Venerable Seraphim, king and people.

Contents From the editor Review of lists Textual studies, dating. New data on the cathedral courts of 1525, 1531 and 1549. over Maxim the Greek and Isaac the Dog. With the discovery by the Siberian archaeographic expedition of the “Judgment lists of Maxim the Greek and Isak the Dog,” a most valuable source on the socio-political history of Russia in the first half of the 16th century is introduced into scientific circulation. Prior to this, the court list of Maxim the Greek, containing information about the trials of 1525 and 1531, was known only from incomplete and, accordingly, largely incomprehensible later lists. The Siberian list is both the earliest (the manuscript dates back to the 1590s) and the most complete. The published monument gives researchers a lot of new information about the biography of the outstanding writer of the 16th century Maxim the Greek, to whose life and work there has recently been increasing interest both in our country and abroad. We learn important information from the court lists and about the events of the political history of the second quarter of the 16th century. – about the reign of Vasily III and the initial period of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. The Siberian manuscript for the first time gives a complete picture of the text of the so-called “Court Case of Maxim the Greek,” including the formula of the verdict and sources new to science, in particular, correspondence about the trial of Maxim the Greek by the most prominent figures of that time. Now letters about the case of Maxim the Greek from Grand Duke Vasily III, Metropolitans Daniel, Joasaph, Macarius have become known, new data about the attitude of Vassian Patrikeev, M. Yu. Zakharyin, M. V. and V. M. Tuchkov to this case; the inconsistency of the version about the secret relations of Maxim the Greek with the government of the Sultan's Turkey has been documented... Of significant independent interest are the materials of the church trial in February 1549 over Maxim the Greek's employee Isak Sobaka, who by that time had become the archimandrite of the court Chudov Monastery in the Kremlin. Historians previously knew nothing about this trial - thereby revealing evidence of a serious conflict in the church-court environment on the eve of the transformations carried out by the “Chosen Rada”. Along the way, the exact date of the church council of February 1549 is finally determined (its meetings began on February 24), whose activities were closely connected with the so-called. the “Cathedral of Reconciliation” at the end of February 1549. And this meeting (with the participation of a wide range of secular persons) usually dates the beginning of reforms at the turn of the 1540s and 1550s. The publication of the Siberian manuscript is accompanied by the publication of the previously known “Judgement Lists of Maximus the Greek” and a comparative textual study of all these manuscripts. A detailed article by N. I. Pokrovsky characterizes the scientific significance of this discovery 1 , presents previously unknown facts identified in the manuscript, and contains a detailed source analysis of the monument. N.N. Pokrovsky convincingly showed that the published court list of Maxim the Greek was compiled in the 1540s, probably in connection with the preparation of the trial of Isaac the Dog, and was conceived primarily as a journalistic work. Its compiler mixes information about the trials of 1525 and 1531. Obviously, he no longer had at hand the court list of 1525. It is possible that this document burned in the metropolitan treasury during the “great fire” in Moscow in June 1547. The reference to the discovery “in the royal treasury,” i.e., in the royal archive, of “the authentic cathedral list of Danil, Metropolitan of All Russia,” seems to reveal the very mechanism of compiling such journalistic monuments and the techniques with which they tried to convince of their authenticity. One of the purposes of compiling this monument was to satisfy the growing public interest in the fate and writings of Maxim the Greek. However, the name of Maxim is omitted from the records of the meetings of the council of 1548 - this is already the time of favors, of Maxim’s approach to the tsar and metropolitan. The published monument /even in its first part, based on materials from the trials of 1525 and 1531/ thus becomes a valuable source of socio-political history not only of the 1520s - early 1530s, but also of the second half of the 1540s. The very fact of rewriting the manuscript in the 1590s is also interesting, primarily in terms of the history of social thought, indicating a revival of interest in Maxim the Greek and his works on the eve of the “rebellious” 17th century. The scientific significance of the information contained in the published monument is by no means limited to data on the trials of Maxim the Greek and Isak the Dog and the activities of those involved in this - it facilitates the understanding of the still unclear important circumstances of political history and the dark places of the monuments of journalism that have long been studied. So the confusion of information about the trials of 1525 and 1531 seemed incomprehensible. in the so-called “Extracts” about the second marriage of Vasily III - a highly tendentious essay directed against Ivan IV. This was even used to prove the late origin of the “Extract”, its secondary nature in relation to Kurbsky’s “History of the Grand Duke of Moscow” /compiled in the 1570s/. Now there is documentary evidence that already in the monument of the 1540s. confusion of almost this kind is revealed. Thus, not only does an additional argument appear in favor of dating the “Extract” to approximately 1546–1547. /what M.N. wrote about back in 1928 Tikhomirov/, but a tempting prospect arises of considering possible points of contact between the court lists of Maxim the Greek and Isak Sobaka and the “Extract” and studying them in a number of journalistic works of the second half of the 1540s. - the beginning of the 1550s, - but this is the time of intense journalistic activity of Maxim the Greek and Macarius, Sylvester and Ermolai Erasmus, Ivan Peresvetov and Ivan the Terrible. The way is also opening to the interpretation of one of the darkest passages in the correspondence between Ivan the Terrible and Kurbsky and Kurbsky’s “History”. It has long been noticed that Kurbsky left unanswered the accusatory attacks in the tsar’s first message against his maternal grandfather, boyar M.V. Tuchkov, moreover, he kept silent about the Tuchkovs in the lengthy “History of the Grand Duke of Moscow.” Now it turns out that the Tuchkovs were informers on Maxim the Greek, whom Kurbsky called his “beloved teacher,” and especially rose to the occasion precisely when Kurbsky’s close relative on his father’s side (also glorified by him in “History”), Prince S. F. Kurbsky, like Maxim the Greek, fell into disgrace. For now we can only talk about the first considerations that arise when reading the Siberian manuscript. These are the initial impulses of research thought, but there is no doubt that further in-depth study of the Siberian collection as a whole 2 and especially a comparative study of it with other materials on the history of Russia in the 16th century. will lead to new interesting discoveries. The Siberian find is also significant as a great success in field archaeography. The handwritten collection, part of which is published in this publication, adorned the collection of manuscripts and early printed books in the academic town near Novosibirsk. It was based on a unique collection donated by Academician M.N. Tikhomirov to the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1965 /vol. n. "Tikhomir Collection"/. M. N. Tikhomirov believed that Siberia could and should become the focus of particularly promising work in the field of identifying and studying monuments of ancient Russian writing and culture. He also developed initial plans for organizing expeditionary archaeographic activities in Siberia. On his initiative, a survey began for this purpose of Old Believer settlements in Siberia and the Far East in 1959–1962. After the first archaeographic exploration in Western Siberia by E.I. Dergacheva-Skop and E.K. Romodanovskaya in 1965, the expeditionary activities of archaeographers /V. N. Alekseeva, Z.V. Borodina, E.I. Dergacheva-Skop, N.N. Pokrovsky, E.K. Romodanovskaya, and more recently also G.P. Enina, B. Zhuravleva, A.N. Kruchinina, N.V. Ponyrko, L.S. Soboleva and others/ in Siberia has become regular 3. Employees of the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences, teachers and students of Novosibirsk State University are taking part in the expedition work. A handwritten collection containing the court lists of Maxim the Greek and Isak Sobaka was discovered in the summer of 1968 in a remote Altai village by a complex archaeographic expedition led by a student of Academician M. N. Tikhomirov N. N. Pokrovsky / currently deputy chairman of the Siberian branch of the Archaeographic Commission /. Participants in a scientific conference organized in Moscow by the Archaeographic Commission, dedicated to the experience of archaeographic expeditions in the RSFSR / "Tikhomir Readings of 1970" / unanimously noted the great scientific significance and effectiveness of the methodology of field archaeographic work in Siberia. A new center of archaeographic activity was able to emerge only thanks to the assistance of the leaders of the Siberian branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences. From the very beginning, the Chairman of the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Academician M.A. Lavrentyev, energetically supported this promising direction of scientific research. The breadth and scope characteristic of the archaeological research of Academician A.P. Okladnikov turned out to be to a large extent inherent in the activities of the Siberian Branch of the Archaeographic Commission, which he headed. The Siberian branch of the Archaeographic Commission has become one of the leading methodological centers for field archaeographic research in our country. The activities of Siberian archaeographic expeditions are an outstanding achievement of Russian archaeography. Chairman of the Archaeographic Commission, Doctor of Historical Sciences S. O. Schmidt. A complex and controversial monument, which entered science under the name of Maxim the Greek's "Judgment List", first became known in its entirety as part of a manuscript from the end of the 16th century discovered in Siberia in 1968. /Siberian list/. The Judgment List forms part of a complex relating not only to Maxim the Greek, but also to the copyist of the books, Isaac the Dog. All other lists of the monument have preserved only the initial part of the materials relating to Maxim the Greek; Of these, only the Pogodinsky and Barsovsky lists have scientific significance, the rest are late copies either from the Pogodinsky list or from an edition of the monument made based on this list. We give a description of the Siberian, Pogodinsky and Barsovsky lists. The Siberian list is contained in a collection of the late 16th century, obtained in 1968 by an archaeographic expedition of the Institute of History, Philology and Philosophy of the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences in the village. Multa of the Ust-Koksinsky district of the Gorno-Altai Autonomous Okrug from Natalya Sergeevna Khomyakova. The manuscript previously belonged to the large chapel of the chapel concord in this village: here once was one of the two centers for collecting and copying ancient Russian books throughout the Uimon Valley. Russian settlements on the river. Uimone were founded in the second half of the 18th century. immigrants from Bukhtarma. The creation of Uimon’s rich book collections, which were later lost, began at the same time. Of these, only a few books have survived, among which are an excerpt from the handwritten Psalter of the late 15th – early 16th centuries, the Psalter printed by Peter Mstislavets /Vilno, 1575/, the Gospel printed by Radishevsky /Moscow, 1606/, the Cathedral Code /Moscow, 1649/, etc. All of them were acquired by the same expedition in 1968–1969. Near the village Multa in the 19th century. There were several Old Believer workshops for copying books. Children's and service books are copied in the Ust-Koksinsky region even today. The manuscript containing the Siberian list is written in sheets and currently has 363 sheets plus 6 lettered sheets. Before the restoration, carried out in 1969 at the State Historical Museum, at the beginning and end of the book there were, in addition, several blank sheets of the 16th and 18th centuries. The manuscript was written in half-letter and cursive in different hands at the end of the 16th century. Paper with watermarks: 1/ four-part coat of arms/Baden coat of arms/, with ligature LB, almost identical to Briquet No. 1075, 1587/other versions of this filigree by Briquet do not go beyond 1580–1597/; 2/ one-handed jug with the letters P/B almost identical to Briquet No. 12793, 1583 /variants: 1584–1599/. Before the restoration, on one of the blank sheets at the beginning of the book there was an entry in cursive writing from the second half of the 17th century: “The Book of Gregory the Sinai.” On a clean back l. 2, a record in cursive writing from another hand of the 17th century has been preserved: “This is the church book of the Vladimir Nativity Monastery. On l. 3 – headband with floral ornament. Binding - boards in leather, copper beetles and clasps. The manuscript has reached us in its entirety, but was damaged during its stay under the snow in the 30s of the 20th century, when its sheets stuck together into a solid block at the lower left corner. Careful restoration / restorer - M. E. Nikiforova / made it possible to save almost the entire text; only a few letters were lost in the bottom three or four lines. The manuscript is undoubtedly not a convolution. The table of contents placed on pp. 1–2 fully corresponds to its contents and the headings of the sections of the manuscript, called chapters by the compiler. The last chapter both in the table of contents and in the text itself is chapter 40; after it, the manuscript contained only a few blank sheets of the same 16th-century paper. and then papers from the 18th century, now lost. The manuscript was copied simultaneously by different scribes. Each of them was given a specific text for correspondence, and then the notebooks they received were folded together and numbered on the first and back of the last sheet of each notebook. Therefore, in the book, before each change of handwriting, there are blank spaces ranging from half a page to several sheets. The change of handwriting occurs on sheets 3, 88, 151a, 215, 324, 356. Sheets 323–355 vol. written in cursive, all others - in semi-character; sheets 151a – 213 vol. and 356–363 are written half-handed with one hand. Along with the general numbering of all notebooks of the manuscript, there is a separate numbering by each scribe of the notebooks of his part of the text. One of the scribes /ll. 215–322/ left the first sheet blank /l. 214/ the first notebook written by him; On this sheet there is a cinnabar proof of the pen in script: “Life and Life...”, below is a characteristic entry in careless cursive writing of two different inks and hands: “Trenkino, not edited”, “And not signed”. However, errors are corrected and missing places are marked in this part of the text, but only in a few places, and the vast majority of this text is indeed not corrected. A single system of careful editing runs through the entire book, with the same type of marks (often cinnabar) of insertions, deletions, substitutions, and rearrangements of text. This edit was made, however, in various semi-formal and cursive handwritings of the same time as the main handwritings of the manuscript. Only in two cases are the inserts made in 18th-century cursive. /l. 351/. According to our assumption /see. below/, this collection was made by order of Archbishop Jonah Dumin for the Vladimir Nativity Monastery, to which he donated several manuscripts. On one of them 4 he makes an interesting entry telling about the creation of this book in 1593: “And this holy book was written, Conversations of the Euangelist John the Theologian and the Euangelist, in both halves of good translations. And a lot of work and sweat is required, as they edited this holy book, Conversations of the Gospels" 5 . The careful editing of the collection found in Altai undoubtedly took a lot of work. Here is the table of contents of the collection /ll.1–2/, which has a cinnabar title: “Chapters of the present book of the sea.” Lost places are added according to the chapter headings in the text; the numbering of chapters is entered from the fields of the table of contents into the text of the table of contents; The pages occupied by each chapter are indicated in brackets. Chapter 1. Gregory of Sinaita is very useful /ll. 3–87/. Chapter 2. The life and labors of the holy noble prince Alexander Nevsky, the miracle worker /ll. 88–150/. Chapter 3. Gregory the Theologian to Philagry in response /l.151a/. Chapter 4. The same Theologian about Caesar and his brother /l. 151a/. Chapter 5. Legend in the words of Gregory the Theologian, from the word, hedgehog in the new week / l. 151a-about./. Chapter 6. Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles /ll. 151a vol.–153/. Chapter 7. The story is soulful, worthy of memory imitation /ll. 153–157/. Chapter 8. A word on those drowned and insanely destroyed by the godless and vile sin of Sodom, in eternal torment /ll. 157–161/. Chapter 9. Tradition from an old man to a new monk, how one should live with an old man in obedience, and from the rules of many decrees /ll. 161–176/. Chapter 10. Letter from the Right Reverend Macarius, Metropolitan of All Russia: to whom the Russian land celebrates as a new miracle worker, that the Lord God glorified them, his saints, with many miracles and signs /ll. 176–177/. Chapter 11. Speech of Saint Barsanuphius /l. 177/. Chapter 12. Parable of the human mind /l. 177/. Chapter 13. Question. What is it: walk the path blamelessly, serving us? /l. 177-rev./. Chapter 14. Like the saints of Father John Chrysostom. Why not be lazy about the honor of the holy book? And Isaac the Syrian, and from the Elderly, and from Climacus, and Saint Dorotheus, and the praise of the common brethren of Ephraim the Syrian, word 55/l. 177 vol.–181/. Chapter 15. Gregory of Sinai at the end of the seventh chapter question and answer /l. 181-rev./. Chapter 16. Please God's providence /ll. 181–182/. Chapter 17. From the Life of Saint Pachomius, and from the Ladder, and from Isaac, and from the Eldership /ll. 182–183 vol./. Chapter 18. The legend from part 3 of the song of the prophetess Anna and the astrologers /ll.183v.–187/. Chapter 19. The word of St. Maxim the Greek of Svyatogorsk against the flattering write-off of Nikolai Nemchin Latynin /187–195 vol./. Chapter 20. Answers by Orthodox Christians against the Hagarians who blaspheme our holy Orthodox Christian faith /ll. 195 vol.–202/. chapter 21 202–207 vol./. Chapter 22. Message from our venerable father Cyril the miracle worker to the faithful and God-loving Grand Duke Vasily Dimitrievich /ll. 207 vol.–209 vol./. Chapter 23. Message from the same Kiril the miracle worker to Prince Yuri Dmitrievich /ll. 209 vol.–211/. Chapter 24. Message from the same Kiril the miracle worker to Prince Andrei Dmitrievich /ll. 211–213/. Chapter 25. Spiritual certificate of the same Cyril the miracle worker /l. 213-rev./. Chapter 26. Months of March 1. Memory of our venerable father John the Silent, formerly bishop of the Lavra of St. Sava /l. 215-rev./. Chapter 27. Maya 24. Life and life of our venerable father Simeon, like the miracle worker on the Wonderful Mountain /ll. 215 rev.–258 rev./. Chapter 28. The Legend of Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexander, and about his death, and what kind of death happens to those who trust in perishable wealth, and how Cyril the Philosopher cursed John Chrysostom and burned his books, and again the Most Pure One humbled them after the death of John Chrysostom /ll. 259–260 rpm Chapter 29. January 18. The life and suffering of our holy father Athanasius, confessor of Alexandria /ll. 260 rev.–284/. Chapter 30. Our Reverend Father Zosima's soul-helping conversations about rage, copied by his disciple Calistus /ll. 284 rev.–300/. Chapter 31. The legend of Theophylact, Archbishop of the Bulgarian, about the incomprehensible, conversation 5th /ll. 300 rev.–310/. Chapter 32. The same Archbishop Theophylact of Bulgaria about the incomprehensible, conversation 6th /ll. 310–315 rpm Chapter 33. The vision of Kosma is amazing, scary and very useful /ll. 316–319/. Chapter 34. July 3. About Blessed Athanasius, miracle workers like those at the Tronanov monastery /l. 319 rpm Chapter 35. About Abba Philorom /ll. 319 rev.–320/. Chapter 36. Maya 8. Memory of the holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian, who is the vigilante and the gathering of manne /ll. 320–321/. Chapter 37. July 4. Memory, like our holy father Andrew, Archbishop of Crete of Jerusalem /l. 321-rev./. Chapter 38. About the beginning of the spring months, that is, what and how the month of March / ll will appear. 321 vol.–322/. Chapter 39. Cathedral of Maxim the Greek in Svyatogorsk /ll. 323–355 rpm Chapter 40. Presentation of the deliberative chapters to King Justin, composed by Agapit, deacon of the most holy Church of God, their first-fruits of verses are: to our most divine and pious king Justin Agapit, lesser deacon /ll. 356–363/. Chapters 7, 8, 18, 19, 20, 21 are the works of Maxim the Greek; chapters 3, 4 – translations by Maxim the Greek. The complex of monuments relating to the councils of 1525 and 1531, which considered the case of Maximus the Greek, and to the council of 1549, which condemned Isaac the Dog, constitutes the 39th chapter of the collection. This chapter occupies notebooks 43–46 according to the general numbering of notebooks; The 43rd notebook begins with a blank sheet 322, the 46th notebook ends with sheet 354, which is indicated on the back of this sheet; the last, 355th sheet is not included in the general numbering of notebooks; The 47th notebook begins with sheet 356. The notebooks of chapter 39, along with the general notebook, also have their own separate numbering of notebooks; from 1 to 5, with the 5th notebook consisting of only one sheet of 355. Chapter 39 is the only section of the collection written in cursive 6; This chapter alone does not have a title - the title “Cathedral of Maxim the Greek of Svyatogorsk” given in the table of contents is missing before the text. All other chapters of the collection are written in good half-formation, some with characteristics characteristic of the 16th century. calligraphic decorations at the beginning and end of lines; Each chapter is preceded by a cinnabar title; sometimes chapters begin with cinnabar initials of a floral design. The everyday, businesslike nature of the letter makes the 39th chapter stand out from the entire collection; at the same time, this chapter is an integral part of it. It is written on the same paper with the jug watermark as the previous and subsequent chapters. The designation of the chapter number here, as in the entire collection, is made on the side margin opposite the beginning of the chapter and on top of each sheet with the same cinnabar semi-chart as in other chapters. In this case, “Chapter” is written on the back of the left sheet, and its serial number in alphabetic numbers is written on the right sheet; on some sheets /usually on the first sheet of a notebook/ this number is replaced by the abbreviated name of the chapter /ll. 4, 11, 19, 27, 35, 43, 51, 58a, 66, 74, 82, 89, 94, 102, 110, 118, 122, 130, 138, 145, 166. 174, 197, 217, 270 rev./. A similar abbreviated title of the chapter can be found on the top margin of one of the sheets of the 39th chapter at the beginning of notebook 44 /l.331/: “On Maxim the Greek of Svyatogorsk.” The inscription was made in cinnabar, half-chart of the same hand as other similar inscriptions in the collection. Editing of the text of chapter 39 was made using the same icons and techniques as in other parts of the collection; the inspector wrote in cursive, with paler ink; the hand of this reference is also found in other chapters of the manuscript. Both the handwriting of the edits and the mentioned entry on the sheet. 