Preface
“The exposition of Thy words enlightens and instructs the inexperienced,—says to God the prophet and divine David; and the injunctions of the divine apostles and fathers have rightly been called words of God, for they issued those injunctions, illuminated by the divine Spirit.” Thus begins John Zonaras his commentaries on the canons.
This exposition of those words of God, that is, of the holy rules (canons), was the task of all the commentators of all the centuries. Not everything in every canon is clear, nor are all the canons so lucidly set forth that anyone, as soon as he has read a single canon, could at once grasp its true meaning. This depends on the text of the canons themselves, which were issued in various places and over the course of several centuries, and consequently they could not all have been set forth as they would have been had they been issued in one place and at one time, and thus so that they could be fully understood through a knowledge of the language and historical circumstances of a single age and a single place. For this reason the commentaries on the canons were, so to speak, called forth by necessity in the Church, and the need for those commentaries was felt in precisely the same way as the need for the interpretation of holy Scripture.
We do not have many commentators of the canons. Strictly speaking, there was not a single one for the first eleven centuries. The first commentator appears at the beginning of the 12th century—and that is John Zonaras, a monk, grand drungarius of the imperial tribunal and state secretary. How Zonaras begins his commentaries we have seen; and further on, in his preface, he tells us that his intention is to make the holy canons intelligible and to elucidate their meaning, so that everyone might be able to penetrate into the depth of the holy canons and so that all the canonical institutions might be clear to everyone; and for that reason he undertook to set forth, separately and in brief form, the commentary on each individual canon. And Zonaras did this so well that no one to this day has surpassed him in it, and Balsamon could, with full justice, call him ὁ ὑπερφυέστατος in the interpretation of the canons.
In the same 12th century Alexius Aristenus wrote commentaries on the canons, a deacon and great oikonomos of the patriarchal church in Constantinople. He commented on the abbreviated text (the synopsis) of the canons, and did so in such a way that under the abbreviated text he placed a periphrastic full text of the canon; and if that abbreviated text of a canon was intelligible, he left the canon without commentary and merely noted that “the canon is clear.”
In the second half of the same 12th century there appears a third commentator, Theodore Balsamon, at first chartophylax of the patriarchal church of Constantinople and afterward (from 1193) patriarch of Antioch. Balsamon’s very task was to bring the prescriptions of the holy canons into harmony with the prescriptions of the state’s Greco-Roman legislation, and in that he worked independently; in his commentaries on the canons themselves, however, he follows Zonaras in everything, supplementing Zonaras’s commentaries only now and then by introducing, for the elucidation of one or another canonical prescription, the decisions of the patriarchal synod of Constantinople.
The commentaries of all three (Zonaras, Aristenus, and Balsamon) were printed in the original in volumes II, III and IV of the Σύνταγμα τῶν ϑείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων τῶν τε ἁγίων καὶ πανευφήμων ᾿Αποστόλων καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν οἰκουμενικῶν καὶ τοπικῶν Συνόδων καὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἁγίων Πατέρων, ἐκδοϑὲν ὑπὸ Γ. ᾿Α. ῾Ράλλη καὶ Μ. Πότλη, ἐγκρίσει τῆς ἁγίας καὶ μεγάλης τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκκλησίας (᾿Αϑήνησιν, 1852—53), and the Greek text with a Latin translation in the Συνοδικόν, sive Pandectae canonum ss. Apostolorum et Conciliorum ab ecclesia graeca receptorum, nec non canonicarum ss. Patrum epistolarum,—Guil. Beveregius recensuit (Oxonii, 1672). In a Russian translation these commentaries are found in the edition of the Moscow Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment, “The Rules of the Holy Apostles, of the Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils, and of the Holy Fathers, with Commentaries” (Moscow, 1876 ff.).
