Часть I. Руина

Chapter I. Childhood and education of Dimitri “I, the sinful hieromonk Demetrius, was born of Christian parents, Sava and Maria, legally married in the city of Makarov, seven miles from Kyiv. The name Daniel was given to me and I was enlightened by holy baptism in the month of December. That year (1651) was the war of Radzivilov and Kyiv was saved” 1. This is how Demetrius communicates his origins. Daniel's father was nicknamed Tuptalo or Tuptalenko. The surname Tuptalo is of a noble family and became known only from the end of the 16th century. Daniel's father, Savva Grigorievich, was born around 1599 2. He spent all his youth, and his best years, in the ranks of the Cossack army. We see him defending Kyiv from Polish troops even as an eighty-year-old man. He was a managerial and intelligent man who deserved the attention of the comrade not only for his courage, but also for his ability to navigate while maintaining his dignity in the then dangerous environment of political trends. Military studies prevented him from getting married for a long time. He was not married in his early youth, not earlier than 35–40 years old 3 . Photo from a portrait stored in the archives of the Holy Synod In the year of the birth of his son Daniil, Savva Grigorievich already bore the rank of centurion of the Little Russian Cossack army. The Little Russian people were going through a difficult time at that time. Ukraine was in the midst of an extraordinary political and religious movement. Caught up in the turbulent current, the residents unwittingly volunteered to defend themselves. The people firmly defended their independence and faith. The entire burden of the struggle lay with the Cossacks. For a long time there was a nationwide uprising for freedom and faith, which produced heroes, fighters and people seasoned in the struggle. Savva Grigorievich’s half-century military service was entirely invested in the people’s struggle for Ukraine. It became especially dangerous to live in Little Russia with the accession of King John Casimir to the Polish throne, who did not restrain the Poles’ hatred of Little Russia. After the Zborov Treaty, which returned the rights to the Cossacks, Savva Grigorievich could live more peacefully in Makarov. But soon the war broke out again. The “Radzivilov War” remained especially difficult in people’s memory. “To the Radzivil region” 4 and Savva Grigorievich’s son Daniel was born. Savva Grigorievich himself was then already more than 50 years old. Around the time of Daniel’s birth, an unfavorable peace was forced between Little Russia and Poland in Bila Tserkva (September 28, 1651). Polish troops flooded all of Ukraine, except for Kyiv, Chernigov and Bratzlavl. Everywhere the local population was oppressed and robbed. The centurion Tuptalo, by order of Bogdan Khmelnitsky, settled down with the detachment entrusted to him in the town of Makarov, 50 versts southwest of it, to protect the population from robberies and violence. – It is not known where he wanted to place his son. He hardly wanted to see him as a “good Cossack”, since times had come very difficult. Ordinary Cossacks led an anxious military life, full of uncertainty, but significant ones, like Savva Grigorievich, needed great tact to maneuver safely between parties drawn to Poland or Moscow, or to the Crimean Khan. The political situation of Ukraine became more and more unstable, there were betrayals, denunciations, disasters everywhere, even the national center no longer existed: Kyiv, in 1668–1670. temporarily moving from Poland to Moscow, that year he was “slain” by Radzivil. The next year, one of those great epidemic epidemics broke out that remain in the people’s memory for a long time: “in 1752, recorded by Demetrius, “the pestilence, the epidemic was great.” Life itself developed a religious mood in people. Daniel's mother was distinguished by her religiosity. Before her son Daniel, she constantly revealed a “virtuous and pious life” 5. Her life is full of abusive worries. Her husband spent almost all his time hiking and returned home for a short time. In 1653, Daniel's father participated, together with other leaders of the Little Russian army, in the expulsion of Polish landowners from Ukraine, and then courageously repelled the Tatars and Poles. In difficult circumstances, when the freedom of Ukraine was threatened, in addition to the Poles, by the Turks and Tatars, when the people suffered from internal unrest, frequent betrayals and fears for the faith, everyone’s eyes turned to the Tsar of Moscow as the defender of Orthodoxy. Russia has never considered Ukraine alien to itself. Moscow ambassadors have repeatedly stated to Poland that Ukraine is the original Russian land. These views of Moscow further intensified the attraction of the Little Russians: “they have only one thought, how to come under the state’s hand: they are afraid of the Poles, even more (afraid) of the tsar’s refusal; they had nowhere to go except the sovereign” 6. The emerging desires were expressed even under Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich and especially strengthened under Alexei Mikhailovich. Back in 1650, Khmelnitsky sent Colonel Konevsky to the Tsar to beg the Tsar to accept Little Russia as his citizenship. The tsar agreed to accept it only when the Polish king recognized the Cossacks as independent. – In 1654, Little Russia was accepted into Russian citizenship. The centurion Tuptalo was present with his detachment at the Pereyaslav Rada in 1654, along with the entire Zaporozhye army, and took the oath of Russian citizenship. The decision of the Pereyaslav Rada could not but affect the family of Savva Grigorievich. Under the rule of the mighty Moscow Tsar, one could expect that military anxieties would subside and he would return to his family. But this was only the beginning of new wars, betrayals and those disorders for which the people called that very time “ruin.” Poland did not want to voluntarily give up Ukraine to Moscow. In the resulting war with Moscow, its military happiness fluctuated. The Poles apparently had the upper hand, because the Crimean Khan's invasion of Russian lands put Russia in a difficult position. The Cossacks were supposed to take part in the Moscow campaign against Poland; All these events remained memorable. In the family of Savva Grigorievich they rejoiced at every success of the Cossacks 8 and the failures of 9 enemies. Quite a few turned out to be traitors to the people's cause, and Savva remained faithful to the Pereyaslavl oath, despite violations of it by Khmelnitsky's successors, the centurions and their colonels. When Vygovsky dreamed of forming an independent Little Russian Republic and demanded from everyone an oath not to succumb to a foreign power, Tuptalo and his detachment remained on the side of the Moscow Tsar. Throughout Ukraine in 1758, Vyhovsky’s Cossacks ruled. They burned Kyiv Posad on Lybid and kept the city residents in fear. In 1659 the Konotop War 10 broke out, in 1660 the Chudnov War 11 broke out. The capture of the Russian governor by the Poles generated a lot of talk 12 . As a result of Vygovsky’s betrayal of Moscow, the Russian regiments of Prince Baryatinsky moved to Ukraine. The Moscow commanders planned extremely cruel measures against betrayal of the Pereyaslav oath in Little Russia. The road of the Russian troops is dotted with gallows, where up to 3,000 people were executed. The proximity of Ukraine to Poland aroused suspicion in Moscow, so that its inhabitants would not again return to dependence on the Poles. To cut off the path between Ukraine and Poland, Prince Baryatinsky proposed making a desert between these countries that would serve as an artificial border; namely, to burn and devastate Ukraine 150 miles from Kyiv west to the borders of Poland. The horrors of war prompted Savva Grigorievich to take care of the safety of his family. In 1660, all of Ukraine became under the power of Poland, and it was difficult to expect a quiet life from the Poles in the defenseless town of Makarov, given the bitterness of the Poles and the lack of rights among them. At this time he moved from Makarov 13 with his family to Kyiv and began to be called the Kyiv centurion. In Kyiv, Savva Grigorievich acquired “his own courtyard near Pritisko-Nikola”, in the Podolsk part of Kyiv, where the Frolovsky convent and Pritisko-Nikolaevskaya church are now located. Previously, this yard belonged to the Kyiv old-timer Soltanovsky 14. For a nine-year-old boy, the big city that was on the lips of all Ukrainians could not fail to impress with its stone buildings rising among gardens and greenery. In this heart of Ukraine, Daniel saw not only Russians, but also Gentiles, Poles and Jews who owned the wealth of the city. The abundance of churches and monasteries surrounding the house of Savva Grigorievich spoke “of the heartfelt faith of the Kyivans in God,” who, indeed, were pious and “pliable to the poor.” But at the same time, visiting people were struck by the drunkenness in Kyiv, the unbridled morals usually generated by unstable times, and at the same time the poverty in the remote streets. Despite the crowded city, guarded, in addition to the Cossacks, by Moscow military men, no one was sure of the safety of Kyiv. Here the Cossacks were at enmity with the townspeople, there was no unanimity between the Cossacks and the clergy, between the community and the important Cossacks, monks and the white clergy. With such disagreement, the residents did not agree among themselves on who to turn to for help and protection - the Poles or the Moscow Tsar - to live independently, or to give themselves under the protection of the Turks and Tatars. The turbulent times could not but be reflected in Kyiv. All threads of political trends and sentiments converged here, in the center of Ukraine. A celebration of the annexation to Russia in 1654 was also held in Kyiv. The stone one-story house of Savva Grigorievich stood not in the Old Town, but on Podol near the Frolovsky Convent. Maria Mikhailovna alone endured the worries and labors of housekeeping and raising her son. Under the guidance of his literate father, Daniel learned to read, went through the book of hours, the Psalter, read the Bible and the lives of the saints. Now Daniel had to be taught to write. In 1662 he was sent to the Epiphany fraternal school in Kyiv itself. This was an important moment in his life. The influence of the school was reflected throughout his life. School life suited Daniel's focused and modest character. Here he developed his natural inclination towards poetry. Since the time of Kyiv Metropolitan Peter Mohyla, a new and better time has come at the school 15. But shortly before this, in 1658, a terrible fire devastated both the building and the property of the school. The Epiphany School was restored in the fraternal monastery by the famous Ioannikiy Golyatovsky. Rhetoric classes are open for them here. Golyatovsky himself taught there. The Brethren Church was also rebuilt. There was no bell tower yet; the bells hung at the entrance on poles near the lattice gate. Inside the church, the attention of the students was attracted by the newly revealed icon of the Most Holy Theotokos. – The school gave Dimitri formal development of mental abilities. Education, apparently, was of an encyclopedic nature, but it all came down to the ability to use verbal material as required by the moment. The student, as a politician, was taught dialectical resourcefulness and resourcefulness in word debates. Neither breadth of vision, nor freedom of research, nor even a stock of information was required. Grammar was considered the key that unlocks the mind to know the scriptures. From her, as if by steps, passed the ladder of teaching: dialectic, rhetoric, music, arithmetic, geometry and astronomy. With the combination of these sciences, the highest ones were comprehended: philosophy and theology 16. The course in poetics and rhetoric was accompanied by the usual practical exercises in composing verses and speeches, as well as in composing letters: congratulatory, welcoming, petitionary, grateful, farewell, especially sermons and funeral words. All school material was arranged in such a way as to make the students exquisitely eloquent talkers, skilled in the development of religious positions and resourceful in dialectical defense. The success of students was measured by the development of the ability to easily balance logical constructions. The head of the Kyiv school, Ioannikiy Golyatovsky, himself compiled “The Key of Understanding, or a method of adding up Kazan”. This type of science was required at that time. Just as in its political life Little Russia fought off neighboring enemies, defending its identity, so it had to defend its faith from haters of Orthodoxy. The enemies were the Jesuits, who preached the union or union of the Orthodox with the pope, in the sense of submission to him. The Jesuits were particularly adept at defending any kind of truth. The clergy in Little Russia fought with difficulty, but successfully, for political and religious independence, and the fighters fell in all respects to the influence of the cultural Western force that was then in Poland. They realized the need to take up the same weapons that their enemies had: the Jesuits amazed with their ostentatious learning, and they began to open schools in Little Russia; Whatever the rules were in the Jesuit colleges, the same ones appeared in Orthodox schools. For the people, such a school had no meaning. She also paid little attention to the task of education. The students developed a habit of cunning, dialectical subtleties and a passion for polemics, which turned into religious intolerance and fanaticism. Having comprehended dialectical wisdom, learned theologians, both in Poland and in Kyiv, looked down on the people. Kyiv schools produced people with enormous self-esteem, self-control, and at the same time, with the ability to bow to authority 17. But even with this setting, science did its job: here minds were strengthened, inquisitiveness and the ability to master knowledge and find the basis of a subject developed. At the fraternal school, Dmitry did not reach those schools that were considered the crown of scholastic education - philosophy and theology; but he mastered the preparation and means for studying them - rhetoric and the languages ​​Greek and Latin 18. The scholastic system and all its features were reflected in the mentality and first works of the future Saint Demetrius. He could not help but borrow them simply because he was distinguished by his diligence and love for books, with which he spent his entire life from then on, never parting with him even in his grave 19 . He discovered a particular penchant for “poetry and ornateness.” The fraternal school had no financial support and little supervision. Church, contrary to the rules, was attended by students reluctantly. The meal is meager. The teachers were given no encouragement or help, and therefore teaching was sluggish 20 . The news has been preserved that Demetrius shunned camaraderie and gravitated toward solitude, indulging in reading the Holy Scriptures, the works of the holy fathers, and attending divine services. The teaching could not be calm: Kyiv passed from hand to hand more than once, either to the Russians or to the Poles. In 1665, fifteen-year-old Daniel had already left school “an unlearned sage and a reasonable ignorant.” During the capture of Kyiv, Vygovsky’s troops completely destroyed the college. Classes there were interrupted for a long time, until 1669. Daniel did not return to it after that. He lived at home for some time. The family has now become larger. Daniel had sisters. The fact that Savva Grigorievich raised his children in a religious spirit was best evidenced by the fact that none of his children remained in secular rank. Three sisters, Pamphilia, Fevronia, Paraskeva, became nuns and, until 1710, successively were abbess at the Jordan Monastery, where Savva Grigorievich built at his own expense a special chapel in the name of the Hieromartyr Demetrius the Myrrh-Blower 21. Savva himself, both in his military rank, was known for the glory of the Zaporozhye army, and in Kyiv he became a benefactor of the Cyril, Jordan monasteries and the Kiev Podolsk Tsar Constantine Church. Since the fraternal school was still in ruins and the teaching could not begin, Daniel, with the consent of his parents, became a monk in the Kirillov Monastery, and was named Demetrius. It was July 9, 1668, when Demetrius was 18 years old 22. There is news that young Daniel became a monk, probably in imitation of Saint Benedict of Nursia. He also stopped his teaching in Roman schools, “despising external wisdom in order to preserve internal chastity,” and left the wealth of his parents for the monastic rank. Before accepting monasticism, Demetrius either lived in a monastery or often visited it. At least, the Cyril abbot, Meletius Dzik, who took the veil 23, should have known him earlier. At that time, Dzik, after Golyatovsky left for Lithuania, was in charge of the destroyed fraternal school. His concern, apparently, extended to the students of the college. The monastery stood 3 versts from Kyiv. Daniel could endure the monastic test either by visiting the monastery frequently or while staying in it. The young monk immediately entered under the guidance of the experienced and much-suffered Meletius Dzik in life. The leader's beliefs influenced the novice. To know Demetrius’s mood in these young years of hopes and passions, one must turn to his own words. In the Kirillov Monastery in 1671, Dmitry began to write his “Diary” or notes in Polish 24. In the Diary there are notes from him for the first years of monasticism. They are almost all of a political nature: in 1668 “Ivan Bryukhovetsky was killed”, 1672 “The Turks took Kamenets-Podolsk”, 1674 “Ladyzhin and Uman were surrendered from the Turks”, 1676 “the pious Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich introduced himself”, 1678 “The Turks took Chigirin”, etc. Of course, the events recorded in Diarias worried not only the Soviet people, but also the monks. The capture of Kamenets, for example, brought terrible despondency to the entire Christian population not only in Ukraine, but also in Poland and even in Moscow. The military Turkish force seemed so terrible to the entire Christian world that all sorts of national strife were forgotten in order to fight the Turks with united forces. Polish churches then resounded with preachers' call to repentance 25 . That’s why the monks, along with Dmitry, were worried. But regardless of the outstanding events of Little Russia, the clergy took a close part in the political life of their country. The highest figures of monasticism were distinguished by the independence of their opinions. They did not agree in their beliefs even with the white clergy. While the white clergy, together with the people, wanted submission to Moscow, the representatives of monasticism wanted the independence of the Little Russian Church from the Moscow Patriarchate. Disagreement was also reflected in church practice. In the parish churches they prayed for Bishop Methodius, appointed guardian of the Kyiv Metropolitan Throne in Moscow, and in the monasteries they commemorated Metropolitan Joseph of Tukalsky, who was abroad in Poland. Methodius ruled the white clergy, while monastics often went to Poland for initiation to Metropolitan Tukalsky. Some recognized Methodius as the head of the church, while others recognized the Chernigov bishop, Lazar Baranovich. Young Demetrius, even as a monk, could not help but note outstanding political events, when his leader, Meletiy Dzik, a man of pious life, generous and learned, during the 30 years of his abbess saw nothing but trials from the political structure of his country: Ukraine, constantly ravaged by wars, a monastery surrounded by enemies, “the brilliance of infidel swords and the attack of mental wolves on his spiritual flock.” Meletius Dzik suffered even from the clergy for his political beliefs. The guardian of the metropolis, Bishop Methodius, was known to Demetrius from childhood as the patron of the fraternal school. Now, defending the correctness of his ideas in Moscow, he denounced Meletius Dzik and other Kyiv abbots there in relations with Tukalsky and the Right Bank Hetman Doroshenko; in turn, Meletiy Dzik, together with the abbots of the Kyiv monasteries, complained about him to the left bank hetman and the elder of the entire Zaporozhye army, as a great destroyer and enemy. If both of them, Methodius and Meletius, visited Moscow, then with different requests: one asked for the complete subordination of the Little Russian Church to the Moscow Patriarch, and the other for the preservation of the rights of freedom of choice. Dzik could arouse suspicion towards himself, as if he, like others, not wanting a metropolitan from Moscow, had double-mindedness and looked at both sides. Around the time of Demetrius's tonsure, the abbot of the Kirillov monastery suffered great trouble. In denunciations to Moscow against Dzik, he was called a traitor to the great sovereign, along with Feodosius Safonovich; It was indicated that in 1663 they sent letters with the Pechersk elder to Polish Ukraine (to Korsun) to the Duma, where the bishop of Mogilev from White Rus', disliked by Moscow, was elected to the metropolitan position, who had betrayed the great sovereign, Joseph Tukalsky. Thus, Dzik was accused of having relations with traitors to the Moscow Tsar. Now, in a new denunciation of Dzik, the Moscow authorities in Kyiv interrogated him and took away the story about what kind of relations he had with Hetman Doroshenka, who betrayed him in Moscow and surrendered to the Tatars, and about what he corresponded with Metropolitan Joseph of Tukalsky. Dzik managed to justify himself. He proved that Doroshenko sent the monk not for political affairs, but with a request to return the oxen and horses taken away by Doroshenko’s Cossacks to the monastery; I sent a request to Tukalsky for the same thing, so that the Metropolitan would petition the hetman for the return of the oxen. He allegedly did all this with the knowledge of the Kyiv governor. With these explanations, Meletius complained about his situation, that it was impossible to buy bread anywhere on the side, and it was difficult to engage in arable farming ourselves when they could steal draft cattle from the monastery fields located far from Kyiv, as Doroshenko’s Cossacks did. If the robberies occurred from their own people, then even more so the Turks, whom Doroshenko led then, did not spare Ukraine. According to popular legend, in Doroshenkovo ​​“the riots of the Church of God were empty, the monasteries were ruined, the land was desecrated.” The walls of the monastery did not protect from violence either. Demetrius's sad mood is evident from the poems remaining from his time, where he depicts in a bleak light the collapse of human earthly hopes and calculations 26 . Writing poetry was a custom among clergy. Bishops Lazar Baranovich, who compiled an entire collection of poems called “Lutes,” and John Maksimovich, who published his mediocre verses, were engaged in poetry, to the chagrin of such a sensitive artist-poet as Dimitri and friend. Baranovich’s “Lute” also glorifies Little Russia, which has suffered from internal unrest; a complaint is heard not about the war, but about the decline of belligerence among the people, about the disagreement of Moscow and Poland, which could jointly exterminate the common enemy - the predatory Tatars. A similar mood united the monks who had renounced the world with the warriors. Fighters for independence enjoyed universal respect. Meletius Dzik decided that his tonsure, Daniil Savvich, should be ordained to the rank of hierodeacon, in addition to Bishop Methodius, who lived with them in Kyiv, from the most popular of these heroes, Metropolitan Joseph of Tukala. In a difficult relationship with Bishop Methodius, Meletius Dzik, not without joy, heard the news that, finally, Metropolitan Joseph had been confirmed in the rank of Metropolitan of Kyiv by the Patriarch of Constantinople himself, who had appointed Kyiv metropolitans throughout the entire history of Kyiv since the time of St. Vladimir. Joseph Tukalsky showed himself to be an unshakable fighter for the church rights of Little Russia against the Polish machinations of Jesuit propaganda. He suffered a lot in defense of the faith. He devoted more than one decade to the struggle for Orthodoxy with the Uniates. The black people, the Cossacks, and the townspeople loved him for this. He was respected for his steadfastness against the Union both in Lithuania and in Vilna, and they were surprised at the dangers to which he exposed himself and his suffering. When the Uniate fanatic, Josaphat Kuntsevich, was killed, and the Jesuits, having declared him a saint, arranged a ceremonial bringing of the murdered man into Vilna, Joseph forbade both the meeting and the ringing of bells in Vilna. Tukalsky was also respected by Ioanniky Golyatovsky, Dimitri’s teacher. The Poles kept him captive for two years and released him only at the request of Doroshenko; he also suffered from the Orthodox Bishop Methodius and once even fled from him. Contrary to his wishes, he did not live in Kyiv, but with Doroshenka. A month before this, Joseph submitted a request to the Moscow kings to allow him to live in Kyiv. In right-bank Ukraine, he endured all sorts of military hardships. During the siege of Chigirin, his house was destroyed by grenades. He himself became sick from excitement and even aroused the participation of the Crimean Khan, who ordered him to be treated. Perhaps the highest Kyiv spiritual authorities were hoping for permission from Moscow for him to live in Kyiv. But permission did not follow, because Tukalsky, contrary to Moscow appearances, stood for the established subordination in spiritual affairs to Constantinople, and not to Moscow. He allegedly used to say to Moscow proteges: “You are not worthy to be a bishop, because you accepted ordination from the Moscow Metropolitan” 28 . While the Little Russian clergy was canonically dependent on the Patriarch of Constantinople, Tukalsky did not want to recognize any oaths 29 or blessings from the Great Russian Church. The people appreciated the unshakable straightforwardness of the right-bank metropolitan, and the clergy of both sides of the Dnieper fully sympathized with him, as a hierarch who managed to defend the purity and independence of Orthodoxy in Poland. In the spring of 1669, Dimitri arrived from Kyiv to the foreign city of Kanev 30 and on Annunciation Day in the ancient Kanev monastery he received the rank of hierodeacon from Metropolitan Joseph. How Tukalsky treated Dmitry is unknown. The only thing that is certain is his sympathy for the Kyiv college that educated Demetrius. Given his extreme poverty, Tukalsky helped during its decline, but he and Golyatovsky did not have reciprocal feelings, although Ioannikiy participated in the Korsun Duma during the election of Joseph as metropolitan. Demetrius lived in the Kirillov Monastery for quite a long time - about 7 years. It was the height of war. The famous John Sobieski raised the mood and plans of conquest of the Poles. This was also the best time for Poland, which reflected troubles for the Little Russian people from the proud Poles. Polish detachments ruled near Kyiv and caused a lot of disasters, keeping everyone in fear. At this time, a misfortune also happened to Dimitri. His father, Savva Grigorievich, was captured by the Poles in 1670. The family, consisting of four women, lived alone in fear and uncertainty for him for several years (1670–1674). A terrible thunderstorm hung over the whole of Ukraine: the Turks did not leave Ukraine for more than two years, in 1672 the name Kamenets-Podolsk was taken, the fall of which horrified Poland and also alarmed Moscow. Two years later, news arrived, recorded by Dimitri, about the surrender of Ladyzhin and Uman to the Turks. The devastation of Ukraine gave rise to gloomy thoughts. The people were afraid that the Turks were trying to take Kyiv in order to eradicate the Christian faith there too, destroy churches and replace them with mosques 31 . All such trials, both family and national, disposed Demetrius to a prayerful, contemplative mood. The king released Savva Grigorievich from captivity, but so that he would take the royal letters to Doroshenka. Upon returning from Kanev from Doroshenko, in Kyiv, he was interrogated by the Russian governor about what kind of sheets he brought from the Polish king to Doroshenko and what their contents were. Only Savva Grigorievich’s resourcefulness saved him from Moscow’s suspicion. Savva Grigoryevich testified that he did not know the contents of the letters, but he heard a conversation between Tukalsky and Doroshenka with the following content: “God grant that the faith of Christ be everywhere” 32. After his stay at the Kirillov Monastery, Demetrius already became known for his ability to study books and preach. From his “life” it is clear that he led a pious life with Meletius Dzik, read a lot, wrote and carried out orders from the abbot and other superiors 33. During three years of studying “external sciences” from the Kyiv school, he could not bear the large and varied information that was then required of every preacher. It can be assumed that here, in the Kirillov Monastery, the opportunity opened up for him to get acquainted with the secular and spiritual literature, Polish, Latin and Slavic, which could be found in the then Kyiv monasteries and churches. The composition of the books of that time was determined by the needs of the time: these were polemical works of scholarly and preaching content. Hegumen Dzik supported the custom of preaching in the monastery by his own example 34 . It is possible to assume that, naturally inclined to poetic creativity, Dimitri, under the influence of young inspiration, was engaged in poetry during these years, composing religious poems 35. In 1675, Dimitri was appointed as a preacher in Chernigov under the very guardian of the Kyiv Metropolitan See, Archbishop Lazar Baranovich. Every brotherhood, every department then tried to have a preacher. Dmitry was chosen from everyone to Chernigov as the best. He could be recommended by Abbot Meletius Dzik, who was on good terms with the Archbishop of Chernigov. Meanwhile, under the influence of Moscow representatives in the electoral Cossack Rada, Yves was elected hetman of Little Russia. Art. Samoilovich. The new hetman showed himself to be a generous donor to churches and a lover of church reverence. In 1674, he built a new stone church in the name of the Holy Trinity 36 in the Gustynsky monastery, instead of the one that burned down in 1671. 