214 indicate that the editing of the entire collection could not be separated by a long period of time from its writing. It seems very likely that this collection is one of several manuscripts created at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries. commissioned by Vologda Archbishop Jonah Dumin for the Vladimir Nativity Monastery, where Jonah was an archimandrite until 1588. The central monument of the Siberian collection is “The Life of Alexander Nevsky” as edited by Jonah Dumin /ch. 2/7. There are two known copies of the “Life of Alexander Nevsky” as part of two manuscripts of the Degree Book, donated at that time by Jonah to the Vladimir Nativity Monastery. One of them /1591/ is the Gradual edition of the life, which /together with the Vladimir version/ formed the basis for the own edition of the monument created in the same 1591 by Jonah Dumin. The second list /1594/ represents this latest, Duminsky edition of the life 8. The Siberian collection, as indicated, also has a record of belonging to the Vladimir Nativity Monastery. The connection between the contents of the collection and Vladimir is indicated not only by the Vladimir miracles of life, but also by chapter 10 of the collection. This chapter contains the conciliar district message of Metropolitan Macarius on the establishment of the celebration of the memory of Russian wonderworkers; the list of addressees of the message in this list / in contrast to the previously known lists of the Trinity-Srgius Lavra, Joseph-Volokolamsk and Krasnogorsk Pinezh monasteries / begins with the Vladimir diocese /l. 176/. For the Bishop of Vologda, the great interest in Kirill Belozersky, which is noticeable in the Siberian collection containing lists of his messages and testaments / ch. 22, 23, 24, 25/. Finally, it is quite typical for Jonah Dumin to be fascinated by the works of Maxim the Greek, perhaps intensified during his stay in Tver 9, where Maxim created many collections of his works. Iona Dumin is responsible for compiling a collection of works by Maxim the Greek of a special, mixed composition. One of the manuscripts of this collection has a contribution from Jonah Dumin in 1600 to the Vladimir Nativity Monastery, which reports the writing of this book in terms very close to the mentioned entry of Jonah Dumin on the manuscript of Conversations of John Chrysostom 10. N.V. Sinitsina also attributes to the activities of Jonah Dumin the compilation of a two-volume manuscript of the works of Maxim the Greek, containing 82 chapters 11. The Siberian Collection contains lists of six words of “Saint Maxim the Greek of Svyatogorsk,” two of his translations and a published list of his court case. Finally, a number of external features make it possible to bring the Siberian collection closer to the manuscripts created by order of Jonah Dumin. These manuscripts have been carefully edited using the same system of cinnabar marks as in the Siberian Collection. The design of the small cinnabar initials of the floral ornament also matches. The Pogodinsky list is in the collection of the 17th century, GPB, Pogod., 1597, 4°, 120 sheets in cursive. The dating of this collection up to the present day gives rise to disputes and misunderstandings; various researchers have defined it within very wide limits - from the 16th century. until the second half of the 17th century.. 12. The handwriting of the manuscript is indeed difficult to accurately date within a narrow chronological framework. S. N. Chernov, who first drew attention to the filigree of the collection, correctly, in our opinion, identified them as no earlier than the 40s of the 17th century. and preferred to carefully assign the collection to the second half of the 17th century. N.A. Kazakova, not agreeing with this dating, identified one of the filigrees (Lorraine cross with double C) with the signs given by N.P. Likhachev under numbers 3062 and 3072, dated 1602 and 1607, and attributed the collection to the first half of the 17th century. Of the four other filigree pieces in the collection, two were not found by her in the albums, one (jester with 5 bells) was dated from the album of N.P. Likhachev, which is extremely unrepresentative for this type, to the first half of the 17th century, and one was not noticed in the manuscript. Meanwhile, the filigree of the collection provides the basis for a more confident dating. The watermark “cross of Lorraine with double C”, according to the fair opinion of A. A. Heraclitov, “in written monuments of Russian origin has a rather limited period of circulation” - from 1643 to 1656 13. The sign of the Pogodinsky collection is much closer to that shown in the album of A. A. Heraclitov under No. 368 /1649/ than to the filigrees 3062, 3072 of the early 17th century. from the album of N.P. Likhachev, which also came into this album from Western European, and not Russian, GPB documents. Unidentified by N.A. Kazakova, the coat of arms of another filigree of the collection contains an image of the Easter lamb /ll. 36–37, 69/ type of Heraclitus, No. 1480, 1658, or even closer - Churchill, No. 456, 1657 14. The manuscript contains another coat of arms / l. 118/ with an image of the Strasbourg lily, close to that indicated by Heraclitov under No. 200, 1643; this sign had not been noticed by researchers before. Of the two filigree depicting a jester, one /jester with 5 bells, l. 78/ belongs to the type, several varieties of which were published by Heraclitov under No. 1182–1185 /1646–1649/, and the other finds only a distant analogy /Heraclitov, No. 1418, 1663/. Thus, the earliest dating based on the filigree is the mid-17th century. The collection includes three works: “Extract on the second marriage of Vasily III” /ll. 2–18/, “The Judgment List of Maxim the Greek” /ll. 18–24 vol., 33–61 vol./, “Speech of Ivan IV to Jan Rokite”, erroneously called in the collection the speech of Ivan IV to Maxim the Greek /ll. 61 vol.–120, 25–32/; due to the mechanical confusion of the sheets during binding, part of the text of the last monument ended up in the text of the “judgment list” /ll. 39–32/. The Barsovsky list is in the collection of the 18th century, State Historical Museum, Bars., 2736, 8°, 420 sheets in cursive and semi-character of various hands. The differences between the Siberian and Pogodinsky lists allow us to say that we have before us not only different lists, but also different editions of the monument. The question arises about the relationship between these editions. Leaving aside for now the language correction and the introduction of a question-answer form by the Pogodinsky list, it can be noted that in other discrepancies the Pogodinsky list usually gives a shorter text; There are no cases where the text of the Pogodinsky list is more extensive than the Siberian one. The question of the chronological relationship between the Siberian and Pogodin editions therefore comes down to determining whether we are dealing here with the subsequent reduction of a more extensive text or, conversely, with the dissemination of the original, shorter text. The nature of some discrepancies definitely speaks in favor of the first assumption. Let us consider the main of these discrepancies. 1. On l. 39 of the Pogodinsky list, among the charges brought by Metropolitan Daniel Maxim the Greek in 1531, we read: “But you, Maxim, told many: Here in Moscow the Grand Duke and the Metropolitan are called out for many years and heretics are cursed, they do things neither according to the scriptures nor according to the rule, and the Metropolitan is appointed by his bishops in Moscow, and not in Constantinople from the Patriarch.” This passage has long been causing confusion both because of its grammatical form (what does the subordinate clause of reason, introduced by the conjunction “zanezhe” refer to?) and because of its content: the connection between the proclamation of many years to the sovereign and the metropolitan, the curse of heretics, and the question of installing Moscow metropolitans in Moscow, and not in Constantinople, is unclear. S. N. Chernov, who tried to understand this dark place, was unable to connect such different plots with a single semantic line and put forward a cautious assumption that Maxim saw some canonical irregularities in the Moscow formula of proclaiming many years and cursing heretics. At the same time, S.I. Chernov very astutely noticed that Maxim could put some meaning into this phrase, equating the Metropolitan and the Grand Duke with heretics, and that this place was shortened and deliberately lacking clarity in order to obscure this sharp and authoritative attack 15. S.N. Chernov made only one mistake here: he attributed this abbreviation to Metropolitan Daniel himself, while it belongs to the compiler of the Pogodinsky edition of the court list. In the Siberian list this place is read as /l. 329/: “But you, Maxim, told many /:/ Here in Moscow the Grand Duke and Metropolitan are called out for many years and heretics are cursed. And they curse themselves, they fix things not according to the scriptures, nor according to the rule: the metropolitan is appointed by his bishops in Moscow, and not in Tsaregorod, from the patriarch.” The meaning of Maxim the Greek’s irony was that the non-canonical installation of Russian metropolitans makes both the metropolitans themselves and the great princes who recognize such an order heretics. Therefore, when, at a solemn service after the proclamation of many years to the Grand Duke and Metropolitan, heretics are anathematized, this anathema applies to them themselves. This thought of Maxim the Greek is retold in detail both by the witnesses for the prosecution and by himself during that part of the judgment at the council of 1531, which is lost in the Pogodinsky list and is read only in the Sibirsky /l. 342-rev./: “The great prince commands to unction the metropolitan and the entire council on the first Sunday, plotting a great persecution. And at that council they call out to the Grand Duke, and the Metropolitan, and the Grand Duchess, and the brothers of the Grand Duke for many years, and they curse the heretics. And they anathematize themselves, because they rejected the blessing of the Patriarch of Tsaregrad, like Judas from Christ, etc. In the accusatory speech of Metropolitan Daniel, the omission of the words “and they curse themselves” made the meaning of the entire passage unclear and violated its grammatical structure. We are undoubtedly faced with an unsuccessful reduction, of which there are many in the Pogodinskaya editorial office. It is possible that the compiler of the Pogodin edition actually considered these words too sharp. For the compiler of the Siberian edition, such reasoning would have little justification - at the end of the record of the court of 1531, an entire page is devoted to this issue with much clearer and harsher expressions. 2. In the speech of Metropolitan Daniel immediately before this accusation we read something else / Pogodinsky list, fol. 39/: “But you, Maxim, said: Great Prince Vasily gave the land to the Crimean Tsar, and he himself, scared, ran away - how could he not run away from Turskov? If he goes to Turks, he can either punish him or run away.” We took the punctuation marks here from the latest work by N. A. Kazakova, dedicated to the trial of Maxim the Greek 16. However, the connection conveyed through a dash between the flight from the Crimean Tsar and the phrase “how can he not run away from Turskov?” remains unclear; this phrase is perceived as a subordinate clause of the reason to the first phrase, which contradicts the meaning. S.N. Chernov tried to avoid this by using a different punctuation: “... and he himself, scared, ran away from Turskov. How can he not run? It will go to Tours..." 17. But such an interpretation confuses the matter even more. In the Siberian list, after the word “ran” there follows the phrase: “And if he fled from the Crimean, but how could he not run from the Turk?...” This phrase makes clear the logical structure of the entire fragment, which was lost when the text was shortened in the Pogodinsky edition. 3. Mikhail Medovartsev says in court that he wrote or erased certain passages in Russian liturgical books on the orders of Vassian Patrikeev and Maxim the Greek: “And, sir, I was ordered to listen to Maxim in everything, and to write, and to erase, Prince Vasyan the Elder, as Maxim orders.” This is the text of the Siberian List /l. 334 rev.–335/. In the Pogodinsky list, as a result of abbreviation and rearrangement of words, the result was nonsense /l. 54/: “And, sir, Prince Vasyan the Elder ordered me to listen in everything and make amends to Maxim the Greek, as Maxim orders.” The primacy of the Siberian edition is obvious. 4. Let's compare two editions of the interrogation of Mikhail Medovartsev about the omission by him and Maxim the Greek of the word “true” in the creed. Siberian edition /l. 337/: And Vladyka Dosofey asked Michal Medovartsov: Why did they make amends for the “true”? Pogodinskaya edition /l. 59-rev./: Vladyka Dositheus asked Mikhail Medovartsev: Why did you make amends for the natural “truth”? The Pogodinskaya edition translates the question into the singular, because Maxim was just asked about the same thing and the question was in the singular. In the Pogodinskaya edition, therefore, the pronoun “you” is introduced and instead of “smoothed out,” it is written “smoothed out.” But due to an oversight, the auxiliary verb was left in its previous form - plural - “este”. This is precisely an error in editing a previously correct text; the possibility of a reverse chronological relationship of texts here is unlikely. This conclusion about the relationship between the two lists is confirmed by the text that immediately follows the above. And Michal said: To me, sir, Maxim said: We don’t have that in our Greek books. And, sir, that’s why I made amends for it. And Maxim rivers: Brother Mikhailo, your soul will rise. Pogodinskaya edition /l. 59 rev./: Michael said: Maxim told him that they don’t have that in the Greek books. And he made amends for that. The reduction made in the Pogodinsky list led to the loss of an important place talking about Maxim Grek’s reaction to the accusation of Mikhail Medovartsev. This reaction, both in essence and in form, is quite standard for Maxim in a similar situation; it has already been given several times for similar cases, and here the Pogodinsky edition reduces a very significant “repetition”. 5. In the Siberian list / l. 334 vol./ Metropolitan Daniel turns to Maxim the Greek with the question of why he “made amends” for “the great and wise dogma about the Orthodox faith, about the Most Pure Trinity, and about the Holy Dus, and about the Most Pure Mother of God...”. The scribe of the Siberian list mistakenly omitted the words “about the most pure Trinity,” but immediately noticed the error and, not daring to cross out such a text, immediately after the erroneous line he rewrote it again, including the missing words, noting the correct reading with cinnabar. A few lines below, the same formula /in the correct version/ is repeated once again in the question of Metropolitan Daniel to Mikhail Medovartsev. In the Pogodin edition there is only one incorrect / shortened / version of the Metropolitan’s question to Maxim the Greek /l. 53/, although the question addressed to Mikhail Medovartsev was given in the correct, complete form. Taking into account the above examples, it is most likely to assume the subsequent recording of an error noticed and corrected by the scribe of the Siberian list; either this error arose at earlier stages in the history of the text of the monument compared to the Siberian edition, or subsequent copyists of the Siberian copy did not understand the complex system of correcting this place. 6. In some other cases, words present in the Siberian list and absent in Pogodinsky are logically explained as an editorial reduction of the text of the Siberian list made by the Pogodinsky editors, while the opposite explanation about the expansion of the original text is difficult. So, for example, in the Siberian list, Metropolitan Daniel, speaking about Maxim’s stay in the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery, twice /in different connections/, mentions in similar expressions that Elder Tikhon Lenkov was appointed as his overseer, and his spiritual father was Elder Jonah /ll. 329 and 330/. In the Pogodinsky list there is no second mention of Tikhon Lenkov and Jonah /l. 41 rev./. The Pogodinsky editors generally try to free the text from repetition. 7. In the Pogodin edition there is also no phrase that the metropolitan and the highest clergy were present at the meetings of the council, which took place in the summer of 1525 in the metropolitan chambers /l. 56/. The abbreviation of this phrase in the Pogodinsky edition is understandable - and it is so clear that if the council met and the meetings took place in the chambers of the metropolitan, then he himself and the highest clergy were there. On the contrary, it is difficult to explain the subsequent introduction of this phrase in case of its absence in the earlier edition. There is a similar abbreviation at the beginning of the monument on fol. 19 of the Pogodinsky list. 8. In the text of the Pogodinsky edition at the very beginning of the indictment speech of Daniil /l. 37 vol./ there is a strange clause. It is written here that Maxim and Savva came from Athos to Rus' “to the pious and Christ-loving Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich.” In other places in the indictment, the Russian sovereign of that time is correctly called Vasily Ivanovich. This error is not in the Siberian list. It is more logical to assume its emergence at the later stages of editing and rewriting the text, when real cases of the use of the royal title by Russian sovereigns long before the coronation of Ivan IV could have been more easily forgotten. 9 . Particularly significant and numerous are the discrepancies between the Siberian and Pogodinsky lists at the end of the latter /ll. 57–60 rpm Pogodinsky's list systematically gives here more concise formulas for recording confrontations, transforms direct speech into indirect speech, and reduces details and repetitions that are minor from the editor's point of view. All this editing is logical and has a certain system if we perceive it as a reduction of the initially more complete text and, conversely, in a number of cases, it is not justified if we interpret it as an expansion in the Siberian List of the original short version of the Pogodinsky List. Here is just one example of such an edit. Siberian list / l. 337/: And Vladyka Dosotheus asked Maxim: Archpriest Afonasei, and Archdeacon Ivan Chyushka, priest Vasily filed a note against you, that here in our land of Russia you do not praise any holy books, but rather reproach and sweep away, and say that here in Rus' there are no books, neither the Euangelia, nor the Apostle, nor the Psalter, nor the rules, nor the statutes. paternal, nor prophetic. And these archpriests are in front of you. And Maxim began to bicker with the archpriest from eye to eye: “You are lying to me, I didn’t say that, but I said that the books here in Russia are not straight, the translators spoiled some books, they didn’t know how to translate them, and the scribes spoiled some books, otherwise they need to be translated. Pogodinsky list /l. 59 rev.–60/: Vladyka Dositheus asked Maxim: Archpriest Athanasey, and Archdeacon Ivan Chyushka, and priest Vasily filed a note against you that you blaspheme the local books, and reproach, and sweep away, and say that there are no books here in Rus', no Gospel, no Apostle, no Psalter, no rules, no statutes, neither paternal nor prophetic. And Maxim and the archpriest began to bicker face to face, and he said that he did not say that, but said that here in Russia the books are not straight, and the translators have spoiled some books, otherwise they need to be translated. It should also be noted that in the texts “from the divine scriptures” in two cases Pogodinsky’s list mistakenly skips the line /ll. 20 and 33/; the meaning is distorted so significantly that we are talking here, apparently, not about a deliberate reduction, but about an accidental omission. These omissions are not in the Siberian list /ll. 324 rev. and 327/. One of the most noticeable external differences between the Pogodinsky edition and the Siberian edition is that in the first of them the recording of the judicial dialogue is divided and organized by the words “question”, “answer”, which are not in the Siberian edition. However, in some cases it may have been difficult for the editor to determine whether these words should be introduced, and therefore it was not possible to introduce them strictly and consistently throughout the text. If the prosecutor's question was large in size and stated some facts in a narrative form, the heading "question" was usually not posed, even if it was a question of substance that required an answer; in such cases, the heading “response” was sometimes placed before the answer, sometimes not. But sometimes questions were still preceded by the word “question,” although they did not grammatically have the interrogative form /ll. 45–46/. The editor of the Pogodinsky list tried not to give the headings “question” and “answer” in the record of confrontations in the event that the beginning of the confrontation was indicated by the standard formula / “standing face to face”, “spoke face to face”/. If this formula did not exist, such headings were most often placed in the Pogodinsky edition. Particularly interesting for identifying the relationship between the Siberian and Pogodin editions is the record of the confrontation on the sheet. 50 rev. Pogodinsky list. In the Siberian list, the entry begins with a formula that is missing in the Pogodinsky list: “And they placed Michal Medovartsov and Maxim at the cathedral face to face.” Although this formula is not in Pogodinsky’s list, his editor behaves as if it is before his eyes: he refuses the title “question” both times during the description of this confrontation. At the end of the Pogodinsky list, where the discrepancies with the Siberian one are especially great, these headings are also not used, since direct speech here is usually replaced by more abbreviated versions with indirect speech. These headings are not present at the beginning of the Pogodinsky list, in the part of it relating to the council of 1525. But even in the record of the court agreement at the council of 1531 there are several cases of inexplicable and inconsistent refusals to use such headings /ll. 50, 56/. This motley picture most likely indicates that Pogodinskaya’s editorial staff (or some of its protographers) introduced the headings “question” and “answer” into the text, where they had not previously appeared. This form, as is known, is very popular in Russian manuscript collections, but we do not have a single indication that it was used in court lists or works that were given some features of lists of cathedral courts. The editor of the Pogodinsky list, however, encountered considerable difficulties in this work; he tried to develop some rules - where to put and where not to put these headings, but was unable to pursue his line in any consistent manner. Let us note right away that the later Barsovsky list /XVIII century/ is somewhat more consistent here than the Pogodinsky one. There are also significant linguistic differences between the Siberian and Pogodinsky lists: the language of the Siberian List is generally more archaic and less secular than the language of the Pogodinsky List. Considering all of the above, it is more logical to assume the modernization of the language in the Pogodinsky list than, on the contrary, its subsequent archaization in the Siberian list. Such editing in the Pogodinsky list was carried out quite consistently, although sometimes there are very characteristic exceptions. For example, the Pogodinsky list steadily changes the verbs “rek”, “spoke” to “spoke” / “answered”/, but to l. 54 rev. the old form of the Siberian list slips through - “rivers”. The editorial edit of the Pogodinsky list changes “mi” to “me”, “tobe” to “you”, “yaz” to “az” or “ya” / but there are also several cases of using “yaz” - ll. 47 vol., 49 vol./, “repair” to “create”, the preposition “z” is replaced by “s”, after hissing “y”, “ya” are replaced by “and”, “a”. In the dative case, instead of the “ruler” of the Siberian list, in the Pogodinsky list there is “vladyka” everywhere. The ending of the indefinite form of the verb “ti” is usually rendered by the Pogodinsky list as “t”. The spelling of proper names also changes: Dosofey to Dosifei, Semyon to Simeon, Mikhailo to Mikhail, Suzdal to Suzdal / although in the latter case there is an exception on l. 55/. And the very nature of this edit and, especially, the presence of isolated exceptions that preserve the form of the Siberian list, indicate its greater antiquity compared to Pogodinsky. A particular problem is the question of the final lines of the Pogodinsky list. The Pogodinsky list ends with records of the trial of the council of 1531 on the question of the installation of Russian metropolitans in Moscow, and not in Constantinople. Maxim, who put forward canonical objections to this order of installation, said at the council that in Moscow they justified this order by citing the existence of the blessed charter of the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Russian metropolitans, “and he tortured many of those letters, and to this day he has not seen it. And he says: If here they do not have a charter from the Patriarch of Tsaregrad, and they are proud not to issue the same as before and according to the old charter and custom from the Patriarch of Tsaregrad.” Further on the same line in the Pogodinsky list there is a text that is absent in the Siberian list and does not fit well with the previous presentation. We present it in full: “That is, with Jeremiah’s weeping, when I wept at the River of Babylon, I wept and received neither repentance nor forgiveness of sins. But I want to hear // rationally, now we see a heretical rebellion, Babylon, for there will be a rebellion, and the Babylonian river is a heretical teaching and our sins. We, weeping in prayers to God, overcome the heretical army of schism and our sins and evil burdens. And just like the willow and the argan, and in this parable the willow is without fruit, so the Jews are without reason and heretics without pure faith. The argans are hanging on the willow tree and the soul is hanging in the middle of our body, not having the fruit of virtue, so are we, having received holy baptism and holding // the faithful faith honestly, and honorably, and holy, but we do not have the fruit of good” / this is where Pogodinsky’s list ends. Both in grammatical form, and in genre, and in theme, this text differs sharply from the one that immediately preceded it. At the end of the Pogodinsky list, as already mentioned, the testimony is recorded in the third person, but here there is a sharp transition to the first person. It immediately strikes the eye that these final lines are not a record of court debates at all, but an excerpt of the interpretation of the phrase of the 136th Psalm about the Old Testament “Lamentation of Jeremiah” and