Apart from the commentaries of these principal Greek commentators, there exist also in the Greek language commentaries by various individuals of the Middle Ages. But these commentaries are very brief; there are none on all the canons, but only on certain ones, and compared with Zonaras’s commentaries they lose their significance and importance. Among the several men who wrote such brief commentaries, the principal ones from the aforesaid period are four. In chronological order the first is John, bishop of Kitros (ἐπίσκοπος Κίτρου), from the last years of the 12th century, known for his canonical responses to Archbishop Constantine Cabasilas. John’s commentaries are found under certain canons in the canonical collection of Constantine Harmenopoulos. The second is Matthew Blastares, a monk, who in his “Alphabetical Syntagma”, compiled in the year 1335 (printed in the original in volume VI of the Athenian Syntagma, and in Greek with a Latin translation in volume II of Beveridge’s Synodicon, and in a Russian translation in the edition of N. Il’nitsky, Simferopol, 1892), clarified almost all the canons, though following Zonaras and Balsamon in everything and adding of his own only very few observations. The third is the patriarch of Constantinople Philotheus († 1376), whose commentaries on certain canons are found in Harmenopoulos’s canonical collection. And last of all Constantine Harmenopoulos († 1383), prefect of Thessalonica and nomophylax. Harmenopoulos’s commentaries on certain canons are found in his canonical collection itself, in which there are found, as we have said, the commentaries both of John of Kitros and of Patriarch Philotheus. This collection of Harmenopoulos was printed in volume I of Juris graeco-romani tam canonici quam civilis ed. Johannis Leunclavii Amelburni (Francofurti, 1596).
Until 1798 there was no one writing in the Greek language any commentaries on the canons that were any better. In that year the monk Christophorus published in Constantinople, with the blessing of Patriarch Neophytus, a canonical collection, and in it are found many quite independent commentaries on the canons. On the whole, the commentaries in the Πηδάλιον τῆς νοητῆς νηὸς τῆς μιᾶς ἁγίας καϑολικῆς καὶ ἀποστολικῆς τῶν ὀρϑοδόξων ἐκκλησίας were compiled chiefly according to these commentaries of Christophorus; it was prepared by two monks, Agapius and Nicodemus, who first printed it in the year 1800 in Leipzig.
* * *
Nor did the canons of the Orthodox Church remain without commentaries in the west either. It is well known that, as a consequence of the religious discord in the west in the sixteenth century, there arose among western theologians a striving to become closely acquainted with the written monuments of the Greek church, and in that striving there immediately began to be published the canonical collections of the eastern church and, in general, the sources of the law of that church, either in the Greek text, or in a Latin translation, or with the Greek text and a Latin translation side by side. In many of those western editions the persons concerned did not confine themselves to the mere preparation for print of the canonical sources of the eastern church, but also wrote their own critical remarks on those sources; and in certain editions in particular we find quite detailed commentaries on the canons of the eastern church, produced in general according to the confessional tendency which the editor in question followed. For the Orthodox canonist these commentaries of the westerners can be of considerable importance, especially some among them, since they throw light on many questions of Orthodox canon law that had not previously been fully worked out, and since in many of those commentaries is found the historical origin and development of individual very important canonical institutions. Naturally, an Orthodox canonist, in reading those western commentaries, must not for a moment forget the confessional tendency (ultramontane, Gallican, Anglican, etc.) of the writer in question, and accordingly, while at the same time comparing what one or another writer says with the canonical teaching of the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox canonist must also pass judgment on the western commentary in question.
The first who occupied himself with commentaries on even the Eastern canonical sources, and whose work was printed, is the learned Augustinian Christianus Lupus († 1681). His commentaries are to be found in his: Synodorum generalium ac provincialium decreta et canones, scholiis, notis ac historica actorum dissertatione illustrati (Lovanii, 1665). This work offers rich canonical material, but the exposition is so involved that it is often difficult to understand what the author wants to say, and whether on a given question he is asserting one view or the opposite. The second is the Oratorian Joannes Cabassutius († 1685) in his work: Notitia conciliorum sanctae ecclesiae, in qua elucidantur exactissime tum sacri canones, tum veteres novique ecclesiae ritus, tum praecipuae partes eccles. historiae (Lugduni, 1667, and most recently an edition supplemented and with a broader title, Paris, 1838). The commentaries of this writer are brief and superficial, and least of all are they exactissima, as he says. His commentary on canon 6 of the First Ecumenical Council, which we mentioned on p. 192 of this book of ours, may serve as an example.
Of all the Westerners who occupied themselves with commentaries on the canons of the Eastern Church, the most important for the Orthodox canonist is Guil. Beveregius (Beveridge), an Anglican priest and afterwards bishop of Asaph († 1708). In his Συνοδικόν, the full title of which we quoted above, Beveridge wrote learned commentaries not only on all the more important canons, but also on many other passages taken from the commentaries of the Greek commentators. Beveridge’s commentaries are valuable for Orthodox canon law.
Equally valuable are the commentaries on the canons written by Zeger Bernardus van Espen († 1728), a French priest and one of the most learned canonists, whose fame is still alive even today, but who was not to Rome’s liking, so that all his numerous writings found their way into the Index, and he himself, in his 82nd year, incurred a suspensio a divinis. His commentaries are printed in a separate book: Commentarius in canones et decreta juris veteris ac novi (Coloniae Agrippinae, 1755).