37 On the church holiday, when a huge number of people gathered on the occasion of the fair, the Archbishop of Chernigov, Lazar Baranovich, who ruled the Kiev metropolis, arrived. Here, on Spiritual Day 1675, in the new church, Demetrius was ordained to the rank of hieromonk 38. From now on, a new time of public service begins for Demetrius, for which, with his modesty, others nominated him. Dimitri preached a lot for two years (from May 23, 1675 to July 31, 1677) both in the city of Chernigov and in other places of the diocese 39. But his sermons from that time have not survived. In addition to preaching, Demetrius wrote his first book here, also not on his own initiative, but on the orders of the archbishop. This is his essay - “Irrigated Fleece”. Demetrius says about its contents: “Izhe in Rune is sometimes foreshadowed The Mother of the Creator of us all is written here.” Here are described the miracles that occurred from the miraculous icon of the Mother of God in the Chernigov Trinity-Ilyinsky Monastery. Demetrius said that he compiled the “Fleece” out of obedience and, as if guided by previous legends about miracles, collected them “like a bee from various greens into one honeycomb.” - From then on, the method of collecting became the constant basis for all his literary and preaching works. The Chernigov ruler expressed his pleasure at Demetrius' work - only later, a few years later (1683), when the author had a special closeness to the hetman, and when the printed book sold out so quickly that it had to be printed several times 40. It is nowhere to be seen that the archbishop encouraged Demetrius in his new responsible position as a preacher. Demetrius, who did not leave those who patronized him without gratitude, did not say anything about the kindness of Lazarus. An intelligent man who understood the significance of the times for Little Russia, Baranovich knew how to please Moscow, which was introducing voivodeship control in left-bank Ukraine, and at the same time approved the desires of the elders of Little Russia, “so that the Great Russian foot would not be in them,” that “living under the Russian Orthodox kingdom is worse than Turkish torment and Egyptian work.” Having obtained from the Moscow Patriarch control of the Kiev Metropolis and convincing the Tsar to take Kyiv under his constant protection, he achieved the title of archbishop, lived independently of both the Moscow Patriarch and the Kyiv metropolitans; He also showed respect for Tukalsky; however, this did not prevent him from owning the left bank flock of Tukalsky. In general, while attentive to the higher, he was unwaveringly demanding of the lower. Using the example of Dmitry, it was revealed that his exactingness was replaced by expressions of goodwill, as soon as he learned about the hetman’s patronage: then he became a “dear father.” The next year, upon the arrival of Dimitri in Chernigov, the ruler anathematized the entire city of Starodubtsev. He excommunicated from the church not only secular, but also monastics, 41 both out of doctrinal error and because of land. Such measures had a depressing effect on the modest, unrequited Demetrius, 42 as can be concluded from the dream Dimitri recounted. “The Right Reverend Bishop is sitting in chairs, and we are all near the throne, preparing for the service, reading something. Suddenly the bishop became angry with me and began to torture me severely. I remember his words well: “Didn’t I choose you, didn’t I give you a name?..” I bowed low to the Eminence and promised to make correction (and I still don’t do this, notes the modest Demetrius), asked for forgiveness and was granted it. Again I took my place, unfolded the missal, but in it I found the same words, written in capital letters: “Didn’t I choose you, didn’t I give you a name?..” I read this with great horror and surprise... and now I think that in this vision, through the right reverend archbishop, my Creator Himself was punishing me. Oh my God! Arrange a thing for me according to Your most good and most merciful will for the salvation of my sinful soul” 43. One might think that for this reason Demetrius retired from the Chernigov ruler abroad - to Lithuania, where Joseph Tukalsky was the metropolitan. He did this not without the advice of his patron, Meletius Dzik, who knew how difficult it was for him to live under Lazar 44. First, Dimitri asked the bishop for permission to travel to the Novodvorsky Assumption Monastery, where the church celebration of the transfer of the icon of the Mother of God in Novodvor from the old church to the new one was to take place. Lazar allowed him to travel. On August 13, Dimitri arrived in Novodvor, together with his companion Buchinsky, and venerated the miraculous icon in the old church. It was a universally revered icon, painted according to the legend of St. Peter, Metropolitan of Moscow, when he was still a monk. The shrine the next day, August 14, was already moved by Bishop Theodosius Vasilevich to the new church. Many notable clergy of the Belarusian region gathered for the celebration. There was the senior hieromonk of the Vilna Holy Spiritual fraternal monastery, Klimenty Trizna, and Lithuanian Orthodox preachers. Just before the church celebrations, Demetrius was introduced to the episcopal preacher Khomentovsky and other clergy. For two days the bishop received the clergy and treated them. This was not an ordinary church celebration, it was a congress of Orthodox fighters against the Uniates. Thus, Trizna suffered mockery for Orthodoxy personally from the King of Poland himself, in whose possessions were the Uniate dioceses 45 . In particular, the elderly Bishop Theodosius Vasilevich fought a lot against the Uniates. He served here since 1656, participated in the political events of his time and acted in everything together with the zealot of Orthodoxy, Metropolitan Joseph of Tukalsky: he worked for the material resources of his Belarusian diocese, took away the churches they had seized from the Uniates, and built new churches. During church celebrations, one of the clergy publicly announced miraculous phenomena during a religious procession from that icon, revered by all Orthodox people, for the transfer of which everyone had gathered. This was also proof of the salvation of Orthodoxy. At the celebration itself, the sermon was given every day. Demetrius mentions speeches at the celebration delivered by two preachers: Father Khomentovsky, an episcopal preacher, and Father Paskevich, a Minsk preacher. The custom of preaching was maintained everywhere in Lithuanian Orthodox churches. – When Father Klimenty Trizna took Dimitry to Vilna from the Novodvorsk celebrations, then there in the Holy Spiritual Monastery Dimitry himself preached a sermon on the 18th week and on the 23rd week (September 22). In total he stayed in Vilna for about 2 months. Here each of the brotherhoods considered it necessary to have a priest capable of proclaiming the word of God. Some of the brotherhoods even attracted several of them so that the sermon could be heard every Sunday and holiday; sometimes they were sent to preach in other places. Demetrius, in addition to Khomentovsky and Paskevich, also mentions Ilarius Goslavsky, Ion Dublinsky in Vilna and Timofey Bogdanovich in Novgorod-Seversky. Preaching abilities promoted future leaders. Almost all the highest Kyiv spiritual authorities of this and subsequent times began their ministry with preaching. The historical circumstances of southern Russia then caused a rapid revival of preaching. And all the features of the reviving southern Russian preaching of that time were reflected in Demetrius with all its advantages and defects, so that his stay in Lithuania served as a kind of school for preparing for his pastoral activities. According to established scholastic requirements, the church word was clothed in this form, namely: A) was built according to a specific plan, b) had a varied content, and c) was distinguished by its external harmony. Demetrius’s teacher, Ioannikiy Golyatovsky, prescribed this. “Whoever wants to speak from the pulpit must first of all lay down from St. Scripture theme 46 which serves as the foundation for his entire sermon, because the entire sermon, consisting of three parts, is arranged in accordance with the theme. The first part is the introduction, in which the preacher begins to talk about what he wants to talk about, outlines the subject of his sermon to the listeners and asks God and the Blessed Virgin for help, and the listeners for attention. The other part is narration: in this part, the preacher tells people what he promised to say. This part is the largest, in it the entire sermon is closed and the remaining parts are drawn towards it. The third part is conclusion - conclusion: here the preacher recalls what he spoke about in the narration and, in accordance with its content, exhorts the listeners to love the above-mentioned good or beware of the above-mentioned evil” 47. Thus, the sermon becomes a composition, and not an artless conversation, as was the case with ancient Russian church speakers. It requires unity of subject and thought, completeness and proportionality of parts. This form can be applied with great convenience to dogmatic and moral conversations and evokes self-awareness in the listener. But preachers often entertained listeners by solving intricate questions from the pulpit, such as this: “Where exactly - on earth or in heaven is the Blessed Virgin?” Or they deliberately reduced the sermon to some curious situation. One sermon addresses the question: why did the Jews, demanding the death of Jesus Christ, say twice “crucify him” and once “let him be drunk” 48 . Ioannikiy Golyatovsky also makes a similar casuistic question the starting point and theme of the sermon: why did the Son of God take on human nature and not angelic? Why exactly did the Son of God become incarnate, and not God the Father and not the Holy Spirit? And all this was presented to the listener in a strict form of introduction, narration and conclusion. The most common type of preaching, which St. loved to use. Demetrius, these are allegorical sermons. Here it was necessary to find a correspondence between two objects that have nothing in common. The glory and difficulty of the preacher lay in the ability to more deftly find such a relationship through comparison, or metaphor, or allegory. One preacher was exhausted in proving that the Blessed Virgin is like the sea (I. Golyatovsky); another, that she is like Solomon’s house, a rainbow, a sea, a solid city, a gate, a castle, Aaron’s rod, a mirror, a lily (Radivilovsky). At the Nativity of the Mother of God, I. Golyatovsky quoted the text: “Wisdom created for herself a house and established seven pillars” and for comparison with the Mother of God he describes a pillar of salt, pillars of cloud and fire, a pillar of smoke (Judgment XX); iron pillar (Jerem. I), silver pillar (Song. Song. V), pillar of heaven (Job. XXIV, 38) 49 All such dialectical-sophistic and allegorical speeches had no vital significance, although they were then called “sowing the word of God,” and Dimitri breathed them, like the atmosphere, during his stay in Kyiv, Lithuania and Ukraine. But they helped Demetrius in his ability to give his speech harmony and roundness, although they did not correspond to his natural sincerity and truthfulness. Often, even in an artificially constructed word, a living feeling is expressed, flowing freely, not fitting into a dry scholastic framework. Nothing like this was imagined in the old Russian church word. There, mention of nature and the world was used to the extent that it was edifying for the listeners, and in the scholastic sermon it was intended to entertain the listener with stories from history, science, and even myths. A different goal was pursued in scholastic preaching; the listeners' attention focused on what was entertaining, funny, amusing, impressive and amazing; edification came in the background. Apocryphal and legendary tales, anecdotes, legends, fantastic inventions of medieval zoology, botany, mineralogy and more. All this was included in the content of the sermon along with the texts of St. scriptures. Divine revelation was given a slight edification, like verbal works. The text of the scripture was dismembered to the point that he lost the Divine seal of anointing 50, preferring one where there was a dark word that gave room for imagination. In addition to such material, it was allowed to use the works of the church fathers, like the Old Russian preachers, but on a wider scale. Following the imitation of Polish orators, they also brought in Western church fathers: Augustine, Cyprian, Jerome, and even those not recognized by the Eastern Church: Baronius, Bellarmina, Thomas a à Kempis and others. At one time, Peter the Great was also captivated by the entertainment of the Kyiv sermon, and only later did he turn away from it, as not corresponding to his transformative views. In reviewing the life of St. Demetrius of Rostov, it is necessary to keep in mind such instructions for the preacher. During the period under review, the future saint involuntarily fed on them. The first sermons, such as the “pyramid to Gisel” or the “word on the Day of Peter and Paul,” had the routine, generally accepted character of a harmoniously composed word. It is noticeable that upon arrival in Lithuania, Dimitri was struck by the news. Preachers stopped strictly adhering to the established form of the word and abandoned what was brought from Poland to Kyiv, developing a new way of verbally influencing listeners. Both the external side of the sermon and its very spirit became completely new. The representative of the new direction was then the Polish preacher, Thomas Mlodzianowski. Mlodzianowski completely neglected the requirements of hermeneutics. On the contrary, as much as they previously tried to ensure the harmony of the parts of the sermon, Mlodzyanovsky seemed to want to occupy the listener with a rapid change of thoughts and their chaotic scattering. The preacher was not embarrassed by either the importance of the pulpit or its holiness. He allowed himself jokes and mockery in his sermons, and cited fables that had long since become obsolete in Europe, but were now still repeated in Poland 51 . The success of such a sermon was helped by the desire of the preachers to bring the Polish folk element into the speech, to talk about real events, hopes, national pride and hatred of foreigners 52. It was a brilliant sermon, but not a church sermon. The goal of the preacher is not to edify the flock, but to warm it up. Mlodzyanovsky’s direction was strongly communicated to Dimitri; some of his sermons are literally copied from Mlodzyanovsky and even begin with the same words, for example, his famous sermon: “There is a guest in the God-saved city, my dear listener; but a guest should not come without a gift to honest persons.” Dimitri borrowed from Mlodzyanovsky a description of the reason for Peter’s abdication: “I don’t know the man!” They will say that I am guilty of having entered into a conversation with the female sex,” etc. 53 Demetrius later asked at the church pulpit the same questions that Mlodzyanovsky raised, for example: why did Christ enter Jerusalem otherwise than on a donkey 54, or: “who in paradise was the first to pronounce the word God?” Dimitri also repeated Mlodzyanovsky’s expressions; for example: - “neither az, nor beeches, nor vedami” or “it would not be worth talking about demons and pigs: about demons it’s scary, about pigs it’s shameful.” In the same way, he expresses bewilderment in a dramatic form, for example, depicting an angel giving a scroll to John the Theologian, begging him: “Angel of God! Don’t tell the Theologian to eat the scroll!” In the same way, Longinus convinces the centurion to give up his place at the Cross of the Lord to Demetrius of Thessalonica; he also calls biblical objects in a modern way: “nobles of God”, “man of Semey” (shepherd at the Nativity of Christ), “districts”, etc. Mlodzyanovsky’s influence was most clearly reflected in the external structure of Demetrius’ sermon. Contrary to the scholastic requirements for theme, introduction, narration and conclusion, Młodzianowski divided the sermon into two parts, and both of them were striking in the sharpness of their tones. The first part was entertaining: it contained jokes, irony, and witticisms, and the second was presented in a sad, elegiac tone: while delivering the second part of the sermon, the speaker, they say, himself burst into tears, he wanted to benefit the listeners. The simpletons personally reproached Mlodzyanovsky that he was building the first part for the lords and only teaching the people in the second: here one can hear a plaintive prayer to God about the troubles that have befallen him, here there is a murmur, and a reproach for the humiliation of Poland. Isn’t it the same with Dimitri? Sometimes, finishing a sermon, he suddenly begins: “But not yet - not amen: I will also say something for the edification of the simple ones! This was said for bookish people, I don’t want to let go of non-bookish people without benefit 55. The influence of all this on Demetrius is undoubtedly. In the second half of the 17th century, fascination with and imitation of Mlodzyanowski increased to an extreme degree. Collections of his sermons were acquired by the best Kyiv preachers (Krokovsky) since 1686. Later, in 1706, Feofan Prokopovich said that Mlodzyanovsky was received by Kyiv academic mentors with delight. Many of them approve and praise him. Thanks to them, young students of eloquence only look to him as a role model. To speak against Mlodzianowski at this time meant to arouse the displeasure of many against oneself 56 . In his letter to Yakov Markevich dated 1716, Feofan Prokopovich, who became aware of the German direction of reforms in Russia, writes from St. Petersburg about the then enthusiasm for Mlodzyanovsky’s preaching techniques (concepts), which reached the point of feverishness, so. “In our time, we have also seen similar scientific fevers in our fatherland more than once. About fifteen years ago, so-called concepts were in fashion. Church pulpits were then resounding (alas!) with wonderful intricacies, for example, what do the five letters in the name Mary mean? 57 Why is Christ immersed in the Jordan while standing, and not lying down or sitting? Why did the fish not die in the waters of the great flood, although they were not preserved in Noah’s ark? – And the most important and solid answers were given to such questions 58 . The unnaturalness of such imitation was recognized already at the end of the 17th century. The exponent of this consciousness was Meletiy Smotritsky in his polemic with A. Muzhilovsky: “If it weren’t for the Roman postillas,” he said, “the orator would not have rushed to the pulpit, the sophist would not have been able to dissuade. Say thank you to Bessius, who teaches you to pronounce from the pulpit. I know well that without him the wheels would creak, like a driver’s without a greaser, but you are still a wise man, and everyone is yours. One to the pulpit with Osorius, another with Fabricius, a third with Skarga, and others with other preachers of the Roman Church, without which you cannot take a step.”59 As in the Eastern Church, Polish preaching used a dialogic form of edification, but in a loose form unusual in the Greek-Eastern Church. Thomas Mlodzyanovsky has the following conversation with King David: “Holy David, what are you doing? Do you love God? “I love you,” he says. “Is it full? Do you love him? - I love! “Woman of Samaritan, where are you going? Perhaps to see friends? But not for water with a bucket? Don't you, Samaritan woman, think this is dishonorable? Do you really want others to look at you suspiciously?” 60 and the like. The borrowing of the form of sermons was accompanied by a change in the language in them. The Church Slavonic language is full of Polish and Latin expressions. Those people in Lithuania, among whom Demetrius was then, were brought up in these rules. For practice and guidance, they had entire collections of such sermons by the most famous authoritative church speakers of southwestern Russia: Kirill Tranquillion, Peter Mogila, I. Golyatovsky, L. Baranovich, A. Radivilovsky and others 61, now collections of sermons by Mlodzyanovsky were added. Acquaintance with Polish methods of preaching had a strong influence on Dimitri. Under the general enthusiasm for Mlodzianowski, the age-old belief that the task of preaching lies in its skillful harmony was dissipated. A different beauty was revealed in the word, captivating the hearts of listeners; this is the charm of the preacher’s sincerity and strong impetuous feelings. By nature, responsive and warm-hearted, Dimitri accepted, although not without much hesitation, a new way of preaching. But he did not completely submit to the general attraction, for which Andrei Muzhilovsky, who also came from Lithuania (from Slutsk), later reproached others. He gradually acquires only an element of nationality and a lively responsiveness to current events. The simplification of speech did not degenerate with him, as with the Polish imitators of Mlodzyanowski, into chatter and jokes, but was resolved into a special type of artistic, heartfelt speech. It was not just the artist’s natural instincts that protected Dmitry Savich from extremes of imitation, but the scholastic verbal foundations he firmly assimilated were partly helped. Staying in Lithuania had another, more important, meaning for Dmitry Savich. For all his innate modesty, he found himself aware of the defense of the persecuted faith from the Uniates. In the midst of such a struggle, the foundations of Orthodoxy were more clearly assimilated by the fighters. 3 months after the Novodvorsky celebration, the Belarusian Bishop Feodosius Vasilevich arrived in Vilna (November 14). Within a week, the bishop became so acquainted with Demetrius that he took him with him to the city of Slutsk, which belonged to the Radziwill princes. In this city, the Orthodox population suffered all kinds of oppression from those residents who accepted the union. They did not want to consider the Orthodox as equal citizens; they slandered them that it was the schismatics (i.e., the Orthodox) who wanted to open the gates of the city, where the prince’s court was located with 200 philistine houses, and let in the Cossacks or Muscovites from the suburbs. Even churches were taken away from them. By restricting the civil rights of the Orthodox population and the usual privileges of the clergy, they wanted to strengthen Uniateism and eradicate Orthodoxy in Lithuania. In this sense, requests were also made to the king. But the Russian people courageously defended both their faith and their rights, so that they constituted a living bulwark of Orthodoxy against the onslaught of Catholic propaganda. Their difficult situation among the Uniates became known even in Jerusalem. From there, Patriarch Dosifei sent a letter of approval to Slutsk, praising the steadfastness of the Orthodox for their confession. The Uniates asked for the king's assistance in order to strengthen their importance in the cities 62; and Patriarch Dosifei advises the Orthodox to turn to the same wisdom and generosity of the quiet king. At the time this charter was received, 1678, the Jesuits, who were enforcing the union, intensified their preaching in Slutsk; in contrast to them, Russian monks persistently preached here; and during the emergence of the Catholic Bernardine monastery, built in Slutsk, and the Jesuit printing house, the Orthodox also built their fraternal monasteries in Slutsk and its district. Bishop Vasilevich was considered the archimandrite of the Trinity Slutsk Monastery, to which Preobrazhensky in the city itself, as well as the newly founded Starchitsky and Grozovsky in the Slutsk district, were assigned. At the suggestion of the Belarusian bishop, or, perhaps, at the desire to serve in the metropolis of the illustrious hierarch of Tukala, who devoted both his peace and meager means to the cause of enlightenment and expressed complaints about the impoverishment of piety in Lithuania, Dimitri remained in Slutsk. He lived here for almost a whole year, settling in the Transfiguration Monastery and becoming a fraternal preacher 63. The monastery was poor; The building in it is wooden. The patron of the monastery was John Skochkevich. Skochkevich fell in love with Dimitri and, while providing him with patronage, did not want to part with him 64. Demetrius's sermons from that time have not survived. But the nature of his activities can be judged by the books he has. These were polemical works against Catholic errors, such as: “Questions and answers to the Orthodox with the papezhnik”, “Annotation to Hypatius on the Council of Florence”, etc. 65 Demetrius’s own review and comparison of the Gospel Sunday readings among Catholics and Orthodox have also been preserved from the same time. – Dimitri, like all the Slutsk clergy, was interested in protecting not only the faith, but also the rights of the Orthodox. He fully agreed with the legal historical grounds on which Bishop Vasilevich himself fought against the Uniates. Demetrius wrote them down; here they are: Rus' (in Lithuania) has a historical right to freedom of its religion, because it accepted the faith from the Patriarch of Constantinople when there was no union with Rome; then, Rus' was annexed to Poland under King Casimir much earlier than the Council of Florence, and after which it always remained Orthodox; further, - and in Polish citizenship, therefore, her rights must remain unchanged; finally, after the Council of Florence, even until recently, it was never in a union and Russians should still be given positions and rights. So the modest Demetrius took up arms to defend Orthodoxy. Lazar Baranovich hardly imagined that he would remain in such, as he put it, a “militant church” and would oppose the unscrupulous Uniates, but information that he had joined the ranks of Orthodox fighters in Slutsk soon reached Chernigov. After 3 weeks, the abbot of the Slutsk monasteries, Father Mokrievich, went to Chernigov and brought a letter from the Chernigov Colonel Vasily Dunin-Borkovsky, who demanded in the name of the hetman that Dimitry Savich return to Chernigov. The Bishop could demand this because after the death of Tukalsky he became in charge of the entire Orthodox population of Ukraine and Lithuania. Meletius Dzik, who now became the abbot of the St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery, also demanded Demetrius back. In Slutsk they realized the need to let Dimitri go, but did not want to part with him and, with the assistance of Skochkevich, begged him to stay with the brotherhood, making generous promises. From Chernigov they soon wrote for the second