the words of this psalm, popular in ancient Russian literature, about an organ hanging on a barren tree (see, for example, the Great Minaion of Chetya, February 12). This interpretation concerns subjects that are not thematically related to the answer of Maxim the Greek about the installation of Russian metropolitans in Moscow. The main idea of ​​this passage is the well-known dogmatic condemnation of both unbelief, deviation from the purity of faith, and fruitless faith, not revived by good deeds. Researchers who only had the Pogodinsky list tried to somehow tie this passage to the previous presentation of the words of Maxim the Greek. But as a statement by Maxim the Greek at the trial, these words sound very unnatural, because then they acquire an accusatory, preachy harshness, which is not characteristic of his entire behavior at the trial. Their style also differs from the style of Maxim’s other statements, not to mention the fact that the very form of interpretation, as well as its content, does not fit with such a statement. It is clear, therefore, that even when adding this passage to Maxim’s answer at the trial, researchers often quoted only the first lines, interpreting them as an expression of Maxim’s indignation at the installation of Russian metropolitans in Moscow. Subsequent lines were not squeezed into this explanation and were usually omitted. V.S. Ikonnikov and E. Denissoff, who tried to give a translation of this passage, were forced to introduce connecting words missing from the original in order to connect Maxim the Greek’s answer at the trial with the passage about Jeremiah’s lament / “then I can only cry with Jeremiah’s lamentation...” “il ne me reste plus qn’a me lamenter” 18. This insertion may have mechanically found its way into the text of some predecessor of the Pogodinsky list and then became fixed. It is known that the mechanical confusion of sheets in the Pogodinsky list itself led to the fact that in the edition of this list made by O. N. Bodyansky, several completely unrelated sheets were included in its composition. The Siberian list, which does not contain this passage, provides a completely logical transition from the above answer of Maxim the Greek at the trial to the question of the Krutitsky Bishop Dosifei: “Why didn’t you say before that bishops are installed in Moscow by their own metropolitans without the blessing of the Patriarch of Tsaregorod?” /l. 337 rpm After discovering the end of the judgment list of Maximus the Greek, one only has to carefully read this part of the judgment to notice clearly how grossly the organic unity of the text was destroyed by the insertion about the lamentation of Jeremiah and the organ hanging on the willow tree. The Barsov list was recently discovered by N.A. Kazakova in one of the collections of the early 18th century. /GIM, Bars. No. 2736/. Analyzing the discrepancies between the Barsovsky and Pogodinsky lists, N. A. Kazakova comes to a fair, in our opinion, conclusion that “The Barsovsky list cannot be traced back to Pogodinsky: it represents a line of history of the text of the judgment list, independent of the latter.” This independent line, however, inherited from the protograph common to the Pogodinsky list a number of significant features characteristic of both of them 19 . Therefore, the overwhelming majority of the main differences between the Pogodinsky list and the Siberian list are also present in the Barsovsky list. This applies, in particular, to the nine discrepancies discussed above /p. 20–26/: in all these cases, Barsovsky’s list almost literally follows Pogodinsky’s; Only once here the analogy will not be so complete, as we will see below. It is especially important that Barsovsky’s list ends at the same place as Pogodinsky’s, has the same insertion at the end about Jeremiah’s lament, and also breaks down the text of the judicial dialogue with the words “question” and “answer” 20 . Thus, both of these lists come from a common defective protographer who has lost a significant part of the original text and subjected this text to significant editing. However, the editing of both lists does not always coincide in detail, which does not allow, despite their closeness, to deduce the Barsovsky list from the Pogodinsky one. In some cases of discrepancies between the Siberian and Pogodinsky lists, the Barsovsky list follows the Siberian one. It was already mentioned above that at the beginning of the monument on l. 19 of the Pogodinsky list, the indication available in the Siberian list about the presence at the council of 1525 along with the Grand Duke and Metropolitan Daniel 21 was omitted. The Pogodinsky list shortens this obvious detail of the description both here and later, at the end of the monument on fol. 56. In the Barsovsky list this abbreviation is only at the end, and in the first case the text of the Siberian list is given, not the Pogodinsky list. Similarly, in Vassian Patrikeev’s response to the court about his relationship with Vassian Rushanin, the Pogodinsky list shortens several words found in the Siberian list; in the Barsovsky list, these words are also included in Vassian’s response, although a minor editorial correction of the phrase made in the Pogodinsky list is retained in the Barsovsky list. Siberian list / l. 333/: But I didn’t say anything to him, either with Maxim or without Maxim, and I have nothing to do with them. Pogodinsky list /l. 49 rev./: But I didn’t say anything to him and Maxim, and I don’t care about them. Barsovsky list /l. 124/: But I didn’t say anything to him with Maxim or without Maxim, and I have nothing to do with them. There are several other cases where the Barsovsky list is closer to the Siberian list than to the Pogodinsky /ll. 114 rev., 115, 122, 125, 129 rev./. Most often, the Barsovsky list takes into account changes in the spelling of proper names made in the Pogodinsky list. But in several cases when the Pogodinsky list uses, along with the original form of the Siberian list “Rushanin”, also the form “Rushenin” /l. 49-v./, Barsovsky list diverges from Pogodinsky and follows Sibirsky. The Barsovsky and Siberian lists use the form of the title “all Russia”, and the Pogodinsky list – “all Russia”. At the end of the monument, the Pogodinsky list constantly shortens the conjunction “and” at the beginning of questions and answers, and the Barsovsky list, following the Sibirsky list, retains this conjunction /ll. 124–135/. The Pogodinsky list just as consistently replaces the “what for” of the Siberian list with “for what,” and Barsovsky retains the form of the Siberian list here too. In some cases of discrepancies between the Siberian and Pogodinsky lists, the Barsovsky list does not follow either of them, but gives its own, third edition. For example, at the end of Pogodinsky’s list there is a not entirely successful translation of one of Maxim’s answers to the court from direct speech to indirect speech. The Barsovsky list gives a different edition of this passage, which somewhat more successfully translates direct speech into indirect speech and better preserves the original meaning of the text. Siberian list / l. 336 rev.–337/: And Maxim rivers: Sir, it will be described in our Greek book, otherwise the book is to blame, not I. And what is in your books is also in our Greek books, and there is no difference in them at all. Pogodinsky list /l. 59/: Maxim answered: It is described in their Greek books, otherwise the book is to blame, not he. And what is written in the local books, but there is no difference in them. Barsovsky list /l. 133 rev./: And Maxim answered: It is described in their Greek books, otherwise the book is to blame, not he. And what is written in their Greek books is also written in these books, and there is no difference in them. There is also the opposite case, when a slight discrepancy between the Pogodinsky list and the Sibirsky one was strengthened by an incorrect interpretation of the text in Barsovsky. And Prince Vasyan the Elder: I have nothing to do with Maxim... And Prince Vasyan the elder said: I and Maxim have nothing to do with... Barsovsky list /l. 123 rev.–124/: And Prince Vasyan the elder said: I and Maxim have nothing to do... Without increasing the number of examples when the Barsovsky list gives a third option, different from both the Siberian and Pogodinsky lists / see. also ll. 99 vol., 100, 122, 122 vol.–123, 125, 127/, we note that, of course, discrepancies in the Barsovsky list also occur in such cases when the Siberian and Pogodinsky lists give the same version of the text. These discrepancies are insignificant: in the Barsovsky list, for example, instead of “Dog” it is written “Sobakin” /l. 118/, instead of “straighten” - “smooth” /l. 128/, instead of “straight” - “right” /l. 131 vol./, etc. On folios 116 vol., and 119 vol. The Barsovsky list makes small editorial cuts that are not in other lists. Interesting results are obtained from the analysis of mechanical omissions of text in the Barsovsky list. Most of these omissions are typical for the Barsovsky list alone and are absent in the other two /ll. 101 vol., 103, 107, 120 vol., 122/. In one case /l. 106 vol./ The Barsovsky list repeats the mechanical omission of the text that is found in the Pogodinsky list /l. 34/, but which the Siberian list came across. However, there is another case: a mechanical omission made in the Pogodinsky list and absent in the Siberian list is also absent in the Barsovsky list / l. 100/. In another similar case, when the Barsovsky list /l.132 vol./ also repeats the omission made in the Pogodinsky list alone, the Barsovsky list /and only he/ makes another omission - immediately before the text omitted in the Pogodinsky list. All this confirms the complex picture of the relationship between the three known lists of the monument. There is no doubt that there was a common protograph for the Pogodinsky and Barsovsky lists, which, however, represents a subsequent stage in the history of the monument in comparison with the edition presented by the Siberian list. This protograph already had all those numerous features that are common to the Pogodinsky and Barsovsky lists, distinguishing them from the Siberian one. Subsequently, this protograph underwent more significant changes in the Pogodinsky list than in the Barsovsky list, so the latter sometimes reflects the earlier text of the Siberian edition. Some editorial changes were made to the Barsovsky list. Each of these two lists naturally has its own set of mechanical errors and omissions, along with those already present in their protograph. Having only three lists, we can only give a very general and approximate diagram of their relationship: The nature of a few typos and mechanical omission of one word / l. 327/ in the Siberian list, corrected in the other two lists, does not allow us to speak with any confidence about the existence of a protograph - common to the Siberian list, on the one hand, and for the protograph of the Pogodinsky and Barsovsky lists, on the other: Such a scheme is, in principle, quite possible / and finds from other lists can confirm it /, but the material currently available is insufficient to insist on it: the just mentioned clerical errors and mechanical omission in the Siberian list are such that they could have been corrected at subsequent stages without such a general protograph. The complex of materials in the 39th chapter of the Siberian Collection tells us many new facts, which allows us to make some assumptions about those stages in the history of Maxim the Greek’s “Judgment List” that preceded the Siberian List of the monument. The 39th chapter reports that on November 2, 1548, “the original cathedral list of Danil, Metropolitan of All Russia, was found in the royal treasury” /fol. 346 vol./. This message is placed after the “judgment list” itself and closely related letters from Metropolitan Daniel and Vasily III about the church trial of Maxim in 1525. The subsequent presentation is at least twice strives to strengthen the reader’s confidence that on November 2, 1548, the very text of the “judgment list” with which the 39th chapter opens was actually found. The first time this is done immediately after the message about the discovery of the “judgment list,” when it is said that Metropolitan Macarius “heard and subtracted that conciliar authentic list,” and therefore the contents of the “judgment list” are very concisely and summarized. This presentation, in particular, repeats with slight abbreviations the first phrase of the original introduction of the “judgment list”, that is, the beginning of the 39th chapter; then, in a few lines, the main content of the “judgment list” is summarized, and this generalized presentation fully corresponds to the version of the “judgment list” placed in the 39th chapter. The second time the identity of the “judgment list” found in 1548 with its text, which makes up the first part of the 39th chapter, is emphasized in the letter of Metropolitan Macarius to the former Metropolitan Joasaph dated November 9, 1548. The text of this letter is placed in the 39th chapter after the story about the discovery of the “judgment list” and the report about it to Ivan IV. This extensive letter informs Joasaph of the discovery and details the text of the found “authentic cathedral copy.” And again, this entire presentation - this time very detailed - is completely consistent with the text of the “judgment list” itself, as it is given above in the 39th chapter. From the first phrase of the introduction to the last word of the sentence, Macarius’s presentation consists of either direct quotation or a careful retelling of several sections of the text of the “judgment list”. For all the selectivity of this retelling, there is not a single moment in it that contradicts the first part of the 39th chapter or goes beyond it. The verdict, for example, is quoted in full with all its confusion of decisions of 1525 and 1531, which is impossible in an authentic conciliar document. It is important to note that in all cases when the message of Macarius quotes those places of the “judgment list” where there are discrepancies between the Siberian and other lists, this message always provides the text of the Siberian list; this confirms our conclusions about the chronological relationship of the editions of the monument. Likewise, in Macarius’ letter there is not the slightest trace that the beginning of the “judgment list” /telling about the events of 1525/ was known to him in a less defective form compared to that given in the Siberian and both later lists. Meanwhile, it has long been noted that the story about the council of 1525 is given in the “judgment list” only partially; new documentary evidence of this is available in the same 39th chapter, in a letter from Metropolitan Daniel to the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery dated May 24, 1525. This letter from Daniel is mentioned in Macarius’ letter to Joasaph, so Macarius could not help but know how far the text of the “judgment list” in the version placed later in the 39th chapter is from the original protocols of the council. And yet, he persistently identifies this particular option with the materials found in the treasury about the councils of 1525 and 1531, which he persistently calls the “genuine cathedral list.” Due to all of the above, we have no right to attribute the creation of this version of the text to a time later than November 1546. We are talking, of course, about some kind of protograph of the Siberian list, which can be connected with this list through a number of intermediate links that in some way change the original text. However, in the part of the text that is quoted or paraphrased in the letter of Macarius, no significant changes can be made. There is a close logical and textual connection between all parts of the Chapter 39 complex. Therefore, attribute the creation of the “judgment list” to the councils of 1525 and 1531. /protographer of the Siberian List/ to a time after the end of 1548 - beginning of 1549 would only be possible if it turned out that other parts of this complex belonged to a later time and, above all, that the correspondence of 1548 between Macarius and Joasaph belonged to a later time and was composed retroactively. But there is no basis for such an assumption; this correspondence does not contradict either the realities of that time or other parts of the complex of the 39th chapter; in particular, it is on it that the materials of the cathedral of February 1549, replete with genuine historical facts and names, are based. It is also difficult to assume that both closely related links - the "judgment list" and the letter of Macarius of November 9, 1548 - simultaneously underwent the same significant changes in the second half of the 16th century and that, therefore, in the middle of the 16th century both of these monuments represented something very different from what was placed in the 39th chapter of the Siberian collection of the end of the 16th century. Such parallel editing of the text of Macarius' letter together with the text The “judgment list” could hardly have been carried out so consistently and impeccably as not to cause the slightest contradiction or inconsistency in the parts of the text that coincide in both monuments. Moreover, if this entire complex of materials was subject to some kind of editing that would harmonize its various parts, it is unclear why this was not done for the letter of Metropolitan Daniel dated May 24, 1525, in which there is a section /l. 344/. proving the significant incompleteness of the “judgment list” of the council of 1525. Thus, the protograph of the Siberian edition of the “judgment list” of the councils of 1525 in 1531. must have originated sometime between 1531 and 1548. This monument not only is not the authentic official protocol of the councils, but also bizarrely mixes materials from 1525 and 1531. /in Daniel’s speech at the trial in 1531, in the verdict/, has omissions that are impossible for the official record of the court’s negotiations /the absence of a verdict and a significant part of the trial of the court of 1525, etc./. Therefore, apparently, it is difficult to talk about the emergence of this monument not only during the council meetings themselves, but also in the first years after the councils. This does not mean, of course, that there was no official record of the proceedings of the conciliar meetings at all. Without such a record our monument could not have been created; it undoubtedly relies on these official records and makes extremely extensive use of them. However, we repeat, the compilation from these records was made so ineptly, with such contradictions, that it is hardly possible to talk about the creation of this compilation immediately after 1531. For example, the end of the council of 1531 with the verdict of sending Maxim not to the Tverskaya Otroch Monastery /as it actually was/, but to the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery /where he was sent in 1525/, is a gross mistake. in any case, quite striking, but especially absurd, of course, in the 30s, immediately after the council of 1531 22. In the text of our “judgment list” there is one irrefutable proof that in this form it could not have been created either in 1531 or shortly after that: the verdict of 1531 very inconsistently included a message about some later council that condemned Isaac the Dog for the second time. At a time when the metropolitan see was occupied by Daniel’s opponent Joasaph /1539–1542/, the creation of a semi-official monument dedicated to the justification of Daniel’s line in 1525 and 1531 is very unlikely; after all, the creator of this monument was admitted to the official protocols of the councils. Thus, the time of creation of the protograph of the Siberian edition of the “judgment list” by Maxim the Greek most likely falls on the first period of the reign of Metropolitan Macarius: 1542–1548. In his letter to Joasaph, Macarius writes that before the discovery in the royal treasury on November 2, 1548 of the “judgment list” of the council of 1531, which excommunicated the Dog from the church along with Maxim and Isak, “we did not know about that Isak that conciliar list and excommunication at the end” /l. 349 rpm However, in fact, Macarius must have been well aware of the events surrounding the 1531 council. Firstly, as the Novgorod archbishop, he was obliged to attend the council. Secondly, an important formal reason for the new church persecution of Maxim in 1531 was the report of Macarius to Daniel about the testimony of Elder Vassian Rushanin against Vassian Patrikeev and Maxim the Greek in connection with the translation of the life of the Mother of God by Simeon Metaphrastus 23. Meanwhile, Isaac the Dog was accused at the council of 1531 of precisely copying this very translation. Condemnation of Vassian Patrikeev, Maxim the Greek and persons close to them at the council of 1531. was a very high-profile church and political case, the ignorance of one of the highest hierarchs of the Russian Church in the outcome of this case for Isak Sobaka is excluded not only because of the important role played by Macarius’s denunciation during the council of 1531, but also because by the verdict of this council Isak Sobaka was sent to imprisonment precisely in the Novgorod Yuryev Monastery, which was under the jurisdiction of Macarius. The statement made by Macarius in 1548 that he did not suspect the condemnation of Isak the Dog along with Maxim the Greek can be explained by the peculiarities of the relationship between Macarius and Isak in the 40s of the 16th century. Macarius, having become a metropolitan, first patronizes Isaac and makes him archimandrite of the privileged Chudov Monastery in the Kremlin. Then, however, this friendship gives way to enmity, and Macarius makes great efforts to achieve a new conciliar condemnation of Isak in connection with the unreversed verdict of the council of 1531. Macarius could only do this by declaring his ignorance of Isak’s excommunication in 1531, otherwise a conciliar curse would have threatened him himself for making the excommunicated Isak an archimandrite of Chudovo. The creation of a protograph of the Siberian edition of the “judgment list” by Maxim the Greek with his emphatically sharp accusations against Isaac the Dog 24 is therefore just as unlikely in the first years of the reign of Macarius, when he was still promoting and supporting Isaac, as in the reign of Joasaph. The emergence of enmity between Macarius and Isak should be dated back to a time much later than February 21, 1544, when Ion Sobin was consecrated from Chudov archimandrites to the bishop of Suzdal, after which Macarius placed Isak the Dog at the head of the Chudov monastery 25. Thus, the most probable time of creation of the protograph of the Siberian edition of the “judgment list” is limited, in our opinion, to 1544–1548, and closer to the end of this period. Of course, the considerations presented in the previous section should not be taken as a proven fact, but only as more or less justified assumptions. Speaking about the reasons that caused the creation in the second half of the forties of the 16th century. Based on the official documents about the trial of Maximus the Greek, the compilation of the “judgment list” of the councils of 1525 and 1531, which Macarius declared in November 1548 to be the authentic protocols of the councils, two different hypotheses can be put forward. The simplest explanation is to recognize a direct causal connection between the preparation of the condemnation of Isak and the creation of the “judgment list,” the “acquisition” of which in the royal treasury was then organized on November 2, 1548. The deliberateness of the message about this “acquisition” is obvious. The fact that the text “discovered” on November 2, 1548, was not a “genuine conciliar list” was well known to Macarius - already the first lines of this text, postulating the guilt of Maximus even before the story about the course of the conciliar proceedings, were far from the official form of the “judgment list” 26. Moreover, the existence of documents from the council of 1531 was known before, 27 and there was nothing unexpected in their “discovery.” This imaginary surprise was needed only to justify sudden reprisals against Isaac the Dog. The artificiality of this entire construction by Macarius, the close connection between the text of the “judgment list” and the situation in November 1548 are already visible from the fact that Isak was removed from the leadership of the monastery and from church service even before Macarius sent a request to the former Metropolitan Joasaph about what were the legal grounds for the appointment of Isak under Joasaph as a deacon, priest and archimandrite of the Simonov Monastery. Extremely important and characteristic in this regard is the above-mentioned fact of inclusion in the text of the 1531 verdict of a message about the second condemnation of Isak: “And after that, blasphemous speeches arose against the same Isak the Dog, and condemned him at the council, and he was quickly sent to the metropolitan monastery on Volosovo, to keep him in the great fortress forever” /l. 343 rpm This insertion immediately makes it clear to everyone that this is not the original text of the verdict of 1531, but its later processing. Nevertheless, its inclusion was considered necessary - this fact, if it existed, could only be known then in oral transmission; there were no documentary materials about this second council on Isak the Dog, otherwise they would have been necessarily mentioned or quoted at least in the message of Macarius to Ivan IV about this case, in his letter to Joasaph, or in the decision of the council of February 1549. Meanwhile, when in all these cases the documentary grounds for accusing Isak the Dog are spoken of, only one is called the “genuine conciliar list of Danil, Metropolitan of All Russia” with the condemnation