From our century the following commentaries on the canons of the Orthodox Church are known to us, namely: 1, in Theologische Quartalschrift, Tübingen, 1820 fg., someone wrote (they say Prof. Herbst, one of the publishers of the same journal) for the most part brief commentaries (Anmerkungen) on our canons; after that 2, C. J. von Hefele († 1893), bishop of Rottenburg, in his Conciliengeschichte; and finally 3, J. B. Pitra († 1892), cardinal, in his edition of Juris ecclesiastici graecorum historia et monumenta (Romae, 1864. 1868).
* * *
Among the Slavs, Archimandrite John (Vladimir S. Sokolov, bishop of Smolensk from the year 1866, † 1869) earned great merit in the interpretation of the canons. His work, An Essay on a Course of Church Law (St. Petersburg, 1851), in which these commentaries are contained, worthily earned him the degree of Doctor of Theology. In his commentaries Archim. John generally strives to show the occasion for which the canon in question needed to be issued, how the relevant question with which the canon deals had previously stood in the church, what precisely is the ordinance that the canon prescribes, how the canon in question agrees with the other canons parallel to it, what attestations from patristic literature confirm the ordinance of the canon, what ordinances of Greco-Roman legislation existed or were later issued in the sense of a given canon, how the medieval commentators interpreted that canon, what canonical dogma the canon establishes, and so on. To these points Archim. John chiefly turns in the commentary on each of the more important canons. And he accomplished his task excellently. The author of these lines, on account of these very commentaries and of many other learned labors in Orthodox canon law, called Archim. John the father of the newer science of Orthodox church law. The author said this out of his own deep conviction,—and it rejoices him greatly that Russian scholarship as well has today accepted it, and that that great Russian canonist is today being accorded the attention of which he is fully worthy.
* * *
In the Serbian language there is no commentary on the holy canons. It long seemed to the author of these lines that it would be good for the Serbs to have one as well. For that reason he had attempted as early as the year 1873 to publish The Rules of the Orthodox Church in a Serbian translation with commentaries, and at that time he published the apostolic canons and the canons of the first four ecumenical councils. Because of various circumstances that edition was suspended. Five years later (1878) a second edition was again begun, corrected and expanded in accordance with the first,—but that edition too had to be interrupted chiefly because there were not enough funds to continue it. And if this work is appearing today, the credit for it is entirely due to Mr. Arse Pajević, who, with the noble intention of aiding Serbian theological literature, took this edition upon himself at his own expense, and thereby made it possible for all the canons of the Orthodox Church to appear in a Serbian translation with commentaries.
* * *
In this edition, all the canons that are in force in the Orthodox Church as positive canon law have been interpreted, in greater or lesser detail. Set forth here are not only the fundamental canons but also the supplementary canons. All these canons, together with their corresponding commentaries, are divided into two volumes. The first volume is now coming out, and the second will follow immediately after it.
From the previous editions there have been reprinted, in the present edition, the commentaries on only a very small number of canons, and even these with corresponding changes; the commentaries on all the other canons have been written anew, and for some of them the author availed himself of his earlier canonical works.
The author has studied the commentaries of all those canonists who were mentioned above and availed himself of them, so far as he needed them, for his own commentaries. He kept before his eyes, as Zonaras did as well, that “the elucidation of the words of God enlightens and instructs the inexperienced”, and this was his principal task in the work. In accordance with that task—moved, moreover, by the very same thing that moved all the better commentators before him when they wrote their commentaries on the holy canons—the author strove to elucidate each canon as well and as fully as possible and to establish its true meaning; and, in accordance with the practical purpose for which commentaries on the canons are written at all, he appended to each canon all the canons parallel to it, which relate, whether more closely or more remotely, to the subject with which a given canon deals, so that from a comparison of all the relevant canons an exact conception might be formed of one or another canonical institution, and thereby one might come to know the positive canonical doctrine of the Orthodox Church on that institution. For this same practical purpose, there has been appended at the end of the present volume an alphabetical survey of everything that the volume contains, just as such a survey will likewise be added at the end of the second volume.
In elucidating the words of God or the holy canons, the author strove in particular, both in the earlier editions and in this one, to instruct himself, so that he personally might know what the holy canons command. And should this work of his prove able to serve others also for their instruction, it will be a pleasure to him.
In Zadar, December 1894.
E. N.