time that Dmitry was coming back from abroad, because such was the hetman’s desire. Since he was obliged to obey Meletius Dzik at that time, a request was sent to Dzik through a messenger, Father Khristinich, to leave him in Slutsk. The issue was decided by Dzik. “On behalf of himself and the St. Michael’s Monastery,” he agreed that Demetrius, if he so desired, would remain with the brotherhood for a time until he was needed for obedience to the St. Michael’s Monastery 66 . Despite Demetrius’s youth, he was given an excellent honor from the St. Michael’s Golden-Domed Monastery, namely: they sent him particles of the relics of the holy martyr Barbara and a book in a rich gold binding from the monk of St. Michael’s, Fr. Arsenia. Demetrius himself answered both Colonel Dunin-Borkowski and Abbot Dzik 67 . The sent part of the holy relics in a golden cross was placed in the church under the image of the Savior 68. Thanks to the consent of the abbot of the St. Michael's Monastery, the brotherhood kept Demetrius in Slutsk until the next 1679 (January 29). Demetrius became acquainted with the verbal techniques of church preaching from Lithuanian orators during his frequent trips to monastic holidays. So he went to the Grozovsky Monastery for the holiday of May 9th and to Starozhitsky for the veneration of the Miraculous Icon of the Mother of God, where a church sermon was heard. It is not for nothing that he notes his meetings with preachers Olaikevich and Goslavsky. The Slutsk period of his life, short in time, left a deep mark on Dimitri, forcing him to appreciate the merits of the South Russian clergy in their defense of Orthodoxy among the Uniate population. His stay in Slutsk ended with sad events for him: John Skochkevich died, and Bishop Feodosius Vasilevich died even earlier than Skochkevich. Demetrius fulfilled the sad duty of seeing off his deceased patrons with funeral services and speeches. The sermon according to Skochkevich began with the words: “as John ended your course.” For her, the speaker was awarded six cubits of good Dutch linen. The bishop's burial was in the town of Dziencilovichi. Dimitri’s acquaintance, Father Serapion Zamarevich, also died. This is how the well-wishers who held Dmitry in Slutsk went to their graves. There was now a new abbot of the monastery, Archimandrite Feofan Krekhovetsky. Other people came. By the way, one of the eastern hierarchs who came to Russia for alms visited Slutsk under Demetrius. It was Macarius Ligaridi. Ligaridi's arrival (August 11) coincided with the death of Bishop Vasilevich. Therefore, a visiting guest from the east performed a burial over the deceased bishop, and then, at the request of the Elder of Vilna, Clementy Trizna, ordained local persons as priests and deacons. Demetrius, who knew Greek, became a diligent mediator between the Slutsk clergy and the Greek metropolitan; subsequently he became closely acquainted with Ligaridi. Meanwhile, political dangers were gathering over the Christian population. The second Chigirin war was underway. The Turks and Tatars almost never ceased to devastate right-bank Ukraine; they set up corrals, caught residents, took them captive, burned cities and villages. Residents were not able to cultivate their lands. In August 1678 Chigirin fell. Its defense by the combined forces of Moscow and Ukraine was in vain. The Turks took him, and according to the popular proverb, whoever Chigirin followed, Kyiv will follow 69. The hardest thing was the knowledge that the predatory enemies were brought to Ukraine by the son of Bogdan Khmelnitsky, Yuri, who studied with the same teacher as Dmitry, Ioannikiy Golyatovsky. The population lived in horror; but he could not flee to the right Moscow bank, because the enemies had already crossed there. During this popular test, Dmitry decided to leave abroad for his homeland. He headed to Baturin, probably in view of the wishes of Hetman I.S. Samoilovich, expressed in a letter from Colonel Dunin-Borkovsky. Near the Hetman's capital is the Krupetsky Nikolaevsky Monastery, where Theodosius Gugurevich was abbot at that time. Here Dmitry stopped and lived for more than 2 years (from February 6, 1679 to September 1681). Although Hetman was ending the war with the Turks, the anxiety did not subside. Throughout the summer of 1679, they erected fortifications in Kyiv, stationed troops along the road from Crimea and kept them assembled everywhere. The people were in fear of the expected Turkish invasion. Alarming events increased the importance of the hetman and the location of the Moscow government towards him. Samoilovich made two Chigirin campaigns and was now ending the Turkish war. This is how it is described in the narrative found in Part IV of the works of St. Dimitri. The Turks, having the intention of taking Kyiv for themselves, first approached the ancient Cossack city of Chigirin with a huge army. The Cossack and royal troops located there repulsed their first terrible attacks, and the royal governor, Prince Romodanovsky, and the hetman, I. S. Samoilovich, hurried with their troops to the rescue (“to cut off”) the besieged. Before their arrival, on August 27, the enemies were extracting the city with intense efforts; and on this day in Kyiv, by order of the Kiev-Pechersk Archimandrite Gisel, they made a religious procession around upper Kyiv; They brought out for the church procession the Kiev-Pechersk Icon of the Mother of God, which had never happened before that time, as well as revered shrines and many saints. power. God heard the prayers. The enemies, having learned about the approach of Russian troops, fell into fear and fled on that very day. All their plans were scattered like a cobweb. The next year (1678) in the summer, the Turks came in even greater numbers near Chigirin. The military men present in the city not only repulsed all the first attacks of the enemies on the city, but also defeated them in battles on the field, so that the enemies were already thinking about retreating. When they heard that the troops of Prince Romodanovsky and Hetman Samoilovich, “with the God-given branch of Simeon,” were moving to Chigirin’s rescue, they came to meet us in huge numbers. The Russians attacked the Turks when they were located on a high mountain. Dotted with enemies, with incessant gunfire from the mountain gorges, the steep mountain seemed like a hanging terrible cloud with fiery rain and fierce thunder.” On August 3, Russian troops under the “decent leadership of a prudent leader,” I. S. Samoilovich, moved with religious inspiration against the enemies of the Holy Cross and defeated them. Many of them were beaten, sunk during the crossing and taken prisoner. On August 4, Russian troops approached Chigirin, to the horror of their enemies. The Turks used a trick to take the city: they began to dig under it. Then the Russian troops defending the city abandoned it. At the end of the Chigirin War, Russian troops stopped at the Dnieper and, being “guided by the orderly management of a skillful leader, fought a great battle with the filthy,” which had not been seen for centuries: the sun was eclipsed by the gunfire, the air was darkened by the rising dust, the earth groaned, the troops were showered with bullets like hail, swords glistened and Christian hands were “sanctified” in the blood of the filthy. The Turks stayed another seven days and left for the steppes. Barely a third of them returned home, and the royal and Zaporozhye forces were intact 70. After such glorious events, the hetman’s court began to be distinguished by splendor, and the owner remained as joyful as before. Celebrations were held to celebrate the arrival of the Moscow ambassadors. The hetman listened to the news of the Bakhchisarai peace with the Turks with a sigh that the entire right side of the Dnieper had gone to them, but he organized magnificent celebrations: music thundered and cannons were fired. Busy with business, the hetman lived inaccessible to the clergy: the house of this former priest was surrounded by serdyuks with berdysh, and he rode along the street with an inaccessible “puff in a carriage”; However, he treated Demetrius attentively, and in the Diary he was even called a “benefactor.” The Hetman loved to surround himself with senior clergy, distinguished by their rank and outstanding abilities. So he invited the visiting Serbian Metropolitan Pocheka 71 to the consecration of his newly built church. In the Baturinsky monastery lived, not without the consent of Samoilovich, a Parisian teacher, Adam Zernikov, a voluntary exile for his Orthodox beliefs. He wrote two treatises in Paris against the Catholic teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. The treatises carefully prove that the arguments of Catholics in favor of their teaching have no significance, since they distort everything that is given from St. scriptures and patristic works. Convinced from his scientific research that the Catholic confession was wrong, he left Paris to avoid the usual persecution from Catholics for his beliefs. The Latins knew his treatises, but did not dare to object to them, so as not to raise an unjust cause. The treatises, which made up a large handwritten book, remained unpublished during his lifetime. They were subsequently used by Feofan Prokopovich in anti-Lutheran polemics about the origin of St. Dukh, assuring that no objection to Zernikov’s well-founded arguments is unthinkable, there cannot even be a reason for such an objection. In addition to these persons, the hetman also received other people from abroad. Subsequently, in 1684, the future Metropolitan of Kyiv, Bishop of Lutsk, Prince Gideon Svyatopolk of Chetvertinsky, came running here from Uniate persecution. The hetman was so friendly to Demetrius that rumors about this reached the Chernigov ruler. A year after Demetrius arrived in Baturin, Father Mercury arrived there from the Kirillovsky Monastery with the notification that the brethren were choosing him as their abbot and with a request from her to take the monastery under their management. Only at the request of the hetman, Dmitry refused such an honor, because a little later, the same hetman did not prevent him from being abbot in another monastery and even contributed to this. In the Kirillovsky Monastery they were consoled by the fact that the ardent defender of Orthodoxy, Innokenty of Monastyrsky, who had previously lived in Lithuania and was a friend of Demetrius, agreed to be abbot there. It can be assumed that the vain hetman saw in Dmitry a person capable of immortalizing his military exploits in history, and that Dmitry actually described the Chigirin campaigns. In Part IV of the works there is praise for Samoilovich for strengthening the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, written during his hetmanship 72. On August 10, 1681, following the death of abbot Jeremiah Shirkevich, the position of abbot at the Maksakovsky Holy Spassky Monastery became vacant. The choice of the brethren here also fell on Demetrius 73. Two hieromonks had already been sent from the Monastery to the guardian of the Kiev Metropolis, Lazar Baranovich, with news of this. The hetman not only willingly released Dmitry, but handed him a handwritten letter to the Chernigov ruler. In Chernigov, the archbishop gave Demetrius a friendly welcome. “I was (September 4) received from His Eminence very graciously,” says Demetrius. “As soon as he opened the letter, he immediately said the following words: “Without reading the letter, I say: may the Lord God bless you not only with the abbess, but by the name of Demetrius, I wish you a miter: Demetrius will receive a miter.” That same day I was at his Eminence’s dinner and was treated with love, where, among other gracious words, he added to me: “Today the prophet Moses the Seer of God; Today the Lord God has vouchsafed you to be abbess in the monastery where the Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord is, like Moses on Tabor. He who told Moses his ways, let him also tell you in this Tabor his ways to eternal Tabor.” Demetrius was pleased to hear such words from the bishop’s lips; he considered them a good omen and a prophecy: “Grant, God, that his archpastoral prophecy come true!” he wrote in Diaria. Lazar Baranovich, during his initiation as abbot, handed him a staff and saw him off as his own son 74 . Dmitry assumed his first abbotship on September 9 and already on February 7 of the following year, 5 months later, at the request of the hetman, he was transferred to Baturin to the Nicholas Monastery 75, instead of Theodosius Gugurevich, who was transferred to the Kiev Golden-Domed Monastery. On March 1, 1682, Demetrius accepted the abbess at the Baturinsky Monastery, and on March 3, he hurried to the Maksakovsky Monastery to say goodbye to his first monastic flock. His farewell was marked by several tonsures. Having received a new decree on transfer to Baturin on March 6, Dimitri noted in his notes “God grant, in good time”, “God help me, please!” Blessed Virgin, bless the beginning!” Apparently, Dimitri attached great importance to this change. By its appearance, Dimitri’s monastery could be mistaken for a foreign, non-Ukrainian fortress, surrounded by an earthen rampart: it was guarded not by Cossacks, but by a detachment of Moscow archers, unusual for a Little Russian. Among the wooden buildings of the monastery, a stone church was then erected at the expense of the general judge Ivan Domontovich. The proximity to the hetman's capital gave the monastery extraordinary vibrancy. Here was the hub of relations between the Little Russian clergy and the Moscow Patriarchate; clergy who came from different directions stayed with Demetrius: from Ukraine, from Moscow, Kyiv, from abroad in Poland and Lithuania, from Greece and other places for an audience, whoever had a need for the hetman 76. Dmitry knew about all the relations of the hetman and other persons with Moscow. He was also aware of the unconcealed anxiety about Moscow’s demands that Little Russia submit not only politically, but also in church affairs. Under Samoilovich, the general Cossack discontent with Moscow that destroyed his predecessors, Bryukhovetsky and Mnogohrishny, had not yet died down. Helpless themselves against the Turks, Tatars and Poles, they reproached the Moscow people for indifference to their situation and bitterly expressed that from Moscow, instead of military assistance against enemies, they were sending only decrees to fight: “they send a lot of written things from Moscow, only in paper, but they console with kind words”; Moscow was confronted with the inability of the royal Kyiv governor to protect Kyiv and its environs from devastation and devastation from the Poles 77 . Not seeing timely protection from Moscow, the Little Russians were indignant at the sending of the tsarist commanders to them for food and the demands of any subordination. “You did not take us with a saber, we were not dowries, we were not bought” 78 from you; This is what Little Russian people said about violating their liberties. The dissatisfaction of the clergy was even stronger. Whereas the Cossacks did not know in advance who they would have to swear allegiance to tomorrow: Moscow, or Poland, or Turkey, for their own safety, or under the compulsion of one of the powers; the clergy on both banks of the Dnieper had one definite and long-standing ruler, recognized throughout the entire eight-century Christian history of Kyiv, this is the Patriarch of Constantinople. The clergy boldly told the Moscow people: “We are under the blessing of the Holy Hierarch Patriarch of Constantinople, and not anyone else!” – Just as in Turkey Christians professed their Orthodoxy while being under Turkish citizenship, so in Ukraine the spiritual authorities found it possible to govern freely and independently of the Moscow Patriarch. The reluctance to submit to the Moscow Patriarch among the Little Russian clergy was so persistent that in left-bank Ukraine they considered it more peaceful to live under the rule of another power, even a Turkish one: “with whom there is a khan, he is also a master,” Metropolitan Tukalsky used to say. Demetrius was not aloof from such convictions of all the Kyiv abbots; and always expressed ardent affection for the freedom and unity of the Little Russian Church. With submission to the Moscow Patriarch, it naturally had to split into two: if the Left Bank clergy recognized itself as subordinate to Moscow in a spiritual sense, then the Right Bank could not express submission while it was under Polish citizenship. The Poles, who owned left-bank Ukraine, would not allow their Russian subjects to live in any kind of dependence on Moscow. From this, of course, one should have expected the division of the single church into two: while one half would have submitted to the Moscow saint, and the other would have remained with the Constantinople. What was especially upsetting in Ukraine was the Tsar’s disagreement with Tukalsky living in Kyiv; Gisel also wrote to Moscow: “order, sir, to place this good man in the metropolis in Kyiv and show the necessary support to his rank, ... it will not be indecent: he is a very learned, sensible man” 79 . For Moscow, where church and state have always been thought of as nothing other than inextricably linked, such requests seemed both impracticable and suspicious. In Ukraine, they stubbornly held on to Tukalsky even when Moscow appointed a guardian of the metropolitan throne for Kyiv: in order to humiliate the guardian, Lazar Baranovich, the spiritual authorities pretended that they did not recognize his archbishopric given by Moscow and called him a bishop. Discontent grew with relations between Moscow and Poland: the Little Russians did not like the fact that Moscow, having accepted them as its citizenship, had relations with the Poles and was seeking peace with the lords. There was one time (1667) when the Russians almost gave Kyiv to the Poles; This was prevented only by one accidental circumstance - Doroshenka’s betrayal, which knocked down the pride of the gentlemen. All this left its mark on the attitude of the Little Russian clergy towards Moscow, who treasured the shrines of Kyiv, where the Poles could introduce a union. When Demetrius was in Baturin, Kyiv still did not have its own metropolitan. Greek metropolitans came to Ukraine, “not witnessed by anyone”: some of them “and without the blessing of the most holy patriarchs served and supplied without permission” 80, calling themselves metropolitans of Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian, Filippov, Drama 81. They elevated to the priesthood even those persons whom local bishops, due to lack of rights, refused to ordain. Demetrius, due to his knowledge of the Greek language, knew some of them closer than others, Pocheka, M. Ligaridi, could hear from these eastern guests all kinds of talk about fellow countrymen who came to Russia for alms and refuge. Having experienced the machinations of the Jesuits in Lithuania, Demetrius saw no less than other spiritual authorities the danger of Uniate propaganda, not restrained by administrative spiritual authority. The administrator of the Kyiv Metropolis, Lvov Bishop Joseph Shumlyansky, sent out his “lovely sheets” throughout Ukraine, where he inspired everyone that the importance of the Kyiv Metropolitan was higher than that of the Moscow Patriarch. But everyone knew that he was a secret Uniate, and understood his hidden Uniate goals. In Lithuania, Shumlyansky seized the property of Dimitriev’s patron, Bishop Vasilevich, and now he seized the property of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery. Given such unrest, the Moscow government began to recognize the need to install a metropolitan in Kyiv, since the guardian of the metropolis did not have time to ordain proteges. The hetman, out of a desire to show his devotion to Moscow, asked permission from there to choose the Kyiv Metropolitan. But Moscow could not resolve this in any way while Little Russia was considered to belong to the spiritual jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. In all this discontent, of which Dimitri was a participant, the main driver was fear for the Little Russian principle of conciliar government. The remoteness from Constantinople and folk customs secured in the Little Russian Church free elections of not only ordinary priests for parishes, abbots for monasteries, but also metropolitans for Kyiv. In Moscow, the principle of one-man patriarchal government has always been followed. The Little Russian spiritual authorities considered its use a violation of their freedom, or, as Dimitri carefully put it, a “privilege” of the church. Therefore, he could not share the conviction of his “benefactor”, the hetman, who spoke of the subordination of the Little Russian clergy to Moscow and decided to leave the abbess. During the abbess of Demetrius in Baburin, the famous Adam Zernikov died here. After Zernikov’s death, his handwritten treatises on the origin of St. remained. Spirit 82. At the same time, the generous benefactor of the Baturin monastery, Judge General Ivan Domontovich, died (1683). He was buried in the church he built himself. Demetrius 83 composed a funeral epitaph for him, which has survived to this day. In Dimitri's Diary, the death of other acquaintances was noted during this time: his patron, Abbot Meletius Dzik, and the Moscow Tsar, Theodore Alekseevich (1682). The pomp of the hetman's court did not entertain Dmitry, when he was aware of the suffering of tens of thousands of hungry families who had moved from right-bank Ukraine and were in vain waiting for help from the hetman. Already now he was thinking about his future fate: “God knows, somewhere I am destined to lay my head,” he wrote in Diaria. Power in the monastery and honor from the hetman tormented him. His attention was more focused on new monks, whose tonsure he recorded in his Diary as special events in his life 84 . He was distracted from his languor and revived by the work unexpectedly proposed to him - the compilation of the Chetyi-Minea. He put all his strength into this activity, in it he found the joy of creativity and happy moments of sublime “day-night” inspiration. Chapter II. Obedience to Demetrius. "Lives of the Saints" On the day of his Angel, October 26, 1683, Demetrius renounced the abbess at the Baturinsky monastery. For six months (October 26, 1683 - April 23, 1684) he lived here in obedience, and when Varlaam Yasinsky was elected Pechersk archimandrite, then, at the invitation of the latter, he moved to the Kiev Pechersk Lavra. It was April 23, 1684 85 The abundance of shrines and relics in Kiev, as well as the quiet, measured life to which he had become accustomed since childhood, all this prompted Demetrius to agree to the invitation of the Kiev Archimandrite. Here begins the glorious period of the life of the future saint. Archimandrite Varlaam entrusted Demetrius with the obedience of compiling the lives of the saints 86 . Demetrius accepted this task and began to engage in it with growing love. The need to compile the Chetya Menaion has been felt for a long time. In the Church of Constantinople, to which Kyiv also belonged, there were no Chatey Menaia. A few hagiographic translations of this type of writings of the 9th–10th centuries were placed from Greek into Slavic books, for example, the life of St. Apostle Kondrat, martyr Thekla. Entire collections of the lives of saints 87 have also been preserved. Bulgarian, Serbian and Athonite translations of lives from Greek came to Russian monasteries. The existing lists of the lives of saints were destroyed; During the Tatar defeat, the Uniates destroyed everything that remained of the writing of ancient Slavic origin. All surviving individual “Lives of the Saints”, for example, Princes Boris and Gleb, Pechersk saints, Moscow saints, were scattered. In Great Russia there were the Great Four Menaions of Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow, who collected in his 12 menaions all the books “that were found” in the prologues and collections. But the Makaryevsky Fourth Menaion lay unprinted in Moscow and was inaccessible for inspection. Kyiv monks, who needed the Lives of the Saints, always turned to books in Latin, Polish and Belarusian. Realizing the inconvenience and danger of such a deficiency, Metropolitan Peter of Kiev (Mogila) began the task of compiling the lives of the saints in the Orthodox spirit. For this purpose, handwritten lives of the saints by Simeon Metaphrast were already sent to them from Athos to Kyiv in order to compile translations from the Greek language. But the whole undertaking ceased after his death 88. The Chernigov ruler Lazar Baranovich 89 made an unsuccessful attempt in this regard. The need for the lives of the saints called someone to great diligent and concentrated work. Pechersk Archimandrite Innocent Gisel continued the work of Metropolitan Peter Mohyla; because chety menaia became necessary in all monasteries for statutory reading, and during the struggle against the union, reading in Orthodox monasteries the same books of life from the Uniate was not very convenient. For this purpose, they asked the Moscow Metropolitan Joachim to send the Great Makaryevsky Fourth Menaion. The sent copy of them turned out to be, however, not written in a statutory letter, but in cursive, very difficult to read. The books were sent back to Moscow without being used for Little Russian needs and purposes. Attempts to compile the menaions were also known to the hetman, who wrote about this to his patron, Prince V.V. Golitsyn, that in Little Russia the clergy, about their “good diligence about human salvation, began the business” of compiling “lives.” In 1680, Varlaam Yasinsky 91 took part in the reclaiming of the Great Four Minas under Gisela. Having now become the Kiev-Pechersk archimandrite, he took up the matter even more persistently. About the assignment to Demetrius to compile the four menaions, Barlaam himself says the following: “God, through my earnest prayer, sent a prudent preacher of the word of God, the pious hieromonk Demetrius, to live in the monastery. To this skillful preacher of the word of God, who works prudently in this Lavra, testified by the truth itself, I entrusted, on the advice of the council fathers and brethren, the Holy Lavra, so that this holy work could be completely corrected.”92 Work began on May 6, 1684. “God willing, do it!” Demetrius wrote in his diary. From that time on, he completely immersed himself in his new book pursuit, doing it for 20 years. Demetrius himself had few books at hand; he lacked such urgently needed ones as the Great Fourth Menaion and the “Acts of the Saints” by the Bollandists (“Asta Sanctorum”). But the library of the St. Sophia Cathedral had a large book depository 93. And in general, Kyiv was considered the center of education, that, as Baranovich put it, a “reasonable head” that gave answers to all questions. Demetrius, in addition, often borrowed books related to his occupation from people he knew. The Russian translation of the necessary books turned out to be few: “The Lives of the Saints” by Simeon Metaphrastus, “The Chronicler,” copied from Pechersk, “Chronograph,” from Greek, translated, large,” “Russian Chronicle and a collection of various things,” several copies of Russian chronicles, and subsequently “Large Chronograph” 94. Most of Dimitri's books were in foreign languages: Latin, Greek, Polish. These are, for example, - Baronius 12 volumes in 6 books; histories: Byzantina, Suplicius Severus, John Lepi, I. Cluverius, Frederick (general history), George Gornius, Flosculi, Vetis, Justina, Horace Turcelinus, Josephus, Platini. There were martyrologies, chronicles, the book “Church Writers”, various reference books, historical synopses, the chronology of I. Bozius “The Lives of the Latin Saints”, “Belly” by Lazar Baranovich, etc. The predominance of books of non-Orthodox origin forced Demetrius to be attentive to his written sources. Only divine services, which he never missed, interrupted his studies for a short time. Now they indicate the place in the Great Assumption Church where he always stood for prayer 95. His deepening into book work was so great that he even experienced it in his sleep. One day he worked all night on compiling the lives of the saints. There was already one hour left before Matins. Having forgotten himself for a short time, he sees in a dream the martyr Orestes, who addresses him with a cheerful expression: “I have endured more torment for Christ than you wrote.” Saying this, the martyr opened his chest and showed a wound in his left side, running deep into his chest. “This was burned through me with a rod.” Then, pointing to the wound at the elbow, he said: “This is what was cut for me!” Pointing to the wounds on both knees, he continued” “They cut me with a scythe!” You see, I suffered