of Isaac the Dog, that is, the protograph of the Siberian edition of the “judgment list”. The inclusion in this list of news about the second council on Isak Sobak was given, regardless of its reliability, some semblance of documentary justification, and later Macarius refers to the fact of the second conciliar condemnation of Isak. This is done both in the letter of Macarius to Joasaph dated November 9, 1548, where the verdict of 1531 is quoted along with this insertion, and in the justification of the decision of the council of February 24, 1549. We see, therefore, that in any case, that stage of processing the materials about the trial of Maxim the Greek, which is reflected in the oldest manuscript of the “judgment list” that has reached us, is closely connected with the preparation in the fall of 1548 for the condemnation of Isak the Dog. Apart from this connection, the appearance of an insert about the fate of Isak after 1531 is inexplicable: none of the other persons involved in the cathedral proceedings of 1531 are of such interest to the compiler of the “judgment list”; he reports nothing, for example, not only about the punishment of Siluyan (exiled to the Solovetsky Monastery) in 1531, but even about the sentence of Vassian Patrikeev, whose court case was available. There is no information at all in the “court list” about the further fate of all the persons mentioned in the verdict of 1531, with the exception of one Isak. However, for the appearance in the second half of the 40s of the 16th century. There could also be reasons for the compilation of the “judgment list” of Maxim the Greek, independent of the case of Isak the Dog. This is a time of revival of keen interest in the circumstances of the trial of Maxim the Greek both in the country itself and outside its borders. Maxim the Greek creates one collection of his works after another, actively refuting those put forward against him in 1525 and 1531. accusations; his fame and authority are growing, his works are read and highly appreciated by both the tsar and the metropolitan, they ask Maxim to send them his works, he himself corresponds with Ivan IV, and with Macarius, and with their entourage. The leadership of the Russian church begins to consider the polemical and dogmatic writings of Maxim the Greek, aimed at protecting and establishing the foundations of Orthodox doctrine, as a useful and necessary weapon; many of these works are included in Makaryev’s Great Menaions of Chetya. However, all this poses a number of acute problems for Macarius and Ivan IV. Maxim urgently demands the return of his right to receive communion, that is, the removal of the curse imposed on him by the councils of 1525 and 1531; there were probably even rumors that Maxim was demanding a new conciliar trial for his acquittal; in any case, in one of his letters to Macarius (written, it seems, after May 1547), Maxim emphasizes that he is not asking for a trial, not a council, but only mercy: he fears, not without reason, that rumors about the excessiveness of his demands could harm his request. But this request in any form was a very sharp and sensitive matter - it meant an indirect condemnation of Metropolitan Daniel, which was very difficult for Metropolitan Macarius, a Josephite, although quite flexible. On the eve of the Council of the Hundred Heads, where the tsar would again raise the very unpleasant question for the church about its land ownership, it was extremely unprofitable for the metropolitan to disavow in any form the condemnation of the non-covetous Maxim the Greek. Somewhere around 1547 again, a very undesirable interest for the leaders of the state and church arises in the old disputes about the legality of the second marriage of Vasily III, and Maxim, apparently, was an opponent of this marriage, which was one of the hidden reasons for his condemnation. In addition, the return to Maxim by the authority of one metropolitan, without a council, of the sacrament taken away from him by two councils, was an extremely controversial matter from the point of view of church law (the rules of the Council of Antioch prohibited this), and the rehabilitation of Maxim by the council was impossible not only because of internal political, but also because of external circumstances. The fact is that Maxim very persistently (including in two letters to Ivan IV 28) demanded a return to Athos. He also declared that he was not subject to the court of the Russian hierarchs, but only to the court of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Satisfying Maxim's request to return to Athos was impossible for the Moscow government, as V.S. Ikonnikov rightly emphasized 29 . Meanwhile, this request had extremely authoritative external support in the person of the Vatopedi Athos Monastery, the Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysius and, finally, the Alexandrian Patriarch Joachim, who turned to Ivan IV with a request to release Maxim. Dionysius' appeal was sent on behalf of the entire council that elected him /June 1544/, including the Jerusalem Patriarch Herman. The letter from Patriarch Joachim / April 4, 1545 / was drawn up in rather harsh tones and angrily accused the tsar of improperly detaining the illegally convicted Maxim. In the letter, this reason for condemning Maxim was called “the action of the devil” and “the machinations of evil people” and it was emphasized that there was no basis for this condemnation, since Maxim was neither an attacker on the king and the state, nor a heretic. “The Judgment Case” by Maximus the Greek can be considered as material for refuting both statements of Patriarch Joachim. Of course, this point of view is purely hypothetical. It cannot be denied, however, that in the complex interweaving of interests of the 40s of the 16th century. around Maxim the Greek, at some point, even regardless of the case of Isak the Dog, the Metropolitan might need materials confirming the fairness of the decisions of the councils of 1525 and 1531. In this way, a journalistic treatment of the original documents of the councils (protocols, letters) could arise, especially if the original documents themselves were impossible or inconvenient to disclose in their entirety. Let us recall that the very release of Maxim and his transfer to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery in 1551 /after the Council of the Hundred Heads, which increased Maxim’s authority/ were done in such a flexible way that there was no talk of any formal rehabilitation of Maxim, but only of “mercy”. Of course, the emergence of the “judgment list” of Maxim the Greek in the 40s of the 16th century, when his affairs were gradually improving, may seem strange. But from this point of view, even more strange is the real fact of the conciliar condemnation in February 1549 of Isak Sobaka based on the verdict of 1531, when he was cursed only for copying the works of Maxim the Greek and Vassian Patrikeev. Both of the above options explain the emergence of the “judgment list” of Maxim the Greek in the 40s of the 16th century. are not necessarily mutually exclusive. This list could have arisen after Macarius came to power /after 1542/ regardless of the case of Isak the Dog, and in the fall of 1548 received an addition in the form of an insert into the sentence of 1531 on the second conviction of Isak the Dog. The totality of verified facts, however, is not enough to make a choice in favor of one of these two options or their combined version. As for the complex of the 39th chapter as a whole, it is too imbued with the immediate atmosphere of the events associated with the collapse of the career of the Chudov archimandrite for the creation of this complex to be dated very far from February 1549. Only in a situation close to this event is the creation of such a complex justified; in the political whirlpool of the subsequent years of the reign of Ivan IV, the conciliar condemnation of Isaac the Dog will seem such an insignificant episode that not a single source will remember it. New data on the cathedral courts of 1525, 1531 and 1549. over Maxim the Greek and Isaac the Dog. Over 120 years of studying the “judgment list” of Maxim the Greek, published by O. N. Bodyansky, researchers have extracted from it a significant number of valuable historical facts. At the same time, the “judgment list” of Maxim the Greek gave rise to many hypotheses and assumptions, which, in turn, sometimes became the basis for very categorical assessments of the activities of Maxim the Greek. The abundance of hypothetical statements was explained, firstly, by the extreme inconsistency and complexity of the monument itself and, secondly, by the defectiveness of the previously known lists, which stopped at the presentation of the most acute political moments of the trial of 1531. The 39th chapter of the Siberian collection for the first time provided the complete and most ancient text of the source, as well as a number of new documents about the trial of Maxim the Greek. Some hypotheses received clear confirmation - for example, S.N. Chernov’s idea about the gradual escalation of political accusations during the trial of 1531. The life of others in science can now be considered over - for example, the more than once repeated assumption that the prosecution had at its disposal some letters from Maxim to the Turkish Sultan or Pashas was refuted. However, many contradictions and confusion remain. Moreover, it can be said that the “judgment list” now seems to be an even more controversial monument than before. In addition, when studying it, it is now necessary to take into account not only the text of the “judgment list” itself, but also the entire complex of materials inextricably united in the 39th chapter of the Siberian collection. This complex consists of the following parts: 1/ Judgment list of the council of 1525 in the case of Maximus the Greek. 2/ Judgment list of the council of 1531 in the case of Maximus the Greek with the verdict. 3/ Letters of 1525 from the Metropolitan and Grand Duke to the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery about the trial of Maxim the Greek. 4/ Report on the discovery of the “judgment list” of Maxim the Greek in 1548 in the royal treasury and the initiation of the case of Isak the Dog in connection with this. 5/ Correspondence of Metropolitans Macarius and Joasaph in 1548 about the trial of Maxim the Greek and the case of Isaac the Dog. 6/ Message about the report to the king on the case of Isaac the Dog and about the convening of a council to try him. 7/ Judgment list of the council of 1549 in the case of Isaac the Dog with the verdict and a list of participants in the council. The entire first and more than half of the second part of this complex were published by O. N. Bodyansky and entered science as a single monument under the name “The Debate of Metropolitan Daniel with Maxim the Greek” or “The List of Judgment” by Maxim the Greek. The remaining texts were not previously known. The “Judgment List” of the cathedral of 1525 is the first component of the monument “The Debate of Metropolitan Daniel with Maxim the Greek.” However, there are many strange things in the relationship of this part with the monument as a whole, and the text of the Siberian edition, which is more ancient than previously known, increases these perplexities. First of all, the external division of the monument into two independent parts - the “judgment lists” of the councils of 1525 and 1531. in the Siberian list is much less clear than in later lists. The Siberian list has neither a general heading for the entire monument, distinguishing it from the entire complex of the 39th chapter, nor special headings for the “judgment lists” of 1525 and 1531. The Pogodinsky and Barsovsky lists begin with a common heading: “Debate between Danil, Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus', and the monk Maxim Svyatogorets.” This general title is preceded by the phrase: “The list from the judgment list.” Before each of the two parts of the monument in the Pogodinsky and Barsovsky lists there are also headings: “In the summer of 7033 it was written,” “Another cathedral was built.” The Siberian list does not have these headings; parts of the text that immediately begin the presentation of the council meetings of 1525 and 1531 are not even highlighted with cinnabar /ll. 324, 328/, although the Siberian List widely uses cinnabar highlights of even small logical parts of the text, including on these same sheets. The general introduction, with which the text of the Siberian List begins directly without any heading, does not necessarily refer only to the council of 1525; This introduction reports, without any connection with the meetings of the council of 1525, about Maximus’ heretical views on the dogmatic question of the time of “Christ’s sitting at the right hand of the Father,” and this teaching was the subject of consideration by both councils (both 1525 and 1531). The direct presentation of the course of the councils begins in the Siberian list both times only with the date / “summer of 7033”, “summer of 7039” /, and these words, as already mentioned, are not even highlighted with cinnabar. One gets the impression of a certain unity of the entire text telling about both cathedrals, whereas with greater proximity to the original cathedral protocols one would have expected two separate monuments dedicated to each cathedral. The message about the conciliar trials of Maxim the Greek is included in the complex of the 39th chapter as a single monument / ending, moreover, with one single verdict, where separate parts of both conciliar verdicts are contradictorily mixed /. And it was precisely in this unity that this text was perceived in the middle of the 16th century. - subsequent sections of the 39th chapter, referring to it, invariably speak of one judgment list, and not two: “Summer 7057th month of November on the 2nd day. A copy of Danil, Metropolitan of All Russia, about the heresy of Maxim the Greek of Svyatogorsk and about his like-minded people was quickly found in the royal treasury and brought to the metropolitan” /l. 346 rpm Subsequently, with repeated mentions in the 39th chapter of this monument, it is constantly called the cathedral list / and not lists /; Moreover, for example, in a letter from Metropolitan Macarius to the former Metropolitan Joasaph dated November 3, 1548, both parts of the monument are set out in some detail, but in the letter there is not the slightest indication that we are talking about two different cathedrals. Moreover, in the letter the presentation of both parts of the monument / that is, the stories about the cathedral of 1525 and the cathedral of 1531 / is connected by connecting words: “Yes, in the same cathedral list it is written about ...” /l. 347 rpm In the table of contents of the Siberian collection / l. 2/ Chapter 39 is titled “The Cathedral of Maxim the Greek in Svyatogorsk.” In the text itself, the materials relating to both councils are so mixed up that the division of charges between 1525 and 1531 is not discussed. There is a long and rather unsuccessful debate among historians. Let us note, by the way, that the titles that were given to the monument in later lists also cannot be attributed to the separate presentation of two different councils / "Debate of Metropolitan Daniel ...", "List from the Judgment List"/. When comparing the materials of the two cathedrals, one striking difference is striking in our monument. The Council of 1531, despite some omissions, sometimes deliberate, is presented quite completely: not one of the main points of Daniel’s indictment speech, which opened the Council, is missing from the presentation of the trial itself. There is only no presentation of the “testimony from the divine scriptures” on the three issues discussed then: these “testimonies” were read at the council before the verdict was pronounced. The news from our monument about the cathedral of 1525, on the contrary, is very fragmentary. As a matter of fact, only part of one of the points of the accusation is stated / about “the sitting of Christ at the right hand of the Father.” / Apart from this and the introductory formula announcing the opening of the council, there is no news about the council of 1525; it is not even indicated how the discussion of this single point ended, there are no opening words of Metropolitan Daniel at the council, there is no verdict, there is not a word about the fate of Maxim’s like-minded people, they are not even mentioned. Meanwhile it is known both from the text of the 39th chapter and from other sources that in 1525 the accusation did not concern this point alone and not only Maximus 30. In the original cathedral list of 1531, the presentation of evidence from the divine scriptures that was missing in our monument was undoubtedly present. These “Testimonies” were read at the council to Maxim the Greek and Vassian Patrikeev in connection with the discussion of questions about “Christ’s sitting at the right hand of the Father,” about the land ownership of churches and monasteries, and about the installation of Russian metropolitans in Moscow. The case of Vassian Patrikeev, considered at the same council in 1531, which has come down to us in large part, cites the very “testimonies” read at the council about the land ownership of churches and monasteries, which our monument mentions in connection with the council of 1531 31 . The mention in Maxim’s “judgment list” that Vassian was present at this reading indicates that we are talking about a single judicial procedure, common to both trials. The text of the “testimonies from the divine scriptures” on the first of these three questions also came to us - as part of the “judgment list” of Maximus the Greek /ll. 324 rev.–328/. But it is referred here not to the council of 1531, but to the council of 1525, where the same question about “Christ sitting at the right hand of the Father” was apparently central, judging by the letter of Metropolitan Daniel about the council of 1525 /l. 344/. If we take into account that this / or a very close / text should have been in the original cathedral list of 1531, then the possibility cannot be excluded that it was the corresponding text of the original list of 1531 that served as the source for the detailed presentation of “testimonies from the divine scriptures” in the first part of our monument, dating back to 1525. This presentation is preceded by /l. 324/ question from Dosifei, Bishop of Sara and Donsk, regarding Maxim’s views on “Christ’s sitting at the right hand of the Father” and Maxim’s answer to this question. It is striking that both the question of Dositheus and the answer of Maxim are extremely close (even to the point of repeating some formulations) to the question of the same Dositheus and the answer of Maxim on the same issue at the council of 1531 /l. 336 rpm It is especially interesting that those places in these two texts that do not coincide with each other find a very close parallel in the general journalistic introduction to the entire “judgment list” of Maxim the Greek /l. 324/. Thus, from the entire first part of our monument, telling about the cathedral of 1525, outside of similar parallels with other places of the same “judgment list” and its source, only the first few lines remained, reporting on the very convening of the council of 1525. But upon closer examination, it turns out that all the factual information contained in them / up to the mention of the place of meetings of the cathedral of 1525 and the presence at it of the brothers of the Grand Duke and boyars / is also present in the second part of the “judgment list” - in the indictment of Metropolitan Daniel at the council of 1531, when he recalls the council of 1525 /l. 329 rpm It is possible that the strange incompleteness and fragmentary nature of the story of the “judgment list” about the council of 1525 is explained by the fact that its compiler did not have at hand the authentic protocols of the trial of 1525 and he constructed his story from the materials of the original court case of 1531 and the correspondence of 1525 about the trial of Maxim. In any case, in the inventory of the archive of the Ambassadorial Prikaz of 1614 only “the list of Metropolitan Danil for Maxim the Greek, in 7039” is mentioned, but there is no list of the council of 7033 /1525/. In an earlier inventory of the Tsar’s archive, it is true, “lists of Elder Maxim and Sava the Greeks, and the Bersenevs, and Fedka Zharenovo” are mentioned, but this complex itself hardly speaks of a court case at a church council / which could not judge Bersen Beklemishev and Fyodor Zharenovo /, most likely we are talking about that investigative / not judicial / case of 1525, which partially survived before us and published 32. In this part of the investigative file known to us, the relationships and views of the above-mentioned persons are clarified in detail. In addition to the first part of the “judgment list,” the 39th chapter of the Siberian manuscript contains two more monuments that are directly related to the cathedral of 1525. These are previously unknown letters from Metropolitan Daniel and Grand Duke Vasily III dated May 24, 1525 to the authorities of the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery about the conciliar trial of Maxim the Greek. The purpose of these letters is not information about the cathedral - the Grand Duke writes to his addressees about Maxim: “But his deeds are known to you, and they were there in the cathedral” / l. 346/. These letters are instructions to the monastery authorities about “in what strength” to keep Maxim in the monastery. Detailed instructions about the regime of Maxim’s imprisonment are given in the first of these letters, and in the letter of the Grand Duke these instructions are repeated in summary along with the general order to deal with Maxim “according to the orders of our father Danil, Metropolitan of All Russia.” Metropolitan Daniel's letter seemed to be an official act of the entire council. Our monument emphasizes this twice. Firstly, in the verdict that completes the “judgment list” of Maximus the Greek and contradictorily combines the decisions of the councils of 1525 and 1531. it is reported that this letter forms part of the council decision of 1525, in connection with which even the beginning of the letter /l is quoted. 343-rev./. Secondly, the final formula of the letter, as given in the 39th chapter, also speaks of its approval by the council: “This was stated and approved and written off in the summer of the 7033rd month of Maya on the 24th day” /l. 346/, while the charter of the Grand Duke ends in a stencil: “Written in Moscow, summer 7033, Maya on the 24th day” /l. 346 rpm Although Daniel's letter does not have the specific purpose of providing information about the progress of the 1525 council, it contains important information about it for the historian. At the beginning of his letter, Daniel still considers it necessary, in connection with the sending of Maxim to imprisonment in the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery, to report on the convening of a council “against the godless and abominable and cunningly wise monk Greek Maxim” and on the accusations brought against him. They are given here in formulations close to the text of both parts of the “judgment list”, but we are talking about only two accusations: on the issue of “Christ sitting at the right hand of the Father” and in connection with the installation of Russian metropolitans in Moscow, and not in Constantinople, which Maxim the Greek considered illegal. From the text of the letter it is not entirely clear to what extent Daniel considered this list of accusations from the council of 1525 complete. The story of the letter about the second accusation ends with the phrase: “And behold the verb arrogance and pride, who do not go to the Bessermen Turkish state from the patriarchs to be appointed metropolitans from the unfaithful and godless kingdom, but also many other corrupt and destructive verbs.” /l. 343/. The conclusion of this phrase may refer both to Maxim’s other arguments on the question of the installation of Russian metropolitans, and to the discussion of other issues at the council of 1525. In any case, Daniel did not consider it necessary to even name any of these other issues. Of course, a number of more or less minor accusations could well have been omitted in this letter, but it is difficult to believe that the most serious accusations would have been completely forgotten here. For the historian, it is therefore not without interest that the letter of Metropolitan Daniel says nothing about the main point of polemics between the non-acquisitive people, to whom Maxim the Greek belonged, and the Josephites - about church land ownership and Russian miracle workers and money-grubbers. Meanwhile, in the letter reporting the departure of Maxim the Greek to the center of Josephiteism - the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery - a story about such “guilts” of Maxim would have been especially appropriate if Maxim’s “blames” against church land ownership had actually been the subject of any noticeable proceedings at the council of 1525. It is unlikely, however, that this could have happened in 1525, when the most influential temporary official was still in power Vassian Patrikeev 33. It is no coincidence that the ardent non-covetous Vassian, as it now turned out, immediately became involved in a dispute about the non-covetous views of Maximus the Greek at the council of 1531, and the composition of the charges brought against both of them almost coincides here even in details and wording. If Maxim, even in the situation of 1531, tried to hide behind the authority of Vassian, presenting him as the source of some of his non-acquisitive views, which made a confrontation between them inevitable, then in 1525 the impossibility of openly bringing these accusations to Maxim without simultaneously accusing Vassian was obvious. But when in 1531 Mikhail Medovartsev was asked why he, during the trial of 1525 or after it, did not report anything to the spiritual authorities about the heretical correction of the text of the Apostle and the life of the Mother of God Simeon Metaphrastus, made by him on the orders of Maxim, Mikhail Medovartsev replied that this correction was made with the knowledge of Vassian and Mikhail did not report it “for fear of Vasyanov": "Elder Vasian was crying out to reveal those things, before he would kill me" /l. 334-rev. 34. As is known, in Daniel’s indictment speech at the council of 1531, /in the form in which it is conveyed in the “judgment list”/, the information about exactly what charges were brought against Maxim in 1525 is so confusing that any indisputable conclusions are very difficult. S. N. Chernov, who studied this information in detail, 35 considers Daniel’s use of the present tense in the accusation formulas an important sign that this accusation 1525 either was not raised at all, or was raised only in a small part and briefly. Accusations of non-covetousness are in the present tense form in the monument. The opening lines of the record of the convening of the council of 1531, listing in general the “blames of the newest” Maxim, which became known only after the council of 1525, mention among them his non-covetous “blames” “on”. church charters and laws” /l. 328-vol./. But in the final part of Daniel’s indictment, these same non-covetous “blasphemies” in a very similar formulation are listed among a very generalized and inaccurate listing of Maximus’ “crimes” considered by the council of 1525. 