῶν ἐπισκόπων, καὶ κληρικῶν, καὶ ἀφορισμοῦ, καὶ καθαιρέσεως, καὶ ποῖα ἁμαρτήματα ἡ χειροθεσία λύει. X. Περὶ διοικήσεως ἐκκλησιαστικῶν πραγμάτων, καὶ περὶ τῶν ἰδικῶν τοῦ ἐπισκόπου. XI. Περὶ μοναστηρίων καὶ μοναχῶν. XII. Περὶ αἱρετικῶν, καὶ ἰουδαίων, καὶ ἑλλήνων. XIII. Περὶ λαϊκῶν. XIV. Περὶ κοινῶν πάντων ἀνθρώπων. Cf. my Collection, p. 322.

[18] This is set down as follows at the end of the second preface of the nomocanon: ἔστι μὲν κατὰ χιλιάδα ἐτῶν μετρούμενος, εἰς τὸ ἐξαπλάσιον ταύτης ἀναβαίνων, ὑπερβάλλων δὲ καὶ ταῦτα, καὶ μηδὲ μέχρι τῶν τριακοσίων ἐτῶν τὸν δρόμον ἱστῶν, εἰς τὸ ἐννενηκοστὸν πρῶτον ἔτος ἐλαύνων, ὑπ᾿ αὐγὰς ἡλίου τὴν προκειμένην πρᾶξιν προήνεγκεν (Ath. Synt. I, 9), that is: 6391—5508=883. In this preface the name Photius ought, in one way or another, to have been mentioned, if it was he who published this nomocanon in the second recension; however, neither here nor anywhere else for almost 300 years afterwards is the name of Photius mentioned as having published this nomocanon; it was Balsamon who first did so, when he undertook to comment on the same nomocanon, calling it the work of Photius (Ath. Synt. I, 32); and on the basis of that very datum this nomocanon was subsequently called Photius’s by everyone. See what I myself have adduced against this general assertion in the preface of my Collection (pp. LXIX—LXXI).

§ 41. The Nomocanons

§ 41. Номоканони