more for Christ than you have written!” Dimitri thought to himself: “Who is this? Is he not one of the five martyrs? - “I am not the same Orestes, as if in response to the thoughts of Demetrius, the martyr said, but the one about whom you wrote your life today.” Then another important-looking saint or martyr appeared. But suddenly the morning bell rang and, always sensitive to it, Dimitri woke up 96. Demetrius saw such dreams so clearly that he remembered them down to the smallest details, and experienced the pleasure when remembering them, which comes through in his very stories about such sleepy visions. One day (August 10), in a daze after Matins, he hears the church gospel, but continues to sleep. He dreams that he is examining the relics of holy saints in the cave entrusted to his supervision with a candle. Having seen the relics of St. Martyr Barbara, lying on her side and in a rotten coffin, he took them out and put them in another place in order to cleanse the shrine. Then, when he again took the relics in his hands, he saw the saint alive, and began to ask her: “Holy Virgin Barbara, my benefactress, pray to God for my sins!” “I don’t know,” said the martyr, “whether I can pray for you: you pray in Roman!” Dimitri began to grieve in despair. But the saint, smiling, uttered the words: “Do not be afraid,” and also said something comforting. Demetrius placed her relics in the coffin, kissing her hands and feet; Her whole body seemed white and alive, and the cancer was too big for her. He began to look for another crayfish and, at the same time, woke up. Demetrius's narration of such visions was always accompanied by an expression of extreme and living humility: he blames himself for the vision in St.'s sleep. Barbarians was at the time of the gospel for Matins, which he “out of ordinary laziness” slept through until the reading of the psalter. When the saint reminded him that he prayed “in the Roman way,” he thought: “That this was told to me because I am very lazy in prayer and in this case was like the Romans, who have a very short prayer book, since I have a short and rare prayer.” “God knows what this dream signifies, and what kind of events will follow! Oh, if only through the prayers of St. Barbara, my patron, God gave me the correction of my evil and accursed life!” No matter how much Dimitri was interested in book studies, they did not extinguish his keen interest in his native church. The events were very important. In 1685, the election of the Kyiv Metropolitan took place. To please Samoilovich, they elected Prince Gideon Chetvertinsky, Bishop of Lutsk, who lived in Baturyn. By the will of the Moscow government, Gideon went to be initiated not to Constantinople, but to the Moscow Patriarch. They did not pay attention to the displeasure of the Little Russian spiritual authorities; they did not ask in advance for the consent of the Eastern patriarchs. Gideon, accepting initiation from the Moscow Patriarch, thereby submitted to him with all his flock (1685). Dimitri did not hide his resentment; he showed lively joy at the news that the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus was dissatisfied with the now dependence of the Little Russian Church on Moscow, that Dositheus even sent a protest to the Moscow kings against the unauthorized seizure of Ukraine from the rule of Constantinople. This protest was caused by the following circumstances. Those sent from Moscow arrived in Jerusalem with the news of the dedication of Gideon, and you told Dositheus that if he agreed to approve and recognize Gideon, then they would give him alms from the kings, and if he did not agree to this, then he would not receive any sovereign salary; at the same time, they reported that the Patriarch of Constantinople had already given his consent to this. The offended Patriarch of Jerusalem writes reproachfully to Moscow that they should not have extorted such consent for money, but asked for the sake of faith and the benefit of believers. Dositheus did not praise the dedication of Gideon in Moscow. In his opinion, the Patriarch of Constantinople himself cannot give the Kyiv diocese to Moscow. This is the work of all four Eastern patriarchs, who were appointed to care for the church. One may fear that the Russian people living under Polish citizenship will not recognize such a metropolitan, and this will cause schism and discord in the Little Russian Church. – Dosifei’s words came true. – When Demetrius read this letter, general dissatisfaction with the election of Gideon was already evident: the Kiev-Pechersk archimandrite protested, and the secret Uniate bishop of Lvov, Joseph Shumlyansky, did not agree to the election. “It’s as if you guessed that this would happen and involuntarily prophesied,” Dmitry attributed his note to the patriarchal charter 97. With all his modesty, he even made objections to the letter of the Moscow patriarch. With this letter, the Patriarch allowed the Pechersk archimandrite to be elected by the council of elders and certainly sent to Moscow for initiation. Demetrius expressed that the demand of the one elected to Moscow is an unfair violation of the rights of the Little Russian clergy and goes against not only the charters of the ecumenical patriarchs, but even against the privileges given by Moscow itself regarding the independence of the management of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. In all this, he referred to Z. Kopystensky’s “Palinode” about Kyiv’s dependence in spiritual matters not on Moscow, but on Constantinople. Demetrius’s entire selection of historical information is directed against Moscow, which in its political growth drew church administration from Little Russia; Meanwhile, from all the catastrophes experienced, there remains one dear asset - an independent church uniting the Russian population of Ukraine and Poland. But the most offensive thing for Demetrius and other spiritual authorities was that they were faced with accusations of non-Orthodoxy and inclination towards Catholicism. No one there could come to terms with this. The use of Polish and Latin by the Kyiv clergy, the uniform of monastic clothing and other everyday features gave rise to suspicion. The Patriarch of Jerusalem, who stood for the originality of church life in Ukraine, wrote to the Moscow kings in 1686: “now in that country called Cossack land, some scholars in Rome and Poland from the Latins, archimandrites, abbots, do not adhere to similar wisdom in monasteries. Orthodox faith alone (leads) to salvation and it is not proper for the faithful to be deceived through philosophy and vain delusion. We consider the Cossacks to be Orthodox, however, many have damaged morals, which are not appropriate for the Orthodox to accept” 98 . Demetrius learned with bitterness about this review of Dosifei; he did not want to believe the authenticity of the letter; he began to suspect that all this was attributed to the translator. “However, it gradually became clear that, in addition to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Moscow’s suspicion of Kyiv scientists was diligently supported and fueled by Greek immigrants, who saw them as rivals in the pursuit of a monopoly of education. Given Moscow’s tendency to believe such rumors, anyone in Ukraine who wanted to curry favor with Moscow could inflate them there. Even Hetman Samoilovich, who came from the popovich family, never missed an opportunity to report on his clergy’s commitment to “Latin science” and discord. To meet the new metropolitan returning from Moscow, the Kiev-Pechersk archimandrite went to the hetman’s capital, Baturin, and he took Demetrius with him as the “executor of the Pechersk,” that is, a preacher. A recent exile in Ukraine, who lived with Demetrius in the monastery, Gideon Chetvertinsky, together with his relative, the hetman, now had great power in Ukraine. Both of them enjoyed the strong favor of the Moscow tsars and the patriarch. Gideon was granted there the title of Metropolitan of “All Russia,” and received from them rich gifts of church vestments decorated with precious stones. He was even given a carriage with horses. The kings did not forget his cathedral, St. Sophia Cathedral, where Gideon brought golden vessels decorated with enamel as gifts from the kings. Gideon’s attention to Demetrius was expressed in the fact that he began to ask, together with the hetman, and convince him to again accept the abbess at the Baturinsky monastery. Demetrius, accustomed to reverence the bishops and taking their words as instructions from above, agreed to the proposal. He was probably promised every assistance in drawing up the four menyas. The spiritual authorities accompanied the new metropolitan from Baturin as he joined the Kyiv flock. Dmitry again had to part with his relatives. Sag Grigorievich’s household was broader; he already had a garden at his house and a yard, which he bought in 1684 for 1000 gold. Now he was a ktitor of the Kirillov Monastery. In his house, Demetrius probably met with Innocent of Monastyrsky. Demetrius parted with the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. I had to break off new acquaintances. Here he met the Kyiv governor Sheremetyev and Gordon, who listened to his church sermons on special occasions 100. here He became friends with Stefan Jaworski, who came from abroad. The hetman took his measures to assist Dmitry in his scientific work in Baturin. At the first opportunity, he began to lobby from Moscow for the expulsion of the Great Chatey Menya. He writes about this to V.V. Golitsyn, his affectionate friend and benefactor. Without mentioning the name of Demetrius, the hetman informs that clergy in Little Russia began to write the lives of the holy saints of God and, for better research, they need Menaions of the Mother of God, which they do not have, but Patriarch Joachim has them in the Church of the Assumption of the Virgin. The Hetman strenuously (“again and again”) asks to send these books for the compilers of the lives of the saints, if not all, then at least for the first four months: September, October, November, December, certifying that this is the desire of the Kyiv Metropolitan, and guaranteeing that the books, after reading, will be sent back to the Patriarch; then asks V.V. Golitsyn to report to the kings about such a matter, pleasing to God and serving people for salvation, so that the patriarch does not deny him the Four Menaions 101. With the hetman's petition, the matter was crowned with success. Demetrius received the Moscow Great Chetya Menaion of Macarius, written by the charter, 4 books 102. With undiminished enthusiasm he continued his book business in Baturin. Considering his work an assignment from the entire Little Russian Church, he treated it with attentive caution. Everything he wrote was given to many people, both secular and clergy, for reading, with a request to express their opinion about what was written 103. There were many misunderstandings when compiling the Lives. There was a book depository in the St. Sophia Cathedral. Dimitri used all the books there and purchased them himself, so there was a lot of book material. To understand it and treat it with a critical assessment, he compiled a reference alphabetical dictionary, or “Onomasticon of the names of saints from the prologue according to the alphabet collected (rock 1687 month of September)” 104. Here the name of the saint is indicated alphabetically, whether he is a martyr or a saint. This alphabet made work easier 105. The lack of uniformity in biblical chronology and in chronographs slowed down the work a lot. Dmitry had a question about the year of the Nativity of Christ. When describing the martyrs and saints who lived during the times of persecution of Christians, I came across the pagan definition of time according to the consuls, with references to the Kalends, Ides, and Nones, which served as temporary designations in the calendar of the Greco-Roman world. For chronological determinations, Demetrius also copied the ancient Roman calendar for the entire year. To facilitate such inquiries, he had mnemonic verses, perhaps compiled somewhere in Western schools for students 106 ; he was always a lover of poetry; He probably learned the poems by heart. Those interested in Demetrius’ work hurried him to print what he had written as quickly as possible, and, in particular, the archimandrite of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, where the need for the Chetyam Menaion was urgent, encouraged him to do this 107 . But he encountered obstacles to publication from a side from which one could least have expected. In 1686, the Moscow Patriarch came to demand that the Little Russian clergy give their opinion on the Council of Florence. The Patriarch wrote that now some accept and praise this council, while others, on the contrary, do not recognize it. Attributing such a division to the machinations of the devil, the saint demanded news about the council from the books available in Kyiv, namely: why it began and what issues and proposals were considered at it 108 . Metropolitan Gideon, who received the patriarchal letter, summoned the Kyiv spiritual authorities, including Demetrius, to the Kiev Pechersk Lavra and, in the presence of everyone, ordered it to be read. Everyone was surprised by the request from Moscow. The order not to disclose this to the people, so as not to cause confusion and, in general, political complications among them, revealed hidden suspicions in the patriarch towards one of the Kyiv clergy. When they learned that there was a similar letter to the ruler of Chernigov, everyone understood the patriarch’s intention to test whether “Little Rus' really accepts the Florentine Cathedral as a cathedral?” 109 Everyone spoke “negatively”, that the entire Eastern Church rejected this gathering and did not consider it a council. With such unanimity, they instructed Archimandrite Kirillovsky Innocent of Monastyrsky, together with Archimandrite Theodosius of Uglitsky from Chernigov, to write a response to Moscow that the council was not legal and not canonical, and that those of the Orthodox who were seduced into a union with the Roman Church, having become infected with many heresies that arose from papal autocracy, none of them would follow. All those who were here, including Dimitri, signed the written authority to Innocent. Innocent communicated in writing with Theodosius about this, but Theodosius limited himself to a promise to send a special confidant to Kyiv from Chernigov for negotiations. However, no one came from Chernigov because the Chernigov Archbishop, Lazar Baranovich, had already sent an answer to the Moscow Patriarch on his own behalf. He wrote that he knew little about the Florence Cathedral, there were few books in Chernigov about this gathering, and it was published in detail in the Ostrog history of the cathedral, published in Moscow under the title “The Life of St. Sergius of Radonezh.” Lazarus summarizes the history of the Florence Cathedral briefly. The Kyiv spiritual authorities, together with Demetrius, could not help but be offended by the request from Moscow, because, under the pretext of information about the council, the patriarch inquired about whether there was a “bread-worshipping heresy” among them. This is the name given to the Latin opinion in Great Russia, which constitutes the religious peculiarity of the papacy. According to this opinion, at the Liturgy, bread and wine are transubstantiated during the pronunciation of the words of Jesus Christ: “Take, eat, this is My body,” and also “Drink of it, all of you, this is My blood”; whereas, according to Orthodox teaching, transubstantiation occurs during the subsequent prayer of the celebrant, “and create this bread into the honorable body of Thy Christ... translating it with Thy holy Spirit.” According to the Orthodox view, the Latins bow before the Holy Gifts during the liturgy even when they are not transubstantiated, but simply represent bread and wine; During the Moscow disputes about transubstantiation, the Latins were nicknamed “bread worshipers” for this, that is, worshiping not the Holy Mysteries, but simple bread and wine. The doctrine of the transubstantiation of Gifts by the power of the words of Christ was approved at the Council of Florence. The Patriarch, indeed, with his inquiries wanted to find out whether there was such an opinion, approved by the Florence Council, in the Little Russian Church. Due to the contact of the Little Russians with the Uniates, in Moscow they suspected that the scientists there: “they worship on two knees,” in words they flatteringly show themselves to belong to the church, but adhere to the same convictions as the Latins. “They are full of Latin poison... they spread such rumors among the common people and outrage them.” The evasive answer from Lazar Baranovich and the silence from Kiev further strengthened the suspicion of the patriarch, according to Demetrius, the Kiev clergy was silent in their response to the patriarch “about the form of consecration of the Holy Eucharist because the question was raised about this in Moscow by Greco-Latin teachers who came from Greece” 110. However, the patriarch considered it necessary to clarify this issue in order to prevent the emergence of disputes in Little Russia about transubstantiation similar to those that occurred in Moscow. Although he expresses only one main reason for his request, namely, that he must give an answer to God for the entire flock, his motives were broader: in addition to religious ones, there were also political ones. They feared that the newly annexed Little Russia might break off its fragile political ties due to religious differences. The question of the time of transubstantiation entered Moscow from Little Russia. In Moscow, the representatives of the “grain-worshipping heresy” were the Little Russians. The Likhuds diligently fanned Muscovites' suspicions of Kyiv scientists. The literary struggle was going on at full speed. Suspicion of the non-Orthodoxy of the Kyiv scholars intensified in Moscow due to rumors about ritual differences existing in Little Russia. Patriarch Dosifei pointed out the peculiar clothing of the Kyiv monks, who imitated the Jesuits in this. The clergy received communion at the liturgy not three times in the name of the Holy Trinity, as in Great Russia, but once, in honor of the consubstantial Son of God 111; The Moscow patriarch accused the Chernigov archbishop of ordaining several henchmen during one liturgy 112. All this served as material for misunderstandings. Despite Moscow’s efforts to keep all this from being disclosed to the people, rumors about Moscow’s demands for explanations from Little Russians, accustomed to freedom, grew and intensified. Alarmed by them, Hetman Mazepa sent Varlaam Yasinsky a “tsidulka”, asking what kind of relations he had with the patriarch 113. For the Pechora archimandrite, who was then sick with eyes, Dmitry Savich responded to Hetman with a special letter, where he told how the Kyiv spiritual authorities learned about the patriarchal letter, how they instructed Innocent of Monastyrsky to write a response to the Moscow saint, “but he was not instructed to answer about the time of transubstantiation, since we all believe in the old way, as we learned from our fathers,” concludes Dmitry. Then Mazepa had an oral conversation with Archimandrite Kirillovsky Innocent, showed him Shaklovity’s letter from Moscow and some other papers; Innocent praised Hieromonk Sylvester Medvedev, who defended in Moscow the Latin opinion on the transubstantiation of the Gifts, extolling his works, intelligence and faith. Innocent confirmed the same thing in his letter to Mazepa: “It is not the business of my mind to comprehend how transubstantiation is accomplished by the words of the Lord, but the power of God is accomplished in weakness—I can write something about it” 114. The Moscow literary movement, which turned into a political one, was the subject of special attention in Little Russia. Many people there had already read Sylvester Medvedev’s book “Mannu,” which was persecuted by the patriarch. The hetman had it, Archimandrite Innokenty Monastyrsky and Dimitry Savich read and reviewed it. Both of them compared “Manna” with the book of the Likhuds, Sylvester’s opponents, “Akos,” sent by the patriarch himself to Metropolitan Gideon, Lazar Baranovich and Varlaam Yasinsky; moreover, they gave preference to “Manna,” which expounds Latin teaching. Innocent found nothing in the Greek book Akose, except one heresy, and began to write a refutation of it. Demetrius in 1688, comparing “Manna” with “Akos”, made copious extracts from Medvedev’s answer to Likhudov’s “Akos”. Mazepa informed Shaklovity that all spiritual people were ready not only to sign that Medvedev was right, but were ready to die for such an opinion. The hetman assured this from the words of Innocent of Monastyrsky. – In all this mental movement, Dimitri was no stranger to being carried away by Monastyrsky’s opinions. Soon in Little Russia, too, disputes moved from literary to church grounds. From Moscow the movement spread to Ukraine. Each party grouped around one person, as if around their banner. In Moscow, the leaders of the movement were, on the one hand, the Greeks - the Likhud brothers, and on the other, Sylvester Medvedev; in Kiev, “by decree of the Metropolitan and the entire clergy,” Archimandrite Kirillovsky, Dimitriev’s friend, Innocent of Monastyrsky, was put forward as the spokesman for the general opinion 115. In Kyiv they looked at the patriarch's requests as one of many attempts to deprive them of their canonical independence, now submitted by Greek immigrants. As if in response to accusations from Greek immigrants, Kyiv scientists made a statement that the book of the Likhuds contained heresies. In view of the fact that during the question of transubstantiation, Dmitry sympathized with the book of Sylvester Medvedev and did not break friendly ties with his Little Russian defender, Innokenty Monastyrsky, it is not superfluous to mention the arguments of Innokenty Monastyrsky on the question of transubstantiation 116. His book is called “On the Transubstantiation of the Words of Christ with the Action of St. The Spirit who is accomplishing, Innocent of the Monastery, of Kyiv, against the Likhudievs, who create the words of Christ in idleness, written in the summer of the incarnation of God the Word of 1689 during Lent.” It is indicated here that the opinion of the Likhuds contradicts the content of the liturgy of the Apostle James and the opinion of the church fathers. Likhuds humiliate the omnipotent Divine words of the Lord Himself, “Take, eat...”, etc., and prove that the human words of James, Chrysostom and Basil the Great are stronger than them in the liturgy. This is similar to the heresy of Berendarius, which has not died since the 11th century, who taught that the words of the Lord: “Take, eat...” must be understood historically. This is how the Likhuds try to overthrow the Divine institution. They teach that the words of the Lord are spoken only for remembrance, and they write with rage, calling the Kiev Lavra Uniate and heretical. Innocent of Monastyrsky also wrote another essay, “Refutation of Akos.” Here the Likhuds are accused of dishonesty. The Little Russians, who borrow science from the Jesuits, are considered non-Orthodox by them; but this is slander. By the grace of God, the Little Russian Church has many witnesses to its unwavering fidelity to Orthodoxy. She rebelled against the Jesuits even at a time when she was under the rule of the Catholic King of Poland, and stood until she bled; has martyrs for the Orthodox faith: the relics of the fighter for Orthodoxy, the martyr Hieromonk Athanasius, still rest in Brest-Lithuania. In all the big cities of Poland there are people who suffer to death for their faith. So, if the Little Russian Church is in an irreconcilable struggle with the Latins, then isn’t it clear that it does not agree with them on anything? The Likhuds themselves are hypocrites; they themselves have no convictions. The literary movement, so ardently begun, despite the sympathy of all the spiritual leaders, did not grow, thanks only to the usual decisive Moscow methods. Patriarch Joachim had been suspicious of the Little Russians for a long time and took drastic measures. Back in 1677, he ordered that liturgical and chronicle books printed in Cherkasy should not contradict others and would agree in everything with the same books published in Moscow 117. Without asking the consent of the Kyiv Metropolitan, he annexed the Little Russian monasteries to his department. Thus, in 1686, under the pretext that there were no “legitimate bishops” in the Belarusian diocese, he placed the Polotsk Epiphany Monastery under his direct control, “until, by the will of God, their own Orthodox bishops are established in that country” 118. In 1688, in the midst of disputes about transubstantiation, the Kiev Metropolitan was deprived of the title of “all Russia” given by the tsars. In the same year, the Chernigov diocese was removed from the jurisdiction of the Kyiv Metropolitan and annexed to Moscow. And this was done for an insignificant reason: the Chernigov ruler, Lazar Baranovich, did not want to guess that Patriarch Joachim, asking him for his opinion and news about the Council of Florence, did not demand information about the council, but to express his view 119 on the time of the transubstantiation of St. Darov. For Demetrius, such relations with Great Russia were all the more difficult, from where all of Ukraine expected only order and tranquility, because the very basis of church government lay different principles: in Little Russia they adhered to the principle of conciliar government, and were accustomed to stauropegial privileges, while in Moscow they recognized only individual control in spiritual affairs under the supervision of the patriarch. Kyiv scientists strived for scientific validity of dogmatic content; The Moscow Patriarch recognized him only as a true son of the church, who relies on the words of the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Fathers, “and not merely exercises himself with syllogisms and arguments.” In Muscovite Rus', “all scriptures were considered Divine,” including the works of the Eastern Fathers, and church traditions there were considered inviolable. Tolerance, even in rituals, was not among the Moscow virtues. The reason for the clash was the strong pre-Petrine ties in Moscow between the state and the church: political acquisition was almost always followed by religious affiliation. The Patriarch vigilantly monitored life in the newly annexed regions. Joachim is in favor of ensuring that there are no foreign commanders in the troops, so that non-believers do not command the Orthodox 120. In 1675, it was prohibited to wear German dress 121. Joachim even prohibited “simple ordinary language” for expressing faith 122. Upon the annexation of the Little Russian Church, the Patriarch prohibited the entry into Russian Ukraine of clergy and secular persons leaving Poland unless they had permission to do so (February 1688). In Moscow there was a belief that only weed-sowers Uniates and Jesuits 123 lived abroad; while Demetrius there saw tireless fighters against the union and defenders of the Orthodox people living among the Uniates. Not only for the publication, but also for Demetrius’s compilation of the Lives of the Saints, such circumstances brought many obstacles. Despite the repeated order of the patriarch to the Kyiv higher clergy to express their opinion on the time of the transubstantiation of St. Gifts,” Metropolitan Gideon and the Kiev-Pechersk Archimandrite delayed their answer for six months. The Moscow Patriarch finally began to ask the Ecumenical Patriarch to write coercive letters to the Little Russian spiritual authorities together with the other Eastern patriarchs. The request was supported, as usual, by an alms of 50 gold 124. Joachim also writes to the Kiev Pechersk archimandrite, assuring him that he himself knows about the Orthodoxy of the monks of the Lavra, but asks him to speak out on the modern hot issue of the Eucharist, in order, firstly, to confirm the truth, and, secondly, to shame some seducers who prescribe Latin opinions to the Kiev Pechersk monks 125. Demetrius, who lived for a considerable time outside the Lithuanian border in Slutsk, could also count himself among the “young wise men who learned from the Latin heretics” about whom the patriarch wrote. Particularly significant for Demetrius was the patriarch’s condemnation of the publication of the book “You Are a Treasure” in the printing house of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra. The Patriarch, seeing Latin opinions in it, writes to Kyiv that, probably, the “Exposition” was also published by the Jesuits under the name of the monks of the Lavra. The Chernigov ruler was the first to respond to this to the patriarch, but he answered in such an independent tone regarding his beliefs about the Eucharist and the book “Exposition” that the patriarch began to follow the Kyiv publications even more vigilantly. Lazarus did not hide his faith in the power of the Lord’s words “take, eat” for transubstantiation, which was a teaching accepted not from the Latins, but from the Greek, completely Orthodox teachers. The book “Exposition”, which proves this, was published not by the Jesuits, but by the holy and deceased Archimandrite of Kyiv, Theodosius Safonovich. The evidence in it is given not from the writings of Latin teachers, but from the works of the Eastern Fathers of the Church, and it fully agrees with all the books that came out of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra. Lazarus promises constant obedience to the patriarch if it is not contrary to church dogmas and does not violate fidelity to the Church of Christ. The Kyiv authorities also decided to defend the same “Exposition” before the patriarch: the Metropolitan, the Kiev Pechersk Archimandrite and the entire spiritual council. But the patriarch, in the arguments they presented, saw that they were still in their customs and cited some reasons from the teachings of Latin. Therefore, sending them pastoral instructions, the Moscow saint demands that they follow the Eastern Church on transubstantiation, correct themselves, agree on everything and immediately answer him. The spiritual council of the Kiev metropolis, to which such a patriarchal admonition was addressed, also included Demetrius. Such circumstances brought Dimitri a lot of grief. In the midst of aggravated relations with the Kyiv spiritual authorities at the beginning of 1688, the patriarch suddenly demanded the return to Moscow of the Great Makaryevsky Chetya Menya, expelled at the request of the former hetman Samoilovich. The deportation then took place with the assistance of V.V. Golitsyn, with whom the patriarch was now at odds. Thus, Demetrius was deprived of the main source for his book works. The patriarch's demands for the return of the books were sent to the Kyiv Metropolitan and the Kiev Pechersk Archimandrite. Demetrius now wrote to the patriarch himself. He reported that the books in the Baturinsky monastery were held in his hands, that he read them with attention and received a lot of benefit from them. I give them to your Holiness with thanksgiving and inform you that in the holy obedience entrusted to me by the Little Russian Church (1683, when Little Russia was not yet subordinate in spiritual matters to the Moscow Patriarch), I wrote the lives of the saints for six months, using the books of M. Macarius and other Christian historians. The written lives of the saints were read by some noble people and were judged by them, especially in the Pechersk Lavra. Now, at the request of many, I would like to publish them for the spiritual benefit of Christians, which the Archimandrite of Pechersk urges me to do with his letters. For such a matter, which is not useless (as I think) for the Church of God, I ask for your highest archpastoral blessing 126. So the books were again sent to Moscow. The answer from the patriarch did not come for a long time, and to begin printing without the permission of the patriarch, as was previously the case before 1685 under the rule of the Patriarch of Constantinople, has now become inconvenient. Lavra managed to ask for herself, in February. 