330-rpm Despite all the inconsistency and inaccuracy of this information, comparing it with the letter of Metropolitan Daniel to the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery allows, in our opinion, to draw the conclusion that the accusation against Maxim of non-covetous statements was unlikely to have been made in 1525 in any expanded and dangerous form for the accused, if at all it was brought forward then. Of course, Maxim’s non-acquisitive views even then were one of the main reasons for the hatred of the Josephite church elite towards him, but the situation in 1525, when Vassian was in such power, did little to contribute to the big legal dispute around these problems. Let us recall that another reason for Maxim’s fall remained hidden then, although for other reasons – this refers to his position in the case of the second marriage of Vasily III 36 . Metropolitan Daniel's letter dated May 24, 1525 does not mention the discussion at the church council of 1525 of the political aspects of Maxim's accusations - in connection with his views and statements about Russian foreign policy and the personality of the Grand Duke, his relationship with the Turkish ambassador Skinder, the desire to accuse him of treasonous relations with the Turkish pashas and the Sultan, etc. d. Meanwhile, from various sources it is known that these political accusations, which later gave the greatest urgency to the council of 1531, were put forward already in 1525. The fragments of the investigative / non-trial / case of 1525 that have reached us with the preliminary testimony of Maxim the Greek, Fyodor Zharenny and Bersen Beklemishev contain precisely their testimony on political issues alone, many of which are very close to the accusations brought against Maxim in 1531 37. This documentary evidence goes well with two chronicle reports that are very similar in their trend and origin - the Typographical Chronicle and the chronicler of the Borovsky Monastery. But it is precisely these chronicle messages that, in our opinion, contain an explanation for why all these political subjects were not mentioned in Daniel’s letter about the church council of 1525. Both chronicles very clearly separate the church council, which dealt only with church-canonical issues, from the secular investigation on charges of treason. Emphasizing the connection between church and civil charges, both sources clearly state their procedural isolation. The typographical chronicle reports about the church council against Maxim and Savva the Greeks and about the grand-ducal disgrace / and execution / of Bersen Beklemishev and Fyodor Zharenny in different chronicle articles, each of which begins with the usual chronicle stencil introducing a new narrative: “That same month... 38. The testimony of the chronicler of the Borovsky Monastery is even clearer: “That same summer, the Great Prince Vasily Ivanovich of All Russia brought the Spassky Archimandrite to the Sava to the Greek, and Maxim to the philosopher, treason... And Danil the Metropolitan of All Russia with the Holy Council brought heresy against them.” The description of treason we released is close to the accusations of the council of 1531. Bersen Beklemishev, Fyodor Zharenny and Pyotr Karpov are mentioned further as accomplices of Savva and Maxim 39. It is interesting that the wording of both chronicles for a secular investigation on political issues is such that they do not necessarily imply the completion of the investigation with a public trial: “the Grand Duke... fell in love with Ivan Bersen, Nikitin’s son, Beklemishev in the same case” /Typographical Chronicle/; “The great prince... brought about... treason” /Borovsky chronicler/. It is possible that the public hearing of these accusations was not considered entirely convenient in 1525; among them, for example, there was an accusation of relations with Skinder, whose negotiations with the Moscow government continued as early as 1526 40. In any case, there is no doubt that in 1525 the proceedings on church and political charges were separate, and not common, as in 1531. This is a possible explanation for the silence about political accusations in the letter of Metropolitan Daniel, which announced only the church council of 1525. Among the information provided by this letter, the most interesting are the detailed instructions about the regime of Maxim’s detention in the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery. The cold cruelty and fear of the power of the word of Maximus the Greek is clearly visible in these instructions, which condemned Maximus inside the monastery to complete isolation, loneliness and silence: “And he was imprisoned to be in a certain silent cell, and in no way left to be very much, so that even there the injury from him would not spread to a single person. And let him not talk with anyone, neither with the church, nor with the simple, nor with the monastery, below another monastery, but below with the scriptures to speak or teach someone, or what is the wisdom to have, or to send a message to someone, or from someone to receive, communicate below yourself, below and below, and have friendship with someone, or petition tends to show, but just sit in silence and repent of your madness and heresy” /l. 344 rpm The famous philosopher and book expert was forbidden not only to write and teach (violation of these prohibitions by Maximus would become an important point of accusation at the council of 1531), but also to read any books except for a few specifically indicated by Daniel. Among these books are those from which the Josephites drew their arguments in the fight against non-covetous people, books that were quoted to Maximus in refuting his views at the council of 1525 / Ephraim the Syrian; lives of Saint Sava, Basil the Great, Fyodor the Studite, Fyodor of Edessa/. The monastery authorities entrusted the supervision of Maxim the Greek to Tikhon Lenkov, a confidant of Joseph of Volotsky and the Grand Duke himself, a prominent “cathedral elder” of the monastery, who also belonged to a family whose members more than once successfully and diligently performed the responsible functions of prison guards assigned to especially important prisoners of the monastery 41 . And yet, Daniel’s letter also establishes a system of surveillance of the jailer himself / as well as of Maxim’s spiritual father, who was appointed the holy monk Jonah, who later, together with Tikhon, became the author of denunciations about Maxim’s behavior in the monastery / - the letter suggests the possibility that Maxim’s guards will also be “damaged”, “seduced” by him. Already in 1525, the strongest church punishment was applied against Maxim the Greek - deprivation of the sacrament. Subsequently, Maxim Grek, in various collections of his works of the 40s, will repeatedly recall this decision, each time indicating the number of years that have passed since its adoption. Establishing the exact date of Maxim’s deprivation of the sacrament is therefore important for analyzing the chronology of his work. The letter of Metropolitan Daniel, introduced into scientific circulation, undoubtedly testifies that, contrary to the authoritative opinion of V.S. Ikonnikov, Maxim the Greek was deprived of the sacrament in 1525, and not in 1531 42. Information about the regime of Maxim's detention in the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery, which can be gleaned from letters of 1525, significantly complements the accompanying brief reports on the same issue from other sources. The severity of this regime is confirmed / in expressions similar to the wording of the above letter of Daniel / in the speech of the same Metropolitan Daniel at the council of 1531, in the later stories of Maxim himself, in the testimony of A. M. Kurbsky based on these stories 43 . But only the complete picture of the conditions of Maxim’s first imprisonment, which the letters of 1525 paint for us, allows us to appreciate the inflexibility and courage of his behavior in the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery, where he least of all intended to “keep silent and repent.” These are the materials of the 39th chapter of the Siberian collection relating to the cathedral of 1525. The monument pays the main attention, however, to the cathedral of 1531. As already indicated, the “judgment list” in the Siberian edition covers quite fully, although tendentiously, the progress of the work of the cathedral of 1531. Now that the end of the “judgment list”, relating, in particular, to the most acute political accusations, has become known, It is finally possible to prove or reject many of the hypotheses put forward in historical literature regarding the trial of Maxim the Greek. As is known, a lively discussion that continues to this day is caused by the degree of objectivity of the trial and the correspondence of the serious accusations made to reality. Opinions are particularly divided regarding the veracity of political accusations. Maxim the Greek himself subsequently categorically declared both the dogmatic and political accusations brought against him to be slanderous. He confessed only to “certain small inventories” made in the first years of his stay in Russia due to poor knowledge of the Russian language 44. As already mentioned, Maxim’s complete innocence was harshly defended in 1545 by the Alexandrian Patriarch Joachim. He came to similar conclusions after a detailed analysis of primarily dogmatic accusations by E. E. Golubinsky, who considered Maxim’s accusation of pro-Turkish activities to be slander. In the same positions are S. I. Chernov, V. F. Rzhiga and I. U. Budovints. The result of N.A. Kazakova’s recent research is the assertion that not only such accusations were slander, but also statements about Maxim’s critical attitude towards many aspects of Russian foreign policy, and sometimes even towards the personality of the Grand Duke himself 45 . But back in 1916, B.I. Dunaev, having introduced into scientific circulation a large amount of material from the “Turkish affairs” of the 16th century, argued that Maxim the Greek, like the Turkish ambassador to Moscow Skinder, with whom Maxim was accused of having treasonous connections in 1531, sought to quarrel Russia with Turkey in the interests of Greece and therefore the political accusations brought against Maxim were fundamentally true. Later, I. I. Smirnov actively supported this point of view, proving, however, that Maxim the Greek did not act out of patriotic motives, but as a secret agent of the Turkish government. Recently these arguments were repeated by I. B. Grekov 46 . Let us dwell briefly on the new information about the course of the trial of 1531, which is contained in a previously unknown part of the “court list”. This information as a whole is a convincing confirmation of the point of view that was defended by S. N. Chernov and especially N. A. Kazakova in the dispute about the nature of the trial of Maxim the Greek. This case is an interesting and rare test of the correctness of the hypothesis about the possible content of the lost part of the monument, when the discovery of this part confirmed the validity of the basic assumptions. However, this coincidence was, of course, not complete. The Pogodinsky and Barsovsky lists ended with a statement of the court agreement on the issue of installing Russian metropolitans in Moscow without the blessing of the Patriarch of Constantinople; Maxim admitted that he considered and still considers such an order to be incorrect, a manifestation of pride. The continuation of the “judgment list,” known only from the Siberian Collection, begins with the question of the presiding judge, Bishop Dosifei, about why Maxim locked himself up at the council of 1525, denying the existence of such views. It turns out that in 1525 he was persistently accused of this, they even arranged confrontations with Elder Arseny Serbin and Archimandrite Simonovsky Gerasim, but Maxim never confessed, although, undoubtedly, this accusation was correct: a firm conviction in the non-canonical nature of the independent appointment of Russian metropolitans, in the preservation even after the Turkish conquest of Byzantium of the universal mission of the Greek Church was one of the deep foundations of his worldview. At the council of 1531, where this question, it turns out, was raised twice, he, on the contrary, behaved very frankly and proved the justice of his views. Subsequently, he devoted two legends to justifying the fact that the Turkish conquest could not violate the sanctity of the Greek Church and that therefore his views on the illegality of the new order of installing Russian metropolitans were fair 47. All the more indicative is his stubborn denial at the council of 1525. The fact that this question was raised at the council of 1525 and, therefore, the information from the “judgment list” about this is trustworthy, is now confirmed not only by other places in the same “judgment list”, but also by the letter of Metropolitan Daniel dated May 24, 1525. But this denial did not help Maxim in 1525, just as that one did not help him a very well-intentioned interpretation that he gave at the investigation in 1525 of his position during conversations on political topics in his Miracle cell: the same letter from Metropolitan Daniel testifies that the council of 1525 found him guilty of condemning the procedure for appointing metropolitans accepted in Rus'. Even S.N. Chernov, analyzing the behavior of Maxim the Greek in 1525, rightly assumed that Maxim did not expect a sufficiently severe sentence at that time and was “hoping for a successful outcome of the investigation for himself” 48 . Therefore, during the investigation, he tried to present his political views in the most innocent way for the investigators. Perhaps this is why he did not admit in 1525 that he condemned the procedure for installing Moscow metropolitans; This question undoubtedly had not only church-canonical, but also political connotations. In 1531, after six years of courageous behavior during imprisonment in the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery, he behaved differently. Next, the “judgment list” moves on to a set of charges in 1531 related to the non-covetous views of Maxim the Greek. The composition of these accusations, as they are set out in this part of the source, is approximately the same as in the summary indictment of Metropolitan Daniel, only here they are naturally detailed. The trial dwells on two issues: Maxim’s condemnation of the “local Russian miracle workers” as money-grubbers and rezoimites and the establishment of the fact of the existence of monastic land ownership in Greece, on Mount Athos. At the same council in 1531, Vassian Patrikeev was also charged with blasphemy against Russian miracle workers and money-grubbers. Both the similarities and differences between the two conciliar proceedings are very significant. The accusations brought against Maxim and Vassian in this regard sometimes coincide even in detail; it is almost impossible to discern any difference in their non-covetous views on these accusations; sometimes even the terminology of the accusation is common: “And you call miracle workers troublemakers, because they are also people in the monasteries of the village” /accusation against Vassian/; “... you river: The local Russian miracle workers were plague workers and rezoimites” /accusation to Maxim/ 49. “Testimonies from the divine scriptures” regarding the land ownership of monasteries were read, as already mentioned, to Maxim and Vassian at the same time. But there was a difference in the behavior of both accused at the council, which clearly revealed the difference in their characters and habits. Maxim behaved with dignity at the trial, not at all renouncing his non-covetous views, and once even dared to proclaim them very clearly at the council: “... he / Paphnutius Borovsky. – N.P. / He held villages, and raised money for money, and held people and servants, and judged, and beat him with a whip, otherwise how could he be a miracle worker? /l. 338 rpm However, in general, Maxim had no intention of using the council to promote his views, to unduly irritate his judges, or to admit to anything beyond what would be indisputably proven by the testimony at the council. Therefore, he stubbornly rejects the accusation that he condemned all Russian miracle workers as money-grubbers, including such saints highly revered by the Russian Church as Sergius of Radonezh, Kirill Belozersky, Metropolitans Peter, Alexei and Jonah. Even after a confrontation with prosecution witnesses, Serbs Fedor and Arseniy, who confirmed the prosecution’s version in this general form, Maxim categorically declares: “Yaz didn’t say that.” Meanwhile, despite possible individual stretches and exaggerations, the accusation here looks quite logical: many of the listed Russian saints actively cared about increasing the land wealth of the Russian Church. Maxim admits only the specific accusation of blasphemy against Paphnutiy Borovsky. He is not afraid to directly at the council make the above harsh remark about the money-grubbing of Paphnutius, although, of course, he is well aware of the high authority of Paphnutius among the Josephites 50 . However, he immediately hastened to clarify that he learned the unseemly facts of Paphnutius’s money-grubbing (quite reliable, we note in parentheses) from the words of Vassian Patrikeev and from some life of Paphnutius, which the same Vassian gave him. At the confrontation, Vassian furiously refuted this attempt by Maxim to hide behind his, Vassian’s, name. Vassian himself behaved aggressively at the council, more than once fending off accusations with outright caustic remarks, and did not deny his critical attitude even towards such a “miracle worker” as Metropolitan Jonah, proudly throwing out in response to Daniel’s accusations: “I don’t know whether Jonah is a wonderworker.” At the same time, his arrogant, calm contempt for judges one day develops into princely contempt for a commoner, in his opinion, the “miracle worker” Macarius Kalyazinsky: “What kind of miracle workers are these? They say Makar works miracles in Kolyazin, but the man was a rural man.” This provides an excellent opportunity for the money-grubbing Daniel to make a hypocritical speech about the equality of all in Christ 51 . Maxim's non-acquisitiveness is free from such aristocracy. Comparing in this regard the accusatory speech of Metropolitan Daniel with the course of the trial, one can notice one detail that indicates both the tendentiousness of the construction of the accusatory speech and the close connection of the 1531 trials of Maxim and Vassian. Judging by our source, Maxim was not then charged with any charges regarding his views on Macarius Kalyazinsky; this issue only came up during Vassian’s trial. Nevertheless, listing in his accusatory speech the Russian saints whom Maxim blasphemed, Daniel also names Macarius /l. 329 vol./, as well as Varlaam (most likely Khutynsky, in connection with the known land acts relating to him) who is not mentioned at all in the materials known to us from the 1531 Council. Next, the council took up the other side of the same problem - proof that the Greek Church also knew about monastic land ownership. Maxim, after trying to excuse himself by ignorance, was forced to agree with this fact 52: he was reminded that it was Maxim and Savva who brought from Greece to Moscow some land deeds of Greek monasteries: “... the royal deeds of course brought with them to Moscow with golden seals, that the villages were given as pastors by sovereigns and other lovers of Christ” /l. 339/. This text fully confirms the assumption of N.A. Kazakova that it is the list from one of the Greek land acts that is being discussed in the inventory of the Tsar’s archive, which states that in the 26th box of the archive there was kept “a list of the letters that the former sovereigns from the land gave to the Holy Mountain, copied from Maxim the Greek.” Meanwhile, B.I. Dunaev and I. I. Smirnov saw in the report of the inventory about this list and about the “letters of Greek ambassadors” of Archimandrite Savva evidence of conspiratorial political: the correspondence of Maxim and Savva with Turkey, their espionage awareness in the secret documentation of the Ambassadorial Prikaz. Such an argument must now be rejected due to the direct evidence of the "judgment list" 53 . As another proof of the land ownership of Greek monasteries, the life of Savva, the Serbian archbishop, brought by Maxim and Sava from Athos, was presented in 1531, “and in that life it is written that the monasteries have villages” /l. 339/. It is characteristic that this argument was used both in the court case of Maxim and in the court case of Vassian. Next in the “court case” of Maxim the Greek is an unexpected and striking episode associated with Maxim’s stay in Italy /l. 339-rev./. The most influential butler of the Grand Duke, boyar Mikhail Yuryevich Zakharyin, spoke at the cathedral / his presence at the cathedral in 1531 was especially emphasized by the court case of Vassian Patrikeev /. He stated, with vague reference to “many reliable witnesses,” that Maxim the Greek was in Rome, where he studied “with a certain teacher.” Together with him, more than “two hundred” other students studied “philosophical love”, and all of them “deviated and retreated into the Jewish law and teaching,” for which the Pope ordered them all to be executed. “And having fenced them off and covered them with wood, he burned them and all of them, only eight of them fled to the Holy Mountain, and Maximus was with them.” Rome is here, as below /l. 342 vol./, – a country, not a city. Both V.S. Ikonnikov and I. Denisov unanimously come to the reasonable conclusion that Maxim the Greek /Mikhail Trivolis/ has never been to Rome 54. Thus, the “judgment case” in a distorted form describes Maximus’ stay in Florence, in the monastery of St. Mark, execution by order of the pope of his great teacher Hieronymus Savonarola. As you know, Maxim the Greek described Florence, the monastery, the sermon and death of Savonarola in one of his most striking works / “The Tale is Terrible and Memorable” / 55, which, by the way, was also included in the Siberian collection / ch. 7, pp. 153–157/. From the very text of the “judgment list” it undoubtedly follows that M. Yu. Zakharyin and the prosecution are relying here only on nameless rumors. These rumors and the enormous distances from Florence to Moscow greatly distorted the real picture, turning, in particular, the execution of Savonarola and his two students into a gigantic auto-da-fé, in which more than two hundred people died and in which Maxim himself was supposed to burn. However, Maxim at the council chose not to get involved in a dangerous dispute on this topic, even for the sake of correcting obvious inconsistencies and errors. His answer to Vladyka Dosifei’s question whether such a thing had happened is very characteristic of his cautious behavior: “You see, sir, and me myself, in what sorrow, and misfortune, and sadness I am now, and from many misfortunes I have no mind or memory at all, I don’t remember, sir.” This is what the author of the vivid story about the preaching and death of Savonarola said. The prosecution did not have any verified facts at hand on this issue, much less eyewitnesses, so it limited itself to this answer and did not develop further than an investigation into the circumstances of his life in Italy, which was extremely dangerous for Maxim; Even in Daniel’s indictment, nothing is openly said about this. But based, in particular, on this statement by M. Yu. Zakharyin, Maxim’s accusations of the “Jewish heresy” were more than once presented at the council as proven, although they are in clear contradiction with the well-known facts of Maxim the Greek’s sharp polemics against Judaism, as well as his struggle against the heresy of the Judaizers 56 . One even gets the peculiar impression that in this case, as in some others, 57 the specific logic of the accusation is precisely to prove the unprovable, to insist on the obviously absurd, in order to shatter a stable idea that corresponds to reality. Further, the “judgment list” reports one specific charge of blasphemy against Russian church rites, previously