1688, from Moscow all the privileges of stauropegia, but the patriarch’s preferential letter was silent about its right to dispose of printing: the patriarch wanted to check the book production of Kyiv scientists himself. Not receiving permission to print the Chetya Menya, they decided to do without it, since the Lavra already had a sovereign charter for the printing house. The first book of the Chetya Meney began to be printed on June 2, 1688. Dimitri himself came from Baturin to Kyiv to observe this case. Lives for the month of September were printed even before his arrival, and the next month 127 began. Demetrius was very happy when the book came out of print in January 1689. His works did not disappear without a trace. The book was carefully reviewed by all spiritual authorities, the Metropolitan of Kiev himself, the Archbishop of Chernigov 128 and others. A letter was sent to the Moscow Patriarch on behalf of the Pechersk archimandrite with an apology for having printed the Fourth Menaion without receiving the saint’s consent; in justification they referred to the fact that Yasinsky’s predecessor, Archimandrite Gisel, was given such a blessing to print books. At the same time, in addition to the book of the Chetya Menaion for the patriarch himself, they sent the same one to present to the Moscow kings. At the same time, they asked to again send the Makaryevsky Great Fourth Menaion to the Lavra for further compilation of the Lives of the Saints. The Patriarch, however, was dissatisfied with the Kiev Pechersk authorities. He reproached that the Lavra was not acting according to their promise, that they should first have sent everything written in the manuscript to Moscow for examination before printing and printed it with the permission of him, the patriarch. In the new book, the patriarch, as one would expect, drew attention to the author’s attitude towards Western teachings and saw errors in it. In his opinion, it contains a view that is alien to the Orthodox Church, namely, the assertion of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, a doctrine that even the papists forbade to interpret under the threat of punishment for it. In addition, the patriarch noted that Blessed Jerome of Stridon is classified as an Orthodox teacher. Finally, the patriarchal letter mentions an indirect reason for the discontent in Moscow. This is the printing of the book “The Crown of Christ” in the Kiev-Pechersk printing house shortly before that time. The Patriarch wrote reproachfully that in the “Crown” it was written that he, the Patriarch, blessed the publication, but they were not only denied the blessing, but were directly prohibited 129 . Although the Chetya Menaion had already been printed and correcting it, as the patriarch wished, became impossible, he found a means to correct it. The measures for correcting the Kyiv books were already familiar; they consisted of removing leaves from the book and replacing them with corrected ones 130. The Patriarch now demanded that the sheets in the Chetya Menaion, where he noticed errors, be reprinted and distributed to those persons from whom new Chetya Menaion were purchased for replacement; and the books in the printing house should not be released under pain of church execution until they are all examined by the patriarch himself, who is now very busy with other matters. The patriarch's harsh review must have had a depressing effect on the naturally modest Dimitri. The Pechersk archimandrite and the hetman could do nothing to console him. Their petitions to V.V. Golitsyn for the “Crown of Christ” were not respected, because the patriarch not only behaved independently of his neighbor boyar, but always unhinderedly going “to the top” to the sovereigns to consult with them, he acted with authority and confidence, looking closely at the Kyiv scientists with increasing suspicious attentiveness. Demetrius at first thought to answer the patriarch’s accusations and prove her opinions. In his 131 “notes to the alphabet” he made extracts from the books of Baronius on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Damascene on her birth, and John of Cartagena in defense of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Regarding the teachers of the Western Church, they even found and issued a Moscow certificate of veneration of them as saints. Thus, in the Great Menaion of Metropolitan Macarius, Jerome is called the oldest presbyter of the great Roman Church, who has shone as a teacher in the Church of God; it says that he lived “the most holy life, to be a light against heretics and the firmest foundation for all Christian truth”; in the gospel of the Moscow press in the life of Ev. Mark is directly called “holy.” In the color triodion on Cheese Saturday, in song 9, Jerome and Herman are called “divine lamps.” Augustine of Ippona is called “divine” in the preface to the bibles of the Moscow press. In the following psalter, printed in Moscow, Augustine’s preface is placed for pious edification. Thus, Augustine did not cease to be revered in the east, since he was its teacher for 53 years 132. In these extracts, Demetrius's learned techniques are visible. He easily navigates all kinds of books; He is also well acquainted with printed books of the Moscow press, thanks to which he strikes the objector with his own weapon. Demetrius’s opinion on the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary is noticeable even later, for example, in his handwritten notes from 1708 and in “Adoration of the Passion of the Lord,” which says: “we worship Your sinless conception and birth from St. parents Joachim and Anna" 133. A similar expression is repeated in his sermon on the day of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary, since at that time this was only a private pious belief about the unconditional non-involvement of the Blessed Virgin in sin, and did not yet constitute a religious dogmatic Catholic feature. From subsequent circumstances it became clear that the patriarch was angry for the printing not of Demetrius’s Chetya Menya, but of “The Crown of Christ,” for which he later wrote new reproaches to the Kyiv spiritual authorities. In 1689, Dmitry traveled to Moscow in the retinue of Hetman Mazepa. Mazepa set off on the advice of his patron, boyar V.V. Golitsyn, to report to the kings about the end of the summer Crimean campaign. Everyone expected to receive a warm welcome there. There were 200 people in the hetman's retinue. Among them were clergy: the Kirillovsky abbot - Innocent of the Monastyrsky, and the Baturinsky abbot - Dimitry Tuptalo, hieromonks, 2 white priests 134. Under the abbots there were governors and hierodeacons. Two deacons, Peter and Ephraim, were traveling with Demetrius. Some of the clergy had special reasons for the trip. Innocent of the Monastery was sent by the council of the Kyiv spiritual authorities, at the request of the Moscow Patriarch, as “a humble husband of the most sincere son of the Eastern Church, a leader of the well-known writings of the holy fathers, the ancient teachers of St. Christ’s Eastern Church” in order to personally speak in Moscow about the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts 135, as the patriarch himself wished. Afanasy Zarutsky, a resident of Glukhov, went to ask permission to publish his book, “To the Praise of Great Sovereigns.” He, like Demetrius, needed the chronicles stored in Moscow to verify the royal genealogies. It is unknown about other spiritual motives for traveling to Moscow. According to some evidence, many people were sent from Kyiv for an oral explanation 136. Perhaps the abbot of Baturin was given as a comrade to his friend, Innocent of Monastyrsky. The Little Russians and the hetman entered Moscow on August 10, 137. A lavish welcome was prepared for them long before their arrival. An “expensive carriage with windows” was sent from the kings. When Mazepa entered Moscow, he was greeted with military honors. The Little Russians stopped in the large embassy courtyard. The reception was distinguished by friendliness. Princess Sofia Alekseevna herself sent food from her table, Mazepa was praised for her victories 138. Each person is assigned a certain plentiful amount of food. Dmitry received 75 rubles a day (5 altyn). The next day, upon arrival, they were admitted to Tsar Ioann Alekseevich and Princess Sofia Alekseevna. Mazepa was praised here as a participant in the Crimean campaign, who helped V.V. Golitsyn defeat the Tatars, and was presented with a sovereign salary consisting of silver and gold items. On the same day, Dmitry, together with the hetman and other clergy of the hetman's retinue, presented themselves to the patriarch. Probably, right there at the patriarch’s place they saw the Moscow bishops, now busy fighting the schismatics: the future Patriarch of Russia, Metropolitan Adrian of Kazan, as well as Metropolitan Euthymius of Krutitsky, Metropolitan Paul of Nizhny Novgorod and especially Athanasius, who hated the papists, Archbishop of Kholmogory, who studied the Latin opinion on transubstantiation, as can be seen from his note on the “book about the Liturgy” - which also included Latin moss - that he had this book “for the sake of knowledge of Latin nonsense” 139. Metropolitan Ignatius Korsakov of Tobolsk was also there. The Little Russians arrived in Moscow at the most inconvenient time for guests. A quarrel between Tsar Peter Alekseevich and his sister has just begun. On the day of the entry of the Little Russians, Tsar Peter left for the Trinity Sergius Monastery. And Dimitri noticed that for some reason Tsar Peter was not at the reception: “he was nowhere on a campaign,” he guesses 140. But the people were already worried; The archers had to choose which side to take in the quarrel between brother and sister. Two days after the arrival of the Little Russians, the patriarch left for Trinity, and before his departure from the capital, he pronounced a curse on Princess Sofia for her adherence to the Latinizing party. The position of the Little Russians, who arrived at the invitation of the princess’s favorite, became uncomfortable. Sofia's attempts to make peace with her brother were unsuccessful. She sent Prince Troekurov to call Peter to Moscow, but Peter did not go. He demanded the expulsion of the archers from Moscow. The Little Russians learned that the book for the sovereigns had been accepted and that Hieromonk Sila Zhuravsky, with Hierodeacon Meletiy Trofimovich and Ilya Ponovsky, who had been sent from the Kiev Pechersk Lavra for this purpose, had been awarded and given two backbone fox furs 141 . But the offering was made at the wrong time: everyone’s attention was distracted by extraordinary events. The donation of the book to the brother of the temporary worker Alexei Vasilyevich Golitsyn 142 turned out to be just as useless. A demand came from Peter to extradite Medvedev and Shaklovity. Sophia no longer hid the danger and publicly declared that her brother was seeking her death. V.V. Golitsyn was demanded to see Trinity and was detained there. The September New Year celebrations did not take place due to the absence of the patriarch. Signs of popular unrest were already noticed by foreigners living in Moscow: they began to leave the city, and the Little Russians had to wait either for the outcome of the events that had begun or for a vacation home. Instead of the great honor prepared before Mazepa’s arrival, members of the Little Russian retinue began to look at him differently. They became guests of a party that was collapsing. They regretted Samoilovich and even talked about choosing a new hetman instead of Mazepa 143. After the final fall of Sophia's temporary worker, V.V. Golitsyn, on September 9, the Little Russians moved to Trinity, but they were not allowed to the monastery, and from there they were ordered to stay in the village of Vozdvizhenskoye. However, the next day they were allowed to appear before the bright royal eyes. A magnificent tent was erected for the hetman in the settlement. Tsar Peter received him very graciously. Here he and the elders also praised him for his service in the Crimean campaign. The cunning Mazepa managed to please Peter and already slander his benefactor V.V. Golitsyn. Peter ordered that all his petitions be satisfied 144. When everything was arranged in this way, then the clergy of Mazepa’s retinue could breathe more freely. The day after Mazepa was received by Peter, they introduced themselves to the patriarch. According to Demetrius, Little Russians often visited him 145. Probably at this time there were explanations about the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts. Innocent of Monastyrsky, who expressed his readiness to “stand and die” for the Latin teaching of transubstantiation by the power of the words of the Lord, stubbornly defended his opinion. But his position was becoming false: he defended the opinion of transubstantiation on behalf of all the spiritual authorities of Kyiv, and meanwhile the latter, with the Kyiv Metropolitan Gideon at their head, sent to the patriarch a confession that they “will fully follow everything that from Christ ... the Church ... accepted,” as well as the teaching about “the most wonderful mystery of the Holy Eucharist” 146. At the time when Innocent spoke for independence of opinion on behalf of the Kyiv cathedral, the patriarch already had this letter of August 22 in his hands and was terribly angry with Innocent. Somewhere they found out that Monastyrsky was of Jewish origin, unknown by whom and dedicated, etc.; He was especially harmed by his close acquaintance with Hieromonk Sylvester Medvedev, a defender of Latin opinion. Monastyrsky was accused of falsely presenting his evidence as the opinion of the holy fathers, they “cursed” him, and finally, on September 28, he was sent from Russia to Ukraine on 8 carts with all his subordinates. His book on Transubstantiation was later burned in Moscow, as it was found “full of all kinds of slander” 147. Baturinsky abbot Dimitry Savich remained at the head of the spiritual Little Russians at the Trinity. Perhaps, on the advice of the experienced politician Mazepa, all the Little Russians changed their tone. Now they spoke to the patriarch “piously and modestly” and agreed with him in everything 148. The Moscow hierarchs had heard about Demetrius before. His “Irrigated Fleece” was also distributed in Moscow 149. The Patriarch listened favorably to Demetrius, blessed him to continue the Lives of the Saints and gave him the image of the Mother of God. The end of Dmitry's stay in Russia was overshadowed by bloody events. He mentions the executions that Little Russians also unwittingly witnessed: “during our time in the Trinity Monastery, three noble persons were executed for some rebellion, their heads were cut off, others were cut off with a whip, some had their tongues cut, others had their ears, and were sent into exile” 150 . Before being sent to Ukraine, the food for all Little Russians was tripled. In fear of everything they saw, they hurried to leave as soon as possible. Dimitri shuddered at the memory of the Moscow events before his departure: in the Diary he wrote: “We are going on the road, to our homes, with God’s blessing. Lord, hurry up!” He could not put up with Moscow’s harsh measures: it was not for nothing that in Little Russia they said that “even death is not as terrible as being sent to Moscow” 151. Moscow could not help but make a peculiar impression on Dimitri. She was distinguished by her mighty power, wealth and other traditions. While in Ukraine there was no central personality around whom political life would be centered, in Moscow everything was attracted by the strong tsarist power. At the behest of the young Tsar, the importance of temporary workers in Moscow fell, like Golitsyn, who appointed hetmans to Little Russia, and the ruler herself, Princess Sofia Alekseevna, was removed. Next to the Tsar, Dimitri saw Russian government officials carrying out government functions with cruel persistence. The clergy also stood guard over the protection of royal power; Under the Little Russians, a patriarchal curse was heard against the Tsar's opponents. Cruelty was used even in church affairs: Dimitri became familiar with the insistence of the “unwise Russians” in maintaining uniformity in church beliefs, both from the patriarch’s letters and from the Trinity debates with the Monastic, and, in general, those familiar with Western life were surprised by the characteristic Moscow order: “mute teachers stand on their hind legs in the Constantine Tower; instead of the Gospel, they enlighten with fire, instead of the Apostle, they teach with a whip” 152. Several decades later, the Little Russians themselves adopted such Moscow techniques and, standing at the head of the spiritual administration in Russia, distinguished themselves with such cruelty that the name of the Cherkasy for a long time served as an object of hatred for the Great Russian clergy. But now, to the fresh glance of the quiet and modest Dimitri, such arrangements led him to extreme bewilderment. Demetrius soon became afraid that heresy, which is so strictly punishable in Moscow by “civil executions,” would not be attributed to him. At the first opportunity, on February 13 of the following year 153, he sent on behalf of himself and the owners of the printing house an explanation of those parts of his Chetya-Menaia where the patriarch found a non-Orthodox view, with his promise to henceforth “capture the mind into obedience.” Upon arrival at his Baturinsky monastery, Demetrius again began to compile the Chetya-Minea. The work was made difficult by the lack of necessary books. In addition to the prologue of the lives of the saints, Simeon Metaphrastus also used Western sources, which were easier to obtain than to beg from Moscow the Great Chetya Menaion of Metropolitan Macarius. There was not enough information about some saints, the lives of others turned out to be so strange that they did not fit into the boundaries of monastic readings (readings). Dmitry reluctantly shortened them, stipulating that a more complete description of the life of the saint can be read in the Great Chetya-Menaia. Completing the Chetya Menaion, Demetrius also wrote such lives that Metropolitan Macarius did not have 154. His hagiography was no longer limited to conveying information about the life of the saint from the Greek, Latin and Slavic books he had, but was supplemented with geographical and chronological information 155. After 4 months of diligent work, it was possible to begin printing the second book of Chetya-Minea for December, January and February. The Kiev Pechersk authorities sent the treasurer Elisha Zavadovsky to Moscow with a written request to Patriarch Joachim for permission to begin printing. At the same time, corrected and reprinted sheets for the September book were sent to him, replacing those that were ordered to be removed. At the same time, they attached an explanation compiled by Demetrius regarding Jerome, that he is called a saint in the books of the Moscow press, namely: in the Lenten triodion in the service of Cheese Saturday at Matins, in the ancient Vilnius and Lvov charters on July 15, as well as in the book “The Rod” on sheet 50. Likewise, in justifying their opinion about the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, they referred to the Moscow book “Rod” on sheet 5, and on page 6 a hymn to the Nativity of the Virgin Mary. For placing such opinions in the printed Chetya-Minea, the Kiev-Pechersk authorities offer the excuse that thinking, speaking and printing like this has not yet been prohibited. The corrected two sheets are sent to Moscow for a cathedral determination, promising complete obedience and, without announcing it to the people, to change the sheets. When Zavadovsky arrived in Moscow, the patriarch was no longer alive, and the election of a new one had not yet taken place. There was no one left to give the books sent. Needing the sovereign's salary, Zavadovsky then writes to the tsars themselves to accept from him the corrected sheets for the September Menaion, since, by order of the late patriarch, secular people should not know about them and he therefore does not dare give them to anyone. This request was followed by a decree that the letters from the Kiev Pechersk Lavra be considered in the Little Russian Prikaz. The king was in no hurry to elect a patriarch. Two candidates were pointed out to him: Adrian, Metropolitan of Kazan, and Athanasius, Archbishop of Kholmogory. After some time, Adrian was elected. Demetrius’s wish was fulfilled only in the late autumn of 1690, when people who fully appreciated his book work and trusted him became the head of the Great Russian and Little Russian churches. On April 6, 1690, Metropolitan Gideon of Kyiv died. He was a kind man, who also sympathized with Demetrius, and did not forget him in his will. To the monastery of Demetrius he refused 100 gold coins per forty-one for himself 156. But other than sympathy, he could do nothing to support Demetrius, since he himself did not have much education, not outstanding either in character or intellect 157. Instead, at the Kiev Council on June 2, Archimandrite Varlaam was elected metropolitan. Having entrusted Demetrius with the obedience to write the Lives of the Saints, Varlaam had previously supported him 158. Therefore, Demetrius now had complete hope for the new ruler. And indeed, during a trip to Moscow for his ordination to the rank of metropolitan, Yasinsky strongly interceded there for Demetrius. After his installation on August 31, 1690, 159, he asked the new Patriarch Adrian for assistance both in compiling the Lives of the Saints and in printing them. At the same time, he praised the diligence and hard work of the compiler. The new Moscow saint treated the worker with lively sympathy. He himself sent his letter to him, expressing his pleasure at such godly labors in writing, correcting and printing the book in the first months. What was important to Demetrius was that the saint, blessing him for the work of compiling the Chetya-Menaia for the whole year, expressed his consent to print the written Chetya-Menaion there in the Kyiv Lavra; the patriarchal charter prescribed that the new Metropolitan of Kiev and the new rector of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra provide all possible assistance to the compiler. The letter from the patriarch was brought to Baturin by Metropolitan Varlaam himself. With great joy, Demetrius received the saint’s message and responded to it with a letter, where he warmly thanked him for his mercy. At the same time, not without the knowledge of Yasinsky, he stated in the same letter a request to send him the Great Menaions for December, January and February for the compilation and verification of his second book of the Lives of the Saints, since the first time it was sent from Moscow for such a short time that he had no time to read them and borrow what was needed 160. Page 94 The diverse composition of books at hand, with a lack of necessary and reliable historical sources, forced Dmitry to be critical of the testimony of not only Western, but also books from the Moscow press. The chronology of both turned out to be different. Diligent work lay ahead to harmonize the biblical, patristic and Western chronology. To make his studies easier, he himself compiled the Greco-Roman calendar, then a chronological list of events of the Russian state, a catalog of Greek kings, and got himself a “Catalogue of Bishops and Patriarchs” of the Byzantine Church, compiled from the works of Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopoulus, Constantine Armenopoulus, Philip Kiprianin. Demetrius composed a special “catalogue” about the Kyiv metropolitans with a brief chronicler about them; He immediately added news about the Great Russian hierarchs. When compiling catalogs and chronological dates, he used, as can be seen from his references, the work of Jan Gubovich, Archimandrite of Germany “on the church hierarchy,” the chronicler of Nestor, Palinodia, Kossov’s patericon and the Moscow chronograph. With such a critical attitude towards the sources of church history, the presentation of the Lives of the Saints, however, is not made in the form of a simple dry list of events. The compiler, apparently, himself experienced in his soul the inner state of ascetics and martyrs. Sometimes his sympathy for the saint was poured out even in poetic form. “Having devoted himself selflessly to his favorite pastime, immersing himself in book studies until he became passionate about them, Dimitri had to respond to the events around him. He had a close relationship with the Kyiv Metropolitan. Yasinsky's management methods, first of the stauropegic monastery, and then of the diocese, undoubtedly influenced him. Since in the western region the Jesuits, when spreading the union, tried most of all to emphasize the influence of the hierarchy on the flock, the Orthodox, in contrast to them, had to strengthen the importance of their clergy. In 1691, Metropolitan Varlaam convened a council of the clergy in Kyiv, where it was decided to pay attention to the importance of confession and the activities of confessors, in particular, to strengthening school education, so that children could subsequently successfully occupy clergy