known to us only from the Vassian court case. Maxim and Vassian were accused of condemning the triple sign of the cross, which the bishop makes with two candles during the liturgy. And again Maxim tried to hide behind Vassian Patrikeev here, emphasizing that he, not knowing the rituals of episcopal service, followed Vassian here. The latter, however, denied that he had said anything to Maxim on this matter. The most important sections for the historian of the previously unknown part of the “judgment list” of Maxim the Greek are devoted to the proceedings on a number of political charges brought against him in 1531. They were previously known only from the speech of Metropolitan Daniel and caused the most intense controversy among researchers. Daniel’s very cunning and skillfully composed speech created the impression of proof of the accusation, even where the tendentious recording of the trial allows one to notice stretches and manipulations. At the same time, it turned out that not everything in Daniel’s accusations is fiction. Even S.N. Chernov, restoring the general meaning of the then missing part of the “judgment list,” rightly suggested that the process should have been built on the principle of escalating the most serious political charges towards the end of the trial 58 . The most acute moment here were accusations of treasonous relations with the Turkish ambassador Skinder / the Greek Prince of Mangup / and the sending of secret letters to the Turkish pashas and the Sultan. As is known, shortly before the council of 1531, Skinder died in Moscow; During the search that followed, they looked for some letters among his papers; the Grand Duke was very dissatisfied with Skinder’s reports to the Sultan about his mission. It could therefore be assumed that in the course of all these events, documentary material compromising Maxim the Greek fell into the hands of the prosecution, most likely those same treasonous letters of which Metropolitan Daniel spoke with such confidence. B. N. Dunaev makes a similar conclusion in a very categorical form: “Be that as it may, the “lists” and letters of Maxim / to the Turkish pashas and the Sultan. – N.P. / found themselves in the hands of his enemies and they got the opportunity to convict him at the council.” I. I. Smirnov makes this conclusion in an equally sharp form. Even V.S. Ikonnikov believes that Maxim’s letters to Turkey were probably found in Skinder’s papers, “at least with insistence on returning to Athos” 59 . Now we can say with confidence that there were no letters from Maxim to the Turks in the hands of the prosecution at the council of 1531. The most difficult evidence of Maxim the Greek's betrayal had no documentary basis. This is probably the most significant of all the new facts that the Siberian list has enriched us with. The lack of direct evidence forced Daniel to resort to organizing false testimony. Even in the investigative file of 1525, it was documented how false testimony against Maxim was organized at that time 60 . In 1531 this was not done very skillfully or convincingly. Almost the only support for the accusation at the council was the testimony of Maxim’s cell attendant, Athanasius the Greek, to Fyodor Serbin. Their services were used against Maxim as early as the investigation of 1525. In 1531, judging by the verdict and other sources 61, Fedor remained unpunished / although his guilt from the point of view of the cathedral elders was fully proven /. Condemned by the council of 1525, Afanasy was now transferred from the Pafnutiev Borovsky Monastery to Moscow directly at the disposal of Metropolitan Daniel, whom he had so helped at the council with his testimony. The artificiality of the charges we are now considering is clearly manifested in the court's approach to the references of the mentioned prosecution witnesses to third parties. If Maxim made such references, they were always checked at the council by face-to-face confrontations. Here, in several important cases, similar attempts by Afanasy and Fedor to strengthen their positions by referring to third parties were accepted by the court without verification. In this regard, the first lines of the recording of the cathedral proceedings on political charges look especially strange. We are talking about “closed letters” that were allegedly sent by Archimandrite Savva the Greek to the Turkish Sultan. A rumor about this was brought to the Simonovsky Monastery by some elder Fyodor, who quarreled with Savva and left him “to Simanovo”; here Fedor told Arseny the Greek about these letters. The story at the cathedral seems to be told on behalf of Arseny and the same Athanasius /?/, but after a few lines it suddenly turns out that the story is being told by one of these two persons. However, the “judgment list” /for the first time!/ does not specify who directly gives these testimonies at the council, nor what Savva and Maxim answer to them. No reaction at all to these testimonies is given, but their continuation is simply given - this time on the issue of Maxim’s “witchcraft” abilities that Savva endowed him with. Judging by the fact that the cell attendant Afanasy is mentioned during this last testimony in the third person, and the story is told in the first person, this testimony is given not by Afanasy, but by Arseny. But at the end of this testimony, it is Afanasy who defends them in a confrontation against Maxim, and moreover, together with Savva, which is already completely absurd, since these testimony of Arseny-Afanasy about witchcraft are equally directed against Maxim and against Savva. This confrontation is described in an unusually dull and vague manner; it is simply said that Afanasy and Savva “spoke to Maxim face to face.” The impression of continuity of previous testimony allows us to understand by “those speeches” a story not only about witchcraft, but also about Savva’s “closed letters”. But then it turns out that Savva admitted his guilt here, which sharply contradicts the further story of the “judgment list” about how Savva and Maxim categorically denied sending letters to the Turkish Pasha of Athens. The number of absurdities of this small text is increased by the strange absence of Arseny, the main link in the chain of these rumors about “closed letters”, at the confrontation. Meanwhile, Arseny was present at the council of 1531 and testified against Maxim on some church issues. So, a few lines of the “court list” entry about “closed letters” contain so many inconsistencies that the weakness of the prosecution’s position and the tendentious processing and incompleteness of the “court list” itself immediately becomes clear. A similar picture is observed when discussing the testimony about Maxim and Savva sending a letter to the Pasha of Athens, “so that the Saltan would send his people to the Grand Duke by sea in ships, the Moscow people have a lot of people, and not warriors, people are thin.” Testimony about this letter is given by the same cell attendant Maxim Afanasy, who allegedly saw this letter from Deacon Fyodor, who undertook to deliver it to Turkey. But, according to the just mentioned story about the “closed letters”, this Fyodor, before his trip to Constantinople, quarreled with Savva and with obvious and verbose condemnation spoke to Arseny about Savva’s sending of “closed letters” to the Sultan through some merchants. In Afanasy's testimony, he suddenly appears completely different. The Greek Athanasius, who declared at the council that he himself saw the letter to the Athenian pasha from Deacon Theodore, for some reason was unable to read it and speaks in detail about its contents, referring to some elder Okateus, who allegedly read it. But this Okatei was not even interrogated at the council, and in general there is not a word about him and his fate in the future, although he should have been charged with non-informalization. Both Savva and Maxim, in a confrontation with Afanasy, categorically rejected all of this testimony from Afanasy, which the prosecution failed to substantiate with anything. Historians who proved the validity of Maxim the Greek’s accusation of espionage paid primary attention to his agent connections with Skinder. On the contrary, N.A. Kazakova doubts whether Maxim the Greek had any contacts with Skinder at all 62. Indeed, the investigative materials of 1525 left room for such doubts. At the council of 1531, Maxim immediately admitted that he had contacts with Skinder. He did not protest against the testimony that he “exiled” with Skinder not only in 1524, but also during Skinder’s previous visit to Moscow /in 1522/, “and sent funeral services to him.” The last detail is by no means necessary for relations between a resident spy and a contact. However, at the council they did not even think of bringing charges against Maxim for the espionage nature of his relationship with Skinder. It turns out that in this regard, he was accused of only one thing - that he did not inform the Grand Duke about the following words of Skinder he heard: “... the Grand Duke does not favor or honor him, not according to how he was favored in advance. Otherwise, my beard will be tied to a dog’s tail, unless I bring Saltan to the Grand Duke’s land.” Maxim admitted at the council without objection: “... I am guilty of this before the sovereign, that I did not tell the sovereign that the ambassador boasted about the sovereign and his land” / l. 341 rpm In this information, however, there was hardly anything new for the Moscow government: the itemized lists of Turkish affairs paint the same picture of Skinder’s capricious dissatisfaction with the reception given to him and his boast “to create enmity between the Sultan and the Grand Duke 63. It can be assumed that Maxim’s silence in this case was explained not only by his reluctance to extradite his compatriot. Maxim, undoubtedly, was not unpleasant about this outcome of the Russian-Turkish negotiations - it was not without reason that he immediately confidentially shared with the Greeks and Serbs close to him the good news that nothing was coming of Russia’s attempts to achieve an alliance with Turkey. This is imprudence, hardly characteristic of a spy, but quite understandable for a writer who actively advocates for Russia to pursue an effective anti-Turkish policy, against any alliance of a Christian sovereign with the infidels oppressing the Greek land. The flexible eastern policy of Vasily III undoubtedly displeased Maxim the Greek; B. I. Dunaev’s considerations about the causes and direction of this discontent seem to us quite convincing. Based on two messages from Maxim the Greek to Vasily III in 1519 and 1521, as well as on his work of 1541 “A word of gratitude... about the former glorious victory over the Crimean dog...” 64, N. A. Kazakova proves that the discrepancy between the foreign policy views of Maxim the Greek and the real course of Eastern policy of Vasily III was small enough that he actively supported this politics in almost everything, and therefore the critical statements attributed to him at the council of 1531 about this policy are pure fiction, deliberate slander, which has no basis in reality 65. Unfair interpretation and biased selection of Maxim the Greek's statements about the foreign policy of Vasily III, combined with some dose of fiction by zealous witnesses, undoubtedly took place at the trial. However, they cannot be reduced to mere slanderous fiction. And Maxim’s reaction to these accusations is quite understandable and explainable. As a rule, at first he tries to deny them - perhaps not only out of caution, but also because in a tendentious broadcast, divorced from the context of the conversation, they looked too menacing and unrecognizable. But during the confrontation, after clarification, it sometimes turned out that there was some real content in these accusations, and Maxim admitted it /l. 342 – about the weak resistance of Vasily III to the Crimean Khan and about the enmity of the Turks towards all relatives of Thomas of Amore, including Vasily III/. There is nothing incredible in the fact that Maxim, in his official works, strongly supported any struggle of Russia with the infidels, Turkey and its vassals, proposed a more advantageous order of tasks in this struggle, called not to despair in the face of failures, and at the same time, in private conversations in his cell, sharply criticized the insufficient activity of this struggle and the illusory hopes of the Russian government for lasting peace and an alliance with Turkey. The dishonesty of the prosecution consisted in the desire to interpret these very free political conversations from the Moscow point of view as treasonous, pro-Turkish. Even the sharpest of these statements, bursting out under the influence of some specific irritation, do not at all make Maxim an “apologist of the power of the Sultan’s Turkey” 66. He emphasized the strength and, most importantly, the hostility of Turkey, the weakness of Russian resistance to it, but he did this not as a secret agent and supporter of Turkey, as the prosecution tried to portray, but as a convinced opponent of the Russian-Turkish alliance, confident in the disastrous nature of this alliance for both Greek and Russian interests, and independent enough to express his views with complete frankness, at least in a circle of friends. With particular clarity, this position of Maxim the Greek was expressed by him during one confrontation, when he explained his following words / the most incredible, according to N.A. Kazakova, in the mouth of Maxim the Greek /: “To be on that land of Rustei to the Tursky Saltan, since Saltan does not like the Tsaregorod kings from his birth, and the Great Prince Vasily is the grandson of Thomas of Amore.” Maxim admitted to uttering these words and explained: “Then I, sir, spoke nonsense so that the great prince would beware of him, since the Saltan of Tours does not love Tsaregrad’s relatives anywhere” /l. 342/. Too free, from the point of view of many, the conversations in Maxim the Greek's Miracle cell about the Grand Duke and his policies, his disagreement with the Russian-Turkish negotiations formed the real basis for Maxim's political accusations. Bias, slander, and the zeal of informers 67 and accusers made it possible to build a fairly extensive building on this basis. This also included rumors about the magic of the Greek philosopher, which he allegedly used against the Grand Duke / Maxim, who had repeatedly denounced magic and sorcery in his works, did not even consider it necessary to respond to this accusation /, and harsh words that escaped from Maxim addressed to the Grand Duke due to the fact that he would not let him go back to Athos 68. However, this building turned out to be quite shaky, its creators themselves felt it. The most serious accusations of secret relations with the Sultan and his pashas with the aim of seizing Russia by Turkey were categorically rejected by Maxim, and Metropolitan Daniel was unable to convincingly, with facts and documents, confirm the testimony of false witnesses entangled in contradictions. With other political accusations, not everything went smoothly either; Maxim explained many of his statements in a rather innocent way (compared to Daniel’s accusatory speech). And although what remained was, according to the views of that time, sufficient for condemnation, the spectacular political ending of the trial did not work out very well. And then the conciliar proceedings again turned to the already considered issue of Maxim’s objections to the procedure for the installation of Russian metropolitans. This was a very advantageous question for the prosecution: Maxim in 1531 did not even think of hiding his objections or repenting about this. Meanwhile, this point of view of Maxim, which contradicted the logic of the country’s national development, could not evoke sympathy. Maxim's canonical correctness, which later forced him to look for other ways to solve the problem of establishing the patriarchate in Russia, could not help Maxim in 1531. It was not difficult to present Maxim here as an enemy of Russia’s national interests, and Daniil skillfully used this opportunity. In accordance with the general tendency of the intensification of the political aspects of the prosecution towards the end of the trial, the second discussion of this issue differed from the first: it was precisely the political aspect of it that was emphasized. Maxim was reminded this time of all the harsh characteristics that he gave to the Metropolitan and the Grand Duke due to the fact that they “rejected the blessing of the Patriarch of Tsaregrad” by accepting the new order of appointing Moscow metropolitans, thereby “putting anathema on themselves” /l. 342 rpm The guilt of Maxim the Greek was presented in great detail and verbosely. This presentation unexpectedly ended with a new accusation, artificially tied without any transition to the previous one: Maxim praised Metropolitan Isidore, who signed the Union of Florence, saying that “he was a vulgar teacher of the truth, but he spoke much truth about the peasantry and preached in a pleasing and Orthodox manner the union of the truly Orthodox faith” / l. 342 rpm In all the famous works of Maxim the Greek, including his polemics, there is not a single word about the Union of Florence 69. He was undoubtedly a supporter of the unification of Christian churches, but under the auspices of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and in no way the Pope. One of the works of A. M. Kurbsky, written under the obvious influence of conversations with Maxim the Greek, is dedicated specifically to denouncing the Union of Florence from the point of view of Orthodoxy 70. However, there is nothing incredible in the fact that Isidore could arouse the sympathies of Maximus the Greek regardless of the latter’s assessment of the union - with his wide reading, knowledge of ancient writers, and friendship with Italian humanists. Unfortunately, the “judgment list” very briefly and unclearly sets out this entire episode, interspersed in the discussion at the council of a completely different issue. Maxim the Greek’s reaction to this accusation remains unknown: the “court list” provides only his answer to the main charge - regarding the condemnation of the order of the installation of Moscow metropolitans. Here Maxim remains true to his views: “But there ambassadors go to Tsargorod, and why shouldn’t the metropolitan go there for a blessing and to be installed as a metropolitan, as it used to be in the old days” /l. 343/. With this expression of Maxim’s sharp disagreement with the Russian order of appointing metropolitans, Daniel skillfully ended the discussion at the council of Maxim’s “wines.” This was followed by the already mentioned reading of “testimonies from the divine scriptures” on the three questions mentioned above. The “Judgment List” emphasizes that during the reading of these “testimonies” “Maxim and Vasyan were present right there at the council and with their like-minded people.” We see once again how the trials of Maxim the Greek and Vassian Patrikeev in 1531 were sometimes combined into a single court. In the words of the “judgment list” about this reading of the “testimonies” there is already a direct threat to the accused when it is said that the holy wonderworkers, who had villages near churches and monasteries, judged both the dependent and the free population, “the disorderly and disobedient were locked in prison for correction and salvation for their sake” /l. 343/. This threat is implemented immediately: the text of the verdict follows. It has been stated more than once above that the entry of the verdict in the “court list” /l. 343-v./ extremely contradictorily combines elements of the verdicts of 1525 and 1531. The text of the verdict is logically and grammatically connected with the previous presentation of the debates at the council of 1531; it concludes these debates, which is emphasized by the initial formula of the verdict: “And so with the entire holy council and with the Grand Duke Vasily, you condemn Archimandrite Maxim and Savu...”. And yet, the words immediately following the above refer to the verdict of 1525: “... and sent Maxim to the Joseph Monastery to Abbot Nifont and Elder Kasyan, Jonah, Gury and others.” In relation to all other accused, after the designation of the place of detention there follows a cliché formula about the regime of their detention: “keep in a great fortress is inevitable.” But when specifying the regime of Maxim’s detention, the sentence given in the “judgment list” directly refers to the letters of Metropolitan Daniel and Vasily III to the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery. The text of these letters, as indicated, is given immediately after the verdict; in the verdict itself the beginning of the first of them is quoted: “... and how strong was it for him to be there, having laid it out, written it. The blessing of Danil, Metropolitan of All Russia, and another letter from the Autocrat Grand Duke.” This close connection between the letters of 1535 that were in the possession of the compiler of the “judgment list” and his edition of the verdict is important for us to understand the glaring contradictions in the text of the verdict. The verdict further reports on the imprisonment of a number of other persons convicted along with Maxim the Greek: Archimandrite Savva, cell attendant Maxim Afanasy the Greek, Elder Vassian Rushanin, Elder Vassian the Horned Louse, Mikhail Medovartsev and Isaac the Dog. For each of them, it is necessary to find out whether the verdict in the wording of the “judgment list” refers to the decision of the council of 1525 or the council of 1531. Information gleaned both from the “judgment list” itself by Maxim the Greek and from other sources: the chronicler of the Pafnutyev Borovsky Monastery, “Extract on the second marriage of Vasily III” and sources related to this excerpt about the trial of Vasily III help to cope with this task. Maxim, Typographical Chronicle, “judgment list” of Vassian Patrikeev 71. The last scribe Isak Sobak mentioned in the verdict of the “judgment list” of Maxim the Greek was undoubtedly convicted for the first time by the cathedral court in 1531. From the “judgment lists” of Maxim the Greek and Vassian Patrikeev, as well as from the letter of Metropolitan Macarius dated November 9, 1548, it indisputably follows that Isak Sobak was accused only of the correspondence of the Helmsman of Vassian Patrikeev and the life of Theotokos by Simeon Metaphrastus, translated by Maximus the Greek. And both of these accusations arose only at the council of 1531: Isak the Dog copied both books for Vassian Patrikeev, who handed them over to the Grand Duke, where they were discovered in 1531. While Vassian was in power, such an accusation could not be brought against Isak the Dog: it was even more an accusation against Vassian. In addition, from the “judgment lists” of Vassian Patrikeev and Maxim the Greek, we know about the denunciation of Elder Vassian Rushanin to the Novgorod Archbishop Macarius about the “blasphemous lines” in the life of the Mother of God. V.S. Ikonnikov, as already mentioned, considers this denunciation the main formal reason for a new trial of Maxim in 1531; the denunciation was made in any case after March 4, 1526, when Macarius became the Novgorod archbishop, and, most likely, shortly before the council of 1531, at which the question of this life was first raised. Vassian Rushanin wrote his denunciation while still free. The inextricable connection between the trials of Maxim the Greek and Vassian Patrikeev at the council of 1531 is evidenced by the fact that the verdict also reports the conviction of the elder Vassian the Horned Louse, who had not previously been mentioned in the “judgment list” of Maxim the Greek! But he is known from the “judgment list” of Vassian Patrikeev in connection with the same trial of 1531 about the “blasphemous lines” in the life of the Virgin Mary: in a confrontation with Vassian Patrikeev, he confirmed his testimony about Vassian’s attempts to destroy the “blasphemous lines” in the copy of the life, sent by him to Beloozero, in the Nilova hermitage. His participation in the case of Vassian and Maxim undoubtedly dates back to 1531. We can confidently say, therefore, that the final lines of the sentence, referring to Isaac the Dog and the elders Vassian Rushanin and Vassian the Horned Louse, report the decisions of the council of 1531, and not the council of 1525. The same should be said about the sentences to Mikhail Medovartsev and Afanasy Grek. Mikhail Medovartsev, according to our source, was sent “to Kolomna to the ruler Vasyan in the courtyard to keep him in the fortress in Velikaya without origin.” The same fact is contained in the “Extract on the second marriage of Vasily III,” which speaks of the exile of “doctor-writer Mikhail Medovartsev to Kolomna”; the short story “Extract” about the trial of Maxim and Vassian does not distinguish between the councils of 1525 and 1531, but when presenting the council decision, only the verdict of 1531 is given here. As for Athanasius the Greek, the chronicler of Pafnutiev of the Borovsky Monastery reports the verdict passed on him in 1525, and this information from the chronicler differs from the information presented in the “judgment list” of Maxim the Greek: according to this latter, Athanasius was sent to prison not in the Pafnutiev Borovsky Monastery, but in the courtyard of the Metropolitan himself. Consequently, the verdict of the “judgment list” dates back to 1531. In addition to all the listed persons, the verdict of the “judgment list” of Maxim the Greek informs about the fate of one more accused: Archimandrite Savva the Greek, who is sent to prison in the Levkein Monastery /Volokolamsk/. Savva, archimandrite of the Spassky Monastery, was considered the most important /after Maxim the Greek/ of the persons accused by the church council of 1525. Both previously known sources reporting on the decisions of the council of 1525 /Typographic chronicle and the chronicler of Pafnutyev of the Borovsky Monastery/, characterize the entire church trial of 1525 as the trial of Maxim and Savva the Greeks, and The Borovsky chronicler even puts Savva ahead of Maxim / this chronicler’s article dedicated to the events of 1525 bears the characteristic title “About the Greeks”. In full accordance with this, the verdict of the “judgment list” of Maxim the Greek speaks of Savva together with Maxim. The very first line of the sentence states that the cathedral elders “condemned Archimandrite Maxim and Savu”; Immediately following these words, decisions regarding Maxim and Savva are given, which begin with the same formula: “and poslasha Maxim ...”, “And poslasha archimandrite Savva ...”. The formula for the decision regarding the other accused is somewhat different. This association of Maxim and Savva in the text of the verdict allows us to assume that for Savva, as well as for Maxim, the text of the decision of 1525, and not 1531, is given here. However, comparison with other sources shows that the compiler of the judgment list “apparently made a big inaccuracy here: The Typographical Chronicle and the Borovsky chronicler unanimously report that Savva was sent although to Volokolamsk, but not to Levkein, but to the Vozmishchensky Monastery. There can be no talk of the verdict of 1531 here: according to the “Extract on the second marriage of Vasily III” and all sources related to the “Extract” published by S. A. Belokurov, in 1531 Savva was sent to a completely different part of Russia - to the Vologda Zosimin Hermitage. This is the contradictory result that ends the “judgment list” of Maxim the Greek, which equally contradictorily combines in its text the materials of the councils of 1525 and 1531. Most of the information in the verdict relates, as we have seen, to the council of 1531. Only the initial part of this verdict belongs to the decisions of 1525, reporting about Maxim the Greek himself and, probably with considerable inaccuracies, about Savva the Greek. If we remember the close connection of the initial part of the verdict with the letters of 1525 about the trial of Maxim the Greek, then we can try to give the following explanation of all the above-mentioned oddities of the verdict that completes the “judgment list”. The compiler of the “judgment list” had at his disposal the original letters of 1525 and the original verdict of 1531; at the same time, this compiler knew about the traditional unification of charges against Maxim and Savva in 1525 into a single case of Maxim and Savva the Greeks (there are clear traces of this unification in the speech of Metropolitan Daniel at the council of 1531). Completing my “judgment list”, which also contains materials from the councils of 1525 and 1531. were mixed up, the compiler of this monument took the text of the decision of the council of 1531 as the basis for the verdict and combined it with the original correspondence of 1525 about Maximus the Greek. This forced him to bring the initial part of the sentence, dedicated to Maxim and Savva, into line with the letters of 1525, reporting Maxim’s imprisonment in Joseph-Volokolamsk, and not in the Tver Youth / as in 1531 / monastery. In relation to Maxim the Greek, this was done quite “successfully” 72. The compiler of the “judgment list” did not have precise documentary data about the fate of Sava in 1525 /unlike Maxim/; perhaps he was reconstructing this part of the decision of 1525 from memory, so he mistakenly named one Volokolamsk monastery instead of another. In conclusion, let us dwell on one more problem related to the verdict of 1531. Already E. E. Golubinsky spoke about the comparative leniency of the conciliar verdicts in the case of Maxim the Greek, which does not fit well with the severity of the political charges brought against him (treason, espionage, pitting Turkey against Russia). S. N. Chernov, who analyzed in detail the course of the 1531 trial, also emphasized “its relatively mild outcome for Maxim the Greek” and explained this by the fact that in 1531 the main figure for the organizers of the trial was Vassian Patrikeev, and the very escalation of the most serious political charges against Maxim the Greek was “almost only a means to the reprisal that the spiritual authorities were preparing to commit ... against Vassian.” V.S. Ikonnikov believed that the fate of Maxim the Greek in 1531 was “burdened” by deprivation of the sacrament, but he also emphasized that in Tver Maxim immediately found himself in much better conditions than in the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery 73 . A letter from Metropolitan Daniel dated May 24, 1525 proves that Maxim was deprived of communion by the council of 1525, so the leniency of the sentence of 1531 became even more obvious in comparison with the most serious charges that were discussed at it. It is known, however, that after the council of 1531 Maxim was put in shackles, but they were almost immediately removed at the request of the Tver ruler Akaki, under whose authority he was now transferred. Akakiy’s attitude towards Maxim the Greek was directly opposite to the torment to which he was subjected until 1531 in the nest of the “despicable Osiphlans” - the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery. Akakiy greatly respected Maxim’s great knowledge, resorted to his help in theological matters, and showed him signs of attention. As you know, Maxim worked a lot and fruitfully in Tver; many books and scribes gradually came into his possession. Now that we know more precisely what terrible regime of imprisonment was determined for him by the council of 1525, the contrast with the period after 1531 is even greater. Contrary to the objections of I.I. Smirnov, there is now no doubt that E.E. Golubinsky was right when he emphasized that the verdict of the council of 1531 contradicts the gravity of the political charges brought against Maxim the Greek. The sentence and letters of Metropolitan Daniel and Vasily III to the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery ends that part of the 39th chapter of the Siberian collection, which is dedicated to the councils of 1525 and 1531. Its second part reports on the events related to the preparation and holding of the council of 1549 against Isaac the Dog. It has a title that divides the 39th chapter of the Siberian collection in two: “A list from the cathedral list of His Grace Macarius, Metropolitan of All Russia, on the eruption and final excommunication from the priesthood of Isaac the Dog, the former archimandrite of Chudov.” In fact, however, the “conciliar list” of 1549 is preceded by: a message about the discovery of the “judgment list” of Maxim the Greek on November 2, 1548 in the royal treasury, correspondence on this matter between Metropolitan Macarius and the former Metropolitan Joasaph, a message about the report to the king on the case of Isaac the Dog and the convening of a council on it. Isaac the Dog was a famous copyist of books. E. V. Zatsepina, in her study on the origins of early printed ornaments, analyzes in detail the decoration of two books he copied - the Gospel of the Teaching /1524/ and the Apostle Aprakos /30s-40s of the 16th century/; she especially emphasizes the closeness of Isak, whom she considers one of the creators of early printed patterns, to the circle of Maxim the Greek. On one of the sheets of the famous monument of the early early printed style - the Gospel Tetras / 1531 /, written by Isak Birev, there is an entry that gives some opportunities for identifying both calligraphers: “In the year 7039, the book of the holy gospel is a letter from the sinful monk Isaac Birev, through the sinful fault of many names he called the call. Excuse me in non-exclusion 74. Amen". E. V. Zatsepina believes that the strange repentant tone of this entry may indicate that Isak Birev considered himself compromised by participating as a scribe in the works of Maxim the Greek. E.V. Zatsepina therefore expressed this in conversations with M.V. Shchepkina suggests that among the nicknames with which Isak Birev was called “through a sinful fault,” there was also the nickname Dog. However, in the mentioned study, E.V. Zatsepina analyzes the stylistic differences between the ornamentation of the Gospel of 1531 by Isak Birev and the decorations of books written by Isak Sobaka 75 . As we have seen, Isak Sobaka was /contrary to the opinion of E.V. Zatsepina/ one of the accused at the trial of 1531. However, the sources we have indicate a very insignificant role that he played during the trial of Vassian Patrikeev and Maxim the Greek. In response to a question from Metropolitan Daniel, Maxim confirmed that he was translating the life of the Mother of God by Simeon Metaphrast, and added: “And Isak the Dog copied that life to Prince Vasyan the elder, and the rules of the Vasyanovs. And Vasyan gave that life and rule of Isakov Sobakin letters to the Grand Duke, and now that life and rule are with the Grand Duke in the treasury” /l. 330 rpm The life was found in the grand ducal treasury and appeared as material evidence at the council, since the “blasphemous lines” in it were not corrected. However, the “judgment list” of Maxim the Greek says nothing about any participation of Isak Sobaka himself in the conciliar proceedings; his name is then mentioned only in the verdict. There is no doubt that in November 1548, Metropolitan Macarius also did not have any additional information about the role of Isaac at the council of 1531. /for example, from original court records/, otherwise he would definitely have used them. Apparently, Isaac was indeed a rather inconspicuous figure at the 1531 trial of Maxim the Greek. The “Judgment List” of Vassian Patrikeev at the same council in 1531 contains another mention of Isaac the Dog. When Metropolitan Daniel accused Vassian of distorting the text of the Creed in his Helmsman, Vassian responded to this: “I don’t know, Isaac the Dog wrote it and Isaac ruled, and you ask him.” 76 However, the source did not preserve any mention of the interrogation of Isak the Dog in this regard or of his confrontation with Vassian. Isaac was clearly considered by the council only as a simple scribe, not involved in editing the text. This did not prevent him, however, from being excommunicated by the cathedral along with the other accused in the case of Maxim and Vassian and sent to prison in the Novgorod Yuryev Monastery. As stated above, one of the indications that the “judgment list” of Maximus the Greek is not the original protocols of the councils, but their processing, is the insertion at the end of the verdict: “And after that, blasphemous speeches arose against the same Isaac the Dog, and condemned him at the council, and he was quickly sent to the metropolitan monastery on Volosovo, to keep him in the great fortress forever” /l. 343 rpm We have no information about this second council on Isak Sobak. If it really took place 77, then it should have sat somewhere in 1531–1539, before the installation of Joasaph as metropolitan, which dramatically changed the fate of Isaac the Dog for the better. The new metropolitan, Daniel’s opponent, was close to non-covetous people, and even in the formula for his installation on the metropolitan throne he emphasized a certain respect for the views of Maximus the Greek on the procedure for installing Russian metropolitans. As the former abbot of the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery Nifont reported at the council in 1549, Metropolitan Joasaph wrote to the former metropolitan Daniel: “Write to me that Isaac’s heresy” /l. 354 rpm When Daniel refused to assist in this preparation for the justification of Isaac the Dog, Metropolitan Joasaph decided with his authority, neglecting the cathedral excommunication, to appoint Isaac the Dog first as a deacon, then as a priest and, finally, as an archimandrite of the Simonov Monastery. This rapid and brilliant progress continued, as mentioned above, in the first years of the reign of Metropolitan Macarius, who somewhere between 1545-1548. made Isak the Dog the head of the Metropolitan Chudov Monastery in the Moscow Kremlin, where Isak the Dog once worked as a copyist for Maxim the Greek. The last sections of the 39th chapter of the Siberian Collection indicate a sharp change in Macarius’s attitude towards Isaac the Dog in 1548. The reasons for the change are not known to us, and its consequences are outlined in detail in the Siberian Manuscript. According to the report on the discovery of the “judgment list” of Maxim the Greek on November 2, 1548, it was this that was the reason for the turning point in Macarius’s attitude towards Isaac the Dog; Macarius also supports this version in his correspondence with Joasaph. Considering the problems of dating the “judgment list” of Maxim the Greek, we have already spoken about the inconsistency of this version, and therefore we will not now dwell in detail again on the reports of the find on November 2, 1548 and the correspondence of Macarius. Let us only recall that these sections of the monument closely link together the first part of the 39th chapter, dedicated to the councils of 1525 and 1531, with the “judgment list” of the council of 1549 on Isaac the Dog. They contain a number of new historical facts about the approach to the trial of Maximus the Greek in 1548–1549, about Isaac the Dog and about the relationship between Macarius and Joasaph. In his letter dated November 9, 1548, Macarius describes in some detail to Joasaph the “judgment list” of Maximus the Greek, allegedly just “found” in the royal treasury. Of course, he is primarily interested in those few sections of the “judgment list” that are in one way or another connected with Isaac the Dog; but he informs Joasaph about some other sections of this monument. However, he does not mention the most acute and important political accusations in 1531 at all, as if they never happened! This is an important indicator of the attitude of Metropolitan Macarius at that time both to the political accusations of the council of 1531 and to Maxim the Greek himself. Macarius's letter of November 9, 1548 is filled with cliched polite expressions of respect for the former metropolitan, but a threat is already felt in it: Macarius directly asks Joasaph what legal grounds he had for the ordination of the excommunicated Isaac the Dog, and emphasizes the strictness of the canonical rules on this issue. Joasaph’s attempt to put forward some letter from the former Metropolitan Daniel as such a legal basis was unsuccessful, and the correspondence ended in cold and even hostile tones. As we said; Our source, under the general heading “list from the cathedral list” of 1549, contains the entire complex of materials related to the case of Isaac the Dog in 1548–1549. That text, which plays the role of the actual “conciliar list” of the council of February 1549 on Isaac the Dog, comes last in this complex and is even outwardly inextricably linked with the previous part of this complex: a message about the discussion of the results of the correspondence between Macarius and Joasaph in a narrow circle of the highest church hierarchs 78 and about the report to the king, who transferred the decision of this matter to the discretion of the church: “Then it is your business, hierarchs, and you handle this matter according to the divine rule.” It would be natural to assume that after these words the source will report on the date of convening the council, its composition, and the progress of the council proceedings. However, this information is given by our source much later, in disarray and not always completely. And immediately following the king’s words, contrary to the logic of any official “judgment list,” our source cites the council’s decision on the excommunication and “final eruption” of Isaac the Dog. Then follows the most extensive part of this extremely peculiar “conciliar list” - the “election from the sacred and divine rules”, on the basis of which the conciliar decision was made. Only after this is a lengthy explanation given of the reasons for the condemnation of Isak the Dog, which also includes some materials from the conciliar proceedings. In conclusion, information is given about the date, place of the meeting of the council and its composition. The last phrase of the monument unexpectedly returns to the decision of the council, conveying an important detail of the verdict: the place of Isak the Dog’s new imprisonment. The condemnation of Isaac the Dog in 1549 was, of course, an event of much smaller scale and significance than the cathedral courts of 1525 and 1531. It is possible that the conciliar proceedings themselves were much shorter. But even taking this into account, one cannot help but notice the extreme bias of the compiler of this “conciliar list” of 1549, who, while retaining the charges brought against Isak the Dog, cites only one phrase that allows us to judge the line of conduct of the accused himself at the council. The tendentious journalistic nature of the news about the cathedral of 1549 places this monument much further from the official cathedral protocols than even the “judgment list” of Maxim the Greek. At the same time, it was compiled with some regard for the first part of the 39th chapter of the Siberian Collection and, undoubtedly, following the living traces of the events of February 1549, when the question of the fate of the Chudov Archimandrite was still burning - the subsequent stormy cataclysms of the reign of Ivan IV would soon make him forgotten; It is not for nothing that none of the sources of the 16th century that have reached us, except for the one under consideration, says a word about the trial of Isaac the Dog in 1549. It is possible that, for all its journalistic nature, the “conciliar list” of the court of 1549 was the only source of official information about the trial of Isaac the Dog and was created precisely for a similar purpose. The published texts contain new material on the history of the relationship between Macarius and Joasaph in 1548–1549. The correspondence between them about the case of Isak the Dog ended in rather harsh tones. In the “conciliar list” of 1549 itself, a number of points indicate that the cathedral court of 1549 was directed not only against Isaac, but to some extent also against Joasaph, who patronized him. Already in the “election from the holy and divine rules,” these rules are selected in such a way that they testify to the equal responsibility of both the excommunicated person who “dared to take the priesthood” and the hierarch who ordained him to the priesthood without lifting the excommunication. The skillful use of canon law created the threat of excommunication over Joasaph. Regardless of the reality and expediency of applying such sanctions against the already eliminated metropolitan, Macarius considered it necessary for the high authority of the council to confirm the guilt of not only Isaac, but also the former metropolitan. No matter how concisely our source describes the course of the council proceedings, he devotes considerable attention to the refutation of one statement by Joasaph at the council. Responding in his letter to Macarius, Joasaph argued that, in appointing Isaac to deacon and priest, he was based on some kind of letter from the already deposed Metropolitan Daniel on this issue, which should be kept in the metropolitan treasury. Macarius did not find this letter, and Joasaph, citing the length of time, refused to reveal its contents. The Council specifically dealt with the question of whether Daniel wrote any letter from the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery to Metropolitan Joasaph, which served as the basis for the installation of Isaac the Dog. At the council, written testimony from the former abbot of the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery Niphon, dated February 19, 1549, was submitted, refuting this statement of Joasaph: Daniel refused to give Joasaph any information about the “Isaac heresy” and sharply condemned Joasaph’s further actions in this matter. Our monument gives the text of these testimonies in full. The only phrase that has come down to us from Isak the Dog, spoken by him at the trial, testifies to the proud and independent behavior of the Chudov archimandrite in the face of the cathedral court: “Yaz dei to Daniel to the former metropolitan did not send a blow about himself, and I don’t care about him, you never know what he writes, he knows, and I didn’t beat Jasaph de metropolitan about that And with his forehead, so that he would send about me to Daniel, then Jasaf knows” /l. 354 rpm This proud phrase is not without intention included in our “conciliar list”: it should not only emphasize that Isaac is unworthy of forgiveness, but also especially emphasizes the uncanonical behavior of Joasaph, who appointed a heretic to the priesthood, who did not even intend to ask for forgiveness, to seek the lifting of the conciliar excommunication. At the same time, it was recorded that Joasaph’s demarche to Daniel regarding Isaac the Dog was undertaken on Joasaph’s own initiative, and Isaac did not even ask for it. Without returning here to the problem of the relationship between Macarius and Maxim the Greek at this time (we touched on it when talking about the dating of the “judgment list” of Maxim the Greek), we will only recall the amazing skill with which Metropolitan Macarius was able to conduct the cathedral trial of 1549, without at all touching on the complex issue of Maxim the Greek himself. The “Council List” of 1549, which concludes the 39th chapter of the Siberian Collection, is sharply hostile to Isaac and Joasaph, but does not mention either the name of Maxim or the essence of the “Isaac heresy” at all; As we said, only the purely formal question of placing a heretic is being considered. This is an interesting new touch to the ideological and political situation of that time. This exhausts the few information about the course of the conciliar proceedings in February 1549 that our monument provides. The result of the proceedings was the “excommunication and final eruption” of Isak the Dog and his exile to Beloozero, to the Nilova Hermitage. The exact date of the church council of 1549 is of interest to researchers also because the church council of 1549 immediately preceded the famous Zemsky Council of 1549; the date indicated in the chronograph is clearly erroneous /29 and even 30 February of the common year 1549!