positions. The position of metropolitan required considerable tact and skill; his flock was diverse. He was obliged to submit to the authority of the Moscow patriarch in spiritual matters only to that part of his flock that was subject to Moscow. But he also had an Orthodox flock, consisting of Polish subjects, both laity and clergy. Left-bank Ukraine was entirely subordinate to Moscow in spiritual matters, and part of the left-bank Ukraine was accustomed to consider the Patriarch of Constantinople as its head. It would be unsafe for Polish subjects, such as those of the Belarusian diocese, to seek blessings other than from the Patriarch of Constantinople, whose spiritual authority was also recognized by the Polish king. Relations with the diocesan Little Russian bishops were also difficult. Bishop Joseph Shumlyansky of Mogilev was considered Orthodox only in name, but in reality he was a Uniate. Metropolitan Varlaam was forced to complain about him to the Moscow kings. For the territorial integrity of the diocese, he had to fight with Chernigov Archbishop Lazar Baranovich. This situation gave rise to peculiar misunderstandings; for example, considering himself independent from the Moscow Patriarch in matters of the clergy of the Polish nation, Varlaam appointed Dionysius Zhabokritsky, who was married to a widow and divorced from her, as Bishop of Lutsk, in the hope of asking permission for this from the eastern patriarchs, in addition to the Moscow one, since Lutsk was in Poland. The Chetii-Minea compiled were supposed to contribute to the religious self-awareness of the entire Orthodox flock and its unification. Realizing the importance of his work for the church, under the influence of the Kyiv ruler, Demetrius intensively “day and night,” as he said, was engaged in compiling them, as far as his life near the noisy hetman’s residence allowed him. He took time off from work only for church service, which had long become his essential spiritual food. Even in his early youth, he did not miss morning services. If he happened to work for a long time at night, he fell asleep before Matins without undressing 161. Folk and religious processions found him an indispensable participant. So in 1690, he went for the second time to venerate the Rudensky Icon of the Mother of God on the occasion of its transfer from Rudnya 162 to Kyiv. On January 13, 1691, the hetman allowed part of the relics of St. to be transferred from the military Treasury Chamber in Baturin to the monastery of Demetrius. Great Martyr Barbara. On the occasion of the transfer of the relics, Dimitri established a prayer service for her every Tuesday in the monastery. Relics of St. The martyrs ended up in Baturin due to the following circumstances. In the year of birth of St. Dmitry Kyiv was taken by Radzivil. The conqueror wished to receive two parts of the relics of the martyr from the chest and from the rib. He kept one for his wife, the former daughter of the ruler of Volozhsk, who bequeathed it before her death to Metropolitan Joseph of Tukalsky of Kyiv. This is how this part of the relics ended up first in Kanev, and then in the left bank residence of the hetmans - Baturyn 163. Its authenticity is attested, according to Demetrius, in the book “Exposition”, compiled by Theodosius Safonovich, abbot of the St. Michael’s Monastery, where the relics of St. much Barbarians. When Dmitry learned that the shrine lay in the military treasury among monetary valuables, he asked the hetman for permission to take it into his monastery. Demetrius must have had to listen to doubts about whether these were genuine relics of St. Barbarians. In defense of the relics of his “patron”, Demetrius wrote a story about the miraculous help of the martyr to the Kyiv district priest John Safonovich. During his illness, Safonovich wished to take water from the relics of St. Barbarians. In a dream after this, he sees the martyr herself, who said: “many do not believe that my relics are in the St. Michael’s Monastery, but you believe and tell others so that they believe.” John Safonovich reported the vision to his brother Theodosius. Reverent veneration of this martyr prompted Demetrius to record cases of miraculous help for the dying who turned to her in prayer. Thus, one person condemned to death, through prayers to her, was not executed until he received communion of the Holy Mysteries; all who ask for it, according to Demetrius, will not die without communion; whoever is afraid of dying without communion should turn to her; one monk, who neglected the help of Saint Barbara, died without receiving the Holy Mysteries; and the other, calling upon the holy martyr Barbara, was honored to receive Them from the hands of an angel 164. Subsequently, Demetrius wrote the life of the holy martyr Barbara for Chetya-Minea, and published it as a separate book 165. He especially revered this saint and wrote down all the cases of grace-filled help from her relics known to him. So Dimitri knew how to combine his favorite activities: both book and church. He finds time to follow the lives of his acquaintances, counts the years of their service, troubles and suffering, mourns their death 166. For this reason, he enjoyed special respect from everyone who knew him. He was distinguished both by the Metropolitans of Kyiv, Gideon and Varlaam, and by other monastics. The desire of those who know Demetrius to accept tonsure at his hands is noticeable. Upon arrival from Moscow in January 1690, he tonsured the sick Angelina into monasticism, and in April Porfiry, Martinian and Clement 167. For his part, Demetrius treated his tonsures with special love, classifying the days of monastic tonsure as remarkable days of his life and noting them in his diary along with outstanding events, for example, earthquakes, solar eclipses, the appearance of a comet, the flight of locusts, and the death of close friends. How those who knew him loved Demetrius are shown by the gifts he received and the trust they had in him. Metropolitan Gideon, before his death, bequeaths money to Demetrius for his own memorial; Feodosius Gugurevich leaves him a book from himself - “Nomenclator Marianus. Romae. 1649". There was such a case. One monk of the Kirillov Monastery named Theophan decided several years ago (1684) to go abroad to study at foreign colleges. This was the custom then, but Demetrius did not like his departure. “God knows why he’s going?” he thought then about his tonsure. Now this same Feofan has returned from abroad, having visited Paris, Bari, Rome, etc., and became acquainted there with Western science 168. When meeting with him, Dimitri forgot his previous discontent. Subsequently, he even praised the custom of sending people abroad for science, boldly spoke about this in a church sermon before Moscow people, who never ceased to believe that it was harmful to get acquainted with Germans 169 for the sake of their charm, so that the faith would not be canceled and others would not be pestered 170 . The extensive management of the monasteries of that time also occupied Dimitri quite a bit. Before the states of 1764, both Great Russian and Little Russian monasteries owned land property, which was always and everywhere associated with economic concerns. Monasteries not only kept oxen and horses for plowing; but on the lands behind the abbots and bishops there lived peasants, just like the Cossacks. To obtain funds for their maintenance, they practiced all possible activities up to and including distillation. On February 2, 1691, Demetrius received as a gift to his monastery from Hetman Mazepa himself “zhitelny auctions” 171, that is, a duty from grain traders in Baturyn. Harvests also worried him. In August 1690, Demetrius recorded a swarm of locusts. It appeared this year in such a mass that it devastated the sown fields, remaining in whole heaps on the ground and rotting. Cattle that ate it with grass became ill. The smell of locusts was felt even on the meat of livestock. The terrible cost of food has come 172 . The volume of Dmitry's economy grew, thanks to the disposition of the authorities not only of Little Russian, but also of Great Russian. So in 1689, the Moscow kings responded to the offering of Dmitriev’s Chetey-Menya with a letter of grant to the lands of the Krupitsky Baturinsky Monastery. The charter approved all possessions and lands on the rivers Seima, Romna, Kushch, Ushuruna, assigned to the monastery by various hetmans, forests with borders, hay fields, lakes and forests, up to 10 mills, fields, islands, gardens, beekeepers: Staroe, Zaboroshnoye, Krivoye, Lozovitsa, Osechye, the village of Obmachev, Krasny Borok, Litsetovshchina, Khmilovo, villages in the Ovruch district of Torchinka and Mogilnaya Zemlya, the estates of Lyubetovo, Zabolotovo, Ozarichi, the village of Spassky Field with Bozhk. All these estates and quitrents required attention and skillful management on the part of the abbot. Life near the hetman's residence did not allow Dmitry to be withdrawn. Various Ukrainian clergy who appeared to the hetman and had needs before him came to him. Thanks to this, he was aware of all political and church events in Ukraine. So in 1692, he was waiting for the Archimandrite of the Novgorod-Seversky Monastery Theodosius Uglitsky, who was appointed bishop in Moscow for the Chernigov diocese instead of the elderly Lazar Baranovich and at the request of the latter, since the new bishop was obliged to appear before the hetman after his consecration in Moscow. Meanwhile, events became alarming. There was already talk about the political separation of Ukraine from Moscow in order to surrender to Poland. Denunciations were made against Mazepa. Even clergymen came to Baturin to find out about the state of affairs. Kyiv Metropolitan Varlaam Yasinsky was also alarmed by rumors about impending changes. From him, the abbess of the Kyiv Podolsk Frolovsky monastery came to Baturin to check rumors in the hetman’s capital itself. On the one hand, the alarming course of events and circumstances, and on the other hand, the compulsion of Metropolitan Varlaam to continue compiling the Chetya Menaion forced Demetrius to leave the management of the monastery for the sake of book studies. On February 14, 1692, he again refused to be abbess. Although Metropolitan Varlaam appointed another abbot, Pachomius Khodorovich, he did not want to leave Demetrius without a promotion. He submitted to the hetman a project to establish a protopopia there in view of the importance of Baturin as the seat of the hetman, to make an archimandry for the monasteries and to install the honorable Father Dimitry as archimandrite, entrusting him with power over the Baturin monasteries: Glukhovsky, Maksanovsky and others 173. The project, however, remained unfulfilled. Demetrius, having abandoned the management of the monastery, settled in a cell that he had built back in 1691 and consecrated on October 18. The elegance of Dimitri's taste was reflected in the very structure of the cell. It was made of oak, all painted with branches and flowers, and was preserved for a long time after him 174. Now in this cell Dmitry spent all his time writing the lives of saints. He worked on the Great Menaions sent from Moscow all winter, and in the spring, during Lent 1693, the Bollandists’ “Acta Sanctorum” was sent to him from Gdansk (which then belonged to Poland). “Acts of the Saints” provided rich new material for the Chetya-Minea. The written lives had to be corrected according to them, and those lives that were not in the Great Chetya-Menaia and Surius had to be compiled again according to the acts. This is how he compiled the life of Peter of Sebaste on January 9, borrowed from the Bollandists, and Dorotheus, Christina and their squad on February 6. Such corrections were promptly squeezed into the printed second book for December, January and February. As for the already printed first part, Dimitri compiled a special notebook of additions for its second printing. This notebook was subsequently kept and remained in his library 175. Quickly, already in May (9) month of that year, the second book was prepared for printing. Dmitry himself went to the Kiev Pechersk Lavra to supervise the printing work 176. However, he got used to waiting for 2 whole months, from May 9 to July 10, for the printing work to begin. Dmitry again found rest for a short time in his own family before new assiduous labors. Savva Grigorievich was then ktitor of the Kirillov Monastery. The abbot of this monastery was still Dimitri's close friend, Archimandrite Innocent of Monastyrsky. He also visited him, participating in both the divine service and the sermon. The word 177 of Demetrius, spoken by him then in this monastery, has been preserved. In this word, spoken in the presence of such persons whom he had long known from his youth and loved, we see the future archpastor. The flow of speech is striking in its good nature and simplicity. This is a simple interpretation of the simple prayer “Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”: just as a son should honor his father, and a person is obliged to give glory to the Heavenly Father, Demetrius says here. Just as a respectful son does not dare to sit down in front of his father, but stands in front of him “having taken off his cap,” - one must treat God with similar expressions of one’s respect. So the angels in heaven before God cover their faces with two wings, have two legs, and fly with two. The Son of God says that he glorified the Father by his suffering. The martyrs also glorified the Father with their suffering. But with what sufferings will we glorify him? We no longer have Perunov, Volosov, Lad, Kupal. In their places are holy churches. However, there are idols: Chrysostom insists that we have various types of idolatry. “Explain to us, holy teacher, tell us at least one idol, so that it can be crushed like Perun once did in Kyiv!” Listen to what that holy teacher will tell us: “Don’t tell me that you don’t bow to the golden idol, but tell me if you don’t do what the gold commands!” You have an idol not on a hill in the Kyiv mountains, but in a box, and idolatry is in your heart! Whatever the gold tells you, you listen to it like a baptized idolater. With humility we must glorify God. “In a clean hive there is a lot of honey: there are many gifts of the Holy Spirit in a pure heart. Where the bees come from, wasps and poisonous hornets fly in their place: from where the Holy Spirit is driven away by bad deeds, there will be a lot of wasps - the stings of sins. It would not be true if someone impudently “kicked the sovereign out of the house,” but we drive out the Holy Spirit with bad deeds and instead settle in idols. This was the content of the sermon. The speech in the native Little Russian language about respect for his father in the presence of Savva Grigorievich, the mention of pagan Kiev antiquities at the very place of their ancient location, the mention of beekeeping, the occupation of the people of Kiev - amazes with vitality, cordiality and probably had a strong effect on those present. Now the naturalness of speech was hampered only by violent attempts to interpret that the legs of the angels mean our baseness, and the head their honor. Some comparisons are also strained. Also routine is the scholastic manner of mentioning pagan names and the reference to Western writers, of whom Francis is credited with the fullness of the spirit (Spiritu elevatus). At this time, in the Pechersk Lavra, Demetrius was surrounded by people who treated him with love. There the whole cathedral looked through his Cheti-Menaion for December, January and February. This was entrusted to the Pechersk Archimandrite by Patriarch Joachim. In addition to this order, in Kyiv there was a custom for authors to give their works to their friends to read before printing, in order to avoid inaccuracies and oversights. Under the supervision of the Kyiv spiritual authorities, the printing of the Chetya-Minea began and continued until 1695. In January, the second book was published. Several ambassadors and several letters were sent from the Pechersk Lavra to Moscow on the occasion of the end of the book enterprise. At the request of Demetrius, the cathedral elders of Kiev Pechersk, the builder of the Trinity Hospital Monastery and the caretaker of the Kiev Pechersk printing house, Hieromonk Sophrony, went there. The letter from the Kyiv Metropolitan contained a request that the Moscow saint graciously accept the printed Cheta Menaion and bless Abbot Demetrius, an honorable hardworker, for his diligence, and also allow the continuation of the “Lives of the Saints.” The Kyiv ruler promised to again monitor their writing and printing. Hetman Mazepa, for his part, also, with a letter dated February 8 from Luben, notifies the Patriarch of his desire for Demetrius to finish writing the Lives of the Saints. A special letter dated February 26 was sent to the Patriarch about the same thing from the Pechersk archimandrite and the brethren 178. The worker himself wrote to the Patriarch over the Four Menaions. Calling himself the footstool of the patriarch, sending him a bow to the face of the earth, Demetrius asks to accept the book as the fruit of the patriarchal blessing and prayers; apologizes, then that it is not bound, thanks the patriarch for “arousing and encouraging” him to work with his previous letter. “I dared to put your archpastoral blessing (i.e., the patriarch’s letter of 1690) into this new book for better decoration” and to confirm to readers in the name of the patriarch that the miraculous deeds described are undoubted. In conclusion, Demetrius asks the Patriarch to again send him the Great Menaions of Met. Macarius for March, April and May for the agreement available when compiling book sources at hand; in the same way, give the patriarchal blessing to him to continue the four-day work, and to the Kyiv Metropolitan to continue to read what was written: “about this your Holiness deigns to write especially to his Eminence (Mr. Varlaam)” 179. To prevent misunderstandings that occurred when presenting the first book of Chetya, in the preface to the second book all the inaccuracies noticed by Patriarch Joachim and the author himself were stated and corrected, for example, about the time of the death of St. Anna, the mother of the Mother of God, about the number of nails with which the Savior was nailed, about the confusion of the names of Mikhail Travlya and Mikhail Rangava. At the same time, a request is made to the reader to correct all errors that may appear in the book. The second book of the Chetya-Minea was received in Moscow incomparably more mercifully than the first under the old patriarch. Patriarch Adrian himself personally wrote to Demetrius as his “beloved son and lover of books.” His work is attributed special importance and a prayerful patriarchal desire is expressed to complete work useful for the entire church for the whole year. The patriarch wishes the compiler of the “Lives of the Saints” long years of prosperous health and to deserve a heavenly fate with them 180. As a reward for Dimitri's work, the patriarch gave 10 rubles. The patriarch's attention to Demetrius did not weaken even after. A year later, he responded to the offering of the Chetya-Menaia by sending him a book of the Orthodox “catechism,” again translated from Greek into Slavic and published in Moscow, “to express (his) archpastoral love” for Demetrius 181. The Pechersk Lavra was allowed to reprint Demetrius’s “Irrigated Fleece.” Adrian, in a special letter dated May 29, 1695, begged the Kyiv Metropolitan Varlaam to persuade the good man, Abbot Demetrius, full of intelligence and labor of love, as an experienced and thorough writer, not to leave the work he had begun until it was finished. Hetman Mazepa and the Kiev Pechersk Archimandrite received separate patriarchal letters with expressions of pleasure and good wishes from the saint. The patriarch's mercy pleased Dimitri so much that he dreamed of bringing the next third book of Chetey to Moscow himself 183. Patriarch Adrian entrusted Demetrius with a new assignment - to write the lives of the Kizian martyrs. When Adrian was metropolitan in Kazan, in 1687 the Russian people who settled there suffered from the epidemic disease “trash”. The disease spared the local Tatars, as if “the Lord leaves them to live well here.” On this occasion, to encourage Christians, Adrian built a church in Kazan in 1688 in the name of the Kizian martyrs, who, according to the belief of the Church, provide free healing. A letter was now sent to Demetrius from the patriarchal house to write their life, as well as to describe the construction of the church in Kazan. In 1694, Demetrius had already completed this work and presented it to Moscow 184, having extracted information about the Kizian martyrs from the Bollandists, the church history of Sozomen and Cornelius and Lyapida 185. But even with such favor towards Demetrius the patriarch, fate threatened him with new trials. Troubles arose, darkening the bright relations of Patriarch Adrian. Pechersk Archimandrite Meletiy Vuyakhevich, who was also entrusted with helping the cause of Demetrius, did not show himself in anything other than his persistence in going to Moscow to the patriarch for installation 186 and quarreling with the monks. The Patriarch, following the denunciation of the monk Hierotheus, even banned him from serving in the priesthood for allegedly expelling the monks from the Lavra. In diocesan life in Kyiv, misunderstandings also arose that could involve the Kiev clergy in a clash with the Moscow Patriarch, such as, for example, the installation of a man who was divorced from his wife as Bishop of Lutsk and Ostrogozh. Even Dimitry’s friend, school prefect Stefan Yavorsky, was dragged into this matter. Demetrius still had in his memory disputes with the Moscow Patriarch Joachim, which were also reflected in his studies of the Chetov. He now feared the treachery of the enemy 187. Even during the printing of the second book, he was appointed abbot at the Glukhov Monastery 188. Demetrius now retired there and began organizing the monastery economically, he improved the buildings, and, among other things, designed a new cathedral church. A metropolitan's letter was requested for this, and an agreement was concluded with the contractors. However, church and political events never ceased to interest Demetrius. Died on September 3, 1693 in Chernigov, Archbishop Lazar Baranovich, this “pillar of churches,” as Dimitri calls him. Not long later, on February 6, 1696, his successor, St. Theodosius Uglitsky; At the beginning of 1696, news arrived about the death of the Moscow Tsar Ivan Alekseevich. In the same year, the death of Demetrius’s friend, Abbot Innocent of Monastyrsky, followed. In 1696, Demetrius was offered to take the place of abbot in the Kirillov Monastery, where his father, Savva Grigorievich, was a ktitor. He initially refused, but was later “convinced to accept the abbess.” He almost did not manage to live here: having been assigned here at the beginning of 1696, on June 20 he received another appointment as Archimandrite of the Eletsky Assumption Monastery, near Chernigov, instead of John Maksimovich 189, who, after the death of St. Theodosius of Uglitsky was elevated to the rank of Bishop of Chernigov. Bishop John performed the ordination to the rank of archimandrite. He considered this appointment an honor that exceeded his strength, as he wrote in response to congratulations from Moscow from Feolog; at the same time, Demetrius did not stop managing the Glukhov monastery for 3 years. His governor, Hippolytus, helped him in this. When the Eletsky Monastery was received, there was a cash treasury 190 and considerable land holdings there. So, when the new abbot got ready to go to Baturin, Kyiv and Glukhov a month later, he was besieged by requests for money: the monks asked to give them “prosperous things”, Father Gennady declared that he had little money for expenses. Governor Ippolit, who was leaving for Nizhyn at the same time, stated that he also needed money. Upon Dmitry’s return from Glukhov, the treasurer again approached him for money. When the treasurer was replaced by a new one, in December of that year, the same needs also turned out to be. So before each departure of the archimandrite from the monastery, money was given to the brethren, “for there is no way to take it away.” From the amount lying around, Dimitri spent 544 zlotys and “three steps” for his entire management. The treasury of the monastery, however, under Demetrius did not decrease, but increased, because there were donors, such as Pan Bunchuk, the convoy and the hetman himself, so that, having accepted one hundred broken thalers in 1697, he left 1000 of them when the monastery was surrendered. In the Yeletsky monastery, Dimitri diligently maintained a fairly broad-based economy in the villages of Ovdeevtsy, Gorbovo, Serednitsa and Svyatoy Rizniki, overseeing crops, haymaking, threshing, cattle breeding, apiary, grain and hay reserves. During the reign of Demetrius, the utensils in the church increased with property from Mrs. Oboznoy and Mr. Oboznoy himself. The hetman himself contributed 300 gold checks as a donation. Dimitri himself also bought land 191. Demetrius immediately became responsible for protecting the borders of the monastery's land holdings and the peasants who lived on them. The hetman dealt with the petitions of the Yeletsky archimandrite and the brethren against Shabelnik, who had seized the monastery's hayfield; a complaint was filed against the Chernigov people who oppressed the “Onisovites” to the Chernigov Colonel Lizogub 192. During this time, during the hungry winter of 1699, Demetrius showed himself to be compassionate towards the poor peasant. By order of him, they bought bread from the monastery's lying treasury and fed the hungry in the monastery itself 193. According to Dimitri's mark, it turned out that 250 gold groschen were spent on this. However, this amount was partially covered by a generous donation of 150 gold pieces from the God-fearing Pan Bunchuk. The monastic economy, both ownership and management, was considered independent from anyone in Ukraine. The acquisition of land holdings was not yet constrained by the government, as in Great Russia. Dimitri showed himself to be a managerial and careful manager, saving money for a rainy day. At this time he had his own horses: when leaving the monastery as a farewell, he left 6 of his own as a gift to the monastery 194. 3 months after taking office, he made a trip to Baturin, then to the Glukhov Monastery and to Kyiv. Its purpose, in all likelihood, was the consecration of the very church in Glukhov, which he began building in 1693. In Kyiv, he visited not only his relatives, but also took part in the church festival of the St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery. Here he uttered a word that has survived to us 195, on the text: “The angel of the Lord will encamp around those who fear Him.” November 8 that year fell on the 23rd week of Pentecost, when the Gospel about the casting out of demons is read. Comparing the day's holiday with this Gospel event, the preacher finds that the Holy Church, as if “brings the angelic council with the demonic legion to battle, where... Christ, as a leader, descends into the country of the Gadarenes, and with Him the commander of the incorporeal forces with all the angelic regiments enters there, armed against the ancient enemy. So, having come to Jesus into the country of the Gadarenes, Michael and his angels made war with the serpent.” Having made such a curious, in a scholastic spirit, comparison, the preacher goes on to say that the angels are fighting for us people, then indicates the names and positions of the archangels who protect us, and explains the meaning of the 7 horns of the apocalyptic serpent, who is at war with people. In this word, the living, talented comparisons characteristic of Demetrius are already seeping through, but the speaker is still very careful in allowing liberties and deviations from the then rules of “composing” sermons. As for the reason for the trip to Baturyn, from a comparison of letters and facts we can conclude that Dmitry went to seek the hetman’s protection. He did not have a noticeable good-natured relationship with the ruler of Chernigov, so the Moscow Patriarch Adrian himself found it necessary to protect him and the monastery brethren. In his letter dated February 1, 1698, the patriarch reassures Demetrius that he has already written to the ruler of Chernigov not to offend them and to delve into the needs (“demands”) “with love and with his hand”; he only asks not to abandon the work of compiling the “Lives of the Saints” and himself sends 20 chervonets for the costs of this matter 196 . His friends in Moscow now stood behind Demetrius, sending him their letters, helping him with more than just prayers about his book business, and rejoicing at his rise 197 . They probably informed the patriarch about the relationship of the Chernigov bishop to Demetrius. The Patriarch wrote to Bishop John Maksimovich: “I was informed that near you now in the Chernigov Yeletsky Monastery the most honorable Archimandrite Dimitri, compiling the Lives of the Saints, is working in public book writing. We ask your love - help him with your hand when necessary... show him love with complacency for the benefit of the church.” The Chernigov department had some hereditary misunderstandings with the clergy of the monasteries controlled by Demetrius, which were resolved through the highest secular and spiritual authorities. Demetrius spent the holiday of the Nativity of Christ with the bishop, and even said this word on this day 198. But their misunderstandings resumed as soon as Demetrius was transferred from the Yeletsky Monastery to Novgorod-Seversky. This monastery was considered richer than the bishop's house. Lazar Baranovich expressed the conviction that it was better there than in Chernigov; He has land and a mill with him. He, therefore, annexed some monastic estates to the department with his authority, and requests for the annexation of others were made to the hetman. Mazepa had recently come to Chernigov and learned about this from the bishop himself. At the beginning of Dimitri's management of the monastery, the hetman issued an order from Baturin to take the controversial settlement of Yurinovka from the Novgorod-Seversky Monastery into the Chernigov bishop's house. Dimitri must have protested against such a decision, because the hetman wrote to him: “if you please, your reverence, without justifying anything and without disturbing us with any more requests, give that settlement of Yurinovka to the department” 199. During Dimitri's stay in the Chernigov monasteries, several works were published. His book “The Life of the Great Martyr Barbara” (1698) 200 was printed separately. He also wrote a psalm to the Great Martyr Demetrius of Thessaloniki 201, “Apology”, which appeared in print in 1700. 202 At this time, Demetrius had other literary plans ripening. When he compiled the “Lives of the Saints,” he found it useful to publish these same lives in an abbreviated form in one small book, in the order of the month, and call it, according to ancient custom, “martyrology” (Martyrology), because not everyone can have the lengthy lives of the saints due to their high cost; but even if he acquires them, then, due to his usual lack of leisure, he cannot read them every day; it happens that some people are accustomed to paying veneration to saints with a special bow to them every day; and since the monthly books do not write about all the saints, Demetrius decided to collect short lives of the saints. This is how a new book appeared - “Martyrology in brief, newly written in the monastery of the Savior Novgorod Seversky, in the summer of 1700.” From the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, on behalf of Archimandrite Joseph Krokovsky, they again sent an embassy to Moscow to present the book to the patriarch. But this time the cathedral elder was traveling, wrote Gabriel Filippovich and the preacher, Ambrose of Slonim. In Moscow, the ambassadors were received kindly, they paid each of them money, food supplies, and treated them kindly. After they presented the printed third book “Lives of the Saints,” they were sent home with a stipend of 61 rubles. for the entire retinue and food for 10 days 203. The publication of the third book of Chetya-Minea is noted in the chronicle that its appearance in the world filled the hearts of bookish people with spiritual joy 204. From the Kiev Pechersk Lavra at this time, Archimandrite Krokovsky sent the image of the Most Holy One to the compiler Demetrius himself. Mother of God, remarkable in that it was presented by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich to the Kyiv Metropolitan, Peter Mogila 205. Dimitri himself did not hide his joy at the release of the 3rd book of lives. In his letter to Theologist 206, he expresses his sincere desire: “Oh, if only the Lord would grant me the ability to write the last three months!” In the Novgorod Seversky Monastery, Demetrius made new acquaintances; Thus, a great friend was the Novgorod citizen Pan Domorets, who corresponded with him even after 207. Revolving among all the outstanding events of his time, apparently deeply absorbed in the assigned assignments, Dimitri Savich during this time discovered a deep religious feeling and extraordinary humility. Thus, in his Diary he carefully noted miracles occurring from the Miraculous Icons of the Mother of God, similar to those described in his “Rune Irrigated”, for example, the healing of five sick people on Sunday during the liturgy in the village of Starozhishche, near Slutsk, in 1678, or 76 miracles in Starchitsy 208, as well as cases of miraculous help from relics Great Martyr Barbara. His deep religious disposition is also visible from his relationship with the hierarchs. He attaches prophetic significance to the good wishes of Archbishop Lazar Baranovich, and prays: “God grant that the prophecy of his archpastorship come true!” Anxious dreams make him think that through the person of the Most Reverend Father Archbishop, the Creator Himself was punishing him. On the week of the Cross in 1676, the same bishop, in a dream, reproachfully said to him: “Didn’t I name you? He left brother Paul and the others who came, but he chose you!” For four years Dimitri carried this strange dream in his memory. For four years he asked about Deacon Paul, whether he had ever been one, but could not find him either in Kyiv, or in Chernigov, or in other monasteries. “God knows, what does Paul the deacon mean?” 209, he is perplexed. Dimitri's humility is amazing. When the Chudov monk Theologist in 1677 congratulated him on his elevation to the rank of archimandrite, calling him worthy of such a promotion as a well-behaved one, comparing him with the light that illuminates the world, etc., then Demetrius in response writes that he is ashamed of such praise: “I am unbecoming, and malicious, full of evil habits, I am rude and ignorant, and my light is nothing but darkness and dust!” 210. Chapter III. Dimitry in Moscow The second half of the 17th century in Russia is full of rich historical events and constitutes a remarkable era of its development. The time had come to unite old Rus' with the new. It illuminated the past centuries as their bright result; it served as a link for future events. This was the final moment of state and public life, in the spirit of ancient Russian foundations, with almost no signs of spiritual connection with the West. The tasks of unifying Rus' were completed: it became a single political whole. In the 17th century, the old Russian political structure of the land was being completed: a code was published, Little Russia was annexed, Russian rule spread and strengthened in the northern and eastern parts of Asia, diplomatic relations captured a vast territory of the eastern and western oceans. In the Nikon case and in attitudes towards the split, the internal convictions of the Russian people were determined. At the end of the 17th century, Russia turned sharply to the West, and an increased desire for rapprochement with Europe and the perception of new principles of Western education was revealed. True, few people got acquainted with Europe; the Russian people looked at a foreigner in no other way than at a non-religious person, with whom all relations until then had been limited only in the military sphere. But these few people, constituting the ruling force, attracted the people to the Western European way of life, attracted them against their will, through decrees, orders, outfits, even measures of cruelty. In order to instill the consciousness of new European concepts into the masses, new people were needed. In such an important era of the Russian state, Tsar Peter began to invite Kyiv scientists to his place. Of the many, only one completely satisfied Peter’s tastes and aspirations. This is Feofan Prokopovich. The king looked at others suspiciously. He expected enlightenment from Europe. But enlightenment there has long had two currents. One is old - scholastic, which was held by Catholic scholars, and the other - degenerated from the humanistic movement, free from all authorities, flourishing in Protestant universities. The first one took root in Kyiv. Little Russia owes its education to Poland, where scholasticism reigned. Imbued with learning, the people of Kiev looked down on the “unwise Russians.” Peter noticed their thirst for dominance and the demand for obedience from others 211. He himself gravitated towards the German order and became disillusioned with the Kyiv scientists who did not correspond to the transformative views. The first to appear in Russia was Dimitri's friend Stefan Yavorsky. Around this time, Metropolitan Varlaam of Kiev asked the patriarch for a vicar with the title of Bishop of Pereyaslavl. The choice fell on Stefan, who was then abbot of Svyatonikol. At the funeral of Voivode A.S. Shein, Stefan made a speech. Peter, who was present here, liked her, and the hot, lively speaker himself also interested him. The Tsar wished to appoint him to the Ryazan See in place of the retired Metropolitan Abraham. Stefan openly opposed the appointment, but Peter's will was adamant. He was dedicated to Ryazan. Following Stepan, Dimitri was called. He was assigned to Siberia. Just as when appointing Stefan Yavorsky to Ryazan, it was meant to appoint a person not with narrow views, and not a bigot, but one who would be imbued, first of all, with the educational plans of the tsar and would be his assistant in everything, the same qualities were required of the candidate for the Siberian metropolis. From the archpastor of Siberia, according to Peter, great learning was not required, but a reasonable and flexible person was needed 212. In fact, the huge Siberian diocese demanded a wide variety of properties from the individuals who ruled it. Its spaces spread over tens of thousands of miles. The population, for the most part, consisted of unenlightened people, wild tribes, and nomadic nomads. They were all still waiting for the Christian sermon. Governors and chiefs could not carry out educational tasks, since they themselves were often in the position of exiles. There were not even short periods of time when people from Siberia stopped complaining about the arbitrariness, cruelty and injustice of the ruling people. In the 17th century, great hopes were placed on bishops appointed to Siberia. The Archbishop of Siberia and Tobolsk has long been charged with the duty and given the right to intercede for all disgraced and persecuted Tatars before the governors, to accustom and lead foreigners to baptism through affection and teaching, and not through fear and cruel treatment. In the event of the atrocities of the boyars, governors and clerks, he could receive the highest royal servants, first with tenderness, and then with reprimand 213. It would be enough for a Siberian bishop to simply fight the unrest originating from the very Siberian rulers. The missionaries, as a favor, asked for intercession from the Moscow government so that the governors and clerks would not interfere with the conversion of pagans to Christianity. In addition, it would have taken many years of management just to get acquainted with the diverse flock, speaking unknown languages, living in different climatic zones, from hot to polar. It was not for nothing that the previous bishop, Ignatius Korsakov, went crazy. To make it easier for himself in government, he tried, according to the old Russian custom, to establish ten-teners from the boyars’ children, and after a few years he heard about the terrible ruins, insults, taxes, beatings, dishonors to girls, violence, extortion that were perpetrated by them in Siberia in the name of the ruler. Rare churches, poor chapels and poor monasteries served as Christian points. Metropolitan Ignatius Korsakov lost sleep from exhaustion and was “damaged in his mind” from insomnia. At the time of the dedication of Stefan Yavorsky, he lived in Moscow in the Chudov Monastery. The Patriarch still hoped for Ignatius's recovery in order to have him with him as an assistant, but Peter looked at the matter differently. The tsar developed special views of Siberia. He wanted to further expand the area and department of the Siberian ruler. In 1692, diplomatic relations began with Beijing regarding permission for Russian caravans to enter China for trade and to build a Russian church. Peter was informed that the Chinese god-khan Kanziy was disposed towards the Orthodox faith, and thus aroused in the tsar the hope of being able to influence, if not the Chinese emperor himself, then his subjects, as the Jesuits had already acted there. In 1685, Russian prisoners forcibly took the Russian priest Maxim with them to China. Metropolitan Ignatius sent a blessed letter to Maxim in Beijing for the consecration of the first church. Having learned about this, Peter wrote: “This is a very significant matter. Just for God’s sake, act carefully and not too much, so as not to anger the Chinese leaders, as well as the Jesuits, for which they need priests who are not so much learned as they are intelligent and flexible.”214 Now, with the news of Ignatius’s hopeless situation, Peter directly casts his eyes on the Kyiv scientists. They were instructed to the Kyiv Metropolitan: “for the establishment and increase in the Orthodox faith and the preaching of the Holy Gospel in idolatrous peoples, also for bringing yasak peoples to the Christian faith,” having talked about this with His Holiness the Patriarch, the great sovereign indicated: “to search in the Little Russian region, - cities and monasteries, - from archimandrites and abbots or other famous monks of a good and learned and good, immaculate life, who would be a metropolitan in Tobolsk and could, with God’s help, gradually in China and Siberia, in the blindness of idolatry and other ignorances, bring hardened people into the knowledge, and service, and worship of the true Living God.” Demanding such an enlightened person, capable of raising the work of preaching to a height, the tsar wanted the chosen one to travel not alone, but with two or three good and learned monks to teach the Chinese and Mongolian languages, as well as to serve and teach in the Beijing church newly built in 1685 in such a spirit and direction as to win over Bogdykhan and the Chinese to Russian merchants 215 . The Tsar, apparently, wanted to extract his state functions in spiritual appointments, namely, to refresh and consolidate diplomatic and trade relations with neighboring states. He was so interested in the successes of the Russian colony in Beijing that he ordered Vinius to ask visiting merchants from China whether the Chinese go to church, whether they praise the service, whether they laugh at it, and which church they are more inclined towards - Russian or Jesuit? The tsar also asked about what the priests were like there, how many Russian people there were, how the church was decorated, where the dead were buried, which Chinese were baptized? 216 Peter counted on the Kyiv monks that they were more experienced and more capable of competing with the Jesuits in organizing church affairs and preaching than the Great Russian clergy. Patriarch Adrian informed the Kyiv Metropolitan Varlaam of the need to send people to Moscow, at the behest of the sovereign, about which he had already “consulted” with him, because “now the time is torturing that matter.” Try, he wrote to Metropolitan Varlaam, for the sake of the glory of the name of God and the expansion of our faith, to send, if they wish, people capable of preaching and worthy of the episcopal rank of abbots and hieromonks, two people, and with them 4 people learned and skilled in good life, on a long trip 217. That summer, Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky intended to go from Moscow to Ukraine “for the sake of his needs.” The Patriarch instructed him to deliver his letter to Kyiv, and in August he again turned to him with a request: “We have now been informed that you did not go there. Now create a vision of our regularity: did you send our letter to Kyiv to the Metropolitan of Kyiv or not? And even build us, who would be the people there, in your judgment, who would be suitable for this” 218. At the end of 1700 (December 27), a personal decree was issued for the election by the consecrated cathedral to the rank of Siberian Metropolitan to come to Moscow at the beginning of 1701 for the Pereyaslavl bishop, Zakhary Kornilovich, and the Novgorod Chernigov archimandrite Dimitri, so that the elected one could leave for Tobolsk on the current winter route. To encourage them to hurry up leaving Ukraine, a double portion of allowance was announced from the very day “they will be at the hand of the great sovereigns.” So Dimitri left Little Russia forever. He arrived in Moscow with a small retinue - with a governor, 3 deacons, 3 servants and 14 grooms on 12 horses. Those who arrived received the sovereign's salary in money, beer, and honey; they were given special money for firewood for heating the lighthouses, tallow candles and horse feed. 72 rubles 2 altyns were allocated for everything (about 500–600 current rubles). Demetrius waited for the Tsar in Moscow for a whole month from February 9th. Peter started new combinations at that time. Dreams of trade relations with China were somewhat obscured by its more pressing need in the Baltic Sea. He had just returned from the town of Birzh, where he met with the Polish King Augustus to negotiate how to conduct an allied war against the Swedes. On his first meeting with the king, Demetrius greeted him with a speech. The king at that time was in the full development of youthful strength and abilities. In comparison with the fifty-year-old Demetrius, who had already lost his visual acuity from diligent book work and was already somewhat stooped, the tall, slender young king with an eagle's searching gaze made a majestic impression. Dimitri, experienced in oratory, began to speak to him about the royal maestat 219, reflecting on earth the greatness of the Heavenly King, pointed to three classes: noble, military and embassy 220, on which the activity of the king is based, as in heaven the Lord is carried on mysterious animals; just as the Heavenly king laid down his soul for the church, so the earthly king does not spare his health and labors for the Church of Christ and for the safety of the fatherland 221. This was the content of Demetrius’s speech. He was preferred to the Bishop of Pereyaslavl. The Tobolsk department was given to him. His friend Stefan Yavorsky, who then bore the title of Metropolitan of Ryazan, and in fact the head of the entire patriarchal region and affairs subordinate to the patriarch after the death of Patriarch Adrian, who died on October 16, 1700, took a great part in the appointment and dedication. Demetrius's consecration to the rank of metropolitan took place on March 23, 1701, during the veneration week of the cross 222 in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral. Three metropolitans were present at his consecration: Krutitsky - Trifilliy, Nizhny Novgorod - Isaiah and Ryazan - Stefan. Although now the debate about transubstantiation has already ceased, the Little Russians and all initiates were obliged, in addition to confessing the Orthodox faith, to declare their non-involvement in the errors of which the Little Russians were suspected. Back in 1696, it was decided to include in the text of the bishop’s oath and for the tsar’s confessors an Orthodox confession about the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts in the following words: “not to accept strange customs in church traditions and rites, especially from the Latins newly introduced; still to believe and philosophize - to perform the Divine Liturgy of the transubstantiation of the Body and Blood of Christ, as the ancient Eastern and our Russian teachers teach, by the influx and action of the Holy Spirit - through the invocation of the bishop or priest in words, to God the Father of those who pray: create this bread and other bread" 223. And at his consecration, Dmitry was forced to swear an oath so that he would not recognize the teaching for which Sylvester Medvedev stood in Moscow, and which some spiritual authorities sympathized with in Little Russia. In addition, Demetrius swore an oath to maintain church peace, to govern and teach his flock, without expecting rewards - since he himself receives his rank freely by the will of the sovereign - not to do anything unworthy of church rules, even if someone demanded it under the threat of even death. When the patriarch is elected and calls for a council, then obey his call. The newly elected “Metropolitan of the cities of Siberia and Tobolsk” handed over his jury sheet to the metropolitans who appointed him: they, “when God deigns... to be the Father Patriarch..., may they hand over (this) scripture to the elected saint” 224. The new Bishop of Tobolsk in March 1701, after his consecration, took over the administration of the Siberian diocese. The retinue that arrived with him in Moscow was released back to Little Russia. Dmitry's Little Russian companions were generously rewarded with the sovereign's salary: money, furs and cloth, and provided with food for 2 weeks 225. Metropolitan Dimitri now settled in the Chudov Monastery, where there was a Siberian metochion. Since his predecessor, Metropolitan Ignatius Korsakov, came to Moscow for a series of priestly services, there were choristers who had arrived from Siberia in Moscow, and there was also a bishop’s sacristy. Ignatius, after his display of violence during the naming of Stefan Yavorsky, was kept from April 3 in the Simonov Monastery. Before Metropolitan Dimitri, ordinary Moscow life flowed again, as he had seen in 1689. Peter's reform had already begun. One after another, important orders and events of political and ecclesiastical significance were carried out, changing the previous relationship between church and state. Although the king was rarely at home, even in his absence, his whole life revolved according to his thoughts, desires and will. Complete submission to his plans was required not only from secular service people, but also from the clergy, although the Russian unprepared clergy could not be imbued with the plans of the Transformer. In the summer, on June 19, under Demetrius, war was declared with the Swedes. Regiments marched across Moscow, military convoys moved. Lengthy preparations were resolved by terrible rumors about the Narva defeat. The clergy had the responsibility to maintain cheerfulness among the people. The news was disappointing. The defeat claimed many lives, many were taken prisoner by the Swedes. According to Demetrius, the whole ship of the Church of Christ and the entire Christian Fatherland has rebelled and is rebelling, either through famines, or fiery executions, fires of magnificent buildings, cities and churches of the Lord, or constant battles and uprisings of foreigners! Some were cut with a sword, others were taken captive. Let’s not even mention the internal strife! 226 Simultaneously with rumors of military failures under Demetrius, who lived in the Chudov Monastery, a terrible fire broke out in the Kremlin itself, incinerating up to 2000 buildings. Peter, however, did not lose heart himself. On the contrary, as a strong nature, inspired by a clear idea, failures raised his spirit and disposed him to persistently fight the enemy. But in order to improve military affairs, which had fallen into disarray, he first of all sacrificed the clergy to his intended cause. Given the lack of funds for the war, he was pointed out to the supposedly incalculable church riches: patrimonial, monetary and property. Under Demetrius, copper church bells were brought to Moscow from all over to cast cannons from them. If the people had to watch with horror as they were everywhere taken down from bell towers and taken away for military use, then what could the clergy feel, and especially Demetrius, who saw in Little Russia the constant patronage of the Church even from non-believers? More than 300 pounds of bell copper were delivered to Moscow from the future Rostov diocese of Dimitria 227. The state's need for funds was reflected by all sorts of restrictions on church institutions. Everything that was considered, in the opinion of the government, unnecessary was taken away from them. A gradual series of highest decrees were issued that were humiliating for the clergy. Already during the arrival of Demetrius in Russia, an inventory of the monasteries was taking place here - buildings, property, estates, people and servants. A decree was issued to dismiss Balti from the monasteries and not to keep extra servants. The monks themselves are ordered to engage in physical labor. Writing in cells was prohibited; neither paper nor ink was ordered to be kept there. Such an order must have seemed strange for Demetrius, who spent his entire life in writing in his cell and knew from chronicle sources that writing books was a well-deserved dignity of Russian monks. Old church institutions, such as the patriarchal rank, were closed. The Monastic Order, hated by the clergy, which the patriarchs fought against, has been restored. The order concentrated all management of the monastery estates. It was in charge of a secular person, governor I. A. Musin-Pushkin. Everything that seemed unnecessary to Peter in the monasteries was turned into government resources; such as: quitrent articles of the patriarchal, bishop's and monastic estates and all sorts of leftovers from expenses in the monasteries. Finally, all monks are entitled to a certain “regular” salary - about 10 rubles per year for each. All remains from such dachas were ordered to be submitted from the monasteries to the Monastic Prikaz, and from there they were used for military needs. There were also protests from lower clergy, but those dissatisfied with government orders were punished as state criminals, and so that there could not be those from the highest spiritual hierarchy, for this purpose they delayed the election of the patriarch. Stefan Yavorsky, appointed guardian of the patriarchal throne, could not help but feel the humiliation that he inherited upon the death of the last patriarch. The government's relations with him were limited to simple orders to him. Stefan Yavorsky, if anyone could share the awareness of his offensive position, it was with his friend, Metropolitan Demetrius. Due to his ardor, natural mobility and sensitive responsiveness to everything, Stefan could not help but speak out to him and compare the situation of the church in Moscow with the free, free church life in Little Russia. The reason for such conversations could be Korb’s essay, which had just been sent to Moscow, which spoke about the ferocity of the Muscovites during the Streltsy movement. Demetrius himself could not help but see the strange inscriptions nailed to the city gates, where the government publicly expressed its intention to limit the clergy’s property and class rights. If Demetrius spoke about current events in his sermons, it was only about those in which it was necessary to console and encourage the listeners. The Little Russians had nothing against Peter’s orders (December 1701) that everyone walking around Moscow should wear German dress, but the method of persuasion was strange for them. Violators of the royal order were threatened with a fine and the wrath of the king. The greatness of the reform plans and measures to educate the people were overshadowed by ancient Russian cruelty, unusual in Little Russia. The human personality was completely sacrificed to the state and its goals. Now replacing Metropolitan Ignatius Korsakov, who had been summoned from Siberia to take part in worship and preaching, Demetrius was forced to respond to the political events that occupied the minds with a living church word. He attributed all military failures and misfortunes to the sins of people and called for repentance. On the occasion of the declaration of war with the Swedes, he gave a sermon in Moscow; He also did not remain silent during the general despondency after the Narva defeat. He expressed the need to firmly endure trials and make sacrifices for the common cause. All is not lost yet. You cannot despair like people who believe in fate and predestination. The Savior Himself said: pray and it will be given to you. The hand of the Almighty, stretched out to punish sinners, is held back during their prayers. The examples of this are innumerable. Hard work is war, it requires a lot of strength, means, help: this is where you need to raise your hands, like Moses, to pray to God for the granting of victory. Everyone needs to pray. All of Russia now, like an offended widow, must fall down with tears to the Righteous Judge, so that He may take revenge on our rival and bring the joy of heavenly help 228. Prayer tears will form clouds. From the clouds there can be thunder and lightning on our enemies! 