/, which gave rise to controversy regarding the true date of the cathedral. Our source convincingly confirms the point of view of S. O. Schmidt that the meetings of the council took place in the second half of February 1549 79. As early as February 19, 1549, the issue of Isaac the Dog was considered by the bishops without a council, and the council’s decision on the same issue dates back to February 24, 1549. The list of participants in the church council of February 1549 is also interesting for historians, who can now more accurately judge the usual composition of this body in the 16th century. Analysis of this composition confirms the dating given in our “conciliar list”: Simon’s Archimandrite Tryphon is also mentioned here, who on March 10, 1549 will be appointed Bishop of Suzdal 80 . An important new fact is the absence at the church council of the Annunciation Archpriest Sylvester, the royal confessor, one of the most influential leaders of the government of the “Chosen Rada”. Apparently, the relationship of this government with Metropolitan Macarius already in 1549 was not clear-cut; As you know, quite soon, at the Council of the Stoglavy in 1551, within the framework of the union of church and state, quite sharp contradictions between Ivan IV and Metropolitan Macarius were revealed - on the issue of church land ownership and on other problems. However, we have no reason to assert that in February 1549 Ivan IV and his government did not approve of the behavior of Metropolitan Macarius in the case of Isaac the Dog. The Tsar not only left the consideration of this issue to the church, but later in his message to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery he mentioned Isaac the Dog among the careless and undemanding shepherds of the Chudov Monastery 81; Apparently, Isaac the Dog managed to displease not only the Metropolitan, but also the Tsar. The nature of the monument, which entered scientific circulation under the name “The Judgment List of Maxim the Greek, or “The Debate of Metropolitan Daniel with Maxim the Greek,” has long been controversial. After the mechanical confusion of the leaves of the Pogodinsky collection was discovered, as a result of which several extraneous sheets were included in the text of the monument when it was published by O. N. Bodyansky, the attention of researchers focused on various omissions and defects that were easily discerned in the presentation of the course of the councils of 1525 and 1531. At the same time, both the absence of the entire final part of the cathedral copy of 1531 and significant gaps in the story about the cathedral of 1525 began to be perceived as phenomena of the same order, indicating mechanical losses of the text at various stages of its existence. Then attention was drawn to the fact that some places in the monument (for example, the indictment of Metropolitan Daniel) bear undoubted traces of later revision, which gave rise to a number of initially missing inconsistencies and contradictions. The development of observations on the incompleteness and inconsistency of the description of the trial of Maxim the Greek prompted the idea that this monument is not at all, as the headings of the Pogodinsky and Barsovsky lists claim, genuine “judgment lists,” that is, protocols of the cathedral trials of 1525 to 1531. E. Golubinsky therefore believed that these were someone’s private notes about the trial (perhaps from Metropolitan Daniel himself), which were by no means of an official nature. N.A. Kazakova, analyzing the previously known part of the monument, convincingly proved that it does not have important features of court lists of the 16th century. and is a literary and journalistic reworking of the official court records. However, the absence of the end of the monument in the Pogodinsky and Barsovsky lists forced N.A. Kazakova to continue to believe that the monument is replete with mechanical defects, “omissions and breaks”, and actually consists of two “passages” / about the cathedrals of 1525 and 1531 / 82. The introduction into scientific circulation of the entire complex of the 39th chapter of the Siberian collection most decisively confirms the conclusion of N. A. Kazakova about the journalistic nature of the monument and allows us to develop and clarify this conclusion. The processing of the original protocols of the cathedrals under the pen of the author of “The Debate of Metropolitan Daniel with Maxim the Greek” was reflected, in particular, in the inclusion in the text of this monument of not all materials from the proceedings, especially on the cathedral of 1525. Regardless of how fair the hypothetical assumption we made above about the possibility of constructing the story of our monument about the cathedral of 1525 from the cathedral protocols alone is 1531 and letters of 1525, it should in any case be recognized that the text of the Pogodinsky and Barsovsky lists had only one mechanical omission, a break - the same one that ended the previously known text of the monument /we do not mean here, of course, minor errors/. All other “omissions and breaks” in the text are not defects that distorted the original text of the Debate, but, on the contrary, characteristic features of the original text. The letter of Metropolitan Macarius to Joasaph dated November 6, 1548 undoubtedly proves this for the materials of the cathedral of 1525. In 1548, the materials in the monument already had the incomplete form known to us. Another distinctive feature of this work of the 16th century. is the extraordinary unity of materials from the processes of 1525 and 1531. into a single “court list” with one sentence. The unity is not an accidental inaccuracy of the monument, but its characteristic feature, which, moreover, is more clearly expressed in the more ancient Siberian list than in the lists of the 17th-18th centuries. This feature of the monument makes attempts to separate the charges brought against Maxim the Greek in 1525 and 1531 extremely difficult and unreliable. based on information from the joint “court list”. The unity is especially clearly manifested in the single verdict that completes the presentation of the events that took place at both councils. The unexpectedness and unjustification of the abrupt transition to the verdict of 1525 as the result of the proceedings of 1531, the absurd confusion within the framework of one document of different decisions of both councils show how closely and illogically the materials of 1525 and 1531 are intertwined here. and how difficult it is to build any logical systems for dismembering them. But since the skepticism already expressed in the scientific literature in this regard now seems even more justified than before. Some help is provided only by an important document placed after the verdict - a letter from Metropolitan Daniel, dated May 24, 1525, to the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery about the trial of Maxim the Greek. If it does not make it possible to list all the accusations of 1525, then at least with documentary reliability it allows us to highlight the main ones. Notable is the close connection with which Daniel’s letter (like the letter of Vasily III) is included in the text of the verdict and combined with the “judgment list.” At the same time, the sentence, as an integral part, includes lines about the secondary, after 1531, conviction of Isak the Dog. Such a break in the chronological unity necessary for the conciliar document is done, in particular, for the sake of a closer semantic unification of the entire complex of materials in the 39th chapter of the Siberian collection: the phrase about the secondary condemnation of Isak the Dog is a transition to the second part of the complex - the “conciliar list” on Isak the Dog. Several connecting texts also serve the same purpose of combining different materials about the cathedrals of Maxim the Greek and Isak Sobak into a single journalistic work. Externally, Chapter 39 consists of two “council lists” – 1525–1531 and 1549. Each of them includes, however, sections that should not have been in the original “judgment lists,” but which give a journalistic focus to all the materials in the chapter. In the first part, this is a general introduction, well analyzed by N.A. Kazakova, postulating the heretical views of Maxim the Greek, and stories about the convening of the councils of 1525 and 1531. In the second part, this is an extremely tendentious message about the “acquisition” in 1548 of the “judgment list” of 1525–1531. and stories about the report to the king on the case of Isaac the Dog and about the convening of a council on it. The last phrase of the monument, which informs about Isak’s conviction and exile to Beloozero, also has a narrative, rather than protocol, character. Under the general title of the list “from the cathedral list” “about the eruption and final excommunication of Isaac the Dog from the priesthood,” the second part of the monument brings together very heterogeneous materials that are far from the official court records. And even the text that directly relates to the sessions of the council of 1549, although it reflects some important moments of the council proceedings, least of all resembles the form of the “judgment list”. In the order of presentation of the trial of Isaac the Dog, there is no elementary logic required for an official conciliar document. At the same time, many important components of such an official document are present here, although they are presented in a disorderly manner. It is quite possible that this story about the council of 1549 was intended to fulfill the functions of such a conciliar document. As for the “judgment list” of the councils of 1525 and 1531, this monument was undoubtedly created as a kind of functional substitute for the original council protocols, was called upon to fulfill their role and actually fulfilled it, at least in the situation of 1548–1549. Thus, we have before us a special type of source, which extremely widely uses original documents about the councils of 1525, 1531 and 1549 (protocols, correspondence), subjecting them to literary and journalistic processing and sometimes playing their role. The reader of the 20th century, also forced to use this “judgment list” instead of the original minutes of the councils, should not forget about the specifics of the source - not only about its bias, but also about its desire to merge together the story of events of different times. Already the first reports about this discovery - the article by N. N. Pokrovsky “The Siberian Find / New about Maxim the Greek /" /" Questions of History ", 1969, No. 11 /, a report to the Archaeographic Commission / see "Archaeographic Yearbook for 1969. M., 1971, p. 328 / etc. - aroused keen interest of scientists. These materials are with the permission of N.P. Pokrovsky - were used in the latest research - in the book by N. A. Kazakova “Essays on the history of Russian social thought. The first third of the 16th century / L., 1970 /, in the article by S. O. Schmidt “New about the Tuchkovs / Tuchkovs, Maxim Grek, Kurbsky /” / in the collection of articles in memory of B. A. Romanov “Research on the socio-political history of Russia,” L., 1971/. Thus, in the letter of Metropolitan Macarius, also included in the Siberian collection, there is confirmation of the seemingly strange dating of V.N. Tatishchev’s beginning of the reform to centralize the cult of local Russian saints in 1543. /N.N. Pokrovsky cited these data in his article in “Questions of History”/. In the previously known lists of letters, it dates back to 1547, and the actual validity of the dating of the Siberian collection needs serious verification /in the handwritten copy of the end of the 16th century an erroneous date could have been indicated, different from the date of the original manuscript/, but these data themselves confirm that Tatishchev, processing the material for his “Russian History from Ancient Times,” relied on some primary sources, and the researcher’s task is to identify these sources, determine their scientific value before trying to refute them as obviously unreliable, etc. “dubious news” of Tatishchev. For more details, see the article by V. N. Alekseev, E. I. Dergacheva-Skop, N. N. Pokrovsky, E. K. Romodanovskaya “On archaeographic expeditions of the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1965–1967.” // “Archaeographic Yearbook for 1968”. M., 1970/. See also “Tikhomir readings of 1970. Materials of a scientific conference dedicated to the experience of organizing archaeographic expeditions in the RSFSR "/M., 1970/ - abstracts of the report by N. N. Pokrovsky, speeches by E. I. Dergacheva-Skop, N. V. Ponyrko and others. State Public Scientific Library of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Department of Manuscript and Rare Books. Quiet. No. 4. M. I. Tikhomirov. Description of the Tikhomirovsky collection of manuscripts. M., 1968, p. 12. N. N. Rozov suggested in a conversation with us that this is due to the different functional meaning of cursive and semi-character: unlike the rest of the Collection, the 39th chapter is given the form of a business letter. Life of Alexander Nevsky, ed. V. Mansikka. St. Petersburg, 1913, pp. 49–124. Ibid., pp. 49, 164, 199–200. Information about this is available in records on books written at the behest of Jonah Dumin: State Historical Museum, Uvar. No. 309, pp. 4–17; State Public Library for Science and Technology, Quiet. No. 4. State Historical Museum, Uvar. No. 309, pp. 4–17. GBL, Egor. No. 869; State Historical Museum, Uvar. No. 310. N. A. Kazakova. The question of the reasons for the condemnation of Maxim the Greek, Byzantine temporary book, vol. XXVIII. M., 1968, p.116. A. A. Heraclitov. Filigree of the 17th century, on paper of handwritten and printed documents of Russian origin. M., 1963, p.22. W. A. ​​Churchill. Watermarks In paper in Holland, England, France etc. in the XVII and XVIII centuries and tneir interconnection. Amsterdam, 1935. S. N. Chernov. On the scientific disagreements about the trial of Maxim the Greek. A collection of articles on Russian history dedicated to S. F. Platonov. Pg., 1922, pp. 59–60. An unsuccessful attempt to clarify this dark place is made by V. S. Ikonnikov in the book: “Maxim the Greek and his time.” Kiev, 1915, pp. 484–485. N. A. Kazakova. Question about the reasons for the conviction of Maxim the Greek. Byzantine temporary book, T. XXIX. M., 1969, p. 112. This punctuation was proposed by I. I. Smirnov, who most correctly explained the meaning of this defective text. – I. I. Smirnov. On the issue of the trial of Maxim the Greek. "Questions of History", 1946, No. 2–3, p. 123. S. N. Chernov. Decree. cit., p. 59. V. S. Ikonnikov. Maxim the Greek and his time. Kyiv, 1919, pp. 487–488; E. Denissoff. Maxim le Grec et ÍOccident. Contribution a l'historie de la pensee religieuse et philosopgique de Michel Trivolis. Paris – Louvain, 1943, p. 355. N. A. Kazakova. About the “judgment list” of Maxim the Greek. Archaeographic Yearbook for 1966. M., 1968, p. 27. These words are placed in the Barsovsky list more often and somewhat more consistently than in the Pogodinsky list, although sometimes at random. 130-rev./. See the discrepancy in paragraph 7 above. On the contradictions between the authentic council protocols and the “judgment list”, see S. N. Chernov. To the learned disagreements about the trial of Maximus the Greek:.. pp. 63–67; N. A. Kazakova. About the “judgment list” of Maxim the Greek... pp. 31–35. The court case of Vassian Patrikeev. In the book: N. A. Kazakova. Vassian Patrikeev and his works. M.-L., 1960, p. 295. These accusations even go beyond the scope of the council of 1531, for the text of the verdict of this council unexpectedly reports the condemnation of Isak for blasphemy by another council, after 1531 /l. 343 rpm Messages of Ivan the Terrible. Ed. V. P. Adrianova-Peretz, M.-L., 1951, pp. 172–173; P. M. Stroev. Lists of hierarchs and abbots of monasteries of the Russian Church. St. Petersburg, 1877, p.162. N. A. Kazakova. About the “judgment list” of Maxim the Greek... p. 32. Siberian list of the “court case”, l. 354 rev.–355. Works of St. Maximus the Greek, part II. Kazan, 1860, pp. 346–357, 376–379. V. S. Ikonnikov. Decree. cit., p. 509. Siberian list, l. 344; PSRL, vol. XXIV, p. 22. We do not refer here to the accusatory speech of Metropolitan Daniel and to the so-called “re-interrogation” of Dosifei at the council of 1531, since the unreliability of the information reported in them regarding the scope of the charges of 1525 has long been noticed. The full text of the “judgment list” gives new grounds for this skepticism - several new episodes of this “re-examination”, undoubtedly, refer only to 1531, although, according to the literal meaning of the source, the “re-examination” of 1531 only repeated the accusations of 1525. The court case of Vassian Patrikeev ... pp. 287–292. Inventory of the Tsar's archive of the 16th century. and the archive of the Ambassadorial Prikaz of 1614. Ed. S. O. Schmidt. M., 1960, pp. 20, 48; Acts collected in the libraries and archives of the Russian Empire by the Archaeographic Expedition of the Academy of Sciences, vol. 1. St. Petersburg, 1836, pp. 144–145. /Hereinafter AAE/. Even S.N. Chernov believed that the “judgment list” was based on some materials from the archives of the Ambassadorial Prikaz /S. N. Chernov. Decree. cit., p. 55/. N. A. Kazakova. Vassian Patrikeev ... pp. 71–72. This long-known and very clear statement by Medovartsev about the power of Vassian was somehow forgotten after 1525 when studying the question of the time of Vassian’s fall. S. N. Chernov. Decree. cit., pp. 59–71. Readings at the Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University. M., 1847, No. 8, p. 4. /Hereinafter CHOIDR/; S. A. Belokurov. About the library of the Moscow sovereigns in the 16th century. M., 1899, pp. LIX-LX, LXV, CCL. The opinion that there were no accusations of non-covetousness at the council of 1525 was repeatedly expressed earlier by A. A. Zimin. AAE, vol. 1, no. 172, pp. 142–145; S. N. Chernov. Notes on the investigation into the case of Maxim Grek. Sat. articles for the 40th anniversary of the scientist. acad. A. S. Orlova. L., 1934, pp. 465–47 4. Complete collection of Russian chronicles /PSRL/, vol. XXIV, p. 222. M. N. Tikhomirov. A new monument of Moscow political literature of the 16th century. Sat. “The Moscow region in its past”, part 2. M., 1930, p. 112. We completely agree with N.A. Kazakova, who emphasizes the extreme political bias of this source /N. A. Kazakova. Question about the reasons for the conviction of Maxim the Greek. Byzantine temporary book, vol. XXIX. M., 1969, pp. 116–119/. However, this bias does not reduce the reliability of the chronicler’s report about the separate investigation of political and church charges in 1525. B. I. Dunaev. Maxim the Greek and the Greek idea in Rus' in the 16th century. M., 1916, pp. 28–29. I. I. Smirnov, based on an analysis of reports from sources about the long (from December 1524 to May 1525/) and stage-by-stage nature of the investigation and trial, makes a tempting assumption that the church accusations against Maxim were examined in April-May by the council, which met in the metropolitan chambers, and political accusations were brought forward before the council, which met at the beginning of 1525 in the grand ducal chambers. wards Although the “judgment list” indeed speaks of meetings of the council first in the grand ducal chambers, and then / in April-May / in the metropolitan chambers, but, as S.I. Chernov pointed out, we are talking about the same church council, which met first in the presence of the grand duke, and then without him. The Typographical Chronicle also speaks of a church council with the participation of the Grand Duke, and according to both sources it is absolutely unclear what the relationship between the proceedings at this council and the investigation of political charges is. The Borovsk Chronicle, as we said, sharply separates one from the other. In addition, it is difficult to combine the atmosphere of the strictest secrecy of a political trial with the atmosphere of a church council, as I. I. Smirnov / I. writes on the basis of Herberstein’s news. I. Smirnov. On the issue of the trial of Maxim the Greek. “Questions of History”, 1946, No. 2–3, pp. 118–126/. V.S. Ikonnikov believes that it was inconvenient to openly judge Maxim in 1525 for his connections with Skinder and that they preferred to condemn him therefore for mistakes in correcting books /V. S. Ikonnikov. Decree. cit., p. 476/. Epistles of Joseph Volotsky. M.-L., 1959, pp. 239–240; V. S. Ikonnikov. Decree. cit., pp. 477, 495, 542. Works of St. Maximus the Greek, vol. III. Kazan, 1862, p. 61; B. S. Ikonnikov. Decree. cit., p. 509. E. E. Golubinsky, on the contrary, correctly believed that Maxim the Greek was deprived of the sacrament in 1525 /E. E. Golubinsky. History of the Russian Church, vol. II, 1st half, M., 1900, pp. 816–817/. See review of these data: V. S. Ikonnikov. Decree. cit., pp. 477–478. Works of St. Maxim the Greek, vol. I. Kazan, 1859, pp. 23–39; Vol. II. Kazan, 1860, pp. 365–367, 369–371, 376–379, 383; Vol. III. Kazan, 1862, pp. 60–79. E. E. Golubinsky. Decree. cit., pp. 712–725; S. N. Chernov, Decree. cit., p.473; V. F. Rzhiga. Maxim Grek as a publicist. Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature of the Institute of Russian Literature /Pushkin House/ USSR Academy of Sciences /hereinafter TODL/, vol. I. L., 1934, pp. 91–95; I. U. Budovnits. Russian journalism of the 16th century. M., 1947, pp. 140–144; N. A. Kazakova. Question about the reasons for the conviction of Makim the Greek. Byzantine temporary book, vol. XXVIII. M., 1968, pp. 109–126; t. XXIX, M., 1969, pp. 107–134. B. I. Dunaev. Maxim the Greek and the Greek idea in Rus' in the 16th century. M., 1916; I. I. Smirnov. Op.cit., pp. 121–126; I. B. Grekov. Essays on the history of international relations in Eastern Europe in the XIV-XVI centuries. M., 1963, ref. 283–287. See N.A. Kazakova about this. Decree. Op. Byzantine temporary book, vol. XXVIII, p. 110. Works of St. Maximus the Greek... vol. III, pp. 154–164. S. N. Chernov. Notes on the investigation into the case of Maxim the Greek ... page 473. The court case of Vassian Patrikeev ... p. 287; Siberian list, l. 338. The official apologetic life of Paphnutius was written by the brother of Joseph Volotsky, Vassian Sanin, / V. O. Klyuchevsky. Old Russian lives of saints as a historical source. M., 1871, pp. 204–207/. Paphnutius was canonized on May 1, 1531 /V. S. Ikonnikov. Decree. cit., p. 470/. The court case of Vassian Patrikeev ... pp. 297–298. The prosecution in 1531, undoubtedly, was not aware of Maxim the Greek’s essay “On Mount Athos and the monasteries there,” where he claims that the Athos monasteries “have no estates, and by their labors they feed and clothe themselves, they have no village, only grapes and a garden.” Therefore, it is hardly true that A. Ivanov, who introduced this work into scientific circulation, states that it was created before 1525 /A. I. Ivanov. On the question of the non-acquisitive views of Maxim the Greek. Byzantine temporary book, vol. XXIX. M., 1969, p. 141/. Inventory of the Tsar's archive of the 16th century... pp. 20, 25; B. I. Dunaev. Decree. cit., p. 16; I. I. Smirnov. Decree. cit., p.124; N. A. Kazakova. Question about the reasons for the conviction of Maxim the Greek. Byzantine temporary book, vol. XXIX, M., 1969, pp. 113–114. Let us note, by the way, that we are talking here about the land acts of the Byzantine emperors, and not about the charters to Mount Athos of the Russian sovereigns, as V.S. Ikonnikov mistakenly believed / decree. cit., p. 471/. V. S. Ikonnikov. Decree. cit., pp. 123–124. Works of St. Maximus the Greek ... part III, pp. 194–205; V. S. Ikonnikov. Decree. cit., pp. 560–573; B. I. Dunaev. Works of Savonarola and Maxim the Greek. "Antiquities". Proceedings of the Slavic Commission of the Moscow Archaeological Society, vol. IV. Issue 1. M., 1907, pp. 56–58; A. I. Ivanov. Maxim Greek and Savonarola. TODRL, vol. XXIII. L., 1968, pp. 217–226; A. I. Ivanov. To the question about the non-covetous views of Maxim the Greek. Byzantine temporary book, vol. XXIX. M., 1969, pp. 136–138. B. S. Ikonnikov. Decree. cit., pp. 197–211. In particular, in accusing Maxim the Greek of witchcraft. It is also striking that Maxim, for example, unlike Vassian, was accused of condemning not only monastic, but also church land ownership, although Maxim did not object to land ownership of parish churches, in which he disagreed with Vassian /N. A. Kazakova. The question of the reasons for the conviction ... pp. 130–131/. S.I. Chernov. Towards learned disagreements... p. 69. B. I. Dunaev. Decree. cit., p. 32; I. I. Smirnov. Op.cit., p. 124; V. S. Ikonnikov. Op.cit., pp. 481–482. For a review of them, see V. S. Ikonnikov. Decree. cit., pp. 495–497. See also M. N. Tikhomirov. Decree. cit., p. 112. I. I. Smirnov. Decree. cit., pp. 120–123; N. A. Kazakova. The question of the reasons for the conviction of Maxim the Greek ... pp. 119–120 B. I. Dunaev. Decree. cit., p. 28. Works of St. Maximus the Greek... vol. II, pp. 277–290; 296–319; V. F. Rzhiga. Decree. cit., appendices, pp. 111–116 N. A. Kazakova. The question of the reasons for the conviction ... pp. 120–123. This is what N.A. Kazakova claims, proving the absolute impossibility of these statements for Maxim. V. S. Ikonnikov. Decree. cit., pp. 466, 476. These words were reported to the cathedral by order of his father V. M. Tuchkov, one of the students of Maxim the Greek, to whom Maxim addressed several of his works and to whom, as it now turns out, he apparently taught the Greek language. V.S. Ikonnikov believed that he remained aloof from the court case of Maxim the Greek. His court and literary career continued after 1531 /B. S. Ikonnikov. Decree. cit., pp. 575–577/. V. S. Ikonnikov. /decree. cit., p. 246/ explains this by the Greek patriotism of Maximus, who did not want to remember such an unsuccessful attempt by the Greeks to enter into a union with Rome. Tales of Prince Kurbsky. St. Petersburg, 1868, pp. 294–302. See also about this; E. Denissoff Op. cit., p. 356. V. S. Ikonnikov. Decree. cit., p. 227. M. N. Tikhomirov. Decree. cit., p. 112; CHOIDR, 1847, No. 8, p. 4; S. A. Belokurov. About the library of the Moscow sovereigns in the 16th century. M., 1899, pp. LIX-LX, LXV, CCL; PSRL, vol. XXIV, p. 222; The court case of Vassian Patrikeev ... pp. 295–297. This, of course, resulted in a glaring contradiction: the “judgment list” of 1531 began with accusations related to Maxim’s behavior in captivity in the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery after the council of 1525, and ended with this same conciliar decision of 1525, which sent Maxim to the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery. E. E. Golubinsky. Decree. cit., p. 715; S. N. Chernov. Towards learned disagreements... p. 71; V. S. Ikonnikov, Decree. cit., pp. 495–500. “Non-exclusiveness is worthlessness, uselessness” - I. I. Sreznevsky. Materials for the dictionary of the Old Russian language based on written monuments, vol. II. St. Petersburg, 1895, stlb. 392. E. V. Zatsepina. On the question of the origin of old printed ornaments. In the book: “At the origins of Russian printing.” M., 1959, pp. 138–142, 150–153. The court case of Vassian Patrikeev ... pp. 294–295. Currently, the manuscripts of Isaac the Dog's Letter, Medovartsov and Selivan are being studied by N.V. Sinitsyna. Metropolitan Macarius and the decision of the council of 1549 refer to this second excommunication of Isaac the Dog, however, again only the very vague mention of this council quoted above is given, containing neither its date nor the specific reason for the condemnation. Nothing is said about the reaction of Isaac the Dog himself at the council of 1549 to the news of the second council, and Macarius himself, briefly reporting in letters to Joasaph about this second council, subsequently all the time asks Joasaph only about the fate of Isaac’s first excommunication. We cannot exclude the possibility that this unclear addition about the second excommunication of Isak the Dog was made on the instructions of Macarius, who thus wanted to somewhat separate the upcoming new condemnation of Isak the Dog in 1549 from the question of the fate of Maxim the Greek: the council of 1549 accused Isak only because, being excommunicated from the church, he “dared to enter the priesthood” and was the head of two monasteries. Of interest is the message from our source about the composition of this narrow council under the metropolitan, which discussed the case of Isaac the Dog before bringing it to the church council. It included; Archbishop of Novgorod and Pskov Theodosius, Bishop of Ryazan and Murom Mikhail, Bishop of Tver and Kashin Akakiy, Bishop of Kolomna and Kashira Theodosius, Bishop of Sara and Pond Savva /l. 351/. S. O. Schmidt. Cathedrals of the mid-16th century. "History of the USSR", I960, No. 4, pp. 70–71, 74. See also S. O. Schmidt. Continuation of the Chronograph edition of 1512. “Historical Archive”, vol. 7. M., 1951. PSRL, vol. XIII, part 1, p. 157. Messages of Ivan the Terrible. Ed. V. P. Adrianova-Peretz. M.-L., 1951, pp. 172–173. N. A. Kazakova. Decree. cit., Byzantine temporary book, vol. XXVIII, M., 1968, pp. 114, 117.