229 The success of the weapons of his new homeland was the ardent desire of Demetrius that in one sermon he explained to his listeners what enemies should be loved. Christ said: “love your enemies.” But He is not talking about those enemies who fight against our Christian fatherland and are hostile to our pious faith 230. From the sermons delivered then, it is clear that Demetrius, in his new position, due to the freshness of his impressions, shared the general mood of the Russian people. Dissatisfaction with the king's behavior was also communicated to him. In his sermon there are hints that Peter is not present in the army himself, does not give up his cheerful life during terrible trials, that the Germans are in charge of everything and are leading him, and the Russian army is suffering failures and defeats 231. Presenting the example of the prophet Samuel and King Saul, Demetrius says that if the prayers of the priests cannot attract military success, it is only because of the king’s unbelief 232. It is understandable, therefore, sympathy for the new Siberian ruler of the old Russian party. Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich listened to his sermons and sent him gifts. Demetrius kept the golden cross given to him by the prince, with the same chain and with relics in the middle, decorated on the sides with precious stones: yahonts, emeralds and lalas 233. During the entire year-long stay of Demetrius in Moscow, 15 sermons are known. They were spoken by him for the most part in the village. Preobrazhensky (3) and in the Donskoy Monastery (3), as well as in the Assumption Cathedral and in other places and cases. Some were pronounced in the presence of the sovereign 234 and members of the royal family. There is no news that Dmitry’s speech had a special effect on the tsar, like the speeches of the lively and lively Stefan. Perhaps, in the calmness of Demetrius’s tone, his very appearance and quiet pronunciation diminished the merits of his sermon in the eyes of the king. Perhaps the fact that Demetrius did not have panegyrics for him in his sermons had an unpleasant effect on Peter’s pride, like, for example, Athanasius, Archbishop of Kholmogory, who did not find or use any other comparisons for his sovereign than with God and Christ 235 . There is a legend that the king, who suspected the highest hierarchs of power “swings” and secrecy, wanted to know the character of Demetrius and his views on politics; for this purpose, calling him to his palace, he diligently treated him to wine, wanting to provoke him to frankness. Demetrius accepted the royal treat, but responded with constant humble bows to everything the king spoke to him about, and only silently blessed Peter. In Moscow, Demetrius, in addition to Metropolitan Stefan, had devoted friends, whom he later recalled with gratitude. These were the clerks of the printing house, Feolog and Karion. When he became sick, they did not leave him without help. Chudovsky cellarer Joasaph “Koldychevsky served me as a sick person kindly, not disdaining infirmity, coupled with your (Feologa) honesty and Dmitry Alekseevich. God will also save Father Karion, who fed me cherry berries,” 236, Dimitri later recalled. Here he also became friends with the future Metropolitan of Siberia Philotheus Leshchinsky, whom he had previously spoken disapprovingly of as a man of imperfect literary accuracy. – Thanks to friends, Dimitri’s acquaintance with the current Moscow church movement has expanded. Thus, Dimitri was present in Preobrazhenskoe during the dispute between Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky and the fanatic Grigory Talitsky “about letech” 237. This question should already be familiar to Demetrius, since he had a book on this subject by Joseph Volotsky, sent to him by his Moscow friends back in Kyiv 238 . At the very least, he was critical of Yavorsky’s arguments and his references to the holy fathers, whose calculation of years, according to Demetrius, is far from consistent with the biblical one. However, Dimitri behaved so correctly that everyone loved and respected him. Even the Jesuits living in Moscow at first considered him well disposed towards them. One Jesuit calls Demetrius European educated and assures that he is of the same disposition as Stefan Yavorsky, whom the Protestants also spoke of as a secret papist 239 . In Moscow, various people traveling to Siberia addressed Metropolitan Dimitri. The poems he composed for Nikita Demidov, who was going to the Nevyansk and Nizhny Tagil areas granted to him by the Tsar, have been preserved: “Nikita Demidovich, blessed husband With his son Yacinthos, being multiplied in everything. O All-Singing Mother, accompany him, Keep your home healthy, be present on the way, Bishop Tobolsk prays to You fervently: Grant him health, safe and sound, Keep it safe in many years, Deliver and cover from evil slander.” During Dimitri's stay in Moscow, his predecessor in the department, the unfortunate M. Ignatius Korsakov, died (May 13, 1701). Dimitri himself paid him his last debt. Ignatius was buried in the Simonov Monastery, where he lived recently before his death. Other metropolitans were present at the burial, besides the guardian of the patriarchal throne 240. Dimitri was not pleased with stories about distant Siberia. The time was getting hotter. Siberian foreigners themselves gravitated towards Christianity. Their mass movement a little later created the glory of the Siberian Metropolitan Philotheus Leshchinsky, the enlightener of Siberia. Demetrius heard rumors about the conversion of the Voguls to Christianity. They had to be taught the Christian faith. Such comforting rumors were drowned in the mass of news about Siberian unrest, poverty and social disasters. In the summer of 1701 in Tobolsk, during a terrible fire, 5 churches and a nunnery were burned down. Lists of peasants from Siberian bishops' estates were destroyed in the fire. Dmitry gave orders to request new lists from the Tobolsk Order Chamber 241 to the bishop's house. Peter's new taxes soon made themselves felt. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Siberia and Tobolsk, was charged with recovery of this money from 150 churches not only for the current year, but also for the past, starting from 1688 242. The Siberian churches, endowed with land, were deprived of their land back in 1698 243. Under such circumstances, it is necessary for a person with practical dexterity and experience to be in Siberia. Although Dimitri took care to call Little Russians to serve there and, as far as he could, put things in order, but circumstances forced him to go to the place of service as soon as possible. For Dmitry, as for every Little Russian, Siberia was not considered a “gold mine”. Siberia in Ukraine scared each other 244. None of the Little Russians exiled there, whom Dimitri knew, returned from there alive. In memory of Dmitry, clerk Shiykevich, military judge Nazamay, Roslavets, Adamovich, D. Mnogohreshny and others were sent there by order of Moscow. All of them disappeared for Ukraine without a trace in the Siberian distance, where both people and climate competed in mercilessness towards Ukrainians. Dimitri has not yet had a vacation to Siberia. The Emperor, having left Moscow, was engaged in the construction of ships in Voronezh. On April 17, 1701, Vinius reminded the tsar: “The Siberian bishop, sir, is awaiting your sovereign’s decree: should he go on his way from Moscow, until the arrival of your sovereign, or should he wait, even if he himself is waiting?” To this Peter briefly answered from Voronezh: “to the bishop who has survived” 246. Upon the sovereign’s arrival in Moscow, Dimitri could not immediately appear to him because he was ill. Then the king himself visited him and asked about his illness. Dimitri revealed that his illness was due to melancholy: they sent him against his will and strength to distant, unbearable and unhealthy Siberia, and his only desire was to finish compiling his Menyas. The Emperor heeded his situation and allowed him to stay in Moscow. He himself began to bother about finding a person suitable for his plans in Siberia, even asked Patriarch Dosifei if there was such a tactful and pious person in Jerusalem for the Siberian See? On November 10, 1701, Metropolitan Joasaph Lazarevich died in Rostov. His place, not without the assistance of Stefan Yavorsky, was provided on January 4. 1702 Demetrius 247. On the same day, Hieromonk Filofei Leshchinsky was introduced to occupy the Tobolsk department in Siberia. Demetrius participated in the dedication (February 1) of Philotheus, together with M. Stephen and M. Parthenios of Laodicea. Daily notes or "diary" of Demetrius, begun by himself in 1668. The Works of St. Demetrius, Part I. Savva Grigorievich died at the age of 103, in 1703. Savva Tuptalo had a noble coat of arms: a red shield with an image of the Greek delta with crosses. Maria Mikhailovna Tuptalo, who lived for over 70 years, died in 1689. She was 20 years younger than her husband; Consequently, Savva Grigorievich had at least 35 years of marriage. When Dimitri was born, he was 50 years old. Dimitri's sisters were born later. Demetrius began recording events in 1668. They indicate the years of his birth in 1650 and 1651. Here he undoubtedly states that he was born in the Radzivil region, and the year suggests 1650 or 1651. In a similar way, he had doubts about the years when recording other events; So, in 1681, he recorded the appearance of a comet, but immediately corrected his entry with the reservation “almost last year, not this year.” From this we can assume that he was born not in 1651, but earlier - in 1650, because then his tonsure would fall at the age of 18, as confirmed by his first “life”, written in 1757. Askochensky A. “Kyiv from ancient times. taught him." Kiev.1856, I, 98. History of Little Russia by D. Bantysh-Kamensky 1782, M., Ich. 35–36 pp.; addition 107, 108 pp. Here Tuptalo is named. In the Diary of 1654 St. Dimitri: “The Cossacks shot down the Poles at Dzhivipol; or in 1664 “Cazimir, the Polish king, besieged Glukhov, stood under it for 4 weeks, but had no success.” There, under 1657, it is written: “Vyhovsky shot down the gunner.” Makarov, a place near the Lovcha River, which flows into the Dnieper, belonged to Little Russia, then was ceded to Poland, and then annexed to Russia. This place is located 50 versts up the Dnieper from Kiev. The Tuptal house remained the property of the family until 1710, when the youngest daughter of Savva Grigorievich Paraskeva, before her death, bequeathed her property to the Kirillov Monastery (“Friend of the People” 1870 No. 11, 163 pp.). Askochensky: “Kiev with its ancient school.” Preface to Grammar, ed. 1591 in Lvov. In the 2nd half of the 18th century, Catherine II spoke of Kyiv scientists as arrogant people, for which, in her opinion, the Catholic school from which they came and “the depraved rules of the Roman clergy” were to blame (Collected R.I.O., VII, 378). All textbooks were written in Latin, had intricate names and did not have a single word in Russian. Lectures were also given in Latin (Bulgakov “Ist. Kiev. Acad.”). Under the head of St. Demetrius's rough works were laid at his burial. “Kyiv Antiquity”, X, 355; Askochensky A. “Kiev with its school”, I, 201. A portrait of Savva Grigorievich was placed over the tombs of the Tuptals. The existing copy of the portrait, decorated with the Tuptal family coat of arms, bears the original inscription; “The pious husband Tuptalo Savva, honor and glory to the Zaporozhian troops, on Epiphany Day, opening the sky, the procession there fulfilled the need” (Kiev. Eparch. Ved. 1868, II, No. 16. Primary Life of Demetrius in Sin. Archive file 1752 No. 28. Therefore, if we take into account that the age of Demetrius’ tonsure is precisely determined there, we must accept his reservation in the Diary and recognize the year of his birth not as 1651, but as 1650. Diarius. In one painting, Demetrius is depicted bowing to his parents and asking for their blessing to enter monasticism (Kostom. “R. Ist.”, II, 520). The diary is published in the first volume of his works in the translation of Bantysh-Kamensky. Mlodvyanovsky Thomas, a famous Polish preacher, called on the people to participate in the salvation of their homeland, that now everyone must weep together with David. Everyone is on the verge of death. God, the preacher cried: look at Kamenets; who will sing to You now? There are no churches, no icons. The bones of the dead have been thrown out of their graves! (“Proceedings of Kiev. Spiritual academician.” 1871, III book., 138). After accepting monasticism, Demetrius did not abandon his studies of poetry. His mood was poured out in elegiac poems about the fact that among the poor... (Afmilochy Uglichsky: “From the unpublished work of Demetrius,” 1869, 13–14). “Acts of the South. And Zap. Russia" VI volume 245 pp. Areogr. Wil. collection. Vilna 1967, II, 79: In 1666, the inhabitants of Mogilev were cursed by the Moscow spiritual authorities. Joseph dispensed with such oaths as wrong. The city of Kanev is not far from Pereyaslavl, down the Dnieper. Acts of Yu. and Zap. Russia, ХI, 328–330. Bulgakov, “History of the Kyiv Academy”, 85. The plays attributed to Demetrius are: “The Repentant Sinner”, “The Resurrection of Christ”, “The Great Martyr Demetrius”, “The Dormition of the Virgin Mary”, “The Nativity of Christ” and “The Proclamation of Judgment on Jesus of Nazareth”. (“Russian Stage” 1864 II, 148; III, 2). Chronicle Gustynskaya, 38, 62 pp. Chronicle of Gustynskaya, 63 pp. Demetrius included this event in the Diarius: “I am ordained to the priesthood for the descent of the Holy Spirit” (under 1675). “Letters of Lazar Baranovich”, 206 pp. Chernigov editions of “Run” with the addition of a moral element were published in 1680, 1683, 1691, 1697. (Eugene, dictionary about writers. 131). Sumtsov, "L. Baranovich", 150. G. Starodub burned out terribly during the year of excommunication. There is an indirect indication of this in Dzik’s letter to the brethren of the monastery, as if protecting the humble Demetrius, he allows them to restrain Demetrius, “if it pleases him”; This means that he didn’t really want to live with Lazarus. There is a well-known phrase attributed to Sobieski, who supposedly once said Trizna, standing before him in silence: “Hello, Trizna! Well, how is your schism?” Thus, there is a whole sermon by Golyatovsky on the texts: “Cast away the burden of fire from me, or measure the breath of the wind, or return the day to the mimoid” (III Esdras IV, 5. “The Key of Understanding”, 146. Theme is the main idea. “The Key of Understanding” by Hieromonk Ioannikiy Golyatovsky, ed. Kiev-Pechersk Lavra 1659, in the department “science, and the method of composing legends”, 241 l. "The Key of Understanding," 164–178. Some of St.'s sermons are based on similar comparisons. Demetrius, for example. In the lesson for the day of Ap. Peter and Paul - they are likened to pillars of fire and cloud; he has a sermon “Pillar or Pyramid” - a word of praise to Gisel, which also presents a series of pillars and pyramids, starting with the Babylonian (Op. III). In the “letters of dark people,” where scholastics are ridiculed, this confusion in their speech of Christian edification with an anecdotal element is presented in a bright light. For example, the torment of a sinner’s bishop in hell is depicted in a sermon like this: “When a sinner spews curses on everything holy: on his parents, on the earth, on God, the demons beat him, saying: “He is truly worthy to live with us forever.” How well he can sing a blasphemous song! Let’s send him to hell - let him learn this song even better there.” (Matskevich L. “Polish preacher F. Mlodzyanovsky”, in “Tr. Kiev. Spirit. Ak.”, 1871, III vol., 139). One sermon condemns the fact that Polish girls married Muscovites, Saxons, and Swedes. The preacher from the pulpit tells how he warned a girl from a famous house not to marry a Muscovite - that he would, according to custom, beat his wife with whips and batogs, and how that girl objected that she would enjoy such jokes (ibid., 165 pp.). "Proceedings Kyiv. Spirit. Academy" 1864 April, 631–636 pp. Excerpts from the handwritten rhetoric of F. Prokopovich. Demetrius has such a sermon. "Proceedings Kyiv. Academy" 1865 Jan., 148. Letters from F. Prokopovich. “Fatherland. Notes", 1862 No. 2, 572. "Proceedings Kyiv. Academy" 1865 Jan., 635. Excerpts from the handwritten rhetoric of F. Prokopovich. "Guide for rural shepherds" 1869, vol. II, Ternovsky F., "South Russian preaching" of the 16th–17th centuries according to Polish models." Askochensky - (“Histor. Kiev. Academic.” Ich.) explains the development of oratory in Demetrius exclusively by the influence of the academy. Dzik writes that Demetrius lived in Lithuania “to sow the word of God.” In the life written by A. Matskevich, it is said that “in Slutsk for two years he tirelessly worked and labored in this kind of work (preaching) in the local fraternal monastery of Preobrazhensky; according to the legend of the local residents, he had a patron, a certain pious citizen, John Skochkevich, the creator of that monastery.” Other books of modern origin and the same nature: “Desuderosus” by Sakovich, “True Faith” by Gisel, “Palinochia” by Kopystensky. Meletius Dzik wrote about Demetrius to the brethren of the Slutsk monastery: “Although I do not have acquaintance with you, dear sirs, I am completely aware of your zeal and ardent zeal for our common mother, the Church of God... From the letter to me... I saw great mercy and unspeakable, kindled by the Holy Spirit, your love for being with you to your father and brother, the honest father Demetrius for sowing the word of God in your hearts. Agreeing to this willingly for myself and for our monastery, I do not forbid your affection for him; however - for a while, so that it pleases him. If there is no great need for him here, then I allow him to stay with you longer. I highly approve of your inclination to listen to the word of God.” (Diarius). Letters sent by him dated March 3, 1678 have not survived. It is known about Metropolitan Melchizedek of Bulgaria that in Baturin he ordained the tonsured deacon Dimitriev, Gabriel (November 24, 1682). Kostomarov, “Ruin”, 42, 184 pp. Kapterev. The nature of Russia's relations with the Orthodox Church. East XVI–XVII centuries. and 1885 152–210. Life of St. Demetrius, op. A. Matsievich. Filaret. “East. – stat. description Chernig. ep." III, 281. Chet'i-Minea I vol., preface. For example, “The Lives of the Saints from May 4 to May 31, from the 11th century (St. Demetrius, M. 1849) or the Novgorod Charatean Prologue of the 13th century. Golubev, P. Mogila by 1883 I, 320–331, 362, Arch. 10–3 Russia, I, V, 277. About the fate of his “Lives of the Saints” - in Shlyapkin, 38 pages. Letter from Samoilovich to V.V. Golitsyn (Shlyapkin, 47). Archive 10–3 of Russia, I, V, 278. Varlaam's Preface to the 1st Quarter of the Fourth Menaion, ed. 1837 2p. About its destruction by fire at the beginning of the 18th century. At Petrov's, - Mater. East. Kyiv. Academician Prof. Shlyapkin. "St. Dimitri"; appendix, 54–58 pp. It is located on the left side of the entrance, near the monument to Prince. K. Ostrogsky. Now there is a richly decorated icon of St. Demetrius, St. memorial. book Kyiv. Lip. for 1857, 67 pp. Kapterev. The nature of relations with the Orthodox Church. East XVI–XVII centuries. “Kyiv. Ep. Ved." 1868, 143 pp. 1685 On February 24, on the anniversary of Gisel’s death, Demetrius spoke at a memorial service in the presence of Moscow’s leading people. It amazes with its spaciousness and the strange title “The Pillar or Pyramid of Gisel.” The speech consists entirely of praise to the deceased. Letter from Samoilovich to V.V. Golitsyn, cited by Prof. Shlyapkina, 46 and 47 pp. The title of “Onomasticon” has a note “bene hoc” - that’s good. How we now put Latin prepositions into rhythmic form. Archive South-West Russia, I, V, 245–246. This is how Demetrius, “St. Demetrius" 1849, M. 25–26. The Likhud brothers, who came from the East to Moscow. Sumtsov, Lazar Baranovich, 174. Prof. Shlyapkin, 177. Letter from St. Demetrius in the book “St. Dimitri”, 1849, M.25–26. Letter from Mazepa to Shaklovity (Prof. Shlyapkin, 179). It was persecuted in Moscow and preserved in manuscript in Imp. Publ. Bible F. I, No. 668, 21 p. Mansvetov, “How our churches were governed. books." M. 1883 20. Acts of Yu.-Zap. Russia V, 190. This writer does not know about that council and those who were at it, but wanted to be informed if they (including Lazar Baranovich) agreed on the essence of the bright Eastern Church. Life and testament of St. Joachim. St. Petersburg, 1879, 132 pp. Honey cakes. Histor. meaning c. Al. Mich. 216. Syn. handwritten No. 586, Shlyapkin has 230. Reply from Patr. Kalinnik of Constantinople and Patr. Dositheus of Jerusalem came to Moscow in a favorable sense on March 14, 1691 (Arch. South-West Russia. I, 449). Since the church year begins not in January, but in September, the lives of the saints begin in September. Archive South-West Russia I, V, 281–283. In 1677, the patriarch ordered to tear out sheet 239 from the psalter that was printed in Cherkasy Novgorod. Kostomarov. "Mazepa and the Mazeppians." 1885, St. Petersburg, 33 pp. Domenetsky, a Latin polemicist, points to this purpose of Monastyrsky’s premise (Prof. Shlyapkin 201). Ibid., 202. Kostomarov, “Mazepa”, St. Petersburg. 1905, 409. Soloviev. East. Russia, XIV, 153. Op. I, –Diarius 1689 Acts Zap. Russia, V, 224. Veryuzhsky “Afanasy Kholmogor.”, St. Petersburg, 1908, 585 pp. Solovyov, I. R. XIV, 153, Kostomarov, “Mazepa and the Mazepas,” 409–419 pp. Kostomarov, "Mazepa". St. Petersburg, 1903, 409–419 pp. Archive South-West Russia, I, V, 288–289. Prof. Shlyapkin, extracts from Yakhontov’s manuscript, 207 pp. Vyuzhsky, "Afanasy Kholmogorsky". St. Petersburg, 1908, 503 pp. Patriarch Adrian, who was at the Trinity at that time, testifies that besides the Jew of the Monastery there were “others of their own faces and names, their conscience is the message” (Prof. Shlyapkin, 215). Op. I, 347 pp. ed. M., 1895 Kostomarov, “Ruin”, 65 pp. Petr Artemyev, with prof. Shlyapkina excerpt, 235 pp. When the authorities of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra asked the patriarch to continue printing the Chetya Menaion. Veryuzhsky P.I. "Afanasy Kholmogorsky". Evgeny. Description Kyiv. Sob., 114, 118 pp. Appendix. Sumtsov, "L. Baranovich", 162. He supplied Demetrius with books, for example, “Catalogue of Bishops and Patriarchs of the Byzantine Church” (Prof. Shlyapkin, 243). Op. I, 350 pp. Ed. M. 1895 Op. I, 344, ed. M. 1895 “The Dream of Demetrius.” 60 versts from Chernigov, near Lyubech. Another part of the relics of the martyr was presented to the Bishop of Vilna. Chet'i-Minei, 4 Dec. Demetrius was very attentive to all the legends about miraculous phenomena that were among the people. Thus, on the Throne Gospel, his hand records the legend about the Krupitsky monastery, near which his “cell” was located, that this monastery received its name from the Krupitsy that fell near the monastery during the famine. Pekarskiy, “Science and literature. Under Peter V.", II. 8. On the occasion of the death of Theodosius Gugurevich, Dimitri in his notes lists the places and years of his service, remembers his patience, that the deceased spent a whole year in troubles and suffering (Oc. I, 488). On July 4, 1691, the deceased Peter, Deacon Baturinsky was noted for him, and on June 23, Mitrofan Kirillovsky. Dimitri spoke about this when hatred of foreign customs developed and grew under the pressure of Peter’s drastic reforms. Kotoshikhin, “About Russia”, St. Petersburg. 1859, 43. Filaret, “Histor. statistician description of Chernigov. Ep.”, III, 303. Kostomarov, “Mazepa”, 430 pp. Tolstoy, “Antiquities and shrines of the city of Rostov”, M., 1860, 50. Church-general. Bulletin, 1881, No. 105, 119 and 125 pp. Inventory of Dimitri's property from Prof. Shlyapkina, appendix, 52 pp. “Thu.” General East. and Ukr. R." 1884, II book. Archive of the South-West. Russia, I vol. V, 417, 419. Archive of the South-West. Russia, I vol. V, 421–423. Archive of the South-West. Russia, I vol. V, 433–436. Archive of the South-West. Russia, I vol. V, 430, 431. His letter to Theologus dated 1696 (“St. Demetrius” 1849, 36–37 pp.). It is given the name: “Healing for free to St. nine martyrs of Kizi in the summer of 7202, the month of March, through the labor of the sinful hieromonk Dimitri Savich, a life writer. The story of their glorification in the city of Kazan and the newly created stone church and monastery in their name, and the word about them, is the creation of the sinful Demetrius.” Archive of the South-West. Russia, I vol. V, 416. Archive of the South-West. Russia, I vol. V, 296, 317, 323, 325, 327, 334. When Dimitri received the treasury, he found 10 broken thalers, 1000 gold checks, and the deposit money of Mrs. Polubotkova was kept in the treasury - 15 red bent pennies. “Russian Antiquity”, 1882, X, 170–173. Filaret, "I. S. Description of Chernigov. Ep." III, 6, 19, 21. “Russian Antiquity”, 1882, X, 171–172 pp., Filaret, “I. S. Description of Chernigov. Ep." III, 20. “Russian Antiquity”, 1882, X, 170–173 pp. His word is entitled as follows: “the battle of the Holy Archangel Michael, the commander of the heavenly forces, and his angels with the seven-headed serpent” (Oc. III, 499). The Patriarch wrote to Demetrius: “We wish you, the servant of the Lord and novice of the Holy Church and worker for the excellent benefit of our church class, health, salvation and a prosperous stay.” Sending him his hierarchical blessing for a new “rank of dignity,” that is, archimandriteship, he asks him to work both in managing the flock and in preaching the Word of God, and in compiling the “Lives of the Saints” (Prof. Shlyapkin, 261). Eg. 2 letters from Theologist in 1697, mentioned by Demetrius “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1874, pp. 246–247. Op. III, 402. Ed. K. 1903 Filaret. “Description. Chernig. Ep.”, III, 68. Pekarsky. “Science and literature. Under Peter V.”, II, 8. “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1861, No. 43, 417. Pekarsky. “Science and literature. Under Peter V.”, II, 31. Chronicle of Wieliczka, III, 551. “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1874, No. 32. “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1874, No. 46, 374 pp. Op. I, 334–335, ed. M. 1893 “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1874, No. 31, 246–247 pp. In Peter the Great's parodies of the most humorous council, the features of the southwestern clergy are clearly noted. Ivanov. Description of state Archive of old cases. M. 1830. 260–263. Historical acts V vol., No. 295. Majesty, throne (French). Personally free rural population of Little Russia. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealths performed zemstvo service, partly in the form of payments to the military treasury, partly in the form of various kinds of natural duties - underwater, stationary, and the like. Acts of history V vol., No. 218, 374 pp. Prof. Shlyapkin, 279, 216. The viceroy was given 7 rubles, English cloth, a pair of sables worth 5 rubles, three deacons 4 rubles each, English cloth each, a pair of sables worth 3 rubles. couple, etc. Even the servants and drivers received gifts in money and Amburg cloth. “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1867 No. 10, 79 pp. Inventory of property St. Demetrius “Yar. Ep. Ved.", 1861 No. 17, 164. For example, in the first week of Lent. 7 sermons of Demetrius are known in print, delivered in 1701 in Moscow (“St. Demetrius” 1849, 41 pages). Veryuzhsky V.I. “Afanasy Kholmogorsky”, St. Petersburg, 1909 "Proceedings Kyiv. Spirit. Ak." 1864, III, 259. One Jesuit is allowed to live in Moscow, and in 1689 there were 4 of them. “Discourse on the book The Stone of Faith.” Manuscript Imp. Publ. Bible Tsvetaev. From the history of history. Russia. M. 1886, 368–376. Zabelin "Mat. East. For Moscow", I, 1091. Ruga - payments to the clergy, “ruzhniki” in the Russian state. and Ros. empires, usually issued from the state. treasury or from their own. funds. large Landowner. In addition, Samko, Methodius and others were exiled to Siberia. “Ruina”, 66, 204, 280 pp. “Letters and papers of Peter V.,” ed. A. F. Bychkova, St. Petersburg 1887, I volume, 853 and 449. Op. I, 493; “Yar. Lip. Ved." 1849 No. 6.